One of the things I love about sports is the feeling of discipline and the desire to self-improve that they may engrain in people. And, to me, one particular athlete who epitomizes excellent form and incredible Olympic discipline is Apolo Anton Ohno. I've seen Ohno compete live and the experience of watching him whiz on the ice at 40 MpH speeds is simply beautiful. I have seen a lot of competitions so far but Apolo still remains at the very top of the list. When I first saw him compete in the 2002 SLC Olympics, I remember thinking to myself that he was going to be competing for a long time to come. Fast forward to now and Ohno has just landed another medal at his third Olympics. To get a glimpse into Apolo's training routine, take a look at this. One more reason to tip the hat to this amazing olympian.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
What if Filmmakers Directed the Super Bowl?
Yes. This, I like. It takes filmmakers to make me slightly interested in the Super Bowl. Not in the game, mind you, I still side with soccer but in the social 'text' of football.
Great Ad: Leno v. Letterman with Oprah on the Couch
I don't care for commercials but this is quite smartly done.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Tom Ford's A Single Man: A Review
Tom Ford's film A Single Man impressed me. This is the fashion expert's directorial debut and he does indeed deliver. Ford not only directed the picture but he also adapted Michael Isherwood's book and co-wrote the screenplay. It appears that this hands-on approach to film-making worked for him. The visual poetry was something sharp you'd expect out of a Ridley Scott or a Fellini a-la 8 1/5. A Single Man is a beautiful and beautifully filmed film. Actually, it is so good and succinct that it's bound to confuse the senses. Seeing it only once might not be enough to process it fully as it has a bit of a Totalkunstwerk feel.
I've thought for a while now that what makes Tom Ford fascinating to me is not his ability to be privy to people's fashion tendencies, and most importantly, their purchase inclinations, but rather how well he translates and adapts straight lines to the human form. Ford gets human form. More specifically, he gets the masculine form. An underwater Firth, for instance, might just make one think of Michaelangelo's David. I cannot think of more poetic clothing than Ford's beautifully and minimalistically cut slim pants and fitted white shirts. And Colin Firth proves to be a good model for Ford's fitted suits, body-fitting white shirts, and black Oxfords. As a matter of fact, Colin Firth's character of George is very much reminiscent of a black-and-white wearing Marcello Mastroiani in Fellini's 8 1/5. Even their spectacles match almost perfectly. I was much amused by the overall aesthetic similarity, as a matter of fact. But then again, it's only natural that Ford would tip the hat to Fellini a bit after having worked in Italy for a while.
In this film Ford creates an arena for the treatment of social minorities in the Los Angeles of the 1960's. He manages to translate the climate of subversive homophobia and the pre-Civil Rights movement almost too effortlessly. He manages to say much for economizing on speech and splurging on gazing and body language. Another plus of the film is the cast. Matthew Goode, who has made some good cinematic decisions in his career, plays the character of confident Jim who lives life on his own terms not because he can necessarily but because he chooses to. Another most suitable supplement to this film is Julianne Moore's character of Charlie whose sort-of-marginal aesthetics situate her well as a kind of visual minority in the film.
Ford's managed to capture Colin Firth's heteronormative sex appeal and apply to a wider all-gendered context. Colin Firth in a white shirt is as appealing in A Single Man as he is in the pond-swimming scene in BBC's Pride and Prejudice. And herein lies the director's actual cachet. He gets visual appeal and he most certainly gets perception. It is no coincidence, after all, that Ford headed successfully Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent for a long time. I liked this film very well. I was expecting to be distracted and instead I found we had enough talking points for dinner. And that's always a plus on a Friday night.
Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast
graph per google image
Who Are You Based on What/Whom You Read?
This is quite a funny exercise in literary stereotypes and personality types. I was surprised to see no Dante or Goethe in here. Still, worth a read. And chuckle.
A bit says:
Andrew Ross Sorkin
People who refer to themselves as “playing devil’s advocate”.
Virginia Woolf
Female high-school French teachers who have their master’s degree.
Michael Chabon
People who hate Ayelet Waldman.
More here.
A bit says:
Andrew Ross Sorkin
People who refer to themselves as “playing devil’s advocate”.
Virginia Woolf
Female high-school French teachers who have their master’s degree.
Michael Chabon
People who hate Ayelet Waldman.
More here.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Being Sensitive, Gender, iPhones, and Gadget-mania
I had an interesting exchange with the Apple representative today. I called to report a problem with my iPhone and that I needed to get a replacement through my Apple Care plan. The rep asked me to describe the problem and the following ensued:
Rep: What's the issue with it?
I: Well, the wheel is not cooperating and instead of responding when I press it, as it should, it responds without my actual pressing down on it. I could be in the middle of a text message and then I get sent back to the main screen. So, the screen is hyper sensitive.
Rep: So, the wheel is not operating as it should and the screen is
being hyper sensitive, right?
I: Right.
Rep: Sorry, it's taking me a while to spell 'sensitive' in my notes here. I'm a guy, you know, I don't do well with 'sensitive.' Ha, ha ....
I: No worries. Take your time. I'm a girl and I don't do well with 'sensitive' either, you know? So, it's all good.
And then he proceeded to laugh for a bundle of seconds. The rep was most helpful and I suppose a bit of self-effacing humor expedites the fastest of solutions. And that would be the moral of the story.
Rep: What's the issue with it?
I: Well, the wheel is not cooperating and instead of responding when I press it, as it should, it responds without my actual pressing down on it. I could be in the middle of a text message and then I get sent back to the main screen. So, the screen is hyper sensitive.
Rep: So, the wheel is not operating as it should and the screen is
being hyper sensitive, right?
I: Right.
Rep: Sorry, it's taking me a while to spell 'sensitive' in my notes here. I'm a guy, you know, I don't do well with 'sensitive.' Ha, ha ....
I: No worries. Take your time. I'm a girl and I don't do well with 'sensitive' either, you know? So, it's all good.
And then he proceeded to laugh for a bundle of seconds. The rep was most helpful and I suppose a bit of self-effacing humor expedites the fastest of solutions. And that would be the moral of the story.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Inglourious Basterds: Well Worth the Praise
I'm the kind of cinephile who is more likely to view a Wim Wenders film multiple times than go, by my own volition, to a Tarantino film. In my circle, there is a joke that started back in '02 when I suppose I was heard quoting a Tarantino interview as featured on a German newspaper. "Die Leute gehen ins Kino, um die Stars zu sehen" meaning: "People go to the movies to see the stars." I was never that kind of moviegoer. It's not the stars that entice my moviegoing. Not in the least. So, this would be a fundamental aesthetic difference between someone like me and the kind of audience that Tarantino envisions for himself.
Now, I've gone to Tarantino films, of course. The reason was simple. As the saying has it, 'one for them and one for you.' So, if my people will go to see obscure films with me, then I have to give in and watch other stuff as well. Trust me, I enjoy a good blockbuster a much as the other person. Two words: Sherlock Holmes. That I saw twice by my own volition, of course. Entertainment is better when varied, after all.
Tarantino is not without artistic worth. Pulp Fiction was good. No doubt. Kill Bill, I had potential, well not much, but definitely some. The reason why I wanted to see Inglourious Basterds is because of one thing: satire. I read that he satirizes Nazi notions and Third Reich cinema in quite an informed fashion. I read that he is as comprehensive in his references as 153 minutes allowed him to be. And watch it, I did.
Inglourious Basters is the kind of film that would do justice to any college film course that covers modern cinema. Much like an academic, Tarantino's review of literature displays a desire to be thorough and investigative. To truly appreciate this film means one thing: exposure to/understanding of European cinema. I was happy to see so many European and American actors work in such an effortless-seeming way. Action and performance flow so very well. This is a long film (consistent with Tarantino tendencies) but this is not the kind of 'long' that makes one want to look at the watch and fidget. This is the kind of film that makes one want to shower it with all the attention one can give. And, if you're linguistically minded, Holy Cow! The languages spoken in this film are English, German, French, and Italian. I cannot think of another film where four different languages felt like one. Tarantino managed to create an Esperanto-like atmosphere that really impressed me.
And the acting? My-oh-my, the acting! I could tell that Tarantino had done his homework most expeditiously in this area. Christoph Wantz' portrayal of the villain colonel is simply breathtaking. Eli Roth's eyes are mesmerising and Brad Pitt's populist language is nothing if not well-delivered. Till Schweiger, the very talented German actor, is another great addition to this cast. As is Daniel Brühl. I cannot think of a contemporary actor who would have played the role of the hero soldier better. Ah, and Mike Myers has a little part in this film as well.
I revisited Basterds again this weekend and I was glad I did. Give it a try. If you don't watch much Tarantino, it might just make you think differently of him. I do now.
Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast
graph per reeltalktv
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Spartacus: Blood and Sand - A Review
Well, I think I need to go to a confessional or something akin to it. You see, I believe I might have just wasted 54 minutes of my life tonight. I don't like wasting time. Rephrase: I despise wasting time.
I had an hour between tasks and I thought I would watch the new Starz series Spartacus: Blood and Sand. After the first 15 minutes I said something like, 'did you by any chance put the Gladiator DVD on by mistake?'
I know the answer to my question was 'no!' but I thought I'd ask it anyway. Maybe I was asking to get some sympathy for my visual suffering.
I ask, do some cinematographers really think that they can infantilize audiences as they please? Sex and violence will make a show? What an inane notion.
Spartacus is nothing but a cheap imitation of Ridley Scott's vision of the 2000 production of Gladiator. And that's all the praise I can give it. I will not be watching, I don't think.
I might just add here that what I uttered upon its conclusion was, 'is this a joke?!' It sure did feel like a bad prank.
Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast
graph per Starz
Leno vs Conan O'?
If you've read the news daily, you're bound to have read about the NBC nighttime drama surrounding the Leno/O'Brian debacle. It's hardly news, I know, but it's there. We need distractions in order to be able to deal with the really somber news and 'Jay' controversy is certainly better than any and all collective Kardashian nonsense. A lot of people seem to have a lot of opinions on the NBC drama. Mine is mostly informed by my basic entertainment practices. If I had to choose between Jay and Conan, I'd pick Jay. Why? Because I like his unapologetic and genrally hypocrisy-free embracing of mediocrity. That, in and of itself, makes for good comedy. I've always thought that to be his shtick and his best winning quality. Conan, on the other hand, seems to want to exude a kind of elevated elegance that never quite translates to much. I find him generally boring, aesthetically unimpressive, and intellectually as gripping as a Paul Rudd or Oprah. I don't get his appeal. De gustibus non disputandum est seems to go the saying. This is more that that, though.
Jay managed to be successful for a basic reason: he appealed to many and he was darn good when it came to keeping people's interest over time. Whether I was into punk or prog or you name it, I always 'dug' his monologues. Much better than those by Letterman or O'Brian. Maybe Kimmel's joke delivery is a bit better but his show comes at a time I'm told I'm supposed to be in bed so that's a no-go.
O'Brian on the other hand refuses to appeal to more people in an effort to keep this supposed edge that he says he possesses. But where is this edge? In the string dance? Andy's little interjections? The only good thing the new Tonight Show has going is the Max Weinberg music arrangements and that's not saying much about Conan. It says much about Max and the likes of Springsteen but that's another blog.
So, I would say Leno is a better choice than Conan, really. Different people have spoken against Leno and interstingly enough, the reason why they speak against him is because he's simply been too successful and he's been working too long. He should retire now, say they. Am I to understand that the more one works and the more successful one becomes, the more he/she needs to get penalized? Ple- to the -ase!
Leno is not the best comedian out there. Granted, there are many other people who could do a far better job. What he has, though, is a John Carson-esque quality of transcendent mass appeal. And isn't that what the Tonight Show represents? A chance for many to watch something together and be entertained similarly at the end of a hard day?
I don't go out of my way to watch Leno as I don't really care a whole lot for commercial TV. If I am to watch it, I'm bound to watch HBO for the most part, really. But if I had to pick a team, I'd pick Leno. And who am I kidding? The fact that Jay is West-bound has something to do with my choice too. I dig the west and its vibe. Aren't we all entitled to having favorites, after all? And what about sportsmanship? Jay's been able to beat Letterman and Conan and that's worth something. I am not likely to say the following in any other settings, but mass appeal and mediocrity should be embraced in this case. Don't hate, supposed margin-dwellers, study and adapt instead. You might do better that way.
Professors and Liberalism?
I received my Doctor of Philosophy title at 29. My field was in the realm of literary scholarship and the Humanities. Hence, when I read the following title of the recent NY Times article, my curiosity was peaked. It says, "Professor Is a Label That Leans to the Left." Now, as someone who works with gender and literary scholarship, I tend to be averse to congealed labels. But, be that as it may, at times labels come in handy.
According to the article, a couple of sociologists contend that the stereotype that most professors tend to be liberal might just be a valid one. "Conjure up the classic image of a humanities or social sciences professor, the fields where the imbalance is greatest: tweed jacket, pipe, nerdy, longwinded, secular — and liberal. Even though that may be an outdated stereotype, it influences younger people’s ideas about what they want to be when they grow up."
As a professor in the Humanities, I don't quite agree with the premise of this piece. I did not receive my PhD in the Humanities because of my tweed-wearing professors in college. If anything, I always found tweed to be quite unfortunate as a sartorial choice. I was one of those who picked the Humanities for one simple reason: it picked me. The subject matter spoke to me more than those transmitting it to me. Still, this is an interesting article to consider. Another paragraph of note says:
"Typecasting, of course, is not the only cause for the liberal tilt. The characteristics that define one’s political orientation are also at the fore of certain jobs, the sociologists reported. Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and the nonreligious); an expressed tolerance for controversial ideas; and a disparity between education and income."
More here.
According to the article, a couple of sociologists contend that the stereotype that most professors tend to be liberal might just be a valid one. "Conjure up the classic image of a humanities or social sciences professor, the fields where the imbalance is greatest: tweed jacket, pipe, nerdy, longwinded, secular — and liberal. Even though that may be an outdated stereotype, it influences younger people’s ideas about what they want to be when they grow up."
As a professor in the Humanities, I don't quite agree with the premise of this piece. I did not receive my PhD in the Humanities because of my tweed-wearing professors in college. If anything, I always found tweed to be quite unfortunate as a sartorial choice. I was one of those who picked the Humanities for one simple reason: it picked me. The subject matter spoke to me more than those transmitting it to me. Still, this is an interesting article to consider. Another paragraph of note says:
"Typecasting, of course, is not the only cause for the liberal tilt. The characteristics that define one’s political orientation are also at the fore of certain jobs, the sociologists reported. Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and the nonreligious); an expressed tolerance for controversial ideas; and a disparity between education and income."
More here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
www.brikenaribaj.com
Posts
All Comments