#6 A Face In The Crowd

"POWER! He loved it! He took it raw in big gulpfuls...he liked the taste, the way it mixed with the bourbon and the sin in his blood!"

Elia Kazan's A Face in the Crowd (1957) is one of my favorite examples on how corrupt media "heroes" can influence a nation. With the terms fraud and power-hungry being the best to describe these people, viewers are subjected to look up to them as god-like celebrities who know the best for everyone.

Andy Griffith (very immersed in his role) plays Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, an indigent hobo/drifter who, by luck, becomes the local radio star of Arkansas. His charming personality on radio wins the approval of many devoted fans, and lands him a major part in a national TV show.

"Lonesome" then becomes the television star of America, but it is only a matter of time when his fraudness is exposed to everyone.

One of the main aspects that make A Face in the Crowd so unique is that at the time of its release, television was dominating radio as a medium of entertainment. The concern of this was if the television screen might be able to dominate free thinking and could be an instrument of control.

Walter Matthau's role in the movie has a line that deals with this problem:

Although this fear is not transparent in today's society (granted, the way Rhodes is praised in the movie seems very exxagerated-even a mountain is named after him), I feel it is still vital to look back in time and notice how others were concerned about the media and how similar thinking can be applied today. I'm quite certain the essential message of the film is for people (even politicians) to think for themselves and not allow a mortal hooligan be thinking for us instead. Other lessons can also be acquired, but this would be the most significant of them all.

Aside from all of this, Andy Griffith is spectacular in this film. His performance as the cunning power-hungry "Lonesome" Rhodes who descends to complete madness from greed in the end is simply stunning. If you don't feel like watching the movie for its message, then just watch it for Griffith. He definitely shines in this one.

#5 The Boondock Saints (Morality Question)

One very common moral dilemma around us is the justification of taking a human life. For a living being to be evil, spreading harm to society and is able to avoid the law, would it be approved for anyone to eradicate it from its existence with negligence of the law?

Troy Duffy's darkly comic cult film The Boondock Saints (1999) deals with this issue and how the media affects the public opinion towards vigilantism. The story of the film deals with the two Irish-American McManus brothers in South Boston who, after murdering a pair of Russian gangsters in self-defense, believe they are on a mission from God to rid their society from crime and evil.

As this opinion of religious fundamentalism is up for the viewer to decide, an interesting part of the film would be how the media portrays the brothers' illegal murders of well-known crime figures in their area. Apparently, they have been praised for their actions and were dubbed as "The Saints" by the media. This video clip at the end credits is a montage of what regular citizens believe in "The Saints" and how the media plays a role in affecting their image:

From my perspective, the movie is not really about the workings of the media and how it uses propaganda for public effect. But rather the two brothers' religious quest for justice and an eccentric FBI agent tracking them down for legal amends. However, the methods undertaken by the media as shown in the film does pose an intriguing question to regular consumers, whether or not moral beleifs should be chosen by them as individuals or supported by media propaganda.

It's an interesting thought, and the video above does help in showing how other people might approach this matter differently.

Other than that, The Boondock Saints is one heck of a cool film. Another highly recommended movie to see.

The Media is Crazy

In today's society, the media is everywhere. You are using a form of media to read this blog, I used media to write it. The picture you see at the left of this post, used to emphasize my point, was taken from bloggerheads.com (*media*).





The debate of whether or not media is a good or bad thing is really frustrating to look at, especially in the modern society we live in. If I was to say media is bad, that would be too hypocritical of a statement for me to make; I use torrents 75% of the time to watch films, and that is only a small portion of media in my daily life. But if I was to say it was good, that would personally be a very odd thing for me to say due to reasons I simply cannot stress enough about.




BUT


The very core of this problem seems to lie on a curious question I thought about not too long ago.





First of all, media is generally defined as: the means of communication (definition taken from dictionary.com, I used media, yay)



No matter what everyone thinks or believes, nobody can deny the fact that communication is one of THE fundamental aspects of the human mentality. So the question is:



If communication existed since humans first set foot on earth, then was there media since day one? (Obviously, the concept of media has greatly evolved over time with technology, but just think about it).





If so, then this means that media is a part of nature. It would mean that it was not man-made.




This philosophical insight is interesting, but it's scary (for me at least). In proper terms, all that is communicated is a part of nature. Industrial science just made it more complicated.








Just the thought of it drives me crazy. The media is crazy, and I'm a happy consumer. Wow.





dictionary.com definition of crazy: intensely involved or preoccupied






The media is like the Son of Sam. It is CRAZY.

#3 Fight Club

David Fincher's Fight Club (1999), based on the novel by Chuch Palahniuk, is really like no other film I've seen. Aside from the stunning cinematography, clever screenplay and mesmerizing soundtrack, the story of Fight Club pretty much takes the whole idea of social satire to a whole new level. It's lovely.

The film (in a nutshell) revolves around an unnamed office employee-credited as The Narrator-(magnificently portrayed by Edward Norton) who, tremendously sick of his extremely mundane life and suffering from a severe case of insomnia, meets the cunning and anarchistic Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). From then on, the duo establish an illegal underground organization called Fight Club, where various members vent their social aggression through brutal fighting. However, Fight Club then slowly drifts into a more nihilistic organization (appropriately titled Project Mayhem, led by Tyler) whose sole intent is to rid the country of its big business corporations and "false" media that they believe has devastated their lives in society. The Narrator then begins to realize how Project Mayhem's terrorist activities are going way too far, but almost everything seems to stop him from foiling their plans and bring down the organization for good--almost everything.

Fight Club is really one of those movies that first got to me because of its irreverent style. In terms of visuals and direction, the film is (due to a lack of better words) awesome. As difficult it is for me to explain why, I've spliced a couple of clips from the movie to show what I mean (explanations are also added):



The screenplay was what I felt to be a mish-mash of clever dialogue with a variety of pop culture references that earned its title of a social satire on the disturbing ways of anarchy.
In one of my favorite examples, The Narrator (now living at Tyler's) is on the phone with a police detective discussing new leads to who blew up his condominium recently. With Tyler jokingly pressuring him with: "Tell him you blew it all up. That's what he wants to hear.", The Narrator (worried of being a suspect) proceeds with the following lines to the detective, emotionally:

"Look, nobody takes this more seriously than me. That condo was my life, okay? I loved every stick of furniture in that place. That was not just a bunch of stuff that got destroyed. It was me!"

He then narrates:

But with all the flamboyance set aside, it is really the social commentary of the film that makes it so remarkable. With the fighting being seen as a semi-metaphore to unleashing the rebellious personalities of the members, it is fortunately not the focal point of the movie. What I truly believe what the film is trying to say is how anarchy might not be the best way to go in life. It is constantly shown throughout the film how the characters blame mass media for its "false truths" on living life perfectly, which violently steers their attention to the rich corporations they believe is dehumanizing society and making them (quoting Tyler): "--the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world". At first, this promotes Project Mayhem (Fight Club was just the beginning of the process) to commit a series of anti-social -but relatively harmless- acts such as randomly starting fights in the streets, vandalizing private property, etc. But as it progresses, the message becomes more clear to everyone and their activities become more and more dangerous.

Although it is not said who the film/book was intended to, the target audience in my opinion would be those who are in extreme opposition towards the media. While everyone completely has the civil right to freely to express their opinions, it is the actions of these individuals and their anti-corporate/government movements that should be taken into serious account. What is even scarier is how these establishments can affect others in a global scale, creating a world of anarchy; towards the end of the movie, Tyler has apparently established a Fight Club in nearly every major city in America, anyone The Narrator bumps to could be a member (although unrealistic, let it be remembered that the film is a SATIRE).

Besides that, this movie is a must see. Its riveting story-telling and character development (there's a pretty sweet twist near the end) added with the bizarre visuals and amazing soundtrack (The Dust Brothers shine in this one) make it a pretty good movie to look into. Don't miss it.

Unfortunately, some critics and reviewers have bashed this movie for its apparent "glorification" of violence (yes, it can be a bit gruesome sometimes) and encouragement to anti-social behavior. Ignore these blockheads.

#2 Natural Born Killers (Interesting Movie Moments)

Natural Born Killers (1994), the bizzare, controversial, and extremely violent motion picture directed by Oliver Stone, has managed to uplift some major thoughts on media control and propaganda. Considered as a non-comedic satire by many, the film implements odd camera techniques, effects, and outrageous violence to tell its story of a pair of psychotic serial killers who were carelessly adored by the media for their erratic behavior and actions.





The plot, simple as it is, follows a psychopathic couple's murderous rampage (named Mickey and Mallory Knox) in New Mexico, Arizona, and the Nevada desert while being glorified by Australian TV journalist Wayne Gale (as portrayed by Robert Downey Jr.).





Natural Born Killers was just one of those films that blew me away with its aberrant, in-your-face type of storytelling. The movie frequently features cartoons, alternating colors, quick shots of carnage, and various unusual camera tricks/effects to symbolize the shifting moods/thoughts of the characters. Although the violence can be too excessive (and even downright unsettling) at times, its almost cartoonish form sort of adds more to the satire Stone indended the movie to be.





Perhaps one of my favorite scene in the movie is when Mickey (played by Woody Harrelson) first meets his soon-to-be-wedded psychopath, Mallory (Juliette Lewis). What makes it so special is that the whole sequence was filmed in the style of a 1950's sitcom, titled "I Love Mallory". The canned laughter used during moments where Mallory is being constantly berated by her father in the scene adds more to to the awkwardness and unsettling mood of the film. Here's the scene below (Warning: some graphic language is used):












However, the driving force of the movie would probably be Downey Jr.'s eccentric performance as the snobbish self-centered TV journalist, Wayne Gale. Aside from the performance, Wayne Gale's character is quite an interesting symbolic figure on the workings of the media, and how it can drastically affect people's perspective on certain issues (in one scene, teenagers are seen praising Mickey and Mallory in pubilc protests, claiming them to be the perfect role model for everyone). In one particular bedazzling moment, Gale interviews Mickey in prison towards the end of the movie, and a very quick shot of him emerges in the screen with the image of Satan (or so it appears):

This possibly symbolizes how the media can be utterly atrocious and detrimental to its viewers in an almost devil-like way. The idea might not stray far from the truth, and some questions must be raised on the media and its personal benefits if it chooses to be like Wayne Gale.

Some call Natural Born Killers hypocritical, grotesque, and a mindless glorification of violence. I see the movie and I love it. The controversy surrounding it makes it even better. Highly recommended.

#1 Thank You For Smoking

Thank You For Smoking (2005) is an American motion picture that plays as a humorous satire for the political implications of smoking and tobacco industries. The film revolves around Nick Naylor, the chief spokesman (i.e. lobbyist) of The Academy of Tobacco Studies, an institute established to advertise cigarettes in a positive light and improve its economic condition, and how he induces an agreeable impression of cigarettes to both smokers and non-smokers alike (in other words, his job is to keep people buying cigarettes through smooth-talking). Social issues begin to arise as he has to set himself as an idol to his 12-year old son and compete with anti-smoking enterprises.

Upon first viewing, Thank You For Smoking didn't really have that much of an effect on me. Most of it seemed pretty generic without enough pizzazz. But seeing it again, a major factor of ideas regarding social values and media influence was put into question, and the pizzazz kinda got to me. The movie, ingeniously using humor to disguise the grim reality behind smoking and its media counterpart, uncovers the awkward ways of how the media successfully elicits control to the majority of the public. Yet it also discusses the significance of parenting and giving proper education to children in order for them to be aware of the world realistically and what can be of an effect them in the future.

Check it out, it's pretty cool.

PS: Don't miss the video below