POST 14: ELEPHANT, a Gus Van Sant movie

1)What struck the most is the fact that contrary to what we can expect from a movie that trace the bloody story about the Colombine shooting, there's no much violence and action as we can experience in classical american movie.

2) What I really apreciate about this movie is probably the various very interesting cameras shots that allow us to put ourselves in the shoes of the differents characters.

3) What I found particulary upsetting is the murderers were actually high-school students that were the same age as the victims, which breaks the trust between them.

4) Basically the movie was supposed to recall the true story, however the producer Gus Van Sant decided instead to add a personally scenario changing the end as one of the killers shoot the other contrary to the real fact that both of them commited suicide.

5) In america, they can buy weapons so easily that two underage students can simply decide to buy an arsenal and make a kill in their own school.
Otherwise, we can make a sordid comparaison between Alex checking the cafetaria in order to prepare his attack plan as if  he goes for shopping.

6) Alex and Eric are apparently two bullied children who are delivered to themselves as they lived most of the time whithout their parents. They developped a true fascination for the Nazis and they didn't know anything about love and relationship.

7) The film director make us quickly understand that the two killers were unsocial teenagers both locked in their own world leading by violence, hatred and video games.

8) The whole film is concentrated on the specific day of the massacre and the scenes are showed whith a very estethic point of view that gives us a ressentment as if something terrible was going to happen.

9) Gus Van Sant mannaged to create a whole ambiance whith a lot of very quiet and different characters opposed to the image of the classical noisy heoro that is always noticed.
Moreover, each of them has a decisive role as the first and the last victims.

10) Both of them, the killers and innocents are victims of the US gun cuture and the gun lobby.
The shooters just wanted to take revenge on the jocks that were the principal offenders of the bullying but these firsts even killed innocents such as the nerd girl who was living the same situation as them.

Steve SACK, on www.startribune.com,

Gun Lobby and Congress (2010)

The Founding Fathers of the United States are the individuals of the Thirteen British Colonies in North America who led the American Revolution against the authority of the British Crown and established the United States of America. The term is also used more narrowly, referring specifically to those who either signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or who were delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and took part in drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States. A further subset includes those who signed the Continental Association or the Articles of Confederation.[2] During much of the 19th century, they were referred to as either the "Founders" or the "Fathers".

This caricature from Steve Stack shows us the capitol with american flag where we can find bloodstains all along the stairs. In front of the building, there is two men, one businessman that represents the gun lobby called the NRA who's apparently making a deal that is to say bribing with the other guy that is a member of the congress.

This is a critisism of the whole american system which works mostly with the parlement that is supposed to be neutral concerning State affairs such as guns restriction.

However we clearly see the businessman giving money to the member of the congress probably to buy his silence concerning the fact that they killed there opponents.

More generally, this cartoon denounces the corruption which afflicts the american governement that is victim itself of the overpower of money that protects lobbies from the laws.

Dave GRANDLUND, on www.davegranlund.com, 

Second Amendment and NRA (2013)

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975. It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.

On this cartoon from Dave Grandlund, we can see on the left side a status of the founding fathers that advocates the second amendment, that is to say the law which authorizes the carrying of guns.

On the right side, there is a soldier standing on a stack of ammunitions boxes that also highlights the second amendment.

Nevertheless, there is a paradox between the status and the soldier because this first is like a memory of the end of the war of independince in 1971 with the declaration of the second amendment as a symbol of freedom and equality which was actually credible and understandable at the time, contrary to to the NRA which claims the same thing but just to take advantage in a very selfish way of the financial profit that hides behind the arms market in the united states.

PHYSICAL AND VIRTUAL SPACES

REMITTANCES

Emigrants from developing countries now account for some 181 million people, so as to say, they would constitute the sixth largest nation by population.
However, others emmigrants from the least developed countries represent actually 50 millions of people.
 According to the new annual statement issued by the World Bank, they should have sent together a total of some $ 508 billion to their countries of origin for the year 2011, that is to say $ 435 bilion for developing countries and $ 73 bilion for the less developed countries.
 Moreover, these rates increase on average from 2 to 3% each year.

The idea of progress: Quantity vs Quality

the progress we have been experiencing over the years has allowed us to generally increase our production quantity thanks to a demand increasingly high against a consumer less demanding.
However, from a material point of view, people tend to estimate that despite a visible increase in production, the quality of the product keeps falling in return.
Otherwise from a human point of view this growing economy has direct social impacts on the populations concerned, especially in so-called "developed" countries but also in developing countries, which have, for example, led to a semblance of social stability.

Indeed, it can be seen from this graph that from the second half of the 20th century to more or less today, the living conditions of the world population have actually spectacularly increased.

This progress is essentially due to our capitalist society which has made it possible to increase the incomes of the already well-off populations to the detriment of those in need.

However, this second graph clearly shows the increase in inequality that has occurred over these lasts 50 years.

 Basically, contrary to what one might think, the standard of living of other countries hasn't decreased because their situation improves over the years except for the countries at war.

But this evolution remains insignificant compared to richest countries and many of them tend to stagnate in their development being overtaken by its neighbors, which only increases the economic gap between the countries.

I chose to focus on the social-economic aspect of the problem of quantity and quality because it is something that keeps growing because our personal development always produces harmful effects whether on our environment or our congeners.

To conclude, the quality could be summarized as a certain equality that could be achieved provided that we reduce or share the quantity available to us.

POST 4: Suicide Squad

Suicide Squad

Suicide Squad is an american movie from august 2016, directed by David Ayer and mainly produced by Warner Bros and DC Entertainment.

We find ourselves plunged into the Marvel's universe with the appearance of classical characters such as Batman and the Joker.

There is plenty of what we could call "main characters" but there are some who stand out whether through the acting or by the presence on stage such as:

Floyd Lawton/Deadshot interpreted by Will Smith

Harley Quinn interpreted by Margot Robbie

The Joker interpreted by Jahred Leto

The plot is going on in our time in which superman just died leading the government, more precisely Amanda Waller to create an elite force consisting of the 7 most dangerous criminals in the world led by the soldier Rick Flag, to counter any Attack that could threaten their world.

Naturally, this threat comes rather quickly through a witch from another time who was taken prisoner in the body of the young archaeologist June Moon. However the witch in question manages to escape and create a zombie army to regain control of the Earth and enslave the men as in her time.

Obviously, the suicide squad will attempt to arrest the troublemaker, partly because they have no choice in the way that they are executed if they don't obey their leaders. 

As we could except, after heavy fighting and loss of life, they finally succeeded in saving the world from chaos, as would imply a classic scenario of this kind of film, and criminals are sent back to their prison with a shorter sentence as reward.

This scenario is done and overdone but what one might find interesting in this film is the fact that basically the protagonists are exactly totally opposed to the idea of hero that one is made.

It's the way in which the characters are staged but especially the many passages of their previous life that make us realize that despite their crimes, they all have the weakness to have loved ones they care about making them more humans but also the strength of a certain moral and characteristic values of a hero which we wouldn't expect at first glance.

An Art Exhibition Review

From June 10th to september 14th 2014, an exhibition called "Pop Art Myths" was held here in Madrid.
It took place in the famous Thyssen-Bornemisza museum on the Paseo del Prado, on the ground floor in the Temporary Exhibition Room and was sponsored by the foundation BBVA in order to show the the birth and the progressive evolution of this very particular artistic current that appeared in the middle of the last century and was based on the popular imagination by using of references from television and comics.

Pop art has the advantage of being accessible and comprehensible to all public and doesn't discriminate classes and cultures insofar as anyone is able to find themselves through these simplistic works. However, it's also this simplicity that disturbs the "purists" of the time that would refer to more classical styles such as Surrealism

This exhibition gathers lots of artworks from various international artists that had an impact on their time, the exhibition concerned is actually very well structured in the way that the rooms are divided according to the type of art that is used by the artist, like each areas has their own them and method.

For instance the first area focuses on the collage and advertising comics, which are probably the most popular form of Pop Art, starring some famous Disney characters like Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol was two major figures of the Pop Art wave and tented to use this kind of technical

Roy Lichtenstein, Look Mickey, 1961

The Emblem, a principle which consists in putting forward objects derived from our daily consumption through the obvious representation of famous brand such as Coca-Cola, Heinz or Campbell, this movement in particular could be interpreted as a criticism of our consumer society.

Andy Warhol, Big Torn Campbell's Soup Can 1962

The Myth is another popular trend also specific to pop art was to stage celebrities while playing on their physique or on the scenery around them in order to venerate them, emphasize their myth and to place them in quasi legend.

Mimmo Rotella, Cleopatra, 1963

By the way, the Myth can be related to The Portrait in the way that in this latter, artists represent themselves as an external character by giving a genre that doesn't actually correspond to any reality just like a false representation of themselves.

Andy Warhol, Black Light Self-Portrait, 1986

Landscapes interiors and Still Lifes which can simply be considered as modern still lifes of the 20th century by replacing the traditional fruit basket with everyday objects, often consumable, always with this idea to put forward brands that invade our lifestyle.

Tom Wesselman, Still Lifes#34, 1963

Pop Art has also experienced the wave of sexual freedom that touched the whole world especially the USA in the early 1960s which gave birth to the Urban Erotism that makes woman appear in her environment of life, often at home, as an object of desire and a real sexual symbol.

Roy Lictenstein, Woman in Bath, 1963

Pop art was also directly inspired by the striking fact of his time with the History Painting that was committed against conflicts that affected certain countries or by contesting political decisions while staging famous leaders such as Kennedy or Nixon.

Robert Rauschenberg, Retroactive, 1963

To be honest, I never felt interesting in Pop Art that I already heard about because on the one hand, the aim of the movement seems to be socially speaking a great advance in the way that it broke the barriers concerning some  eventuals art rules, on the other hand even the fact that I feel pretty close to art in general I definitely don't like the aesthetic that it offers. Actually, I don´t think that I´m a narrow-minded person especially regarding the art universe, for instance the abstactive side of Pop Art doesn´t disturb me at all but it´s probably more a question of simplicity in the way that I´ve got the impression that everybody can become a Pop Art artist, and this was also naturally the major aim, for example with the collage which is basically the most accessible technique of Pop art such as the comics that I find perharps too much dared.
However, I must admit that the exhibition itself was actually pretty well done mostly because it proposes various types of styles but concerning the artists I personally found that it showed may be to much works done by the same artists, in the way that always the same names were repeated such as Wahrol and Lictenstein but in parallel, I'm persuaded that lots of other less famous artists would be interesting to know because even before I saw the exhibition, I already knew lots of painting, so that's an other point that have disturbed me.

Anyway, I´ve decided to analyse one of the painting that was presented which I found pretty interesting because it stages two differents versions of the same painting from very far eras.

 Andy Warhol, Details of Renaissance Paintings, 1984

Sandro Boticelli, Birth of Venus, 1485

So, we quickly understand that Warhol was clearly inspired from the original Venus from Boticelli but even that facial features seem to be the same, Warhol decided to totally change the original one by simplifying her face but mostly by totally changing coulours that result to the impression of an other character.

But artistically speaking, the most revelant thing is that the original Venus was painted with the very common style of the time, that is to say the Realism in order to give us a feeling of reality and allows the public to see the Venus more as a woman than a divinity contrary to this modern version that tends to give us the impression of a character completely inhuman, emphasizing her goddess status, moving us away from the original aim.
Actually, the most important aspect of the question is the way Warhol managed in staging a painting, from an aesthetic point of view, relatively close to the original one, but in parallel with a totally different second meaning because we definitely lost the human side of Venus. Also because before she was represented between an angel and a woman as if she embodied both at once, but this time, she is clearly isolated which leaves no place for an eventual second nature.
Moreover, there is also this unusual color palette that takes us away from any notion of reality and which even gives the feeling that the drawing is simple.
To conclude, I must admit that even if I do not like the style of pop art in general, I appreciate the contrast of colors that transports us into another world and let precisely express our imagination regarding a possible personal interpretation of the character.

POST 2: INTO THE WILD

The noble savage

Alexander Supertramp from Into the Wild

2) The concept of the "noble savage" was created in the 17th century and latter, developed during the 18th century. This idea is based on the belief that without civilization, humans are essentially good thanks to their kind nature. All the violence and the hatred that persist between men would be the consequences of this civilization that poisons our nature. Indeed, men have a great potential of goodness when this latter is not corrupted by society, for instance, those who have never been in contact with any kind of civilization tend to be more peaceful than us, like the native americans that lived in pre-civilized conditions with a certain innocence before being colonized.
One of the most influential figure and writer of this concept was Shaftesbury who claimed that the moral sense of humans is natural and innate, basically based on feelings, opposing to the thought of the end of the 17th century saying that religion was the cause people's goodness.
I personally agree with Shaftesbury idea because even if we try, it seems insane to change the nature of men through any education.

3) a. First at all, as Kristin teaches us, Chris has always been an adventurer, he always wanted to discover the world. He quickly understood the harmful effects that civilization had on him and on men in general, which leads him little by little to reject society. There a lot of moments in the movie that illustrate this idea, firstly at the beginning when he refuses the car his parents offer him, as a reward for graduation, pretending not to need. Then we realize that he thinks society is related to money, that makes us become greedy and dependent to this latter, it is also well illustrated when just after having abandoned his car, he burns all the money he has left. Latter, there is an other very interesting passage when he walks around Los Angeles and sees people living in poverty right next to well dressed people having drinks in bars, he sees himself through them and realizes that he would be in their place if he had not decided to break free from this world.
In its own way, Chris embodies the myth of the noble savage by his rejection of society, nevertheless, he can't be considered as a true noble savage simply because he grew up in civilization and was indirectly influenced by it against his will.

    b. By deciding to go to Alaska, Chris hoped to reach the goal of ultimate freedom that he has always longing for. He wanted to break with the past including his family, live on his own without being dependent of society, he wished to purge himself of the poison transmitted by civilization and finally find himself through the purity of the wild.

   c. Chris was definitely not mentally prepared to live in the wild, particularly in Alaska. Firstly, he doesn't follow his own convictions, for example one the one hand at the beginning, he repeats many times that he wants to live without any materiel possessions and on the other hand he finds a bus filled with plenty of tools and utensils and decides to stay. Otherwise, during the scene where he decides not to kill a mother moose because of the presence of her baby, it can be considered as a great proof of goodness on his part but it also shows that he's weak against the law of nature because at one time or another, he would need to kill to feed himself. Moreover, we see that he's not fully prepared to live in the wild when he failed to keep a moose's meat safe and edible but mostly at the end of the film when he poisons himself. He obviously underestimated the danger of the wild.

   d. As i said before, Chris doesn't match with the definition of the noble savage, perhaps his lofty ideas can be the approach of the concept, but not his origins. In contrast, he fits well as a romantic by his way of seeing beauty everywhere in nature. Its also a severe weakness because he's incapable to feel the danger of the wild because he's blinded by the image of beauty he built and he sees in the nature.

   e. Logically, after living and being accustomed to the comfort provided by society, it seems quite difficult to survive and integrate into nature as seen with chris. However, I think it is not totally impossible:
- First, you absolutely don't go alone and find a group of people who are fed up with society just like you because the loneliness is probably the biggest weakness of humans who are basically made to live together.
- Then you should consider how long you plan to stay and be very careful of the seasons to not get stuck like Chris has been with the thaw.
- And finally, you must prepare yourself much better than Chris and don't hesitate to take a maximum of stuffs and share with others.
To conclude, I return to the first point by saying that if you really want to enjoy your adventure; don't be alone. That was the biggest Chris's mistake and he realized that at the end: "Happiness is only real when shared"