Photos
The Hollywood Reporter has an article this morning about how Robert Rodriguez’s fake-trailer-turned-”real”-movie, Machete, is going to be released in theaters at the height of American anxiety over immigration and Arizona’s racist law debates and everything, and it’s just going to be a POWDER KEG or something. It’s not, but that’s what the article says. For example:
“Machete’s” convoluted story explicitly takes place amid the current powder keg of an immigration debate and on the heels of Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration legislation. Crooked politicians, powerful drug kingpins, malicious border vigilantes, antsy day laborers, conflicted customs agents and angry revolutionaries seethe along the U.S.-Mexico border in Rodriguez’s film. In real life, confusion and violence have peppered both sides of the line.
“It feels like this movie couldn’t have come at a more perfect time,” Rodriguez said, “even though we came up with it a long time ago.”
Sure. Because if there is one thing that everyone on both sides of the Arizona anti-immigration law debate can agree upon, it’s that they ALL are curious to see a low budget movie that is bad on purpose directed by the guy who made Spy Kids. Look: I do not like Robert Rodriguez’s work very much, and I REALLY do not like Grindhouse, from which this comes. But whatever. My feelings are not important. We should all be so lucky as to find some movie in this world that makes us happy, even if other people think that it is lazy and hollow and that things that are bad on purpose are just bad because other people in the world are actually TRYING. But I’m pretty sure even if you love Robert Rodriguez and you love Grindhouse and you already wrote a letter to Fandango asking them to mail you two adult tickets to the opening night of Machete, you at least recognize that this movie will have zero effect on the actual political climate or with anything that is going on right now at all.
“I think Arizona is going to like this movie,” said the man who is Machete. “It doesn’t just deal with the guy who comes over the border to support his family; it deals with the corruption on both sides — the drug dealers, the guys who are getting paid to bring people here and the politicians who, any time they need a good platform, choose immigration. So the feds may now really do something.”
The first thing they might do is complain about the movie, which already has kicked up some dust. After Arizona’s SB 1070 was signed into law in April, Rodriguez fired the first salvo when he pushed out a recut trailer on Cinco de Mayo that took aim at the state. A tacked-on introduction showed Trejo in character saying, “This is Machete with a special Cinco de Mayo message … to Arizona.” Mayhem, including shots of angry illegal immigrants rising up in rebellion, followed.
FoxNews.com wasted no time in posting an article, “Violent Movie Declares War on Arizona for Immigration Law,” that linked the trailer to an incident the day before in which an unidentified white powder was sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who had signed SB 1070 into law. The article, which was quickly removed from the FoxNews website, declared the trailer “just the latest development in a debate that is growing more rancorous by the minute.”
Haha. “They MIGHT complain.” LOOK OUT, WORLD. Obviously, the Hollywood Reporter has to sell newspapers just like the rest of us, and one thing that the Old Media definitely had locked down before New Media even created its first Tumblr account was the whole-cloth fabrication of non-scandal scandals. Fox News posted an article suggesting that a movie featuring a Mexican murderer battling white villains might raise the temperature of the current political mood only to take the article down? YIKES. IT’S LIKE WE ARE LIVING IN THE 1960S ALL OVER AGAIN, ATTICA AND ALSO KENT STATE AND ALSO GOOD MORNING VIETNAM!
The truth, of course, is that I am just cynical about these things. I would love it if we lived in a world where art mattered. Personally, again, I don’t really think Machete is art, per se. But I would like to live in a world where art mattered, EVEN IF THAT ART WAS MACHETE. That would be great. But we don’t. We did. But we don’t. Boo hoo, I’m sure. No one gives a shit about movies. Or books. Or TV. Or videogames. Or magazines. Seriously. People enjoy having a distraction from the long, slogging march towards death, but they don’t actually care. They think they do, but they don’t. Not really. Certainly not in a way that would have any effect on their worldview, entrenched politics, or indefensible opinions. (Whoops, turns out school is already BACK IN SESSION. Sorry.)
Hahahahahah. WHY AM I SO MAD ABOUT THIS, I HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN MACHETE! Fuck. NO MORE SHELLFISH BEFORE BREAKFAST! Check out this chihuahua playing pool (via Dlisted):
Racial.
 |
 |
You Might Also Like
 Machete Trailer, You Guys |  The Videogum Movie Club: Predators |  Duh Aficionado Magazine: We Live In An Embarrassing Time | The Videogum Why Don’t YOU Caption It Contest: Amy’s Baking… |
Leave a Reply
Sign inSign in with FacebookYou must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.
Come on, everyone knows you just buy the Senior tickets from Fandango. They never check, and it saves you a couple bucks. If you didn’t know that, now you do! Pro tip!
In this political climate, it enrages me to see a Mexican dog cheating at pool.
I wish the camera had panned back to show us who was breaking the balls.
You’re breaking my balls, dog
I wanted to see its joyous reaction after it finished
You’re the hustler now, dog
It’s gonna be a sad state when the Government starts blaming Danny Trejo for all the real life machete use in Arizona.
This reminds me of when Home Alone came out… there was a tense political climate back then with the rash of silly burglar/wisecracking kid encounters all over NYC.
you clearly meant suburban chicago, right? or did you mean home alone 2: lost in new york?
Single moms aren’t real people was the tense political hot potatoE of the day I believe at that time, friend
I don’t know, Gabe. You should never misunderestimate stupid people’s ability to be stupid.
I seriously just woke up from a dream about Videogum where there was a new section of the blog I’d never seen before with tons of content and I was very excited about it. Brb, getting a life now!
I had a dream that i had new khakis to wear to work. Brb doing laundry.
I had a dream there was a dead moose/horse in the woods and some kids were pulling back its lips to check its teeth to see if it was healthy enough to eat its meat.
Later at a party in a second floor apartment. This girl I used to know who reminds me of Katy Perry went outside to deal with some crazy drunks in the street. It was Halloween. I was worried about her. She came back inside, sat on my lap and I smeared my sweaty hands all over her face and breasts.
Later, all the news was alarmed about a man who’s giant pet spider ate him. The authorities were trying to find this giant hairy man eating spider. I woke up thinking about Herzog’s movie Grizzly Man.
I had the same dream.
So Fox News got the jump on a story about a naughty controversial movie that, um, Fox Studios is releasing? Way to go!
I’m more interested with the dialogue concerning the dwindling resources in the amazon that will happen after the nation has time to absorb ‘Piranha 3-D’.
Speaking of machetes, a few weeks a go a bunch of MS13 graffiti appeared in my neighborhood. Of course ppl were all like “OMG, Imma get murdered.” I thought it was just kinda funny, I mean are they trying to stake a claim to Costco and Marshall’s? Is it part of MS13′s plan to lock down all bulk and discount retailers? Maybe. Maybe they are just really serious about a good deal. Deadly serious.
Anyway, Machete needs to stop taking itself so seriously; there are dudes with real machetes out there and they will fucking cut you if you take the last sample of lobster spread on a Saturday afternoon.
I completely agree that bad on purpose movies should be filed under “Nope.” That said, I don’t agree that Grindhouse (at least the Planet Terror portion) is all-out bad on purpose. I really enjoyed Planet Terror. It was mindless insanity and over-the-top, stupid action that was amped up so much that it was a complete parody of a bad movie. It felt like I was watching something out of a meeting where two writers were just like “What’s even more ridiculous than the last thing we did? Gun leg?” That said, Deathproof was terrible and boring and a self-serving Tarantino dialogue museum.
Opinion aside, I don’t think a movie with a poster that labels its Mexican protagonist as a “brutal savage” is gonna be doing much for Ole Humanity.
What!? I mean, agree to disagree, respecting other people’s opinions, et cetera, but you are so crazy wrong.
Ok. Care to elaborate?
I liked both but I actually really liked Deathproof. My favorite Tarantino is Jackie Brown. I hated Kill Bill and had mixed/to negative feelings about Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Burdette. “Planet Terror” was fun and paying homage to exploitation. “Deathproof” was self serving and tedious.
This movie is a political statement the way “Dolemite” was a political statement- giving a voice to people in tough political circumstances, albeit in an over the top, exaggerated fashion. It’s wish fulfillment, not a documentary.
I thought Death Proof was good. I also liked the Inglorious Bastards.
The day Robert Rodriguez runs out of ideas for attaching guns to people’s bodies or hiding them in instrument cases is the day he stops making movies.
A good day?
That’s what Ice Cube said
“I attached a chain gun to a kitten.” –Robert Rodriguez
“Nope.” –KajusX & Chainsaws
Yeah, I can see this being a new Dolemite-esque thing. I never really thought of it in that light, and hopefully the Internet Irony Club doesn’t ruin that potential by asking for Machete to host SNL or something. Also, Dolemite-esque? Who am I, Franz Kafkaesque?
I am with you on the Planet Terror tip (although QT’s balls melting off was a melted ball too far) but I also liked Deathproof for Kurt Russell’s performance and the sense of menace whenever he was on screen. All the girls were also kind of brilliant. Hardly anyone else I know liked Deathproof though; I think it went for something really ambitious and self-referential with the dialog that didn’t really work for them, but it was QT’s most “Hi! I’m a movie and you are watching me!” movie. It worked for me, even if ideally he might have cut 5-8 minutes out of it.
I also loved the Kills Bill and Inglorious Basterds. I like QT a lot. He always sets himself a challenge.
I’m with you.
But also, I think I have a tendency toward just loving things.
Is it ok for me to be somewhat excited about Machete since it features Frank Lapidus as someone who runs around in a suit with a sawnoff shotgun? Or does that make me racist against Lawnmower Men?
Not only is it ok, if you don’t want to see this movie just because it’s in theaters and STARS Danny Trejo and Jeff Fahey then…I don’t know. I guess you have better things to do. But seriously! Fahey!
Cheech Marin, apparently kicking ass for the Lord!
I have an even weaker reason for wanting to see this movie- I ran out of work to watch Robert DeNiro film a scene in front of the state capitol. By the way, he is teensy-tiny.
You guys can probably guess who I consider to be the PRIMARY ASSET to this movie and why I will end up owning it and spending another delightful weekend at home alone with one hand on the freeze frame button on the remote control.
I’m sure you’re referring to Alba here, but personally, I think Rodriguez does more for me here:
I actually saw Michelle Rodriguez in person at a film festival this one time, I was near the red carpet. She is TINY! I should have written “Not Penny’s Boat” on my hand and held it up in her face but I didn’t have the presence of mind to do that. Would have scored, probably, with that move.
Well she’s huge in this thread! Look at my silly little avatar next to her giant sexy poster!
She is so hot she’s setting the poster on fire.
Seriously, painfully hot.
tell us about more of the celebrities you have seen in person
Saw Ray Bradbury at a comics convention maybe ten years ago. He was in a wheel chair and looked as happy as an infant.
Saw Jeremy Piven at a hotel in santa monica three years ago. He had a leathery looking vest and a leathery looking hand bracelet and was talking on a cell phone. He’s short.
Saw Josh Brolin give a talk about No Country for Old Men. He’s legitimately funny and charming.
WAIT A MINUTE!
Michelle RODRIGUEZ.
Robert RODRIGUEZ.
Is there a Connection SCANDAL!!???
You’re forgetting that it’s culturally valuable in that this is the movie to resuscitate Lindsay Lohan’s career with her Oscar-worthy performance as “a nun with a gun.”
The contradictory nature of the character is such a great commentary on the conflict between Lohan’s child star youth with her time-serving present. Hot button!
I have to respectfully disagree, Gabe. I think art is one of the best tools we have to challenge our worldviews. I know that not everyone responds to every issue raised by art, and sometimes an issue will rise to the forefront, only to rapidly fade from national consciousness (for example, everything relating to Slumdog Millionaire), but I also know that not everyone is unaffected. Some people will be moved through the experience of reading a particular book, or seeing a particular movie, and they will carry that with them forever. Perhaps even Machete will have this effect.
Twilight can still burn in hell, however.
/pretentiousgum
here! here! lilbobbytables. respectful disagreement seconded by me, a longtime blogreader, first time commenter. cynical is woefully right, gabe, and it’s sad to hear you say that (read you write that?)
as an art historian married to an artist (we OWN the MONEY TREE amiright) i have to take exception to the rule that art doesn’t influence society. if art doesn’t accomplish anything, then why has politics and CNN and foxnews taken on every aspect of THEATER to get their message consumed, potently, as FACT? and what better way to understand what’s so insidious and bad about this aspect of our media and political culture than through ART like movies and books and music and theater? there’s a more eloquent way to argue this, i’m sure, than the circular logic i just presented here.
also, machete looks silly, but i’m sure it will have a longstanding effect on someone in the audience, as in “that was the worst bad movie trying to be good at being a bad movie that i’ve ever seen in my entire life”
Personally, I believe that aesthetic achievement is the only thing worth pursuing in art, and that works that attempt to engineer a real-word “message” are almost invariably awful. It’s a one-way street: I think artists should take whatever they feel like taking from the real world, and present those ideas in absolutely any manner they want; however, we shouldn’t make the mistake of trying to apply the ideas of art back to our own lives, as if they were lessons or messages.
That said, Rodriguez is a shitty filmmaker because he doesn’t create legit genre films, but half-assed ironic films that substitute camp for genuine fiction. And now he is committing the double crime of pretending that his knowingly inauthentic creations are a commentary on politics. You really need to be a special kind of hypocrite to do that.
/yetmorepretentiousgum
“…Works that attempt to engineer a real-word “message” are almost invariably awful.”
I guess I’m confused by what you mean by engineer. Works of art like Picasso’s “Guernica” and Goya’s “Shootings of May 3rd” certainly aim to impart a real-world message; what’s wrong with that?
/engineertryingfranticallytorememberartworksgum
(for everyone not involved in the sidethread: http://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/wash-your-hedgehog2_merdeuse-09081.jpg?w=450&h=337
I guess I am thinking mostly of narrative art like books and films, my bad! Both of those paintings are unassailable classics, and I don’t know enough about painting to diss them if I wanted to.
But film and literature can have a profound impact, as well. In all honesty, The Battle of Algiers has influenced my worldview more than I can express. Movies and books can expose people to things in the world that they never knew existed, and to opinions and views they never encountered before.
It is possible to be political and to focus on social change in art, but you have to keep the art foregrounded or it falls apart. This is because the art is what makes the peice essential and lasting.
A band like R.E.M. works as a political/social band becuase the message is part of the art, not the other way around. Art is open so it can speak to many people over time, rather than just one person at that one moment.
I guess after watching a lot of movies, and studying them in college, I’m usually more interested in the ways that films revise or reject the narrative techniques of the other art that influenced them, than I am with lessons they purportedly teach about the real world. Of course I also value films because they are fun and I like a good stories or action scenes or whatever. I think most people would agree that “message” films usually ruin their plots and characters by subordinating them to a clumsy didactic theme; I just feel that this criticism (usually reserved for transparently bad Oscar-bait stuff) should be taken farther. To me, most any political message strikes me as propaganda that detracts from the narrative structure of the film (as a world in itself), but there are some films that are great in spite of that.
Sorry to be rude, I like The Battle of Algiers too, but what, exactly, did it teach you? I’ll admit there is a narrow range of films that had a measurable effect on the world (mostly documentaries like The Thin Blue Line).
@Mans: A very succint and well-worded point that I agree with. An upvote didn’t seem to cut it.
@roastgum: Also a valid point. A heavy-handed political message can most definitely distract from the work, especially in modern film (V for Vendetta, off the top of my head). And is it just me or does this seem worse when you disagree with the message?
Well, the movie made me have a much more open mind. It, more than anything, showed me how and why people can get to a point where they think violence is the only acceptable solution, and that whether someone is a terrorist (bad guy) or a freedom fighter (good guy) can depend largely on ones point of view. It was the first exposure I had to the idea that the people I considered absolute villains were not always universally seen as such, and that dealing in absolutes leads to people becoming entrenched in their positions, and refusing to concede that the other side might have a point is unwise.
I perhaps should have learned those lessons sooner, but I hadn’t. And I honestly believe, to the bottom of my core, that I am a better person for having learned them.
Lilbobby yes, I think this is why Algiers is a real piece of art and not just a pamphlet with a lesson. It never offers you a solution or a final message; it never tells you how to think about one person or another. The more a work does tell you that, the less it is art. I tend to think art brings you closer to an understanding of other people (and of yourself) and the world, and that is never straightforward. The extent to which a book or movie simplifies or avoids complication it is maybe lesser art. /2 cents.
if you squint while looking at “Guernica,” the man on the ground is holding a broken MACHETE in his hand. Picasso –> Robert Rodriguez, totally culturally relevant.
Lilbobbytales, does that mean you’ve taken up arms against the government and organized cells of resisters?
I agree that Rodriguez isn’t particularly talented except arguably on a technical level, but I also don’t think he’s really worth getting riled up over. It’s not like he’s trying to make anything more than popcorn flicks, and I think he would get more credit if his first couple movies hadn’t been fun and fresh in ways he’s been unable to accomplish since. Also, being so closely associated with Tarantino doesn’t help no matter which side you stand on him. But he’s always been a proud Mexican, and his best movies are the three Mariachi ones (even the third, while a ridiculous friggin mess, has good moments and a bunch of good actors/characters, and is a lot better than anything he’s made since). I don’t think he’s so much capitalizing on controversy as going after an issue that’s affecting him on a personal level, and one that everyone would be linking the film to if it didn’t address it. It’s definitely not going to inspire debate, but it might (MIGHT) make your average politically-ignorant/apathetic action fan be less of a racist.
Personally, I’m probably going to actually see this now, and I’d like to see liberals take the b-action movies away from the annoyingly patriotic race-baiters. Maybe the reason “message” movies always suck is because they’re either sappy, preachy crap, pandering to the converted, or misguided attempts to trick people into learning while watching something with explosions. (see: “Green Zone.” Actually, don’t.) The only way to make a good message movie is probably to surround it with cheesy sex and violence.
/thinkingmoreaboutmachetethananyonewhomadeit
I agree with LBT. Very agree.
First, as a minor point, I don’t think that movies like “Machete” or “Grindhouse” are trying to be “bad on purpose.” Putting aside the issue of whether “Machete” or “Grindhouse” or the like are successful or good in anyway, I think they are trying.
Honestly, I think movies that SCREAM AT ME THAT THEY ARE SERIOUS MOVIES are the real stinkers. “The Hours”. “The Kids Are All Right”. These films are the real killers of Art and Joy becuase they are concerned first and foremost with their own quality. You see them and they hit all of the marks of “good filmmaking”, yet we learn nothing new from the experience. They are not inexaustable works of art.
I think that great Art has to unfetter itself from concern for taste and worrying about what would be good and try to get at something truer and rawer and sometimes a sloppy mess of a joke.
A movie that I do think succeeds in this is “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. This is a great film and a great work of art and one of the greatest films I have ever seen. It is scary, yes, but it is also darkly funny and says something in a very meaningful to me. It is good every time I see it.
Great art is sometimes terrible art as well. Great artists have to get right on that line between “great” and “shit” to know they have gone as far as they can go. David Lynch, The Coen Brothers, Stanley Kubrick—all of them sometimes go “too far” or do something that doesn’t quite work, but I wouldn’t say they made a movie terrible on purpose.
So I don’t think that “Machete” or “Grindhouse” are “bad on purpose.” I think they are trying to be really good. I think where they may err as works of art is that they rely too much on recreating the surface of the past and fail to create something new and alive. The problem is these films try to recreate the joy of a certain type without actually creating it
The second and most important point is that I have to respectfully disagree that art doesn’t matter. Let’s put aside the times when art lead to actual immediate social change (“Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” “The Jungle”, protest music in the 60s). Those are obvious and I would agree that “Machete” is not going to make anyone rethink their position on immigration.
But art has higher and more important purposes than just immediate social change. Great art changes the way that you think; the way that you interact. It is a historic record not of the objective events of human existence but of the pulse of the human soul. It is that which moves us beyond mere flesh-machines that eat vegetable and animal matter and then excrete it out again.
When you love someone, the songs you listen to together are part of the fabric of that love, are essential to that love.
When you feel alone and isolated, the novels that you read both give comfort and help sound that darkness.
The wonder and awe of being in the presence of something great and meaningful and beyond human understanding is the real nature and purpose of great art and it is real.
Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps I am a naive 14 year old how is clutching his Morrissey posters too tight, but I just can’t believe that art doesn’t matter because I know it matters to me.
A+ !
I think I agree with you if you’re saying that genre movies are often great movies, but I disagree with you that Rodriguez makes genre movies along the lines of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Like you I think he does not exactly make bad movies on purpose, but I think he makes them with a combination of ironic distance and bad taste that just isn’t good filmmaking.
In his recent films Rodriguez winkingly incorporates too much material too blatantly from other filmmakers (Planet Terror borrowing large parts of the plot of Bio-Zombie, f’r ex.), and casts actors primarily because he knows the audience will remember them from certain movies he wants to reference. I think that he structures his films around shock effects and funny moments, but doesn’t really do any work on his characters. You could say that a great film like Alien steals a lot from the plots of The Thing From Outer Space and Planet of the Vampires, but it also transforms that material in such a way that it seems wholly a part of the world of Alien. Rodriguez doesn’t transform anything, and wants only to create a big mess of references and a cynical atmosphere.
This is a very subjective argument about Rodriguez’s “attitude” so maybe I’m not persuading anyone.
We agree.
You’re right!
Doesn’t any art – regardless of whether you consider it to be “bad” or “good” art – have value, as art, if it inspires discussion? There have been a few threads on here that started as criticism of something being bad art that wind up evolving into a lengthly discussion on the nature and purpose of art itself. That alone justifies the original content as art as far as I’m concerned. Someone earlier in this thread even says that Machete is unlikely to prompt debate…yet…here we are.
Lew, that is a really great point.
On one hand, I think I agree with you. This is why I loved Top Art so much–getting to spend the evening with my wife talking about art was really fun. A great piece and a terrible piece give you something to talk about.
Does this mean that that “bad” art has value? Yes, of course. But does that make it of the same value or caliber or as important as “good” art? I doubt it.
I think it comes down to the different functions that a work can have. There is the pure aesthetic, the thing that we respond to and makes us feel like something is good or not. There is also the cultural/social context, like our discussion here, where we discuss what about a work does or does not work. So, yes something can be really worthless as art and at the same time have a huge value to us as a discussion piece.
So for example, I don’t think that “Machete” is going to do much to prompt thoughtful debate about immigration reform, but yes, it has prompted a discussion about whether or not art matters and if bad art is good art.
We all agree on cute animals though, right?
Agreed and agreed. Although art depciting cute animals, while cute, is usually not good art.
@Lew: I kind of disagree, because it is easy to start an argument about anything under the sun, and if you apply the label of art to anything that starts debate then the word “art” means nothing but “controversial.” And I am really not hip enough to believe that things possess only the values assigned to them via “discursive formations,” i.e. everything’s relative.
@Roastgum – How would you define “art”?
Rodriguez also likes to do the “visual habit/tick AS character development” which has never worked for me. It’s too early so I can’t think of any. I remember Josh Brolin in Grindhouse was always chewing on matches? And somebody in Once Upon A Time In Mexico was ALWAYS doing something dumb. Johnny Depp (who was my favorite part) with his search for that best pork dish in Mexico, or Mickey Rourke was doing something. Naveen Andrews’ character in Planet Terror was defined 100% by his accent and his ability to light a new cigarette in like, every shot (or at least that’s how I remember it).
“What KIND of man would have THIS habit???”
I’m sorry, I don’t care about that question.
@ Mans: Wholeheartedly agreed. The idea that art doesn’t change anything is one of the very reasons why it doesn’t. But there also cannot be the grandiose idea that it changes everything, or even, in this day and age, can directly influence the macrocosm of society.
I think new ways of experiencing art (the gargantuan NEW MEDIA) have influenced that perception of a lessened societal impact–there will never be another Elvis or The Beatles again. There are simply too many channels and too many ways for people to live out their personas and craft their own life narratives that a single song, film, novel, art piece, whatever, cannot have the massive impact on a macro scale anymore. Cool is dead. Good riddance.
Since there isn’t as closely a defined “popular culture”, but rather, many fragmented constructions of one, differing from person to person, how can you expect art, or anything, to somehow resonate through all of them?
Now, Gabe and the many others who understandably share his opinion, may see this as people being self-serving, consuming mindlessly and not caring anymore, or at the very least, not caring as much as they once did. But I have seen mobilization towards social change, not through big, often ham-fisted protests of yesteryear, but in the choices people make in their ordinary lives–riding one’s bike to work, urban farming in backyards, choosing to oppose bad practices in politics and business with your wallet or lifestyle, and yes, making bedroom pop and building DIY art communities, and sharing those creations to the world via the Internet.
The change that can result from art in this digital age (THE FUUUUTURE!) can appear marginal, but I would offer that it is more influential than art that is made for mass consumption and designed to Be About The Issues. Because you can develop an even greater connection to it. You can interact with it, you can call bullshit on bullshit projects, and talented content-creators pay attention to that–it’s not just a conversation you’re having with your buddies, but it feels like one. They shift their focus when we do.
The power is placed in our own hands, and yes, I know we haven’t made the best use of it (trampoline videos of YouTube, et al), but it’s there. It exists, and many people are making the kind of art that intertwines with activism, to affect change on a micro scale. And if enough people are living their lives responsibly on that micro scale, it will accumulate to a quiet storm.
At least I hope so.
Also, I still sleep with my Morrissey posters at night. I won’t tell anyone if you don’t tell anyone.
Yes, I think your point about the difficulty of an artist speaking broadly in the face of our fragmented, multi-channel society of today is true to a point, but I would also point out that great art is for always. It isn’t just about us today, about the “right now” but about something that, because it harmonizes with something real and human, lasts forever, or at least for a long time, and in that way does have an opportunity to stand out and speak to a large number of people, maybe not at once, but over a long period of time.
There is a part of this that is perception as well. We think of Elvis and the Beatles as singular artists whose cross-cultural popularity can’t be rivaled, but I think we think of this in this way because people have passed “there was only one Elvis” down to us. We forgot all of the rest of the hundreds of other singers and bands. When people my age were children, Michael Jackson was a singular artist that appealed to everyone. I am sure my mother felt about him the way we feel about Justin Bieber–that he can’t have the impact of Elvis. Perhaps someone who is eight now will say, when she is 35, “There will never be another Lady Gaga.”
It all depends on what endures and what doesn’t.
Hi. I am a lurker. I just upvoted this whole thread. Thank you.
I don’t go see movies like “Machete” for its contributions to political discourse. I go see movies like “Machete” for their contributions to people repeatedly getting punched in the face.
When did this become all voyage au bout de la nuit-gum? Gabe, are you okay?
Cheer up, Gabe. It’s Friday!
Is it possible to replace Tom Cruise with a dog in “The Color of Money?”
no dogs are colorblind
Yeah, but they actually talk about the smell of money in that movie more than the color. Surely dogs can smell money. And they often have perfect hair.
Having that dog run around there is really bad for the felt.
I’m sorry, what were we talking about?
every movie Robert Rodriguez releases pisses me off because it means he has NOT been working on Sin City 2.
who’s the second ticket for?
Gabe, seriously it’s time to drop this bullshit about “making a bad movie on purpose” and learn how to actually articulate the idea you are trying to convey. Nobody makes a movie bad on purpose. It just doesn’t happen. And I don’t think you are naive enough to believe a filmmaker would actually think to himself “I’m going to make sure this movie is not enjoyable to watch for anyone”. You know that never happened.
So whatever it is you actually mean when you say that, figure out a different way to say it. Like, a way that is not factually inaccurate.
Sorry if my post came off a bit dick-ish. It’s kind of a pet peeve.
I just saw ‘Machete’ and I thought it was over the top cartoonish violence, and also contained over the top cartoonish political commentary. I do not think that most intelligent, emotionally stable people viewing this movie would consider the theme as a call to arms for immigrant rights.
However, having lived on the border and having spent a lot of time in Ciudad Juarez and in other parts of Mexico, I recognize that it is a society already plagued with violence. Furthermore, there are certainly people who can take the movie the wrong way and use it as fodder to feed already violent and anti-social tendencies.
There are parallels to be found in my own current home, in Thailand. An immigration broker in the United Sates, Global Horizons in California, has recently been indicted for human trafficking of Thai laborers to the U.S. Unfortunately, while the problems Mexican laborers face with US Immigration are well known, those of Thai victims are not as well known.
As a US Immigration Lawyer based in Bangkok, Thailand, I can state that the California exploitation of Thai workers is rather common, although not as commonly reported on.
\/Users/joeneal/Desktop/Darfur can be fun.jpg