Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) is a brilliant young man who must do everything, and does it pretty well. Max begins "Rushmore" (directed by Wes Anderson, 1998) as the de facto ruler of the eponymous prep school. He is involved in about every club or team at Rushmore, and president and/or founder of the majority of those.
There's also Herman Blume (Bill Murray), a millionaire industrialist with two sons he finds loathsome who also attend Rushmore. Blume notices that Max seems to have it "pretty figured out"and asks him what his "secret" is. Max replies that "you've just gotta find something you love to do and then... do it for the rest of your life. For me, it's going to Rushmore."
Unfortunately, all the extra-curricular activity has taken a toll on Max's academic performance, and he is found to be in danger of academic expulsion. While devising a way to remain at his beloved Rushmore (that doesn't involve more study), Max happens upon a quote written into a book about Jacques Cousteau. Following library records leads him to the pretty, young first-grade teacher Miss Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams). Max is immediately smitten, and his efforts are focused on impressing her, first by running a successful campaign to reinstate a Latin class, and then by creating a school aquarium, funded by Blume. In the process, Blume notices Miss Cross as well, and tensions rise between he and Max, soon turning to an all-out war.
The real strength in this film is in the acting, as Schwartzman and Murray (and Williams to a lesser extent) make their characters both sympathetic and larger-than-life. Schwartzman's Max is extremely self-confident (perhaps even arrogant), even for a teenager, but never loses the audience's sympathy due to his naivete and earnestness. Max is still a child trying to be an adult, and genuine in everything he does, not an adult reaching back to immaturity. Murray's Blume, however, is an adult who hates himself, his marriage, and his children, and wants to prevent Max from making the same mistakes. At the same time, he wants to be Max, and earnestly seeks whatever pleases him without thinking of consequences. This makes for a good supporting role, not only adding more comic flavor to the plot, but complementing the character of Max in a way that makes both characters more likeable.
Also enjoyable is the film's use of sound. One great scene is in the library, where the enforced quiet brings out little things like the soft scratching of a pen, the pouring of lemonade, and the sound of feet on carpet. Max and Miss Cross talk about their "relationship" ("You want me to grab a dictionary?”). Miss Cross speaks in hushed tones until Max decides to use the electric pencil sharpener and she has to raise her voice. Soundtrack is also used effectively, and the "love war" scenes using the Who's "A Quick One While He's Away" become more entertaining as the music perfectly fits the tone.
This is only one example of director Wes Anderson's effective use of soundtrack to create tone in the film. In fact, Anderson's quirky tone is evident in almost every aspect of the film, from casting to cinematography. This style for which he is now well-known works well with a story like “Rushmore,” filled with eccentric characters and a deadpan, quirky tone.
In the end, Max must find a way to channel his energies into something enjoyable while still maintaining the priorities that most of the world has set. He cannot "fake the results" anymore, and the audience is given a generally satisfying (although maybe a bit too easy) ending. "Rushmore" is worth seeing for great comedic acting and good story.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Manifesto on Music Piracy
Music will always exist. This is the most important fact to remember. Even if no one will pay for it, humans will always be creating music. It's part of culture, and everyone enjoys it. Let's just remove the idea that "piracy hurts music" from our minds. Nothing will ever kill music as an art form (this is essentially a straw man argument, but some people actually use it).
Ever since the ability to record sound has existed, the potential for music piracy has existed. Piracy, in action, is no different than what record companies do to create products. Pirated material is identical to non-pirated material (theoretically). That is the entire issue, after all.
As recording technology has become cheaper and better, so has piracy become cheaper and more mainstream. In the beginning, very few had machines which could carve vinyl copies, but later a large number of people had the ability to make a copy with a cassette tape from another tape or from the radio. Now, computers make copying virtually effortless and free, and copies can be shared with anyone in the world thanks to the internet.
What record companies must understand is that the short "age of the record" is over. Technology has made piracy so ubiquitous that to demand that a consumer purchase a record is to demand an eskimo purchase a snowball. It makes no sense. Yes, there is a legal issue that piracy is at best copyright infringement and at worst stealing, but this is defined by the previous order.
Record companies do not sell the art of music. The art is the action, and the musician's performance. They sell a copy of the art. A record is not like the original of Van Gogh's
"Starry Night", rather it is like a copy or postcard with the image of "Starry Night" on it. If a tourist at the MoMA takes a picture of "Starry Night" (or, more accurately, the "Starry Night" postcard) and makes it into a postcard, is he taking money away from the postcard industry?
Of course he is! This is risk that is taken by the postcard company when producing a product as cheap and reproducible as a postcard. There are many other factors at hand, but the scenario is essentially the same for the record industry now. As copies are easier for the industry to make and distribute, so are they easier for the consumer (aka pirate) to make and distribute. Now piracy is so easy that it is unstoppable. What can record companies and musical artists do?
They can continue what they have been doing and keep fining and arresting pirates, using legal action to force people to ignore the advances in technology. This isn't cheap for the record industry or good for the image of artists, and it has done nothing to stop piracy.
The better alternative is that the record industry can realize that the "age of the record" is over and to expect most people to purchase albums is no longer a viable business model. Consumers should be encouraged to donate to artists they enjoy when downloading records, instead of being forced to purchase every recording they download. Artists and labels need to harness the power of piracy for publicity, exposing consumers to music they would probably not pay money for right away. Then, publicity needs to be funneled into live shows (an experience which cannot be pirated), where the artist can express his art more powerfully, just as the painting is more powerful than the postcard.
Many music sites and artists are beginning to do this, and should be commended. Adaptation, not brute force, will ensure future generations of paid musicians and a thriving recording industry. This new age, brought about almost accidentally by piracy, will hopefully find a balance where musicians continue to prosper, consumers are exposed to more types of music than ever, and live music will take an even greater role in culture. No matter the ethics of piracy, there is still hope in the future for music and musicians. Piracy is (currently) illegal, but not evil, and it is nothing the free market cannot handle.
Ever since the ability to record sound has existed, the potential for music piracy has existed. Piracy, in action, is no different than what record companies do to create products. Pirated material is identical to non-pirated material (theoretically). That is the entire issue, after all.
As recording technology has become cheaper and better, so has piracy become cheaper and more mainstream. In the beginning, very few had machines which could carve vinyl copies, but later a large number of people had the ability to make a copy with a cassette tape from another tape or from the radio. Now, computers make copying virtually effortless and free, and copies can be shared with anyone in the world thanks to the internet.
What record companies must understand is that the short "age of the record" is over. Technology has made piracy so ubiquitous that to demand that a consumer purchase a record is to demand an eskimo purchase a snowball. It makes no sense. Yes, there is a legal issue that piracy is at best copyright infringement and at worst stealing, but this is defined by the previous order.
Record companies do not sell the art of music. The art is the action, and the musician's performance. They sell a copy of the art. A record is not like the original of Van Gogh's
"Starry Night", rather it is like a copy or postcard with the image of "Starry Night" on it. If a tourist at the MoMA takes a picture of "Starry Night" (or, more accurately, the "Starry Night" postcard) and makes it into a postcard, is he taking money away from the postcard industry?
Of course he is! This is risk that is taken by the postcard company when producing a product as cheap and reproducible as a postcard. There are many other factors at hand, but the scenario is essentially the same for the record industry now. As copies are easier for the industry to make and distribute, so are they easier for the consumer (aka pirate) to make and distribute. Now piracy is so easy that it is unstoppable. What can record companies and musical artists do?
They can continue what they have been doing and keep fining and arresting pirates, using legal action to force people to ignore the advances in technology. This isn't cheap for the record industry or good for the image of artists, and it has done nothing to stop piracy.
The better alternative is that the record industry can realize that the "age of the record" is over and to expect most people to purchase albums is no longer a viable business model. Consumers should be encouraged to donate to artists they enjoy when downloading records, instead of being forced to purchase every recording they download. Artists and labels need to harness the power of piracy for publicity, exposing consumers to music they would probably not pay money for right away. Then, publicity needs to be funneled into live shows (an experience which cannot be pirated), where the artist can express his art more powerfully, just as the painting is more powerful than the postcard.
Many music sites and artists are beginning to do this, and should be commended. Adaptation, not brute force, will ensure future generations of paid musicians and a thriving recording industry. This new age, brought about almost accidentally by piracy, will hopefully find a balance where musicians continue to prosper, consumers are exposed to more types of music than ever, and live music will take an even greater role in culture. No matter the ethics of piracy, there is still hope in the future for music and musicians. Piracy is (currently) illegal, but not evil, and it is nothing the free market cannot handle.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Leisure and Technology
Once upon a time, humanity spent most of its time trying to not die. Starvation, ferocious beasts, inclement weather, the least bit of sickness, the process of birth and even the process of being born could threaten the continuation of the species. If life was a dodgeball game, then death was all the athletic kids and bullies and humanity was mostly fat kids and nerds. Even worse, so much time was spent trying to survive that little progress could be made in making life better.
Those days were not to last, however, and eventually humanity's timeline intersected that point which historians call "The Agricultural Revolution." People started farming and living near each other (mostly for protection). Eventually they discovered that their farms could produce much more food than a family could eat alone. This meant that not everyone needed to be a farmer. Some could develop other skills and trade the fruit of these skills to the farmers for food. A new system had been created where every single person did not have to look out for his own survival at all times. Others would help him, and in turn he would help others. Time existed during the day when work was not necessary. Thus, the concept of "leisure time" was born.
This didn't mean life was any easier right away, or that the majority of the world's population had much leisure time (or currently does). However, over many years, leisure time became one of the foundations of humanity's technological progress. Man now had time to think, time to learn, time to make things and develop skills which were otherwise not profitable (or needed full development to be profitable). Culture blossomed from leisure: the fact that man needed to find something to do when not working.
Look at the First World today, however, and it seems there has been some kind of trade-off. Technology has advanced to a point where it no longer stems from leisure, but instead provides leisure. Skills in the arts are not developed, but only appreciated in those whose employment is to develop those skills. Technology has advanced to the point where culture is now an industry and fed to the general populace instead of created by the general populace.
It is time to do something about this. Leisure time needs to be taken back by everyone. This does not mean it is necessary to destroy technology, but rather to use it to create instead of just absorb. If those ancient farmers could create a culture with what they had, how much more can the average resident of the First World, with the resources he has? Use the internet, use media, use digital photography and film to create culture. Find an instrument and create original music, not for a paycheck, or even a future paycheck, but for pleasure. Sing all the time, no matter how talented. The internet gives access to thousands of lyrics and sheets upon sheets of music previously unavailable. Learn a game or sport, or create one, and get really good at it.
Don't just do it because you read this, but do it because you find it enjoyable. All we have is time, thanks to the progress of our ancestors, and it's about time we used it.
Those days were not to last, however, and eventually humanity's timeline intersected that point which historians call "The Agricultural Revolution." People started farming and living near each other (mostly for protection). Eventually they discovered that their farms could produce much more food than a family could eat alone. This meant that not everyone needed to be a farmer. Some could develop other skills and trade the fruit of these skills to the farmers for food. A new system had been created where every single person did not have to look out for his own survival at all times. Others would help him, and in turn he would help others. Time existed during the day when work was not necessary. Thus, the concept of "leisure time" was born.
This didn't mean life was any easier right away, or that the majority of the world's population had much leisure time (or currently does). However, over many years, leisure time became one of the foundations of humanity's technological progress. Man now had time to think, time to learn, time to make things and develop skills which were otherwise not profitable (or needed full development to be profitable). Culture blossomed from leisure: the fact that man needed to find something to do when not working.
Look at the First World today, however, and it seems there has been some kind of trade-off. Technology has advanced to a point where it no longer stems from leisure, but instead provides leisure. Skills in the arts are not developed, but only appreciated in those whose employment is to develop those skills. Technology has advanced to the point where culture is now an industry and fed to the general populace instead of created by the general populace.
It is time to do something about this. Leisure time needs to be taken back by everyone. This does not mean it is necessary to destroy technology, but rather to use it to create instead of just absorb. If those ancient farmers could create a culture with what they had, how much more can the average resident of the First World, with the resources he has? Use the internet, use media, use digital photography and film to create culture. Find an instrument and create original music, not for a paycheck, or even a future paycheck, but for pleasure. Sing all the time, no matter how talented. The internet gives access to thousands of lyrics and sheets upon sheets of music previously unavailable. Learn a game or sport, or create one, and get really good at it.
Don't just do it because you read this, but do it because you find it enjoyable. All we have is time, thanks to the progress of our ancestors, and it's about time we used it.
Monday, February 8, 2010
TimeOut Chicago Chatroom Critic: Don Hall (Extended Version)
(author's note: the first four paragraphs of this post are directly syndicated from my blog "Without Preface," which I write for my "Reviewing the Arts" class at Columbia College Chicago. The post is not 517 words, so I will be expounding on it for those who read 517 Words. Also, if you have or haven't noticed, this blog will not be updated on Sundays, as a rule.)
However, there is also good reason to be skeptical of internet media (and specifically criticism). Check out Jim DeRogatis' review of the Who's performance last night and then read some of the comments. How many commenters out of the dozens propose any kind of rational, logical, fact-supported analysis? You can probably count them on one hand. As far as independence and opportunity, how many of the really great bloggers, podcasts, or web shows are not supported by the traditional media in some way. Sure, there are quite a few, but would they have been equally successful climbing in the traditional industry as many have done before?
The internet is something big and wonderful and terrible, and no doubt it is and will be changing culture for awhile. After the dust settles, though, will we just be back where we started?
Don Hall is a theater blogger and sole contributor to the blog "An Angry White Guy in Chicago." In the TimeOut Chicago piece "Critical Condition," Hall represents one of the critics who does not write either professionally or in print. His comments about his style of critique reflect that he is familiar and comfortable with the ins and outs of criticism on the internet.Hall's stance is very relatable to anyone who spends a good amount of time on the internet. On-line media brings an amount of freedom, opportunity, and reader interaction that is severely decreased in typical print and other traditional media. Newpapers, radio, and television all understand this and are constantly pointing their readers and viewers to their websites or mobile apps. Watch any television show and you will see at least one reference to the network's website before the show ends. Read any columnist and you will see the URL for his blog at the end. When I interned with the promotions team at Clear Channel here in Chicago, a major focus was pointing the listener to the website. There is no doubt that media is slowly funneling into the web.
Hall believes that anyone can be a critic, although not necessarily a good critic. He says that critics must have both knowledge and passion for what they criticize. He adds that one must be as "sharp and precise as what you're slamming," meaning that not all art is worth the same amount of research. Many times, this knowledge can come from the passion for the subject. As he says, "if you're passionate about theater, you'll likely educate yourself about it." No doubt that being an amateur blogger, his passion for the subject is what fuels his work. It is the amateurs like him who can truly say that "money has little to do with this thing we do."
Hall also agrees with most of the other critics that self-awareness is necessary to being a good critic, and knowing personal prejudices is necessary for a good critique. Knowing the prejudices and opinions of others is likewise necessary for knowing what critics one would prefer to follow. Hall sees criticism, from both the reader and writer viewpoint, as heavily based on knowing prejudices. As a internet critic, he is familiar with the instant anonymous criticism he receives on his own critiques and embraces it, using replying to negative comments in order to sharpen his own views.
Hall also takes somewhat of an anti-establishment stance, saying courage is only needed when criticizing the powerful (implying that their response could be worse than that of his commenters). He also sees distrust for megacorporations as the reason many turn to user reviews rather than print critiques. Independent criticism is a part of his passion for the art of critique.
However, there is also good reason to be skeptical of internet media (and specifically criticism). Check out Jim DeRogatis' review of the Who's performance last night and then read some of the comments. How many commenters out of the dozens propose any kind of rational, logical, fact-supported analysis? You can probably count them on one hand. As far as independence and opportunity, how many of the really great bloggers, podcasts, or web shows are not supported by the traditional media in some way. Sure, there are quite a few, but would they have been equally successful climbing in the traditional industry as many have done before?
The internet is something big and wonderful and terrible, and no doubt it is and will be changing culture for awhile. After the dust settles, though, will we just be back where we started?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Our Mission Statement, FAQ, Pilot?
Welcome to 517 Words, a blog in which I, the author, attempt to post something daily of my own creation which contains at least 517 Words. In honor of the first ever post, I will write this is an easy and lazy FAQ-style. Questions will be in italics and answers will not.
How can a blog which did not exist mere minutes before posting have "frequently asked questions?"
Good point. The reality is that these are not frequently asked questions, but a way for the reader to get familiar with the premise of the blog, if the reader ever decides to read the first post. Through this FAQ-like method I am also establishing for myself what this blog will be about and will have something to look back on in the future, if I need a guide. Think of it as a mission statement, manifesto, or holy scripture of the blog, depending on what you are into.
What the hell does "517 Words" mean?
Watch the language there, fictional person, but as I explained in the opening paragraph, I hope to post 517-word entries to this blog every day. The title is pretty self-explanatory from there.
Ok, but why 517? Why not 500? Or 1000?
I'll answer that in reverse order. Not 1000 because that is way too daunting mentally and I'd like to set an achievable goal here.
500 is more of what I was thinking, but I am not a fan of round numbers. Round numbers are really just too predictable; you can get a leg up on people by not being a slave to round numbers. For example, if I need to be somewhere at 9:00 am, I set my alarm for 7:47 am. 8:00 is too little time, but there is no reason to get up at 7:30. So, I just gained 17 minutes of sleep over the guy who has to use round numbers. Also, I am sure there are already at least a few blogs where people challenge themselves to write 500 words a day.
517 really doesn't have any other significance besides the fact that it isn't nice and round. I can make up a reason, if you want. For instance: it's not prime, but it looks like it could be, and it is the area code of Lansing, Michigan. They have a minor league baseball team there called the "Lugnuts." That is pretty cool.
Sooo what is this blog about, besides writing 517 words a day?
Anything, really. Whatever is on my mind that particular day. Although probably not the particulars of what I did that day. Other unlikely topics are parenting, the occult, parenting, fitness, and parenting. In fact, my other idea for a title for this blog was "Not About Parenting," but I figured Google would then bring it up when people searched for parenting blogs. I really don't want to disappoint all those parents and parents-to-be with their incoming or troublesome offspring.
Topics that are likely to be covered in this blog are art criticism of all forms, philosophy, theology, music, and pretty much anything else.
How are you qualified to discuss these topics?
I am not qualified at all! I'm just writing about what I think about and experience. So don't cite me in a scholarly paper. I wouldn't.
What if you do not write 517 words or you write more than 517 words in a post?
To the former, I'm only cheating myself. To the latter, great! Like this post, which as of this sentence is nearing 575 words!
"517 Words" in a post.
How can a blog which did not exist mere minutes before posting have "frequently asked questions?"
Good point. The reality is that these are not frequently asked questions, but a way for the reader to get familiar with the premise of the blog, if the reader ever decides to read the first post. Through this FAQ-like method I am also establishing for myself what this blog will be about and will have something to look back on in the future, if I need a guide. Think of it as a mission statement, manifesto, or holy scripture of the blog, depending on what you are into.
What the hell does "517 Words" mean?
Watch the language there, fictional person, but as I explained in the opening paragraph, I hope to post 517-word entries to this blog every day. The title is pretty self-explanatory from there.
Ok, but why 517? Why not 500? Or 1000?
I'll answer that in reverse order. Not 1000 because that is way too daunting mentally and I'd like to set an achievable goal here.
500 is more of what I was thinking, but I am not a fan of round numbers. Round numbers are really just too predictable; you can get a leg up on people by not being a slave to round numbers. For example, if I need to be somewhere at 9:00 am, I set my alarm for 7:47 am. 8:00 is too little time, but there is no reason to get up at 7:30. So, I just gained 17 minutes of sleep over the guy who has to use round numbers. Also, I am sure there are already at least a few blogs where people challenge themselves to write 500 words a day.
517 really doesn't have any other significance besides the fact that it isn't nice and round. I can make up a reason, if you want. For instance: it's not prime, but it looks like it could be, and it is the area code of Lansing, Michigan. They have a minor league baseball team there called the "Lugnuts." That is pretty cool.
Sooo what is this blog about, besides writing 517 words a day?
Anything, really. Whatever is on my mind that particular day. Although probably not the particulars of what I did that day. Other unlikely topics are parenting, the occult, parenting, fitness, and parenting. In fact, my other idea for a title for this blog was "Not About Parenting," but I figured Google would then bring it up when people searched for parenting blogs. I really don't want to disappoint all those parents and parents-to-be with their incoming or troublesome offspring.
Topics that are likely to be covered in this blog are art criticism of all forms, philosophy, theology, music, and pretty much anything else.
How are you qualified to discuss these topics?
I am not qualified at all! I'm just writing about what I think about and experience. So don't cite me in a scholarly paper. I wouldn't.
What if you do not write 517 words or you write more than 517 words in a post?
To the former, I'm only cheating myself. To the latter, great! Like this post, which as of this sentence is nearing 575 words!
"517 Words" in a post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
