The Empty World of Spring Break

Take a nice, fresh apple. Hold it in your hand. See it there, almost impossibly appetising, its skin without a speck of brown to mar the vibrant greens and reds. Feel its comforting weight resting in your hand. Then, pick up your apple corer. There is resistance as you shove the instrument into the flesh of the fruit, but it is overcome in a burst of juice and metal. You twist and yank back and the corer comes free, carrying with it a neat plug of flesh. You extract this and, laying the corer down, you observe the apple. It still looks delicious, fresh and juicy, its bright colours as yet undiminished. Yet the initial, comforting heft is gone and even as you take a bite, and the sugar-tang floods across your tongue, your teeth still close on empty air. Despite all the apple’s pleasantness, its missing core proves impossible to overlook. The fruit is as persistently hollow as the world of Spring Breakers.

 

 

“Spring Break Forever…”

 

It is hard to think of any three words less likely to convey a deep and chilling truth. “Spring Break Forever!” is a phrase of such extreme vapidity, that not only is it usually accompanied by a group “WOOOOO!!!!”, but it also has about the same level of meaning. This is the best a brain drenched in alcohol can do to express the delight of being drunk with friends, in a place where the music is loud and thumpy. In the mouths of the sober the phrase has slightly more meaning, but only as an ironic shorthand for carefree and idiotic youth. Yet in the mouth of Alien (James Franco), those three little words gain a new and horrible significance. They become, not a shout of joy, but a hoarse, trailing mantra, a philosophical statement from a character that embodies the very notion of a coreless existence.

 

Alien is the character that defines Spring Breakers. Nominally the film is about four teenage girls bored with studying US history and desperate for wonders, who travel to Spring Break with stolen funds to seek the escape they crave. However none of these girls, not even the chillingly reptilian Brit (Ashley Benson), has as arresting a presence as Franco’s drug-dealer/rapper. The reason for this discrepancy is that the girls are essentially tourists. Each comes to Spring Break in search of an ideal. Some are disappointed by what they find, while for the others it’s all they have ever wanted. Still, whatever their reaction, all the girls are limited to reacting to this Brave New World. By contrast, Alien is Spring Break. He has not just embraced the lifestyle for a few days: he has done so permanently. For him Spring Break really is Forever.

 

It’s not surprising then that his first interest in the girls is as potential sexual conquests. When we first meet him properly, Alien is all predator. He’s physically repulsive, looking like a scumbag and acting like a pervert, but underneath this is a personality possessed of suffocating charisma. Alien’s soft, twanging drawl encircles the girls like a python’s coils, thick with authoritative sleaze, yet it is a power he has no idea how to use. Alien is a man without subtlety, and it is this more than anything that undoes him. His bluntness inspires Faith (Selena Gomez) to flee the film, but it is when he attempts to dominate Candy (Vanessa Hudgens) and Brit that the tables truly turn. Those girls have a taste for dominance themselves, and they are not about to accept the role of morality play victims. When Alien crosses the line, they react, and it he who finds himself in their power. In a single, breathless sequence Alien the predator is destroyed, and Alien the human emerges. It is quite the transformation, this taming of the devil. However, as it turns out, Alien proves far more horrifying as a human being than he could ever be as a demon.

 

Spring Breakers is a film with a moment. That is the reason I feel comfortable recommending it, because regardless of how you react to the rest of the film, some things just need to be experienced. The sequence begins with Alien sitting down at his horrendously tacky, white piano. He is joined by the remaining girls, who stand around him waving guns, their faces covered by fluorescent pink balaclavas. This trio of Amazon Barbies proceeds to demand a song, but not just any song. They want something real, something with sentiment, a song to unmask Alien’s emotional depths. Alien sits, thinks for a moment, then begins to play and sing, softly (and poorly) at first, but with nothing less than full, heartbreaking sincerity. The girls, at first hesitant, begin to join in, and just like that all four people are crooning, voices thick with emotion, along to Britney Spears’ Everytime.

 

 

Looking into the Void

 

I will never be able to listen to that song in the same way ever again. Just thinking about it now makes me grin like a maniac, and in the moment I was not the only audience member to scream with laughter. The sincerity and the incongruity of it combined is initially all too much. Perhaps director Harmony Korine was aware of this, because the montage that follows the singing feels purposefully dragged out. Indeed, it goes on so long (and becomes so visually brutal) that the joke dissipates, and with mounting horror you begin to realise that in the world of the film, there is no joke. Alien’s choice of a Spears pop ballad as a reflection of his deepest humanity was made with complete seriousness.

 

The meaning to be seen in Alien’s choice is the opposite of that found in Alex’s love of Beethoven in A Clockwork Orange. This is not to say that Beethoven is the pinnacle of musical culture Britney Spears is not (though I’d like to hear the argument that says Spears ranks higher on the cultural ladder). Instead, Alex’s love has meaning because him even knowing who Beethoven is is unexpected. The fact that a sadistic thug like Alex can appreciate the beauty of a music crafted for a completely different time and audience, reveals that he still possesses, despite himself, some vestiges of a universal humanity. As such Alex’s screams of IT’S A SIN, IT’S A SIN!’ while imprisoned in his viewing chair scorch the ear, because even this creature, for whom even the Bible is nothing but an engagingly vile escape into fantasies of cruelty, is able to recognise and loathe the violation of beauty. By contrast, the choice of Britney Spears by the Spring Breakers as the spiritual pinnacle of music reveals how limited their experiences are. They see ultimate beauty in Britney Spears because they have no experience of any greater beauty beyond it. I doubt that if any of them were strapped down in Alex’s place they would make any protest whatsoever. Their belief in Spring Break as an ideal has cut them off from humanity.

 

For Alien and the Breakers, Spring Break is an endless parade of tangible joys with which they are obsessed. Their ideal is the possession of money, and the subsequent possession of ‘shit’. Their ideal is the ability to be hammered out of their goddamn minds, and either prowling amongst the lusting eyes of similarly drunken males, or getting down to the business of grabbing ass and sucking tit. They are fully aware of the pleasures the world offers and are determined to possess them. This, by the way, is not a bad thing: even I have been known to dabble in pleasures on occasion. The problem is that these devotees of Spring Break see the pleasures, but do not see the reasons those pleasures have worth. They care so much about possessing wealth, but don’t give a shit about how they get it and have no meaningful use for any of it. Instead they just leave it just lying around or fritter it away on gaudy trinkets and ridiculous weaponry. The Spring Breakers’ constant refrain during the first golden days of their holiday is that they’re making ‘so many friends’. However, come sobriety said ‘friends’ are nowhere in sight, as transitory as all aspects of drunken happiness. Yet neither Alien nor the Breakers can see this. Alien genuinely believes he has fallen in love with girls he only just met, and in the endless pursuit of wealth and status and yet more tangibilities, decides to murder the person who was once genuinely his best friend. To see Spring Break as the ideal is to ignore the depth that makes life worth living, and after a lifetime of ignoring meaning, Alien and his little cohort can’t even recognise it anymore. That is the horror that Everytime encapsulates.

 

I want to state now that I have no intention to demonise Spring Break. Pleasure that comes without inflicting pain on others cannot be considered immoral. What I am, and I believe Spring Breakers is criticising, is the making of pleasure into the be-all-and-end-all of existence. Spring Break functions identically to Las Vegas in Fear and Loathing: a transitory, holiday destination where the party gets so extreme it becomes a perfect tool for satire. The sight of vodka-soaked crowds heaving Boschly to a purposefully grungy Skrillex track echoes the ether disorientation of Raoul Duke’s stumble through a nightmarish Vegas circus. Both films also have similar targets, lampooning cultures characterised by the death of meaning. Yet both are also of different times. The 70s that Duke finds so terrible is one where the adults are still in charge, one where the promised revolution of the flower children never arrived. The modern tragedy of Spring Breakers is that the children’s crusade has succeeded, but in the worst possible way, by introducing infantile behaviour into the wider culture. The Breakers are criminally short-sighted. They want things, they will take them if they can, and at their age there is no-one left to send them to the naughty step. In their narrow focus they have forgotten, or maybe never learned, what truly makes life important. I know for me the Britney Spears moment was the point at which the film made this clear, but then again, art matters to me in a way it just doesn’t to other people. So, for you others, allow me one last point to illustrate the void.


On numerous occasions in Spring Breakers, we witness characters experiencing emotional trauma. It happens to Faith, it happens to Cotty (Rachel Korine) and it happens to Alien. Well, on each of those occasions, that individual’s peer group does not focus on comforting and caring for their friend: quite the reverse in fact. Their main concern is to override their friends’ qualms to keep the party going. To all of them, but to Candy and Brit in particular, sharing the party is all friends are for, and when, out of nothing but fear and misery a friend refuses to keep going, they either pressure them into going on, or abandon them to face their misery alone. The fact that the Spring Breakers can’t recognise true beauty, the fact that they can’t differentiate real love from infatuation, those two things might well be excused by their youth. However their total lack of empathy for the pain of their friends, reveals the emptiness of their world with horrible, harrowing clarity.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Cloud Atlas Tore Me To Shreds

One of the most alarming political twists of the 21st century has been the demonisation of Revolution. This concept has been seized and monopolised by a cartel of Communists and Terrorists, who transformed it into a Western boogeyman. Here, Revolution has become a thing of mobs, pitchforks and sewers stained bright blue with the blood of aristos. But this is a mirage. Revolution is not just the overthrow of governments. If anything such change is shallow: just one corrupt dictatorship replacing another. Lasting change happens not to governments but to minds. The only worthwhile Revolution is a Revolution of Thought, and Cloud Atlas makes you want to fight for it.

Cloud Atlas is technically composed of six stories spread across a multitude of places and genres. Amongst its vast roster of characters stand sailors, young lovers, plucky crime-stoppers, rebellious pensioners, mass-produced people and post-apocalyptic tribesmen, a dizzying complexity of people given order by a neat, if mystical, device. Cloud Atlas takes place in a universe of reincarnation, wherein the same personalities endlessly reappear across the ages. Though social status, race and even gender may change across the ages, character remains consistent, a point reflected visually by having the same actors play every recurrence of the undying personality.

The result is that Cloud Atlas’ character arcs don’t play out over the course of the film’s runtime, but over the passage of ages within the film. For example, Tom Hanks’ main role in the film is as a post-apocalyptic coward, kept mean and fearful by the whispers of a green-eyed Devil. The arc of that particular story involves him finding the courage to redeem himself. However, unbeknownst to him, the tribesman is not just redeeming himself, but breaking a mould that has defined him since the 1850s. Again and again, Tom Hanks appears as a man made evil by the fear of being weak in a world ruled by the strong. Then, at the last possible moment, he breaks that cycle. The tribesman does not just change himself, but also who he has always been.

The realisation that this is what Cloud Atlas is doing comes as a bit of a shock: not because the age-spanning arc is poorly set up, but because there is so much happening in the film that you just don’t notice what’s going on. There is something of the circus about Cloud Atlas. It is loud and bright and endlessly on the move, cartwheeling and backflipping across time. It is a film made by jugglers who skipped the fruit and pins, and moved straight to chainsaws. It is a film that batters the mind with a torrent of information and then, suddenly, steps back with an abracadabra and makes sense of everything. This trick is not new. Margaret, another modern masterpiece also makes its mark with a sudden unveiling. Yet, Margaret is ponderous. Watching it is like watching a pyramid built in time-lapse: lots of feverish activity slowly bringing an edifice into being. Though captivated, the watching mind does have space to breathe. The Cloud Atlas circus provides no such luxury. This film was not constructed but choreographed, with the score and the film’s pace so closely matching that every cut, every camera movement feels like a move in a visual dance. The editors took six separate stories and crafted a whole, linking mood with mood, narrative beat with beat, and also, in a moment that broke me, granted the last wish of a martyr.

Cloud Atlas does not handle its audience gently. I am used to crying when films earn it. Simply saying the word ‘Superman’ to me in the right way will make me blubber. Usually for me though, weeping over a film is a fulfilling, not-exhausting experience. Cloud Atlas hit me differently. Come the film’s finish, I was not sitting straight with tears shining on a Britannically-stiff upper lip. Instead I sat hunched and shaking. I think if I had been on my own I would have howled. I was convulsed by a heaving spasm, half-laughter and half-sobbing, that crumpled me up like paper and left me fragile as glass, with drool-stained knees and an overflowing nose. I felt for the first time in my life a beauty that did not just earn emotion but demanded it, a beauty that tore adulation from me as I would tear meat from a bone.

I can’t promise that you, reader, will have the same reaction as me. I am, despite appearances, something of an idealist. I believe in what Cloud Atlas has to say. I believe that we as humans are improving, slowly becoming better, wiser, more capable of goodness. Sure Hugo Weaving will always exist in one form or another, endlessly preaching the gospel of a naturally oppressive order, but change will always come to prove him/her wrong. The Revolution of Thought is endless. In Cloud Atlas we see it playing out again and again. Sometimes it ends in triumph. Sometimes it ends in the blood of revolutionaries. Sometimes the Revolution ends in a dying brain, only to rise like the Phoenix in the minds of others. However, it is not the end of the Revolution that matters. What matters most is the fight, that we fight, against the fear and the hate and the poisonous belief that ‘this is how it is and this is how it always will be’. Cloud Atlas celebrates this fight. It humanises this fight. It is a call to arms.

Long live the Revolution.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

On the Harlem Shake

The Harlem Shake may not be just another dance craze…

(Yes I realise it’s dead. Tell that to my resurrectionist brain).

Tagged , , , ,

Intro to YouTube Criticism, or, How to be a Complete Muppet

PART ONE

 

Should YouTube be a subject for criticism?

I’m not sure. On the one hand, some amongst the YouTube creative community[1] are making content of real quality (and batshit insanity[2]). They make videos that inspire emotion and engage with the endless discussion on what it’s like to be human. They even do so in a fairly novel way. YouTube has its own style of visual storytelling, as different to TV and film as those two are different to each other, and this is in part what makes it worth criticising. But on the other hand, I worry that criticism would prove anathema to YouTube’s unique character.

Like TV and film, YouTube has its own capabilities and limitations as a creative medium, its main strength being the lack of human obstacles. At no point on YouTube is there some office suit rejecting ideas for lack of perceived market potential, and the result is a wonderful mess of creativity. YouTube features rhetoric, poetry, education on everything from The Great Gatsby to the Tau-Pi debate, and twisted cartoons about psychopathic llamas. As long as people can cobble together the equipment, funds and willing helpers to make something, that thing is going on YouTube. Of course, that does not mean that anyone is going to watch it.

See, the flipside of no corporate oversight is a lack of corporate backing. This means less money for making things, but, more importantly, also means no professional marketing, no publicists and no paid advertising. There is no-one building an audience before the appearance of a YouTube video. Instead the video is simply uploaded with the hope that an audience will appear. In addition, no corporate backing means no money up front. If you want to make a living from YouTube, you depend on having a big audience that will generate ad revenue and buy your branded merchandise. On YouTube, the audience directly pays the creator, rather than paying the creator indirectly via media companies as happens with film and TV.

This means that the YouTuber has both all the responsibility for building and maintaining a loyal audience, and all the profit motivation to do so. This can conflict with creativity, in that people drift towards making what’s popular over what they might prefer to do,[3] but as creative people rarely like bandwagons, this tends not to happen. YouTubers may instead cater to audiences in more indirect ways, such as keeping their videos short in respect of standard internet-user attention spans[4] or making more naturally crowd-pleasing entertainment, like action or comedy. This sort of audience building is not pandering, largely because what audiences like to watch many creators like to make. But there are plenty of people making comedy skits or wacky animations or action sequences on YouTube. To build an audience on YouTube, a creator has to make people want to watch their stuff in particular. They have to engage the audience on a personal level. It is a challenge to be sure, but when creators rise to it, the results can be amazing.

YouTubers are open with their audiences to a degree that is awe-inspiring. Without prompting they reveal their drives, the details of their lives and their feelings, whether joys, miseries[5] or fears[6]. This is not a complete openness. As in any social situation, YouTubers subtly adjust the way they behave when in front of the camera. They might exaggerate some traits, or suppress others. This means what the audience is engaging with is a persona, but because engaging with personas is how all human relationships work, that really makes no difference. After all the persona still has all the same drives and desires as the actual person. So, to the extent that anyone really does, YouTubers honestly reveal themselves to their audience. This inspires empathy, and empathy for the creator makes you want to keep watching.

This up-front revelation of the creator’s personality is alien to other media. In film for example the artists (directors, writers, DOPs, et al) are pretty anonymous. Not completely: good artists put enough of themselves into their films that you can recognise the person by what they make. But seeing particular individual traits within a movie’s themes or visual style is not the same thing as having a creator state their thoughts and feelings direct to camera. Learning about a person by analysing what they make is a pretty distanced way of getting to know someone.

But the comparative lack of intimacy is not the main way film and also film criticism shapes the audience-creator relationship. As the only way you get to know a filmmaker is through their work, the quality of that work is a massive factor in how your relationship with them develops. Indeed how good a filmmaker is at their job becomes the defining trait of that filmmaker. This is made all the more true if you happen to be heavily involved in film criticism.

Critics, you see, think that art is important. World-changingly important. This is not just a critic thing mind: lots of people think this way, but it is a mindset that critics almost have to have, because otherwise why would they bother? You don’t spend ages discussing something unless you think that thing is really important, and if you think film as a whole is important, good films become vital. You are not just thankful to the filmmaker for the emotional experience they provide; you are also gripped with the belief that their life and works are making the world better. This combines with a lack of intimacy with the filmmaker as a person, to turn the filmmaker from a person into a fucking idol. This has its consequences: for example, it helped me to make a thorough fool of myself.

 

PART TWO

 

The ensuing story takes place at the BFI Southbank Centre. I was there to see John Dies at the End, a film I was far, far too excited about. I love the source material, I loved how brilliantly weird the trailer was, but most of all, I was excited because the movie was directed by Don Coscarelli. That man is not just a filmmaker: he is the kind of filmmaker I want to be.   For example, Coscarelli’s first film was a horror about an evil pensioner who chops up dead bodies to make dwarf slaves who toil for him on some alien world. That is a good starting point for excellence, but Coscarelli cemented it by having a great ear for music, and an insistence on practical effects work. The result was Phantasm, a cult horror legend. But though that film and its sequels are loved by many, the reason I fell in love with Coscarelli was a much more recent film of his called Bubba Ho-Tep. It is a film about Elvis fighting a mummy in an old folks’ home, and has an ending so beautiful that after multiple viewings it still makes me tear up. I love Bubba Ho-Tep, but that love had unfortunate consequences. I watched that film, and thought it a work of genius, so, I began to idolise.

So there I was, at Southbank. I got there an hour early, and though I tried to pass the time by writing, my anticipation overdose made it a fruitless effort. I could but sit and jiggle and wait as the minutes peeled away, until, finally it was time. I got up to head over to theatre, and, as I went, bam! There he was. Standing in the lobby, for all the world like a normal person, was Don Coscarelli. For a moment I was frozen, locked in an internal scuffle of balls vs shyness. Balls won out, with the assertion that if I didn’t go say hello, I would end up kicking my own arse till the end of time. So, over I went. I stood before the man, and cleared my throat in a fairly weak manner, but Coscarelli had already seen me. I was still plucking up the courage to speak, when he held out his hand and said: “Hi. I’m Don.”

That tore it. My lazy brain, always looking for the best cliché, found and appropriated the standard Hollywood post-explosion, glassy-eyed discombobulation. Still, I somehow managed to shake the proferred hand and burble something complimentary about Bubba Ho-Tep. Coscarelli responded fairly off-handedly, after first giving full credit for any goodness to the writer of the source material (and so adding humility to his list of virtues). He described how he’d rewatched it recently and had forgotten how sentimental it was, a comment that frankly floored me. I mean, how could a genius forget his greatest work, or indeed talk about it so lightly? My world reeled. Unfortunately the momentary silence that followed was immediately filled by Coscarelli’s event organiser escort, who began burbling about some of the actually important stuff that needed to be done. Suddenly the conversation had moved on, and I could only stand and watch it go.

Now, most people in such a scenario would just leave, interrupting briefly to excuse themselves from proximity and then head off. However, I am middle-class & English to my core, and as such felt myself trapped between the Scylla and Charybdis of awkward social situations. I mean it would have been rude to stay where I was, because the conversation that was now happening was obviously not one I should be involved in. However it was also rude for me to just leave (it would look as if I was offended). Same goes for interrupting the conversation to make a formal exit. Normally I think I might have shouldered my cross and managed a little rudeness, but at that time I was in the company of Don Coscarelli, graven image extraordinaire, and the very thought of committing social faux pas in front of him was…urgh. Not even considerable.

What then followed were several tortuous minutes, as I waited desperately for some acceptable avenue of escape to open up. Luckily, Don Coscarelli provided one, eventually, breaking off his conversation with his escort to tactfully tell me to go away. At the time, I could have kissed his hand for that, but now, the memory feels mortifying. I looked like a gormless muppet in front of one of my heroes. Of course, that just shows the problem. I thought of the man as a hero, which he isn’t. He’s just a bloke. Indeed, he seemed a rather affable bloke, and if I’d approached him as one of those, maybe I wouldn’t have been such a twit. Instead, I approached him as a brilliantly skilled filmmaker, and so froze up.

Now, obviously, this ridiculousness is my fault. I’m not the most adept of people at trying to be social in a non-social context, especially with people I admire. It was probably always going to be a little awkward, even though Coscarelli proved to be a decent chap. But when I compare how I behaved with Coscarelli with how I’ve behaved when meeting prominent YouTubers, well, I found it easier to approach the YouTubers, and I wouldn’t say it was because they were all nicer than Coscarelli. Most had about the same level of niceness, and a few were actually standoffish.[7] The difference was on my end. I genuinely felt more confident walking up and saying hello to the YouTubers, because, in my head, they were people. Their video-making skills were just a trait, and this made them approachable. Not that this prevented me from making a tit of myself in front of one, but it did mean I did so in a very different fashion.

 

PART THREE

 

So, last year I went to Summer in the City, the UK’s biggest YouTube gathering.[8] As part of this fandom maelstrom, I approached Jack Howard, one half of YouTube comedy duo OMFGitsJackandDean.[9] The man is an excellent, ‘I’m slowly losing my shit’ comedian, not to mention a compulsive collaborator (often popping up as an editor credit on other peoples’ videos), so I was pretty excited to meet him. However, I’d seen enough videos of him just being himself to not be overawed, so I was also fairly relaxed.

Things proceeded well. I did the usual ‘meeting a YouTuber’ routine with him,[10] during which I even managed a bit of conversation. It wasn’t anything major, just a bit of harmless joking. I remember I was making some stupid comment about how making good videos is all magic, things were winding up nicely, and then, I overextended the joke and called him a fairy. There followed a moment of silence, as I realised what I had just said. I then flusteredly tried to rectify matters, which of course made it even more awkward, and Jack kindly, but firmly, drew a line under our interaction.[11] So, I wandered away, and spent the rest of the gathering happily, but with occasional memory-flashes of embarrassment.

Despite those, I think on that example of my own colossal social ineptitude far more fondly than I do on the incident with Don Coscarelli. I much prefer to make a fool of myself by talking, than by nervous silence. It was also a lot less horrible embarrassing myself in front of a person like Jack Howard, than embarrassing myself in front of the idolised Coscarelli. As such, I feel I owe this diminished awkwardness to the closeness of YouTube’s audience-creator relationship. Hell, I owe the very opportunity of meeting Jack Howard to that closeness.

The YouTube gatherings are expressions of the unique relationship that YouTubers have with their audiences. Whether it’s just people hanging out in a park, or a more formal event like Summer in the City, the gatherings are about creators voluntarily going to connect with their audiences. This is not an easy thing. Many prominent YouTubers will have thousands of people wanting to share moments with them, and with the charged atmosphere of the big meet-ups, people can forget themselves in their excitement. The bigger YouTubers[12] can get encircled by massive crowds, surrounded by mystifyingly eager faces, and sometimes those crowds can get worryingly moblike.[13]

Even if the crowd remains well-behaved however, their combined want will often keep the YouTuber in one place for hours, endlessly repeating the same meet-the-fans routine until they physically cannot go on. The fact that YouTubers like Thomas Ridgewell, or Chris Bingham, or Jack Howard, still willingly go to these events shows an amazing commitment to their audiences. Exhausting yourself for your fans is about as inspirational a thing a creator can do, and it is that kind of effort that YouTube encourages. Currently it looks like that, in the UK at least, these meet-ups will begin to be more managed, but this is more in the interests of safety than anything else. Plus, I reckon a guarantee of occasional pit stops would make YouTubers even more willing to make great efforts in strengthening their link to their audiences.[14]

 

PART FOUR

 

So then, why am I worried about criticism? Surely, if the threat of being crushed by a mass of adoring fans is not enough to put YouTubers off keeping close to their audience, the words of a critic would have a negligible impact.

However, I’m not so confident, because honestly, criticism does have an impact on its mediums. In film for example, the modern primacy of the director as the principal cinematic artist is a result of the critical auteur theory. In literature, it is critics, not authors (a dividing line between roles, if not persons), who create the codifying trends and movements and genre histories that come to define individual stories. Criticism has an impact, and my worry is that one feature of criticism would have an unhealthy impact on YouTube. You see, criticism focusses on the art over the artist. This is not to say critics ignore artists: that would be ridiculous, but they look at them through the lens of their art, not as independent people. This is often how we as audiences see them too. I mean, my opinion of Michael Bay is very different to my opinion of Quentin Tarantino, and it has everything to do with the quality of films they make.

But YouTube is different. On YouTube creators show themselves as artists and people. We are able to see them as both, and the result is an intimacy that, as I have said throughout this piece, is special. My worry is that ubiquitous YouTube criticism, with its focus on the art and not the artist, might lead YouTubers away from revealing themselves, in addition to producing good art. Given how some of these revelations have touched me and so many others as well, their becoming less prevalent would not just make YouTube less engaging, but would neuter the medium on the cusp of its artistic flowering.

However, I do not intend for this concern to hold criticism back. I am not anti-critic. Hell, I want to criticise YouTube myself, talk at length about its content and its creators and revel in the birth of this new, exciting, wonderfully creative medium. As such consider this piece an introduction, rather than a closing door. I intend to criticise to my heart’s content, but will do so carefully, in the knowledge that this medium is different to others, and that difference is worth preserving.


[1] Alternatively referred to here as creators or ‘YouTubers’: they saved the creativity for their videos

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCZp7os4Llk – This video by Christopher Bingham represents the conflict of interests well, if in a slightly ostentatious way

[4] Though like all trends, the ‘not-over-10mins’ restriction exists to be bucked

[7] The latter being thoroughly understandable, because it must be insane meeting a bunch of strangers who treat you like you’re famous, when all you do is put 3 minute videos on the internet.

[8] An event where a bunch of YouTubers and their fans gather together for a big, ol’-fashioned festival of signing, pictures and hugs

[10] Say hi, compliment, ask for picture with arm round shoulder

[11] Are you guys noticing a common theme?

[12] In terms of popularity, not mass. No YouTuber I yet know of has their own gravitational pull. Insert cruel joke here.

[14] The latest Becoming YouTube video turns its documentary lens onto gatherings, from the creators’ perspective. It’s a more thorough summary of the phenomenon than what I’ve provided, and well worth checking out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H_lRfVnhrI

Tagged , , , , , ,

railsea, strata & the obsession with mystery

EXTREME SPOILER WARNING. ESSAY TELLS YOU HOW RAILSEA ENDS. GO READ THE BOOK. I PROMISE – IT’S WELL GOOD.

 

‘A planet is not a world. Planet: a ball of rock. World: a 4-dimensional wonder. On a world there must be mysterious mountains. Let there be bottomless lakes peopled with antique monsters. Let there be strange footprints in high snowfields, green ruins in endless jungle, bells beneath the sea, echo valleys and cities of gold. This is the yeast in the planetary crust, without which the imagination of men will not rise’
(Strata, Terry Pratchett)

Terry Pratchett’s Strata makes a necessity of mysteries. The above quotation both establishes their allure, with images as tantalising as a ‘come hither’ gaze, and ends on a justification for that attractive power. It is a justification expanded upon in drier terms later in the novel, but the basic argument runs like this. Humans need to constantly update their minds. Nature leads animals to change physically in order to overcome new challenges, because for most creatures physical traits are the only weapons they have in the evolutionary arms race. But for humans, the best weapon is not the body but the mind, so that is what needs to be improved upon. We need our thoughts to mutate in order to survive in this lethal universe, and nothing makes you think in new ways like overcoming a mystery. Thus in Strata, the Company (the de facto ruler of humanity, thanks to a monopoly on immortality) creates worlds. On each are installed mysteries to beckon the mind into new horizons. Within Strata’s universe, human fascination with mystery is portrayed as a rational thing that prompts mankind out of evolutionary stagnation.

But should this fascination be explained away so easily? After all, there’s a strong argument to be made for the irrationality of an obsession with mystery. Mystery implies unknown, and within an unknown anything might lurk. The jungle ruins may contain ancient treasures, but they might just as easily house tribes whose word for ‘stranger’ is the same as their word for ‘lunch’. Ensuring the survival of humanity by forcing mankind into new mental horizons sounds like an excellent aim, but what if that new horizon lies under the shadow of the swastika? That’s the problem with stepping into new territory: it is as likely to be a foolish decision as it is to be an intelligent one. This case for irrationality seems somewhat ignored by Strata; however China Mieville’s Railsea tackles it head on.

Railsea approaches the new horizon in a completely different way to Strata. For one thing, the theme of mystery-chasing is central to the former novel, which is not the case with the latter. Strata’s ultimate topic for discussion is ‘creation’, a theme employed so that the story may comment on the act of storytelling itself. The subject of mysteries is raised as a side-note: like all good stories, Strata has many opinions on a variety of matters. Railsea on the other hand is completely focussed on the issue. Each of Railsea’s main characters is driven to go out and seek the unknown, and, what is most important, none of them have any particularly good reasons for doing so. This is the main dividing line between the two novels. Strata says that the human need for mystery is rational and explicable. Railsea says it’s nonsensical, but, does so in a way that is completely devoid of criticism.

This approach is, as said, embodied by Railsea’s major characters: Sham ap Soorap (doctor’s assistant, bat-tamer and day-dreamer), the forbidding Captain Naphi (mole-hunter, ruler of the diesel train Medes, philosopher of the kill) and the Shroake siblings Caldera & Dero (explorers in the footsteps of their parents). All three characters pursue mysteries. Sham has no calling. Every role to play on his side of the horizon leaves him apathetic, so he looks to pastures new, hoping to find there the thing he actually wants to do. Caldera & Dero are looking for information, wanting to know what exists beyond the boundary of the known, and what it might have to reveal about that known. Naphi meanwhile is looking for a more spiritual answer, for her mystery is a philosophical riddle which, once unravelled, will bring her peace. However, because Railsea exists in part to take the piss out of Moby Dick, such philosophical riddles are considered by the world’s captains to be embodied by giant animals. As such, the mystery that Naphi pursues happens to be a gargantuan albino mole called Mocker-Jack.

Each of these characters then is obsessed with mystery, and similarly, each of these obsessions is completely unjustified. Sham’s discontent is not to be solved by the new. At the beginning of the novel, Sham’s search for a profession beyond the norm has him considering the art of salvage (fun archaeology), but as soon as he knows anything about it, the lure begins to pall. His discontent itself makes no sense: Sham is not supposed to be a good doctor’s assistant, but that seems to be more a result of his own laziness than anything else. He certainly cures his bat Daybe well enough when motivated. Similarly the Shroakes go into the unknown to find out how the world of the railsea came to be, but their voyage it turns out tells them no more than they didn’t already know.

But it is Captain Naphi that best conveys the irrationality of mystery obsession. Again in mimicry-mockery of Ahab, the tradition amongst the hunter-philosopher captains is to lose a limb to the beast they chase, as it sets up a revenge-based legitimacy for their hunt. For most of the book it is assumed that Naphi has lost an arm to Mocker-Jack, with her left arm being a metal prosthetic. Except that the arm is no prosthetic: the metal and gadgets are but a covering, disguising the intact arm beneath. Of course Naphi does not rely on the physical to justify her obsessive pursuit: she is an accomplished wordsmith, and waxes calmly on the subject, twisting reasons out of the air. But though admittedly grand-sounding, these utterances are, in the words of cabin-boy Vurinam ‘“complete bloody gibberish”’, as is the very notion of the rational obsession with mystery.

Despite the gibberish though, you couldn’t say that Mieville considers irrationality to be a negative trait. Indeed, the end of Railsea implies the opposite. At the novel’s climactic conclusion, the great mole Mocker-Jack is gone. But this embodiment of mystery was not killed by Naphi, which, by the weird logic of the captain-philosophers, makes it a mystery never to be solved. The shock of this loss leaves Naphi almost catatonic, until that is the very end of the book.

‘[Sham] pauses at the top of the ladder, watches.

The captain, last member of the crew, stares over the side at a silver-skinned throng of fish. Stares past them thoughtfully, stares intently, leaning over to stare deep into the water’s dark.

Sham smiles’

It is on that quirked-grin image that Railsea ends. It is a positive ending, if not a cathartically triumphal one, softly happy and with just a twinge of amusement. After all, who (besides Herman Melville) knows what a captain might find to obsess over in the ocean’s depths? But more importantly, Railsea’s ending holds no condemnation of Naphi’s returning obsession. Sham, our hero, sees Naphi rediscovering a mystery to chase. He sees this, knowing full well how Naphi’s last irrational obsession with mystery consumed her, driving her to the edge of madness, and he smiles. He smiles, because he recognises what lures her. It is the same lure that ensnares him and the Shroakes too, and no amount of reason could ever extricate them from it.

After all, it wouldn’t be love if it made sense.

Tagged , , , , ,

How one Scotsman made a riot

The tale of how Charles Mac-Cave started a riot, and why it matters.

Twitter – https://twitter.com/AdamBrodie1
Tumblr – http://brod-ie.tumblr.com/

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Halloween Survey


Halloween has been especially unnerving this year…

Tagged , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.