Close to Perfection

People criticizes everything that is considered art; paintings, music, opera, movies and the likes, but never have we read criticism of music videos, if there are they certainly don't dominate the domain. But they should be counted as art as well and just as much be criticized like movies and paintings, after all there are outstanding video clips and there are lousy one's.
One should first set criteria's that make a music clip good and make one bad. After that is establish we can distinguish a good music clip from the bad one.

Here is a brief list of points for a good music video:
1. The music video shown should be in entity with the lyrics, if not that would not make any sense.
2. The artist should at least be seen once, so the voice has a face.
3. The music video should possess artistic quality, like good editing, a creative theme, good cinematography or a nice mise-en-scène.
4. The acting skills of the actor in a music video clip should be good or the choreography, depending what the artist settles with.
5. The directors of the video's should also get credit for their art and not only the band or singer.
6. The characteristic of the artist should come forward.
7. If a music video wants to be outstanding it should be unique.

A bad music clip is the opposite to the 7 points mentioned. A further one is, if its not fun to watch and gets boring after the second time.

A recent music video that was quiet good was the clip for "Closer to the Edge" by 30 Second to Mars. The video was directed by Bartholomew Cubbins, Jared Letos director pan name. This of course is the perfect fit for point 6. It could not get more personal, since the band member himself directed the clip.  The clip start with a close up of different people talking about faith, moments and life, sending people an important message and cuts to a a shot of Jared Letos side face, where his face is moving towards the microphone. The dark background with the mystifying lightning gives the beginning a surreal effect, cutting back and forth between each member of the band preparing for the show and regular people talking directly into the camera about life.  The last guys quote is at the same time the introduction the the beginning of the song, "...don't regret anything you do, cause in the end it makes you who you are." We here the roaring of the audience, see three faces in a fast cut and the stage where a huge cover falls off and the band all together on the stage start with their song. Beautiful introduction with further outlining and details throughout the whole song. The ending is a closing frame. It ends the same was it started with speeches by young people about life, after which like in the movies an end credit follows. The middle section throughout the whole song contains concert footage of their tour, with titles that tell us where the present show took place. The whole scenes are accompanied by writings that documents the scenes shown, like a diary, turning this video into personal diary of the band. When a solo follows we can see and here people talk again. This gives the video not only emotional value but also authenticity. The video clip not only documents the band, but also functions as a message box from people like us to people like us. One could almost say the music video is better then the song, but this might not be the case, after all they are both an item. To sum up this is a wonderful, touching, creative and personal music video.

Check it out and draw you own conclusion.

"If I am King, where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because they think that when I speak, I speak for them."

"The King's Speech", directed by Tom Hopper , is less about the life of King George VI/Bertie (Colin Firth) and more about the friendship between him and his speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). A boy that was often neglected in his upbringing and weakened through mean comments throughout his life amongst his family members and nannies, decides through the help of his strong and supportive wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) to take speech therapy, due to his stammering. Going through embarrassing procedures by certain doctors, the last try to better his speech leads him to the office of Lionel Logue. With no diploma and title Lionel finds a way through knowledge and heart to help Bertie with his stammering, before he becomes king and also while he is a king. He helps the king to find his own voice and throughout the speech challenges the King faces during the war.
Though the movie concentrates on the two characters and their relationship to each other, historical facts are not left out, like the death of King George V (Michael Gambon), the reign and abdication of Bernie's brother King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), the great depression and the start of the 2nd World War. However, these happenings occur in order to deepen the friendship between Bertie and Lionel. The therapist who at the beginning seemed quiet arrogant becomes more settled throughout time and Bernie less tempered and open. Lionel at some point, becomes more than a therapist who tries to fix Bertie speech, he becomes a true friend/psychologist. Feelings the king of England has and problems he faces and faced are only revealed to us through this friendship to Lionel.
Though Hopper insisted on being as historically accurate as possible, some doubt his accuracy, due to the order of some happenings, others because of the belief that the movie has some emotional exaggerations.
The movie is not a biography of the kings life, its a historical drama, it takes real characters and real happenings and puts them it into a movie context, after all the movie does not go further than the speech King George VI gives, on the war entrance of the UK. Movies are made to exaggerate a little no matter how much the director wants to hold on to real happenings. Aesthetics as well as narrative changes have to be included at times. If we wanted to see real life, a look at our own one is sufficient. At certain points even the greatest among us have boring moments, but depicting them in a movie would simply not make sense. Editing and the elimination of certain scenes and moments of a persons life already exclude historical accuracy. For that not a movie, but a documentary has to be made. However the events and the relationship between King George VI and Lionel is a true historical fact. The drama and emotional moments we encounter are only a further joy for us viewers and should be judged accordingly.
Everyone who wants to watch a movie that combines all trades a good Oscar movie should possess, has to go and watch "The King's Speech". It offers historic accuracy, emotions, great acting, great scenery, great wardrobe, great dialogues, great score and great direction. Colin Firth was at his best just as Geoffrey Rush, both of them match so well on screen that the deep friendship between the characters can not be doubted one moment, and Helena Bonham Carter has more of a quiet color this time, after playing many eccentric characters the last few years, though her quirkiness still shines through at times, which we would not want to have any other way.
It makes sense that the movie was named "The King's Speech", after all that's the part the movie aim at from the beginning. After all this one speech that makes all the difference. The others are the same procedure over and over.

"...girls get to a place where they just kinda pick the best option..."

Is life is about work, love or family?
What is life about and what is a relationship about?
Why do we feel one way about a person in the past or present and why does this feeling change throughout time?
Does anyone have an answer to those questions? If not get in line behind director and co-writer of the movie "Blue Valentine", Derek Cianfrance.
A romantic drama set in Brooklyn, New York and Pennsylvania lets us explore the turbulent love life of Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams).
We enter their lives on the verge of disaster, and every bit of stress in their marriage, brings us back to the opposite times. The further they push each other away in the present, the closer they become in the past. The movie switches back and forth between present and past.
Cindy who has the ambition to become become a doctor someday, is a realist and differs from Dean who has a more romantic ambitions and is a dreamer. He falls for Cindy the moment he sees her and never ceases to love her. But her perspectives change throughout time, and ironically Dean foretells Cindy's character change at some point in the movie: "I feel like men are more romantic than women. When we get married we marry, like, one girl, 'cause we're resistant the whole way until we meet one girl and we think I'd be an idiot if I didn't marry this girl she's so great. But it seems like girls get to a place where they just kinda pick the best option... 'Oh he's got a good job.' I mean they spend their whole life looking for Prince Charming and then they marry the guy who's got a good job and is gonna stick around."
This quote is an important trigger for the whole movie and it is the perfect description of Dean's character and the character of the girl he is looking for, who should be anything but the type of girl he just described. He thought Cindy was like that, since the one thing he kept on saying after encountering her for the first time was that she is different.
The plot of the movie asks questions that are essential in our lives as well when it comes to relationships and the expectations we have of each other in love, marriage and while starting a family.
But the movie does not only overwhelm with its simple, but yet abstract plot, but also with its cinematography. The contrast between time and love is  shown through the use of color in the movie. The lighting and vivd color use of the scenes from the past mystifies the whole love and has a dream like effect on us, whereas in contrast to it the present is depicted in a rather gloomy, dark lightened and moody colored way, making it ideal for the viewer to sense the couples emotional states visually.
The change in mise-en-scène is a further symbol for the change in their love, between past and present. They spend time in rather authentic places during their first encounters, making it seem the perfect love story, where in contrast to that in the present their surrounding, their house and the theme motel they go to in order to ignite their love, reflects a dark and weary surrounding.
Cinematography and Mise-en-Scène function like a mirror, they reflect the characters their inner feelings.
The movie is certainly an interesting watch for everyone he wants to see a love movie of a different sort and that has truth to it. It is also a movie for the eye, with a nice cinematography and mise-en-scène that plays a big part in telling the story and detecting the emotion of the characters. A very well directed movie with outstanding performances by  Ryan Gossling and Michelle Williams, who both once again proved that they are one of the most promising actors in Hollywood. To sum up, "Blue Valentine" is a powerful and heartbreaking movie where everyone can find a part of themselves in. Well crafted, well written and well acted, there is nothing this movie lacks except more recognition.

Lust = Love ?

Here comes a movie which is educational for both men and women. First it should be noted that even though,  this movie was marketed as a romantic-comedy, many viewers will come to realize towards the end of the film, that it starts out as a romantic-comedy, but ends up turning into a romantic-drama. Not only because there is hardly anything to laugh about towards the end, but simply because the situation the to lovers find themselves in is anything but comic.
The movie starts out with the introduction of our main protagonist Jamie Randall (Jack Gyllenhaal) a flirty and self-confident young man, who seems to have lost his way in life. Fighting against becoming like his brother and father and trying to prove himself otherwise, he is selling electronics prior to getting fired and later finds himself selling pharmaceuticals for Pfizer in Ohio. Though that might describe his character a little, one very important factor of his personality was not yet mentioned. Jamie is a womanizer and he sleeps with a lot of women. A lot of them, but as in real life everybody meets the certain someone who changes their life and all of a sudden even a womanizer gets settled. Right?
In this case the lucky lady is Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway) a young woman with stage one Parkinson. The relationship starts out on sexual basis and turns into a relationship, which then turns into love. Parallel to this our drug representative Jamie switches from trying to get doctors to prescribe Zolofot, his companies ant-depression medicine, at which he is unsuccessful to Viagra, with which  he becomes a hit.
The movie is loosely based on an insider memoir by a former Viagra salesman, which might explain why the movie is set in the 1990s rather then in the present. The the second plot the film revolves around, as much as the love story part, is the success of the drug Viagra.
While usually love movies target a female audience "Love and other Drugs" seeks a male domain, which explains why the movie is told from Jamie Randall's perspective rather then Maggie Murdock's. The viewer hardly gets insides into Maggie's life when Jamie is not around. There is only two parts in the movie, where we see Maggie on screen unconnected to Jamie. These parts never hint at Maggie's feelings for Jamie, but they serve the soul purpose to show the audience how Maggie's condition worsens and to give the audience inside informations on Parkinson's.
Not only is this movie a parade of cliché's, but there are also lot of things that hardly makes sense. For example, why Jamie's brother who is a millionaire, ends up staying at Jamie's house after getting kicked out by his wife, rather than seeking a place of his own.
Lets come to the end and answer the statement made in the introduction of this article, the reason why this movie is educational. "Love and other Drugs", tells us that men at some stage in their life after some sort of realization, fall for one girl. EVEN A WOMANIZER. The cliché climax of the whole movie is not that a player decides to settle with one woman that he can't seem to live without, but that on top of it the woman he falls for is very sick. Maybe this movie with its very utopian believe will trigger a change in how men think about women.
So the message for all the women out there is that the general understanding of attractiveness of their sexual counterparts might change. Just give them a chance to get to know you on a deeper level, after that nothing can stop them from falling for you.
A wish that will not apply to most of us.
The message for all men out there is, start seeking for love on a deeper level and love a woman no matter what her condition.
From here on it is up to the viewer to decide what to make of this movie.
Make sure to stick till the end of the film, since the ending is a total revolution in cinema. You wish!

Wall Street vs Love Street

What makes “Wall Street” the movie different from the real Wall Street? Many things, but then nothing. Both follow the same business, they trade, one for money the other as well, the big difference however is, if the financial crises would have been as predictable as the movie “Wall Street” many of us would have been better off. Was the movie bad? No, one could not talk of a bad movie, which movie is bad anyways and who decides what makes a movie bad? It was simply predictable. For some that might not be a bad trade, but for many it would be. We go to a movie to be entertained, though this one might have been different. Given our current circumstance in the business world, in which all of us are involved, maybe we all hoped for some more depth rather than repetitive images in a fictional world, borrowed from the real one. Further on the question whether the movie was about Wall Street per se or about the strong but yet fragile relationship of the main characters, stays alive. One could say the movie was 20% about Wall Street and 80% about the drama between between the two lover’s and a father. For a movie that asks so many questions it also answers them very fast. Not a moment goes by and people who are familiar with Gordon Gakko’s character, might already know the plan of his, others who might not have watched the first part of “Wall Street” might not feel the same way, but still the movie does not really make a secret out of it. My theory is, the first movie (meaning in this case Wall Street from 1987) is always better then the follow ups, which simply follow to cash in some extra bonus. Though in the case of “Wall Street” it could have been different, since the theme was a very accurate one, but it seemed like Hollywood saw the opportunity to cash in some extra money, that was cut during the financial crises, instead of making a movie that would give us something more, like an enlightenment of the situation and happenings. Their aim was to make some income with this movie for their benefit, rather then a movie with a detailed explanation of how we came to the point of crises where we are right now. So as far as we can tell, the movie Wall Street is not at all so much different from the actual Wall Street, we all care about money and we all want to get married to it, even in the art sector, Hollywood once again proved its point.

A. O. Scotts review in the New York Times, sums up the movie with the right words: “This movie is by turns brilliant and dumb, naïve and wise, nowhere near good enough and something close to great.”

Nothing more could be said about it. It is a 133 minute long contradiction that we get to watch, and do we get answers? No, then what do we get out of this movie? Please watch and figure it out for yourselves, because I for sure did not make any sense of the movie, rather then figure out it solely for entertainment.

Where is the Oliver Stone, who once was keen on targeting topics that would make us rethink our position rather then retell a happening that we all are a vivid part of , adding an ornamentation through a love story. Why not raise questions that make us rethink our position in the world and about money?

Now we know that Wall Street people like Gakko, do not have a heart, but do have one? Which one is it? Maybe the answer is first comes the money and then everything else.

However there was one good part in the movie, that might save the rest of the remaining minutes of the movie from a total failure, which is the speech Gakko gives in a university before he meets his future son in law . That speech actually gets you thinking and makes a point for us youngsters out there.

To sum up, “Wall Street” had so much potential yet they flashed it down the toilet. Maybe the biggest disappointment was the expectation people put into the movie and the disappointment that followed, rather then the fact that the movie was actually bad.

There is one thing Forbes magazine was right about, when they wrote, that Shia LeBouf is Hollywood’s best actor for the buck. The movie made $19,011,188 (USA) on its opening weekend in the US alone. Which proves the point. Lets see how the numbers will add up.

Maybe one citation by Gakko will help us live our lives better and sum up this review, just too bad he didn’t believe in it himself until the end: “If there’s one thing I learned in prison it’s that money is not the prime commodity in our lives… time is.” Good luck with overcoming your love for money!

A Dream within a Dream within a Dream…

And he has done it again! Who would have thought that Christopher Nolan was to top his movie “The Dark Knight” immediately with his following film? Well I did, but then again it is a sensation. Let’s see and wait what will follow, but whether Nolan will be able to top this creative masterpiece, we’ll have to wait and see, it certainly will be a worth a wait.

Directed, written and produced (plus Emma Thomas) by Christopher Nolan this movie has Nolan written all over, not only is he the creative master mind behind the idea, but he is also the one turning it into a visual reality for us.

The movie offers everything, wit, complexity, amusement, action, special-effects, a great score and entertainment. Though it is 148 minutes long we yearn for more, since time just flies by, that is how well the movie captures your attention. The mysterious end of the movie let to many theories and discussion on the internet, yet one should discuss the fact if this movie is really such a masterpiece and deserves its spot under the best movies ever made. IMDB already gave the movie the 3rd spot, which might be unfair to a lot of masterpieces that have existed and proven themselves before “Inception” hit theaters. But as we all know, rankings are a peculiar thing changing from creator to creator, though it is understandable that in the mainstream business, “Inception” certainly deserves a spot on the podium, but whether we all agree if it deserves its spot on the podium considering all of film history we could end up finding ourselves in a never ending argument. Yet for a blockbuster production this movie brings forth more then we expected to see, for some of us if not all. Most of us had to think with the movie to actually make sense of it. The suspense rate and involvement factor was quiet high, which, lets be honest is usually not the case when we go to see other Hollywood movies.

However it would have been better if the movie would have tried to prove itself without the major cast of A-list Hollywood actors. Having two A-list actors would have been more than enough and cheaper at the same time, yet the need to fill the whole cast with Hollywood stars, shows in a way that the producers (including Nolan) did not trust the plot itself and took the easy way out.

The movie is about Dom Copp (Leonardo DiCaprio), the main character of the story and his pointman Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who are on an extraordinary mission. They engage in people’s minds through dreams, by creating a dream reality for the intended person, an architecture sets up the dreams, and only kicks can awake them. One mission, which has the aim to lead cooperate rival Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) to convince Fischer to break-up his fathers empire, is more complicated from the previous missions the team undertook. For this they are joined by three new team member Ariadne (Ellen Page) the new architect, Eames (Tom Hardy) who will change appearances in the dream and chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao). The mission will lead the team from one dream, deeper into another, always leaving a person behind who will prepare all the necessary preparations for the kick (awaking).

While this is the general plot of the movie, there is a second plot line that also interferes with the actual plot, Dom Copps private life, his memory of his wife, by which he is haunted. She often interferes in the dreams causing danger for everyone. While on one side the movie is about the mission to lead Robert Fischer to break up the empire, on the other side, we are on a mission of trying to find out what the story behind Dom Copp and his wife is.

Impressive but yet very cliche are some strategies used in the movie, like the fact that neither Dom nor we get to see the faces of his children, not even in his memory, leading us to assume, that once we get to see their faces he will be back in reality, since for him, who is the most and only complex character in the movie, showing similarities with DiCaprio’s previous character in “Shutter Island”, has a hard time to distinguishing the dream from reality.

So whether this movie is really a masterpieces in the sense of a new innovation or just a creative story that uses film techniques that have proven themselves throughout film history very well, is a reality or a dream that you shall decide for yourselves.

A Different Kind of Turkish Delight

   
World cinema has been researched quiet a lot,but still there are many countries that have movies worth reporting, which still stand in the shadow. One of these countries is Turkey, especially recently there has been a movie boom in this country. There are times were one might find more Turkish movies playing in the theater, than international ones. For some who are not familiar with the Turkish cinema, this might be a set back, but for others who would like to brighten their horizon, it is a grand chance to get to know a different sort of style. But is it really different in style from Hollywood?
If we look at the recently made movies in Turkey we see two directions, the one direction is very mainstream, made for the masses, like the movies by Cem Yilmaz and the other direction is quiet artistic, if we take a director like Nuri Bilgi Ceylan, who is a household name in movie festivals. Further more there are those Turkish directors, who did not grow up in Turkey, but in a different country, but still could be counted into Turkish cinema, since the topics they are interested in involve problems in which the Turkish culture is involved in, like Fatih Akin movies.
Recently there have been many new universities in Turkey who offer cinema/television studies, and the study field has been as much as a boom as the many Turkish movies that recently hit the theaters. We are talking of a process in the last 10 years, starting in the 21st century and not the previous years. This difference should be made clear, since there was a time, where Turkish cinema was at a low point and hardly any movies were made and before that, there was the Yesilcam era where many Turkish films were made, though none of them, except for Yol, gained world wide acceptance. These are different eras and different films were made back then.
Why Turkish movies still don’t manage to gain international attention, is something worth researching, but there are one or two points of why is should gain international attention and one or two points why maybe an international audience might not be able to cope with the movies.
First why should it gain international attention:
Turkey is a country that strives between the western and eastern culture, so one could see it as a place were two very different cultures meet together and melt into one. This is a very good thing and very interesting, since lately the view on Muslim culture has had a set back due to terror. Further on it is a great spot for an analyses to see in which points these two different cultures unite and where they separate. A lot of problems in Turkey are due to the fact that they do not know to with culture to relate to and this is a theme that is visible in the comparison of Turkish movies, some movies show the modern life in Istanbul and others show the life in villages and just there the differences are overwhelming.
The western countries sometimes see Turkey in such a light, where one who has seen the country really wonders where they got those ideas from. Watching more mainstream Turkish movies really might open the perception of people, this would also be mandatory for different cultures and their cinema that lives by bias.
Films like that, first might declare that putting everyone under one roof is most certainly wrong, and second would make the developed countries see, how really developed some parts of the less developed countries are, if not more ahead of them.
Movies that would declare this understanding in Turkey would be the most recent movie like, Romantik Komedi or movies likeOrganize Isler, Neseli Hayat, Babam ve Oglum and the likes.
Now the problem with those movies are, though they are easy to watch, most of the time creativity is missing, the movies seem to be a low copy of Hollywood movies, made fit for Turkish understanding, but nonetheless it shows the modern concept of Turkish life.
Second, why might an International audience not be able to cope with Turkish movies:
Turkish cinema, especially if we take Turkish comedy movies, are very fixed on their own audience, which means a Turkish audience. The jokes would be very hard to first be translated in the same meaning into another language and further on another culture might not find it as funny as the country of the movies origin. But this term only goes for mainstream movies.
The more independent cinema, like Nuri Bilgi Ceylan movies, have different aspects to concentrate on like the cinematography, that one could relate to, if one is not able to relate to the plot. The aesthetic of the movie is simply a joy for all eyes.
We all know that Bollywood does more movies per year than Hollywood, so who says Hollywood is dominating the world. It does, with world wide fame and export, but not with wold wide production, the first rank would go to India. So it would be very wise to keep track of countries, like Turkey, who did not have a permanent cinema past as Hollywood, but what is not can still become, and the first spot is due to fall into different hands sooner or later. Like European cinema which had to hand the first spot over to Hollywood before in the past.
The new interest of Turkey in cinema did start and this new found interest does not seem to be something that will be short lived. All eyes should be on the countries that recently came up w