tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-105644802024-03-14T08:28:45.741-05:00Minimalist OrgyWhere respectability meets decadence.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-26014827462343600932011-03-16T21:19:00.004-05:002011-03-16T21:48:28.324-05:00Japan, Social Cohesion, and Book Recommendations<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJW2z7Lwd9Xtw6MSLic57HzKxPB62xeqUqo7Ed0Xayy5-Dyt1PbKHSIry4ZFZVH2dOvAqMMpfBPiDrdLuIzvEyPGNqBir2aF263hCofYdcAMRo6bf6TLeQUhMCbNxpdZUPsl5Abg/s1600/bp22.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJW2z7Lwd9Xtw6MSLic57HzKxPB62xeqUqo7Ed0Xayy5-Dyt1PbKHSIry4ZFZVH2dOvAqMMpfBPiDrdLuIzvEyPGNqBir2aF263hCofYdcAMRo6bf6TLeQUhMCbNxpdZUPsl5Abg/s320/bp22.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5584869686765455634" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwn9zYh-IeHvzqcncMCzvp8pF6lN2r2Hw3n1-XdskpTLGf9_Cfq3bsEtjTVq0szEN53vda-WNn3jlWhLIQFjLLY9n_ENUtQwojbHHh_XeBa7VgZEhvyZCPxdxTqEBSiBch5SUN4w/s1600/bp20.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 207px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwn9zYh-IeHvzqcncMCzvp8pF6lN2r2Hw3n1-XdskpTLGf9_Cfq3bsEtjTVq0szEN53vda-WNn3jlWhLIQFjLLY9n_ENUtQwojbHHh_XeBa7VgZEhvyZCPxdxTqEBSiBch5SUN4w/s320/bp20.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5584869682907499682" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(Images stolen without permission from <a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/03/japan_-_new_fears_as_the_trage.html">The Big Picture</a> at Boston.com, which always has the most dramatic pictures out there. For a more quotidian perspective, go <a href="http://www.japantrends.com/life-continues-in-tokyo/">here</a>.)<br /><br />A friend of mine wrote to ask what I thought of <a href="http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/03/15/cultural-differences/">this blog post</a> about the lack of looting in Japan compared to Katrina, Haiti, etc. Since he's also a history dork, I felt free to let loose my full nerdiness. Maybe you're nerdy about culture and politics too! If so, read on. If this seems too bloodlessly intellectual, it could just be that I'm at that particular stage of the grieving process. I appreciate the human spirit on display as much as anyone does, especially from those <span style="font-style: italic;">obachans </span>up there doing their calisthenics.<br /><br />My first reaction is that he's letting his political biases (which I share!) distort his view of the question. His basic argument is that the Japanese attitude towards government is more positive than the American attitude, and therefore government responsiveness both before and after the disaster was better (i.e. it "hasn't created a massive, impoverished underclass" and the GOJ is well "prepared to respond to this kind of disaster"). Neither of these statements is as true as he thinks it is.<br /><br />First, economic equality: Japan is good in terms of <a href="http://contramanfund.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/720px-gini_since_wwii-svg.png?w=640&h=463" target="_blank">equality</a> (copy that graph! It's hugely important), and certainly better than the US. But note that it's pretty close to France, whose rioting underclasses are not particularly known for their restraint (not judging!). I also think equality in Japan has been getting worse since the bubble burst (too bad the graph stops in 1990). There are no shortage of stories about poor job prospects for young people, etc. And it way too simplistic to ascribe the equality to government policy. (<a href="http://www.pliink.com/mt/marxy/archives/000287.html" target="_blank">This</a> is highly recommended on the roots of that equality.)<br /><br />Second, you have to distinguish how amazingly prepared they were for earthquakes from how unprepared they were for the tsunami. As far as we can tell, pretty much everything was still standing for the 15 minutes between the quake and the tsunami, and of course the nuclear reactors shut down properly after the quake but started overheating when the tsunami knocked out the power to the cooling system. It is so astounding how well they weathered the FIFTH LARGEST EARTHQUAKE IN THE PAST 100 YEARS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. I mean, Christchurch was 6.3, and there have been about 15 AFTERSHOCKS that big in Japan. Also I suck at logarithms, but I'm pretty sure 9.0 is like 800 times bigger than 6.3.<br /><br />(Further digression: I think I agree with Felix Salmon when he says "<a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/14/dont-donate-money-to-japan/" target="_blank">don't donate money to Japan</a>." Japan has money. In fact they just created a whole bunch of it in response to the crisis; and the yen is at an all-time high against the dollar. (Why? Can you explain that?) The long-term economic effects may actually be positive--Kan (the PM) has called for a "New Deal," although I'm kind of worried that some global supply chains for electronic goods may be re-routed to China and Korea, etc., maybe permanently thanks to labor costs. Salmon's point is that giving money only to relieve the tugging on your heartstrings is not the best way to do it. Better just to give blood locally. Not that I do that either, but that's the better thing to feel guilty about.)<br /><br />So how well is the government handling the relief effort? Better than average, from what I can tell. They're airlifting supplies in, too slowly but then these things take time. Most of the criticism they've had has been over lack of information on the nuclear situation. It's pretty typical of the Japanese government to be a bit slow getting information out. (A metaphor: Japanese doctors don't usually tell terminal cancer patients what's wrong with them, because that would just cause anguish.) But it's actually hard to judge how bad the nuclear situation is, or how much the media is reporting it because it's sexy. My twitter feed is a constant stream of "shut up about the nuclear plant, foreign media, the real story is half a million people without food or water or clothes or medicine, and now it's starting to snow." Oh but also "wow I never thought I'd be paying this much attention to Geiger counter readings." So yeah, conflicted. (Also: "Crap, the trains are really crowded, such-and-such a line is only running at 70% capacity.")<br /><br />I think the point that there's just nothing dry to loot in a tsunami is more relevant, but of course he downplays that because it doesn't support his political point.<br /><br />So no looting, but there's been hoarding. It's hard to say whether shortages on food staples (rice and bread) and gasoline are caused by hoarding or supply problems (this is the country that invented just-in-time delivery, because real estate is too expensive to keep large inventories), but they appear to be clearing up. Is hoarding evidence of a breakdown of social order that's not as severe as looting? It certainly argues against the idea that "their social dynamics focus on group harmony." On the other hand, the planned rolling blackouts in response to Fukushima-related energy shortages were more limited than expected because people made voluntary cut-backs in energy use. So that's nice.<br /><br />Anyway, that brings up the question of "group harmony" as a cultural trait, which is the most difficult one to answer. Partly because it's a dumb stereotype and we don't want to be racist--I've seen so many dumb news stories on how the Japanese are so unified in their response, etc. (The dumbest are the ones about how "even in this disaster, the shelters are still separating their recyclables!" This is just AUTOMATIC for Japanese people, since burnable garbage is collected on different days than non-burnable, and goes in the green dumpster instead of the orange one. This is not a sign of social cohesion, it's just habit.) I think the roots of this stereotype are in a version of Orientalism, btw, which has been reinforced by a counter-Orientalism, which accepts the premise that Asians are less individualistic, etc., but claims that this is a good thing. Singapore's ex-president Lee Kwan-Yu is famous for arguing this. The book to avoid on the subject is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Confucius-Lives-Next-Door-Teaches/dp/0679777601/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300327372&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Confucius Lives Next Door</a>.<br /><br />In general, Japanese life and Japanese politics are more contentious than they appear from the outside. There is already some muted criticism of the government from the opposition LDP, which before this happened was poised to undo the historic gains made by the DPJ last year, mostly because it (the LDP) has been incredibly obstructionist. Grassroots politics in Japan is fairly strong, which I suppose could account for some "social cohesion" and cooperation in response to the disaster, but this is a different explanation than the one that says it's because Japanese people trust their government. (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Realm-Dying-Emperor-Japan-Centurys/dp/0679741895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300327311&sr=1-1" target="_blank">In the Realm of a Dying Emperor</a> is a good book about this, although a bit dated and very pessimistic, by an ASIJ alumna.)<br /><br />But even more, the question of whether "group harmony" is cultural is so hard to answer because there are so many variables. Like, you could do game theoretical models that show that group-oriented responses are actually more rational than selfish ones in certain situations--this is how evolutionary biologists explain homosexuality, in case you need an evolutionary explanation for that--and perhaps some of these situations apply in Japan.<br /><br />More generally, is it fair to say that looting is best described as a form of the moral economy that's been corrupted by the market economy? Or is that an oxymoron? Meaning: in the moral economy you respond extra-legally in order to correct a perceived economic injustice, by redistributing bread. Looting is also a correction of a perceived economic injustice, only instead of bread you do it with stereos or whatever. I'm not sure my thinking is correct on this. I bring it up just to say that I don't accept the idea that looting should be understood as a measure of "social harmony," whatever that means. I also wish I knew what the history of the moral economy is in Japan. I suspect there's an answer in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Peasants-Rebels-Outcastes-Underside-Modern/dp/0742525252/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300327190&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Peasants, Rebels and Outcastes</a>, which is sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be read. But <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Embracing-Defeat-Japan-Wake-World/dp/0393320278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300329902&sr=1-1">Embracing Defeat</a> probably comes first.<br /><br />And while I'm recommending books, I think <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Underground-Tokyo-Attack-Japanese-Psyche/dp/0375725806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300327532&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Underground</a> might be the best introduction to contemporary Japan. It's about the Aum-Shinrikyo subway attacks. It's by Haruki Murakami but it's non-fiction. It deals pretty well with some of these questions (does Japanese social cohesion lead to susceptibility to cults? but on the other hand maybe the attacks show a lack of social cohesion?) without coming to any conclusions.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-11528327544824900792010-12-03T13:40:00.003-05:002010-12-03T13:55:41.559-05:00100 Best Chinese MoviesHong Kong Film Awards, 2005<br /><br />1. Spring in a Small Town, Fei Mu (1948)<br />2. A Better Tomorrow, John Woo (1986)<br />3. Days of Being Wild, Wong Kar-wai (1990)<br />4. Yellow Earth, Chen Kaige (1984)<br />5. City of Sadness, Hou Hsiao-Hsien (1989)<br />6. Long Arm of the Law, Johnny Mak (1984) Sammo Hung<br />7. Dragon Gate Inn, King Hu (1967)<br />8. Boat People, Ann Hui (1982)<br />9. Touch of Zen, King Hu (1971)<br />10. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Ang Lee (2000)<br />11. Street Angel, Yuan Muzhi (1937) Zhou Xuan<br />12. A Brighter Summer Day, Edward Yang (1991)<br />13. Private Eye, Hui Brothers (1976)<br />14. The Mission, Johnny To (1999)<br />15. One Armed Swordsman, Chang Cheh (1967) Shaw Brothers<br />16. Fist of Fury, Lo Wei (1972) Bruce Lee<br />17. In the Heat of the Sun, Jiang Wen (1994)<br />18. In the Face of Demolition (1954) Bruce Lee<br />19. Chinese Odyssey, Jeffrey Lau (1994)<br />20. The Arch, Tang Shu Shuen (1970)<br />21. Rouge, Anita Mui (1988)<br />22. Chungking Express, Wong Kar-wai (1994)<br />23. Homecoming, Yim Ho (1984)<br />24. A Time to Live and a Time to Die, Hou Hsiao-Hsien (1985)<br />25. Red Sorghum, Zhang Yimou (1987)<br />26. Father and Son, Allen Fong (1981)<br />27. The Spring River Flows East, Cai Chusheng and Zheng Junli (1947)<br />28. Comrades, Almost a Love Story, Peter Chan (1996)<br />29. The Goddess, Wu Yonggang (1934)<br />30. The Big Road, Sun Yu (1934)<br />31. The Secret, Ann Hui (1979)<br />32. Infernal Affairs, Andrew Lau and Alan Mak (2002)<br />33. Drunken Master, Yuen Woo-ping (1978)<br />34. The Butterfly Murders, Tsui Hark (1979)<br />35. Ashes of Time, Wong Kar-wai (1994)<br />36. Made in Hong Kong, Fruit Chan (1997)<br />37. Sorrows of the Forbidden City, Shilin Zhu (1948) Zhou Xuan<br />38. Butterfly Lovers, Li Han-hsiang (1968)<br />39. Story of a Discharged Prisoner, Patrick Lung Kong (1967)<br />40. Zu Warriors of the Magic Mountain, Tsui Hark (1983)<br />41. The Terrorizers, Edward Yang (1986)<br />42. The Killer, John Woo (1989)<br />43. Once Upon a Time in China, Tsui Hark (1991)<br />44. Center Stage, Stanley Kwan (1992)<br />45. The Story of Qiu Ju, Zhang Yimou (1992)<br />46. This Life of Mine, Shi Hui (1950)<br />47. The Kingdom and the Beauty, Li Han-hsiang (1959)<br />48. The Winter, Li Han-hsiang (1969)<br />49. An Autumn’s Tale, Mabel Cheung (1987)<br />50. A Chinese Ghost Story, Ching Siu-tung (1987)<br />51. The Purple Hairpin, Li Tie (1959)<br />52. The Orphan, Lee Sun-Fung (1960) Bruce Lee<br />53. Two Stage Sisters, Xie Jin (1965)<br />54. City on Fire, Ringo Lam (1987)<br />55. Farewell My Concubine, Chen Kaige (1993)<br />56. Yi Yi, Edward Yang (2000)<br />57. Cold Nights, Lee Sun-Fung (1955)<br />58. The Break of Dawn, Sung Tsun-shou (1967)<br />59. Raining in the Mountain, King Hu (1979)<br />60. Police Story, Jackie Chan (1985)<br />61. C’est la vie, mon chérie, Derek Yee (1993)<br />62. The Wedding Banquet, Ang Lee (1993)<br />63. Platform, Jia Zhangke (2000)<br />64. The Wild, Wild Rose, Wang Tian-lin (1960)<br />65. The Great Devotion, Chor Yuen (1960)<br />66. My Intimate Partner, Chun Kim (1960)<br />67. Dangerous Encounters of the First Kind, Tsui Hark (1980)<br />68. Ah Ying, Allen Fong (1983)<br />69. Durian Durian, Fruit Chan (2000)<br />70. Little Toys, Sun Yu (1933)<br />71. Sorrows and Joy in Middle Age, Sang Hu (1949)<br />72. The House of 72 Tenants, Chor Yuen (1973)<br />73. Nomad, Patrick Tam (1982)<br />74. Dust in the Wind, Hou Hsiao-Hsien (1986)<br />75. 92 Legendary La Rose Noire, Jeffrey Lau (1992)<br />76. Shaolin Soccer, Steven Chow (2001)<br />77. Song at Midnight, Ma-Xu Weibang (1937)<br />78. China Behind, Tang Shu Shuen (1974)<br />79. The Spooky Bunch, Ann Hui (1980)<br />80. Taipei Story, Edward Yang (1985)<br />81. The Blue Kite, Tian Zhuangzhuang (1993)<br />82. Long Live the Mistress, Sang Hu (1948)<br />83. Mambo Girl, Evan Yang (1957)<br />84. Feast of a Rich Family, Lee Tit, Law Chi-Hung, Lee Sun-Fung, Ng Wui (1959)<br />85. Execution in Autumn, Hsing Lee (1972)<br />86. Hibiscus Town, Xie Jin (1986)<br />87. God of Gamblers, Wong Jing (1989)<br />88. As Tears Go By, Wong Kar-wai (1989)<br />89. Happy Together, Wong Kar-wai (1997)<br />90. In the Mood for Love Wong Kar-wai (2000)<br />91. Myriad of Lights, Shen Fu (1948)<br />92. Festival Moon, Shilin Zhu (1959)<br />93. Parents’ Hearts, Chun Kim (1955)<br />94. Lin Zexu, Zheng Junli (1959)<br />95. Dream of the Red Chamber, Fan Cen (1962)<br />96. Health Warning, Kirk Wong (1983)<br />97. Shanghai Blues, Tsui Hark (1984)<br />98. Invincible Pole Fighters, Lau Kar-leung (1983)<br />99. The Black Cannon Incident, Huang Jianxin (1985)<br />100. Rebels of a Neon God, Tsai Ming-liang (1992)<br />101. The Puppetmaster, Hou Hsiao-Hsien (1993)<br />102. Summer Snow, Ann Hui (1995)<br />103. Not One Less, Zhang Yimou (1999)<br /><br /><br />China (pre-communist) 11<br />PRC 13<br />Hong Kong 61<br />Taiwan 16<br /><br /><br />1930s 5<br />1940s 6<br />1950s 10<br />1960s 12<br />1970s 11<br />1980s 30<br />1990s 22<br />2000s 7<br /><br /><a href="http://www.hkfaa.com/news/100films.html">Source</a>Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-31592522749666450122009-06-30T09:34:00.003-05:002009-06-30T09:38:58.434-05:00The Pleasures of Film"It is occasionally agreeable to gaze upon charming girls, new fashions which will be forgotten tomorrow, or pretty children--but it will be even more agreeable to see them twenty years hence." Robert Brasillach and Maurice Bardèche, <span style="font-style: italic;">The History of Motion Pictures</span>, 1935.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-17911286974477256682009-06-29T11:15:00.003-05:002009-06-29T11:37:05.672-05:00Why Iranian Events are Relevant to Your LifeInteresting short <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-27/the-thugs-who-lead-irans-supreme-leader/" target="_blank">article </a>by Iran specialist Gary Sick. Relevant paragraph:<br /><br /><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> This is a formula for the kind of militarized and nationalist corporate state under a single controlling ideology that is not dissimilar to fascist rule in an earlier day. Like fascism, it defines itself not only in terms of its own objectives but even moreso by what it opposes: liberalism, individualism, unfettered capitalism, etc. There is no need to push the definition too far, since fascism tended to be specific to a particular time and set of historical circumstances. But the resemblance in nature and practice seems to justify use of the term.<br /></blockquote><br />I like that he includes those caveats. I like this as a thought experiment. I don't like that it gives less scrupulous people, some of whom have motives that are more admirable than others', the excuse to start throwing around the f-bomb. But I'm increasingly coming around to this viewpoint, that fascism is specific to a certain time and place (and level of technological development--not to say that Twitter is necessarily teh bomb). I'm not sure if that's just because I'm a historian instead of a political scientist, but it has something to do with it.<br /><br />Now that Iran coverage is entering the hangover stage, and I'm starting to think about it more philosophically, I think that everyone's interest in these kinds of events is probably structurally similar to that of the neocons: we're all just trying to grasp a moment of global redemption which seems so much closer in revolutions than in ordinary times, and trying to read the signs to see how the final liberating revolution might come about. It's like trying to read the mind of god. Revolution is a spiritual need. It's no accident that the neocons are descended from Jewish Marxists who thought they found salvation in America (or Israel, but let's leave that aside for now). It's also no accident that the Iranian revolution was made by a coalition of Marxists and messianic Islamists. So when an analyst says "this revolution threatens the Islamic Republic," which seems too radical a statement to be merely a prediction that the Islamic Republic will evolve in a more democratic direction, am I supposed to read it instead as a neocon prediction that American-style secular democracy is coming to Iran? This seems unlikely, especially when one notes that the Jewish-American intellectual tradition might be particularly unsuited for analyzing an Islamic revolution--or is it? How else can I read that statement, given the inherent unpredictability of revolutions? This seems to me to be an urgent question, but one that's incredibly distracting when one is trying to write a dissertation. On fascism.<br /><br />This is all just to say that obviously Walter Benjamin invented the way neocons think about the world, and the way we all think about fascism, and that everyone needs to go back and read the <a href="http://goog_1246288821863/" target="_blank">Theses on the Philosophy</a><a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm" target="_blank"> of History</a> again.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-11399824087999164242009-06-23T13:51:00.003-05:002009-06-23T14:47:21.611-05:00Shopping in Iran<span class="status-body"><span class="entry-content">Unconfirmed tweet from <a href="http://twitter.com/persiankiwi">persiankiwi</a>, 9am EST 6/23, (that's Tuesday afternoon in Tehran) via <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/">Sully:</a><br /><blockquote>Mousavi - the objective is to bring Tehran to standstill - millions of people go shopping but NOBODY SHOPPING - #Iranelection RT RT RT</blockquote>Even if this is rumor or misinformation, I think it's interesting. Has anyone heard of this tactic before? The first thing that comes to mind is that this is a specific <span style="font-style: italic;">détournement </span>of Bush's response to 9-11, when he told the American people that the best response was to go shopping. Here you go shopping without going shopping.<br /><br />But there is a specific context here which complicates any attempt to see this tactic as anti-capitalist; as I understand it, the bazaars are allied with the clergy and the Revolutionary Guard, so this kind of active boycott looks more like the economic version of the street fighting we've seen the last few days. Falling short of pitched battles, these low-level skirmishes are the way a disorganized movement tests a more coherent, better armed force. Shopping-without-shopping is a similar process of flirtation and probing, where bazaari and customer eye each other the way policeman and rioter do. But the positions are reversed: in the street it is the rioter who coyly tempts the policeman to break out his truncheon, while in the bazaar it is the shopkeeper who tempts the customer to break out the wallet. And although it's hard to see from my vantage point, the gender roles are likely reversed as well. Men traditionally make up the shock troops in street fighting, although we've heard reports that in this case at least women are playing an important role urging them on. Will the women play a more primary role in the shopping conflict? Will men support and protect them in turn? In any case this seems more subversive than reading <span style="font-style: italic;">Lolita</span>. I eagerly await further developments, without knowing what source will be able to adequately report on them.<br /><br />In the end perhaps the most we can say is that this is an example of the macro shift away from the primacy of the producer to that of the consumer. And a reminder that despite the rumored "end of history" and the supposed importance of religious and tribal rather than economic loyalties, socio-economic realities are still important and perhaps decisive. See the <span style="font-style: italic;">New Yorker</span>'s <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/02/02/090202fa_fact_secor">summary</a> of the Iranian economy<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199603/kaplan-iran"></a> for background on that.<br /><br /></span></span>Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-54909940117752006902009-06-16T10:12:00.001-05:002009-06-16T10:14:37.894-05:00Julie Christie<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnJoZMDeb006SezV4q0HkNxFWf_6wutf2vEjNJPAMRNxTRETtUzkt5-V3GwRvlp50ONLUvi-95Z9cxMl5g-dn2Y4J41cWJ-C_5BQWfeZ93WpbHYiQlSxONh3wlN8x3-q6vAXnmEA/s1600-h/fahrenheit4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 192px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnJoZMDeb006SezV4q0HkNxFWf_6wutf2vEjNJPAMRNxTRETtUzkt5-V3GwRvlp50ONLUvi-95Z9cxMl5g-dn2Y4J41cWJ-C_5BQWfeZ93WpbHYiQlSxONh3wlN8x3-q6vAXnmEA/s320/fahrenheit4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5347944086594064386" border="0" /></a>Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-31054373776382653522009-05-06T14:09:00.001-05:002009-05-06T14:12:04.178-05:00PandemicThis is about a week late, but here's an artist's representation of a pandemic:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjIsM8QcdQFIDwESZuu-KcT4ZPLyKXu1lKk_cfYKezl8uf0E70qJy-Y50t1WWDmiTntnHdJ_dQj33d-PZx4hxUp9txb7lx-uHp_3RWhvb8Vp3_UVY6Z0u-qvfyuKT4COReGh9BIQ/s1600-h/pandemic.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 290px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjIsM8QcdQFIDwESZuu-KcT4ZPLyKXu1lKk_cfYKezl8uf0E70qJy-Y50t1WWDmiTntnHdJ_dQj33d-PZx4hxUp9txb7lx-uHp_3RWhvb8Vp3_UVY6Z0u-qvfyuKT4COReGh9BIQ/s320/pandemic.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332790439412785874" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />From <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajourneyroundmyskull/sets/72157607421416604/">here</a>.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-90736678626274318562009-05-06T12:44:00.008-05:002009-05-06T14:17:08.954-05:00Trying to See Post-Fordism<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/cubicAttractor/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl9NBp3Dg2aa0jNu2nhdEfs_hrOSo3ntwPN14q9zZZ6DVIPxt_hNcWneVmpwZDsn6s56go5erJAwOl30PKmz71o-R6KbHwFjE1P1nzKmAejGkIlZq8rAqBkQ2Lzx_kg8gbFGKa5g/s320/cubicAttractorPRN.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332778706890920546" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span><span><span style="font-style: italic;">Note how some cities move beyond the extent of the original instantiation. This is a result of cities holding inertia as they travel towards their destinations. Cities are not aware of their arrival time, so when they reach their destinations, they are traveling too fast to stop, and shoot beyond it. Slowly the cities oscillate and stop precisely at their destinations.</span><br /><br />(Click on picture for a minute or so of intriguing confusion. <a href="http://spacecollective.org/">Via</a>.)<br /><br />Two interesting pieces on what a post-Fordist economy will look like. The <a href="http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/richard_florida/2009/05/the_new_normal.php">shorter one</a> (from Richard Florida at the Atlantic) is a breakdown of some very-hard-to-interpret poll numbers about what appliances and objects Americans think of as necessities. Basically, it seems like a shift away from the "auto-housing industrial complex," but perhaps not moving towards "tech-driven consumption" as quickly as one might expect. The point is that even if we're right that the post-recession economy will have to be more green and more information-centered, it will take a while to get there, and we don't know exactly what it will look like.<br /><br /></span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr80JefHYsDrL3Lw7k89XQI7mf8crAj1qOPIamHGl98_Cl_BXihjgTlpoksjZJgAYjwZfBVpu6Ts0y3NF1R5dRMPE_tJMF2j1aSs2fZUa60Xm0tpJXu4jpXaNZIDn-UJhtfUZLIA/s1600-h/futurama_img_3.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr80JefHYsDrL3Lw7k89XQI7mf8crAj1qOPIamHGl98_Cl_BXihjgTlpoksjZJgAYjwZfBVpu6Ts0y3NF1R5dRMPE_tJMF2j1aSs2fZUa60Xm0tpJXu4jpXaNZIDn-UJhtfUZLIA/s320/futurama_img_3.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332783820485749842" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span><span><br />The <a href="http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_tale_of_two_exurbs">longer article</a> (by new urbanist Ben Adler in the American Prospect) is a contrast between two Washington, DC suburbs, one walkable and one not. Shocking differences, as one would expect. Two ideas were new to me. First, that "traffic is good." Congested roads encourage people to take subways. I'm not sure this is the best way of thinking, and I'm positive that it's not the best way to win over skeptics. Second, that Kentlands, the walkable suburb, was constructed before the public transportation that now serves it--bus lines were added thanks to public demand. It required a leap of faith. As with the "necessary" appliances, trying to forecast a less auto-centric future is difficult.<br /><br /></span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOYy-R7DZTIGmnX2aIE3wVTMNZQzMFDNYsrVNy6Fc3U0GFhtBg_H0ClIheZALOi5S2PWU-GoVv6rVdBjuL06autLPVgMKmrBXSlvoPWMWwqDqlp1F1D1hOf0771bpyQ-LkSVD3zA/s1600-h/kentlands.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 261px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOYy-R7DZTIGmnX2aIE3wVTMNZQzMFDNYsrVNy6Fc3U0GFhtBg_H0ClIheZALOi5S2PWU-GoVv6rVdBjuL06autLPVgMKmrBXSlvoPWMWwqDqlp1F1D1hOf0771bpyQ-LkSVD3zA/s320/kentlands.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5332783800477449938" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span><span>There is something to be said here about the role of utopian imagery in providing the initial blueprint for a hazy future.</span></span> I just wish the imagery for new urbanism didn't try to look so traditional.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com313tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-17213566504770066472009-04-17T16:50:00.002-05:002009-04-17T16:53:35.439-05:00Film Posters<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGIqRKL28RjtgO348sZdB2JGBsYyJM7yqz9eTGQu1YoG7SccBEo-5Mr6Sjjz5iXUFeQPEKzvCE2xDlzW_qfG4fJX6xaONDAYxrbdQ8TcCdR1YIJS4_LynEGOwqmgyEjFge3l7hAg/s1600-h/Hallellujah.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGIqRKL28RjtgO348sZdB2JGBsYyJM7yqz9eTGQu1YoG7SccBEo-5Mr6Sjjz5iXUFeQPEKzvCE2xDlzW_qfG4fJX6xaONDAYxrbdQ8TcCdR1YIJS4_LynEGOwqmgyEjFge3l7hAg/s320/Hallellujah.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5325781401082489042" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiClMPMBLVOAXhfDaU8ZLHUbciZAv2qsNHcsrXhyphenhyphenUiyDAlnZLR91w9nwe7_1oHcp-WJhKpkIv3YsJDmZjh4Wln9gkoBgH7ft7rzqNJwfh-KGEGPOuRkTZzldyHdmL1D_g4uDpxGmQ/s1600-h/A78-24.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 236px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiClMPMBLVOAXhfDaU8ZLHUbciZAv2qsNHcsrXhyphenhyphenUiyDAlnZLR91w9nwe7_1oHcp-WJhKpkIv3YsJDmZjh4Wln9gkoBgH7ft7rzqNJwfh-KGEGPOuRkTZzldyHdmL1D_g4uDpxGmQ/s320/A78-24.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5325781400075912514" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I'm as much of a fan of Criterion covers as the next guy, but I'd like to see more DVD releases that just use old posters, because a lot of them are just fantastic.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-16922776318549160502009-04-10T13:57:00.002-05:002009-04-10T13:59:50.603-05:00Poem from My Music LibraryI am a kitten<br />I am an astronaut<br />I am mops<br />I am Star Wars<br />I am the cosmos<br />I can't stand the rain<br />I could never be president<br />I did acid with Caroline<br />I don't care what the people say<br />I need the sun<br />I walked with a zombie<br />I want to be President<br />I'm allergic to flowers<br />We're from Barcelona<br />I'm in love with a German film star<br />I'm lonely<br />I'm on fire<br />I'm your teenage prayer<br />I've been mistreatedJaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-27196461030428326982009-02-21T15:22:00.005-05:002009-02-21T15:34:08.870-05:00Thoughts on Dubai<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcp_1XJcZUIjHsPOY2PvxA9H1pmy2-nTlZt6uGVJPFtDoQkmcfYutLye2-_K-f7yWmnv8cxszmQgM8cIgVFVGd4nGPaE8iFswZscynL-eRuqZD8isqaMLKA8xFT9mYA1z26wp-5w/s1600-h/d05_16638517.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 193px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcp_1XJcZUIjHsPOY2PvxA9H1pmy2-nTlZt6uGVJPFtDoQkmcfYutLye2-_K-f7yWmnv8cxszmQgM8cIgVFVGd4nGPaE8iFswZscynL-eRuqZD8isqaMLKA8xFT9mYA1z26wp-5w/s320/d05_16638517.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5305350858239675426" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Ant sculpture outside Dubai International Financial Exchange. The message: work hard, know your place, and we can build something big out of sand.</span><br /><br />Really fucked-up <a href="http://smashingtelly.com/2009/02/15/bye-bye-dubai/">story</a> about the real estate crash in Dubai. I'm really interested in Dubai as a nasty social experiment that in retrospect was bound to fail, but we're still not sure HOW it's going to fail. Like, will there be a revolution by the migrant workers? (Population is 3/4 foreign workers, mostly construction I think; male/female ration is 3:1) Will the Emirates clamp down even harder (somehow)? Will everyone just go home and leave a ghost town of empty skyscrapers? The metaphor of castles built on sand is unavoidable, but exactly how they're going to fall is going to be instructive to watch.<br /><br />But the way this is presented is even weirder. First, the video seems like half business report and half promotional video--look at the great deals on houses! Only 12 million Euros! Second, the end of the article is basically just there to make fun of the superficial nouveau-riche, a palm-tree-shaped island being the scaled-up equivalent of a pink flamingo lawn ornament. I have no problem with spotlighting the foibles of the super-rich and criticizing those who profited from creating a hollowed-out bubble economy, but I suspect that bad taste in apartments was not among the worst of their sins. The article suggests that cultural value gets created at the bottom, then gets diluted on the way up the food chain, and Dubai's biggest problem is not having enough hipsters. Never having been to Dubai, I don't know if there is an autonomous culture among the migrant workers, but if there is I suspect that it's too conservative for the authors of this article to be able to recognize or admire it.<br /><br />But this trickle-up model of cultural economy just suggest an infinite regression: if all this is based ultimately on hipsters, what is hipster value based on? Maybe it's just turtlenecks all the way down.<br /><br />More pictures <a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/dubai_and_the_uae.html">here</a>.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-400973328143700032008-12-17T11:26:00.001-05:002008-12-17T11:27:57.305-05:00Sorely needed...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt9489r34p/?query=&brand=calisphere"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 293px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzvxIEpalxZY2z4J_6w0xXxDk24pOA8kDJEmzqVLF1pyfaOjvP5InFissnDS-QSzOx0q18oIYCq9FiVWyEwvL9SdIIXD0WKfCq-S-OK76_1w94N130vGL7IFLlvziXawOVMo6gCg/s320/d3e3543.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5280796456253079602" border="0" /></a>Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com46tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-56287197636723976332008-12-06T14:31:00.002-05:002008-12-06T14:34:15.494-05:00Vanilla Bicycle<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://vanillabicycles.com/frames/randonee/2/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU8LJSjUv4K9pQCNdHkNzHIdRmu7MOcuyD-UCx2cc4PWZlboxfRhU_VqvaJeg-KRPjTxo9rTI6I3FKtgpPOEfrmgtFXlSoYN5VRquuMjqfNNgfRf9JbrMyfwzjAPu9BrpFapILdQ/s320/3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5276762228472070194" border="0" /></a>Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-28952850716094873512008-08-26T13:32:00.001-05:002008-08-26T13:40:29.047-05:00Rash and RationalityThe name of a Black Adder episode? A pamphlet on how to properly deal with skin disorders? No! It's the Pratt siblings!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDf23oPnOC8z_qWj6W7DyfeSQS3V7d50E8pJtXS8WFbH5-qFZyRzFu3LeNRFBeokAO_Bs9n4zq161la-GSzSPFHbdnqBd37KXFSUX7rFrUzY1fK6vy2FTdnkCsNuMM4f5gyCF9aQ/s1600-h/snapshot20080826142804.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDf23oPnOC8z_qWj6W7DyfeSQS3V7d50E8pJtXS8WFbH5-qFZyRzFu3LeNRFBeokAO_Bs9n4zq161la-GSzSPFHbdnqBd37KXFSUX7rFrUzY1fK6vy2FTdnkCsNuMM4f5gyCF9aQ/s320/snapshot20080826142804.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5238897590612662370" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The Hills mines basically the same territory as Jane Austen: interpersonal relations, alliance formation, all that. Now we have "Rash and Rationality" to prove it.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-55835637735155395112008-05-07T11:12:00.006-05:002008-05-11T10:11:00.398-05:00Aspirational vs. Intellectual ViewingThe characters on <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> are not real to me.<br /><br />You have probably read that sentence as a criticism of the show, as meaning that the characters don't seem sufficiently life-like to capture my attention. And further, as an accusation of hypocrisy, since the show advertises itself as a reality show. But I don't mean either of those. I just mean that the characters on the show are constructed in pretty much the same way that characters are constructed in fictional shows. And they come into my living room the same way any sitcom character does. The knowledge that there are real people in Los Angeles whose lives are the raw material for the show enters my mind exactly as much as the knowledge that the steak on my dinner plate was once a cow. This may seem cold. It is. What's even colder is that, unlike that steak, I don't actually LIKE any of these characters.<br /><br />This is probably largely a function of demographics: the show is most popular with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">tweenage</span> girls, whereas I'm male and in my early 30's. The minimalist characterization that the show uses--long pauses on the nearly expressionless faces of the characters as they interact with each other--serves a different purpose for me than for more aspirational viewers. For young girls it offers an abundance of time to empathize with the character; the inscrutability is also a chance to practice reading the subtle verbal and facial clues that are key to complex social interaction. These are not things I'm interested in. For me these pauses are more awkward and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">noticeable</span>--the fact that the conversations don't look natural mostly serves to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamiliarization"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">defamiliarize</span></a> classical continuity editing. So for most young girls the pleasure is in placing themselves in the melodramatic (and therefore meaningful) life of Lauren Conrad, while for me the pleasure is in feeling myself aware of (and therefore superior to) the constructed nature of the show.<br /><br />I've been accused of intellectualism and elitism, and not for the last time. My writing is formal and exact. I know this turns some people off, even when I try to be accessible. But my point is that both of these ways of viewing the show involve complex cognitive processes. If you sat me and a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">tweenage</span> girl in front of the <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> and did brain scans on both of us, they would show equal amounts of mental activity. Her brain might show more empathic activity (brain scans can show that, right?) because of her identification with the characters, but that doesn't mean she's <span style="font-style: italic;">thinking </span>about what she's seeing any less than I am. She's registering the social clues, and puzzling through the social strategy of the characters; I'm registering the framing choices and the cuts. But neither of us are more or less involved in the show. Whether she <span style="font-style: italic;">likes </span>it more than me--well, I don't really see the point of that question.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com58tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-82347600819448181722008-05-07T08:59:00.002-05:002008-05-07T10:49:27.928-05:00Hills Reading List<span style="font-style: italic;">Mona Lisa Overdrive</span>, William Gibson. Science Fiction, features a character who is the star of a reality show but feels herself increasingly trapped. How can she escape?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius</span>, Dave <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Eggers</span>. For the MTV Real World audition chapter, and for the reality vs. fiction problem.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Watching Dallas</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Ien</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Ang</span>. Exactly what kind of pleasure do people get out of TV melodrama? What sociological conclusions can we draw from these shows. Nothing on reality TV here, but a good introduction to media studies.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Sexual Personae</span>, Camille Paglia. An overblown and infuriating book, with absolutely no credibility, but it's fascinating in its depiction of the complex ways in which people use art and myth to create their personalities.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Erving</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Goffman</span>. A game theoretical approach to the minutest types of everyday interactions. How we present ourselves, and how we examine other people's presentations of themselves for information.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-85720273978736210232008-04-29T01:21:00.003-05:002008-04-29T01:32:18.549-05:00VideosJust so you don't get the impression that all I ever think about is <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span>, here's my other unhealthy obsession: Shiina Ringo. I've bugged some of you about her before, but here she is in convenient YouTube form, so you have no excuse now but to appreciate the genius. All things considered, this pretty much has to be one of my favorite music videos:<br /><br /><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-08715417288786234 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/xdvOj5FQOW8&hl=en"></a><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xdvOj5FQOW8&hl=en"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xdvOj5FQOW8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br />Cowboys? Samurai? And that's probably the best scream since "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YprQnzRfjg">Frankie Teardrop</a>" (that one's long). So it narrowly beats out the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIg0bgzQs30">cosplay one</a>, and the one with her playing electric guitar <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkf3RpF9ETE&feature=related">in a kimono</a>.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-34845833903626021782008-04-29T00:09:00.002-05:002008-04-29T00:40:34.876-05:00Would you get the impression that I really wanted to see it?Lo: "I wonder if the neighbors have seen me naked <a href="http://www.whysanity.net/monos/fidelity3.html">yet</a>."Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-6742061383332138362008-04-24T21:15:00.004-05:002008-04-24T21:25:18.419-05:00A Beautiful Lie<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOhsi-v0dMGkYh7qqJMjgdU459G2-_Bhak8gRBCsEZhTsyfS5oSyBULIUbVKEQIIaCqg5HGKTbOh5JKENbFpGEDRZbhyphenhyphenSLoEmU7OMp70KND-b53WnhTwqt1q7h9M8bRkGI3lLn0w/s1600-h/hills10.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOhsi-v0dMGkYh7qqJMjgdU459G2-_Bhak8gRBCsEZhTsyfS5oSyBULIUbVKEQIIaCqg5HGKTbOh5JKENbFpGEDRZbhyphenhyphenSLoEmU7OMp70KND-b53WnhTwqt1q7h9M8bRkGI3lLn0w/s320/hills10.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5193001051948440594" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />T-shirts with things written on them are not cool, but it's okay because Audrina is Rock 'n Roll. But she's not <span style="font-style: italic;">really </span>Rock 'n Roll, because the shirt says she's beautiful. But actually she <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>Rock 'n Roll, because it also says that's a lie. But really she's <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>Rock 'n Roll, because she actually is beautiful.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-55110786925408050432008-04-21T14:41:00.010-05:002008-04-21T23:37:33.636-05:00No such thing as a guilty pleasure<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTP8lwh2vsqOIhuXS3xp9IsPqFlLmon19zVWQOEcfv_WcHIGO7nqMojPvQI04EwkKlNWcDurt5ACHU3EDbT-Jri8ByszaUwUXCMpU2QqR47t5ZcJFWceeYBiN6Os7gUdL7eeJCLA/s1600-h/hillslmfao2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTP8lwh2vsqOIhuXS3xp9IsPqFlLmon19zVWQOEcfv_WcHIGO7nqMojPvQI04EwkKlNWcDurt5ACHU3EDbT-Jri8ByszaUwUXCMpU2QqR47t5ZcJFWceeYBiN6Os7gUdL7eeJCLA/s400/hillslmfao2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191859243482733570" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />No matter how disappointed many <span style="font-style: italic;">Hills </span>fans might be at that <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2008/04/21/080421crte_television_franklin">New Yorker article</a> (a pointless, lazy exercise in condescension that didn't even make a good faith effort to understand the show), it's not nearly as bad as this embarrassingly gushing review like <a href="http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/46225/">this one</a> of <span style="font-style: italic;">Gossip Girl</span>. The conclusion to that article is that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">GG</span> offers "profound social commentary." By which they mean: "The show mocks our superficial fantasies while satisfying them, allowing us to partake in the over-the-top pleasures of the irresponsible <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">superrich</span> without anxiety or guilt or moralizing." Um... let's just say that my definition of "profound" is very different from the one used by Ms. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Pressler</span> and Mr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Rovzar</span>. "Social commentary," too. Or is that irony I smell? I can't quite tell, which in itself is a bad sign.<br /><br />Actually I'm not sure <span style="font-style: italic;">Hills</span> fans care that much about the <span style="font-style: italic;">New Yorker</span> thing. The official <a href="http://remotecontrol.mtv.com/2008/04/14/lauren-conrad-society-queen/#comments">MTV blog</a> puts a positive spin on it, claiming that any mention in the New Yorker is an accomplishment, given the prestige of the magazine. They don't really need to take it seriously because the group of people who 1) read the <span style="font-style: italic;">New Yorker</span> and 2) might possibly watch more than one episode of the show is approximately... me.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhfgLpVpWbCylztt8Y0LwAObA4z2aRkcwSgS7Mp0KqXo2vIkqpRAxWWNnUBcXYg887DNA6NkI80QOjTRBqv49slzAagpuHqgMki_xY6h7LEOt9-N0R3LLuC0kZ0AEZzTgH5OUO_Q/s1600-h/venn.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhfgLpVpWbCylztt8Y0LwAObA4z2aRkcwSgS7Mp0KqXo2vIkqpRAxWWNnUBcXYg887DNA6NkI80QOjTRBqv49slzAagpuHqgMki_xY6h7LEOt9-N0R3LLuC0kZ0AEZzTgH5OUO_Q/s320/venn.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191800479193356226" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The two shows are actually pretty similar. Both are about the romantic lives of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">hyperrich</span>, centered on a Betty/Veronica rivalry; both include lots of references to text messaging and general new media connectivity as a nod to their interconnected audience. The difference between New York and LA is not that great. The real difference between the shows is that <span style="font-style: italic;">Gossip Girl</span> allows for distanced, ironic viewing while <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> does not. Kristen Bell's kitsch narration has a lot to do with this--because she doesn't appear in the show, the effect is to distance the viewer from the action and allow viewers to not feel guilty about indulging in their "superficial fantasies." Lauren Conrad's narration is limited to the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">previouslies</span>," and takes itself very seriously.<br /><br />So we have people feeling superior to <span style="font-style: italic;">Gossip Girl</span> but liking it anyway, and people feeling superior to <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> and mocking it <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">incessantly</span>. None of this is surprising. But there's a way to feel superior to the show without mocking it or calling it a guilty pleasure--analyze it! Compare it to Antonioni, analyze narrative distance, name-drop Derrida and Barthes to show you've got more cultural capital than Heidi Montag. There's an obscurantist tendency in cultural studies to analyze the most disrespected aspects of popular culture; this may in the end be as condescending as simply dismissing them. To be honest, my appreciation of the show has very little to do with my feelings for its stars--Nancy Franklin is not far off when she says "I have yet to hear any character on the show say something interesting or funny." But the pleasures, for me anyway, lie elsewhere: I'm enough of a theory geek to actually enjoy all that cultural studies stuff.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-42717573483747347282008-04-20T10:18:00.004-05:002008-04-21T10:45:51.900-05:00Finding the Camera<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkq2a5fNxGs0rMXv9YVK_kcwGY4XkyfK0aTncdbT7BOVvMWchtLoW25p2DUMFfcOBnWMdVGiHjkZrPR9wcnAg-33Z4mfrxg9dlY2lUbjcdWqv44IK57TjZZoKFiE6sVIxrBbrN-A/s1600-h/hills5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkq2a5fNxGs0rMXv9YVK_kcwGY4XkyfK0aTncdbT7BOVvMWchtLoW25p2DUMFfcOBnWMdVGiHjkZrPR9wcnAg-33Z4mfrxg9dlY2lUbjcdWqv44IK57TjZZoKFiE6sVIxrBbrN-A/s320/hills5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191347987208853426" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Look in the mirror--that's Whitney. She always knows where the camera is.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-33552603126790482522008-04-18T16:53:00.003-05:002008-04-21T10:46:28.310-05:00The Forces of Good and Evil at War for Heidi Montag's Soul<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP4ClgEHASFkCTc-pYWXbiMz3GT9WWLC5k8mShcSis6YkSvD2xYSu3kV4UuuRx8xnGDgaIaifia9fNsaSCv2D01Fj3-F84GlZ1HFDoveWoZXCTMuEm4KO-JM0S_Oc-8Rc9NWKcdA/s1600-h/hills2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP4ClgEHASFkCTc-pYWXbiMz3GT9WWLC5k8mShcSis6YkSvD2xYSu3kV4UuuRx8xnGDgaIaifia9fNsaSCv2D01Fj3-F84GlZ1HFDoveWoZXCTMuEm4KO-JM0S_Oc-8Rc9NWKcdA/s320/hills2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5190707119046740658" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />She's on the edge between light and dark. Black leather jacket and dark eye-shadow, but bleached blonde hair and white fingernails.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-41058207412592779882008-04-18T10:31:00.007-05:002008-04-21T10:48:20.754-05:00Reality TV, Reality Effects, and RealismJustin at <a href="http://songsaboutbuildingsandfood.wordpress.com/">Songs About Buildings and Food</a> hates this <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2008/04/21/080421crte_television_franklin">New Yorker article</a> because it hates <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span>. I agree that the tone is a bit nasty, but the analysis is not too far off:<br /><blockquote>“The Hills” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">isn</span>’t aiming to stimulate or inspire; I think people watch it mostly to figure out why they’re watching it. </blockquote>Close, but I actually think people watch it mostly to figure out <span style="font-style: italic;">what </span>they're watching, not <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span>. Both questions are very difficult to answer, though, and either way this is more self-awareness than you get with most other shows.<br /><br />So here's an example of a tendency on <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> that I mentioned <a href="http://minimalistorgy.blogspot.com/2008/04/hills-blogging.html">last week</a>, when a character enters a scene with their face obscured even though the entrance is staged. This is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Audrina</span> closing the door behind her as she comes home:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWMCHapBryme-dh4-dl96hX2Y6TBHCfItqDDOCe0UCd2Z2P6lVEK58Cb0PoQZIYStdqLYAkraPAlzcpEmI0rfC2PK90FEVFMd_q8f7M5onN3eUDeTQDzzx_V49emqUthMlCgg9Cw/s1600-h/hills1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWMCHapBryme-dh4-dl96hX2Y6TBHCfItqDDOCe0UCd2Z2P6lVEK58Cb0PoQZIYStdqLYAkraPAlzcpEmI0rfC2PK90FEVFMd_q8f7M5onN3eUDeTQDzzx_V49emqUthMlCgg9Cw/s320/hills1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5190610714210814626" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />There's no logistical reason why the camera can't be moved a few feet in order to catch her face. This is a location that appears in every episode, and I guarantee that the producers know how to shoot here. So the question is, why obscure her face? What purpose does this serve?<br /><br />I suggested last week that it has something to do with the "reality effect," a concept developed by literary theorist Roland Barthes. If there's a descriptive detail in a novel that serves no narrative or symbolic purpose, then its very meaninglessness is used to signify that the novel takes place in "reality." This is one way of pointing out that the "realism" of any artwork is not a result of how faithfully it reproduces the outside world, but how much it signals to the reader or viewer "this is real." But since TV and movies (leaving aside animation and special effects) are already constructed out of accurate pictures of the outside world, adding more details doesn't actually reinforce the realistic effect. The principle that "lack of meaning = reality" still holds, though, except that the lack of meaning comes not from extraneous details in content, but from unmotivated camera choices, in this case framing. So one reason this shot is included could be to signal to the audience that this is reality. "If this shot were planned, don't you think we would have planned it better? Therefore, it's obviously real."<br /><br />But in the stylistic history of film, this has not been the usual way of signaling reality. Usually, you use long takes to better show a natural dialogue between characters, including things like awkward pauses and people talking over each other. You show scenes where very little happens in terms of plot. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Bicycle Thief</span> is a classic example the realist school, or for something more recent try <span style="font-style: italic;">Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days</span>. This is precisely the opposite of what <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> does, following Hollywood convention. Dialogue is chopped up into alternating shot/reverse-shot angles in order to 1) encourage spectators to identify with one of the characters and 2) streamline the conversation and make it flow. (1) And the weird thing is that <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> is actually less streamlined than most Hollywood entertainment: after a conversation is broken down into its constituent parts, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> puts it back together with the awkward pauses either still there or possibly even deliberately <span style="font-style: italic;">edited in</span>.<br /><br />My point is that camera placement and editing in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> turn out to work <span style="font-style: italic;">against </span>interpreting the show as "real"--instead, they highlight the show's constructedness. The show is purposely trying to look as much as possible like a Hollywood film, to the point of taking the Hollywood editing style to such extremes that the way it's constructed is blatantly obvious. And that includes the obscured faces, which are part of the currently popular "<a href="http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1175">run-and-gun</a>" style of filmmaking, where the best example is the Bourne films. This is also the reason the show is shot in widescreen.<br /><br />1. By the way, this is basically the film-editing version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorization">Taylorism</a>, where actions taken by factory workers are broken down into the smallest possible pieces and then analyzed for efficiency--actually one word for this editing style is <span style="font-style: italic;">analytic</span>. I'll say more about work on <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> in a future post, to expand on my comments last time about industrial vs. information economies.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dissertation progress yesterday:</span> Finished <span style="font-style: italic;">Staging Fascism</span>, which was excellent. Did about 40 pages of indexing/notetaking. Wrote about half a page, still on <span style="font-style: italic;">Nanook</span>/primitivism.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Last movie watched:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Crazed Fruit</span> (1956), which is apparently the best of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyozoku#1950s.2F60s">Taiyozoku</a> films. Based on an Ishihara Shintaro story, it was an influence on the French New Wave. Truffaut loved it. There's a lot to be said about the post-Occupation rejection/imitation of America by the Japanese counter-culture (if you can call it that).Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-45584964390371295132008-04-15T09:41:00.013-05:002008-04-21T14:41:18.290-05:00Flipping the hatersOkay, it has come to my attention that certain people (you know who you are) are reading this and wondering how exactly <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> might relate to my dissertation on French Fascist film reception. That's my fault for not being clear. This blog is basically a place for me to brainstorm about things I will write more formally in the dissertation, but sometimes I forget that and wander into intellectual masturbation, and the title of the blog becomes a little too apt.<br /><br />The central assumption of the dissertation is that the ways in which a work of art is produced and distributed has political implications. So take film. A movie is (or used to be, anyway) a long strip of celluloid with pictures in sequence, which is projected onto a white screen in front of an audience that is sitting in the dark. Filmmakers address this audience in different ways. They can present them with performers who will do a song and dance to <span style="font-style: italic;">entertain </span>them; they can show them footage of distant cultures or recreations of historical events in order to <span style="font-style: italic;">educate </span>or <span style="font-style: italic;">persuade </span>them; they can tell a story which will cause the audience to identify with the protagonist and <span style="font-style: italic;">involve </span>itself or lose itself in the film. This last one is most interesting to me. Why would you want to lose yourself? What can someone make you do when you lose yourself? Is losing yourself in a film audience anything like losing yourself at a fascist rally?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJNN56KOv1OQqRLeTmsQUEhyphenhyphenV6rsi3O6apn4BF4168k2lKDHcfgo7hEE3kV7suraiupHWHPvGfpjVGyE47iK2qIHO4fNi5yZ5ZkrQ0E_6qmHrLcY4n4piuTCgPclNk4n6DlvoQQg/s1600-h/triumph5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJNN56KOv1OQqRLeTmsQUEhyphenhyphenV6rsi3O6apn4BF4168k2lKDHcfgo7hEE3kV7suraiupHWHPvGfpjVGyE47iK2qIHO4fNi5yZ5ZkrQ0E_6qmHrLcY4n4piuTCgPclNk4n6DlvoQQg/s320/triumph5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5189520153294883394" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />This image is taken from <span style="font-style: italic;">Triumph of the Will</span> (1935), the most famous Fascist film. Audiences can react in different ways to it. Many Germans would have watched it in order to be part of the mass ritual it depicts, to bind themselves to the nation as depicted in the film (the word <span style="font-style: italic;">fascism </span>comes from an Italian word meaning "to bind"). Today we watch it to educate ourselves about a historical period and a political movement.<br /><br />There were no French Fascist films, mostly because fascists never came to power in France (unless you count Vichy, which was too traditionally conservative to qualify). But there were a few very prominent French Fascist film critics--the critic for the most important literary daily, and the authors of the first history of film to be published in French, were all Fascist. Just like filmmakers, film critics make assumptions about the film audience. What do they want? Are they each individuals or do they form some kind of collective body? Are they bound to each other by language, by race, by class? The types of films critics like, and the things they say about them, tell us a lot about what they think about film audiences, which tells us a lot about their politics.<br /><br />Okay, now take <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span>. The way in which this show is produced and distributed, the way in which people watch it, and the assumptions that critics make about it are all very different from the conditions surrounding 1930's films. Those differences also have a lot to do with what kind of audience watches the show, or what kind of audience is <span style="font-style: italic;">created </span>by the show. Contrary to what most people assume, the show rewards and encourages a very sophisticated viewing, a type of viewing that is simultaneously absorbed in the plot and detached from it. Younger viewers are probably on average better at this than older viewers. Here's Lauren with her iPod. Notice that one earbud is out--she's multitasking, listening and not listening at once.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw04SYY2f99cK3ZfYD4lYHZ9kXY6sz9-e8WnO9Wqn4zM85norYIVeQ3bT-OBDX3bwyWf8XS79wtk0iWgNtqMtzlj_jSRFOZGUCigPsiTf8viOgzld5wLSczUpqSx-9fd8U9r894g/s1600-h/RK0J0534.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw04SYY2f99cK3ZfYD4lYHZ9kXY6sz9-e8WnO9Wqn4zM85norYIVeQ3bT-OBDX3bwyWf8XS79wtk0iWgNtqMtzlj_jSRFOZGUCigPsiTf8viOgzld5wLSczUpqSx-9fd8U9r894g/s320/RK0J0534.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5189596363194583682" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The reason that <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> is better at this than other shows is that it destroys the difference between reality and fiction. All actors on the show are living their real lives, but those lives just happen to include an entourage of cameramen, make-up people, wardrobe, etc. The show has been criticized because it pre-plans scenes, makes suggestions to its actors about what might make for good TV, and even reshoots some scenes. Critics claim that this destroys its legitimacy as a reality show. But the show isn't aiming for this kind of legitimacy--it makes no claims to be educating its audience about reality. Actually very few reality shows do.<br /><br />So you would assume that the show invites its audience to become absorbed in the story, to identify with one or more of the characters as they would in a fictional drama. You can indeed watch it like a fictional drama, which confuses some first-time viewers who aren't familiar with how the show works. "Is this a reality show? It can't be, because it's so well scripted and so well shot." But if you watch it only in this way, you're missing out on all the fun stuff, which comes from watching the double meaning of everything that occurs--every line and every action is motivated by the show's narrative, but even more so by the characters' attempts to position themselves in the public eye.<br /><br />An example from last week's show: Heidi and Lauren have had a major fight, which was the big event of last season, and Heidi moved out of the apartment they shared and are no longer talking. Heidi is now trying to renew her friendship with Audrina, Lauren's roommate, and stops by the apartment ostensibly to pick up some stuff she left behind when she moved out. When Lauren gets home, she learns about this from Audrina (I'm paraphrasing):<br /><br />Audrina: Heidi was here.<br />Lauren: What, she just stopped by?<br />Audrina: No, she called and said she wanted to pick up some stuff.<br />Lauren: Did she just pick up her stuff and leave?<br />Audrina: She sat down for a minute.<br /><br />When Lauren asks whether Heidi just stopped by, we can interpret that as her asking whether this scene was filmed. Will the Heidi-Audrina encounter be part of the show? Yes, it will. Lauren must now proceed knowing that millions of people may eventually watch her asking Audrina what happened. She solicits more information from Audrina, and the extended drama of Heidi vs. Lauren continues. The point is that we have just glimpsed a small part of the way the show is made. Very few TV shows or movies are willing to expose their conditions of production, and most of those that do play it for laughs. <span style="font-style: italic;"></span> <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> not only exposes this, it does it in virtually every scene, and it turns it into the whole subject of the show. Viewers constantly shift back and forth between what they know of these people in real life and what they see of them on the show, between distraction and involvement.<br /><br />What does this have to do with politics? Well, Heidi has recently endorsed John McCain for president, but that's not what I'm interested in. I'm concerned with what types of audiences are created by different types of movies or TV shows. I hope I've shown how the audience for the Hills is potentially very sophisticated. It is more able to evaluate official visual images in light of other sources of information. The show is an example of intertextuality, which means that it exists not only as a TV show but also as every single other medium in which these actors are mentioned. The photo of Lauren above, for example, is a "behind-the-scenes" photo that I got off the MTV website. But Lauren is in character for that photo, as she is her entire life, and so that photo is part of the show, in a very literal way. So is every magazine article, every late show spot that Lauren or Heidi or any of them appear on. This very blog post is actually part of the show. So are you, the reader.<br /><br />The implications of this type of audience are still being worked out, which is what makes the show so cutting-edge. One thing to watch is how people respond to the fact that there are now people out there whose job it is to BE THEMSELVES. As we move from a product-based economy (where real things are manufactured) to a <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2008/04/12/the-sustainability-of-improving-living-standards/">service-based economy</a> (where nothing but information is produced), this is an important question. Will this shift allow all of us to get paid for being ourselves? Is this really what we want? Will it make us happy? Tune in next week to see.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dissertation progress yesterday:</span> Read half of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Staging-Fascism-18BL-Theater-Masses/dp/0804726086/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208306625&sr=8-1">Staging Fascism</a>, about a crazy theater project in Fascist Italy which attempted to use a new type of theater (involving a truck as the main character, not even kidding) in order to create a new, fascist, audience. Indexed and took notes on about 20 pages of newspaper articles. Wrote about a paragraph on fascist opinion of early documentary film.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Movie I watched last night:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Eternity and a Day</span> (2001), by Theo Angelopoulos. Contemplative movie about a dying Greek poet, and his last day remembering his past and dealing with his present. Long takes, slow camera movement.Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10564480.post-64467849875896820892008-04-08T12:45:00.003-05:002008-04-08T13:16:30.221-05:00Hills BloggingSo let me just say first that <span style="font-style: italic;">The Hills</span> is the most complex show on TV. This is Cold War level game theory going on here--how much information do you give to your adversary/ally/frenemy? And how much do you trust the information they give you? Keep in mind that "information" here includes not just facts and opinions but also facial expressions and body language. In addition, the RAND guys never had to deal with the reality-TV component to this--everything that's filmed WILL eventually reach all interested parties, either through the producers or when the show finally airs. This season looks like it's going to be about <span style="font-style: italic;">détente</span>--the slow and difficult process of accomplishing a reconciliation.<br /><br />Game theory aside, the most interesting thing about the show is the uncertain relation between the storyline (presented within and across the episodes) and the actual lives of the characters (namely, anything that is not filmed by MTV), which is absolutely mind-bending. The narrative is never confined to what we see on the show--every single tabloid piece, every public appearance, every blog entry, is <span style="font-style: italic;">actually part of the show</span>. Some people have mentioned how the show has the most expansive authorship ever, since the actors are all involved in creating the story, but it also proves Derrida right: there is no outside-the-text.<br /><br />The first question I have--and it may seem trivial given all that lit theory, but I want to start to try to bring visual analysis into the discussion--is why do so many characters make entrances with their faces obscured? Entrances are obviously planned and staged, so why create that second of confusion when you see that a character has entered an apartment but don't see who it is? To create a reality effect? <br /><br />The second question is also visual--is there a pattern to the "pillow shots" between scenes? Do they comment on the upcoming scene? What position does the narration take? They are not like Ozu's pillow shots, which always place the action. These shots signify "Los Angeles," before providing an exterior establishing shot--"Lauren and Audrina's apartment," or wherever. What's the point of the aerial shots?Jaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779846595980802466noreply@blogger.com7