POST 14: Elephant, a Gus Van Sant movie (2003)

Question 1: What struck you most in the film?

How crude the film is, as the film maker shows everything as it is, without a lot of cuts or other types of editing: he will do anything to show the action, even if this means having very long scenes of people walking, for example, which is something AAA films will never do, as they only want the viewer to keep looking at the screen, and so, making more and more money. This feeling of reality even goes beyond the screen, as a lot of the characters have the same names as the actors that play their role, mixing reality and fiction to make the viewer feel as if he really was in the film.
At the end, Gus Van Sant made this film for the sake of making something more artistic and different from the norm, and not a film for the sake of earning big money, which is what most films are about.

Question 2: What also impressed you?
It is impressive how complete and complex this film is, in fact, Gus Van Sant won't spare in expenses when showing scenes that doesn't have anything to do with shooting, such as when the waspy/preepy girls go to the bathroom puke the meal they had just a few minutes ago. The film maker is ready to show everything he can about the school and the problems it faces, and so show this big "elephant in the room", hence the name of the film. This is also made somewhat interactive with the use of time. In fact, so of the latest scenes depicts event that happened before the first ones, making some kind of puzzle out of the film, which the viewer has to put together.
It is also impressive how this film is supposed to be a movie about the Columbine shooting of 1999, when in reality it shows the life and the problems of the students, problems such as bullying, which are present in many schools in the United States, and where people would just cover their ears up and will not do anything about them. All in all, the complexity of this film is something that gives this sense of reality to the film, which is not about the Columbine shooting, but about the Columbine High School, which is a microcosm reflecting the case of many schools, and in which the problems ended up having devastating consequences.

Question 3: Did you find anything more particularly upsetting?

Actually I don't really dislike anything of this film. Maybe the fact that some parts of what happened in real life are somewhat changed in the film, such as both killers committing suicide, rather than one killing the other. Still, those changes are quite understandable, as they change the meaning of the film, and enhance it.

All in all, I don't really think the film has any flaws, as everything is well done and complements the rest perfectly, making a really interesting and complex movie.

Question 4: What did you find very disturbing?
I find it very disturbing how calm Alex is when he commits the killing, when even his friend Eric seems a bit nervous. This gives us the impression that he is an innate killer, without any feelings and just thinking that he likes killing, to the point of killing his own friend. This is added to the fact that this happens from one day to the other, as he always seemed to be a calm and good person, just to end up suddenly massacring people he knew. But I really think that the worst of all is that this actually happened in real life.

Question 5: What was most shocking?
The most shocking part of the film is how, after maybe one hour and twenty minutes of film, in which we get to know most of the characters and all the setting is build up, we see all get destroyed in a few minutes, as if all the progress we made during the film just got erased in a single blow. All the people whose lives were calm and happy get then completely changed, all traumatized by the incident and by all that that happened in it. Families and friendships broken, and lives destroyed.

Question 6: What does the film suggest about the two school shooters?
The film, and Gus Van Sant, try to make sense out of the shooting by showing the murderers as victims. Still, this doesn't mean that the film tries to defend them, as the two killers are actually shown as monsters. Still, tit tries to show a duality of good and evil: a victim that becomes an aggressor, a pure being that was innocent, but that, now, has become just a mere savage.
At the end the movie doesn't say that Alex and Eric's act was good or bad, because murder never will be reasonable, still, it doesn't reject the suffering the two teenagers had to bear in the film, so that the viewer can see the big picture, this together with the multiple view points, hence the name of the film, "Elephant" which is a reference to the old kid's tale of the persons trying to guess what an animal was by only describing certain individual parts of it, this latter being an elephant.

Question 7: What's more, what does the film director make clear about the two killers?

Gus Van Sant, even if showing a victim, innocent side of the killers, makes clear that, after the act they perpetuated, they are not to be pitied, but rather hated, as they become anti-heroic. In fact the two kill out of pleasure, more specifically Alex, which is the one that will betray his friend (even if the two kissed the day before), becoming even more of a negative character, that is not only betraying Eric, but the viewer, who could see him as a "poor human" before. Now he is no more a human, nor an animal. He becomes "something" that the viewer must hate. Still Eric is also supposed to be hated, even if it is an almost unknown character during the whole film. In fact, he lies when he says to his teacher that he will let him go, just to shoot him on the back. This means that he cannot be trusted, and that he, just as Alex, is a savage that likes to kill and that has no morals. At the end Eric is an extremely negative character, but Alex is even worse than him, as he is the one that cant stop killing, to the point that he even kills his own friend, which possibly was also his lover.

Question 8: What kind of approach to the school shooting itself did Gus Van Sant opt for?

Gus Van Sant showed the shooting as a big climax, the moment when the problems of the school where too much to bear. He set the mood throughout the whole film so that we can, not just see, but live, together with the characters, the problems of the Columbine High School, such as hypocrisy, hate, etc. These problems are shown one after each other, in different viewpoints, and, even if there is not a whole lot of them, the film explains that, even one single problem can turn out for the worse, which is what happens in the film: the bomb doesn't trigger when there are a lot of problems, but rather each problem can make the bomb explode, which is what happens. Like that, we are introduced to a cruel and unforgiving world, in which even the tiniest of mistakes can have terrible consequences (for example, the bulimic girls could have died from doing what they were doing, or Michelle could have committed suicide), and that world Gus Van Sant shows us, is actually our own world, the one where we all live in.

Question 9: Moreover, what's the main consequence of the realistic treatment he uses? What about the 'poetic' touches he instills throughout the film?
The realistic view makes the viewer be more concerned about the action, as the action is shown in a very crude and realistic fashion. Of course, this means that the viewer will look through the eyes of the characters, but not only one: he will be the one feeling what the other characters feel, and that will be suffering what they also suffer. The viewer will become multiple persons of the film, and will feel the agony of them all.
Still, the film also has a very metaphoric view of some characters, which, at the end will make them memorable at the expense of the film losing reality. These characters will also be a generalization of stereotypes that we all know (for example the nerd, the waspy girls, etc) so that we, the viewer, can identify with them, while also being a generalization. The setting of the film becomes then the reflection of the many problems a lot of high schools face.
As a conclusion, I cannot help thinking that this film does a great job in depicting a very real place, in which the viewer will be submerged, while being the microcosm of very common problems that high schools face, such as bullying.

Question 10: As a conclusion, what must we admit about the way in which the killing and the killers are perceived by the film viewers?

At the end of the film, we would think that the viewer would have more of a feeling of pity towards the two killers. Still, the sheer brutality of the act they are committing and how realistically this latter is depicted destroys this idea. This is also confirmed by the phrase they say before the shooting: "have fun".
They are no more two victims having revenge of the pain others bring to them, but rather two psychopaths that kill because they enjoy doing it. Of course the massacre is not something excusable, but before it happened, the viewer felt sorry for their condition, whereas now all this is gone, and the viewer cannot stop looking at them as monsters, as they also idolize Hitler, the most despicable one being Alex, which has gone as far as killing his friend, Eric, which could also be his lover.

Post 8: Two Cartoons

Before anything, we need to understand these two ideas:

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 National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights. It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States.

Steve SACK, on www.startribune.com,
Gun Lobby and Congress (2010)

In this first cartoon, drawn by Steve Sack in 2010 and called Gun Lobby and Congress, we can see two persons of a medium-old age. The two of them are in front of the Congress of the United States of America.

Dave GRANDLUND, on www.davegranlund.com,
Second Amendment and NRA (2013)

POST 7: Quantity vs Quality

Quantity.

A Mc Donalds product price chart.

Here we can see a chart showing the prices of some Mc Donalds food. As we see that the prices are extremelly low (two dollars for  hamburger for example) it is quite logical to think that people will buy a lot of this products. This is actually true, and seeing that Mc Donalds sells approximately 6 and a half million hamburgers a day, and so, earning millions of dollars a day (this without even counting the drinks they sell, the ice-creams, cofees, etc), we can understand that they are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, food companies worldwide, this mostly due to those cheap prices we can see in the chart above. Still, even if those products are sold massively in the whole world, they seem to be pretty bad for our help...

A table showing the questionable food chemicals used in Mc Donalds food.

This idea can be actually seen in this table, which shows some of the ingredients in those hamburgers. We see for example that they use cellulose, this being basically the element from which cotton is composed. Also we see the use of  sodium phosphate, which carry a risk of kidney injury in high doses, or TBHQ, which can produce precursors to stomach tumors and damage to DNA in very high doses. So we see clearly that these burgers may be extremely dangerous to our organism. Also, there is controversy with the fact that Mc Donalds menus can have 1200 k/cal, this being half of the calories a grown up should eat in a day. This means that one Mc Donalds big menu would be equivalent to 2 or 3 meals you should have in a day.

So, at the end, it is good that prices get lower, but this means that the quality of the products will be lower. This is something we need to be aware of, in fact, in our consumerist society, people focus more on consuming that on knowing what they are actually eating.
This adds up to the fact that, by producing a lot, there will be more waste, people will have worst health, and we will be polluting more. In fact, producing, lowering the prices and internationalizing our products we are developing and enlarging this phenomenon of globalization, which is destroying cultures and mostly, our own planet.
So, at the end, is really progress helping us? Probably yes, for us, but it is still destroying the Earth.

Post 4: Walter White, a myth, and a paradox.

So, there is a well know and quite beloved series called Breaking Bad. This series, made by the american writer, producer and director Vince Gilligan is a crime drama and thriller with a lot of black humor, staring the awarded actor Bryan Cranston as Walter White, who was also Hal in the comedy series Malcolm in the Middle and also appeared in the acclaimed film Little Miss Sunshine, Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman and the well-known actor Dean Norris as Hank Schrader, among other famous actors.

Jesse and Walter

Hank Schrader

This series shows us the path in which a regular chemistry teacher, Walter White will start cooking methamphetamine, an extremely dangerous drug called by many as "crystal meth", until he builds a drug empire in which he will be the king. Of course, he will not start cooking from one day to another, but he will get "introduced" to this shady market by one of his students, who is a drug addict named Jesse Pinkman, who is not very skilled in the act of "cooking" crystal meth. On the other hand, Walter White is a chemistry teacher, who won a nobel award by taking part in a proton radiography protect, is far more skilled than the latter. Moreover, he has lung cancer, so, knowing that he will die in a few months, decides to help Jesse so as to get enough money for his family to have a good future (for example his son's studies, etc). Furthermore, as his business grows, the Drug Enforcement Administration (a.k.a. DEA) will start looking for him, this of course is quite ironical, as his brother-in-law Hank is a DEA agent, and also will be some kind of introduction for Walter to the world of drug dealing during one of his raids.

Walter White, and Heisenberg, Walter's facette as a "drug lord"

In this series we find a myth and, as paradoxical as it is, hero and antihero at the same time, and that character is Walter White. In fact, this character represents the self-made man, in fact he is a regular man, with a mediocre life, that will become a rich man, having a drug empire. Of course this is not good, but he still succeeds, even if he took the "bad guy path". This also makes him an antihero, but even if we could consider him a "bad guy", he does it for a noble cause, that being his family's future. Also, he still is humanitarian and he is not a bad person. Besides, he manages to "leave the average", and so, he becomes what we know as a hero. Of course, there is a twist to this, that being that he doesn't stop cooking after gathering the money he wanted for his family to live well. He then became a negative character, having to kill some people and being the embodiment of our inner evil. But, even if this seems ironical, his evildoing is still justified by the fact that he finally became important, and finally found happiness, which is what we humans have as a goal in life. 

POST 3: An Art Exhibition Review

So, from June 10th to September 14th there was an exhibition called "Pop Art Myths" in the Thyssen Bornemisza Museum, in the Paseo del Prado 8, in Madrid, Spain. Of course, as we are on 2016 visiting this exhibition in real life is impossible. That is, unless if you go to Thyssen Museum's web page, where you can find the online exhibition, which you can enjoy as if you were there.

There were many art pieces from well known artists from the Pop Art movement such as Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol. This three month long group show was composed by themes, so that one room has all the art pieces of a specific genre. These genres were:

   - Collage Advertising Comics, in which we have paintings such as Look Mickey, by Roy Lichtenstein, or Double Mickey Mouse, by Andy Warhol.

   -Emblems, in which paintings such as The First RealTarget, by Peter Blake where exhibition.

   -Myths, where we can found collages, paintings and more art pieces that represent famous people, such as Marylin Monroe in Marylin Idol, by Wolf Vostell.

   -Portraits, where we can find artworks like Black LightSelf-Portrait, by Andy Warhol.

   -Landscapes Interiors Still Lives, in which we find a reinterpretation of those traditional genres of painting. An example of this is Still Life #34, by Tom Wesselmann

   -Urban Eroticism, where we can find one of the most important Pop Art artworks, that being Woman in Bath, by Roy Lichtenstein.

   -History Pinting, where we find Retroactive II, by Robert Rauscenberg, or Group Hug, by Juan Genovés.

   -Art about Art, like Details of Renaissance Paintings (Sandro Botticelli, Birth of Venus, 1482), by Andy Warhol.

When it comes to the exhibition as a whole, it is of course very impressive, as it is full of color, which impacts the viewer. Moreover, the themes represented in the artworks are quite uncommon as they are extremely simplistic in some cases (for example a target in Peter Blake's painting). This mixes with a bit of humor an parody in some cases, such as the painting The Living Room, by Equipo Crónica, which is a parody of the well-known painting Las Meninas, by Velazquez. All this little touches give life to the exhibition, making it funny and lively: the exhibition is not static, it plays with the viewer and keeps him on his toes to discover what will be the next art piece.

The Living Room
Equipo Crónica, 1970
Acrylic on canvas, 200 x 200 cm

Las Meninas
Diego Velazquez, 1656
Oil on canvas 318 x 276 cm

On top of that, this exhibition has some of the most important Pop Art paintings, by two of the biggest artists of this movement, those Being Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol, but it also has some more artworks by less well known artist, so that the viewer can gain more culture and more knowledge about this movement, in this case, we can say that this exhibition manages to get people involved in this innovative movement and learn that it is not only composed by Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol.

In my view, it goes whithout saying that I really enjoyed this exhibition, as it always felt lively and different due to the innovation in it. However, it can't be denied that it would have been formidable if there were even more artworks, as the exhibition seemed too short. In addition to the fact that Pop Art is a very predictable movement compared to some other Avant-Guarde movements, such as Surrealism and Abstract art, in fact most of the artworks Pop Art have this "nonsense feel" added to them, which gets repetitive after some time, whereas in the case of surrealism of Vladimir Kush's paintings, such as Arrival Of The Flower Ship, paintings loose the "weirdness" that Dali's paintings had, so there is an enormous variety of what surrealism is, whereas Pop Art doesn't seem to lose this feeling of incomprehension, chaos and mystery.

Still, there is not denying that the choice of art pieces was extremely well thought out, as every artwork was completely different from the last, which makes this exhibition a must-see for people who enjoy art, as myself.

Arrival of The Flower Ship
Vladimir Kush, 2000
Oil on canvas 99 x 71 cm

Also, it is quite clear that the notion Myths and Heroes is embodied by the fact that the whole movement tries to unite tradition and innovation as a whole. With this comes the idea of remaking ancient myths and adapting them to our brand new society, such as Cleopatra, by Mimmo Rotella, by changing the support and the type of artwork.

Cleopatra
Mimmo Rotelli, 1963
Decollage on canvas 134 x 137 cm

Thyssen Museum, Madrid.

One of the artworks of this exhibition, impressed me a lot. That painting is Black Light Self Portrait, by Andy Warhol, as it is a very representative artwork of the Pop Art, and, as paradoxical as it may seem, it differs at the same time from "classic" Pop Art standards.

First of all, I'm a Terminale L student, which means that my study path goes hand to hand with literature, art, philosophy, etc.

So this painting is the self portrait of Andy Warhol made in 1986. which focuses on his face. The colors used in this painting are mostly dark blue and cyan and the image is mostly static on the bottom half, where Andy Warhol's face is, then the shapes get more harsh and sharp on the upper half, around the hair area. We see clearly that the blue palette chosen by the artist differs a lot from the classic Pop Art palette, which is far more colorful. It also gives stability to the image, and mostly to the bottom half.

The person represented, Andy Warhol, seems calm, focused, and mostly neutral, which reminds us of classic self portraits. On the other hand, his hair is extremely messy, as if it was an explosion, which gives a sense of instability to the art piece. We see here a contrast between agitation and stagnation, as would be the contrast between futurism and cubism. The color choice is of course opposite to the dogmas and rules given by Pop Art: the lively and explosive colors are missing.

To put it in a nutshell, this painting shows Andy Warhol's search for the limit of the Pop Art movement by using a cold colored palette to pause the image. This is also corroborated by the artist's face's inertia, which both paralyse the image. Yet, the only touch of life in the painting is the artist's hair, which makes an explosive feel to the whole painting. There is no denying that this gives a velocity and frenetic feeling to the art piece, and is what mostly belongs to Pop Art's dogmas, and even futurism.

In a word, this reflects the idea of the Pop Art movement: to innovate by utilizing tradition.

Last but not least, this exhibition can be visited online, and as it seems, it comes back some years to Madrid, though that is not sure.

POST 2: The myth of the noble/good savage.

Chris McCandless/Alexander Supertramp reading in the film Into The Wild by Sean Penn.

A member of the Awá tribe in Brazil, one of the most endangered tribes in the world.

The myth of the good/noble savage (romantic primitivism) is a concept first introduced by the french philosopher Jean Jaques Rousseau. This myth is based around the concept of the noble/good savage, stock character/stereotyped character which embodies and idealized indigene, outsider. This character hasn't been corrupted by civilisation, so he embodies human's innate goodness. Of course, by savage Rousseau meant a wild person: it doesn't have the negative connotation that this word has nowadays.

This "wild person" would then live in Nature among the other animals, as another inhabitant of this place. So this person would take part in this ecosystem, without endangering this balance and even being necessary for it.

By living in Nature, this "noble savage" would feed from animals he hunt, without any machines or any tool made by modern civilisation, living with his little peaceful and "pure" community, as opposed to civilisation.

So at the end, the good/noble savage is part of Mother Nature and, as he is not corrupted by civilisation, he embodies the innate goodness the human has within himself.

But John Dryden, and english poet, literary critic, translator and playwright, was the one to introduce the expression "noble savage" into english literature, in this case simply meaning the beast that is above the other beasts, or man.

In the film Into The Wild, the main character, Chris McCandless/Alexander Supertramp, thinks about civilisation, society, as something full of hatred and evil, that corrupts people. As opposed to this society, Chris thinks that Nature is a place that is pure, a place that can heal and kill the corruption people get from living in a "civilized society". This is the same idea as romantic primitivism, where civilisation represents the new evil that is corrupting the human race, as opposed to Nature, the embodiment of the innate and original goodness of the human being. And we clearly see that Chris has this idea in mind throughout the film as he is trying to be a good/noble savage, even if he comes from a civilised society. So he is not a noble savage, but he wants to go back to his "wild" roots and human race's origins, to become one again.

At the end, Chris is longing to become pure again, but in order to achieve this, he will have to have a "climactic battle to kill the false being within", his new self, that has been corrupted by civilisation. And to become his "old" and "original" self again, he will go to Alaska, to cut his connections with the society that corrupts him and be closer to Nature, from which he will get the antidote to this new evil that lives within himself.
Sadly, Chris fails to grasp that living in nature is extremely hard, as getting food is very difficult. Also the weather can get him killed, and mostly the cold. We see this from the beginning, where the man who drove him to Alaska's wilderness gives him boots, as he doesn't have some, also he fails to keep the moose's meat in good condition, after hunting it. So we see that he is not well prepared and that he is not really aware of the difficulty of living in the wild. Mostly, one of the truths about Nature that Chris fails to grasp is that his humanity could get him killed, in fact, he is not letting his "wild side"/survival instinct come off, which is extremely important, because in Nature, it's kill or be killed (a.k.a. the law of the jungle). We see this after finding the "magic bus", when he retracts from killing a little moose. Of course this is not done, even among hunters, but when your life is at stake, you don't really have an option.
After all this, one question could be asked: is really Chris a noble savage, or only a romantic. Well, to answer this, we have to know what the differences are between these two. So, first of all, a noble savage is someone that lives in Nature, someone that is pure, and not corrupted by society, this meaning that he is the allegory of man's original goodness. On the other hand, a romantic is someone that wants to be a noble savage, meaning he has the same ideals of a noble savage, so a romantic is idealistic. By knowing this, it is quite clear that Chris is a romantic, in fact, even if he had the same ideals of a noble savage, such as that civilisation is corrupting the people, he fails to grasp what life in Nature really is. He thinks that he can live in Nature without needing to bring out his wild side. He also wants to be a noble savage (being pure again, etc), so he isn't one yet. Finally, he wants to be one with Nature again, to become pure, but when finding the "magic bus", he doesn't reject that opportunity. So he still is way too rooted to material conforts and amenities that civilisation gave him: he can't live in Nature, because this requires him to reject everything about civilisation.

So, at the end, after living in society, it is not really possible to get back to a state of nature, because man needs society to survive, in fact we don't have all the tools animals have to survive, such as claws, fur, etc. So at the end, we cannot live by ourselves in Nature without the amenities society gave us. This is even seen in "primitive societies", where people survive with weapons they made and mostly thanks to the help more humans give us. So we can always try to live in Nature by ourselves, but the result we always will get from doing this is death, would it be caused by another animals, lack of food, bad weather conditions, accidents, humankind's physical fragility (we can easily brake our bones, etc) or even suicide due to loneliness, in fact, as someone one said: "to feel the pain of loneliness, is to feel death's embrace".

POST 1: THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

As an introduction to the idea of progress as a whole, please check the worksheet on.