Give mama a good push

Manipulative force of movies: What are movies wanted to make us think?

Are movies like malls where we can wander and pick things of our choosing up in a chart, pay and leave happily for having found what we came for? What are our reactions to movies, especially to those which get a lot of advertising and space in media. Do we expect something of movies we choose to watch? Enjoyment, escape, dreams, stories, anything else? A surprise or something specific which we are paying for not to be disappointed but leave the theater content and entertained. Movies play an important role not only as something to be shown in theaters and on TV to pass the time but something very complex, maybe more than meets the eye. The help to create an empire of merchandise, news, extra on top of the cake and it is fun to make movies, I’m sure. So I am not spoiling the fun, I am just wondering visuals among which we live, power of business and how well organized can a machinery to make profit be. Are visuals used making our perspectives more narrow? Our possibilities in making pictures, thoughts of what can be done, why something is done and what is good?

As it is always in action movies there is good vs. bad, probably the most used juxtaposition as is the all mighty solitary hero and heroine against a mass of ordinary folks who cannot keep up the speed. Heroes and heroines can make a good story with turns that interest a crowd enough to pay to see it, if that is what is enough. What interests to such extent that up to repetition story of all mighty hero has to be told similarly repetitiously with similar kind of twist as American fathers bond with their sons by throwing ball? That a movie makes a blockbuster as planned and how a concept of blockbuster movie is so luring that it over and over again finds viewers making hundreds of millions of dollars? One can question the buzz around it but one can hardly stop it. Just like that, impossible. We are in a whirlwind of media and its choosing of visuals. Is it too obvious and more importantly are we as viewers and consumers that obvious? So it seems. To see something that could actually happen but is bigger than we are, still somehow within reach, attractive as a fantasy and a dream, maybe not as every day scene in real life but saving first America and then the World. Something already may be lost.

What do viewers witness or are viewers being used?

Jurassic Park never did it for me in any way, but here are couple of interesting articles concerning women in science, role models and movies, how movies impact the viewer:
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/in-praise-of-jurassic-parks-dr-ellie-sattler ” When the park’s power fails to come back on as expected, she doesn’t sit in the emergency bunker waiting for rescue. She makes a plan and grabs a walkie-talkie, heading out to find the power switch.” 
http://www.vulture.com/2015/06/jurassic-world-feminism.html

What makes an action movie masterpiece?

It can be argued just as anything and is. As it is questionable for many is the genre of action movies in its variety an art form and can it even be talked about in critical academic context for example cultural influences of action movies, what is important, valuable, interesting and worthy of research and looking into. In a time of mass production of movies to rise cultural discourse about action movies may raise a question of what for, they all seem very much alike, work from an entertainment factory where muscles and fast cars are getting the most attention, use of power, fire arms and force of a solitude man interests a wide audience. The visual information in movies does have a massive role. What kind of impact, one can guess. To me action movies at their best represent an image of our time especially those movies which clearly pay attention to political conflicts, solving environmental and humanitarian catastrophes and showing way to the future. Interesting is the machinery behind blockbuster movies which seems paying attention to making the most profit and the contrast there can be between the world view of such movies as Alien and The Terminator and Hollywood, the plastic, entertaining Hollywood.

The true events in world history have been effectively used in many action films, true intentions, true motives which have caused wars and conflicts speculating the rest. My interest lies in the action where oppression, wrongdoings and ill intentions of politicians and business men are fought back and there are actual results: the bad guys lose and get punished accordingly. Maybe action movies reflect our hope for real action men and women who do instead of having speeches, to explain their success. Best of the genre in my opinion mix science fiction, future vision, pay attention to gender roles and today’s world ideological and economical mess, telling our future prospects if we do not wise up. Terminator 1 begins with a scene where cyborg (Arnold Schwarzenegger) emerges naked from the future to kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) future mother of John Connor. At the same time to stop the plan of machines’ to assassin Sarah Connor Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) finds his way through a time machine to save Sarah.

To answer to the question what makes an action movie masterpiece is quite similar as what makes any movie a masterpiece, a classic, image of its time and mentality, morals, events, what it is to be human living this time and think what future will bring. Masterpieces are of course difficult to define as they are complex packed with meaning references and questions, also some answers. Visually and artistically masterpiece has to fill criteria of excellence, excellence that serves the story and philosophy of that movie pushing boundaries of what action film can be, what a movie can be and tell. It is faithful to the message, giving and telling something essential of our time and of us. As Terminator is very much a mainstream kind of series of movies, it is extraordinary in its preciseness and  visuals that strike to tell true kind of story.

Other reason why Terminator 1 and 2 and Alien movies interest me as works of art and important movies of our time is that the one who wants to save the world and works her ass off to do so is a woman. Romance is cut to the minimum or erased completely. There is only the mission to save something worth while and there is no other way, threat is so big and it is a nuclear war, destruction of mankind and AI having control and power. It is not obsessed, it is necessary to act and start to think our responsibility for saving life on earth. The meaning of these action-science fiction movies is not to bring on fire arms and show endless killing. They are to show what one person can do.

Pleasure of watching

Art of pole dancing is an image of a sleazy questionable profession watched by questionable personalities of the underworld. Caricature of female body placed to be watched intensely all over and right there almost full-on. Art of seduction still in which one can succeed or fail. Movement with accessories that emphasize the sleaziness and cheapness of the craft. Fullness of woman’s body is put on in display in full flesh to be seen in positions that pole, shameless attitude and imagination offer. This is the old auntie writing who wonders why and seemingly disapproves as the dichotomy goes: there is light and then there the dark, something to be afraid of, something that we should not be influenced by or let society see, but it is there and it interests me as culture shaping pop up act, pop art, erotic and as such naughty. Naughtiness is essential part of the dance, to enjoy naughtiness, guilty pleasure, turn on by watching, to feel doing something forbidden. So those who disapprove have an important role as counter forces. Counter forces are not diminished nor shut down. Maybe there is a lesson for them, if they are willing to take it.
Women wearing little outfits on stage to please and create art, me thinking they please themselves as well as a professional dancers can and should. One should not do anything one does not enjoy doing. I take pleasure for watching videos of pole dancers who can be extremely gifted athletes and dancers as such, beautiful to look at and I am amazed by their work. Arousal for me is the beauty of female body and watching is thinking what is there the shameful act, whose shame are we talking about? Is the display of genital areas the shameful, seduction of strangers, a lot of them and woman alone on stage at risk to be hurt. Still arousal as sexual term does not apply for me but arousal of mind for what human body and especially female body can represent and means when it is on stage dancing bare.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11669108/Strip-club-dancers-brought-out-my-inner-sexist.html

Bodies online

Size of art: The things you can tell by choosing size. Playing with size is to play with our eyes, perception, attention and ways we are used to looking at things.

Importance of art, what is important art, where lies the interest when we look at art depending on what are we measuring when we measure art, what we look for, why art is there to be measured. We measure the price, fame, skill, connections, where the artist is based at and so forth. Why all the measuring and paying attention to surface is so important especially in art, or is it just the problem of this branch only? Obviously not. Seek to impress and making it get desperate when competition is heavy. Is it the social side behind desire and lust for grandiose there to be understood? Is it just pure greed and need for power? Art has to be placed or left out as are artists in or out? Question of size of art and what gets attention is always interesting. As an artist as I write about attention can mean it is I who wants attention. There is always the self-interest, suspicion, egoism which are attached to art, social aspects of doing the whole of art, business, publicity and talking about art. Big possibilities lure spineless crooks who wish to make the best profit there is possible to make.

Someone who seeks to be talked about, is that an artist? As an artist I seek that my work is talked about not me. When my exhibition is photographed do not take photos of me but of my work. I do not seek a personality cult by being an artist but rather have something to say than posing in a picture. This has been very difficult to grasp for many. Though at the moment I find internet art much more interesting to do and explore for many reasons. It lacks the stereotypes, assumptions and conventions of traditions of  fine art. I find that appealing, refreshing and new.

Same size problematics goes with architecture, thinking the bigger equals the better. The better and something good in the world of today is matter of magnitude, impact, conspicuousness, ability to make stature that impresses. To be impressed in an instant, to get an awe, be taken one’s breath away by something that has required skill to achieve is a goal by which art in traditional sense is seen and meaning of making art is to prove skill, professional and trustworthy, valuable in a world where machinery, factories, technical thinking prevail over everything as true signs of intellect, human abilities and are seen as male. Big size as a masculine feature is an all covering giant with its shadow to impress conquering attention and to win is like winning in sports. It is not unusual to own and aggressively protect that tradition in art by diminishing countering opinions. Dominance is the only way to do things in this kind of mental atmosphere. Anything small is pathetic and cute, seen as to be won, big is self-evidently good and acceptable, heavy and solid. What a horrible weakness that is to all of art and artists to seek massiveness in every way. It is to diminish and kill anything else which everything else would mean variety of points of views and ways of making.

Terve!

 

byää2

Bodies online