Change Your Image
littlejimdavies
Reviews
Lo and Behold: Reveries of the Connected World (2016)
Thought-provoking but ultimately limited
The was a small disappointment for me. Wheeling in a long succession of intellectuals and posing philosophically abstract questions at them about the implications of the Internet seems like something that could yield interesting results. In this case it leads almost nowhere.
Boffins and great minds are sometimes a slave to their own sense of purpose and grandeur, always looking to imagine the most incredible eventualities and possibilities regardless of how impossible or possible they are. The people in this documentary are no doubt amazing intellects who have the native IQ to leave myself and the majority of humans dead in the water.
However, it takes an intellectual to sell the idea that the Internet could gain autonomy and want to control us as a species. This is anthropomorphic projection on the grandest Earthly scale.
Werner also employs a deeply foreboding soundtrack of elongated drones and celestial dread to add weight to the scientific poetry and future doomsday predictions of his interviewees. At times you could almost be drawn into this darkening of mood, but then you hear another piece of vague mumbo-jumbo and interlocutory nonsense and chuckle, remembering: it's a documentary by Werner Herzog, which sadly means you are just experiencing his default style.
As well, the question "can the Internet dream of itself?" is so deeply boring and unbound by any objective framework it merely acts as a conceit from which to further ramble on the topic of non- biological sentience (something this film does rather well) and ends up in another cul-de-sac, (like all conceits do).
The area of AI is seemingly in a very strange cultural place right now whereby hitherto rational people are being drawn into imagining a secular religion based around a technological cosmology. Technology is either the devil, God, or both. Either way, the great power it possesses comes from the mundane necessities of our collective lives. Mythologising is fun but really we just want the same things we've always wanted (see Maslow 'hierarchy of needs'). The internet will not change that.
This strange, almost creepy substitution for God in Godless world, or power bigger than ourselves, is silly to watch coming out of intelligent people's mouths. Humans will not sleepwalk into the matrix. We will not eat the apple in the garden of Eden and reach a tipping point between our desire for technological innovation and the rise of AI overlords. This won't happen because humans won't desire it. Even if it was plausible, the road to such an event is not clearly laid out here.
Lastly, moral questions about the effects of technology are useful. This poses some but doesn't go deep enough into them in order to create a basis or first principle to work from. Too much technology is one thing but please explain why. What should we keep and why? What should we discard and why?
Anyway, partially thought-provoking but ultimately limited to thought experiments and conjecture about a future we can only vaguely imagine and will likely not happen.
Hot Girls Wanted (2015)
Not quite the seedy underbelly you expect
What the film tries to tap into is a kind-of shocking female, teenage-exploitation expose narrative, but, instead it uncovers a series of relatively normal, young, stupid and feckless teenagers looking for a way out of their middle-class suburban monotony.
What is supposed to strike you as something akin to sex trafficking (ie imposed drug addiction, systematic dehumanization etc etc) actually reveals an ever-more mainstream industry that has little compunction in playing to the natural vanities and naiveté of emerging female adults, sure, but yet never takes away their choice to leave or stay.
They are paid well, treated like human beings (with the agency and self-determination to board planes to unknown locations with a head full of dreams of being a 'porn star and the hopes of escaping their home town), yet the film still tries desperately to supplant this with a slow descent into infantilization of it's subjects.
The film does not hide that the high turnover of débutantes in this portion of the industry generally wields a 3-4 month cycle for each actress (after the realities of the trade-off of money for loss of reputation and damage to relationships become too much for them to bare, presumably) yet the narrative still implies the idea that it's anything but their own stupidity that has lead them to this.
Unfortunately for the film makers, everything seems 'above board'.
These girls are making 'bad' decisions, defying their parents wishes, wasting money instead of saving it, not thinking about the future or how their decisions effect their romantic life, and yet it's clear that they are having a lot of FUN! All you see is people freely having the liberty to do what hey want, when they want, getting paid and partying till the sun comes up. Seems alright really, doesn't it? It's almost as if it's what being young is all about - Making very bad mistakes through the endeavor of having a good time.
And that's the central dilemma here: How much responsibility do we place on young women to be accountable for all their free choices? The tone here suggests a mixed bag, dependent on the circumstances.
There is definitely an unspoken, Feminist finger being pointed at 'institutions of male power' here, who 'seek to manipulate women for sexual gratification', yet the women make A LOT of cash for their troubles. And as should be well known by now, women make a lot more than men as performers in this industry. Feminists watching this would be careful to invoke the 'wage gap' myth lest the reasoning be turned against them, for example. But, when society sees a woman 'giving' away her chastity so easily and having sex with many people, it suggests the woman is hurting herself. When a man does the same, he is hurting other people. This is patently sexist in itself, implying that women are not capable of making decisions for themselves or being self-reliant enough to learn from said mistakes.
The film does come to a shocking point somewhere towards the end when we see that the girls extended time in the industry means more and more offers that test the limits of their own bodily comfort and autonomy. 'Abuse Porn' is therefore somehow suggested as being the heart and soul of porn when it is allowed to reach it's natural limit, ie simulated rape. Not surprisingly the girls find it to be a step too far for their sensibilities to take. Quite right, I'd suggest, as the money to perform this stuff without having your 'heart in it' would never find a suitably high enough equation to deem it of any net benefit to my person-hood.
As many men will testify however, Porn is not a monolithic trove of played-out and video taped rape fantasies. It has thousands of strange, wonderful, tasteful, distasteful, Arty, disturbing and myriad permutations that bridge the full scope of the collective human desire for 'sex'. They do not ALL involve a form of quasi- consensual rape. Nor is 'Abuse Porn' as ubiquitous as this film suggests. Which leaves you wondering how 'neo-puritan' the film makers must be to be so naive about 'mens habits' as to paint it otherwise.
There are plenty of adult performers who are happy, well paid, professional, safe, intelligent, post-grad, up-standing citizens that chose Porn instead of a career in Science, for example, who DO NOT become the subject of porn documentaries. The film tries a little too hard to shame porn as an industry and in so doing, a lot of successful womens free choices to do something they love.
An average film which raises very important questions about female agency and male sexual desire.
Soaked in Bleach (2015)
This works as cinema better than you think.
The evidence is the focus of this film. Incongruities, red herrings, misdirection all point towards 'foul play'. The ineptitude and negligence of the Seatle Police Department raises suspicion in and of itself, but when looking at the sheer volume of evidence that was overlooked you start to see a very nefarious picture emerge. I'll leave these details to the viewer to discover for themselves. But, be prepared to rub your eyes in disbelief. Not because this film asks you to be credulous or give into assumptions about Courtneys character, but because it uses empirical evidence and reasoning to slowly collate the undeniable truth: This case needs to be re-investigated. Too much was dismissed out of hand or glossed over for bureaucratic expediency.
Does it paint a bad picture of Courtney? Yes. Does it lead us on a conspiracy theorists matrix of of exciting sleuthing and juicy details? Yes. None of this is Tom Grants fault, however. This story has it all but none of it would have been possible if Courtney didn't manage to call the only private investigator still working Easter Sunday in April 1994, that had the integrity to be facts lead and vigilant with documenting them.
If your reading this review, your in either one of three general camps.
1) You think Courtney is being tried as a witch, in a public scapegoating that unduly extends her suffering. Your a fan of her work and hate to see her victimised for merely being a woman that loved a 'rock star' when he killed himself. People look for someone to blame after a tragedy.
2) You looked into this because you loved Kurt Cobain as a kid. You wanted answers and so looked for them. You may have had your suspicions about his wife's previous and subsequent behaviour that leads you to assumptions that may or may not be confirmed by this films findings.
3) You don't have a clue what to believe but your curious to find out what this film has to say and what the controversy behind it is all about.
I don't know what mix I am of these three positions I am but I know I'm as biased as any childhood Nirvana fan ought to be. Go find out for yourself and watch this film even if it's just to strengthen your original position. You have nothing to lose by finding out