Food Fight

Food Fight
Directed by Stefan Nadelman, USA, 5 minutes 30 seconds
Source: Tourist Pictures

"Food Fight" is a really clever film made using (digital) stop-motion animation. The film traces the general history of "American-centric" warfare from World War I up to the second Gulf War, substituting food for human beings.

The foodstuff replacement functions on two levels: first, it preempts any offensive characterization (or, as some might see it, caricaturization) of entire nations by an outsider. In such a simple stop-motion animation film, it's absolutely necessary to depict the players in each war as sweeping generalizations, or to go even further, as symbols. Furthermore, in order for the viewer to be able to play the guessing game of figuring out the wars being shown, these symbols need to be radically different from one another and based in something culturally recognizable. In light of these necessities, if Nadelman had attempted to fashion clay figurines of Japanese people, for example, as an American director he would likely run the risk of being called out as racially insensitive. Food, however, is something we all know and love (...dare I use the much-maligned word "universal"?); anybody can identify at least one food item that is strongly associated with their native country, and most people can associate certain foods with those foods' respective countries of origin. To go back to the example of Japan, then, using sushi to symbolize Japan as an entire nation/military player, as Nadelman does, is a relatively innocuous symbolization that also dodges esotericism.

Second, replacing people with food items highlights the absurdity of war. Although I'm sure anyone would be much pressed to say that war is funny, I would call "Food Fight" a humorous film. Obviously the incessant barrage of war depictions also plays a crucial role in creating a farcical effect, but by separating warfare from human beings, Nadelman severs the profoundly emotional ties we as human beings may have to a specific war/conflict, to warfare in general, or to the more general idea of death and destruction. In halting these instinctual associations, we can momentarily distance ourselves from warfare--and if, like me, you think this is an antiwar film, we can see with more clarity the silliness of waging war and the unnecessary destruction it causes.

That said, I really enjoy the interactive nature of this film. Nadelman wrote on the website on which the film premiered (www.touristpictures.com) that he had received conflicting suggestions to have captions and to not have captions [specifying nations and wars], but ultimately decided to not have captions so as to let the viewer probe the depths of her gastronomical knowledge/high school history education for what each food fight sequence represents. I'll let you all decide if this film could function as propaganda, if it perpetuates an American imperialist agenda, insert-your-view-on-the-theory-of-history-here, but I won't talk anymore about it, because I think the best way to view "Food Fight" is to first go blindly into it, then afterwards look at the food fight cheat sheet and watch it again.

THE SHOCK DOCTRINE

The Shock Doctrine
Dir. Jonas Cuaron, USA, 2007, approx. 7 min
Source: www.theshockdoctrine.com

On the surface The Shock Doctrine seems to be a nice short documentary that uses archival footage and Banksy style of graphics to tell us how shock has been used to push through a free market agenda. But, in the deepness of its subject it turns around to be an advertisement for the book of the same name… or is it? At plain sight the answer might be yes, but let’s say the movie was stopped at min 6:03 right before “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein www.shockdoctrine.com” slate appears. Before it, the short holds on its own.

Archival footage from the 40s and instruction manuals from the CIA are cited as the source. Such footage and graphics explain how shock was used by the CIA to breakdown prisoners. The short then goes unto how natural disasters, wars, and terrorist attacks work in the same way but their effects distress entire societies and how Milton Friedman has promoted passing free market policies during such times. But, the major issue with the movie is not of content and whether or not you agree with it, after all people will be just as pro or con on the subject as they would with any feature length documentary. The Shock Doctrine seems to be trying to go beyond its economy smart target audience, it wants to go beyond the few young (liberal) readers of the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, etc. and grab the attention of those who fail to pay much attention to economic theories but have bought into the free market ideas of our generation, high consumer and most importantly internet junkies.

The short is clearly trying to indoctrinate or at least trying to get a generation wake up, to change. It sounds like a grandiose attempt to inscribe to a 6min short, but the attempt is there. Also there, is the fact that in criticizing the shock doctrine it uses the same technique to promote a book. But, considering the target audience it is not a far stretch. The most viewed online shorts are the most shocking ones, or otherwise it would be just another short that only the friends of its creator pay attention to. With a bunch of slightly ADD twenty-something they have got to deliver quickly, and use as many “relatable” info as possible. And while there is no comment from Foreign Policy the UK company responsible for the graphics, they do resemble Banksy’s style which will resonate with any rebel-leftist type and the modern art lovers. Its pace then propels the criticism that the short gives a bunch of facts without foundation, but the intent is to make the internet junkie generation go looking for more. And we are back at the beginning with the question of advertisement; yes Klein’s book will provide the missing content for the facts and yes it will make the viewers at least visit the website. But that does not necessarily makes the film an ad; it is more a book to film case. The difference here is that we aren’t given a one hour documentary it’s a short. It is our own tendency to see shorts as commercial snippets and calling cards that make us have an adverse reaction to it.

“Information is shock resistance. Arm yourself”

"Holy Ghost People" (1967)

"Holy Ghost People" (1967)
Directed by Peter Adair
U.S., 53 minutes
http://www.archive.org/details/HolyGhostPeople (view the whole film, it's in the public domain)

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
-Mark 16:17-18

Peter Adair's Holy Ghost People chronicles life in the tiny mining town of Scrabble Creek, West Virginia for a pentecostal congregation that takes that passage as the basis of their faith. Members of the Holiness Church convulse, speak in foreign tongues, treat disease and sickness by touch rather than medicine, handle live snakes, and drink poison all as testaments to their faith.

As an agnostic who finds religious fervor hard to relate to and often even scary, what struck me most powerfully about the film is how decent these people seem. Plain-spoken, hard-working, honest, without the bigotry, ignorance, and malice I associate with fundamentalists, Adair's subjects' beliefs may seem extreme but they are no extremists. Holy Ghost People achieves this sympathetic portrait of the congregation by utilizing a cinema verité approach that does not judge or comment, merely observes. A brief opening narration establishes the town, church, and congregation, and then Adair lets the people speak for themselves and their actions speak even louder.

An element of what makes the documentary subjects seem sympathetic rather than loony is that they avoid the hypocrisy of most religious followers. The Bible instructs its readers to accept it whole as the direct word of God, so if one truly believes in its divine origin, they must live their lives in accordance with its tenets. Most religious individuals I've encountered seem to pick and choose the elements they want to follow based on convenience, members of the Holiness Church must not find it convenient or easy to handle poisonous snakes and attend frequent 6-hour services, but they do it because of their unwavering conviction. I also found one man's explanation of why the church has no leader or pastor, "because one God's children just as good and close to the Lord as any other" poignant and more in line with the teachings of Jesus than the hierarchical pronouncements of more organized religion. Seeing a child speak to the crowd and command as much attention and respect as the elderly man who preceded him or the woman who followed him is a nice change of pace from the patriarchy often promoted in fundamentalist churches.

This spirit of equality is further illustrated by the sermon that ends "Every individual soul is a creation of God. Makes no difference where they're from, who they are, what color they are, they're God's creation because by one blood he made all nations." The de facto head of the church, or at least the character Adair shows us speaking to the followers more than any other , echoes this by saying "It's the same God right here in Scrabble Creek as it is in Africa and Vietnam today, makes no difference where you are cause we're all brethren." While not exactly radical today, this evangelized message eschews the expectations one would have about an all-white congregation in rural West Virginia in the 1960s and demonstrates that religion can be used as much as an agent of peace as it can be misused to promote intolerance. It's also a reminder that a substantial majority of activists in the Civil Rights Movement were deeply religious and protested out of their moral conviction that all men were equal in the eyes of God and should be treated as such.

This is not to say the church's beliefs are reasonable or its practices all admirable, rather many are more positive and progressive than anyone would likely assume and even their most fanatical elements are understandable given the circumstances of the congregates. Advocating drinking poison or handling deadly snakes is irresponsibly dangerous, and basically unforgivable when done in the presence of children. Seeing the church shake and convulse en masse and babble in "foreign tongues" is also bizarre to say the least and the presence of kids as young as five makes it rather unsettling. When explained as an ultimate proof of their faith by true believers whose life outside the church is the unbearable bleakness of rural poverty, unemployment, and a complete disconnect from the outside world, their actions are given a context that makes them seem almost reasonable. The ecstacy achieved during zealous demonstrations they believe to be direct connections with God is the one respite many of the congregates have from their otherwise dreary lives. It is no coincidence that many of the church's followers are perpetually sick and have turned to pentecostalism after years of suffering unaided by conventional medicine.

Two ironies of the film are revealed only upon researching its background. For all the people in the film who handle snakes, the only one bitten is apparently the owner of the church, its most monied congregate and the only interview subject whose piousness seems disingenuous. Adair ends his film there and regardless of how one feels about divine intervention, it certainly recalls the famous pronouncement "If I'm lying, may God strike me dead." The other unexpected, somewhat humorous fact of the film is that its director is a rather flamboyant homosexual who was forced to leave his New York City home because of constant harassment from his neighbors but revealed he never felt so comfortable and welcome as he did when he spent several months filming the members of the tiny West Virginia church. As a sociological document, Holy Ghost People is endlessly fascinating and raises many questions about religious freedom and extremism and as a short documentary it's a compelling testament to the direct and focused power of cinema verité.

The Millionaire

The Millionaire
Soviet Union, 1963
dir. V. Bordzilovski
approx. 10 minutes

“The Millionaire” is an animated anti-capitalist film produced by the Soviet Union in 1963. Set in the United States, the cartoon tells the story of a bulldog who inherits millions of dollars from his rich owner when she dies. The narrator asks, what can a dog possibly do with all that money? The answer: in America, pretty much anything. The bulldog lives a life of obscene luxury, partying all night, smoking cigars and eventually using his wealth to “win” himself a seat in the U.S. Senate.

The America portrayed in “The Millionaire” is, unsurprisingly, seedy and corrupt. When the bulldog gets drunk at an expensive nightclub, he reverts to his animal-self and begins doing a dance on all four legs; his dance catches on, and soon the entire club is on their hands and knees doing the dance, revealing themselves, too, as animals. The bulldog and his rich friends sit around enjoying cigars in their high-rise offices, but when confronted by the lower classes advocating peace in the streets, the rich become enraged and their faces transform to look like demons. The final line of the film says, “Yes, now he’s been elected a member of the Senate; Now that’s what crooked money does – if only you can get it!”

And just to be sure that the audience doesn’t mistakenly interpret this cautionary tale as a story about how awesome money is, the dog’s pile of money abruptly disappears at the end, along with his human suit and top hat – showing that in the end, he (and the greedy Americans he represents) is really nothing but a dog without all the trappings of wealth.

The style and music of “The Millionaire” seem to be very typical of the era (the 1960s), although sometimes the animation is inexplicably jerky. The cartoon is an example of why animated films are perfect for use as political propaganda. The rhyming narration and animal protagonist make it palatable for children as well as adults. Perhaps more importantly, the animation means the film would have been suitable for use practically anywhere in the Soviet Union, where there were a great number of languages spoken other than Russian. The story is very easy to follow based on its exaggerated visuals alone, meaning that non-Russian speakers could watch this and still get the message about the evils of capitalism.

Singapore Rebel

Martyn See, Singapore, 2004. 27 Minutes.
Google Video.

Since our election is finally over, I decided to write about a political short that has nothing to do with the United States. Instead, I chose something that many people (including myself) don't know too much about. Before I talk about Singapore Rebel and its subject, Chee Soon Juan, it is important to mention a few items. This film was originally part of the Singapore Film Festival until censors ordered it removed. The filmmaker, Martyn See, was put under investigation for the movie. He was also threatened with prosecution under the Films Act, which forbids any political party movies (meaning movies with any political slant). The official exception to this rule are foreign films. Despite this occurring 3 years ago, he still faces the threat of prosecution.

The film starts with some narration about Singapore. The national government thinks of Singapore as the "paragon of modern Asia" and as a generally modern society. However, it has been ruled by one party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since 1959. One tactic the PAP uses is to harass, jail, exile and literally bankrupt opposition members to keep it on top.

Enter Chee Soon Juan. He got his start in politics in the early '90s when public policy began to interest him. He ended up joining the opposition party and became the Secretary-General, but he was soon fired from his job, a teaching post. He went on a hunger strike to protest the general political conditions as well as his job loss and was sued for defamation when it was over. He was fined almost $300,000 for insulting his former employer during the strike. After a run for office, he was sued again for defamation by the Prime Minister for a comment he made. Chee was not allowed a lawyer and the case was decided behind closed doors against him. In another incident, he brought up the issue of headscarves in school. Since it is illegal to talk about religion in public policy in Singapore, he was again prosecuted and fined.

The centerpiece of the film is held on May Day, 2002. Chee is talking to a media crowd about a rally he is going to hold later to support worker's rights. A group of police come to arrest him in full view of the media without explaining what he is charged with. He is eventually charged with speaking without a permit and since he cannot pay the fine, he is sentenced to five weeks in jail. The film ends with a quote by Singapore's PM. "We should recognize many paths of success, and many ways to be Singaporean. We must give people a seconf chance. Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore."

This documentary is a great exhibition of film as political protest. Chee is a person that is easily sympathized with. We see him first playing with his children in his office as See comes in to interview him. He is always very calm and collected. Even when he is arrested, it is other people that are making a big fuss while he is much more calm. We learn very little about his actual political views since they are not important if it is impossible to voice them. We do learn that he is committed to a democracy with actual dialogue, which the ruling party is not. An interesting aspect of this film is that the only way Singaporeans can see it is on the internet. Maybe this will help to open up Singapore's (and other oppressive regime's) government, but it is difficult to see that happening soon.

John McCain vs. John McCain

2:50
directed by Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films



In the realm of political shorts, filmmaker Robert Greenwald is one of Youtube's biggest success stories. After directing a number of documentaries including the 2004 film Outfoxed, he jumped on the viral video bandwagon just at the right moment. Two years ago, he started the online film production company Brave New Films. The company began producing films with a heavy liberal slant critiquing conservative outlets like Fox News. However, Brave New Films's popularity skyrocketed when they shifted their focus to John McCain.

Their series "The Real McCain" has garnered millions of views on Youtube and attracted the attention of many major media outlets (I actually first heard about it after seeing Greenwald on The Colbert Report). After the initial success of this video, Brave New Films produced a number of other anti-McCain films, including one that featured a clip of McCain's now infamous admission that he didn't know how many houses he owned. Some credit Greenwald's film for propelling this particular issue into the eyes of the mainstream media.

"John McCain vs. John McCain" isn't a very flashy production. It employs some of the simplest and cheesiest effects that Final Cut has to offer and the music, though probably intended to be ironic, is quite over the top. What is on display here is the editing job, which is pointed and effective. The premise of the film is to derail the "Straighttalk Express" by juxtaposing clips of McCain rescinding his words and contradicting himself. By the end, the film renames his campaign the "Doubletalk Express"; to drive his point across, Greenwald inserts numerous clips of McCain saying "straighttalk" in between his contradictions.

While the film provides an effective critique, I find its enormous success kind of surprising, given the fact that The Daily Show has been doing editing jobs like this for years. But perhaps its success can be attributed to the inherent accessibility of viral videos. Greenwald has said that the strength of the video is that when people watch it, they tend to send it to their friends or family members (there's even a feature on The Real McCain website that encourages viewers to share the films). I think the film's length also adds to its effectiveness. In the world of viral videos, the idea of "short films" becomes even more important, since online viewers tend to have short attention spans given all the other distractions the internet has to offer. A video must make its point clearly and quickly, and "John McCain vs. John McCain" does just that. Greenwald's Brave New Films is an interesting example of the way that political filmmakers are utilizing both the viral explosion and the short film form to reach a very large audience.

Deface

(Deface Trailer)

Directed by John Arlotto, USA, 2006, 20 minutes
Source: www.youtube.com

Deface is the story of Sooyoung, a factory worker in a small town in North Korea. He devotedly follows the rules of the government and attends the union party formed by the government faithfully. There are large propaganda posters with assuring slogans in the town, and one of them has a drawing of two smiling children saying "We are happy." Sooyoung has a loving daughter, but she dies of starvation because the government would not give provisions to the workers as they promised. Her death changes his life completely. After burying his daughter, Sooyoung sees the posters with the chubby and smiling children. Outraged by the reality of his country, Sooyoung refuses to be a loyal worker and starts to deface the propaganda posters in the town, hoping other people see them and feel the need of change. He risks his life to erase the billboards and repaints the slogans with the messages that reflect the reality of North Korea, such as "We are dying of hunger." Sooyoung manages not to be caught by Anti-Graffiti patrol which is newly formed because of his doings. However, he sees his acts lead to the death of innocent people in his town and starts to rethink his rebellion.

When I searched the Internet and found out about Deface, I was surprised to see an American director having interest in North Korea and made a film about North Korea. The director John Arlotto in his interview says that he actually saw a video tape that shows graffiti against the propaganda of North Korean government and that that video inspired him to shoot Deface. Even though I was only able to see the trailer of the movie, I could see that Deface outspokenly shows the situation of North Korea. I was aware of the fact that the North Korean environment is very much different from my country, South Korea, but it was shocking to see contemporary North Korea filmed by a foreign director. Since South and North Korea were actually one country from the same root but divided by the political ideology, it is not easy for people in South Korea to make a film that candidly shows the reality of North Korea. There is also political and diplomatic problems involved. Recently, the relationship between South and North Korea has become vulnerable; therefore South Koreans cannot help but be careful when they depict North Korea. I was even more surprised to know that Deface got nine awards from film festivals such as the Austin Film Festival in 2007.

Not considering the fact that Deface is a film that describes contemporary North Korean situation, it is still enough to evoke sympathy from the audience since it shows a father losing his daughter because of his government. I believe that all parents have the same affection for their children and desperation of Sooyoung adds sincerity to the film.

In addition to that, it is interesting that the film was shot in a Korean Town in Los Angeles. Even though the location is a city in the United States, it is really amazing that the town in the film looks like a city in Korea. Also according to newspaper articles that I read, the actors in the movies have lived in the USA for a long time, and their Korean, especially the North Korean dialect, was not that good as a native Korean. However, even though I am a Korean, I could not feel a difference while watching the film; therefore even more thankful to the actors for practicing hard to speak Korean as perfect as they can.

God Bless America

First Time Voters in North Carolina (2008)
Youtube.com 2:29

This short film is about a North Carolina couple (Dawn Marie Holden Daniels and Niki Daniels) who has cast their ballots for the first time. Apparently, the Daniels - who are, now, registered Democrats - have finally realized after, at least, fifteen years, the importance and power of the vote. Whew! Einstein just flipped in his grave.

To refrain from chaffing these two is near impossible. In the kairos of this film, Dawn says, "It's now more important than ever to vote for a new president." Hmmmm...wonder what that means? Could it mean that Dawn (a Caucasian middle-age woman) is fed up with the white-male dominated presidential seat? Or is Dawn a responsible voter? Her husband, Niki, probably - if not for Barack Obama - would not have even registered. He says, "I'm doing the right thing...voting for Barack Obama." These first-time voters were so convinced that Barack Obama was the man, they voted early. It seems former President Bush's years in office were not all despairing, but, actually encouraged people like Dawn and her husband Niki to get off the goddamn sofa and let their voices be heard through the power of the vote.

The content of this film, in someways, horrifies me. Since George Washington, presidential nominees have been promising change. There was nothing unique about Obama's campaign with the exception of his skin tone. I agree, socially, President Barack Obama may be the change this country needs, but, I hope my fellow Americans weighed all the options before casting their ballot, if not for proper reasoning, at least, for the dignity of voting. Congratulations President Obama and may God direct your path for the citizens of this wonderful nation are, surely, to follow.

"How Disrespectful"

McCain Ad "How Disrespectful"
30 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_PYj7zZAs&NR=1

An often understated quality of political advertisements is that depending on who is watching them, they can stand on their own as powerful stories. For many people the perception of both Presidential candidates is limited to the framing device approved by the rival candidates themselves. With political ads the assumption on behalf of the party releasing the ad for television is that viewers will remember which politician is the good guy (or girl for that matter) and which is the bad guy.

This deliberately crafted antagonist v. protagonist story is often successful at motivating people to vote for their favorite story. In this particular ad, the villain is Obama. He is painted as "the world's biggest celebrity" whose "star is fading." Obama appears a cardboard cutout in the opening introduction. Each time he is framed negatively a one-frame image of him frowning, appearing disoriented, or villainously smiling is shown. These motionlesss, inanimate representations of Obama aim to establish a disconnect between viewers and Obama. The only time McCain and Palin are represented is when they are smiling and in motion.

The story's arc is logical and believable in that it frames fact (or partial fact) into story. The ad wants us to accept that since Obama's lead in national polls was being trimmed once Palin was announced as the VP candidate, that he had a kneejerk reaction of criticizing McCain's choice. The ad associates the change in polls with Obama's subsequent rhetoric. The ad frames the idea that Obama's "fading star" made Obama and Biden upset and "...so they lashed out at Sarah Palin." There is then a natural progression in the severity of Obama's rhetorical tactics which goes from dismissing Palin as good-looking (which "backfired"), said she was doing what she was told, and then "desperately called Sarah Palin a liar." These criticisms of Obama are summed up with "how disrespectful" as if the filmmakers didactically want to reinforce the ideal of human respect and dignity.

The desired effect of the McCain/Palin logo with the bright shiny star in the middle at the end of the ad can be likened to that of the G.I. Joe public service announcements which warn kids from anything to not petting stray dogs to not judging people.

It was estimated that no more than 5% of campaign financing was spent for both campaigns combined. This statistic is quite telling. It says something about the generational differences between those who rely on television for their news and those who spend most of their time on the internet. It could mean that the younger generation has a more elusive relationship with media advertisements and thus use the internet as a tool to be more selective in what they're exposed to. Television to the elder generation is almost an absolute medium. Campaigns do not discriminate between which channels you watch, but rather the fact that you are watching television. To many, television is the only voice for their candidate. The question is whether or not this voice is being heard.

On the Assassination of the President

On the Assassination of the President
Directed by Adam Keker, United States, 2008, 6 minutes
Source: Wholphin no. 6


"On the Assassination of the President" is a short disguised as a top-secret government document detailing what steps to take in the event of the President's assassination. Narrated by a deep, monotone voice, with a creepy ambient sound in the background, and composed mainly of still shots, this short does a pretty good job of imagining what a top-secret government video might look like. Probing a little deeper into the absurdity of the film, however, its essence becomes nearly impossible to grasp. Actual government document? Produced by conspiracy theorists? A satire of a government document? A satire of conspiracy theory? We're left scratching our heads, maybe imbued with a vague conviction that hovers somewhere around "government is bad!"

Step 1, according to our narrator, is to release to the press footage of the sniper and of the Secret Service agents responding to his attacks. "The sniper is wounded, but escapes," the narrator explains. The first interesting element of "On the Assassination" this brings up is the heavy political commentary. Assuming this short is a reflection of the director's views (which is a loaded topic we probably don't need to bring up now), this is not a person who is trusting of the government, demonstrating that (exaggerated, I'm guessing) mistrust by crafting a conspiracy theory that predates the event it is based on.

Which brings us to the next cool thing about "On the Assassination." As it progresses, the steps become more specific and, consequently, more absurd. Dossiers are drawn up for the three suspects who have been identified for the future potential assassination of the president; one of these, the narrator explains, must be taken into custody immediately following the crime. The incriminating evidence against all three of the suspects is varied and nonsensical (such as Suspect 1's possession of 50 identical cardboard boxes detailing a crime scene??? What??), but the common thread is that each of their photographs on file is in part a composite of a photo of some widely identifiable criminal (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), which is clearly much better evidence than the cardboard boxes thing. Chronology and rationale become increasingly muddled as footage from past wars and events is openly recycled. Also, the narrator eschews specifics, identifying the present day only as "this year."

So instead of acting as pointed political commentary on any one specific administration, "On the Assassination" itself becomes a composite (Beckett, Orwell, and Dr. Strangelove all come to mind), but what of, we're still not sure--or else we are sure for a second, and then the next second we've lost it again. The kind of government that would make this kind of tape exist in the past, the present, or the future, and the director's objective is obviously to confuse. But if we want to take some kind of message away from this, we might venture that it serves as a warning against the danger of preemptive profiling--and, perhaps, profiling in general.

America Coming Together - Bush Promo

America Coming together - Bush Promo
Directed by Adam Mckay, United States, 2004, 4:03
Source: America Coming Together

Most political shorts(almost always advertisements) serve as propaganda, and are more concerned with framing the "other" as the wrong choice than explaining why they are the right choice. This short was produced by America Coming Together (ACT), a liberal leaning political group that was dedicated to the "get out and vote" movement. Although not officially affiliated with a party, it is clear they supported democratic candidates. This short still functions as a bit of propaganda (anti-bush) but functions largely as a call to vote. Instead of being malicious they use accessible and popular humor to get a wider message across. VOTE!

This video is mock viewing of all the footage taken of the president at his ranch while attempting to make a political ad. The jumping around in time and showing the take numbers on the slate give the director complete freedom to have a ton of unrelated jokes and one liners. Adam Mckay is the director of Anchorman and was an original member of the upright citizens brigade, an improv comedy group. The unrelated one liners and how unqualified he makes Bush look is simply hilarious. Asking "Hollywood" what looks better "the giant shovel and little tiny thing (a hoe)". The irrational fear of horses that runs through the short keeps coming back to make us laugh.

The piece plays on the perceived stupidity and lack of qualification of the President. They frame him as a common idiot that has led the country in the wrong direction while in office. The incompetence conveyed is supposed to serve as the reason that everyone should vote, we shouldn't let this happen again. They start off funny, simply doing SNL type jokes about the president, which is why people will watch it, remember it, and watch it again. They do a great job of making the piece entertaining and slipping in an important message.

Is McCain Palin's Bitch?

http://www.lisanovalive.com/video/video/show?id=1584798%3AVideo%3A21345

Duration- 3:00
Directed by Lisa Nova

This political short demonstrates the fictitious way that John McCain asked Sarah Palin to be his running mate on the Republican ticket for the presidency. The appearance and tones of each politician is, for lack of a better word, "delectable." Each actor plays off of the pigeon holds that the media has placed on each politician - McCain evokes panic about the campaign and looks to a woman to "sway the political base" while Palin is a polar bear hunting, gun loving, Alaska living, young political baby factory. The relationship between the two also reflects what popular media demonstrates - that while Palin was expected to follow the policies of McCain, she has more of an interest in policy issues than expected.

Now this short truly speaks to the kind of humor that I appreciate. McCain telling Palin off, for example, is especially precious - "You've got about as much experience as my left nut, which by the way I left behind in DeNang." It's brash and to the point. The humor reflects a "What really happened" attitude that I hope really does exist behind the scenes of political decisions. This take on real life decisions and how they came to fruiton makes everything so simple. I would like to live in a world where John McCain would say he is "royally humped."

The short does have a bit of a serious side (but not overly so - just the right amount of serious) when analyzing what role the heartbeat plays. The heartbeat is subtle throughout the beginning, demonstrating McCain's panic, and immediately stops when Palin agrees to be his VP. The stop reflects a relief for McCain, but this relief is short. Within moments he realizes what it means to have Palin as his VP (in this short she is a take charge politician - certainly not the running mate McCain was in search of). The heartbeat flairs up again and continues for the rest of the short. McCain moves in front of a garage with an American flag painted on it.

This final image of a panicked old man in front of an icon of democracy, a symbol of protection, strikes a serious note to the satire. Interpret it how you will, but this political leanings of this short seem fairly obvious.

But with such great material in politics, how could you help but reem them?

Der Fuehrer's Face

1943
directed by Jack Kinney



"Der Fuehrer's Face" is an anti-Nazi propaganda film made by Disney and starring Donald Duck. It won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film in 1943.

As modern viewers, I can think of two reasons why those previous statements seem nothing short of absurd to us. First of all, living in a world where things like Baby Einstein and Veggie Tales exist, we are clearly a society that is hypersensitive about what we expose our children to and what messages these things are trying to convey. Even in a cartoon that is clearly painting Nazism out to be bad, there is something undeniably jarring about Donald Duck, complete with swastika armband, saying in his characteristic spittle-filled squawk, "Heil Hitler!"

But I'd venture that it seems just as strange to us that this film actually won an Academy Award. There tends to be a fine line between what we consider art and what we consider propaganda; many consider the two categories to be mutually exclusive, and whatever gray area exists between them is as contentious as a mine field. As I was searching lists of major award-winning film for this post, I was baffled when reminded that in 2004, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, a prize that many people consider the highest of "high art." Whether or not Michael Moore's films are propaganda is a horse we're probably best to leave beaten to death and buried back in 2004, but I think his win at Cannes serves as an interesting case study. Propaganda is something that intends to persuade or influence opinion. Thus, for propaganda films, a direct and obtrusive engagement with the viewer is part of their very nature. On the other hand, we tend to think of "art" in the most general sense as something that is more reluctant to yield its meaning; often a certain degree of effort is often expected on the viewer's part to understand the artist's intention. Perhaps we have trouble reconciling propaganda and art because propaganda gives up its meaning so readily, we often feel like there is no work required on our part. Furthermore, "art" often yields multiple interpretations, while propaganda tends to communicate only one. People seem to get uncomfortable when propaganda films win awards usually reserved for "art" films because it feels as though the juries who award the prizes are trying to tell the viewer which opinion he or she should hold. It feels intrusive, it feels as though they are threatening the right to multiple interpretations that most people associate so inextricably with art.

But what about when a piece of propaganda is 8 minutes long and starring Donald Duck? Maybe it's because the presence of Donald Duck assures me that this is not a film masquerading itself as high art. Maybe it's because I'm watching it decades after its release and social relevance. Whatever the reason, "Der Fuehrer's Face" doesn't feel threateningly manipulative to me in the least. Even at the moment when its message is most laughably blatant (when Donald wakes from his nightmare and, wearing star-spangled pajamas, hugs the Statue of Liberty and croaks, "Oh boy, am I glad to be a citizen of the United States of America!"), the film's use of humor tightens the grip of the propagandistic squeeze on the viewer's sensibilities. "Der Fuehrer's Face" is a great and highly entertaining film; its ability to blend the techniques of propaganda with an amusing narrative and the recognizable flair of Disney humor make it fascinating to watch even today.

Interesting note: despite its Oscar win, Disney tried its best to keep this cartoon "in the vault" and not widely seen until it was released on video in 2004. It has since garnered a rather widespread internet audience and has over half a million views on Youtube.

Matt Damon Rips Sarah Palin

This recent CBS exclusive interview of Matt Damon which caught fire several weeks ago in light of Presidential nominee John McCain’s appointment of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate has permanently found its place in American popular culture. Over 2 million people saw this interview on YouTube. The piece works as a standalone short film because of its mass appeal and the candid testimony of a hailed Hollywood celebrity.

The actual content of Damon’s spiel is not the issue of concern. To the average viewer, Damon’s fighting words should be considered of no greater value as compared to the already unreliable voices of the liberal institution of loud-mouth Hollywood which includes the likes of Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.

But the reality of the culture established by YouTube proves that popularity is often a prerequisite to getting one’s video noticed. Sometimes this notion of popularity is earned by the filmmakers themselves after they have generated a fan base. For instance, the “Leave Britney Alone” girl and the “What’s Next” guy have secured a large fan base and even managed to establish cyber-celebrity status. But Damon is already a brand name. And while he may lack credibility, he is far more interesting than your average Jane Smith voicing her opinion.

The most compelling aspect of the film is that it occurs in one single take. The camera never moves once. For a medium that was established for the purpose of motion pictures, is it feasible to even label Damon’s interview a successful short film? Or should we just remember the piece for its interesting sound bytes (i.e. Damon considering McCain’s VP selection as from a ‘bad Disney movie’)?

In the future, when people do a web-search for Matt Damon’s interview concerning his views on Sarah Palin they won’t be looking for radio clips or press releases because it’s the video that they will remember. It can be discussed and argued that maybe such videos devalue the short film form by diluting the art form to merely a static source of celebrity gossip. But look for these videos to increase in volume and popularity over the web as many celebrities are finding the ease with which they can channel such opinions to an infinite number of people.

This also establishes a dangerous precedent. It proves that even though the internet may seem a level playing field of exposure for one’s opinions or art, a person’s popularity in the physical world is inherently far more likely to carry them far into cyberspace. Can you say Paris Hilton?

The Letter (Pismo)

Pismo (The Letter)

Directed by Matvei Zhivov, Canada/Russia, 2007, 17 minutes
DC Shorts Film Festival Showcase 2

The Letter, a short film set in World War II Russia, ranked among the most interesting of Showcase 2. I’m not sure that it was placed in the right slot or even the right showcase, but I thought it ranked as one of the most notable in terms of what it was trying to do.

The story concerns Stepan, a partisan fighter who is wounded in battle against the Germans, and who, while recuperating in the hospital, hears a litany of sorrows from his fellow patients. One man recounts how he returned home to find his wife in bed with his neighbor. He then points out a man sitting alone at the other end of the room, and tells Stepan that the man was rejected by his wife after returning home with only one arm. All of this prompts Stepan, who hasn’t been home for three years, to write a letter to his wife, Shura, and in effect, test her, by telling her that he has lost both legs in battle and will be returning shortly.

The action switches to the homefront, where a malnourished Shura reads the letter, and tells her two sons to immediately prepare for their father’s homecoming by preparing a wagon for him to sit in (so they can roll him back to the station). As they prepare the wagon, Shura is surprised by the sudden and unexpected homecoming of Stepan, and is further surprised to see how ambulatory he is. When he reveals to her that he wrote the letter as a kind of test, she is crestfallen, and Stepan must engage in an emotional battle with her as bitter as the physical challenge he faces at the beginning of the film. I don't want to spoil the ending for those who still might want to see it, so I'll end the plot description there. Suffice it to say, things don't end well, and audience is left a bit stunned like they've been hit by an emotional freight train.

While the subject matter is heartbreaking, the film itself is a beautiful thing to look at, filled with vistas of the Russian countryside and a rather elaborate and intense battle scene (with what looked like historically authentic WWII armament). I was very impressed with the amount of money devoted to the project and the sweep itself of the story, which played out like a Russian novel in the space of only 15 minutes. I wasn’t surprised to see that it has won at least one festival award for cinematography. Perhaps Russian filmmakers are seeing the power and potentialities of short film?

I was also reminded of what Bill Nichols had to say of both festivals and Iranian cinema in his article, and the feeling of “losing oneself, temporarily, of ‘going native’ in the confines of a movie theater.” I felt this as I watched The Letter. The language, the visuals, the earnestness of the performances, and even the Russian score swept me completely into the world of WW II Russia. This piece of history, in which over 20 million Russians died, still reverberates strongly in the culture.

Lastly, I couldn't help but reflect on the ongoing situations in Iraq (and Georgia) as I watched The Letter. Like any good war film, it reminds us that the price of war is not only felt on the battlefield, but also reverberates in families and relationships when the soldier comes home.

A Land Called Paradise

A Land Called Paradise (2008)
Director: Lena Khan
USA, 4 minutes

A Land Called Paradise put a big fat smile on my face. It isn't that it's adorable (it is) or beautifully shot. It's a simple music video, shot primarily in a studio with a plain red background, featuring several individuals or groups of Muslims with messages written on cards and posters.

It is humanity on display.

One could ask, "What's so great about writing something down on a sign? I can see that at a baseball game, a protest, or next to some panhandler on the street and I'll forget it in two minutes or less." That's okay. I forget those too. These cards had a lot more thought and care put into them than "J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS." They all stick out to me. They display the best of every individual in the video. If you challenged me, I could probably remember every single one without seeing the video again. I don't want to fill space with a list, so just take my word for it.

The film makes a great effort to encourage viewers to see themselves in those featured. The director could have gone super simple and just slotted in one message after another. It still would have been a very moving film. Instead, she created a quasi-narrative for some of the characters, revealing them in bits and pieces and bringing them back later in the film so you can see them again and feel attached. Two examples stand out: 1) The kid who is sitting at a desk staring at a Rubik's Cube comes back a few seconds later holding his sign ("I am a total idiot") upside-down. He comes back at least three more times. 2) The man who sort of flips his hair near the beginning... then isn't seen until the last third or so of the film, when his message is revealed: "I am not ashamed of my virginity." Quick pivot! The director wanted the ladies in the audience to see a hot guy, but then turned it on them and showed how much Islam means to him.

I'm glad I just chose that word: showed. That's another huge reason that the messages stuck out to me. Each person showed us their thoughts in their own handwriting, and the director helped out with that quasi-narrative. They showed us that the messages were genuine. Had each message been spoken, they would have been telling us something instead of showing it.

Everyone who has ever made a generalization should see this film. It should play in every house of worship in the world. This is the kind of film that crushes stereotypes and humanizes abstract concepts, and it does it in four minutes.

POR PRIMERA VEZ (FOR THE FIRST TIME)

POR PRIMERA VEZ (FOR THE FIRST TIME)
D: Octavio Cortázar, Cuba, 1968, approx. 9 minutes.
(Note: The embedded clip does not have subtitles.)

In the early 1960s, Fidel Castro placed a large emphasis on combating illiteracy in Cuba, particularly starting in 1961 during the "Year of Education." For Castro in particular, however, "literacy" did not only refer to the ability to read words in books, newspapers and magazines: the phrase also applied to audiovisual materials such as movies, radio and television. This forward-thinking vision led directly to the genesis of ICAIC, the Cuban Institute for Cinematographic Arts and Industry. Much as thousands of people from Havana and other cities went to the countryside to teach people how to read, so too did a fleet of cine-móviles bring movies to places that otherwise had no knowledge of cinema.

Por Primera Vez follows one cine-móvil crew to a very rural town in 1968. The idea is rather simple: interview some townspeople about what they think about this weird concept of "movies," then show them experiencing a movie. The novelty here naturally comes in large part from the subject itself: even Cubans would have been surprised to find people who knew absolutely nothing about the mere concept of cinema. Cortázar's documentary uniquely demonstrates a genuine tone toward his subjects that surprisingly does not exploit the subjects, even as we are allowed to laugh with (at?) their ignorance; perhaps this is because we quickly realize that, inexperienced with media as these people are, this particular situation will quickly be remedied. At first confirming whatever suspicions we have about the so-called "Third World," the end of the film goes beyond any political, economic or social statements to revel in the joy that cinema brings, a joy that (in our jaded age in 2008) we sometimes forget.

Or is this not political? Truth be told, this documentary was released in 1968, a banner year for Cuban filmmaking with a number of landmark features, including Humbeto Solás Lucía and Tomás Gutiérrez Alea's masterpiece Memorias del subdesarrollo. All of these films -- Por primera vez included -- were deliberately created around this time, however, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Cuban revolution; all of these films toured widely throughout Latin America and elsewhere. Each provided a complex glimpse at the Cuban reality of 1968, challenging the outside notion that independent thought was verboten under Communism. At the same time, as evidence of the above, these films could also be viewed as a type of propaganda. In this way, Por primera vez is perhaps the most subversive of all of these films, its "simple" message and happy ending masking -- or proving -- the very message the Cuban government wanted to portray.