Round 3 of Tzioumakis Questions (James C)

Chapter five of Tzioumakis’s book really sparked my interest in the Hollywood Renaissance. I actually never thought of film playing an important role in the then pivotal time in our nation’s history. “As a result, American cinema entered a phase characterized by the production of stylistically diverse and narratively challenging films that were much more tuned in to the social and political climate of the era than the films made for the majors by top-rank independents.” (170) “Besides their status as independent productions, the above group of films shared a large number of other characteristics the most important of which were their conscious targeting of a young audience and their emphasis on questioning established traditions, both in terms of the types of stories they presented and the manner in which the presentation of the stories occurred on screen. These films set new trends in their treatment of controversial material such as the representation of violence (Bonnie and Clyde); sex (Midnight Cowboy and The Graduate); and drugs (Easy Rider) and struck the final blow to the already weakened Production Code, which was replaced in 1968 with the Ratings classification system.” (178) Why were these films so successful during this time period? What made the content an integral part of youth culture and society? Were independent filmmakers just creating films in reaction to an already determined successful target audience (young people) of the general public? Does independent film during this time period just serve as a reinforcement of the culture of young people rebelling against societal norms?

Another element that was brought up that I found interesting and somewhat hard to grasp was the idea of being a successful 100% independent filmmaker. “By borrowing a model of filmmaking again from European art-house cinema, whereby filmmakers were able to produce and distribute commercially successful films without the institutional support of a national distributor, and by subscribing fully to the auteur theory which placed the filmmaker at the centre of the creative process, the independents attempted to bring about these fundamental changes in the structure of the film industry.” (181) “Their ‘dependence’ on the old studios for marketing and distribution automatically signaled the failure of their attempt ‘to overthrow the studio system’ or ‘to democratize filmmaking’.” (183) As long as we live in the capitalistic society of America, will this ever be a possibility for filmmakers to be successful and controlling 100% of what happens to the film in terms of production and distribution? Is it better for there to be this relationship between the independents and the film distributors? Could independent films be successful without this and would that further define independent films and the authenticity of the auteur? What were your thoughts on the rise and fall of Orion?

As the book wraps up by outlining how the major studios have entered the independent film world and basically taking over. Tsioumakis credits the success of Sex, Lies, and Videotape for this invested interest or in some ways takeover of the major studios into the independent film world. Should American independent filmmakers be thanking Soderbergh? Are they giving Sex, Lies, and Videotape too much credit for this change (ie: popularity of the Sundance film festival, the creation of other festivals, creation of the Sundance channel, etc)? What were thoughts on films being financed through the pre-selling of ancillary rights to avoid working with one of the majors? Tisioumakis used Lions Gate as an example of a company that has still stayed strong. Is it possible that they will meet the same fate as Orion if the majors get too powerful and have more long lasting ability to be financially sustainable than Lions Gate? What were your thoughts on the examples of the models that Phoenix and Revolution Studios went by to allow them to keep making films and be successful?

QUESTIONS (pt. 2) Tzioumakis Readings (Molly B.)

1. In Chapter 5, Tzioumakis discusses the New American Cinema and the films of John Cassavettes. I watched his film Faces, and the accompanying “extras” DVD, which included interviews with many cast members who discussed the making of the film. Cassavettes, as director and screenwriter, basically took no outside funding, and used friends and favors to come up with resources needed to make this film, and it won awards at Venice Film Festival, and its actors received prominent award nominations, as well. Faces took over 3 years to complete, and despite major technical difficulties in the post-production (e.g. the entire soundtrack was out of sync!), Cassavettes never sought out help from the Hollywood industry, and therefore, his film retained the aesthetic qualities of that independence, as well. He said he took “mainstream acting jobs” to fund his film outside of the system. He had a strong belief in working with actors and forcing them to be emotionally free in the process of developing characters, and believed Faces could only be made if he had full control over the means of production. He said he didn’t know or care what would happen when he finished the film, that it was about the “process.” In this sense, Cassavettes seems, to me, to have been a rare example of a true “independent filmmaker”in this era, as opposed to most directors who simply work within the existing system as independent directors, in co-agreements with the major studios. What do you think? Are there other directors who seem to define this style of independent filmmaking today? Would this be possible today?

2. Later, Tzioumakis discusses the state of independent films in the early 1980’s, during the conservative political movements in the USA and the shunning of directors with dissenting political views. During that era, many independent filmmakers made low-budget films that found a voice and a home in alternative sectors of the market. One interesting source of funding was from public broadcasting, which Congress asked to assist in financing independent films. Do you think that government grants and assistance should be more involved in the film industry in the US, in order to create a more consistent framework for directors and talent from the margins to make films? Should public funds be diverted to boost the creative sector of the independent film industry, like in other countries (e.g. Canada, Europe)? Or, are cable outlets like HBO, Bravo, etc. filling in this gap for distributing films that may be lower budget and non-mainstream?

3. It seems in the current period of independent cinema, that the major studios have found a way to co-opt the indie producers/directors by providing them a comfortable way in which to work. They are, for the most part, given control of their own work, provided a budget to work within, and guaranteed distribution, which has been the toughest situation for most indie filmmakers, if working “outside of the system.” If such films have content that relates to the human condition and diverse subject matter (e.g. not Blockbusters) can be made within the system, why do we need “indie” film as a term anymore, if these aren’t actually independent? Is there a better term, such as “underground,” that might represent filmmakers that are truly at the margins, producing and distributing films through other channels and financing? Is “indie” just another means for Hollywood to sell movies to new audiences? Is the true meaning of independent cinema lost in the current conglomerate-dominated movie system? Are audiences getting enough disparate viewpoints? Can these new styles of "indie film" be challenging (or merely entertainment) within this framework?

independent film

hey everyone,

i found this link and thought you might enjoy checking out some interesting cinema verite -

‏http://cdn1.ustream.tv/swf/4/viewer.45.swf?cid=317016

Indie Film Questions (2nd Half)

Much of the discussion in this course has centered on taste distinctions. These tastes are often manifested in the alternative media a particular audience favors, who seek out avant-garde circles that share their tastes. It seems to me that the so-called independents of the film industry define success by getting their product out to the most amounts of people possible, which is done by exploiting the channels of the mainstream film distribution apparatus. Until recently, independent films and mainstream films were indiscernible aesthetically, since at any given point a majority of mainstream films were made by independent filmmakers. My question is then; does an independent film offer viewers a taste distinction at all, since the means that all films are brought to the public is almost always through the same mainstream channels?

The film industry offers the most unique discourse on the independent/mainstream dichotomy. The mainstream is often represented simply through the economic advantages they hold, as they are the ones that own the means of distribution. However, they are fundamentally dependent on the indie producers for the content. Without the mainstream, the independents would not have a cohesive distribution apparatus, and without the independents, the mainstream would have less content to distribute. The relationship between independent and mainstream filmmaking is, and apparently has always been, functionally symbiotic. The independents are constantly trying to out-mainstream the mainstream by creating films that are more attractive to massive audiences in order to gain enough capital to compete with the majors, but since they ultimately depend on those majors for distribution, is this a futile effort? Is it not irrational to believe that the independent media can use the mainstream distribution channels to compete with the mainstream?

Since the studios and the independent producers are essentially linked in the business of making films, it becomes hard to understand exactly what an independent film looks like. The Tzioumakis (I just wanted you to have to say his name in your head) book goes to great lengths to discuss the films that were produced independently, and even when he does explain the aesthetical nuances of indie films, he fails to mention mainstream studio films that were aesthetically similar to the indies (I imagine there had to be some). In the case of Juno, a movie I have no problem saying I loved, the subject matter is nothing new for Hollywood. However, teenage pregnancy is simply told in a way that pleases indie consumer tastes (which explains the Kimya Dawson soundtrack and comic book intro). This leads me to wonder if independent films today are nothing more than a clever genre branding for the studios, a way to distinguish films that are targeted to moviegoers that prefer a bit more edge in their Hollywood produced drivel. Are indie films just classic Hollywood narratives retooled to fit indie tastes?

Indie cinema questions

In Chapter 7, Tzioumakis concentrates on “the measures the company took to avoid the possibility of a corporate takeover and thus retain its independence amidst a small number of fully diversified entertainment conglomerates.”(p225) Geoff King also discusses this phenomenon, by stating that the major difference between independent cinema in 1950s-early 1960s and 1980s is the “extent to which any sustained infrastructure was created.” Later on, the most important requirement for independent cinema is its own distribution networks, where Hollywood studios still control the main markets. Is the relationship between the conglomerates and those satellites or mini-majors truly symbiotic, with fair value exchanged in the form of content generated by the smaller studios and infrastructure and finance provided by the conglomerates? Or does the fact that the economic power and incumbency of the conglomerates forces this on the smaller, potentially independent studios mean this is more accurately a parasitic relationship? Is independent cinema nowadays a pure independent territory, which has its own value system, aesthetic standard and ability to resist the organizational gravitation, or an incubator for big companies to discover the talented people? When the independent cinema faces the fact that if it does not stir the market like a bomb then people won’t pay much attention to it, then what is the difference with Hollywood?

Jean-Luc Godard says that “All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun.” However, for those independent filmmakers, from funding and distribution, it is still as dangerous as “walking through the swamp.” In Chapter 8, Tzioumakis continues to talk about the institutionalization of independent cinema. There we read about the efforts leading to resurgence of independent cinema in the 1990s, that were supported by many organizations, which are separated from the conglomerates. However, if there is an audience ready and receptive to the truly independent cinema, are such measures really necessary? Or would independent cinema spontaneously develop to satisfy the audience’s appetite? In other words, if the designers of the market support independent cinema when they develop, does society still need to deliberately or consciously support it, festivals or whatever. Or will the same designers act as the driving forces to bring about an independent element to the market?

I am sort of interested in the selection of music in some indie movies. Look at Juno first, from the interview with Ellen Page, she reveals why she would choose the Moldy Peaches/Kimya Dawson. Ellen describes the music is full of “so much heart and so much simplicity”, “humorous”, “novelty”, which is just as quirky as for Juno. Not only the Moldy Peaches/Kimya Dawson’s music, most of which are self-published, brings to the success of the movie, there are also many other well-known songs in Juno, such as the song written by David Bowie “All the young dudes” (one of my favorite songs) and Sonic Youth. Then let’s look at the soundtrack of the movie Happiness again. There are many masterpieces, which are from Mozart and Vivaldi. I realize that even with those masterpieces the soundtrack did not give me more impression of the whole movie than Juno. So what is the respective value of music used in both movies? To a wider extent, how possible could a movie be successful by the value of its soundtrack, which is highly recognized by those previous music fans? I know the movie Once is a good example in Europe. Another interesting is that after the success of Juno, Kimya Dawson’s fans are unsatisfied with how widely those songs are presented to the public, by stating that “not indie anymore”, “the movie spoiled her music.” Still an old question, how do those indie musicians and filmmakers balance between their original creativity and the potentially huge money-making market in front of them?

Juno Dossier

Entries by Karina Longworth on the Spout blog:
Review of Juno from Telluride film fest

Juno Release Plan Changed

Oscar Odds: Juno

Where is Juno Crossing Over From Exactly?

More on Juno and the Crossover Issue

Juno crosses $100 million



IndieWire review



Interview with Ellen Page about the Juno music at Pitchfork



Entertainment Weekly: Diablo Cody profile



Filmmaker mag interview with Reitman and Cody



Slate on the Juno backlash






Trailer.

***

And the latest on Fox Searchlight's fortunes in the LAT:

Fox Searchlight is one of the premiere specialty labels in Hollywood, releasing successful movies such as "Little Miss Sunshine," "Sideways" and the pop-culture juggernaut "Juno."

But lately Searchlight has been in the dark.

The unit of News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox, known for picking quirky films that resonate with the public, has released only a handful this year, far fewer than in the recent past. Two pictures it had high hopes for flopped. Others performed adequately but hardly with distinction.

For the rest of the story, follow the link.

Indie Cinema II illustrations

Re Tzioumakis 160-164, a scene from Rock Around the Clock (1956)



And the movie's poster.

***



VW "Sunday Afternoon" commercial



VW "Milky Way" commercial

Deanna's Questions on American Independent Cinema

Hey, Mike. Deanna was having problems logging in to blogger, so I'm posting her questions through my account. Hope that makes sense - John V.

1. On p.140, Tzioumakis cites Steven Brody’s characteristics of Monogram’s approach to producing exploitative films in the 1950’s: “[The film should be] based on news headlines with a title that is as outspoken and controversial as the headlines; Covers subject in form of expose that illuminates illegal activities; Promises, but never delivers controversial visual material; Produced quickly and cheaply while the subject it is set to exploit is still in public discourse (still marketable).” He mentions that these criteria, along with successful exploitation/marketing during the film’s distribution and exhibition stages will attract maximum public awareness and generate interest. Maybe a more obvious modern day version of the 50’s “teenpics” may be today’s straight to video National Lampoon’s college movies; however, do you consider a certain group or demographic to be targeted as heavily and exclusively by film producers today as teens were in the 50’s? Aside from demographics, what personal characteristics or posturings define this/these group(s)? Rather than a specific group, what dispositions or ideologies are targeted and exploited today, and are films necessarily “unethical,” regardless of author intent, if they exploit a specific group or topic? Is film exploitative in its nature, or how much does the aesthetic and narrative context make a difference in representing the targeted topic or group?

2. When interviewed on his latest film W, Oliver Stone (JFK, World Trade Center, Nixon, Platoon) said, “If you don’t examine your environment, you live in ignorance.” W began production in May 2008 and was released on October 17, 2008 with little pre-release press or hype (for a movie with its specific subject matter) and received a PG-13 rating. Stone claimed that his target viewer is an intelligent 10 year old- like he was when he was a child. Although the context in which the subject is presented greatly differs between exploitation films and social commentary, do viewers go to social commentaries, like exploitation films, to see a show rather than a “picture?” Do today’s political satires sacrifice quality for profit to exploit, through the presentation of lurid subject matter, cynicism and public distrust, especially that of a young adult audience? Do political commentaries need to be marketed with strong “showmanship” to be profitable or economically successful? What recent films or directors would you consider to have been marketed with strong showmanship or through exploitative marketing? How much of a part does a film’s release date play in qualifying it as an “exploitative” film?

3. Tzioumakis mentions that the emergence of drive-in theatres were the result of the late 1940’s migration to suburbs, the accompanying auto culture, and the absence of socializing patterns, such as “cafes and strolls in the park or a town’s central square,” that are characteristic of European countries (142). He goes on to say that, “Drive-ins turned into a very significant hub for social interaction, especially among a younger generation.” Why are these “Euro” socializing patterns absent from American culture, and to who’s or what’s, if any, benefit. How does centering social interaction or meetings around viewing scheduled mediated entertainment affect the amount of time and money we spend during our leisure time and the enjoyment we get from it? How does the amount of time we spend on leisure activities affect the production of entertainment?

11-12

1.) The catering to teen markets due to their level of disposable income began in the 1950’s when low-budget independent producers capitalized off of them. Were independent studios more concerned about profit over art in this era because of the absence of an independent tradition? These exploitation films were produced cheaply and quickly with the promises of controversy (narrative and visuals) for the sake of finding an audience. Even though some of those same subject matters are evident in contemporary independent film (at least in the three that we are watching) they seem more legitimate today, why? Now independent movies target a completely different demographic (those with the cultural capital- professors, artists). Does independent cinema always cater to the audience left out of the mainstream target demographic? When did this shift occur? What events led to it?



2.) “The oppositional stance that defines indie culture is one key to its status as a source of distinction, a means by which its audience asserts its superior taste. By seeing independent cinema as the alternative to Hollywood films, the indie audience makes authenticity and autonomy into aesthetic virtues that can be used to distinguish a common mass culture from a more refined, élite one.” (Newman 10). It seems as though people create this division with all media products they consume. The line between those that like country music and those that like rap music is just as powerful culturally as the division between mainstream and indie. Entire identities are created around music and even if the cultural snobbery do not attribute elitist tastes to either group, they may still see themselves in such a light. What is the motivation behind creating such hierarchical divisions? Forget about indie, if we are only exposed to the mainstream why do we still define ourselves as what we are not?

3.) One observer wrote, “working outside the studio system is no longer a guarantee against interference and censorship. Since the majors dominate the distribution system, they also—in effect—control the independent sector” (Newman quoting a Hwd observer 16). When did working outside of the studio system guarantee against interference and censorship? Even in the 1940’s, independent cinema was shown as part of a double feature in conjunction with mainstream film, did the MPPDAA not deal as much with content? Since the MPAA in the 60’s, it seems like even if you operate “outside” of the studio system, indie film producers’ goals were “interfered with” (if going by “augment, diminish, or otherwise affect one another”) because opting out lead to diminished distribution and exhibition options since the beginning. Am I being too literal? Maybe.

reading questions for 11/12 discussion

Tzioumakis brings up a different approach in understanding independent cinema as a discourse constructed by “authorized social institutions.” The author argues that the definition of independent cinema is contributed by such “legitimate social groups” as “industry practitioners, film critics, academics and publications, etc.” that have close association to the field of independent cinema. He further clarifies his argument by applying Foucaultian theory of “naming and defining the object.” Nevertheless, while legitimating the authority and power in construing the conception of independent cinema, Tzioumakis apparently omits the agency of audience. Tzioumakis would agree to the point that, based on the nature of cinema, one may inevitably wind up in misunderstandings if he sees cinema as “a one-way communication.” Therefore, if the discourse is also a process of reciprocity or mutual communication between film and audience, as the author himself suggests, would audience equally (if not less) have the power or authority in the construction of this discourse? If so, in what way would audience’s participation be significant? How may mass audience be able to bring independent cinematic culture into being then?

Following the clarification of his argument regarding the conception of discourse, Tzioumakis holds that independent film represents the issue of power. He claims that in the course of constructing this discourse, different parties compete against each other involving the field of independent cinema. According to Tzioumakis, independent cinema seem to be a tool for marketing strategy that contributes to the survival and development of either major or non-major film makers. In this sense, independent becomes truly “independent” only when it is necessary to certain extent. Independent film appears to be an optimum choice of expediency for concerns like financial achievement rather than for the sake of the films per se, perhaps. Off of this point, are we fair to say that the competition of a privileged power in the construction of this discourse may virtually sacrifice a true autonomy of independent film in the sense that a power-related force could keep a true independence at bay? Or curiously enough, is it correct that there is not such a thing as true independence at all, at least for in the case of films?

This question still follows the key topic of power that runs through the book. To illustrate his point, Tzioumakis delves into the case studies of the major film conglomerates’ growth and finds that, on the one hand, early American film makers struggles hard for the powers to get rid of being “depended upon,” but on the other hand, they oppresses the nascent and keep they from gaining power when they are in control. Michel Foucault interprets the connection between truth and power in the way that truth cannot be true without the sustainment of power, and power could no longer be powerful should it be stripped of truth. In the case of American independent films, what truths are the filmmakers trying to project along their way of growth? Are there any differences in telling the truth concerning independent cinema during their different stages of power?

Discussion Questions

1. The article is primarly about the marketing strategies of Miramax, and they talk a lot about how they didn't want to market it as a "starving artist" or "avant-garde" film. The author says that it is impossible to distinguish between the interest created in the film as a result of marketing by Miramax and the interest created by the subject matter and storyline itself (33). Would you agree with that? Or if not, how critical a role did Miramax play? The film was already popular in underground circles before Miramax purchased it. Do you think it could have or would have become such a cultural icon without the Miramax marketing plan? And do you think that this more commercial marketing plan compromises the "indie-nature" of the film?

2. In "The New American Cinema," discusses how "dreams by independents are often the stuff of fantasy and illusion" (314) because even if the film is low budget, it works under the umbrella of the dominant capitalist system. Do you think its possible to still be independent while working within this system or is the idea of independence a myth (that we believe in b/c we like the idea of it)? And if so, how? If everything works within this greater system, what makes some things independent?

3. As some of these indie movies gain more financial backing from big studios (or small studios owned by big ones), do they lose some of their "indieness"? It does seem like much of the credibility of indie movies hinges on the movies being low budget and independent of studios (and I almost feel like those are the only two criteria). Are indie movies more legitimate if they are done without the help of a studio, even if that hurts the overall production quality?

4. After watching Sex, Lies, and Videotape, I have to say I wasn't the least bit impressed. I know its a cult classic, but I honestly didn't think it was any deeper than any big studio drama. Do some movies take on this great importance simply because they're classified as indie, even if they aren't really that special? Or am I missing some great quality in the film?

1. Kleinhan’s article discusses the “success myths” (308) and legends associated with independent films –production (accessibility and process), success (critical and economical) and overall autonomy. In so many words, he claims that production companies have cashed in on aspiring filmmakers’ false sense of accessibility and attainable success that scholars’ and film teachers “most attracted to legends of authors/directors who succeed on their own terms within the system” and who tell the legendary stories, discuss the careers as tragedies, and “construct the canon of works” (321) have glamorized. He mentions that the appeal of authorship helped to fuel this aspiration and to create a scene of “Hollywood wannabes.” How could this group be described in terms of gender, age, class, style, and artistic ideology? What other cultures or groups might they be similar to or whose ethics might they oppose? How is the Hollywood wannabe culture more diverse today than it was in the 90’s? And for Hollywood wannabes not exposed to this glamorization that, according to Kleinhan, originates in academic settings and through discourses of distinction, what other institutions, sites, or political structures might contribute to this glamorization? What are the implications of these aspirations existing among and in specific groups and sites?

2. Perren’s articles cites how the video market in the 80’s helped “spur the emergence and expansion” (30) of independent distributors. Personal viewing technologies have changed the way we watch films, with whom, and when and where we watch them; how has the shift in popular formats affected more than just the economical capital of producers, but also the cultural and social capital of viewers; how does the way we consume art or cultural artifacts, specifically alone or in groups, affect production, ideologies surrounding certain genres and tastes, and the overall social environment and wellbeing of consumers? How have different groups’ viewing habits changed over time? Kleinhan’s article cites Michele Wallace’s quote about what we should expect and not expect from certain art forms. Rather than expecting films to have policy or ideology-shifting narratives, how can the way viewers react to and watch films have a larger impact on social structures?

3. Do podcasting networks allow for a more democratic production process and system? Who benefits financially from such networks?

Qs: Indie Cinema I (Week 10)

1.       In Perren’s paper”Sex, ,lies and marketing”, two of the important terms are “quality” and “high concept”. As stated in P31, the “quality pictures” were films that aspired to the status of ‘art’ in the terms of style and narrative construction. Can we say this “quality” is a new standard for “taste” in indie films? Despite their distinct aesthetics, do “quality independents” and “high concept films” have anything in common? “The film marketers-even before Miramax- obviously believed that an independent movie carried connotations bearing specific ‘qualities’” (P33). What on earth were these “specific qualities” at that time? After the success of sex, lies and videotapes, quality independents were distinguished by virtue of their gritty look or edgy content (controversy), hence “independents of the 90’s stood out either because of excessiveness in style, sex and violence, or because of a minimalist aesthetic that emphasizes dialogue over camerawork. (P38) So why a minimalist aesthetic could be aspired to the status of “art”? Are “sex, violence, and controversy” a must for indie blockbuster? Is the “quality” decided by marketing/distribution strategy or on the merit of director’s unique vision? Simply put, for these indie blockbusters, have they been marketing-oriented at the beginning of filmmaking? How to distinguish an “indie movie” if it is packed as if it was a major studio release?

2.       Perren mentioned that during 80’s Miramax was interested in a range of documentary, foreign langue film and art house-oriented films.  What is the role of foreign language film in the world of independent distribution?

3.       After Miramax and many other distributors have become subsidiaries owned by major media corporation, the film industry is now dominated by a combination of studios releasing big-budget films and specialty distributors handling niche films. The term “indie” and its value have been questioned. Perren argued “if a strict structural definition of quality indie blockbusters were to apply, then very few independent films would qualify for it.”  (P37)How to examine the value of “indie” from an industrial standpoint and an aesthetical perspective? Furthermore, Perren seemed to hold a negative viewpoint on the future for newer filmmakers and independent distributors struggling to find a pace in today’s market place (P38). Was the success and transformation of Miramax (plus the imitators) a boon or a bane for the indie movie nowadays? 

Céline week, more videos

"I Don't Need Anything But You," from the 1999 ABC TV movie version of Annie. This is schmaltz.



Céline sings in French 1998, "S'il suffisait d'aimer" live.



Céline sings in French 1988, Eurovision contest, "Ne partez pas sans moi."



New Found Glory, "My Heart Will Go On" (a punk cover...ironic?).

Let's talk about Celine and tastes

1. In the first two chapters Wilson mentions the story of Celine and Elliott, and how things got personal to him at the Oscars. From what Wilson states, he gives me a feeling that there are always gaps between mainstream pop stars and underground artists, and the tastes of each other are always mutually exclusive. Then at the end of the second chapter, he introduces the story that Wilson was defending Celine Dion in front of others who dislike Celine. All of these make me think about the relation between “tastes and interpersonal relationships.” I guess my question is does people having different tastes really matter that much? Does having different tastes really hinder interpersonal relationships? If not, why we are paying so much attention to it? It seems that people always like to manifest or declare their own tastes, the my-taste-is-better-than-your-taste postures. It seems like people believe what we consume is always a representation of who we are. Yeah, people do have different tastes, but so what? Why we like to make “taste” such a big deal?

2. In chapter four “Let’s Talk About World Conquest”, Wilson brings up the case of Celine in China (P40). “What’s the biggest misconception the Chinese had about the West?” “The Chinese believe Celine Dion makes good music.” “Out of the whole catalog of American, Canadian and British music, the Chinese seem to enjoy primarily four artists: Dion, Mariah Carey, Elton John and Kenny G.” It’s really interesting when I read to this point. I guess one thing I’m thinking about is the marketing strategies. It’s all about accessibility. If Celine and Mariah are all that Chinese media present, these are all that Chinese audiences can get. Wilson wants the Chinese to appreciate Elliott, but I’m sorry, no major Chinese media inform us that there is an Elliott. Another observation of mine is that it seems that Chinese music lovers are more critical/ skeptical about our own Chinese pop music, but hold more open attitudes (even worships) toward western pop music/ stars, just like Americans are more critical about their own pop culture, but maybe more easy-going to Japanese/ French pop culture. They say “distance creates beauty.” Do you think it can be fit in this case—tastes of Chinese fans and Celine? I guess the point I’m trying to make is that the nature of taste is really a complicated matter. One cannot just stand at one place and give the judgments about what is good and what is bad. What do you think regarding this?

3. Just one simple question: People generally think Celine’s French songs are much better than her English songs. Not only Wilson thinks so, but her fan says her French work “seems to have a deeper soul or meaning of it (P109).” Why is that? Let’s put aside the issue of taste, why do people generally enjoy her French songs better? Is it simply because she’s better at conveying her emotions through French?

Celine Dion has got to go - - I've got to Go Celine Dion

So, given the (perhaps) less than critical/scholarly tone of Wilson's book i would like to pose a series of (again perhaps) slightly less-than-purely-scholarly questions to this work (please note that while reading Wilson's book has somehow actually made me pause to consider the fact that i might actually like Celine Dion {and/or her music} my questions run on the assumption that we all start from the point of view of hating her music):

.08 . In chapter 6 Wilson introduces the concepts of the 'genuine fake' and 'authentic inauthenticity', which (to me at least) bring to mind these ideas we've mentioned of indie culture searching for its "authenticity" in older medium (vinyl, black & white film, lo-fi). Is it a fair assumption to accept these terms, but not consider the 'fake genuine' or 'inauthentic authenticity' as equally valid 'positions'?

1. On p. 67 Wilson ventures into questions about finding 'the self' & the "self-assemblage" that makes up modern identity. I wonder if the complex "bricolage" of self-identity isn't simplified in every kind of fandom (mainstream or indie), so that rather than having to create a version of 'the self' for every given situation, a fandom (and maybe especially an indie fandom) fashions a specific posture (say an ironic posture) to cover all sorts of social situations. Can we consider conformity (rather than the 'bad' mainstream sort or the unacknowledged indie sort) to taste cultures simply a way of managing the complex nature of modern social interaction?

2. At the very end of chapter 5, Wilson gives us a version of why Dion will never enjoy an ironic indie revival: "schmalz...is never purely escapist: it is not just cathartic but socially reinforcing" and so it "rots faster than other ingredients in the musical pantry" (61). First of all, this assumes that schmalz (and perhaps any unseemly outpouring of emotion) is trying to be escapist, ignoring possibilities for it to be, say, subversive, but the conclusion also ignores a 'schmalzy' artist who did enjoy a revival like, say, William Shatner whose acting could quite easily be characterized as 'schmalzy' and whose first "musical" foray was what i might categorize as experimental schmalz. In 2004, though, Shatner (and Ben Folds) released Has Been, an album that (at least somewhat) revives Shatner's career & 'indie cred'. Who gets to decide what can be retrospectively appreciated (albeit ironically) & what gets re-invented (read co-opted)?

2.5 . In the late '90s when i was living in Germany, a cultural/television phenomenon had developed known as "Deutsche Schalger" (German Hits). The phenomenon amounted to old German crooners (and some unknown younger artists) singing classic German 'schmalz'. These shows were popular with young and old audiences alike, but the sense i got was that the youth audiences watched/enjoyed these shows 'ironically' while older audiences saw them nostalgically. This seems to me to parallel our earlier 'Monster Truck' conversation where indie culture can consume 'mainstream' (or trashy) culture 'ironically' and remain indie, but i'm curious where this line breaks down, or how/why we draw it (i thought of this around p. 43-44)

2.73 . on page 42, when a 2003 Chicago Tribune article that Wilson is citing makes such a big fuss about the use of the word titanic in Afghanistan... isn't "titanic" just a word that means big?

3. Wilson posits the idea of 'difficult listening' vs. 'easier [not easy] listening' as a possible explanation to why we hate Celine Dion (p. 20). This is an idea we've come to previously in this class, particularly when talking about indie rock & early REM, but i wonder if we haven't overlooked the promise of 'complicating' simpler texts. Why do we (or why does indie culture) preference the 'deep text', the text you have to work at in order to understand over the simple text that you have to work at to 'complicate'? I'm thinking here of the the distinction between avant-garde art that (at least at some point in its history) valued texts that were at least on the surface level utterly simple (such as Rauschenberg's "White Paintings" or Michael Snow's Wavelength), that were, essentially works of art without content. Their complexity comes, then, from how they are read by the viewer.

"Let's Talk about Love"

To me, Chapter 6 seems to be more of a criticism against the ways in which Celine Dion’s voice is in contact with the audience. Wilson would argue that it is essentially “a volume business” which identifies Dion’s music as a piece of luxurious commodity and a technical plus ethnic role model that both intimidates people into low-creativity and engenders didactics to persuade audience into mainstream incorporation. It looks like the critics of mainstream highlights the evaluation of the cultural impacts upon the receivers. Not only do they emphasize the quintessential values of the “high brow/low brow cultures”, but also are they highly concerned about what values the different cultures would bring to the mass audience. Wilson’s examination of Dion’s music indicates that mainstream may fall short in enriching the audience in terms of personality cultivation and perhaps creativity as well. In this regard, I was wondering would the music (or other cultural forms) community of subculture help improve the shortcomings that the mainstream fails to bring. If so, in what ways would subculture contribute to enhance the connections between cultural outcomings and audience in terms of the influence over the receivers?

Wilson also argues in the illustration of the case of Dion that corporate mainstream culture has become globalized and hybridized with indigenous cultures. In this sense, the globalization and hybridization in fact create a popular mainstream identity that is recognized by worldwide audiences in a variety of areas. It seems to me that this global commercialization in the form of popular music establishes such an “imagined community” that people from different countries with different cultural backgrounds are assimilated into this community and are together identified as “citizens” of pop music world. And yet, how would local subculture distinguish itself in front of the juggernaut of globalization? Would it see this trend as an opportunity to expand its sphere and connect to its outside counterparts communities by joining this “shrinking world?” Or, could it be that the globalization eventually erodes the autonomy of subculture and harms its chances for future development?

Off of my second question, I have long been struggling with the question that does the definition or conception of subculture designate to a more universal application wherein worldwide subcultural community members recognize and enjoy a commonality? Or could the term of subculture be redefined according to various geographical norms so that one mainstream cultural form might be transformed and localized into a culture of underground or non-mainstream? Wilson’s example on this issue is the Iraqi copycat of American Idol and the Iraqi barber fights all the way against all odds through the competition, which irritates the mainstream in Iraq. The fact is that when Dion’s mainstream music bothers critics at home, “My Heart will Go on” seems to arm the Iraqi barber with an identity of subcultural taste that separates him from mainstream. So what would we make of the story regarding the cultural transformation in this sense?

Céline Dion is amazing

Isn't she?

*

Carl Wilson has a blog, Zoilus.

The 33 1/3 series of books does too: 33 1/3. See also: Wikipedia.

Oriental Theatre Images

Here are some pictures from a recent visit to the Oriental Theatre in Milwaukee for my Indie Culture Site assignment.

Indie Site: La Blogotheque

I'll be discussing the indie rock video site La Blogotheque in class.
I am posting a separate blog, with video examples and a little background on
the site, should any of you be interested.

http://mjbmutterings.blogspot.com/

Thanks,
Molly