Somehow Jay-Z passed me by till recently, but I'm making up for lost time, with Blueprint, Reasonable Doubt and The Black Album, all in regular rotation at the moment.
"D.O.A. (Death of Auto-Tune)" is also getting played heavily - full of great lines, my favourite, "I know we're facing a recession, but the music y'all making gonna make it the great depression." Here's the video, which includes some cool explosions (a rack of clothes among them...), a card game interlude and an actual haircut.
And here's Jay-Z performing it at the BET awards, complete with a watching Beyonce.
And a bonus Kanye video, for "Street Lights", not one of the best off 808s and Heartbreak, meanders a little, the video reflecting this with Cartoon Kanye (assuming it is Kanye, don't look much like him) driving his fancy car round a fancy cartoon city - alone...
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Woman Doesn't Exist
Back to my favourite subject - Big Brother and the way their personalities are constructed (check the Big Brother tag over there---> somewhere to confirm it). A few (hastily (un)constructed and) brief thoughts on gender in the house.
It's outwardly surprising (given it's 2009) that barely anyone in the house, in any series, ever manages to escape the stereotypical gender role assigned to them. Only outwardly, because if the structural thesis of the way identity is constructed in there is correct, then the easiest way (consciously or otherwise) to assimilate into the group is to fully occupy ones gendered position. In this series perhaps the most obvious example would be Lisa, whose "punk lesbian" aesthetic is at odds with her easily slipping into the role of the mother (look how she throws a protective arm around Sree, whose behaviour is obviously wrong by any standard, but to his mother he can do no wrong The question here would be why does she not do the same to Halfwit? Because he refuses the role of the son, preferring to attempt the father's role despite his complete unsuitability for such a role...). The one person we might expect to subvert her role, doesn't.
Here we can bring in Lacan's "Woman doesn't exist" to explain things. The abstract "Woman" is not a category, woman only exists via a symbolic type- mother, whore etc., consequently the women are immediately given a role to play. The men meanwhile are "free" to do what they like (in the sense that they can chose the role of "man", rather than a specific type of man. Lacan's other thesis, that "man is a woman who thinks she exists", comes into play here). Kris and Charlie seem (live feed would help here) to simply "exist" in there, almost literally doing nothing, either lounging in the garden or preening in the bathroom. Sree, in his nominations, criticised Angel for never doing any housework, yet he himself does nothing, Kris and Charlie do nothing, Marcus does some tidying, and thinks that this token gesture entitles him to lord it over everyone else.
Do Sophie and Karly, who also seemingly do little work occupy the same position? I would argue not, look at the way Marcus reduces them to their female organs. constantly making reference to their breasts, and, in a broader example, his conversation about how the house doesn't have a dumb blonde in it, before conferring that role on Sophie for her lack of horticultural knowledge.
Sree does the opposite and puts Noirin in the place of the virgin, criticising Marcus for his over sexual language, affronted that anyone can see Noirin in a sexual way. His love is a pure love, unclouded by the actuality of Noirin, hence his love blossoming so quickly and Noirin's exasperation at him.
Angel perhaps? Her ennui and alienation seems to be more fitting of a male position. And the difficulty in fully placing her could well have caused her nomination this week - she just doesn't fit. But I think she is best viewed as the negative of the stereotyping, she is not subverting her role, rather she occupies the same logic, only in reverse - she calls the other women fat, refuses the housework etc..
Perhaps the best example of how this logic can be escaped is Sara from last year's Big Brother. She was assigned the role of flirt/tease and it was by fully assuming the role that she succeeded in showing just how ridiculous the assignment was. She didn't deny it, or apologise for it, or claim she just couldn't help it, she just continued in the role, eventually forcing Rex and Darnell into such a preposterous misogyny that the constructed nature of the role was obvious for all to see - resulting in both of them being evicted before her. There is always a certain distance attached to such roles, hence the way to subvert them is not to deny or apologise for them, this is simply a way of passively accepting the roles, or to actively accept the roles (as Angel does), but to fully assume the role, to show it for what it is.
It's outwardly surprising (given it's 2009) that barely anyone in the house, in any series, ever manages to escape the stereotypical gender role assigned to them. Only outwardly, because if the structural thesis of the way identity is constructed in there is correct, then the easiest way (consciously or otherwise) to assimilate into the group is to fully occupy ones gendered position. In this series perhaps the most obvious example would be Lisa, whose "punk lesbian" aesthetic is at odds with her easily slipping into the role of the mother (look how she throws a protective arm around Sree, whose behaviour is obviously wrong by any standard, but to his mother he can do no wrong The question here would be why does she not do the same to Halfwit? Because he refuses the role of the son, preferring to attempt the father's role despite his complete unsuitability for such a role...). The one person we might expect to subvert her role, doesn't.
Here we can bring in Lacan's "Woman doesn't exist" to explain things. The abstract "Woman" is not a category, woman only exists via a symbolic type- mother, whore etc., consequently the women are immediately given a role to play. The men meanwhile are "free" to do what they like (in the sense that they can chose the role of "man", rather than a specific type of man. Lacan's other thesis, that "man is a woman who thinks she exists", comes into play here). Kris and Charlie seem (live feed would help here) to simply "exist" in there, almost literally doing nothing, either lounging in the garden or preening in the bathroom. Sree, in his nominations, criticised Angel for never doing any housework, yet he himself does nothing, Kris and Charlie do nothing, Marcus does some tidying, and thinks that this token gesture entitles him to lord it over everyone else.
Do Sophie and Karly, who also seemingly do little work occupy the same position? I would argue not, look at the way Marcus reduces them to their female organs. constantly making reference to their breasts, and, in a broader example, his conversation about how the house doesn't have a dumb blonde in it, before conferring that role on Sophie for her lack of horticultural knowledge.
Sree does the opposite and puts Noirin in the place of the virgin, criticising Marcus for his over sexual language, affronted that anyone can see Noirin in a sexual way. His love is a pure love, unclouded by the actuality of Noirin, hence his love blossoming so quickly and Noirin's exasperation at him.
Angel perhaps? Her ennui and alienation seems to be more fitting of a male position. And the difficulty in fully placing her could well have caused her nomination this week - she just doesn't fit. But I think she is best viewed as the negative of the stereotyping, she is not subverting her role, rather she occupies the same logic, only in reverse - she calls the other women fat, refuses the housework etc..
Perhaps the best example of how this logic can be escaped is Sara from last year's Big Brother. She was assigned the role of flirt/tease and it was by fully assuming the role that she succeeded in showing just how ridiculous the assignment was. She didn't deny it, or apologise for it, or claim she just couldn't help it, she just continued in the role, eventually forcing Rex and Darnell into such a preposterous misogyny that the constructed nature of the role was obvious for all to see - resulting in both of them being evicted before her. There is always a certain distance attached to such roles, hence the way to subvert them is not to deny or apologise for them, this is simply a way of passively accepting the roles, or to actively accept the roles (as Angel does), but to fully assume the role, to show it for what it is.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Hate the Haterz
Seeing as I wrote about his other statement, I thought I'd have a look at his new statement, which you can read here.
This bit is pretty revealing:
This bit is pretty revealing:
He seems to be saying that words can be more harmful than violence. Isn't he? Which seems odd coming from a man who has been whining on about the right to say whatever he goddamn feels like, and a man who makes a living saying hateful things about people.I am sorry. And I mean it. No one is forcing me to write this. I am not feeling pressured to say this. I am speaking out because I realize that the last few days have been more hurtful to me - and many others - than the repeated blows I suffered to my head in Toronto this past weekend.
I'm a little confused as to what the point of the apology is. I see people suggesting it's damage control to protect the Perez Hilton brand, but surely the Perez brand is being a spiteful little shit, or am I missing something here? His whole behaviour before, during and after the "incident" seems completely in character, if he's apologising for his actions then, he should just apologise for his whole career.
Instead we get silly self-justification:
Hindsight is always 20/20, they say. I should have been the bigger man and walked away from an unfortunate situation. Instead, I chose - in a very misguided way - to stand up for myself and only made things worse by how I - under pressure, anger and extreme emotion - handled the situation.The funniest bit of this statement (why didn't he release this statement as a video?) is this:
Victims should not be mocked.Why doesn't he just come out and say, "DON'T MOCK ME!"
Idiot (and I ain't jumping on the hating Perez bandwagon, I been hatin' long-time, his campaign against Avril Lavigne started it off, but there's so much more there as well - hate the haterz).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Children of the night make their music
Here's a series of pictures stringing out the Angel from Big Brother 10/Nosferatu comparison, using the subtitles from the film -
A mist descends:
As Angel enters the Big Brother House:
She peruses the house, perhaps regretting her decision to enter:
But, eventually she finds some solace:
But someone in the house senses that all is not well...
Nothing can save him, as Angel claims another victim...
A mist descends:
As Angel enters the Big Brother House:
She peruses the house, perhaps regretting her decision to enter:
But, eventually she finds some solace:
But someone in the house senses that all is not well...
Nothing can save him, as Angel claims another victim...
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Perez, all too Perez
Perez Hilton gets assaulted and the world laughs. Justice you might say. Maybe. The most interesting thing about the incident is Perez's video statement, which you can see here. Other than the fact that Perez is just so stupidly over the top, "I thought my eye was going to fall out!" what's striking about it is how he keeps referring to himself as "a human being". His argument is pretty much, "I am a human being and as such do not deserve an act of violence to happen to me." This "I am a human being," argument is quite unusual in this context. Firstly and, and most obviously, is he suggesting that if he was not human (a dog say, or a seal) there is a chance he would have deserved it? Secondly, when the phrase is generally used it is to denote that one has failed, that one isn't perfect - "what could I do? I'm only human after all." Shouldn't this have been the guy who punched him's line? "I know I shouldn't have hit him, but come on, he was winding me up, and I'm only human after all..."
And the way he makes a big point that it's never happened to him before. He's lucky then isn't he? Given the hateful nature of his site. At least his utter spitefulness comes across in the video statement pretty well.
His argument that he should be able to say what he likes without being hit, may well be accurate, but it veers very close to saying that he should be able to say what he likes without consequence, which he probably thinks anyway.
His argument that he doesn't need the publicity is also a little spurious. He may well have a huge amount of visitors to his website, but he, apparently, wants to start a new, more upmarket one; plus publicity needs constant feeding, he does have to keep himself as much as possible in the spotlight.
An even stupider response than Perez's own is this, which places Perez Hilton in the same camp with victims of domestic abuse:
I attempted to look through his site to catch him in an act of hypocrisy, laughing at someone else getting smacked, but if you do a google search of it you basically just get page after page of comments from people saying they would like to slap him (and he wasn't surprised that it's taken this long for someone to do it?). So I gave up, but I did find this, where he's at least flippant about someone being hit: "Don't fuck with the Osbournes!" Perhaps he shouldn't have fucked with the Black Eyed Peas.
On second thoughts, perhaps the funniest bit of the video is where Perez goes "They followed me back to my hotel!!" and tells us how scared he was, before saying, "they were staying in the same hotel," and then screams, "but they followed me back!" Genius.
And the way he makes a big point that it's never happened to him before. He's lucky then isn't he? Given the hateful nature of his site. At least his utter spitefulness comes across in the video statement pretty well.
His argument that he should be able to say what he likes without being hit, may well be accurate, but it veers very close to saying that he should be able to say what he likes without consequence, which he probably thinks anyway.
His argument that he doesn't need the publicity is also a little spurious. He may well have a huge amount of visitors to his website, but he, apparently, wants to start a new, more upmarket one; plus publicity needs constant feeding, he does have to keep himself as much as possible in the spotlight.
An even stupider response than Perez's own is this, which places Perez Hilton in the same camp with victims of domestic abuse:
This whole discussion is just a 21st century version of what women and assault victims have been hearing for years. The logic that it falls on the victim to prevent irrational actions of the assailant is really outdated and really, really dangerous. Many victims of violence—and especially domestic violence—will tell you that the slaps, punches, and shoves perpetrated upon them didn't happen when they were just sitting their minding their own business. It came during some sort of disagreement. Maybe she snapped at him out of frustration. Maybe she hit on a particularly sore subject. These are all things that happen during the course of an argument—we're never at our best when tempers are inflamed. But that doesn't make it right, ever, to take the fight from cutting remarks to physical violence.Yeah. Comparing what basically amounts to a bit of a drunken scuffle outside a nightclub at 3 in the morning to the continued beatings of domestic violence (what about psychological abuse? Would admitting that words can be a form of painful abuse muddy her argument) seems such a ridiculous leap that I'm surprised anyone would make it (I almost said shocked but stopped myself before falling into Perezesque hubris). Yeah, Perez got hit, he's a victim in that sense, but the damage (assuming his eye hasn't fallen out yet) was minimal and to watch Perez go on (and to see others join him) like he's had someone try to shoot him is an appalling sight. Everyone's a victim.
I attempted to look through his site to catch him in an act of hypocrisy, laughing at someone else getting smacked, but if you do a google search of it you basically just get page after page of comments from people saying they would like to slap him (and he wasn't surprised that it's taken this long for someone to do it?). So I gave up, but I did find this, where he's at least flippant about someone being hit: "Don't fuck with the Osbournes!" Perhaps he shouldn't have fucked with the Black Eyed Peas.
On second thoughts, perhaps the funniest bit of the video is where Perez goes "They followed me back to my hotel!!" and tells us how scared he was, before saying, "they were staying in the same hotel," and then screams, "but they followed me back!" Genius.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Kinda Like A Kiss Kiss
Here's the New Clipse video for "Kinda Like A Big Deal". Pretty simple video , but a nice feel, and the song's a classic.
Video reminds me of this
It's fairly obviously the lighting effects: veiling the sex in the Holly Valance video, and perhaps veiling the violence of Clipse...
Video reminds me of this
It's fairly obviously the lighting effects: veiling the sex in the Holly Valance video, and perhaps veiling the violence of Clipse...
Friday, June 19, 2009
Avril Lavigne Tomorrow
I thought I'd write a bit about the name of the blog. I just received an email from her mailing list (which I don't even remember putting myself on) about her new perfume and thought maybe I should perhaps explain the apparent disparity between the name and what I generally post about.
Looked back at what I had to say about the name when I started the blog:
Looked back at what I had to say about the name when I started the blog:
To call this by her name is not intended to in some way make a case for her as a poet, as a certain trend would seem to encourage. Far from it. The idea of placing a pop/rock artist into the category of the poet seems to be a way of deradicalising pop/rock music. By lazily reaching for the canon of poetry to contain pop music we are ignoring it. It is not a way of removing distinctions between high and low culture but an attempt to reinforce it by including things, swallowing things, smothering things that could be dangerous to the system that perpetuates the canon. The naming as poet distracts our attention away from what is said to how it is said.
Is this too idealistic? Am I suggesting a certain radicalness inherent to pop music? Yes and no. Yes, perhaps I am being too idealistic, clinging to a 60's dream that pop music can change anything. Although what is culture if it does not influence the society from which it comes? I am simply opposed to a notion of culture that would place wholly within the museum. But no, I do not believe that there is some radical presence within pop music. I believe that pop music is what it is, or more precisely, pop music must become what it could be. It is an attempt to (re)radicalise pop music, by thinking of it in different terms to the ones offered by the mainstream.
It is this attempt which we place under the name Avril Lavigne. On her first two albums there is a struggle with this notion. They both contain and question traditional notions of what pop music is. On the albums Avril is between the two versions, jumping neither one way or the other, but she is not just sat on the fence, she is questioning both sides, asking where she should fall (and possibly on her third album falling the wrong way).
And that still holds, so to continue the name is to keep the faith. I am still a fan of Avril Lavigne. There's no irony about it, no notion of kitsch at work. K-punk wrote something on fandom while I was thinking about this post:
And that is the point. The name is about fidelity, keeping true to an original idea of Avril Lavigne, the "questioning of selling out", the wavering between two poles of art and advert - and the tomorrow indicating the possibility of moving ahead, breaking out of the inertia. My fidelity sees what is essential at the heart of Avril's music - even if that music was yesterday, it can still be used as a guide for tomorrow.Far from being uncritical dupes, fans will often be more critical of their object of adoration than anyone else is; in part, evidently, because they care far more than those who haven't made the libidinal investment. (This doesn't mean that fans won't close ranks when their object is attacked by an outsider.) I say 'object of adoration' but 'adoration' doesn't really capture the fan's relation to the object. The object isn't so much adored as fetishised, elevated into the position of an idol, the figure around and through which libido is organised. But the mistake of anglo-American deflationism is its notion that we can simply dispense with this kind of fetishism and just deal with propositions. Some kind of attitudinal/ libidinal stake is always necessary to get things going; the issue is whether it is foregrounded and affirmed or occulted and denied. Passing beyond being a fan is not achieved by occupying a chimeric position of libidinal neutrality, but precisely by following the implications of the libidinal investment.
What's interesting is the point at which a fan's criticism crosses over and becomes a betrayal. Often, though, betrayal is not a consequence of critical dissatisfaction, but of fidelity.
I was going to write more, but I don't want this to turn into some huge defence of the name where none is necessary. It's just a clarification of my position.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Short and Tweet...
Video of an interesting talk by Christopher R. Weingarten on Twitter and music criticism from The 140 Character Conference:
Makes some good points, most of which I agree with. The old position of the music critic, with free access to music before the release date and as the person who listens to everything, is no longer here. Which is a good thing - now everyone has access to everything - the privileged position of the critic as arbiter of taste is, thankfully, no more. I like his comparison to movies - films still have some of this about them because they require more effort and time to download. The position of the critic is no longer to tell us what to listen to - he indeed reverses this, blogs etc., now tell music critics what to write about - and music criticism no longer forms opinion, it reinforces opinion, he says.
The bit I disagree with is where he criticises crowdsourcing as "tending towards the middle", only that which is safe gets picked up on, the radical, the challenging gets left to one side. My problem with this (though his slagging off of the Fleet Foxes is funny and something I completely agree with), is that wasn't this always the case? It's not something new to now (anyone who ever read the NME and had to put up with a string of rubbish acts gracing its pages simply because they sold copies would know this). It's something inherent in people, rather than a result of social networking. Twitter can be used against this trend. Any criticism of Twitter in this vein risks losing the fact that everyone uses Twitter differently, so that those who always tended towards the middle will stay in the middle. Ditto his criticism of the compartamentalism of music, hip-hop fans only following hip-hop people, metal people only following metal people. Wasn't this tribalism always a part of music? And doesn't Twitter allow for the easier branching out from this tribalism - it's so easy to follow anyone, so easy to find new scenes, discover new music, via Twitter, via google search. If I don't like the middle ground that my crowd has sourced, I find a new ground, and it's a lot easier to this now than it ever was.
The central point though, that it ain't easy to make a living doing music criticism is presumably (I've never tried it) correct, a thought occurs - that to mix up this as a bad thing for music critics and as a bad thing for music criticism is wrong, although in many ways he's probably right about the amount of inane "criticism". Good criticism will always shine through, and his point that it is possible to write well within 140 characters is a good one (and made me vow to put more effort into my tweets...), and I imagine will always find a place in the economy, there'll just be less rubbish music critics on the payroll.
And Christopher R. Weingarten's reviews are well worth following on Twitter, even if I completely disagreed with his Green Day review... (and his Sunset Rubdown review, 3 stars, grumble... hey, it's just like the old days! reading reviews and grumbling when your favourite band gets a bad review..) he demonstrates that it's possible to write well in 140 characters. With less room to move, to pad, it could well be harder than writing long things...
Makes some good points, most of which I agree with. The old position of the music critic, with free access to music before the release date and as the person who listens to everything, is no longer here. Which is a good thing - now everyone has access to everything - the privileged position of the critic as arbiter of taste is, thankfully, no more. I like his comparison to movies - films still have some of this about them because they require more effort and time to download. The position of the critic is no longer to tell us what to listen to - he indeed reverses this, blogs etc., now tell music critics what to write about - and music criticism no longer forms opinion, it reinforces opinion, he says.
The bit I disagree with is where he criticises crowdsourcing as "tending towards the middle", only that which is safe gets picked up on, the radical, the challenging gets left to one side. My problem with this (though his slagging off of the Fleet Foxes is funny and something I completely agree with), is that wasn't this always the case? It's not something new to now (anyone who ever read the NME and had to put up with a string of rubbish acts gracing its pages simply because they sold copies would know this). It's something inherent in people, rather than a result of social networking. Twitter can be used against this trend. Any criticism of Twitter in this vein risks losing the fact that everyone uses Twitter differently, so that those who always tended towards the middle will stay in the middle. Ditto his criticism of the compartamentalism of music, hip-hop fans only following hip-hop people, metal people only following metal people. Wasn't this tribalism always a part of music? And doesn't Twitter allow for the easier branching out from this tribalism - it's so easy to follow anyone, so easy to find new scenes, discover new music, via Twitter, via google search. If I don't like the middle ground that my crowd has sourced, I find a new ground, and it's a lot easier to this now than it ever was.
The central point though, that it ain't easy to make a living doing music criticism is presumably (I've never tried it) correct, a thought occurs - that to mix up this as a bad thing for music critics and as a bad thing for music criticism is wrong, although in many ways he's probably right about the amount of inane "criticism". Good criticism will always shine through, and his point that it is possible to write well within 140 characters is a good one (and made me vow to put more effort into my tweets...), and I imagine will always find a place in the economy, there'll just be less rubbish music critics on the payroll.
And Christopher R. Weingarten's reviews are well worth following on Twitter, even if I completely disagreed with his Green Day review... (and his Sunset Rubdown review, 3 stars, grumble... hey, it's just like the old days! reading reviews and grumbling when your favourite band gets a bad review..) he demonstrates that it's possible to write well in 140 characters. With less room to move, to pad, it could well be harder than writing long things...
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Pacman politics
Just seen this via Kotaku, US senator George V. Voinovich uses Pacman to illustrate his speech on the economy (Video available from the guy's website). I admit I couldn't make it through the speech, even to the bit where he starts referring to Pacman, but here's a couple of screengrabs, which have a surreal quality of their own -
I like to imagine that a couple of his speechwriters had the idea over a few too many drinks - "Wouldn't it be great if we got him to stand up in the Senate with a Pacman Piechart..."
As good excuse as any to post THE classic Pacman piechart
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Come Together
Here's the b-side to L-Vis 1990's release on Mad Decent -
I'm fooking loving this, and the A-side ain't too bad either -
I'm fooking loving this, and the A-side ain't too bad either -
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Escape From The Planet of the Apes
When watching The Girlfriend Experience I was reminded of the book American Psycho. I think the initial comparison was in the scenes where Chelsea is documenting her "dates" and she lists her clothes and her make-up, in a way very reminiscent of American Psycho. I think the comparison can go further than that - in a way the world of The Girlfriend Experience is the world created by those satirised in American Psycho.
The Girlfriend Experience is more of a portrait than a satire, perhaps this makes it more suited to the economic conditions - rather than the satire of American Psycho matching the excess of the times portrayed, here we have a quiet portrayal of the way capitalism affects, well, everything. The only glimpse we get of the previous world is via the trip to LA, a trip which it is stated that they can't really afford, and which is shot to look different to the rest of the film, coming across as a nostalgia trip, for the times they used to have...
Enough seems to have been written on this aspect of the film already so I shall concentrate on something else, Chelsea's "personology". We never really get to know much about this, several hints suggest it is a type of numerology. The mysterious status of it is enhanced by the way we only see the books as parcels being delivered to the flat - wrapped, hidden - we have a metaphor for the way the books form the core of Chelsea's "self" - when Chelsea and her boyfriend argue it is the fact that he never really believed in her books that gets to her. This is the closest we get to Chelsea, she is constantly distant, in the scenes of arguing she remains emotionally detached, while Chris is getting emotional, she remains calm, but also refusing to really say anything, to give him any explanation or reason, beyond the "personology", beyond "I must".
This "personology" leads her to go away for the weekend with her client, in the hope of something else. It is tempting to suggest that this is her opportunity to become a subject, outside of the economic, with a relationship that begins as economic transaction leading to an escape from such transactions. The impossibility of this is then made obvious to her. And these scenes, showing her struck at the core of her subjectivity are followed by her being struck in her objectivity with the bad review of her work by the erotic reviewer. Here we see two things; firstly the false objectivity of the critic, in this case the very presence of the critic changes the act. We can also see a reflection of what Lacan says about the position of the analyst, that the changing hands of money allows the analyst to step outside of the personal relationship, "we neutralize it [the transference] by equating it with the signifier that most thoroughly annihilates every signification - namely, money." The economic becomes a barrier, separating her from the act, which allows Chelsea to have sex, play the girlfriend of strangers, without it affecting her (and is this not the same on the other side, on the side of the man who pays for an intimacy (both sexual and communicative) which is only possible due the economic transaction removing the usual building of intimacy). Once the economic distance is removed she finds it hard to perform the act, she describes the reviewer as "dirty", and this is what the sex act becomes once the economic distance is removed. This is the other side of the coin to the film's central message of the alienation of capitalism, on the personal level it intervenes badly; on the level of work, it intervenes all too well, enabling us to perform acts we would not otherwise consider (is this not, on some level, true of all work? Without the economic wouldn't most of us look at what we did at work and say "No!").
It should also be noted that it is the fact of her work, her economic freedom (which she says was one of the reasons for going into the work) that allows her the power to risk things with her boyfriend to go away for the weekend with the client. So the economic is not just damaging, but enabling at the same time. What we have is a world in which the economic affects everything, there is nothing outside of it. All the talk throughout the film is of the economic, there is obvious comparisons made between Chelsea's work as an escort and her boyfriend's work as a personal trainer, the personal aspect of the economic is shown when Chelsea sees one of her clients with another escort and hides from him, the economic loss also affects her personally, she wonders why she is no longer good enough for him.
Which is to say that the objective and the subjective are not so easily seperable. Imagine if she had successfully met with her client and "live happily ever after", wouldn't the economic questions, the alienations of capitalism have simply returned? The question becomes, can one find a system to live by with the power to break the spell of capitalism? Can one find a subjectivity outside of the economic?
To return to the "personology", the question is whether this is just a way for her to live with her economic situation - allowing her to vet her clients, giving her some control, or whether it is possible that such a system could help her break from the economic - it leads her to take the risk and go away for the weekend with her client. Of course that attempt fails, but has it changed the situation, allowed her to see a way out? The film leaves the question open, it is a portrait of the situation, all relationships in it are tied to the economic, and as such does not need to provide answers, it's beauty lies in asking the question.
An addition. it occurs to me that the nostalgic trip to Las Vegas should be seen in the same context as Chelsea's weekend with her client. Chelsea tries to escape the economic via a future outside of the economic, the boyfriend recoils from the event into the past, ignoring the economic via a nostalgic trip when everything was okay. What both overlook is the need to change the economic itself. Both options are just ways to avoid the real question, which is how to live as a subject in the economic - or how to change the economic so we can live as subjects.
The Girlfriend Experience is more of a portrait than a satire, perhaps this makes it more suited to the economic conditions - rather than the satire of American Psycho matching the excess of the times portrayed, here we have a quiet portrayal of the way capitalism affects, well, everything. The only glimpse we get of the previous world is via the trip to LA, a trip which it is stated that they can't really afford, and which is shot to look different to the rest of the film, coming across as a nostalgia trip, for the times they used to have...
Enough seems to have been written on this aspect of the film already so I shall concentrate on something else, Chelsea's "personology". We never really get to know much about this, several hints suggest it is a type of numerology. The mysterious status of it is enhanced by the way we only see the books as parcels being delivered to the flat - wrapped, hidden - we have a metaphor for the way the books form the core of Chelsea's "self" - when Chelsea and her boyfriend argue it is the fact that he never really believed in her books that gets to her. This is the closest we get to Chelsea, she is constantly distant, in the scenes of arguing she remains emotionally detached, while Chris is getting emotional, she remains calm, but also refusing to really say anything, to give him any explanation or reason, beyond the "personology", beyond "I must".
This "personology" leads her to go away for the weekend with her client, in the hope of something else. It is tempting to suggest that this is her opportunity to become a subject, outside of the economic, with a relationship that begins as economic transaction leading to an escape from such transactions. The impossibility of this is then made obvious to her. And these scenes, showing her struck at the core of her subjectivity are followed by her being struck in her objectivity with the bad review of her work by the erotic reviewer. Here we see two things; firstly the false objectivity of the critic, in this case the very presence of the critic changes the act. We can also see a reflection of what Lacan says about the position of the analyst, that the changing hands of money allows the analyst to step outside of the personal relationship, "we neutralize it [the transference] by equating it with the signifier that most thoroughly annihilates every signification - namely, money." The economic becomes a barrier, separating her from the act, which allows Chelsea to have sex, play the girlfriend of strangers, without it affecting her (and is this not the same on the other side, on the side of the man who pays for an intimacy (both sexual and communicative) which is only possible due the economic transaction removing the usual building of intimacy). Once the economic distance is removed she finds it hard to perform the act, she describes the reviewer as "dirty", and this is what the sex act becomes once the economic distance is removed. This is the other side of the coin to the film's central message of the alienation of capitalism, on the personal level it intervenes badly; on the level of work, it intervenes all too well, enabling us to perform acts we would not otherwise consider (is this not, on some level, true of all work? Without the economic wouldn't most of us look at what we did at work and say "No!").
It should also be noted that it is the fact of her work, her economic freedom (which she says was one of the reasons for going into the work) that allows her the power to risk things with her boyfriend to go away for the weekend with the client. So the economic is not just damaging, but enabling at the same time. What we have is a world in which the economic affects everything, there is nothing outside of it. All the talk throughout the film is of the economic, there is obvious comparisons made between Chelsea's work as an escort and her boyfriend's work as a personal trainer, the personal aspect of the economic is shown when Chelsea sees one of her clients with another escort and hides from him, the economic loss also affects her personally, she wonders why she is no longer good enough for him.
Which is to say that the objective and the subjective are not so easily seperable. Imagine if she had successfully met with her client and "live happily ever after", wouldn't the economic questions, the alienations of capitalism have simply returned? The question becomes, can one find a system to live by with the power to break the spell of capitalism? Can one find a subjectivity outside of the economic?
To return to the "personology", the question is whether this is just a way for her to live with her economic situation - allowing her to vet her clients, giving her some control, or whether it is possible that such a system could help her break from the economic - it leads her to take the risk and go away for the weekend with her client. Of course that attempt fails, but has it changed the situation, allowed her to see a way out? The film leaves the question open, it is a portrait of the situation, all relationships in it are tied to the economic, and as such does not need to provide answers, it's beauty lies in asking the question.
An addition. it occurs to me that the nostalgic trip to Las Vegas should be seen in the same context as Chelsea's weekend with her client. Chelsea tries to escape the economic via a future outside of the economic, the boyfriend recoils from the event into the past, ignoring the economic via a nostalgic trip when everything was okay. What both overlook is the need to change the economic itself. Both options are just ways to avoid the real question, which is how to live as a subject in the economic - or how to change the economic so we can live as subjects.
The Usual Suspects
Initial thoughts on Big Brother 10 (and I'm going to try and not lament the passing of the live stream, let's take that for granted).
What I find most interesting is the acceleration of the usual process, the becoming a Big Brother housemate. This is especially noticeable given the disparity between the fact that Big Brother announced at the beginning that none of the contestants were housemates, and the way everyone immediately settled into the role of housemates.
It is something I say every year, but again the great thing about Big Brother is the difference between how everyone goes on about being Real all the time and the way everyone conforms to the usual Big Brother contestant framework. Big Brother is a great example of the way that our "self" is created, not from within, but from without. So each Big Brother contestant cannot help but be a creation both of every other person in the house, but also of every other Big Brother contestant that has gone before.
And this is what I mean by acceleration - after the 9 previous Big Brothers, everyone knows exactly how to behave (and I'm not saying that they're pretending this, the exact point is that is not a conscious process) and already we have the classic clichés which in previous series took longer to come out. Prime example being Sree, who on the second full day is already in the Diary Room telling Big Brother how much he loves all the other housemates and couldn't bear to leave them. Elsewhere we have Marcus already railing against the injustice of Big Brother, Beniziar complaining about the lack of food and the hunger (after something like a day of eating soup) that prevents her being herself, being entertaining (note that the desire to be oneself carries with it nothing but the duty to entertain), the list is endless, culminating in Karly apparently saying she was thinking of leaving because she was bored already (I haven't seen confirmation of this quote). The point being that once they are in the house they become nothing but housemates, and being a housemate structures their being, in the same way that in the outside world, our being is structured by our, in classical Marxism, social class.
And this is where the second element of structure comes in, that each housemate finds her place in the house only with regards to all the other elements in the house. By putting in people from a variety of different backgrounds it is almost certain that each housemate immediately starts acting in a predestined manner, conforming to the stereotype that the other housemates put on them. Perhaps this element is not quite so accelerated this year, but already we have seen a change in Sophia from the enthusiastic happy woman who screamed with pleasure on the way into the house, to the person who is trying to ruin every one else's enjoyment, grumbling and complaining and being suspicious. This is her position, and she must play it whether she likes it or not. Similarly Sophie who is cast as the dumb blonde, a role she admittedly seems adept at.
And of course we already have the constant deferment of pleasure, all the talk of being oneself, "I'm just here to be myself and enjoy the experience," means that no one ever simply enjoys themselves, the enjoyment is always deferred, "if it wasn't for this or he or him, I could be myself, it or her or him is bringing me down though." And they replay scenes from previous Big Brothers (after a day they are performing YMCA, a classic Big Brother trope) as if in previous Big Brothers there was the possibility of enjoyment which is now lacking, but by copying them maybe they can find it again, which of course they can't.
The Twins from Series 8 are the exception to this rule, they really did just enjoy themselves from beginning to end, in a way matching Lacan's rewriting of Descartes, "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think."
What I find most interesting is the acceleration of the usual process, the becoming a Big Brother housemate. This is especially noticeable given the disparity between the fact that Big Brother announced at the beginning that none of the contestants were housemates, and the way everyone immediately settled into the role of housemates.
It is something I say every year, but again the great thing about Big Brother is the difference between how everyone goes on about being Real all the time and the way everyone conforms to the usual Big Brother contestant framework. Big Brother is a great example of the way that our "self" is created, not from within, but from without. So each Big Brother contestant cannot help but be a creation both of every other person in the house, but also of every other Big Brother contestant that has gone before.
And this is what I mean by acceleration - after the 9 previous Big Brothers, everyone knows exactly how to behave (and I'm not saying that they're pretending this, the exact point is that is not a conscious process) and already we have the classic clichés which in previous series took longer to come out. Prime example being Sree, who on the second full day is already in the Diary Room telling Big Brother how much he loves all the other housemates and couldn't bear to leave them. Elsewhere we have Marcus already railing against the injustice of Big Brother, Beniziar complaining about the lack of food and the hunger (after something like a day of eating soup) that prevents her being herself, being entertaining (note that the desire to be oneself carries with it nothing but the duty to entertain), the list is endless, culminating in Karly apparently saying she was thinking of leaving because she was bored already (I haven't seen confirmation of this quote). The point being that once they are in the house they become nothing but housemates, and being a housemate structures their being, in the same way that in the outside world, our being is structured by our, in classical Marxism, social class.
And this is where the second element of structure comes in, that each housemate finds her place in the house only with regards to all the other elements in the house. By putting in people from a variety of different backgrounds it is almost certain that each housemate immediately starts acting in a predestined manner, conforming to the stereotype that the other housemates put on them. Perhaps this element is not quite so accelerated this year, but already we have seen a change in Sophia from the enthusiastic happy woman who screamed with pleasure on the way into the house, to the person who is trying to ruin every one else's enjoyment, grumbling and complaining and being suspicious. This is her position, and she must play it whether she likes it or not. Similarly Sophie who is cast as the dumb blonde, a role she admittedly seems adept at.
And of course we already have the constant deferment of pleasure, all the talk of being oneself, "I'm just here to be myself and enjoy the experience," means that no one ever simply enjoys themselves, the enjoyment is always deferred, "if it wasn't for this or he or him, I could be myself, it or her or him is bringing me down though." And they replay scenes from previous Big Brothers (after a day they are performing YMCA, a classic Big Brother trope) as if in previous Big Brothers there was the possibility of enjoyment which is now lacking, but by copying them maybe they can find it again, which of course they can't.
The Twins from Series 8 are the exception to this rule, they really did just enjoy themselves from beginning to end, in a way matching Lacan's rewriting of Descartes, "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think."
Friday, June 5, 2009
Give me back my house!
I am getting over my initial shock at the lack of Big Brother 10 live streaming via the red button. I was originally going to write a big diatribe bemoaning the decision, but on reflection I've decided that my initial premise was basically wrong.
My first thought was of the order, "but this is our show, how can they deny us 24 hour access?" Then it occurred to me that this was based on an illusion of control. My point was that the hour long highlight show is the producer's version of the house and that the live stream was the house, allowing for full access, full disclosure. Of course this is wrong. Even within the live stream we are still at the mercy of the decision making of the producers - the most obvious example being the continuous silences imposed throughout the stream because of language or privacy concerns (although I quite enjoyed these silences, imagining conversations so much more interesting than those the housemates were actually having), through to the simple choice of which camera to show us action from. Everything was mediated through the authority of the producers, even in the live stream.
Having said that, I still think the decision is wrong and will make Big Brother 10 a less satisfying experience than previous years. For instance, this morning I turned on the TV to watch the stream (before remembering my mistake), to get acquainted with the housemates. It is so much easier to learn who's who by dipping in and out of the stream than it is by simply relying on the highlight show, especially in the early stages where there are so many housemates that an hour long show cannot possibly hope to give decent representation of everyone in the house - the live stream may be mediated by the producers, but it still has the luxury of time within which to give us a broader view of everyone than the highlight show could possibly manage.
This year I will know the housemates less. It even seems counterproductive on the part of Channel 4. So they get more control of the show and what is seen, but they will surely lose the loyalty of the audience - a show that can only be viewed a few hours a day commands less attention than one that can be accessed 24/7.
My first thought was of the order, "but this is our show, how can they deny us 24 hour access?" Then it occurred to me that this was based on an illusion of control. My point was that the hour long highlight show is the producer's version of the house and that the live stream was the house, allowing for full access, full disclosure. Of course this is wrong. Even within the live stream we are still at the mercy of the decision making of the producers - the most obvious example being the continuous silences imposed throughout the stream because of language or privacy concerns (although I quite enjoyed these silences, imagining conversations so much more interesting than those the housemates were actually having), through to the simple choice of which camera to show us action from. Everything was mediated through the authority of the producers, even in the live stream.
Having said that, I still think the decision is wrong and will make Big Brother 10 a less satisfying experience than previous years. For instance, this morning I turned on the TV to watch the stream (before remembering my mistake), to get acquainted with the housemates. It is so much easier to learn who's who by dipping in and out of the stream than it is by simply relying on the highlight show, especially in the early stages where there are so many housemates that an hour long show cannot possibly hope to give decent representation of everyone in the house - the live stream may be mediated by the producers, but it still has the luxury of time within which to give us a broader view of everyone than the highlight show could possibly manage.
This year I will know the housemates less. It even seems counterproductive on the part of Channel 4. So they get more control of the show and what is seen, but they will surely lose the loyalty of the audience - a show that can only be viewed a few hours a day commands less attention than one that can be accessed 24/7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)