Archive for the ‘Media Studies’ Category

Wednesday’s Media Column

May 20, 2010

Who You Gonna Call?
3:35 Minutes

Improv Everywhere has brought New York the pants-less subway ride, a time loop in a Starbucks, and various other events when the cine-theatrical world intrudes upon the everyday. Sometimes with mixed results.

In their latest stunt, a besheeted ghost enters the New York Public Library, raising a small percentage of eyebrows, and is eventually busted by a group of young men in jumpsuits: link.

This video feels endless. In the movie, it’s very simple for a ghostbuster to leap into frame and zot a spectre, whereas in the viral video, there’s a lot more navigation,  padding about, being seen and avoiding law suits. While people are smiling, sheepishly at that, this just doesn’t look like fun.

The video is being used to create awareness of the devastating cuts that face the New York Public Library, and while thematically it doesn’t really work, it does give you an idea of how truly desperate the NYPL are to call attention to their plight.

Wednesday’s Media Column

May 11, 2010

Two documentaries shot on video about people as constructs, J. X. Williams L. A. and Exit Through the Gift Shop

J. X. WILLIAMS’ L.A.

It is probably just a matter of time before the Wikipedia entry for J. X. Williams is edited within an inch of its life. Being the pragmatic type, I’ve archived it at the bottom of this entry. It is an explosive amalgam of Hollywood Babylon style anecdotes too fantastic to be believed, a shorthand index of subversives in the film industry, with a few jokes here and there just to keep things humming.

J. X. Williams is most likely the invention of Noel Lawrence who manages the JXW archive. His biography is essentially that Williams worked on a (exceedingly large) number of exploitation films as a way to make his own experimental films, in between drug binges and fleeing the mob.

In J. X. Williams’ L.A. , his story is more or less told by Lawrence and Chris Manz wandering around to locations, discussing just how and when Williams was thrown out of said location, and then moving on to the next anecdote, with a lot of stock footage thrown in.

In its present form (presently unreleased), the documentary doesn’t work nearly as well as Lawrence’s presentations, which are incredibly dodgy tightrope acts. The Q&As can get a bit intense, particularly when a film student points out that the footage used could not have been found at the time credited. To which the official response is something like:

“Right, well, I now believe that this may be a forgery and have not certified it as an official J. X. Williams release.”

The upshot is that the Q&A and lecture portions of JXW viewings are more performance driven and incur more risk than the actual films and documentaries. And with the documentary so focused on the stories of JXW, and with so little evidence of the man himself, it’s hard to get involved with the movie, which is essentially the well-trod celebration of grindhouse, b-movies, pornography, etc.

At one point, there is a roundtable discussion of JXW, in which the panelists briefly mention of Wizard Videos’s oversized videocassette boxes, which were plastic and attracted grime (Supposedly, Wizard released one of Williams’ horror films). For me, this anecdote lends more credibility to the whole legend than all the drug-related escapades. Those boxes hold a certain mysticism, being packaged as one of the panelists notes, “as a collector’s item” and it seems like the kind of thing a JXW would be involved with, and something that cult cineastes should be be paying attention to.

But by that same token, once a JXW association is used to pay tribute to already over-established icons (such as when Lawrence states that Tarantino and Scorcese have borrowed or stolen ideas from JXW), things start to bloat very quickly.

These short films and excerpts themselves are sort of like Saturday Night Live sketches made with found footage – - they start off goofy and continue to get goofier: but the more seriously Lawrence takes them during the Q&A and the lectures, the better they work.

At some point, a documentary will have to be made about Noel Lawrence, and that will probably be much more engaging than J. X Williams’ L. A.

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP

Exit Through the Gift Shop should probably come with a warning that audiences be prepared to be completely horrified by accurate depictions of the people who line up for graffiti exhibitions who probably should have left their gold chains in their well-furnished homes. In any case:

Once Shepherd Fairy’s Obama image became as ubiquitous as Disney, it became easy to forget that not particularly long ago, he was climbing walls, wheatpasting Andre the Giant images, and fleeing the police. Similarly, after Banksy had his art shows and strange pet store, his installations of phone booths and museum invasions seemed a faraway memory.

Exit Through the Gift Shop is the story of someone, the charismatic, likable, and funny Thierry Guetta who followed these artists when they were still young and far from ordinary vandals, videotaped them under the premise of making a documentary, and then did nothing with the footage for over ten years, before being compelled by Banksy to finally finish it – - instead, preferring to make a movie that had nothing to do with anybody but his own vision. (2)

This may not sound like such a betrayal, despite the fact that it means that many of us will never see Theirry’s footage of Borf, Kaws, Swoon, Neckface, and other notables -  – despite the fact that these artists wanted it to be seen. But it doesn’t sit well with Banksy, who, like a serial villain, sits with his face obscured in darkness and his voice distorted. His telltale hands (which he seems to be quite conscious of) gesticulate occasionally as he relays his involvement with the movie and street art in a pleasantly self-disparaging tone.

Image is everything when it comes to Banksy’s activities – - nobody can know who is, but everyone has to know what he’s done – - and tellingly of who produced the movie, if you had to be one person in this documentary, you would want to be Banksy. The footage of Shepherd Fairy in Kinkos, cutting out a large Andre image with a knowing smile on his face is also a wonderful characterization, but it gives way to a muddled, confused person who doesn’t quite understand how things got to where they are. Banksy’s face remains completely unreadable, under a dark hood, and his “ums” and “uhs” are as calculated as the stencils that he assembles on his midnight runs.

As a documentary, the film is in a thoroughly gray area – - it is strongly titled against Guetta, the police, the public, and is in favor of Fairy and Banksy, which is how you would expect things to play out.

But in this case, I’m not sure that any of that matters. There’s so much blood on everyone’s hands that it’s really hard to take offense.

External Links:

New York Times on J. X. Williams

Wall Street Journal on Banksy and Mister Brainwash

(1) J. X. Williams, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

J.X. Williams (193? – Present) Numerous critics have proclaimed J.X. Williams (birthname unknown) as one of the most influential figures in American avant-garde cinema (along with Stan Brakhage and Kenneth Anger) as well as an innovative cult director for several notorious exploitation films produced in the 1960s and 1970s. Tarantino, Scorsese, Waters and other directors acknowledge a huge creative debt to Mr. Williams yet his films are rarely exhibited today, due to legal issues and the poor condition of surviving prints.

Born in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, he was raised in a working-class Jewish family with strong ties to organized labor and the Communist Party. His father, a set designer for Warner Brothers, was a labor agitator and his activities clearly influenced Mr.Williams early leftist leanings. After dropping out of high school, he took a job in the mailroom in RKO studios and quickly rose through the ranks to become an assistant in the Writers’ Division. Though never credited on any production, he was known to have Dore Schary’s ear and would likely have been taken under contract if not for unforeseen events.

Like many screenwriters of his time, Mr. Williams had leftist sympathies and was known to frequent meetings of groups with ties to the Communist Party. After these activities were reported, he was subpoenaed to appear before HUAC during their 1947 hearings on Communist infiltration of the movie industry. Mr. Williams refused to testify and, although he did not serve time, the major studio subsequently blacklisted him.

Without means of support, he drifted into petty crime and fraternized with low-ranking members of the Los Angeles Mafia. These associations soon brought him in contact with notorious mobster Johnny Rosselli who took him under his wing. Recognizing Mr. Williams interest in film, Rosselli put him in charge of directing and distributing mob-funded nudie and pornographic films. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of these loops have been lost or destroyed so little is known of this early period of Mr. Williams’ career.

Over the next ten years, Mr. Williams amassed a small fortune as a smut impresario with the blessing of Johnny Rosselli. At the same time, he continued to operate in the shadows of legitimate Hollywood productions as a ghostwriter. Mr. Williams claims to have penned 72 screenplays that became major motion pictures. Although almost no one has been able to verify his claims, a consortium of studios quietly settled a copyright lawsuit filed by Mr. Williams for an undisclosed sum.

As the 1960s opened, Mr. Williams debauched years of hard drinking and reckless gambling caught up with him. He found himself in debt to the Mafia and his life was in danger. As a result, he fled to Europe in hopes of directing legitimate films without the stigma of the blacklist. After a few false starts, he produced his firstfeaturette PEEP SHOW (1965). Hailed by Henry Langlois as the harbinger of an American “Nouvelle Vague”, PEEP SHOW chronicled a mafia conspiracy against Frank Sinatra to addict him to heroin.

PEEP SHOW holds a significant place in cinematic history for a number of reasons. Most notoriously, the film’s use of pornographic imagery got it banned from several countries and even resulted in the director’s brief incarceration in Rome.

More importantly, however, the film tackled a multitude of subjects that did not come in vogue until the seventies. Nearly a decade before Coppola and Scorsese, PEEP SHOW offered an unrelentingly grim and realistic portrait of organized crime, undoubtedly influenced by Mr. Williams’ personal experiences as a onetime “gofer” to Johnny Rosselli and other mobsters in Los Angeles.

Released less than two years after the assassination of JFK, PEEP SHOW was also the first film to explore the dark side of Camelot. Besides tracing the tangled web of theories that may have led to the assassination, PEEP SHOW gives a blistering account of the fixing of the 1960 election and the unholy alliance between Joe Kennedy and La Cosa Nostra. Large portions of the film were made from appropriated footage, predating similar works by Craig Baldwin, Jay Rosenblatt, and other avant-garde directors by more than a decade.

Mr. Williams followed a year later with the tawdry I, JEZEBEL (1966). Reviews were mixed, however, and it may have prompted his return to the US. With the power of the blacklist finally diminishing in the late 1960s, Mr. Williams undertook a series of exploitation features that pushed the limits of taste and taboo. This period includes such gems as E.S.P. ORGY (1967), MONDO VIETNAM (1968), and THE PHANTOM OF THE CINEMA (1969).

During the next two years, he struggled with production for THE VIRGIN SACRIFICE (1970), a three-hour long Satanic horror epic. Reputedly, Sammy Davis Jr. was an early backer of the film and a contributor to the soundtrack before a falling out with Mr. Williams. After a short but promising stint on the festival circuit, the film was lost and the negative was destroyed in a fire in the lab where it was stored. A film maudite in every sense of the phrase, the film is infamous in the annals of film history for the rampant drug use and violence on the set. As Peter Bogdanovich later observed “Though most people have forgotten the film, few have forgotten its tortured origins. It immortalized Mr. Williams as perhaps the greatest enfant terrible since Von Stroheim.

Despite the disastrous undertaking, Mr. Williams continued to release films through his Cine-Vision Studios, including kaboom! (1973), L.A. DEATH TRIP (1975), and YOU AXED FOR IT! (1978). These low-budget exploitation pieces were panned by critics but proved commercially successful on the drive-in and grindhouse circuit. He spent an increasing amount of time making hardcore pornographic films to fund his productions but his last film, Nunf*cker (1979) is considered one of the best. Not surprisingly, the title, if not the film, also attracted a great deal of controversy, especially from Catholic groups who picketed the screenings.

J.X. Williams also became a director of early music videos for various punk and new wave groups in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

After a legal settlement in 1981 with several major film studios over copyright disputes, Mr. Williams moved to Zurich, Switzerland and retired from filmmaking. He is infamous for his reclusiveness and distaste for the public eye.

(Redirected from J X Williams)

2) There’s a telltale shot of Guetta experimenting with his own graffiti exploits, pasting a giant image of himself underneath Shepherd Fairy’s Giant, which is incredibly awkward. I’ve heard that putting something up in the same space as another artist – - unless you’re specifically working together at the same time- -  is generally considered a gaffe. And so Banksy including it in the movie is an indication of how he regards Guetta.

DAVID THOMSON ON HITCHCOCK

February 4, 2010

I picked up David Thomson’s The Moment of Psycho this evening. I wasn’t really sure that I wanted to read it because as Richard Crouse notes below, soooooo much has been written about Psycho.* But Thomson is very hard not to read, because his work always manages to feel a little bit like a very smart conversation you have with the author.

One curious effect of the book though is that it has forced me to think about something that I thought might have been an incredible waste of time, Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Psycho, something that I suspected might be a joke on Hollywood; some kind of homework exercise in directing that became commercially viable; or possibly some kind of surreal-occult attempt to communicate with Hitchock through film. But after reading this, I think it was more of a way of writing about the film through making a new film (Oh hell, now that seems incredibly obvious. Goddamn it, I hate having a blog).

But actually, after looking at it on YouTube, I come to the conclusion that I have no idea why this film was made.

In any case: Thomson calls attention to a lot of aspects of the film that I’ve already filed under “Why didn’t anyone tell me that?”, so if you have more than a casual interest in Hitchcock you might want to read it.

*My favorite is the mention in Hitchcock, where Hitchcock advises that Truffaut try making a film like Psycho. Sure!

THE MAX HEADROOM PIRATING INCIDENT

January 28, 2010

So, I had no idea this happened. And I’m wondering if this kind of piracy could even occur in our new digital signal era.

THE END OF AN ERA

June 11, 2009

I borrowed this from MSBNC. I just love the RGB versus the Ones and Zeroes

I borrowed this from MSBNC. I just love the RGB versus the Ones and Zeroes

So, Friday’s the end. I’ll be going to this event to celebrate the end of the now-antiquated analog TV signal. I found this description particularly moving:

Thinking back to childhood, you recall your Sesame Street, your Captain Kangaroo, but you also remember the rabbit ears, s-squiggles, vertical jumps, horizontal breaks, ‘snow storms’, ‘blue-outs’ and ‘green-outs’, ghosts and negative inversions – a visual language as integral to the television viewing experience as the shows themselves.

–Via Anthology Film Archives

This is just so true. Our family television was at best, eight inches across, a small black-and-white that ghosted a lot of images and had a handle on top.

Viewing was this very interpretive experience, and occasionally you really had to work in order to see what you wanted see, by adding tinfoil to the antennae, or a wire coathanger. Most children’s TV programming was a bit surreal due to this fact: for awhile I thought Big Bird was completely white, I was a bit startled by Fred Roger’s inverted doppleganger, and I was baffled when there was any reference to a “blue” or “red” item.*

I didn’t see this in color until I was at least ten years old (and I think the actual segment is probably older than me by one or two years). Back then I thought, more than once, that the disco ghost-frog of Kermit’s id — or whatever that is — might have been some kind of broadcast glitch, and I would start messing with the VERT and HORIZ and the antennae to fix it:

Determining which color was which on a black and white actually became sort of a skill, although brother and I breathed a huge sigh of relief when the twenty-inch color television with the fake woodpanel around the dial arrived. Granted, this arrived with its own foibles–weird spectral bits in each of the 4 colors of the screen, snowy static, etc.

It’s strange to think that now I’ll walk into thrift shops and second-hands, and there won’t be a black and white set showing glitchy soap operas — or anything for that matter.

One show that took advantage of just how unpredictable TV signals could be was The Outer Limits. And it also gave a little glimpse of what it would look like when your TV died and the last thing you ever saw was a little white dot on the screen.

The intro’s not entirely meaningless in the digital era, when the idea of someone taking control of your television is theoretically even more possible than then, but I think that the idea of signals bouncing around, and perhaps hitting your TV from another world is implicit in that title sequence–and it’s effective because of it.

In fact, I think growing up, just about any horror or monster movie on DC Chanel 20 was that much scarier on a ghosty, static-prone set. And Captain 20 was even weirder.

In 2002, after 9-11, we didn’t have TV reception in my Bushwick apartment for maybe a week or two weeks, as the antennae on the north tower was destroyed.* My roommate and I would turn on the set, and see nothing but warring static patterns. Finally, one night we turned it on, and sat happily through a static-y episode of Frasier — a show neither of us had ever watched, and would have ordinarily hated — and laughed at jokes that would not have been funny were it not for the circumstances. It just seemed like a surprising miracle that the TV again did what it was supposed to do: provide an escape.

This all said: in the last two years I haven’t found reason to watch anything on my TV at home that I haven’t downloaded or rented in advance, and I’m quite content with that arrangement.

*Thus my dependency on radio NPR and WNYC was spawned.

DR. VIDEOVICH

June 5, 2009

I have been meaning to blog about Dr. Videovich for at least half a year now. In 1975, on little more than 85 dollars, he basically gave us Manhattan Cable access, making it the legendary parade of talent* and weirdness that it is today. Umm. There’s nudity or something like it in that clip. If you regret viewing nudity, I can’t recommend clicking on it.

I saw the good doctor talk at The Anthology Film Archive last October, where he spoke about his work and interests, and tried to inspire those of us in attendance to create work for the public, because the galleries weren’t going to do it.

I also highly recommend How to Draw a Peaceful Scene from Latin America.

What is sadly not online is a sketch he directed: a parody of a panel discussion between the sales directors of the Guggenheim (who plans to sell prescription drugs in the museum store), The Monmouth Museum of Art (which is described as several hours from the George Washington Bridge, and is constantly selling its permanent collection), the Brooklyn Museum of Art (whose representative shows up late, and sits on the floor), and, the New Museum, which is a department store “somewhere along 14th street”. And you know, he’s just not that far off.

Anyway, his YouTube channel is plenty of fun for this very rainy Friday.

Seriously, have you been outside? It’s awful.

*This clip is labeled “The Worst Thing I Ever Saw”. It’s an old man singing over a hurdy gurdy. It’s far from the worst thing you can see on public access, and I like it.

KEY AND HYPOTHETICAL MOMENTS IN THE MUSIC VIDEO OF SINGER EDDIE MURPHY’S SONG, “PARTY ALL THE TIME”

November 12, 2008

(1985, WRITTEN AND PRODUCED BY RICK JAMES FROM THE ALBUM “HOW CAN IT BE?” AS RELEASED BY COLUMBIA RECORDS)

coverTHE SETTING

There are music industry professionals in a recording studio, where a
song is being created: It is a song of intense longing and urgency.

WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE

These recording veterans have been waiting hours for singer Eddie
Murphy.  In that time, they have been working diligently with
writer/producer Rick James to maximize the impact that this song will
have.

“Don’t ask him for an autograph when he comes through the door–forget
that this man is a star,” James has told the studio professionals.

“Forget you even know the name Eddie Murphy. When he arrives–and it
should be any minute–I want you to treat him like the singer that he
will be after the song is released. And that won’t be long. There will
only be one take.”

There are murmurs of disbelief: Rick James raises his hand and
immediately these utterances are sent back into the throats from which
they dared to escape.

“One take,” Mr. James repeats, “Because that is all that we’ll need.
His voice is magic.”

One take? Everyone, from Mr. James, to the quiet man who works the
sound board, want the singer Eddie Murphy to leave the studio as a
champion, but they also know the odds:

The year is 1985, and magic is in short supply, particularly for Eddie
Murphy: so much of it has already used to make Beverly Hills Cop.

“One take? ” asks a large man with blond hair, whose presence in the
studio is only understood by Rick James, “We don’t even have the guy
here.  Where the hell is he?”

The phone rings, a woman answers. Rick James smiles knowingly.

“Since you asked,” Rick James says to the blond man, “Maybe you should
show him in.”

The woman who answered the phone–her name is Clara– gasps, “How did
you know it was singer Eddie Murphy?” she asks.

“I know a lot of things,” Mr. James says, quietly.

THE FIRST TEN SECONDS

Our hero arrives, running down the steps with no thought to his own
safety. The blond man–the Doubting Thomas–is by his side,
breathless.

No time is wasted: singer Eddie Murphy pays respect to writer/producer
Rick James with an embrace of friendship, and then singer Eddie Murphy
graciously and seamlessly greets the other studio professionals.

There is the sound of his distinctive chuckle as he enters the booth,
a nod to the career he is about to leave behind forever.

“OK, put your phones on man,” says Mr. James.

30 SECONDS IN

The studio technician at the sound board has lost all track of time.

This is because even though he arrived just seconds ago, it is as if
singer Eddie Murphy has been in the studio all day: the first verse is
a perfectly polished gem. And he is not surprised by the fact that
there are several musicians in the studio booth with him. Ordinarily
that would be a little weird.

Despite this ease, singer Eddie Murphy’s first lyric haunts the studio
technician.

“Girl I can’t understand it, why you wanna hurt me?”

“Heartbreak,” the studio technician thinks, “the source of all
lateness. The very bane of punctuality.”

The studio technician has had his share of heartbreak. He decides to
increase the vocal levels. This song must be heard.

35 SECONDS IN

This is what Rick James envisioned. This is the sound of mad
merriment, a mind lost to love.

“She likes to party all the time,” he sings along. Magically, his
voice is carried from outside the sound booth, onto the recording
itself. This is something that has only been done once before, but no
one was there to see it happen, or dramatize it in a music video.

WITHIN 2 MINUTES

“Girl I seen you in clubs, just hanging out and dancing,”
sings
Murphy, and his body becomes that of a Salome. His hands clap above
his head, his hips sway.

It seems that if the singer cannot have her willingly, he shall
possess her another way: He shall become her.

“She lets her hair down,” sings Mr. James, “She lets her body down”.

To make a syrup, sugar must be dissolved in a pure liquid, such as
water, the source of all life. The recording studio is the water, and
the sugar is the combined effort of Eddie Murphy and Rick James. This syrup flows into the ears of all who hear this song. It cannot be removed from the ear canal, nor should it be.

Yes, this is madness. All those in the studio–whether it be inside or
outside the booth–succumb to the intemperate strains and respond with
orgiastic swaying.

This is something that God has warned Man about on numerous occasions.
“Man,” said God, “You may party some of the time. But not all the
time. That is what Heaven is for.”

AFTER 4 MINUTES

There has been partying–all the time–for four minutes now.

The song ends and the spell is broken.

There is an embrace between Mr. James and Mr. Murphy, the embrace of
victory. There is applause.

A new star shines bright in the sky. Or rather, an already discovered
star shines brighter.

Video, strangely not in MTV’s archive, can be found here.