Hey Stella!

I was truly blessed in my adolescence to get the chance to see Kazan's Streetcar Named Desire at the cinema, an old reel from some dusty warehouse. My favorite probably of Kazan's films with East of Eden. This scene, I had read a lot about it, the sweaty torn shirt of Brando, the sultry passion that oozes from every word and movement, the sexual desire that emanates from the bodies. This scene has stayed with me as a monument of cinema and of the Actor's Studio technique which was a property of Brando.



This scene has been on my mind for days now. Enjoy

Theme on Leonard Cohen

Karrer sitting in the Titanik bar, a black and white face a still life- it's all over 1000 kisses deep

 

Chow-Mo Wan's whispering into the stones of ancient monuments in Vietnam - deafening silence 1000 kisses deep

 

Su-Li Zhen a flower in bloom, never blossoming, her 27 dresses adorning her like a prison- have you ever seen such beautiful silence 1000 kisses deep?

Pierrot disguised in blue, vanishing into the sun and sea - the matter of poetry 1000 kisses deep

The vagabond gazing into the eyes of the blind girl - she sees! 1000 kisses deep

 

Diane your shattered Hollywood dream- murderous rage and a lover's  innate desire - scorned by Rita 1000 kisses deep

 

Andreas crossing through the scarred Greek landscape pursuing Stella- his logic and reason like a veil trampled underfoot - αιώνες παγωμένοι 1000 kisses deep

Notre Musique

                                 

pour elle

 

                                

A fading E minor reverberating in  the throes of time, the revolution dies and love lies bleeding on the shoreline

 

 

                              Qu-est-ce que Notre Musique Jean-Luc my father?

                                 

                                 destruction, the chords of unrest

 

  diminished hearts "Ive seen the future brother! it is murder, and love is the only engine of survival" wrote the poet                 

               

 

Seeking still for the point where the sky meets the earth, the dreamers ride into the sun, Pierrot and Mariane, a syncopated montage sequence into the unknown - amour fou

 

 

L'amour c'est mon musique, a major chord a regime of truth the gaze of Alexander supertramp Into the Wild, her lips, her skin and smell, the abyss in her eyes - penetrating beams of light where the sky meets the earth.                               

                                                  

9 Songs

The first time I saw the film I was impressed by the cinematography and by the film's texture. The soft light that adorns Lisa's face when she smiles or even when she cries turned this sensual and mysterious creature almost into a symbol of piety. The cinematography is reminiscent of Kieslowski's very subjective use of color and light in The Double Life Of Veronique only, in 9 songs, Lisa is adorned in the colors that male subjectivity suggests: this is how Matt remembers her. An objective and unbiased account of Lisa is impossible since we are spectators of Matt's recollection of his intense love affair.

This is one of the aesthetic points of the film from where I begin to appreciate it. We witness a glimpse of a woman and of the world through the memories of a man and therefore every image is filtered by his emotions and his very own perception of Lisa, in other words by subjectivity. This film is arguably a vindication of Marcel Proust's belief about literature and the world - that we do not need to change the world, but to see it through different eyes. Obviously, cinema overall suggests suck an outlook since the artificial eye of the camera is a second medium (that is why medium specificity is always relevant in cinema and accounts of films).

This film then does not seek to interpret the central female figure or to unravel her before us, for we are gazing at her from a distance. The director looks at her in awe and wonder, trying to unravel her, aware of in the process that this is inevitable since he is gazing at her from a distance, immersed all the while in the male spectatorial position. This is the key point of subjectivity: the male gaze seeks to interpret the object of its desire but gets merely a glimpse of it, of all the antithetical elements that consist her rubric. However, we perceive the layered nature of Lisa, her mysterious, ethereal and intriguing qualities which are better left as such, fascinating and puzzling, otherwise all the initial excitement may vanish.

This brings me to what I mentioned earlier. I initially admired the texture of the film, meaning the realistic facet of its artifice. 9 Songs might be the subjective memories of a man but nevertheless, the images and their qualities are prescribed by realism. After all, Winterbottom is a disciple of the British realists Anderson, Reed, Reisz, Loach, Frears and Leigh whose heritage is embedded in British films of the 90s and 00s. Many films that portray a theme and an attitude like that of 9 Songs very often distort the image by using effects, excessive coloring, music with very specific and binary connotations and even fantastic elements. 9 Songs manages to deliver its worldview without any such effects. This is achieved thanks to the minimalistic scenery, improvisation of the actors, real settings and of course from the desire to immerse us absolutely in the experience of love, hence the real sex scenes. Let us not confuse realism with naturalism.

In the case of 9 Songs a basic realism is applied since this is not a neorealist film or a Kitchen Sink film and Free cinema. This means that the political and social aspect of neorealist films has been left out since the theme would have to revolve around the lives of the lower classes and of marginalized social groups like gays and lesbians. This basic realism is predicated by a certain distance that the director maintains from the events in the frame. We are not peeping toms but neither uninvited guests. The director documents every little event without over dramatization. There are no trumpets sounding before the break-up of the couple or even after, to proclaim the end and then accentuate its terrible consequences. Additionally, Winterbottom does not wish to excavate every scene, body, face, kiss, genitalia and ejaculation.


Essentially then the formal language of the film is (partly) realism which is necessary in order to perceive the world as objectively as possible .

Yet, Winterbottom stands with one foot on the heritage of the British and European modernists Roeg, Powell, Kubrick, Antonioni, Rossellini and Kieslowski. A fundamental aspect of modern and modernistic films is the absence of a linear narrative. This dictates that a plot is nonexistent or that the events in the film unfold without referring to cause and effect. Therefore, we are very often not in a position to fully understand and assess the characters of the films since their actions and incentives are predicated by impulse and are depicted as impulsive, without a subtext. The combination of a traditional realistic and modernistic approach by the filmmaker is what posits 9 Songs in the same category with stunning love stories of the twentieth century which revolutionized cinema: Godard's Pierrot Le Fou, Oshima's In the Realm of the Senses, Truffaut's Jules et Jim, Kar Wai's Happy Together, Scorcese's The Age of Innocence, Borowczyk's Story of Sin, Jordan's End of the Affair and of course the masterpiece of all masterpieces, Hitchcock's Vertigo which epitomized forever the ethereal female figure that is looked at by the man, unable of grasping her essence, despite his attempts to transform and conquer her. I shall now describe the modernistic aspects of the film in order to conclude to a final assessment.

The film begins with Matt's voice over, as we see him in a plane flying over the glaciers of the South Pole. The scenes at the South Pole are some of the most remarkable cases of what Pasolini called free indirect vision, or in other words free indirect associations. This concept very generally refers to the technique of poetry applied in cinema, with cinematic means of expression. It is a modernist technique introduced by Rossellini and perfected by Antonioni, Godard and Resnais to illustrate the psyche of the protagonist, without referring to narrative prose. This is achieved thanks to a combination of camera work, dialogue and especially mise en scene. Above all, free indirect vision is instructed by realism but with an eye to subjectivity.

In the opening scene, we dive head on into the fluid and distorted memories of Matt who recalls the most visceral "images" of Lisa, her skin, her smell. From the beginning then, Winterbottom is faithful to the first canon of free indirect vision, subjectivity. The narration is in first person: "I saw", "I remember" says Matt. With the "I"comes a biased and personal account of reality. In doing so, the director is showcasing the flux of memory which chooses what to remember and in what context, very much like in the masterpieces of Resnais, who explored but never essentially revealed the workings of memory, only its fluid state. How does this scene explain the psyche of the protagonist? As Pasolini suggests in his famous text, what is achieved is an allusion to a certain state of being.
This is highlighted by mise en scene. In Voyage to Italy, in a rather crude and obvious manner, Rossellini displayed female angst in the face of mortality by placing Ingrid Bergman at the Vesuvius excavations. The images and the subjective gaze, maintained by camera work, underlined and showcased her angst, which is not expressed through dialogue and prose. In 9 Songs, Vesuvius is replaced by the vast Glacier, a cold, barren, lifeless site, where agoraphobia and claustrophobia coexist and where memory is stored in the depths of the ice which preserves life forms from centuries ago - memory itself. Free indirect vision in this case points towards the mechanisms of memory, how we could remember only smells, sounds, textures. What this narrative also reveals is the impact that this intense relationship had on our male protagonist, the memory of which is stored like a scar in his mind, just as various life forms are trapped, sealed within the ice caps - "memories" of other times.

One could also argue that the ice represents Matt's state of being - his soul is frozen, numb without the presence of this woman whose memory is carved in his mind. This may seem like a silly and of course two sided metaphor (as is often in poetry which uses metaphors). However, what we have in this image (interestingly a man flying over the ice, as if in a dream looking down while floating in the air above like Guido does in the opening of Fellini's 8 1/2) is a fluid and dialectic relationship between subject and image, which is simultaneously reality but also "mind-screen" an extension and reflection of Matt's psyche. Therefore the relationship between image and subject is in constant motion, exchanging information. Again, narrative prose is absent and the image can speak on its own. This is the famous deleuzian time-image, a free indirect suggestion predicated by the condensation of time within the cinematic frame.

Probably the most modernistic element of the film is the ubiquitous ethereal woman who is Lisa, a female figure that shares so much with Madeleine (Kim Novak) and other women who were idolized by the camera eye. As I described earlier,the modernist cinematic subject's actions, behavior and initiatives are very often impulsive veiled by mystery. Matt met Lisa one night at the Brixton Academy at a rock gig. They felt mutual attraction and from there began an intense relationship exploring the boundaries of love, affection, sex, carnal lust, pleasure, happiness, sadness, passion, attraction, break-up. All the emotions that consist the meaning of our existence, life at its most high moments. This is what 9 Songs is - a symphony in a high major key, a 69 minute celebration of love, of the platonic Eros and of carnal love.


Still, let us not forget that the film is Matt's memories of Lisa's smell and skin, the superficial elements of a human being, arguably the only part of a person that we can have direct access to. Lisa's inexplicable urges, behavior and attitude are what consist her fascinating side that one may want to discover. One moment she is in the mood for love, always trying to be above Matt and to experience sexual pleasure more than him, as if competing. She is a independent and strong female character, not unlike Sada Abe in Oshima's film. Another moment, in the morning, she wakes up crying, for no special reason. She is just sad, somehow experiencing a strong emotional conflict. Matt gazes at her. The gaze, a free indirect vision, suggests a mystery, a question from the side of Matt: why is she suddenly crying? how do I get to interpret this person who seems to experience everything in ways unimagined?

 Every orgasm, party, gig or every little nuance, caress, play,kiss are equally important and exciting for her. At one point, while Matt is in the kitchen cooking, she begins to masturbate using a vibrator. But the actual man is right there! No, she will pleasure herself even while she knows that Matt can hear her and that he is standing there watching her with a mixed sense of pleasure and unease. The gaze suggests a thought: "why is she doing this?" "what is this woman?". Matt's masculinity is being challenged and with that his character. And then she breaks up, leaves back to America, just like that. He is partly devastated but she is fine, life goes on, full of exciting things to do while you are young and full of love. But we are left in the end with an emptiness, the void of Matt's psyche, a desire that goes beyond sex and ephemeral pleasures. Possibly this is the Eros of Socrates who agonizes to find the reason why we constantly seek for that "other half" that will make us whole and kill the angst of our existence in Plato's Symposium. Alkiviades gazes at Socrates with the same unease and childish desire that Matt does at Lisa unable of grasping the mystery that is Socrates.


Is this love, or just ephemeral pleasure? is actual love on the border of sex and of platonic Eros, the awe and fascination that Matt feels towards Lisa? No one knows. This is surely life and this is definitely great cinema. The films that avoid great political statements and patronizing audiences while feeding them with pseudo intellectual philosophies. real life lies in the small and mundane revelations of every day life, in the smell of Lisa, the look she gave me, the ice glaciers of the south pole, lifeless and bleak. The textures of life are embedded in this film which speaks about the pleasure of being young, the beauty of love and sex, the little big things that make life meaningful and exiting.

Cinema and Taxonomy: the example of Film Noir

Recently, I have been going through material on the overall topic of representation in cinema, apropos my doctoral thesis which requires good insight in this controversial topic. An interesting but nevertheless problematic article was one on Gay men and lesbians in film noir, a argument that is to a certain level, plausible. This article developed an analysis not only on the image of homosexuality in noirs from the mid 40s to late 50s but also engaged in issues concerning structure, motifs, mise en scene and camera work. The ultimate aim was a system of classification of the films based on the subject of the article. 
However, I noticed two major errors which I believe are the backbone of taxonomy's crooked spine. One is a categorization of films based on thematic concepts and what is essentially interpretations of symbols (i.e noirs that reproduce the hysterical femme fatale are one separate category) and the other is neglecting the role of auteurs and of cinematic expression as a means of classifying films. In other words films are often classified into categories which don't reflect the artistic merit of a film but merely its themes and iconography (the "detective image" the chiaroscuro lighting and of course the ubiquitous femme fatale). Cinematic expression is so much more layered and we often understand it like we stereotype people, placing varied and different cultures under one umbrella while we need to dig deeper to understand them.

Film noir is like the musical genre of grunge. There has been only one real grunge band, Nirvana, which on its own formed the characteristics of grunge, while all other bands were hybrids that were not absolutely original. Arguably, noirs are so versatile a genre, that it is common place to use it as a departure point that will be infused by so many other elements, not entirely arbitrarily. Of course, according to my last example, there are only just a handful of noirs that are entirely original, always in regard to a classified set of labels.

Initially, noirs were pulp fiction, crime novels by Ramond Chandler and others. The term was coined by the French - Romans Noirs - black, dark if you may, novels because of the morose and bleak atmosphere. The first films were the Maltese Falcon by John Huston, the Big Sleep by Howard Hawks, Otto Preminger's Laura, Double Indemnity by Billy Wilder, Gilda by Charles Vidor, Robert Siodmak's The Killers , Jacques Tourner's Out of The Past and maybe a few more that I forget. The thematic motifs are so many and so diverse, that it would be pointless to attempt a classification of just these aforementioned films, not to mention tens of noirs that followed, defiantly breaking the rules (most memorably Blade Runner, a film that fails on every level as a film noir).

However, there is one issue that almost every academic and critic forget in their attempt to over analyze every film and to see it as a text, while a film is a film per se, a universe of its own: the films that are known above all as film noirs, with the image of the detective and the femme fatale, introduced subjectivity in ways unprecedented. We had seen before the 1940s subjectivity and specifically a subjective gaze, hence a personal and biased point of view, in films of Murnau (The Last Laugh) who placed the camera right in front of the drunk protagonist to project his gaze and lastly, in the very first silent films of Hitchcock, the first filmmaker to truly epitomize the subjective gaze. In Blackmail, after the female protagonist murders her rapist, she drifts in the streets of London and we witness what she does, through her eyes.

Her gaze becomes that of a fragmented woman who suffers from her crime. In order for us too perceive this, Hitchcock used visual effects, turning the seconds hand on the clock on Big Ben to resemble a hand holding a knife in stabbing motion. This concept was perfected in Vertigo, when Scotty followed Madelaine, who from that point on became the ultimate female presence, the untouchable female, the desire of the male gaze and of the camera eye that has transformed Kim Novak into an ethereal woman who can not be touched or perceived because she is unreachable for our central gaze, Scotty, the detective.

is Vertigo a noir?
I would say that it has certain traits of noirs, a fact that hardly holds any importance in an evaluation of Hitchcock's masterpiece, because Vertigo is a Hitchcock film, the work of an auteur whose films are a category on their own, unparalleled yet extremely influential. Here however we have pointed out one basic stylistic motif that combines theme and cinematic expression. It is therefore an idea that guides our understanding, assessment and celebration of film noir. Subjectivity is the cornerstone of every noir in terms of structure (plot)and expression. A noir is essentially a mystery that unfolds gradually, only to reveal to us a labyrinth that brings more questions with every answer. But why is it that this occurs? It may seem predictable in these days of saturation, even mundane, but in the years after the War, seeing a mystery as if the audience is perched on the shoulder of the detective was unique, exciting and fascinating. 

Each noir worldview was distorted, dark, mysterious, terrifying and yet exciting exactly for the reason that this was the impression of the detective. One may recall here a case of extreme experimentation on this concept with The Lady of The Lake by Robert Montgomery. In this film, the camera was literally poised on the actor and only in two mirror scenes do we see his face. The director, in an extreme case of applying the "rule", ultimately failed, since the outcome was very distant. This however comes to show how important this matter was for filmmakers. We could recall here Fincher's Seven, in no way a film noir, but still one that is loosely based on the genre. The mystery unfolds before our eyes but subjectivity is not key here. 

Nevertheless, the world is worth fighting for, although it is an ugly place. This is the ultimate subjective image that noirs create. It is important to point out that this thought is projected not in a patronizing manner, by "creating" a world that is objectively so, as though the director is telling us that this is how things are. The gaze of the detective bears all the terrifying sights of a noir: murder,deception and greed. These are all highlighted of course by mise en scene - the dark settings, black and white shadings, bizarre angles and the absence of almost any natural light which create a bleak atmosphere, that is not absolutely unrealistic - a fact in early expressionist films. Therefore, I could safely argue that film noirs were the first films to deliver to the screen the modernist visions of Marcel Proust and James Joyce, that inevitably influenced and shaped the Nouvele Vague: that we do not need to change the world, but see it through different eyes. This idea hardly ever is prominent in analyses and classifications of film noirs

To return to my idea of classification and to the beginning of this text, the article I was reading mentioned, on the premises of gays and lesbians in noirs, a number of Hitchcock films: Rope, Rebecca and Strangers on a Train. Of course, the two male protagonists of Rope have been often discussed in the context of sexual deviance and the relationship between the two males of Strangers is indeed open to interpretation (Bruno asks from Guy to kill his "father", what would Freud say?). Finally Rebecca's caretaker is a hysterical woman who behaves more like a male and could be lesbian (this is an interpretation and clearly a mistaken case of possible symbolism taken as a motif of noirs). It is at least an understatement to say that Hitchcock's films could be classified. 
Apart from vague descriptions (drama, adventure) even though film noir refers to characteristics of cinema, unlike comedy, drama etc., the only term that fits is in this case "a hitchcock film." Yes the men are wearing trench coats, and scotty follows Madeleine as the plot thickens, but after all, these are films of an auteur. The only term with which I could maybe agree is "modernist", one which contains references to innovation and which allows for further classifications in terms of cinematic expression and not only themes and iconography. It is for the lack of clarity on this matter that numerous films are labeled noir, just because we see a detective in a trench coat, accompanied by a dark jazz soundtrack. This is why Blade Runner is not a noir, but a more of a thesis on existential philosophy. 

The reason for this, the all seeing and revealing camera which reveals the schemes of the bad androids and of the "God" abandoning thus the gaze of the detective, so that instead of suspense and mystery, we have a case of a dramatic sci-fi film that debates binaries of God and Man, creator and creation, death and life etc etc, which are not per se bad but not a noir.

A forgotten masterpiece of the 21st century

Walking in the street on a sunny afternoon with a light breeze blowing and the sun touching my face, listening to Eddie Vedder's musical score for Sean Penn's masterpiece "Into the Wild," I feel momentarily free like Andy Dufresne's co-workers on the jail roof top drinking beer in the sun. Sounds rather cliche but it is true and probably the closest I might ever get to the freedom that Christopher Mccandless, aka Alexander Super tramp experienced on the road and in the wild.

One scene from the film keeps swirling in my head. When Ron Franz (the late Hal Holbrook) tells Christopher that he wishes to adopt him when he comes back from his journey into the wild. In this one scene we encounter the old man's quiet desperation, as he, and every other person who met Christopher, clings onto him, mysteriously, impulsively. Christopher of course is stubbornly keen on his journey, on his destination, not ready yet to come to terms with the lessons of his incredible journey. As we experience the freedom and endless potential of the open road and the wild, we also repeatedly "meet" Christopher, the vagabond and wanderer, through his personal encounters with other people. Above all, we experience an ultimate love, the goes beyond the love for nature, poetry, the wild landscape. That is the love for another human being and the lust for life, which Christopher, unknowingly, bears.

Mr. Franz clings onto Christopher, like a dying man to life itself, impulsively, without any trumpeting, but with a great and inert desire that cannot be manifested on the screen (this is where a great actor may shine). This is one of the most heart felt and searing moments in the film, that speaks truly from the soul.

Christopher Mccandless may not have realized it, but he changed the lives of people with his journey. Sadly for him that was the end of the road. Sean Penn made this film that is about love, ultimate and sacred, above all a love for images and film-the most extraordinary medium that man ever created to represent the world.

Some comments on the new trend of the internet - media age called "Zeitgeist"

After seeing "Zeitgeist Final Edition" and "Zeitgeist moving forward" I wish to say the following few comments that I think sum up my view on such documentaries.

Firstly, documentaries, as opposed to films (popular films and "art" films) require a critical audience that is also aware of certain ethical and even moral issues that come with their making and viewing. Documentaries document certain realities concerning real events, people, historical landmarks and more. As Walter Benjamin once pointed out in his seminal essay "the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (Benjamin 1968), the mode of capitalism, being mass production and consumerism, has affected the arts and Beauty. Reproductions of stills, paintings etc through the mechanisms of capitalism, as Marx also perceived it, is characteristic of the 20th century as being the age of reproduction and mediation. Hence the critical discourse that has been going on for more than half a century on the nature of the cinematic medium, one which reproduces and processes images which immediately become mediated, loosing thus their virgin form as seen by a naked human eye, instead of a mechanical eye which places every image in the sphere of capitalism - production and consumption. However, it is not on the other hand a coincidence that this is one reason why fictional films, especially in the age of modernity and modernism have become intrinsically tied to Marcel Proust's quote: "we do not need to change the world. We need a new set of eyes to look at it."

Benjamin's concept applies greatly to documentaries primarily for the reason that they document facts and even form a public opinion (as is the case always with the general media). Let us get back to "Zeitgeist" Final Edition at this point. The director of the film, Peter Joseph, reproduces many images and sounds which have marked certain turning points of the last century as well as events which take place however in very specific and distinct of character contexts. One is the speeches of stand-up comedians who talk about religion. The director of the film extracts these jokes, and the laughter that follows from the audience from the original context and places them together with animation representations of the gospel, of Heaven and Hell. Thus, he removes these from their first place to support his claims and primarily to mock religion and to create an ominous atmosphere.

The most crucial image of course is that of the planes crashing in the Twin Towers in 9/11. The moving images, the sounds, the testimonies, which have become practically pop symbols of New Age Media, which undoubtedly Andy Warhol would reproduce in his famous "factory," are reproduced numerous times in the film in montage sequences, slowly, fast, in close-up etc. It is certain that by now it has become very difficult to define the source of these images. This is the key to Benjamin's notion. This constant reproduction solely in the internet, through numerous mediated screens (youtube) strips the image from any authenticity but also from its original context and character. primarily, an act of terrorism but also an immense tragedy which entails the deaths of more than 2000 people. However, the image of a man, a John Doe, falling from the tower, again in close-up, in montage sequences and so forth, is used only for the sake of projecting an image related to the general event. Other than that, the tragedy of 9/11 is reproduced in "Zeitgeist" to serve a certain purpose, that of proving a very vague conviction. A conspiracy theory which dictates that this was just one of the many inside jobs of a dark and mysterious band of people who conspire against the unaware lambs that we all are, thrown to the slaughterhouse. lets us skip all the other ethical issues and say the following concerning the content of Zeitgeist:

It is patronizing to say the least to claim that this man, Peter Joseph, is enlightened, a new age messiah, who knows the truth (what truth exactly?) and that we are all slaves, brainwashed and immersed in some kind of web of lies that "the men behind the curtain" feed us. Indeed, it has been proven over the last century that the United States have been responsible for immense crimes against humanity and that they have funded wars. This is something that "Zeitgeist" needn't prove to us as there have been numerous other films, documentaries and a vast literature on the matter (Arendt, Adorno, deleuze, Aliente, Kouloglou, Chomsky, Barthes, Sauper, Pakula, Pollack are just few names of artists and writers who have dealt with the matter). What Peter Joseph deals with is defined as fringe theories, which go beyond the rational and material world of perception, but simply into the realm of conspiracy theories. I will return to this soon, after I say this: In a quasi democratic world (let us adopt the idea that true democracy is utopia) where a film-maker like Joseph can make documentaries but a spectator as myself has the right to choose what to see and not, by simply pressing the red button on my remote control, I do not believe that I am a slave who needs to wake up to the good versus bad "truth" of a film-maker who, with absolution and fanaticism, serves us a perception of the world that we are asked to believe, as religion and governments do as well. I must say however that the man has provided us with evidence, which is of course biased and processed for the purpose of the film-maker, but it is not without some thought that I disregard this evidence. Therefore, let me say that until proven through more objective and unbiased means, I do not believe either the film-maker's or the legislator's side. I prefer to be critical towards any such approach.

The films deal with issues concerning religion, war, capitalism, the media, the destruction of the environment, pharmaceutical businesses and industries. These matters are scrutinized by Joseph in order to (arbitrarily) conclude that all these world-wide matters are impinged upon us in order to bring world slavery. yet here I am writing about this. Am I a slave, as lets us say George Orwell perceives it in 1984? Leaving that comment aside, let us examine one of these topics in conjunction with the crucial concept of intolerance.

Joseph, a film-maker, blogger and activist, searched very thoroughly into historical and conceptual matters concerning religion, from antiquity to this day. Again, he manages, maybe not so arbitrarily, to concentrate the deities, history, miracles and dogmas of religions from Ancient Greece, to Asia and Europe of the Renaissance and the 20th century, in order to state that plagiarism has been the rule by which every religion is formed. That doesn't seem untrue, as of course many scholars and researchers of biblical studies and archaeology have proven before Joseph, without of course the myopic and fanatical assumption that these are used for brainwashing and world slavery. This all comes down to one simple, and quite human issue: arrogance and intolerance.

Bill Maher in "Religulous," acquiring once again the position of a messiah for the enslaved people, essentially mocks and challenges people who are deeply religious (Christians, Muslims and numerous heretics of the United States such as Mormons and others) and fanatics as himself. Having obtained the idea that his ideas are the only true and meaningful (atheism essentially) he asks people how they can believe in a man living in the clouds who looks upon people etc etc but lets say not in Santa. His intolerance is displayed in many other instances, where, just like Nixon, Bush and other war and political criminals, he is unable to respect and acknowledge a culture and world perception different from his own. This is evident when he travels to the Holy Lands. This is the same approach adopted by Joseph in "Zeitgeist" Final Edition. None of these people are capable of abandoning the truly myopic view of the world which they have created (0bviously without reading any material from anthropology, ethnic studies, ethnoarchaeology and ethnography. By the way here are some names that are useful on this topic: Mead, Conckey, Levi-Strauss, Moody). They do not acknowledge, in their nevertheless, careful study, the right of every person to believe in a God, Santa or for that matter, fringe theories concerning conspiracies, alternate universes. Who am I after all to deny any of that? This critical approach I believe is healthy, in contrast to intolerance. The attitude of Maher and Joseph is no different from that which the conquistadors or the American troops had in the 15th century and the 20th respectively. The indigenous tribes of Latin America were seen as primitive and inferior in their cultures as opposed to the much more superior of the Portuguese and Spanish conquerors. Likewise, the Vietnamese people were perceived as slaves who needed to be freed by the yoke of communism, by their great liberators the Americans. This is not at all different from Joseph's perspective. We are all slaves who need to open up our eyes and stop believing in any religion and adopt his truth.

One may say that religious fundamentalism is an outcome of bad education. However, who and with what means will determine what should be taught and not? politicians? teachers? parents? and how did the teachers become teachers in the first place? it all comes down of course to free will, in a time when there are very many restrictions. But isn't the core of democracy that Ancient Greek notion that democracy requires that your freedom stops where another individual's begins? again, this idea has been highly scrutinized by scholars and philosophers, notably Plato in "The Republic." As evolution, these ideas constantly change and are in flux. But above all, we must be tolerant towards cultural difference, even if it seems to us as primitive or dangerous. This attitude alone, led to the most appalling crime of the 20th century, which very little has to do with religion, but merely with simple cultural attributes, with bigotry and intolerance: the Nazi death camps, images which again have been reproduced (notably in "Schindler's List" which reproduced Auschwitz and Nazi atrocities in a Hollywood studio). It truly worries me that so many young people use "Zeitgeist" as a banner for a 21st century revolution, a revolution which would probably lead to a new form of cultural fascism. If one cannot understand and tolerate cultural difference, then that person should at least leave it as mystery or primarily ask the people representing that culture if they actually want to change (according to one person's truth). let us remember here the films of Werner Herzog but also that one film of a fanatic enfant terrible, Lars Von Trier and his film "Manderlay."

Lastly, let me note that what is shown and said in "Zeitgeist Moving Forward" is not absolutely untrue, but of course all these matters have been debated by serious scientists who refer to matters concerning the environment, capitalism and industry in much more pure and scientifically objective frameworks without making the arbitrary claim that we are slaves. Again of course, we are all free to believe what we wish to believe.

My 20 most beloved movies from last to first

The importance of David Fincher

I was on pins and needles since I learned about Fincher's latest work, "The Social Network." For one I am a devoted fan of the man and second I was challenged by the fact that after a film that corresponded more to Classic Hollywood taste, he would follow again the path of the underdog who undermines any conventional ideas on cinema, society and life. And what's more, the film is based on the the life of the creator of facebook. So the first thought was, what will this director who deals with introvert personal experiences do with this topic? Well, with some help by the great Aaron Sorkin, he created a masterpiece that redeems him from the mediocre Benjamin Button (let us forget that he ever made what is merely a good suspense film, "Panic Room").


Let us concentrate on "Seven" "The Social Network" "Fight Club" "Zodiac" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." In these films, probably his best to now, there is I would argue a certain pattern of themes and expressive motifs. And I shall display how I believe that Fincher has marked with his unique signature the end of the 90s but as well the end of this decade.

The common thread between these films is the director's focus on his human subject, the protagonist who delivers a subjective outlook onto the world that is also the director's view of the world, moreover of a certain theme or idea. "Seven," the story of a serial killer investigation, is even more the story of one man's struggle, Detective Sommerset, to come to terms with this cruel world that seems even more like Dante's Purgatory. In the end this outlook is delivered simply, through literature, without any great dramatic overtone, but with the intensity of a quiet realization: "Hemingway said once that the world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. I'll agree with the second." Here is then the first great film of a director who delivers his own outlook of the world, a sublime image of a dying century.




Similarly, In Zodiac we follow three men who drive themselves to the extreme through their obsession with the Zodiac killings in the seventies. Fincher demonstrates in this masterpiece another police investigation, which is the director's cause for delivering more sublime themes which are built gradually and through the personal experience of each character. The film pertains a bizarre pace, as primarily it is an account of true events, as in most films of the genre.


Gradually the narrative becomes even more loose, and the direction and general rhythm of Zodiac becomes even more hypnotizing, as we enter the psyche and obsession of Robert Graysmith. He becomes the penultimate cinematic hero of one man who seeks redemption and truth through an obsessive search for the real Zodiac. The film adopts the view point of a man who sees almost in every corner danger, suspects, conspiracies and that one truth which is so close yet so far. Not at all uncommon themes for a film that deals with the seventies, an era which Sydney Pollack and Alan J. Pakula scrutinized for its dark political conspiracies and secret wars. As in Pakula's 1974 "the parallax view"
one man seeks the truth where he sees it and is driven to a dead end through an obsessive search for this. In "Zodiac" we go deeper and deeper into one man's experience of this dead end, of this exploration of the darkest side of man but also of the darkness that dwelt in post-Vietnam and Watergate America.

In the aforementioned films I have described how personal view-points on certain themes are delivered to the screen. They are essentially different in meaning and context. Nevertheless, they are built on one common notion: People driven to extreme points. In "Seven",detective Mills is driven by the ugliness of the world to the sin of wrath and Detective Sommerset becomes the witness of this phenomena and suffers quietly. In "Zodiac" Robert Graysmith loses everything and in the end is left with a terrible longing for a resolution, although he has already become addicted to the chase and the madness of his quest. Paul Avery and David Toschi as well pay a heavy price for starring into the abyss as Nietzsche wrote. It is this longing and deep desire for some kind of truth that leads to a dead end for the detectives of Zodiac.

In Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjammin Button and The Social Network, through subjective outlooks and narratives, Fincher deals with universal themes and collective encounters. In other words, the director starts from something specific and distinctive only to conclude to a general theme and conclusion. This may sound arbitrary but on the contrary it is what makes these three films stand out from the other.

In "The Curious Case of Benjammin Button" one man's bizarre and extreme condition becomes in the hands of Fincher the ground on which one central theme is built. The lust for life. It is the first half of the film that focuses on the demonstration of this theme than on a narrative, a clear cut conventional story, which sadly is the case for the rest of the film (which is due to the scriptwriter Eric Roth because of whom many have labeled the film Benjammin Gump). For some inexplicable reason that no science or religion can perceive, Benjamin Button is born an old man that gradually becomes younger and eventually gives into mortality. Before the film dives head-on into all the schematic and conventional metaphors (the inevitability of death, what is life, what is death, a huge clock that ticks away) and the awkward melodrama that is so unworthy of David Fincher, we follow a man and his actions which deliver a sublime theme, through the textures of life itself and not some two sided didactic metaphor.

During his stay in the house, we identify with Benjamin's gaze. As he becomes younger, all the aging people who are dying, cling onto him for this bizarre quality that he pertains. A demented old man repeatedly tells him the story of how many times he got struck by lightning, and yet survived.
Benjamin leaves to begin his romantic quest, to experience life and all that comes with it. And of course, when the amazing Tilda Swinton enters the equation, how could there not be a moment of greatness?

Tilda plays a rich woman who travels the world with her husband and is disappointed from her vacant and boring life. When she meets Benjamin she has her first encounter with this mystery that surrounds his youthful transformation. Without any form of pretext or any dramatic announcement, we see how Swinton clings onto this mystery of life and youth, as though Benjamin's state is contagious. This is the lust for life, that romantic concept that has been passed on from Lord Byron, John Keats, to the beatniks, Hemingway and Jack Kerouac who expressed their own desire for life and the open road through many encounters and journeys, like those of Benjamin.

Swinton's heroin is one more encounter in Benjamin's journey but it has affected her profoundly. This again is not announced to us in a (melo)dramatic manner, but through her own actions that point to this sublime theme. She decides to swim through the Atlantic ocean and to regain her passion in life. What is it that suddenly motivated her to change her life? We have to go back to this encounter and see how a mystical spiritual process began in her soul to drive her. That is the lust for life, which can't be felt or given form but which becomes a strong driving force. That is the theme of the film, a universal theme which occurs from a specific context only to acquire this universal personality that can cross over the borders of a Hollywood narrative. If only the film were cut at this point.

Up to now, in his career, it seems that David Fincher has yet to find his identity, his role as an auteur. It is often said that he makes a good movie after a bad movie, i.e Panic Room and Fight Club, Zodiac and Benjammin Button and now the social network. However, As I mentioned, there is a trend in his films to depicting human subjects at extreme points and their experience of this extremity. If however I may mark two films that show a certain path that could be this man's directorial zenith and which also are a mirror of their time, those are Fight Club and The Social Network. Let us not forget that he initiated with Zodiac the use of the digital Thomson Viper Filmstream camera which became in his hands a unique tool and a means to an end but not yet his ultimate signature. But let us see how exactly these two important films are touchstones of their time.

Fight Club is again the story of one individual who reaches a certain limit and the account of this experience. Tyler is a man lost in himself, marginalized by a Machiavellian society. He seeks his place in the harsh modern world, of capitalists and modern day opportunists. Ultimately this is a film that delivers one man's encounter with the modern western world and its offspring, the corporations and the economical strongholds which breed slavery and alienation. Although the film encompasses many other characters and their happenings, the film's bizarre narrative focuses on Tyler and his struggle to fit in, to realize why he is on this earth and how to cope with this ugly world, much like detective Sommerset. The film surprisingly is not didactic, in other words doesn't seek to distinguish for us what is right and wrong, since Tyler denounces the revolution, this utopia that a whole generation these days proclaims amongst images of Britney Spears and the ghost of Karl Marx.

Finally this individual's quest comes to an end and with that the destruction of any walls and boundaries. With the oneiric and prophetic scene of economic pilars exploding, Tyler comes to terms with his life thanks to the encounter with a human, Marla. Yes, it is all for love. That is the only engine of survival as Leonard Cohen once said when predicting the future. However, this time the director has left an even more sublime theme to stir at the bottom of Fight Club's immense cache of ideas. As we saw years later in Benjamin Button one man's story and clash with a certain situation or even with the whole world becomes the basis for a collective experience. In Fight Club there is the collective experience of capitalism, unemployment, anarchy, revolt, mayhem and the desire of a whole generation of 30 year old men to change the world which has become devoid of any promise. We were sold the myth that we would become rock stars, famous and rich and now we are pissed off. Sheep sent to the slaughter. This collective experience is one of the scars that we brought with us in the 21st century and which still hurts us. This film waved goodbye to the 90s with the worst prospects for the 00s.





And now, when one decade is almost over, The Social Network, like a sequel to Fight Club, presents to us the collective experience of man's absolute loss of identity, immersed 100% in the modern world.
This is the true story of Mark Zuckerberg, a typical representative of his generation, a byproduct of lifestyle obsessions. Primarily this is an individual's account of his escalation to the top of the food chain, to a position of great power and loneliness. It is a classic tale that has been told by Ancient Greek play writers and artists like Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick in Citizen Kane and Barry Lyndon respectively.
One man's experience of deep envy, insecurity, pettiness and lust for revenge become the canvas on which Fincher, more apparently than ever, displays an array of characters and their happenings. 21st century western society has abandoned any notion of change or even revolution and has surrendered to the ideals which Tyler was fighting. Here is then the collective experience of total alienation and the loss of identity. This is such for all the individuals of The Social Network.

The most beautifully portrayed personality is that of Sean Parker, who comes across as the great mind who created Napster, who is immensely popular and hype. On the contrary he is a deeply insecure and weak man who has adopted the persona of a stereotypically cool person because only this title offers any prestige in this spiritually dilapidated world which is maybe no longer worth fighting for or resisting. This is a generation of students who seek superficiality through lifestyle, temporary popularity and self ridicule (the brilliantly dark and mortifying scenes of the fraternity trials at Harvard who promote empty ideals and the loss of human dignity).


Interestingly, the Facebook works as a means to an end and not as a core subject. It is a material reflection of our loss of identity and alienation. Hence the film's final chilling sequence of Zuckerberg waiting for a friend request acceptance from his ex girlfriend who warned him not to lose his integrity and friends for superficial fame and money.

Fincher has offered us striking testaments of two centuries and of our struggle to accept this changing and challenging world which we have created in our image. It is good to know that cinema will always offer a mirror of life to make us wonder and dream.

On Avatar part 2

I have been wondering furthermore about "Avatar's" supposed new technological leaps and what it precipitates for the future of cinema. These topics concern mainly the concept of the large screen as an attraction of the new age and technology reflecting the evolution of cinema.

Firstly, I have been hearing and reading a lot on how things will change in concern to internet downloading. It is rather obvious that you can't upload a 3D edition of "Avatar" on the internet. Again the notion of the screen-mediator is a visceral one since only the technology applied by the director himself can permit a proper screening and viewing of the film. In this sense, James Cameron redefines the theme of the auteur; he is a director who, besides the content and form of his film, has the rights of his film not on a bureaucratic level, but clearly on the artistic one. This is innovative and undoubtedly exciting.

Therefore, unless audiences choose to download an illegal 2D "screener" from the internet, they will have to go to the cinema inevitably."Avatar" is shown in 2D at small scale cinemas (usually with 2-3 rooms or even 1) and at huge multiplex and cine-plex centers which contain numerous attractions. These "disneylands" of cinema are where most often one can see 3D films in high definition etc. These theme parks (I am not aware of the exact term of the facilities),are host to even 20 screening rooms for all the recent 3D and 2D blockbusters, pizza hut restaurants, pubs, bowling alleys, accessorize shops, huge candy shops and awesome hot-dog stands with super size sausages.

I don't believe that art-house cinemas will perish. There has been and will be a big group of patrons and fans of the arts to support smaller cinemas for screenings of Orson Welles, Fellini and Tarkovsky. The issue at hand is that the multiplexes are antagonistic and don't care about the rules of the game. Thus, audiences, especially younger members, will choose to see big budget films like "Avatar" by giving a large amount of money only for the ticket of the film (this is another issue, the high prices of tickets that keep soaring higher and higher. Gradually, smaller art house cinemas will loose their appeal and might even become "cult." Moreover, "Avatar" has been dominating torrent sites in the internet at least for the last month. Evidently a number of people don't mind seeing the film in poor quality on their computer. It is merely to kill their curiosity concerning the hype of "Avatar."

The critics have been giving away their five stars to "Avatar" like crazy, mainly on the pretext of the film's technological advances. However, in the name of cinematic expression and art one film managed to make an even greater leap than "Avatar" did. Russian director Alexander Sokurov's 90 minute epic "Russian Ark" (2002). The film in a nutshell is about Russian history, from the era of Katherine the Great to the Communist Revolution in 1917. Sokurov filmed his complex narrative in a single "take" (one continuous shot), in the renound Hermitage museum in Moscow. Sokurov used 2.000 actors, thousands of costumes, props and pieces of scenery. "Russian Ark" was recorded in uncompressed high definition video using a Sony HDW-F900. The information was not recorded compressed to tape as usual, but uncompressed onto a hard disk which could hold 100 minutes. The shot was attempted four times and before Sokurov decided to stop, they tried one last time and it all came through.

Imagine a film about history and the passing of time and the alternating spaces that are included, all filmed in one single shot. Moving continuously through time and space, with a smooth pace and a flow that evokes the constant passing of time. Oh, and lets not forget that it was filmed in high definition etc.


Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark

Avatar and the sublime art of hypnotizing simulation

SPOILER ALERT
I mention in the description of this blog that I don't intend to look at popular box office films, but I feel compelled to write about James Cameron's new endeavor, not because I am a fan of Cameron or of "Avatar," but because the film illustrates all my fears concerning the end of cinematic art. Therefore, I violated my own vow of chastity and gave my 6.90 pounds to the multiplex which was showing Avatar (and evidently to Cameron's overflowing with cash pocket).So here goes.

First let me mention the positive aspects of the film, which it justifiably deserves. Avatar is a breath taking adventure of epic proportions. A film evidently about the concept of immersion (to which I will return later)that contains spectacular action scenes of bangs and booms and suspense. Moreover it contains kind messages about peace, respect, anti-racism and ecology. Of course lets not forget the new leap in technology that this high definition 3D-God knows what else-film is making. A step for cinema, a leap for the industry. Now lets get to the core of what goes on in Avatar.
Cinema, since the first Lumiere film, has been by and large a spectacle appealing to the senses, made to thrill and entertain audiences. When French audiences in the turn of the nineteenth century saw the Lumiere's short "L'Arrivée d'un Train en Gare de la Ciotat", they were fleeing the cinema room because they actually believed that a train will run over them. Nowadays, it seems that the attempts of early movie makers to evoke the third dimension in their films texture has been perfected. But is it actually necessary and evidently, so spectacular as has been prophecised by its messiahs, like James Cameron? Speaking from personal experience, I find 3D cinema to be interesting in its uncanny reflexive nature which evokes the tactile quality of the screen and the image. But in the end it made me dizzy, I hardly ever jumped from my seat feeling that a train will run over me and what's more its quite pointless to show a man sitting eating a meal in three dimensions. At least one could argue that it works better for cartoons.
In the case of "Avatar," the technology is one that suggests an intense experience of simulation (something that the title itself implies). I don't want to get into details, but Cameron filmed Avatar solely in front of a "green screen", using a high definition camera which filtered the images through a virtual camera. The actors portraying the indigenous tribe of the Na'vi were wearing motion capture sensors like those used for the Golum in "The Lord of the Rings" (2001). As one can understand,the directors eye (and evidently his vision)is highly mediated and devoid of subjectivity, an important concept for delivering a personal cinematic vision. So I would argue then that the audience experiences through its immersion in the world of Pandora a simmulation of cinema, a false experience where by no matter how close the image is to you, you still can't actually "feel" it. And lastly, our peripheral vision allows us to see around our 3D glasses, the heads of other spectators and their surroundings, which are not in 3D. Personally i would take every 10 minutes or so the glasses off to rub my eyes. In a time where every image, moving or still, is mediated through secondary cameras, screens etc., "Avatar" stresses the issue of an image that has no clear and specific source.

So, after all it seems that the 3D package is exactly that. The plate on which the product is served. In "Avatar" what matters is the plate. It has to be big, flashy, full of colors and mind-boggling in its grandiosity. Indeed, one could argue that the third high definition virtual dimension serves a certain purpose in the scenes of Pandora. One should feel absolutely immersed in this ideal and hippie-LSD infused planet, in order to experience the experience itself. But as I mentioned earlier, even scenes of people sitting and eating are filmed in high definition 3D... oh God I can't remember what.
In addition, the film's title, the only probably sophisticated element of "Avatar", implies exactly the experience of the audience. The avatar is the foreign body of a native which carries the conscious being of a marine soldier. The actors of the film are a spirit in a foreign inhabitant, the body of the 3D green screen Na'vi. Nothing is authentic in this film; a representation of a representation. Like a Picasso painting on a postcard which shows in the back a smaller repetition of the image.

"Avatar's" story is quite simple and square. Good guys versus bad guys. The good guys are the kind and nature loving indigenous Na'vi. They are blue gigantic figures that resemble elves, African Bushmen and mainly Native Americans, especially Mohawks. The bad guys are American troops who have invaded the planet in order to excavate the land of Pandora for a fossil fuel which is extremely expensive to buy on Earth and is also environmentally friendly (a hint to nuclear energy?). The main bad guy is a stereotype of a general. Ex Vietnam-gritty veteran, with scars on his face with a square jaw who spatters lines like "kill these savages" "you want to be like the blue monkeys?". He is a very schematic and unlayered character. Another cliche in a vast collection of predictable cliches that Cameron has created in his films. The general has no respect for "otherness" and any other race than his own. Of course, Cameron is politically correct and doesn't mention the USA. but just the Earth, home. In scenes where he orders attacks to Pandora, he uses a number of names and soldiers laugh and grab their weapons, ready to kill blue elves. Such scenes are a matrix by now for the creation of simplistic notions of good and bad, basically black and white perceptions which have certain easy and familiar qualities (facial expressions, stupid lines etc.). The good guys on the other hand are the exact opposite. I don't have to explain really. Think of two other films which are similar to "Avatar" in their concept. "Dances with Wolves" (1990), "The Mission" (1986) and "Lawrence of Arabia"(1962). All more or less concern the conquest of the "other" be that here for example a foreign race, an indigenous tribe and their land. But apart from this topic, "Avatar" is nothing like the aforementioned.

The character of Jake Sully infiltrates as an avatar Na'vi the tribe and becomes one of them. Of course he falls in love with the local hottie, who very much like any female warrior figure, has a pair of perfectly shaped breasts, a rear end that is indulging even for Homo "Sapiens", long braided hair and has an accent reminiscent of African women. This is sexist and racist. Very simply basically. To apply such characteristics to a figure almost like an Ursula Andres African Bushwoman is patronizing and simplistic, almost childish. There are again the stereotypes that Africans, or indigenous Amazon tribes, live in the forests, ride large beasts and worship a deity of nature by performing a yoga-like ritual, holding hands and chanting. These are western stereotypes on primitiveness and tribal ways of life.
The clash of good and evil takes place mainly on an allegorical level. The bad guys are the Americans invading the peaceful Muslims of Iraq. They come in peace, maybe even to save them, but their main goal is to take the petrol from the land at any cost. The land of Pandora is the once beautiful planet Earth, covered in virgin green forests. This land is being attacked, burned and bombarded. A na'vi mentions at one point "you have destroyed your land". Well, indeed, these are "messages" concerning the salvation of the Earth and the animosity of war.One feels so immersed in "Avatar" that he/she might even feel depressed when returning to our true land which is an industrial wasteland.

However, is cinema an art or a means for creating messages and schematic binary ideas? The second is basically called propaganda and in a film that is absolutely politically correct (let us all remember Van Sant's "Milk")the director is merely a step away from creating grandiose propaganda. For the messages of the film are clearly patronizing. They don't allow the spectator to experience a sensation concerning war and the destruction of the earth (recall "Apocalypse Now" or "Come and See" and Tarkovsky's "Ivan's Childhood"). The messages are ready and processed, an offering for quick consumption. Such binary and schematic associations are at the core of the sublime nature of the film, which is horrifically clouded by the dominating spectacle of 3D action scenes, to which Cameron passes every time quickly after each ridiculous and childish dialogue. It is as if the audience have to be fed quickly, and stuffed with video-clips of the hero learning to become a Na'vi, always with a garnish of swift flying and bashing action. Lets not forget also that the notion of creating messages is forceful and disengaging from the opportunity of debate or even posterior thought. You can recall "Requiem for a Dream"(2000) where a virtuoso director and editor said: "Don't take drugs, otherwise your dreams and aspirations will be destroyed." Of course, if you have arranged to take with you a heaping portion of candy and ultra large hot-dogs from the bar,then maybe you wont feel anything. After all, how can we at all think when we are experiencing a simulation of a simulation of a Simulation of reality? There isn't any strict reference to an artistic source or vision.

"Avatar" is the ultimate film of our schizophrenic days. Every year another film will make its breakthrough. It will have the most amazing special CGI effects.One first example is "Star Wars" (1977) which now is in the pantheon of geek cult-ness a film which can be celebrated at least for its innocence in a period of American history where innocence was much more politically incorrect than activism. Then came the "Matrix" (1999), "Star Wars episodes" (1999), Lord of the Rings trilogy etc. Each film claiming to be the most impressive and with innovative effects, always in favor of the spectacle and not the sublime. Just as "Avatar," these films are advertised in any form of franchise. Corn Flakes, sunglasses, television, potato chips, t-shirts, you name it. Cinema, more than ever has become a capitalist consumption product, where by the the form of the screen doesn't matter, the art is lost to the breath taking appeal to the senses and the producers get richer and richer.

Maybe "Avatar" and 3D cinema are a great revolution that we should embrace. After all many directors are already taking on the lead given by Cameron. Yet this revolution has nothing in common with that of sound in 1928. Thanks to sound the art expanded and became a new category, that of the seventh art form.If the future of cinema is 3D then will we be seeing 3D editions of Chaplin or of Fellini? I hope not.

Image source: www.freakingnews.com