So I’m making a concerted effort to get involved this time, and that includes making a shortlist of movies I want to see. Monetary and time constraints will probably mean I wont get to see them all, but at least I have a goal!

There are of course other movies on the program that I would like to see that I haven’t included here, but I’ve left them out because they’re high-profile (read: American) enough to probably get a mainstream release later (at least on DVD). I’m talking about ones like The Kids Are All Right, Chloe, The Ghost Writer (well, actually I don’t watch Polanski any more, but it’ll get a wider release), The Killer Inside Me, The Messenger, Please Give, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Welcome To The Rileys, and Australia’s The Wedding Party etc…Of course there are a couple of US entries that I can’t wait for, and they’re included.

You’ll also notice there aren’t any from particular programs, like the Neighborhood Watch series, or the Night Shift, Animation or States of Dissent series. It’s a taste thing. I’m a little heavier on the Docs – I love documentaries. Anyway here’s my basic list, some of these I’ve heard great things about already, some of them just caught my eye and seem super interesting. Have I missed anything?What would you recommend?

Lebanon

Heard great things, it won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. Some have called it an anti-war film, and while I’m not sure if I believe they exist, it feels like we might be in a different movement of war films.

The Special Relationship

This was originally made by HBO to be a TV movie, but recently HBO announced it would release it as a cinema feature. It is a sequel of sorts to Stephen Frears’s The Queen (2006), but this time it’s directed by Richard Loncraine. I’ll be seeing it for Michael Sheen’s wonderfully subtle portrayal of Tony Blair.

I Love You, Phillip Morris

What is happening with this movie?! It has been speculated that its cinema release in the US keeps getting pushed back due to graphic gay sex scenes. But I’ve heard great things, and I’m a big fan of ‘Dramatic Jim Carrey.’

Rejoice & Shout

I’m a sucker for music documentaries, and there is a great lot of them at this year’s MIFF (Backbeat), but when that music is the blues, well, wild horses couldn’t drag me away.

Red Hill

If there’s one thing True Blood has taught us, apart from proving it’s impossible to have too many hot guys in one cast and there is no sex scene too absurd for TV, it’s that Vinnie from Home and Away can not only act but can pull off complex and compelling characters. Good on ya Vinnie! I like the visual look of this film, debut filmmaker Patrick Hughes is clearly inspired by Tarantino and Ozpolitation movies, and that’s fine by me.

Catfish

One I came across in my browsing, this sort of doco is right up my ally. It’s a personal journey, about social networking, and apparently has a shocking twist. Yes please.

La Danse: The Paris Opera Ballet

My movie tastes might not be particularly girlie, but I turn into a complete giggly girlie puddle when I see anything ballet. Tutus! Tragedy! Hair nets! Anorexia! Ahem.

Brotherhood

Danish gay neo-Nazis? I’m SO THERE.

Innerspace *

MIFF is doing a Joe Dante retrospective, and that’s a genius move. While The ‘Burbs and Gremlins 1 & 2 are great too, I just can’t go past childhood favorite Innerspace, where Dennis Quaid is shrunk and injected into the ass of Martin Short. MARTIN SHORT! **

The Genius and the Boys

In what is perhaps the most obvious title in the whole festival, this is about an academic prodigy who turns out to be a pedo. Again: SO THERE.

Winter’s Bone

Forget the other US indies at MIFF, this is the movie I’m hearing the most amazing things about. The lead performance by young Jennifer Lawrence is apparently revolutionary.

My Joy

It’s about contemporary Russia. ‘Nuff said.

Petropolis: Aerial Perspectives on the Alberta Tar Sands

An aerial look at the second biggest oil reserve in the world, in northern Canada. Fascinating.

* Oh noes, I can’t make the screening of Innerspace (I’ll be in Perth that weekend), so I’ll probably see The ‘Burbs instead.

** Trust me, click that link.

Yeah – they’re BIG nerves. Everyone: Don’t make fun of our weird fatherless child-personalities, and don’t make fun of breast cancer. There was outrage, fuelled by the Herald Sun and commercial talkback radio. The Age sacked her. Like I said, pretty much everything has already been said about this online. In summation, they all go something like this: “Even if you’re not a fan of Deveny’s opinions, The Age shouldn’t have sacked her because of pressure from other media after a couple of tweets!”

Let’s not get distracted by the fun talk of whether Deveny is funny or offensive. For me, the most interesting thing about this is Twitter. Deveny herself wrote in an over-emotional response manifesto for ABC’s The Drum: “This is so not about Twitter” – Except it is. It is about gender and mainstream double-standards and class, but it is also about the panic surrounding a platform that lets you broadcast (or narrowcast, if you’re a small fish like me) your views for free. When you are paid to broadcast your views in a publication people pay for, and you also Tweet your views freely to your followers, eventually there’s going to be some convergence between the two, for better or worse. To not expect it is to be naive and frankly ignorant of the implications of technology. This is something The Age and Deveny are guilty of, but also perhaps the wider range of commentators who have contributed to this debate.

There are really only three commentators who have attempted to tackle the wider issue of web-publishing in this context – Jonathan Holmes of Media Watch, Crikey’s Margaret Simons, and SMH’s Miranda Devine. I’ll refrain from reviewing them, you can all read. I’ll also refrain from explicitly addressing the subsequent “Twitter-scandal” involving Divine, the irony of which I’m sure is apparent to all.

Devine, and Holmes and Simons, all address, in some form or another, questions about content ownership and social media use. Deveny’s tweets are authored by her and are perhaps one of the only ways we can hear Deveny’s voice ‘unfiltered’ by another editorial voice. The extraordinary thing about new media platforms like Twitter is that they are just that: platforms. They are comparatively free of editorial control, and allow those who use them to produce constant unfiltered content. Really the only meaningful restriction on Twitter content is the amount of space given for each individual message. Twitter is a forum that is designed to be invisible; its purpose is to provide easy-to-access data, in the form you want it, whether through a browser, RSS feed, desktop client or mobile application. This is unlike, say, Deveny being hired by a TV show like Q&A to give her opinion. Q&A is run by the ABC, and the ABC ‘brand’ (to echo Devine’s approach) frames the discussions on that program. When we watch Deveny on Q&A and read her in The Age, we are receiving her filtered through the brand of her editors. Even when we go to see Deveny in a live show, we see her through the frame of comedy conventions. Knowing we are seeing ‘comedy’ contextualises our understanding of what to expect. Twitter intentionally gives you no context.

What Deveny doesn’t seem to realise, is that she herself is a brand. She has an image. A ‘brand voice.’ And when other brands want to use that voice, they pay her; there is a trade-off. One brand, let’s say The Age, asks the other, Deveny, to add value (content) to their product, and in return Deveny receives additional exposure. Now, if Deveny chooses to present her brand unfiltered, for free, without context, outside of the control of paying editors, she must accept that her exposure as a brand has implications across all mediums. Her columns for The Age do not exist in a vacuum, nor do her Tweets, appearances on TV, books, live shows, or other columns. Her brand profile remains constant across all frames. She may argue her brand is framed by conventions of all of these settings, and she would be correct, except for Twitter: The platform with no conventions except a character limit.

It is about Twitter. Social media platforms are not designed to have their own voice. They are made of algorithm, code, and protocol, not editorial policy. If they do have a voice, it consists of many voices speaking at once, creating patterns.  You cannot rely on it to give you context. If you are going out to swim in open ocean, understand you may drown if you’re not careful. There is no net.

Sound levels for NPH opening is a bit off.

Martin’s joke about Waltz hitting the motherload of Jews was pretty great.

Yes – Waltz won! I liked the extended clips.

So far the awards have been as predicted, Best Supporting Actor (Waltz), Best Song (Crazy Heart, T-Bone), Best Animated Feature (Up). Bring on more hosts!

First upset of the night is The Hurt Locker guy winning Original Screenplay over QT for Inglourious Basterds. This means The Hurt Locker will win best picture. This is good because Avatar won’t win.

One of the biggest EPIC montages for John Hughes I’ve ever seen. So many 80s stars!!!  LOVE.

YES – There was a train wreck moment – Some crazy woman crashed the stage during Best Documentary Short.

Precious winning best Adapted Screenplay over Up In The Air is also a bit of an upset. So, so far, the writing categories have been telling.

Mo’Nique winning – Yet another given. I’m glad she didn’t go on.

Best dressed goes to the Costume Designer for the Young Victoria. Wow.

Hurt Locker is winning the Sound Awards – IT WILL WIN BEST PICTURE.

James Taylor dong the Memorial. BORING. Poor James, it’s his only gig these days. He’s pitchy too. /Idol.

It wouldn’t be an Oscars night without an interprative dance montage. YAWN.

Tonight is kinda boring.

The two married editors for The Hurt Locker are ADORABLE!!!! They’ve been let out of their box for a bit and they’re loving it!

It is pretty awful when they play people off and then let Jeff Bridges go on and on and on and on…

Also, WTF is with the former co-stars playing tribute??? It is weird and awkward.

Bullock – Huh. Pish.

Bigelow wins for director and The Hurt Locker wins best picture. All in all, I think Inglourious Basterds was a better film, but I’m happy for Bigelow (International Woman’s Day!) and AVATAR DIDN’T WIN!

Also, Renner, Mackie and Geraghty humping in the background – Nice touch!

I’m watching this at Livestream, the AP coverage.

It’s alive! I have resurrected the blog so you can hear the ramblings of me – someone who has an unhealthy obsession with celebrity and meaningless awards, you can thank me later.

I have opinions that are both shallow and snobby, so hopefully there will be a nice balance between dress-snarkiness and actual film knowledge.

I hope you enjoy.

My times will be in Australian EDT because I’m not so good at maths, working down the page.

*RED CARPET*

9.50 – Chef Wolfgang Puck is talking about all the Austrians nominated. He’s talking about THE man of the night – Christoph Waltz, who is the biggest lock I’ve seen in ages: Best Supporting Actor for playing Hans Landa in Ingourious Basterds (My favourite of the year)

9.53 – Why is the redhead vamp from True Blood here? (I think her name is Deborah Ann Woll)

9.56 – For a stylist, Sam Worthington’s gf is surprisingly off-trend, those hip-accentuated dresses are a bit 9 months ago. And her hair is bad.

9.57 – EFRON ALERT!!! He has spiked his hair. Aw.

9.59 – Virginia Masden? Huh, I was just thinking last night about her, and how her supposed ‘comeback’ after Sideways…wasn’t.

10.07 – The AP Fashion lady is so annoying, And SURPRISE SURPRISE Pat Field is giving special comments. I want my money back! (What? Oh yeah I’ve paid naught) …They are talking. I’m getting a coffee.

10.19 – Less talky, more dresses AP!!! Ha! The reporter just called Worthington ‘Sam Washington’ Oh he’s wearing Payless Shoes. “I’m presentin’ with J’Lo” – It’s hard to hate him.

10.29 – Anna Kendrick – Is wearing the colour of the season – Peach. Ugh. – It’s Saab.

Confession – Anna Kendrick’s hairline sorta weirds me out. AND STOP THE PRESS: The small town girl from Maine “can’t believe she’s here.”

10.31 – The Tuohy’s (whom the film The Blind Side is based on) just said they prepare for the Oscars by taking Tylanol. My kind of people.

10.35 – CHRIST does Maggie Gyllenhaal ever dress like she’s not at the beach? She needs to move away from print.

10.40 – JEREMY RENNER!!!! He’s amazing. Jeremy! Make out with me!!! NO! Make out with Eli Roth!

10.44 – Tina Fey looks pretty good, but I’m not digging the big hair.

10.45 – Mo’Nique – CLASS. She looks amazing. Doesn’t shave her legs.  LOVE THE FLOWER IN HER HAIR. (It is a Gardenia, the same as Hattie McDaniel) Like Waltz, she is a lock.

10.48 – AND THERE’S ELI ROTH. Oh Diane Kruger. You so crazy.

10.50 – Oh WOW – Sandra Bullock looks pretty amazing.

10.52 – But in other news – I HATE THIS (Zoe Saldana).

No, seriously MAKE OUT NOW!!!

11.00 – Oh my, Anthony Mackie of the Hurt Locker is quite charming. He is rockin’ Burberry.  I remember when Adrien Brody won and he was wearing Zegna. Introduced me to that label.

11.16 – Um, the lady from AP just said Jeremy was wearing Payless Shoes. That would be Sam Worthington. Peter Sarsgaard goes ‘Oh really!?!’ – He knows that ain’t right, Renner ain’t no cheapo.

11.20 – I don’t hate Carey Mulligan’s dress. What a relief.

11.22 – James Cameron is sorta coming across as a nice guy. WHAT IS GOING ON!??

11.26 – This AP chick is GOLD – Clooney is, apparently, ‘the spokesperson for Hollywood.’

11.28 – Eli says QT was DJing their pre-party. Quentin sounds ROUGH. He has been doing a lot of coke.

AP Idiot just got Worthington and Renner mixed up AGAIN! Bish, please.

Charlize’s dress looks weird. Boob covers WTF?

11.44 – Oh Jesus Miley Cyrus is awful. She opens her mouth and just…ick.

11.50 – WOAH. Winslet diamond alert. Now THAT’S a necklace.

OK. The AP’s Red Carpet Coverage was shite. Ugh. I think I’ll start a new post for the Ceremony, because this is getting too long. Thanks for reading.

Detectives Moreland and McNulty

So I’ve finally watched the first season of the critically acclaimed, proudly low-key HBO crime drama The Wire, which ran from 2002-2008. It is an excellent show, very well made, very compelling and, yes, very deep. I enjoyed it. I especially appreciated that the creators of the show seem to understand that narrative strength lies in characters.

However, it is a crime drama, and its unavoidable adherence to genre conventions meant it didn’t quite reach the depths of other standout dramas of the past decade (The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, Big Love*). I understand what creator David Simon is doing – presenting a rich depiction of contemporary life via a crime drama. However, when the strongest aspects of a program are the characters, narrative arc and wider subtext of certain concepts, it’s a shame we have to be presented with the requisite genre devices – the piece by piece puzzle-solving played out from various angles, the lawyer-talk, the flak-jackets. Indeed, all of these are done well, most of the time do not feel gratuitous, and all serve a greater purpose than JUST to show us the procedure. For instance, character development plays out in these scenes (one that comes to mind is the darkly hilarious scene in episode 4, when the detectives Moreland and McNulty, above, recreate a murder scene saying only the word ‘fuck’ or a colorful variant). It’s just… the writing and acting are so good, I wished it moved a little further away from convention, presented less of the “CSI” stuff and more of the “this is what it’s like in Baltimore, and these are the people who live there” stuff. Because that was the really genre-breaking stuff.

You could say the criticism is a little unfair.  I’m having a go at a show precisely because it is too good for its genre.  Maybe a better angle to take is this: “Hey! You! Yes, I’m talking to YOU, Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, and all of your many spin-offs. Yeah, WTF? The Wire just pwned all of your asses!” Yes, The Wire really does set a new standard for crime drama, and that is no mean feat.

I will check out season 2, maybe it will lessen its reliance on convention and really soar as pure, solid Drama, capitalisation intended.

* I realise an argument could be made that some of those programs are in specific genres – Mad Men and Deadwood are period-pieces, The Sopranos is a gangster show, and the other three are essentially family-dramas – but those shows all try, quite explicitly, to move away from conventions of genre, it is what has made them so critically acclaimed. When I think of those shows, I think of just pure ‘Drama.’ I really struggle to put them in a genre because, really, none of them are faithful to the usual narratives or devices.

Omar Little

UPDATE (12 May 2010): I attempted season 2 of The Wire, but for whatever reason didn’t get past the first episode. This show expects a lot from it’s viewers, and I suspect I  was not in the right frame of mind for a slow-burn opening episode. I will attempt again, when I’m feeling curious. Perhaps once Breaking Bad season 3 ends.

I’ve finished my coursework now, so I’ll have a lot more time to focus on this blog. I have a few new media opportunities popping up in the coming weeks/months, so hopefully I’ll be inspired by some of the social media happenings I see around.

I’ve recently written an essay for uni about Mad Men, and also one about Google. If you haven’t heard of Mad Men, how’s life under the rock? If you haven’t heard of Google, how are you reading this?

Over the next few days I’ll be posting some of my musings on Mad Men’s third season, inspired by my essay.  The Google one I also hope to adapt to a blog post, but I have to check out some things with it first, so that might take a bit longer.

I hope to get a few more readers, I’ll be posting a lot more and be promoting the blog on Twitter and Facebook and things.

Bring on the summer!

Source: Inquisitr

…Cos everyone seems to think Google’s a browser anyway. I agree with Hodson at the Inquisir: this video’s not surprising. But it’s fun.

I’m still waiting for Google Chrome for Mac.

If you’re on a PC I recommend it whole-heartedly.

The interesting background to this story is that for the last year or 18 months there has been much speculation about the state of Jobs’s health. After a series of health-related issues in the past, without explanation Jobs pulled out of the Macworld Conference early this year, and it was later uncovered this was for undisclosed health reasons. Jobs then took a 6-month leave of absence, citing the increased speculation on his health was becoming a distraction for the company, and that his health issues were ‘more complex’ than first thought. Apple COO Tim Cook was left in charge of daily operations, but Jobs said he would still be involved in executive decisions.

While I’m not suggesting that Jobs is at all obligated to disclose his personal matters to anyone – although the argument has been made that Jobs does in fact have an obligation to Apple shareholders to be open and transparent about the state of his health, given the unusually close correlation between his celebrity and Apple’s business image – I find it especially interesting that Jobs takes the secretive ‘closed shop’ approach that Apple the company has exemplified for many years to his personal issues.

I disclosed ages ago that I’ve started using a new generation iMac. I do like the way I don’t have to think about computing when using it. At this stage of my life, I’m all about creating content, not learning how to operate, and that’s why Apple products are good for me at this time. With an iPhone, iPod, or Mac computer, you don’t have to configure or set up functionality, not nearly as much as you would with a iRiver, Blackberry, PC or open source OS like Linux. Apple’s systems are Apple’s systems: You use it their way. And it works.

The same philosophy can be seen at Apple’s corporate level. They are the antithesis of open-source, even more so than Windows, which seems to be coming round the idea, albeit slowly, if they want to survive against Apple on one side and Google on the other. Apple’s new product launches are renowned for being shrouded in secrecy. I remember waiting to get my new iMac, it was just before semester started. I wanted to get the new upgraded model, and there were rumours aplenty at MacRumors on when it would be released, but nothing in stone so I really didn’t know whether to hold off or just buy because I was getting really close to needing a new computer. It was annoying and it smacks of arrogance – Apple does this because it can. It has fostered a cult around its objects – fetishises them, if you will – to the point that it just plays with its loyal customers. Yes, the products are good (except for iPods being notoriously cheap and short-lived), so I guess Apple customers don’t care that they are at the mercy of the company.

Another funny story: This week I went to the new Apple Store in Doncaster Shopping Town with my friend to help him buy a new MacBook Pro. My friend’s not so scruffy with computers, and wanted some extra RAM built in. He was tossing up whether to get them to add it in in-store, or whether he should buy some cheaper RAM separately and install it himself. He asked the Apple guy where Apple gets it RAM from, because obviously Apple doesn’t make its own RAM, and the guy point blank wouldn’t tell him. He basically said that if it has the Apple sticker on it, its Apple.  Sure, dude. My friend ended up getting the RAM in-store, to save him the hassle. That’s what Apple does, it saves you the hassle. But at what cost?

If Steve Jobs doesn’t want to talk about his health, that’s fine, I guess. But he should at lease recognise that when your customers are tech-savvy, they’re going to want to know what’s going on, eventually. And what happens when Apple hits a rough-patch, which all businesses go through? Perhaps we will start seeing a different, open, more talkative Apple.

Basically I’ve wanted to get a blog about media and pop culture up and running for a long time, so I will use the blog already started to get going on some new, fresh content. Its going to be less about web publishing (although I may still have stuff to say about that) and more about new media and culture.

I’ll write about issues in media like digital media, journalism, politics, tech news, new online social movements, film, TV, music, fandom, websites and online media, memes, subculture, audiences, publishing, copyright, ecommerce, current affairs…really anything that takes my fancy. All of these issues interest me, and all of them can be connected and fall under the wide banner of media and culture (which are almost the same thing, some might suggest). Who knows, I may even dabble in some review writing if I feel so inclined.

I feel the most important thing about this blog is that I find a voice and carve out a position for myself on the interwebs. I feel I have things to say, and I want to say them. It is too early to really know the true direction or form this blog will take. The important thing is that I want write something that is interesting, relevant and above all enjoyable.

So I hope readers enjoy this. I’m really looking forward to getting right into it, I plan on making time to post on average once a day about something, even if it’s a small post.

So…