Glamour and Glitz vs. Gutz and Grit

In promotion of Dancing in the Dark Brooke Gladstone and Morris Dickstein discuss the importance of cinema as a cultural reference to the Depression era ("Hard Times," On the Media). To the causal viewer, films of the era may be dismissed as "cultural artifacts," but are really speaking to the reasons why there may have been a demand for escapist films. One does not have to read very hard into Bugsby Berley's Golddiggers of 1933 to see the allure of Hollywood that New York showgirls might have felt or to see political parallels between FDR and the Wizard of Oz (Okay, i never saw that one before but now it seems so obvious!) Their discussion also mentions the juxtaposition of highly budgeted show-stoppers by grittier films, especially those that fall in the gangster genre. While these connection are far from revolutionary, it is an important to know that example cinema is a reflection modern societies and cultures of the times in which a film is made.

As I was walking home today, I was listening to the Filmspotting podcast from April 3, 2009 (you can play the podcast from their blog. Adam and Matty's discussion of neo-neorealism is the first 20min of the podcast). The hosts were discussing Ramin Bahrani's movie called Goodbye Solo. The hosts were commenting on the movie because it was mentioned in an article in The New York Times magazine about "Neo-Neorealism." The Filmspotting podcast and the articles that sparked their discussion all mentioned the "escapist" films of the 1930's.

I'm not an expert on Italian neorealist filmmakers so I will default to wikipedia:

Italian neorealism is a style of film characterized by stories set amongst the poor and working class, filmed on location, frequently using nonprofessional actors. Italian neorealist films mostly contend with the difficult economical and moral conditions of post-World War II Italy, reflecting the changes in the Italian psyche and the conditions of everyday life: poverty and desperation.

Scott says neo-neo realism is a school of American filmmakers that are using similar aesthetics and are continuing the trend of a gritty story that often does not end on the brightside. Often, the characters in the neo-neorealism films are down on their luck and are scrapping together their pennies to be able to seek out better life. Scott's article generated a retort from the movies editor at the New Yorker "About 'Neo-Neorealism.'" Richard Brody said that Scott was a little too ga-ga over these "abstemious" film that are purposely gritty but in doing so are often cutting "off a wide range of aesthetic possibilities and experiences on ostensible grounds of virtue."

Scott mentions that it is obvious that cinema reflects cultural attitudes but sometimes the more "socialminded" films get undermined by escapist films. He mentions huge blockbusters of early 2009 and says that people are diverted but essentially misled from their troubles by happy endings and the glamour of Hollywood just as they were in the Depression Era. His solution is to "counter the tyranny of fantasy" by taking more stock in the social commentary embedded in neo-neorealism films. Brody counters this point by saying Scott is remiss not to mention the gangster films in comparison to the highly budgeted "escapist" films of the '30s. Even though films like Golddiggers were more likely to appeal to the population looking for escape, it is no less a cultural reference of the gritty realism portrayed in gangster films like The Public Enemy.

Dickstien and Gladston finish their discussion by talking about media artifacts that extend beyond the cinema. They mention T.V. shows and novels (I think it is safe to say that new media artifacts as well) are always going to be cultural artifacts - and probably more so in retrospect - no matter how epic or populist they may appear to be in the moment.

“I don’t necessarily agree with everything I say.“

Is a blog an extension of a journal? Is text messaging the extension of a phone call? Is microblogging the hybrid of the blog and a text message? If so, what do these mediums amputate and what do they extend?

The forms of communication mentioned above are ways in which we tell narratives in our electronic global village. W. Terrance Gordon notes that McLuhan starting point in media analysis “is always the individual, because media are defined as technological extensions of the body.” The human body is a social animal and we feel the need to relate to others and by telling our narratives, we can connect and build communities. The introduction of digital communication has proved many ramifications on culture and society, though not necessarily all good or bad. Through a blog, we can read an unknown person’s intimate thoughts, we can instantly tell someone we are thinking of them without saying a word, or let a whole group of people know what’s on our mind. These mediums are our message – we are telling the world we have something to say, we can say in instantaneously, and we can say it so the whole world hears it – we are digitally enhanced.

With all the immediacy in which we can – and do – tell narratives, there is something that may be detaching us (or amputating as McLuhan would say) from realistically connecting with each other. These brief moments in which we share narratives are a cool medium; that is to say there is much we can fill in and sometime that we need to fill in to understand what is being said. Sitting down at the computer to read a blog, as insightful as it may be, provides little information about the author or the subject. Yet this medium can instantly become a hot medium when we read the ‘about me’ section, click on a link, view a picture, or leave a note. The line between virtually and actually communicating in the digital age is blurred. I don’t know if this is good or bad or nondescript.

It remains, though, that the way we communicate has changed drastically in the last 20, let alone 200 years. John Carey has stated that we can look the culture of communication is just as much through the ritual model as a transmission model. Communication is just as interesting when we think about the technology that we use – packets, sound waves, cyberspace - but the routines and procedures and what becomes of storytelling and traditions is what is behind the sociology of communication – and what makes the history of how we got to this point so damn interesting. As McLuhan notes, it is “what drives home the message.”

Listen to the Ballad of of Marshall McLuhan