"Criticism is itself an art."
This is one of the main arguments in Oscar Wilde's critical dialogue. The Critic as Artist defends criticism as an art, as well as a "record of one's own soul," with witty dialectical dialogue (betwen Ernest and Gilbert) and thoughtful arguments. This theoretical dialogue uses prime examples to discuss many elements, such as criticism as an art form, the true definition of a critic, criticism's value over art, and more.
ERNEST. But what are the two supreme and highest arts?
GILBERT. Life and Literature, life and the perfect expression of
life.
I love this. Their dialogue is so indulgent and full of life. I could hear their voices in my head as I read along. I think Wilde uses this form to write about because it mirrors the conversation between critic and artist that has existed (well, at least) since the Greeks. It would be hard to talk about criticism and have a lot of authority without having a critical voice for your own argument built in. This type of writing helps both the reader and writer fill in the holes of the argument as well as humanize the whole process of thinking about the subject.
Along with the central theme of the importance of the critic, Gilbert espouses the significance of the individual. The person makes the times; the times do not make the person. Art, for Wilde, is supremely individualistic and there is no universal truth or goodness in any art, it is the person, the critic, who makes it as one thing or another. Gilbert seems to dismiss all qualities that we would associate with some kind of absolute in art. Art, and the criticism of Art, for the general individual and especially for Wilde, seems to be the source of honesty because it is whatever the soul, the person finds in it.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Elements of Style (post #2)
Usually I hate hearing the same thing over and over again. For some reason, I don't feel that way about this book. Even though I know I have learned all of these writing tools over the years, its almost reassuring to have them all in black and white in this book in front of me.
This is another inspiring rule I want to keep pushing myself to do every paragraph.
Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence; end it in conformity with the beginning.
simple, no? Not for those of us who are organizationally challenged. I usually don't doubt my ability to think deeply and widely, but I really douby my ability to effectively organize those thoughts. From the beginning to the end of a paragraph and will get lost in all the things I want to say with each word/sentence, or what I want the bigger picture to be, that I lose the ability to craft a simple thought well. I lose the ability to start and finish an idea so that I can move on, point clearly stated.
This is another inspiring rule I want to keep pushing myself to do every paragraph.
Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence; end it in conformity with the beginning.
simple, no? Not for those of us who are organizationally challenged. I usually don't doubt my ability to think deeply and widely, but I really douby my ability to effectively organize those thoughts. From the beginning to the end of a paragraph and will get lost in all the things I want to say with each word/sentence, or what I want the bigger picture to be, that I lose the ability to craft a simple thought well. I lose the ability to start and finish an idea so that I can move on, point clearly stated.
Elements of Style
This is brilliant. It really inspires me that someone can write so concisely. Here is the example I just read in Elements of Style:
Example 1 (55 words): Macbeth was very ambitious. This led him to wish to become king of Scotland. The witches told him that this wish of his would come true. The king of Scotland at this time was Duncan. Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth murdered Duncan. He was thus enabled to succeed Duncan as king.
Example 2 (26 words): Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth achieved his ambition and realized the prediction of the witches by murdering Duncan and becoming king of Scotland in his place.
I really have found it hard to concentrate on concise writing while also having an appropriate amount and depth of the content. A good review, our wise professor told us, really needs to function in many ways for the reader; it should inform, entertain, and advocate for the consumers interests. It also should be relevant and organized. After reading this book, and being inspired in particular by the concise writing element, I realize that a focus on my words- choice, conciseness, and other technicalities will allow me greater space and flexibility in the content of my reviews.
Having said this, I know I also need to spend more time actually writing, editing, re-writing, etc. I have to work at this, its not so natural for me.
Example 1 (55 words): Macbeth was very ambitious. This led him to wish to become king of Scotland. The witches told him that this wish of his would come true. The king of Scotland at this time was Duncan. Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth murdered Duncan. He was thus enabled to succeed Duncan as king.
Example 2 (26 words): Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth achieved his ambition and realized the prediction of the witches by murdering Duncan and becoming king of Scotland in his place.
I really have found it hard to concentrate on concise writing while also having an appropriate amount and depth of the content. A good review, our wise professor told us, really needs to function in many ways for the reader; it should inform, entertain, and advocate for the consumers interests. It also should be relevant and organized. After reading this book, and being inspired in particular by the concise writing element, I realize that a focus on my words- choice, conciseness, and other technicalities will allow me greater space and flexibility in the content of my reviews.
Having said this, I know I also need to spend more time actually writing, editing, re-writing, etc. I have to work at this, its not so natural for me.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Worst of the Worst: Gibney holds up a mirror to show America its dark side
“This is what we did.” –American Soldier
A grainy video of a man handcuffed and unclothed in a dirty dim-lighted prison hallway. He is beating his head against the wall. Blood appears and the man sinks to his knees. Where is this disgustingly cruel place? Under what form of power could this sort of despair be produced?
Who is to blame?
To answer that question, Alex Gibney directed and narrated “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a haunting documentary tracing the hypocrisy and cruelty of the United States government imprisoning and torturing in the post-9/11 occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The “dark side” is brutal, as Gibney makes sure to show both the stomach-clenching images of cruelty by ground-level American forces as well the vicious techniques and shameful maneuvers of merciless set of American leaders.
In the beginning, beautiful images of Afghanistan and haunting Arab classical music pierce the eyes and the soul, and Dilawar, an Afghani man imprisoned and killed in Bagram Prison, is introduced. His story, used throughout the film, is clear to demonstrate that cruelty is cruelty regardless of the flag it’s under and despite by whom the power of and for justification is exercised. Real footage of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and various high-ranking officers are masterfully intertwined with the images of a quiet and rural Afghanistan of Dilawar’s grieving family, showing the contrast between the powerful and the powerless. Throughout the scenes of Dilwar’s family and the Afghan countryside, Gibeny and Eva Orner, the talented Australian producer, skillfully weave a picture of a destroyed simplicity of life, of a profound sadness, and of the extent to which the United States Government was just outright wrong.
Many military personal that worked in Bagram prison in Afghanistan, where Dilawar was taken, and Guantanamo Bay, are interviewed in or surrounded by black shadows. The shadows are an important visual reminder of the moral confusion surrounding their position along the spectrum of responsibility. Are they guilty for following orders? Are they guilty for reproducing the brutality they were surrounded by and encouraged to do? Most of their comments seem to be answering questions regarding their own involvement in the humiliation and torture of prisoners in a context of Gibney’s central question: who is to blame?
Accusations move from resentment towards direct superiors (“we were told they were less than dogs” and “they wanted these people to be guilty”) to self-blame (should have gone with my own morality”) to anger at being manipulated and used by the administration. The brilliance of these interviews is that they capture their dissonance –the betrayal, coupled with shame, these soldiers feel. It is enough of an internal discord to incriminate the very institution they served and suffered for.
With these interviews, it becomes clear that Gibney wants to show that the leaders of the United States government did not just justify torture, death, war, murder, and human brutality that was occurring, they worked to create it and then let their own take the fall.
With this film, Gibney makes it compulsory that all of America can no longer deny it. “This is what we did.”
A grainy video of a man handcuffed and unclothed in a dirty dim-lighted prison hallway. He is beating his head against the wall. Blood appears and the man sinks to his knees. Where is this disgustingly cruel place? Under what form of power could this sort of despair be produced?
Who is to blame?
To answer that question, Alex Gibney directed and narrated “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a haunting documentary tracing the hypocrisy and cruelty of the United States government imprisoning and torturing in the post-9/11 occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The “dark side” is brutal, as Gibney makes sure to show both the stomach-clenching images of cruelty by ground-level American forces as well the vicious techniques and shameful maneuvers of merciless set of American leaders.
In the beginning, beautiful images of Afghanistan and haunting Arab classical music pierce the eyes and the soul, and Dilawar, an Afghani man imprisoned and killed in Bagram Prison, is introduced. His story, used throughout the film, is clear to demonstrate that cruelty is cruelty regardless of the flag it’s under and despite by whom the power of and for justification is exercised. Real footage of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and various high-ranking officers are masterfully intertwined with the images of a quiet and rural Afghanistan of Dilawar’s grieving family, showing the contrast between the powerful and the powerless. Throughout the scenes of Dilwar’s family and the Afghan countryside, Gibeny and Eva Orner, the talented Australian producer, skillfully weave a picture of a destroyed simplicity of life, of a profound sadness, and of the extent to which the United States Government was just outright wrong.
Many military personal that worked in Bagram prison in Afghanistan, where Dilawar was taken, and Guantanamo Bay, are interviewed in or surrounded by black shadows. The shadows are an important visual reminder of the moral confusion surrounding their position along the spectrum of responsibility. Are they guilty for following orders? Are they guilty for reproducing the brutality they were surrounded by and encouraged to do? Most of their comments seem to be answering questions regarding their own involvement in the humiliation and torture of prisoners in a context of Gibney’s central question: who is to blame?
Accusations move from resentment towards direct superiors (“we were told they were less than dogs” and “they wanted these people to be guilty”) to self-blame (should have gone with my own morality”) to anger at being manipulated and used by the administration. The brilliance of these interviews is that they capture their dissonance –the betrayal, coupled with shame, these soldiers feel. It is enough of an internal discord to incriminate the very institution they served and suffered for.
With these interviews, it becomes clear that Gibney wants to show that the leaders of the United States government did not just justify torture, death, war, murder, and human brutality that was occurring, they worked to create it and then let their own take the fall.
With this film, Gibney makes it compulsory that all of America can no longer deny it. “This is what we did.”
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Giving Grades
For the first review, I would give myself a C+/B-. My review lacks a lot of the elements it needs to be a successful well-rounded review that comments on the elements of the film as well as a cultural critique. I could also work on being consise, which involves finding the right word and slowing down as I write. I think reviewing will continue to be incredibly challenging for me because of the 500-word limit that needs to be inclusive of so many elements. As for the positives, my critique is interesting enough and relevent to today. My writing is not horrendus and it shows potential. It is exciting to think that I could improve in writing clarity before the end of this class.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Live From Baghdad Bombs Moral Depth
Live from CNN, the bombing of Baghdad! In 2003, flashes of green light lit up the television screen. The re-invasion of Iraq, the second act of the violent drama of Bush politics, was broadcast through the same portal that brought "The Bachelor" and "Family Guy." Although the internet is usually blamed for the shrinking of the world, it was the ancient technology of televisions, the staying power of the visual image, that haunts. And while it haunted some and excited others, the news stations bring in the cash. This is from a report on the networks numbers during the Iraq War, focusing on after the bombing of Baghdad in 2003.
Comparing viewership to from prewar to postwar, MSNBC say a 357 jump in ratings, while CNN when up to 305, and Fox News climbed 239 percent, according to Nielsen numbers. In overall numbers, Fox News was number one, followed by CNN, and the MSNBC.Money of that kind should lift eyebrows and prompt some ethical questions.
And while "Live From Baghdad" tries to come off as sophisticated and ethically sensitive to these questions, it ends with the feeling of being lured into eating a wormy apple. Its shiny and juicy-looking on the outside but disappointing inside. Disappointing enough to make the movie about as half as powerful as it could be. As Keaton and Carter drink and flirt throughout the film, there are brief pauses of reflection--on life, on deception, and on their power to influence the public. Although the touch questions are pondered ("Who are we to say what it means?" A reference to a story pushed by Keaton and Carter) they are quickly dismissed with cynical one-liners. "If we had had the technology, Hitler would have been on Meet the Press." Another piece of the film Keaton is bothered by the supposed capture of a man they interviewed they filmed while knowing the risk to doing so. Although these dilemmas are intriguing, the performance of the emotions felt contrived.
However, the drum music surrounding Saddam Hussein's appearances in the movie was menacing and effective. Real emotions stirred, and the tension and danger was felt. Some credibility was restored to the authenticity of the story by the smart use of real news clips of Bush One and Saddam, but not enough. It was hard to take the script seriously after it was clear that the primarily purpose of the film was not history education but CNN propaganda.
Images of Bush One making hard threatening statements about Saddam and towards Iraq was creepy and reminiscent of the hellish mistakes of Bush Two. As the credits rolled, "Saddam Hussien is still in power," came on the screen. Made in 2002, director Mick Jackson might have had an idea of what was to come, or might not have, but either way the end of the film leaves a sense that CNN is not on the side of the people, but the cash and the drama.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Bands Visit
http://www.israel-on-blog.com/a-movie-you-must-see-the-bands-visit/
This is a really interesting movie. The context is complicated but the plot is deliberatly and powerfully simple. An Egyptain police band of characters gets lost in the middle of nowhere in Isreal and people connect and collide. I had not heard of it when I watched it over break with family. I was googling it to see what information/reviews I could find and I came across this website that has a youtube clip, PLUS more importantly, an incredible statement from the director/script writer. Here is a piece of that statement: "A lot of movies have been made touching on the question of why there is no peace, but it seems that fewer have been made about the question of why we need peace in the first place. The obvious is lost on us in the midst of conversations centering on economic advantages and interests." See this movie or at least read what Eran Kolirin has to say.
This is a really interesting movie. The context is complicated but the plot is deliberatly and powerfully simple. An Egyptain police band of characters gets lost in the middle of nowhere in Isreal and people connect and collide. I had not heard of it when I watched it over break with family. I was googling it to see what information/reviews I could find and I came across this website that has a youtube clip, PLUS more importantly, an incredible statement from the director/script writer. Here is a piece of that statement: "A lot of movies have been made touching on the question of why there is no peace, but it seems that fewer have been made about the question of why we need peace in the first place. The obvious is lost on us in the midst of conversations centering on economic advantages and interests." See this movie or at least read what Eran Kolirin has to say.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Embarrassing
Hello all. This is a link I should have used: http://ww2.hmongtoday.com/ to gather information on the Hmong people before writing the article. I was critical but trusted my spelling of the word after googling it and verifying with all the others who ignorantly spelled Hmong incorrectly. I didn't do my research--a real example of the internet being a bad source when used as the end of information. But it is an interesting website, and since I spouted off in my review about Eastwood not quite dealing with race and intolerance as he had the opportunity too, let's take what he gave us and educate ourselves. Oh embarrassing.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Eastwood, Gran Torino misses the mark
by Jacqueline Rogers
The opening scene of Gran Torino shows a wrinkly Clint Eastwood, main character and director of the film, as Walt Kowalski, the gruff and grunting widower, grunting over his children and grandchildren. As is the cliché, they whisper about how old and rigid “dad” is, chew gum and wear belly shirts to their grandmothers funeral, and plot how to get “grandpa” to give over the Gran Torino when he croaks.
Walt is a veteran of the Korean War still scarred both physically and mentally by the destruction and death. His racism is obvious (and apparently explainable by his participation in the war) as he continues his grunting at his next-door neighbors, a Hmong family with plenty of traditional practices for an old man to squawk at. Walt is unhappy and the audience gathers that in the first few scenes.
I could say the plot is confused, old, and slightly racist and leave it, but I won’t because there actually is some credit to be given. Some credit should go to Eastwood for trying to appeal to a group in his generation that has struggled with “change.” Plus, although Eastwood surrounded himself by amateur actors that probably help this create this praise, his performance is surprisingly good for what could have possibly been one of the simpler characters to play in any of his films. Unfortunately for him, this film should not be and cannot be about Eastwood’s appeal. It is unsettling that his racist remarks and violent outbursts are the most charming moments in the movie. In fact, there is a striking lack of complexity that makes the race issues obviously and disturbingly generation baby-boomer and beyond. In a movie about someone needing to change, there is no real pressure on the audience to do so.
If the audience wants to look for something deep and meaningful, they should look outside of this film, at age/generation conflicts in portraying race issues. It might be overstated, but Obama did challenge the public and force some honest conversations. This film makes it feel as if that never happened, or at least, it didn’t mean the same thing to the older folks around. Sure, race is the most obvious catalyst in the film, but you can tell Eastwood did not feel comfortable making a big statement about American racism, the Hmong people, or white intolerance. Physical violence and cruelty are the most serious moments of the film and they are mostly not about race. The jokes are about race. It feels very John McCain, well intentioned but clueless and irresponsible.
What bothers me most is that Eastwood has many relevant meaningful issues to address but none of them amount to anything. Instead, Eastwood and Gran Torino preserves some sort of slightly delusional war hero romanticism that I bet my father and his Midwestern peers will go crazy for. It is a story of the heroic white man that sacrifices himself for the good of the non-white. But to save it from that old imperialist feel, there is a lesson intertwined about mutual understanding and respect, and everyone learns something about friendship and humanity. I suppose we can teach an old dog new tricks as long as the glorified old dog happens to be racist, depressed, angry, violent, and, oh yah, a really good person at heart.
The opening scene of Gran Torino shows a wrinkly Clint Eastwood, main character and director of the film, as Walt Kowalski, the gruff and grunting widower, grunting over his children and grandchildren. As is the cliché, they whisper about how old and rigid “dad” is, chew gum and wear belly shirts to their grandmothers funeral, and plot how to get “grandpa” to give over the Gran Torino when he croaks.
Walt is a veteran of the Korean War still scarred both physically and mentally by the destruction and death. His racism is obvious (and apparently explainable by his participation in the war) as he continues his grunting at his next-door neighbors, a Hmong family with plenty of traditional practices for an old man to squawk at. Walt is unhappy and the audience gathers that in the first few scenes.
I could say the plot is confused, old, and slightly racist and leave it, but I won’t because there actually is some credit to be given. Some credit should go to Eastwood for trying to appeal to a group in his generation that has struggled with “change.” Plus, although Eastwood surrounded himself by amateur actors that probably help this create this praise, his performance is surprisingly good for what could have possibly been one of the simpler characters to play in any of his films. Unfortunately for him, this film should not be and cannot be about Eastwood’s appeal. It is unsettling that his racist remarks and violent outbursts are the most charming moments in the movie. In fact, there is a striking lack of complexity that makes the race issues obviously and disturbingly generation baby-boomer and beyond. In a movie about someone needing to change, there is no real pressure on the audience to do so.
If the audience wants to look for something deep and meaningful, they should look outside of this film, at age/generation conflicts in portraying race issues. It might be overstated, but Obama did challenge the public and force some honest conversations. This film makes it feel as if that never happened, or at least, it didn’t mean the same thing to the older folks around. Sure, race is the most obvious catalyst in the film, but you can tell Eastwood did not feel comfortable making a big statement about American racism, the Hmong people, or white intolerance. Physical violence and cruelty are the most serious moments of the film and they are mostly not about race. The jokes are about race. It feels very John McCain, well intentioned but clueless and irresponsible.
What bothers me most is that Eastwood has many relevant meaningful issues to address but none of them amount to anything. Instead, Eastwood and Gran Torino preserves some sort of slightly delusional war hero romanticism that I bet my father and his Midwestern peers will go crazy for. It is a story of the heroic white man that sacrifices himself for the good of the non-white. But to save it from that old imperialist feel, there is a lesson intertwined about mutual understanding and respect, and everyone learns something about friendship and humanity. I suppose we can teach an old dog new tricks as long as the glorified old dog happens to be racist, depressed, angry, violent, and, oh yah, a really good person at heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
