Today I watched a short film, 5 mins, about a filmmaker who left his camera equipment in a New York cab, and his adventures trying to get it back.
Wish I could describe it in further detail, but that's it. The guy leaves his bag in a cab, which is full of all his film stuff, a total of 13,000 dollars in equipment. He calls the cab company, tries to track down the driver, calls 311, tries to contact the cab station, just about everything he can do to get it back. In the process he interviews a few different cab drivers to see what they would do if they found that bag in their car, and what they do with lost belongings. Some say it's gone forever, some say they would return it, and one guy says all other taxi drivers are assholes. So it's a hung jury on that.
Eventually he makes contact with the driver, the driver still has his stuff, and he offers to return it. In exchange our thrilled narrator gives him 500 bucks reward, and that's that.
This story is supposed to make some kind of statement on the kindness of strangers, but all I could think was "how does a professional filmmaker forget all of his luggage in a cab?" Who does that?
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."Carl Sagan
Today I watched a National Geographic documentary about space, specifically the boundaries of the universe.
Yesterday, as most of the world knows, America's Mars Rover Curiosity landed on Mars. It wasn't the first time we've been to Mars, robotically speaking; NASA has sent 3 previous Rovers to the planet. But it's still a big deal.
So in honor of the space success, I watched this doc. about the limits of space. Space has been on my mind lately anyway. A few weeks ago I visited a Star Wars museum in Kansas- it was exactly what it sounds like. Costumes, lightsaber replicas, a build-your-own-droid station. While most of it was completely cheesetastic, there was a short documentary about the limits of space (narrated by Anthony Daniels AKA 3-CP0) that really kinda got to me. It talked about how much space there is that we've never even seen or observed, let alone visited. Like 99% of it. I was overwhelmed with feelings of insignificance in a way I have never experienced. I mean, I knew we were tiny specks of dust, but when you actually see the vastness of space, the amount of light years it would take to get out of our own solar system, then double that and triple that and so on and so on, you realize it.
So I watched this hoping to get the same effect. And for the most part I did. We are ferried off of Earth by our narrator Alec Baldwin to the furthest edges of space and time. We pass the knowns (our moon, the planets, our Sun) and the unkowns (dark matter, black holes, quasars).
The visuals are absolutely astounding. I've never been one to really notice special effects, but they are seriously stunning. The only setback is that my computer is crappy and can't handle watching it on HD. It was just too much for it to handle. It'd be fun to watch it on a big plasma screen tv.
It didn't hit as hard as the Star Wars one I watched. This one was brimming with human-centric optimism; "What will it be like when we finally master interstellar travel? What wonders await us?" It makes me want to see a space documentary that's more realistic, maybe even to the point of nihilism- "Here is somewhere humans will never see or visit. We would never get here, and we never will. Out here, no one has ever heard of humans, or Earth, or any of the things we think are so important. This is space." Bummer? Sure. But pretty true.
How I feel
So if you're a space nerd, I recommend this one. It doesn't get bogged down in slow overly technical details, it's full of stunning visuals, and you get Alec Baldwin's smooth voice to carry you through it.
And if you wanna check out what's going on over on Mars, check this out- Mars Panorama
Today I was supposed to go see Dave Chappelle do standup here in Chicago. I couldn't, so instead I watched Dave Chappelle's Block Party instead.
To make a long story short, I found a ticket last minute on Craigslist, was all set to buy it, then couldn't find anyone to cover my shift at work. I work at a gym, with like 20 other people, so it's usually really easy to get rid of shifts. So I gave away my ticket, and instead decided to pick up a shift interning after work at IO for someone. They had Lollapalooza tickets, and I thought I'd pay it forward so at least someone would get to do something fun today. Then my boss called, who is awesome, and offered to cover my shift at work if I was still looking. But I had just taken on this other dude's shift, so I couldn't, and I turned her down. THEN someone called me from IO and offered to pick up my intern shift. The guy selling Chappelle tickets told me he'd sell mine last in case I changed my mind, so I knew it was still there. By this point the show was gonna start in 20 minutes, so I figured it wasn't worth it calling in a favor from my boss just to pay 100 bucks to be late to the show.
Dave, as most people know, hardly ever does standup anymore. Since his show ended 6 years ago, he's just been popping up all over the country randomly doing shows. At one point he held the record for longest comedy set; 6 hours and 12 minutes. (The record was later broken by Dane Cooke, who did 7 hours. I would imagine Dane would run out of steam around 45 mins, so I don't know what the remaining 6 hours 15 mins were about).
ANYWAY. So I watched Chappelle's 2005 documentary about a free concert he threw in Brooklyn. He's joined by Mos Def, The Roots, Erykah Badu, and The Fugees and a whole bunch more of that ilk.
Did you know Mos Def changed his name to Yasiin Bey?
The film follows Dave as he travels around, collecting bands and audience members for his show. The film is directed by Michel Gondry, but you'd hardly notice; very little of Gondry's signature craziness comes out. Which is kinda cool cause it shows the width of his directing skills. He can go from heavily stylized music videos to something like Block Party.
There wasn't a single mummy in this documentary
More than anything, the movie lets you see a side of Dave you don't see on his show. He's smart, kind, and very interested in people. It's always rewarding to see my comedic idols turn out to be decent people. The more I learn about people like him and Louis Ck the more impressed I am. Same with when I watched his 'Inside the Actor's Studio' episode.
So, it wasn't as great as getting to see him live, but a pretty good substitute. I owned the dvd, so you'll have to hunt for it online. But here's a Fugees song from the movie:
Today I watched a short film about Olympian Gabby Douglas and her family.
As I've stated, the Olympics aren't really my thing. Just like regular sports, it's not that I don't like them, it's that it never holds my attention for more than five minutes at a time. But I do find certain aspects of it interesting. Gabby Douglas is not someone I knew, but I had heard her name thrown around a lot during this year's games. Seems like she's kicking ass.
So this is about her drive and determination to get to the Olympics, and what her family did to help make it happen. She decided she wanted to be trained by world famous Olympic trainer, so her family let her move across the country as a 16-year old to train. She stayed with a host family and probably trained her ass off. Now she's at the Olympics, where she's kicking ass.
The film is an ongoing series by Proctor and Gamble about Olympian mothers, and how much moms help their kids achieve their dreams, blah blah blah. Whenever large corporations start talking about how much they love and cherish families and how important it is to go after your dreams, my eyes start to glaze over. Companies like P&G don't give a shit about families. They care about money. They are saying nice, saccharine things to put you in a good mood so you'll buy more baby wipes, or whatever it is they sell.
That being said, it was a nice video and it put me in a good mood.
Today I watched a short lecture on laughter and how it affects the brain.
The video is from the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, specifically Professor Sophie Scott. The video isn't very long, like 5 mins, but it feels more like an advertisement for UCL than on the topic of comedy and the brain.
It discusses how the brain reacts to laughter, why we find laughter to be contagious, and some broader exploration into what purposes laughter and comedy serve. But it felt like every other sentence started with "We here at UCL" or "Thanks to the hard work of our crack team of scientists, we've discovered...." blah blah blah. I was just hoping they'd dive into the topic more than they did.
I think I love thinking about comedy more than actually doing it; comedic theory is endlessly fascinating to me. Someone once said "laughter is the body's response to something it doesn't understand". That's why so many funny things revolve around surprise or the unexpected.
I expected this to be better than it was. You can watch it here:
Today I watched a very short and very funny film about a certain flight of stairs in NYC.
At the 36th subway station, there's one step in a flight of stairs that is slightly off in size by a fraction of an inch. The result? Everyone trips on that exact step, all the time. The film is just a collection of people tripping over the same step throughout the course of the day.
The first thing that came to mind after watching this was schadenfreude, which is a German word for taking pleasure in another's misfortune. It's amazing how often I find people, or myself, laughing at schadenfreude. 'America's Funniest Videos' is basically just syndicated schadenfreude, so is 'Jackass', 'Candid Camera', or 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' or 'The Office', relying on a form of social schadenfreude.
Is it morally wrong to laugh at other people's misfortune? If it is, why does the laughter come so easily, almost automatically? Can it be wrong if it's a natural response? Even when I see people I know get hurt I sometimes laugh (think about people slipping on ice).
I've been considering this new theory on schadenfreude that maybe we aren't laughing at them because they are hurt or embarrassed, or even laughing because we're thinking "glad it wasn't me". Personally I feel a sense of relief watching people make simple mistakes because I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who makes them. I mean, I know people make mistakes but seeing it actually happens make me feel more like a regular person. So watching strangers trip over a stair makes me feel better about myself.
What do you think? Why do we laugh at schadenfreude?
Today I watched an hour long round table discussion with some of television's leading comedic actresses.
Hollywood Reporter invited Zooey Deschanel, Christina Applegate, Julie Bowen, Laura Dern, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jane Lynch, and Martha Plimpton to sit down and discuss what it means to be a comedic actress in today's world.
Look how funny they are being
This is a great example of something being thought provoking, but still not very good. I'm not overly impressed with the whole thing, but it gave me a lot of questions about comedy and gender to ponder, so it was certainly worth my time.
First off, Hollywood Reporter spends a strange amount of time showing us footage of them being photographed. I know it was probably for the magazine, and they wanted video they could mix with the audio of the round table discussion, but I felt like waaaay too much of this was just shots of them looking pretty for the camera. If the goal of the discussion was "why aren't women taken more seriously comedy", cutting the interviews with shots of them posing and preening undermines the whole thing.
Also, I felt there are some major undertones of competition and jealously going on throughout the interview. Maybe it's a result of getting that many celebrities to interview each other, or because they are all technically competitors in their careers (didn't the Emmy's just happen?), but there's a part of me that just feels it is because they are women. Get a group of women together, no matter how powerful or assertive, and the same games seem to appear.
For one thing, I heard a lot of apologizing- people saying sorry for what they said, or for losing their train of thought, or saying something that could be potentially embarrassing or contrarian. It seemed to me the main goal was to keep the tone light and happy, more than to make a point or to express a strong opinion. Compare this to 'Talking Funny', which I watched a few months ago (here) where they had no problem calling each other out or flat out disagreeing on topics.
Also, a good amount of time was spent complimenting each other. Not that there is anything wrong with showing respect for your contemporaries, I just felt the motive behind most of these comments was less "I respect you" and more "we're cool, right?". If the interview was all men, I don't think they'd spend this much time talking each other up. It reminds me of a Cracked article that talks about why women take so long to say goodbye at parties:
"In research published by Daniel Balliet, Norman P. Li, Shane J. Macfarlan and Mark Van Vugt of the American Psychological Association in Psychological Bulletin, men cooperate better with other men than women cooperate with other women. Researchers reviewed 272 studies containing 31,642 participants in 18 countries. Each study contained one social dilemma. In a social dilemma experiment, two or more people must choose between short-term self-interest and long-term group interest. The research revealed that women were more likely to cooperate when men were involved and women were less cooperative than men in same-sex situations."
I don't know how well any of the women in this interview really know each other, but I got the feeling they wanted us to think they were all best friends.
For the record, I don't blame any of these women for their behavior. I think our gender roles and expectations are hard wired into our brains from a very early age, and those who choose to live in front of the cameras have to deal with them even more often than the average person. So I don't slight any of them for acting this way- it's a result of our gendered society.
Today I watched a short animated documentary about the state of science. It basically taught me that we know nothing about anything.
The film, interviewed narration set over cartoon imagery, discusses what scientists know and don't know about the mysteries of the universe. Right off the bat I learned something interesting; if you look at what the universe is made of, scientists can only identify 5% of it. The rest is either Dark Matter (which makes up 20%) or completely unknown material.
It's all very ominous.
So there's a lot we don't know. The film discusses the two main ways scientists try to learn what we don't know: micro-research and macro-research. While some spend their time splitting atoms and labeling quarks, looking for what makes up the smallest known matter, others are looking outward what lies beyond the galaxy. Both of these methods might very well turn up the same answers, just in different ways.
As someone who knows nothing about science, I am amazed at how little they know about science. As he states in the film, most people assume science of this era is just an exploration of the finer details. In reality there is still a lot of very big, very complex issues that need answers.
Today I watched a 4 minute TED talk by Richard St. John on the elements of success.
St. John doesn't say what he does for a living, though he does say "this is really a 2 hour presentation I give to high school students cut down to 3 minutes." So I assume he's a teacher or something of that ilk.
His lecture, though inspiring, doesn't tread any new ground. He tells us to work hard, surround ourselves with like-minded individuals, and do what makes you happy. He spent 7 years conducting over 500 interviews with some of the most 'successful' TED speakers and attendees, and that's what he has to show for it. I have to be honest, I expected something a bit more profound.
He seems more interested in sucking up to TED and its fans and speakers more than answering what makes someone successful. He has an awful lot of nice things to say about the other people that speak at TED, but little in terms of specific, original ideas to become successful, or even the different ways success can be defined.
If you want to watch 3 minute video of a stranger telling you how to be successful, go right ahead. But I'd recommend you follow your head and your heart, and you'll get just as far, if not farther.
Today I watched a documentary about the Occupy Chicago protests. The film was created by fellow protesters. I was hoping the film would dive into some of the deeper motives behind the protests, but the 20 minute film instead merely skimmed the surface of the issues.
Not sure if you can read the text. It basically says "Capitalism Sucks"
I am a supporter of the Occupy movement. Had I been alive during the 60's I would have supported all the protests that were happening then as well. I think protesting is a given right that should be exercised frequently. To not protest means there's nothing that could be improved, reformed, or left to discuss as a country. I support the rights of all protesters, even Westboro Church and the Tea Party Movement. As Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to your death the right to say it."
But I take issue with those who only protest. Protesting, though a good starting point, will rarely create enough of the change needed to make a difference. Protesting is the ignition- the spark that can get bigger, more sustainable actions underway. It's biggest functions are to: 1. highlight a problem. 2. Address it. 3. Inform others. 4. Prove that no one is alone in opposing it. 5. Rally around a common solution.
That's where I take issue with this documentary. It's supposed to be an official product of the Occupy movement, but it barely dives into the real problems that Occupy should be addressing. It shows footage of the thousand-strong crowds, of the the police barricades and the clashes that ensue. But there's little time spent on the big, looming question: what comes after the protests? Where do we go from here?
Maybe I'm not the intended audience. I am already on board, and sympathetic to the cause. Maybe this is more for the fence sitters who are still believing the outdated stereotypes about the kinds of people who protest. But eventually enough of the population will start to favor the cause, and will want to know that there are steps in place to take us off the streets and into the next phase, whatever that might be.
Overall the documentary is fine for what it is, but I am still looking for more.
Today I watched a very brief TED talk about the number 1 and units of measurement.
The video's only 3 minutes long, which means by the time you finish reading this post, you could have watched the whole thing.
Christopher Danielson wonders about the number one, and when is it singular and when is it part of a whole?
Best quote: "Think about toaster pastries: they come in packs of 2, then they get put together in sets of 4 to make a box, so when I buy 1 box of toaster pastries am I buying 1 thing, 4 things, or 8 things?"
As someone with no love of math, I wish teachers had posed questions like this to me at an early age. I don't think skill factors into academia nearly as much as general curiosity- if I could have only developed an interest in math I would have had the desire to get better and understand it more.
Oh well, I'm not an old dog yet, no reason to think I can't fall in love with math now.
Today I watched an amazing short documentary called Amar. I think someone posted it on Tumblr.
This is one of the few docs I'm hesitant to say much about, because you just need to watch it. Not that there are spoilers or things to ruin, I just know any review I give isn't going to properly capture why it's such a good film. I don't even think I could tell you what makes it so good. There's almost no dialogue, music, or characters besides the main child, Amar. But it gave me a lot to think about.
'Amar' is a 10 min documentary that follows a young Indian (I think?) boy through his day. The film's description is this:
Amar is 14 and top of his class. Someday he'd like to be a professional cricketer, but for now he's the family's main breadwinner, working two jobs six and a half days a week on top of attending school in the afternoons. This short observational documentary is a simple journey with Amar through his daily life.
Today I watched a documentary about the British tv show 'Peepshow'. I think I found this documentary on Tumblr. Peepshow is a BBC show staring David Mitchell and Robert Webb. I first learned about these dudes from their amazing sketch show, 'The Mitchell and Webb Look". Here's one of my favorite sketches ever:
Mitchell and Webb: Scooby Doo
The documentary is just a basic overview of the show; its genesis, the behind the scenes work, the characters, and the actors that play them. There are a couple of cool stories from the cast and crew thrown in too.
Having only seen one or two episodes of Peepshow, I really learned a lot. It makes me want to watch more of it. I, like most comedy nerds, automatically assume most British comedies are going to be good, and this one seems to promote that assumption.
I suggest you go watch some 'Mitchell and Webb", then go check out Peepshow, then hit up the doc for some trivia.
Today I watched the second documentary on the 'Running Man' Dvd. If you've never seen the movie, it's awesome. Seriously one of my top 5 favorite Arnold movies (up there with Total Recall, 6th Day, and Kindergarten Cop).
This documentary is about the current police state within America. I thought this was a pretty interesting subject choice for something as relatively shallow as a Schwarzenegger movie, even considering its relation to the movie's subject matter. Why take a cheesy 80's movie and make it a platform to preach your political views? What do you gain? You just run the risk of alienating audience members. Plus the obvious fact that Arnold's a committed Republican...
That being said, most of the documentary was in line with my own views, so I was willing to let that slide. The film mainly focuses on the Patriot Act, and the many many ways it impedes upon and invades our civil liberties. I could stand on my soap box and wail about the amazing injustice we call the Patriot Act, but I won't.
I'll just say this- are we safer than we were before 9/11? Are these extreme measures (wire tappings, illegal searches, detainment without trial) making a noticeable difference in our safety? Or even our perception of safety? There's a difference between being safe and feeling safe. In my opinion Americans have given up a lot of freedoms without gaining any stronger sense of safety.
Anyway, as far as political docs go, this is not the most hard hitting or informative. But considering it's 20 mins on the 2nd disc of a Arnold movie, it isn't that bad.
Today I watched a short documentary produced by the makers of The Running Man, a 1987 Schwarzenegger movie. The documentary is a special feature on the dvd.
So, a couple things right off the bat. I love Schwarzenegger movies. For a long time I thought I only liked them ironically, the way I like modern rap and dime store sci-fi books. But I've come to realize I just legitimately like them. To properly test this, I asked for nothing but his movies for my last birthday. After watching one a month for the last year, I can honestly state I like them, non-ironically, as the cheesy action movies they are.
I recently rewatched Running Man as a tribute to the recently deceased Richard Dawson, ex-host of 'Family Feud' and main bad guy in RM.
On the second disc there are two short documentaries loosely based on themes presented in the movie: one is about the rise of reality tv and the other is about the threat of a police state. Today I watched the reality tv one.
The doc, about 20 minutes long, is a mix of interviews with sociology experts, television executives, and ex-reality tv stars discussing how and why reality tv has become such an American obsession. Their answer is that we love living vicariously through others, we love watching villains, and tv shows love tiny budgets and not having to pay their talent much money. It was a match made in heaven.
The part I found most interesting is when the tv execs basically admit that reality tv isn't really that 'real'- they acknowledge that scenes are prompted, dialogue is constructed, and emotions are heightened to unbelievable levels. But in the same breath they defend it as a strong form of entertainment that still sheds light on the human condition, and thus preventing them from fully having to admit what a giant crock of shit it all is.
If you want to watch it, you can come borrow my 'Running Man' dvd.
Today I watched a PBS documentary about 'the tank man", the famous, anonymous Chinese man who stood in front of military tanks during the Tienanmen Square protests in 1989.
The Tank Man, also known as the Unknown Rebel, stood up to the tanks 23 years ago last week, June 5th. I had seen the photo before and knew a little about the situation but decided to use the anniversary as a good reason to learn more.
The Frontline episode explores a few different things. It mainly focuses on what the riots of Tienanmen Square were about. The Chinese people were protesting a lack of basic civil liberties their government was withholding from them. The protests had been going on since May, but turned dangerous when the government sent in the military to run them off. Reporters and protesters interviewed for the doc. talk about how the soldiers were shooting wildly in all directions, even into buildings and apartments nearby. They were using military-grade weapons, not rubber bullets or tear gas. It was weapons used to inflict the most amount of damage possible. The Chinese Red Cross would eventually state that 2,600 civilians were killed altogether. The Chinese government's records show only 241 deaths total.
Somewhere in the middle of these events a row of tanks begins rumbling into the square. As they creep forward a man walking down the street races in front of the tanks and refuses to move. The tanks come to a halt for a brief moment.
The event itself only lasts a few minutes, but it's so tense it feels like forever. Eventually a group of strangers pick the guy up and drag him off to safety. The man was never identified, never charged, and to this day his motives remain a mystery.
The doc then turns to China as a whole, discussing how much has changed for the country in the last 20 years. The rise of capitalism, the growth of business, and the welcoming of consumerism by the Chinese people. It details in turn what the country has going for it (economic growth, GDP) and where it is still in dire trouble (income inequality, civil liberties).
We return to the idea of The Tank Man- a simple middle class citizen, probably a blue collar worker. What would he think about modern China, and the changes that have occurred?
I was happy with this documentary. It gave me the information I had originally wanted (about the Tank Man) but then offered me what I didn't even know I wanted to hear (about China). It did a great job of tying the themes together and using a narrative throughout.
There's too much about this film to dive into all of it fully, so here are just some random thoughts:
The protests reminded me of the Occupy Wall Street movement in that both were started by the upper-to-middle class college educated crowd, but were geared towards and eventually picked up by the working class. Tienanmen protesters were fighting for everyone's rights; workers, govt employees, even the military and the police that were threatening them.
In a discussion about civil liberties the role of American companies in China was brought up. What role does Google and Yahoo have in protecting freedom of speech abroad? They both gave in to the Chinese Govt. and allowed their search engines to be censored, and faced harsh criticism for it. Should they have done that?
What was going through that man's head as he defied the tanks? What possesses a person to do something so bold and, to be perfectly frank, stupid? He, like the rest of the world, had just watched the military lay siege upon the innocent protesters and bystanders- he must have known it was a suicide mission? Were his views so steadfast that he was ready to give up his life for them?
Today I watched a film on how the internet shares information across the world.
If it wasn't for the internet, this would have never happened
The World Science Festival (which put on this awesome book discussion I talked about a few months ago-here) teaches us how the internet works. I honestly never knew how the internet worked, nor did I particularly care. I assumed it'd be over my head, and even if I could understand it, it'd be a very dry and technical explanation. I was right on both counts.
So when you access a website, it must first request the proper information from the site's servers, which would be anywhere in the world. The servers compile the proper information to form the website, then send it back in complicated 'packets' of information to your computer. It travels through a series of cables, sometimes above ground and sometimes underwater.
I learned something, and it's presented in a cool, interesting way. And I love "A Packet's Tale"- totally sounds like it could be a Disney/Pixar movie.
Today I watched a short documentary about an artist who is using her latest piece to inspire scientific research.
The artist, who is also the filmmaker and narrator, designed a simple device called the mirrorbox that plays with optical illusion, symmetry, and mirrors.
Mirrorbox, AKA Darth Vader's nuts
Meghan, the artist, built the device to explore human empathy, but soon found it could be more than just art, it could be of scientific use too. By studying people using the box, scientists might be able to learn how and why humans empathize with each other.
I was less than impressed with this film. I think the mirrorbox is a great piece of art, and I do agree that it could have scientific merit. But when the creator of an art piece makes a short film to detail how important said art piece might be, my lips begin to curl. Had someone else taken the initiative to tell this story- great, by all means. Or if she had told the story of how she learned the piece might have value in fields other than art- all for that. But the film is a commercial for the piece, targeted towards the scientific community, asking them to get in on the ground floor on a revolutionary new item that's going to forever merge art and science.
I get the feeling that Meghan is an artist who, for whatever reason, would have been happier as a scientist, or maybe would like to be as smart as one. In a lot of ways scientists and artists are on the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of skill sets, tendencies, and how their minds tend to operate. Although it happens, it's rare to see someone who can live (and flourish) in both worlds easily. But, that being said, I don't knock her for trying.
The great thing about art is that you can never be wrong; you have the ability to call things however you see them. Because of that, art can be safe. But once you enter science, things get definitive; theories, postulates, laws, etc. Sometimes a desire to be considered objectively smart or talented takes us in the wrong direction. I, for example, like to think I'm smart enough to do well on an IQ test. I base this not off hard facts, but just a general sense of relativity about how much I know vs. the general population. I could easily put this to the test by, say, taking an IQ test, but I don't, because I'm terrified I'll be proven dumb, or worse, average.
Well, in terms of a documentary, I guess it was pretty good. It passed the most important criteria; gave me a lot to think about.
Today I watched a featurette on the making of music for the Universal Pictures Logo. You know the one:
So we meet the composer in charge of redoing the intro for its 100th Anniversary. Apparently that's a job you can have.
The feature is only 2 1/2 minutes long, but you probably hear the intro music a good 30 times, in various lengths and snippets. I can't imagine how many times the orchestra had to hear it while they played, or the sound guys during editing.
Reminds me of a Starbucks my friend went into that was playing a 30 second soundbite of a song, over and over and over again. Imagine working an 8 hour shift in there. You'd go insane.
As tedious as this work seems, designing music for a 10 second clip that most people don't even notice, it's cool and actually admirable how much thought and dedication they put into it. A huge orchestra, an array of exotic instruments, even a choir.
It made me think of the Brian Wilson scene in Walk Hard, when they are parodying the Beach Boys and their eclectic period:
Ugh. Ignore the youtubey crap in between the actual good stuff
Overall, I gained a lot of insight into how things like this are made.
Today I watched a shocking documentary called 'Child Full of Rage'. It is the saddest film I've watched all year.
This 30 minute short follows Beth, a young girl with severe problems. Abused and molested as a child, she is extremely aggressive, physically abusive, and verbally hateful to her family. She's threatened them with knives, often tells them how much she wishes they were dead, and must be locked in her room at night to prevent her from terrorizing them. She's only 6 years old.
Beth was adopted by a minister and his wife when she was 19 months old, along with a young baby boy named Jon. The new parents were not informed that both children came from extremely abusive families. The abuse was so extensive it affected their learning capabilities and stunted Beth emotionally. From an early age she was physically aggressive and sexually aware.
What's most shocking about this film is the interviews with Beth. Calmly and straightforwardly, she describes in detail what she has done to her younger brother (abuse both physical and sexual) and her desires to see her entire family killed. She talks about stealing knives from the kitchen and hiding them, planning to stab her family to death. She speaks with such lack of emotion, no shame or remorse in her voice or actions. At points she seems to acknowledge what she does and thinks is wrong, but only on a superficial level; evidence that she has been told it's wrong, but maybe doesn't see it as wrong herself, or understand why it is.
The film has left me with a lot to think about. It shows me that there are no truly evil people; I don't believe you are born good or bad. It is the experiences we have that shape us. She was abused by a sick individual, and thus became sick herself. Probably the person who abused her was also abused, and the cycle continues on and on ad nauseum. When you can't blame a person, but instead the experience, it becomes that much harder to come to terms with it. People stop being predators and start being victims, even when they turn around and prey on others. It's victims hurting victims.
Also, side note: the film states that due to her abuse Beth was unable to develop a conscience, and thus able to perform bad deeds without remorse. It makes it sound like the conscience is a physical function that needs to be set in place by a certain age. I don't know if I believe that. What is the conscience, exactly? A set of moral codes that are handed down through social instructors like family, friends and the media? Couldn't those play a role in influencing you at any stage in your life? Conscience isn't formed as strictly as the brain is formed, is it?
Check out this difficult to watch documentary here:
