The Yes Men

Watching The Yes Men yesterday was a great way to spend my afternoon. I can’t believe they get away with doing what they do. Impersonating international powerhouses like the Bush administration and the World Trade Organization seems completely illegal, but I’m really glad they found a loophole in the system. It’s both funny and disturbing to see these guys on the news with their messages like the WTO dismantling, being taken seriously. I have to wonder what the people that actually run and represent that organization think when they’re watching this news unfold. After seeing the film, I have to question whether or not representatives of the WTO even questioned the decision, or did they just assume they missed the memo?

            One of my favorite aspects of the film is the fact that the “yes men” get invited to legitimate conferences and events by people who are either too lazy to do proper research or really just don’t give a damn or even notice that these people are not who they think they are. I feel like I could just go out and pretend to be part of a global organization and no one would question me, except for, well, the fact that I’m way to young to actually have an position other than intern in the UN or WTO or what have you. It’s so funny watching these guys get ready to go to these conferences as they go shopping at the thrift store for suits and shoes and buzzing their hair as they’re finishing up speeches. It’s all so ridiculous and I think that’s what they’re trying to make themselves. They work so hard to present these absurd plans of action for businesses around the globe, yet people look at them as though they make perfect sense. Why shouldn’t we use a giant phallus to watch our workers (modern-day slaves) and keep them on track? Why shouldn’t we ruin other people’s lives in order to increase our company’s profits? It truly scares me that the people in the audience didn’t even ask them a single question or bother to point out the lack of morality in the speaker. I mean, come on, how aweful do they have to make their ideas to get any sort of reaction out of these business leaders. It makes me sick to think about it, because I feel like if these people have no heart or maybe they’re just apathetic (either way), the world is in need of some major reform. We’ve known this for a while, but this video was the first time I had personally witnessed how such horrible policies can be approved. People are apathetic to point that it’s going to ruin us all.

            As for the making of the film, I have a lot of respect for this little band of renegades. They put a great deal of effort into their work, and really seem like they want to make a difference in the world. It’s a shame that they haven’t been able to give a wake up call to the ones who make the decisions, but as a person on the other end of the spectrum, I find the yes men’s work very inspiring. Watching them reminds me of one of the more important reasons I wanted to become a filmmaker, and that is to inspire people and promote change, which you can’t do without taking risks and stretching the limits.

On the Rights of the Molotov Man/ The Ecstasy of Influence

            There’s so much to write about for this week so I guess I’ll start with the one-shot. Even though it was raining this Saturday I think the shoot was extremely successful. Everyone’s films turned out great, and because of the rain, we had to be more creative with our filming. In fact, I really don’t think our group would have used any umbrellas had there not been rain, which ended up being a large part of our film. Everyone seemed stoked to be there and ready to help out, so things went a lot faster and smoother than things could have gone.

            As for The Rights on the Molotov Man, it’s hard to choose any one side on the matter. I feel for Susan, who took the photograph herself. She made the effort, went to Nicaragua, put herself in danger, and she deserves to be compensated for her work. Yes, I understand Joy’s query: “Does the author of a documentary photograph—a document whose mission is, in part, to provide the public with a record of events of social and historical value—have the right to control the content of this document for all time?” But a photograph is a photograph and a photographer is a photographer and whether it is a guerilla fighter in South America or a child walking down a street in Oklahoma, that photographer still took that picture and it is their art. That photograph is Susan’s art and she has rights over it’s content. On the other hand, Joy’s painting falls under a sort of “found footage” category. The picture was altered and on the Internet as part of a public domain. In a sense, by releasing the photograph to be altered, I really don’t see how she has any major rights over what happens to it. BUT what if the photograph was an old book? Say Joy comes across its manuscript online, reads it, and bases a screenplay off of it. Susan would have every right to sue, demand royalties, creative control, etc. I realize the question posed is whether or not a person or group of people have the right to control the Molotov man’s struggle, but I think this is a much simpler idea than that. Susan owns the rights to the photograph and how it is used in that context, but Joy isn’t using Susan’s photograph in her art show, she’s presenting a painting depicting a man with a struggle, not a particular person in a specific setting. He was taken out of the original context and put into a new one, creating a new atmosphere with new ideas and representations.

            I thought The Ecstasy of Influence was interesting as well. It’s outstanding the amount of “plagiarism” that is out there. I can’t say I was that surprised to hear that Bob Dylan borrowed from an array of writers before his time. I liked the quote, “Dylan’s art offers a paradox: while it famously urges us not to look back, it also encodes a knowledge of past sources that might otherwise have little home in contemporary culture.” Lethem goes on to describe that some of Dylan’s lyrics came from poetry written by Henry Timrod during the Civil War. I feel that although this might technically be considered plagiarism, that poetry was written so long ago that I have to pose the question, is Timrod’s claim on it even valid any longer? I also thought Lethem had a good point in comparing his written work, which he can sell to pay his rent, but at the same time can voice the same knowledge and because it’s on the radio or just simply out into the air, it’s free. 

The Rough Theater

I have to say, I’m a huge fan of the rough theater. So much so that I’m kind of hoping it rains on Saturday just because I think it will make our one-shots that much more interesting. Come to think of it I’ve never actually shot in the rain. As filmmakers, we’re taught that rain is bad, it will ruin your equipment, get on the lens, etc. etc. etc. When I really think about it though, some of my favorite scenes in films, visually at least, occur in the rain. I’m completely digressing though so back to the point of this blog.
My experiences with the rough theater have been in the plenty when I really think about it. I guess one kind of rough theater would be a lot of the shows that I’ve been to. I think most of the great memories I have of seeing bands play don’t include me going to shows in any large auditorium or amphitheater. True, I love going to see Tom Petty and witnessing the 60 year old couple next to me light up a joint, but for the most part music in the rough is usually a lot more rewarding to see. I grew up in the suburbs right outside of Pittsburgh, PA. There’s a really big punk and hardcore scene there, so I definitely had my share of basement shows. Gritty basements with no windows, no ceiling tiles, paint and markings on the cement walls, cement floors and people from wall to wall. That kind of venue it perfect for hardcore though. Its music built out of angst and passion and doesn’t require any special lights or pyrotechnics. It also doesn’t separate people into categories of musician and fan. I spent most of those shows with my friends jamming out in the crowd, then they would hop on “stage,” which was actually just a corner of the room where their equipment was set up, and their band would play the next set.
I also perform a bit of rough theater myself at the ripe age of five. My parents were really big on home movies, and I mean like practically left the camera running all the time. So by the time my sister and I could hold the camera up, we decided to make our own television shows. My sister was two years older and the boss of me for most of my childhood, so I quickly became the star of “Cooking With Katheryn.” We took plastic food from our playhouse and set up shop to make one utterly ridiculous cooking show. I improvised most of it, substituting plastic apples for tomatoes (they’re both red, I thought it worked) and my sister’s toy chest for a kitchen counter (did I mention how short I was as a child?). We even made commercials too, which were some of the best moments. Since we didn’t know how to edit, and could barely work the camera, there were quit a few times you got to see behind the scenes footage. I can remember one part my sister visibly hands the camera off to me, positions herself in front of the camera, improvises a furniture commercial by referencing the stuff in her bedroom, and freezes at the end waiting for me to cut the camera off. The problem was I was only five and had no idea how to actually work the camera, or that my sister freezing meant “cut,” so you can see her eyes get really wide, trying to signal to me, then she explodes and comes stomping over to the camera to come turn it off, yelling at the all the while. It was absurd, but we had so much fun watching it and then screening it for everyone that came over.
I feel like there’s endless examples of theater in the rough, just like the ones I mentioned, and I think it makes being a filmmaker just that much more interesting because of the variety available to us.