Wednesday, 5 December 2012
Review: The Sunbeams
The Sunbeams
The Railway, Knottingley, Saturday 1st December 2012
So often you tend to find yourself going to gigs and watch bands rock up, do an “indie by numbers” set, and head off. That’s why watching The Sunbeams play at The Railway pub made a great change.
Being a three piece band with a sound that you’d probably describe as having a low-fi alternative sound, it’d be relatively easy and somewhat lazy to draw comparisons to Wakefield’s finest, The Cribs. However, you can hear the guys are that bit smarter with traces of alternative American bands such as The Pixies, Dinosaur Jr and particularly Pavement springing to this bloggers’ mind. The combination of smart, linear riffing, infectious bass lines and great vocal interplay between bassist Adam and guitarist Gaz, made a great set.
Originals such as ‘Drag It Out’ and ‘How to Start a Hurricane’ are well crafted low-fi indie tracks, and combined with a few covers thrown in for good measure, it proved to be an impressive night for the trio. It’s hard to imagine many bands that will cover Joy Division’s ‘Transmission’ and Shaking Stevens’ ‘Merry Christmas Everyone’ in the same set and carry it off in style, but The Sunbeams did just that. ‘Transmission’ in particular highlighted the quality of drummer Eddie who was impressive throughout, but really came to the fore when re-creating Stephen Morris’ relentless drumming from the 1979 classic.
It’s very rare that you see a band focused solely on the music, and the performance from The Sunbeams was just that. No frills, no gimmicks, just three guys playing honest, memorable music, and singing like they meant it. Great stuff.
Check out more of The Sunbeams at their Facebook page, Soundcloud and Youtube Channel.
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Remembering a time when people understood their own clothes?
One of the strangest things about going to gigs is seeing the hoards of fans lining the streets beforehand. If Iron Maden, Lady Gaga or One Direction rock up in your town, you can usually tell who is playing the show that evening because of the numerous t-shirts fans wear.
Just a few weeks back I went to see Morrissey perform at the Manchester Arena. Anyone fortunate enough to go to a Moz gig will have been treated to the sight of thousands of young bed-sit dwelling, bequiffed teens, or middle aged Moz-ites in the streets surrounding the venue. Most of these people will be wearing a Morrissey/Smiths shirt; maybe one of the t-shirts with tour dates on, an album cover, or any other bizarre piece of merchandise up for sale.
However, while walking through these scenes, one such fan caught my eye. A girl, probably around twenty and wearing a Smiths t-shirt was sat in McDonalds eating Chicken McNuggets. Now, this may not mean much to people who don't know much about The Smiths, but Morrissey is a well known vegetarian, with strong views on animal welfare. So much so that he actually wrote a song and album with The Smiths entitled Meat Is Murder. I was shocked to see that as this girl ate her chicken, she was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the aforementioned Meat Is Murder album cover.
Now as a vegetarian myself, I don't enforce my views on others, it is completely a personal choice. I'm not making the point of whether or not you have to be a vegetarian to own that particular t-shirt. I just cannot understand what possesses someone to choose an item of clothing with a deeply charged political message on it, and not actually believe in what it means- in fact, demonstrate the opposite view. I'm only using this example to demonstrate precisely what I mean, in the respect that nobody particularly seems to care about the messages their clothes give off.
I don't do fashion. Not a dedicated follower of it by any stretch of the imagination. Don't get me wrong, I do like to buy decent clothes, and I try to dress presentably in clothes I feel comfortable in, but I'm not the type to dash out and purchase a pair of shoes or jeans because they are this season's look. I'd like to think I dress 'normally.' But by my reckoning, clothes are designed to be a statement to the world about what you are, and they should say a lot about you. With the Meat Is Murder t-shirt, I do actually own that very t-shirt because I guess it reflects my own beliefs not only on animals welfare, but the fact that it is my favourite record. Again, I don't want to seem like I'm making the vegetarianism the issue, it's more the lack of awareness of the clothes- surely someone who enjoys eating meat cannot fully agree with that t-shirt they are wearing?
This leads me on to the point of this article. I find the whole culture of putting iconic images and people onto t-shirts frankly baffling. The Primark generation we live in have managed to somehow make it that people wear t-shirts with iconic imagery on that people genuinely have no idea about. Can you remember when Che Guevara was a political hero and not a fashion accessory? The amount of people with Che shirts on is so strange, not just because they are probably bought buy people with no idea who he actually is, but because there are so many of them. Fashion is supposed to be about individualism and expressionism, but by buying these t-shirts to be individual, you are in fact conforming with the thousands of other people who also are being 'individual.'
This article may come across as a rant, but it's more about me questioning how people think. I was speaking to someone a few weeks back who was wearing a shirt with the iconic picture of Keith Richards smoking on the front. I happened to say I loved The Rolling Stones. They asked me why I was telling them this. After I told him that he had a scale photo of the guitarist from the band on their chest, they said "Oh right, didn't know that." I died inside a little. Even Rapper Plan B got into trouble when he wore a shirt to a photo shoot recently with Neo-Nazi connotations. This, along with the numerous bankers who rock around town in their "Hey Ho Let's Go" Ramones shirts makes me question at what point iconography became a commodity. The Athena type posters of Abbey Road etc that live in most student houses are another sign of how post-modernism seems to have overtaken actual meaning, as images now go beyond just the visual connotations. The Abbey Road shot is to me, one of the best images ever captured, but because of it's over-use, it has completely lost it's meaning- a sort of bricolage, if you will. It seems the only products with any meaning are the ridiculously unfunny mysoginistic t-shirts that idiots tend to wear, unfortunately.
It does seem to be a product of recent times, simply people being told what to wear, because Primark or Urban Outfitters proclaims it to be cool. I think this goes hand in hand with the music side of things, where opinion leaders such as the NME dictate what people listen to not because they actually enjoy it, but because it is 'cool' and 'individual,' when the individuality is lost by conforming with everyone else. Music, clothing, television and all other forms of pop-culture have been comodified so that nothing is unique anymore, or has a strong meaning that people believe in.
Still, it's August, so at least all these individuals can congregate together and be completely unique in Leeds and Reading with 75,000 other 'unique' people.
My next post will be positive...honest!
Just a few weeks back I went to see Morrissey perform at the Manchester Arena. Anyone fortunate enough to go to a Moz gig will have been treated to the sight of thousands of young bed-sit dwelling, bequiffed teens, or middle aged Moz-ites in the streets surrounding the venue. Most of these people will be wearing a Morrissey/Smiths shirt; maybe one of the t-shirts with tour dates on, an album cover, or any other bizarre piece of merchandise up for sale.
However, while walking through these scenes, one such fan caught my eye. A girl, probably around twenty and wearing a Smiths t-shirt was sat in McDonalds eating Chicken McNuggets. Now, this may not mean much to people who don't know much about The Smiths, but Morrissey is a well known vegetarian, with strong views on animal welfare. So much so that he actually wrote a song and album with The Smiths entitled Meat Is Murder. I was shocked to see that as this girl ate her chicken, she was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the aforementioned Meat Is Murder album cover.
Now as a vegetarian myself, I don't enforce my views on others, it is completely a personal choice. I'm not making the point of whether or not you have to be a vegetarian to own that particular t-shirt. I just cannot understand what possesses someone to choose an item of clothing with a deeply charged political message on it, and not actually believe in what it means- in fact, demonstrate the opposite view. I'm only using this example to demonstrate precisely what I mean, in the respect that nobody particularly seems to care about the messages their clothes give off.I don't do fashion. Not a dedicated follower of it by any stretch of the imagination. Don't get me wrong, I do like to buy decent clothes, and I try to dress presentably in clothes I feel comfortable in, but I'm not the type to dash out and purchase a pair of shoes or jeans because they are this season's look. I'd like to think I dress 'normally.' But by my reckoning, clothes are designed to be a statement to the world about what you are, and they should say a lot about you. With the Meat Is Murder t-shirt, I do actually own that very t-shirt because I guess it reflects my own beliefs not only on animals welfare, but the fact that it is my favourite record. Again, I don't want to seem like I'm making the vegetarianism the issue, it's more the lack of awareness of the clothes- surely someone who enjoys eating meat cannot fully agree with that t-shirt they are wearing?
This leads me on to the point of this article. I find the whole culture of putting iconic images and people onto t-shirts frankly baffling. The Primark generation we live in have managed to somehow make it that people wear t-shirts with iconic imagery on that people genuinely have no idea about. Can you remember when Che Guevara was a political hero and not a fashion accessory? The amount of people with Che shirts on is so strange, not just because they are probably bought buy people with no idea who he actually is, but because there are so many of them. Fashion is supposed to be about individualism and expressionism, but by buying these t-shirts to be individual, you are in fact conforming with the thousands of other people who also are being 'individual.'
This article may come across as a rant, but it's more about me questioning how people think. I was speaking to someone a few weeks back who was wearing a shirt with the iconic picture of Keith Richards smoking on the front. I happened to say I loved The Rolling Stones. They asked me why I was telling them this. After I told him that he had a scale photo of the guitarist from the band on their chest, they said "Oh right, didn't know that." I died inside a little. Even Rapper Plan B got into trouble when he wore a shirt to a photo shoot recently with Neo-Nazi connotations. This, along with the numerous bankers who rock around town in their "Hey Ho Let's Go" Ramones shirts makes me question at what point iconography became a commodity. The Athena type posters of Abbey Road etc that live in most student houses are another sign of how post-modernism seems to have overtaken actual meaning, as images now go beyond just the visual connotations. The Abbey Road shot is to me, one of the best images ever captured, but because of it's over-use, it has completely lost it's meaning- a sort of bricolage, if you will. It seems the only products with any meaning are the ridiculously unfunny mysoginistic t-shirts that idiots tend to wear, unfortunately.
It does seem to be a product of recent times, simply people being told what to wear, because Primark or Urban Outfitters proclaims it to be cool. I think this goes hand in hand with the music side of things, where opinion leaders such as the NME dictate what people listen to not because they actually enjoy it, but because it is 'cool' and 'individual,' when the individuality is lost by conforming with everyone else. Music, clothing, television and all other forms of pop-culture have been comodified so that nothing is unique anymore, or has a strong meaning that people believe in.
Still, it's August, so at least all these individuals can congregate together and be completely unique in Leeds and Reading with 75,000 other 'unique' people.
My next post will be positive...honest!
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Letur-Lefr and all things Frusciante...
Guitar hero and artistic integrity...
My last blog post discussed how I was concerned about the way cinema lacked creativity and innovation, and how many films seem to be pretty homogenised in mainstream cinema. It's obvious for all to see that most art forms are controlled by corporate companies in order to come up with money-spinning products, and the music industry is no different.
However, last week, I regained hope in individualism with the release of Letur-Lefr, an EP released by former Red Hot Chili Peppers guitar player John Frusciante. Anyone with ears would be familiar with John's work with the Chilis, and his incredible skills on a guitar. However, unless you're a real music enthusiast, or indeed a fan of this great man's work, I wouldn't be too surprised if his solo output hadn't hit your radar. Unlike an album released by his former band, where a new Red Hot Chili Peppers album is heralded by a cover on Rolling Stone, Q Magazine and copious other music papers, websites and channels, John Frusciante's solo albums aren't given the fanfare of a Stadium Arcadium etc. This is for several reasons I can only assume, in that when you're not involved in the biggest band in the world, your stock with the press isn't quite as large as before. Secondly, when one keeps such a low profile as John Frusciante does in the celebrity culture world we live in, there are no major tabloid scoops, press or interviews to go along with release.
The fact that us Frusciante fans got an EP this year was indeed a pleasant surprise. After 2009's epic The Empyrean, John had kept a relatively low profile. The 2009 album was indeed such an epic piece of art, it did leave me wondering how, or indeed if, John would bother following it up. How do you follow something of such magnitude and beauty?
Well, it would seem that releasing an EP, that precedes a full length LP consisting of Acid House influenced electronic beats is the way to follow up a colossal guitar album. Once again, not quite what the world expects. But then again, you have to forfeit any expectations when it comes to this man. Nothing could or should surprise anyone about this man.
In a world where musicians consistently plough the same furrows, we are accustomed to artists staying within safe boundaries, releasing an album identical to the previous one, and then touring it to cash in. With Frusciante however, this isn't the case. Despite his mainstream success and critical acclaim, John turned his back not once but twice on the Chilis twice to work on his solo material. His early solo output was unique, and somewhat noncommercial. Recorded on a four track, Niandra Lades and Usually Just A T-Shirt was John trying to make "interesting music" which he felt didn't exist anymore. The resulting album is experimental to say the least, and as "unsellable" as it may be to the masses, it is some of the most honest music you could listen to. Conventional musical structures are abandoned for a more Avant Garde approach, with lo-fi production values giving it a raw, intimate quality. It is a little unsettling and perhaps reflects the turmoil that was going on in his life at the time, but there is a beauty in the depths of John's despair which makes it compelling listening.
It dawned on me that the real quality in music, and in particular John's music, is it's honesty. It's unflinching, uncompromising, and brutally truthful, and is a complete reflection of the man himself. Whether that be John suffering from addiction and substance dependency, or a camaraderie with three other talented musicians who bring out a fun side to his music, it's all there. Anyone who listens to The Empyrean should be astounded by not only the quality of songs, but the lyrics are an insight into the depth of an artists' mind- and show what a deep man created them.
Frusciante's musical views are unquestionably selfless. As a complete scholar, and consequently master of the guitar, he professes in interviews that technical ability is over-rated, and that simple techniques on the guitar are often more than sufficient when creating sounds. Anyone who listens to his Californication era output can testify to this- nothing obscenely flash, yet the sparse notes are structured and effective. That said, being such a well rounded musician, when we are treated to a virtuoso moment or a face melting solo, it is equally as moving. Not because it is there to "show off," but because it is placed there to represent an emotion, feeling or play a small part in a larger picture.
This is what makes John Frusciante's work so appealing to me, it is almost the purest form of art available. I'm not naive enough to believe that John doesn't enjoy the benefits that years of commercial success has gained him, but I do respect the fact that he doesn't simply "go through the motions." I could imagine that it would have been very easy to carry on in the Chilis, making records half-heartedly, as many people would have done, but the fact he left to make music that pleased him is a comforting thought. It shows there are people unblemished by commercialism, where needs are satiated at the request of a record company. If rumours are true that he has stockpiled hundreds, or thousands of songs depending on the storyteller, that is an exciting prospect for fans of his music.
So Letur-Lefr is a representation of John's current status as a musician, a "one man band" that he deemed himself to be in a recent statement to accompany the new EP. This venture into electronic music isn't entirely new territory, as his 2004 collaboration with Josh Klinghoffer on the album A Sphere In The Heart Of Silence demonstrated his love of electronic music. However, this new EP and his next LP PBX Funicular Intaglio Zone are certainly not the guitar based wizardry one would expect from the man. But, as a listener, you can feel the one common theme in John's work throughout the songs, raw emotion. Be it electronic melodies, his guttural and emotive cries and vocals, or the sparse guitar parts that litter the songs, you can sense the emotional feel he applies to the songs he works on- something that he can somehow transcend across the instrument or musical genre.
So, in a world where musicians or artists 'sell out' or commercialise their products at the request of A+R men, it is a huge relief to me that there is still someone standing alone making music for themselves, not to cash in or jump onto the latest trend. This record is a little bit left field, and is essentially an artist testing untested waters, not because they have been told to by their record company, or trying to find a new sound, simply because they wish to. I genuinely believe that John wouldn't be too fussed whether or not anyone really listens to the record, or even enjoys it. It just so happens that the music is fantastic, and I'm sure anyone who gives it a spin will realise what an incredible piece of work it is.
Letur-Lefr is available now.
PBX Funicular Intaglio Zone is available from September.
My last blog post discussed how I was concerned about the way cinema lacked creativity and innovation, and how many films seem to be pretty homogenised in mainstream cinema. It's obvious for all to see that most art forms are controlled by corporate companies in order to come up with money-spinning products, and the music industry is no different.
However, last week, I regained hope in individualism with the release of Letur-Lefr, an EP released by former Red Hot Chili Peppers guitar player John Frusciante. Anyone with ears would be familiar with John's work with the Chilis, and his incredible skills on a guitar. However, unless you're a real music enthusiast, or indeed a fan of this great man's work, I wouldn't be too surprised if his solo output hadn't hit your radar. Unlike an album released by his former band, where a new Red Hot Chili Peppers album is heralded by a cover on Rolling Stone, Q Magazine and copious other music papers, websites and channels, John Frusciante's solo albums aren't given the fanfare of a Stadium Arcadium etc. This is for several reasons I can only assume, in that when you're not involved in the biggest band in the world, your stock with the press isn't quite as large as before. Secondly, when one keeps such a low profile as John Frusciante does in the celebrity culture world we live in, there are no major tabloid scoops, press or interviews to go along with release.
The fact that us Frusciante fans got an EP this year was indeed a pleasant surprise. After 2009's epic The Empyrean, John had kept a relatively low profile. The 2009 album was indeed such an epic piece of art, it did leave me wondering how, or indeed if, John would bother following it up. How do you follow something of such magnitude and beauty?
Well, it would seem that releasing an EP, that precedes a full length LP consisting of Acid House influenced electronic beats is the way to follow up a colossal guitar album. Once again, not quite what the world expects. But then again, you have to forfeit any expectations when it comes to this man. Nothing could or should surprise anyone about this man.
In a world where musicians consistently plough the same furrows, we are accustomed to artists staying within safe boundaries, releasing an album identical to the previous one, and then touring it to cash in. With Frusciante however, this isn't the case. Despite his mainstream success and critical acclaim, John turned his back not once but twice on the Chilis twice to work on his solo material. His early solo output was unique, and somewhat noncommercial. Recorded on a four track, Niandra Lades and Usually Just A T-Shirt was John trying to make "interesting music" which he felt didn't exist anymore. The resulting album is experimental to say the least, and as "unsellable" as it may be to the masses, it is some of the most honest music you could listen to. Conventional musical structures are abandoned for a more Avant Garde approach, with lo-fi production values giving it a raw, intimate quality. It is a little unsettling and perhaps reflects the turmoil that was going on in his life at the time, but there is a beauty in the depths of John's despair which makes it compelling listening.
It dawned on me that the real quality in music, and in particular John's music, is it's honesty. It's unflinching, uncompromising, and brutally truthful, and is a complete reflection of the man himself. Whether that be John suffering from addiction and substance dependency, or a camaraderie with three other talented musicians who bring out a fun side to his music, it's all there. Anyone who listens to The Empyrean should be astounded by not only the quality of songs, but the lyrics are an insight into the depth of an artists' mind- and show what a deep man created them.
This brings me to his current output, which is an incredible leap from what anyone could have predicted. The archetypal guitar hero releasing an album, essentially lacking guitars. People may scoff at this, but I cannot help but respect what he has done here. John literally has no care what people think, and whether or not people like the musical evolution he has taken, something he has admitted to those he has collaborated with, according to interviews. To me, this is the ultimate integrity of an artist. His work is not a commodity to be bought and sold, but something that is a true expression of the person. If people enjoy what they hear, that is brilliant. If not, never mind. You can tell that Letur-Lefr is the work of someone who has enjoyed learning a new instrument, and completely immersing themselves in new musical territory.
Frusciante's musical views are unquestionably selfless. As a complete scholar, and consequently master of the guitar, he professes in interviews that technical ability is over-rated, and that simple techniques on the guitar are often more than sufficient when creating sounds. Anyone who listens to his Californication era output can testify to this- nothing obscenely flash, yet the sparse notes are structured and effective. That said, being such a well rounded musician, when we are treated to a virtuoso moment or a face melting solo, it is equally as moving. Not because it is there to "show off," but because it is placed there to represent an emotion, feeling or play a small part in a larger picture.
This is what makes John Frusciante's work so appealing to me, it is almost the purest form of art available. I'm not naive enough to believe that John doesn't enjoy the benefits that years of commercial success has gained him, but I do respect the fact that he doesn't simply "go through the motions." I could imagine that it would have been very easy to carry on in the Chilis, making records half-heartedly, as many people would have done, but the fact he left to make music that pleased him is a comforting thought. It shows there are people unblemished by commercialism, where needs are satiated at the request of a record company. If rumours are true that he has stockpiled hundreds, or thousands of songs depending on the storyteller, that is an exciting prospect for fans of his music.
So Letur-Lefr is a representation of John's current status as a musician, a "one man band" that he deemed himself to be in a recent statement to accompany the new EP. This venture into electronic music isn't entirely new territory, as his 2004 collaboration with Josh Klinghoffer on the album A Sphere In The Heart Of Silence demonstrated his love of electronic music. However, this new EP and his next LP PBX Funicular Intaglio Zone are certainly not the guitar based wizardry one would expect from the man. But, as a listener, you can feel the one common theme in John's work throughout the songs, raw emotion. Be it electronic melodies, his guttural and emotive cries and vocals, or the sparse guitar parts that litter the songs, you can sense the emotional feel he applies to the songs he works on- something that he can somehow transcend across the instrument or musical genre.
So, in a world where musicians or artists 'sell out' or commercialise their products at the request of A+R men, it is a huge relief to me that there is still someone standing alone making music for themselves, not to cash in or jump onto the latest trend. This record is a little bit left field, and is essentially an artist testing untested waters, not because they have been told to by their record company, or trying to find a new sound, simply because they wish to. I genuinely believe that John wouldn't be too fussed whether or not anyone really listens to the record, or even enjoys it. It just so happens that the music is fantastic, and I'm sure anyone who gives it a spin will realise what an incredible piece of work it is.
Letur-Lefr is available now.
PBX Funicular Intaglio Zone is available from September.
Sunday, 22 July 2012
Will cinema ever be original again?
So last night, I like many others eagerly trotted along to see the new Batman film at the cinema. I'm pretty sure that anyone who has seen it can wholeheartedly agree what a fantastic film it is, with all the ingredients anyone could want from an action film - danger, excitement, violence, breath taking set pieces - all in all a triumph for Mr Nolan, who has once again flexed his muscles as a top notch director of the summer blockbuster.
However, something struck me as I sat in the dark, about three quarters of the way through the film. I actually knew how the film was going to end. No, I'm not psychic, or a genius, or anything like that, and I imagine ninety nine percent of people reading this blog have had the exact same experience. I just knew what was going to happen. Now, I won't spoil the film for anyone yet to enjoy it, but the film follows what you would describe as the conventional Hollywood narrative, I guess. This wasn't the thing that bothered me, however. Sure, I enjoyed the experience, but it struck me that this movie is going to be the biggest selling thing for quite some time, and all it is, is essentially a re-telling of the same old narrative device.
Every genre has it's own set of narrative 'rules,' be it in a Rom-Com, a horror film, or a biopic. All forms have a clear set of rules that happen, and demonstrate something that we the audience expect to see when watching the film.
Take the "Disney Formula" of storytelling, which I think we can agree, applies pretty much to most blockbuster/family film. Hero/heroine is sat at home, when life changing experience happens to them. They resist it at first, test out their powers, become competent and set out on a big adventure. Things go well to start with, but then the villian/obstacle steps in the way, things go wrong, allies betray you, and things get bad. As bad as they can, to an impossible, inescapable pit of bad (something that is not just metaphorically seen in The Dark Knight Rises). Then, shock horror, the central character finds strength from somewhere, be it an inner strength, or the help of friends who they thought had long since abandoned them, and with this new found strength, evil is overcome. People live happily ever after. Yay. Tears all around. Obviously some films deviate slightly from this structure, we may have a nice twist somewhere, some unexpected endings involving sacrafice or selflessness, but the narrative above can be applied to the overwhelming majority of mainstream cinema. Harry Potter, Spiderman, Star Wars, Lord of The Rings, every Disney film since nineteen fifty-something...all the same.
This isn't me getting on my high horse and complaining, because I'm the first to admit that I enjoy a lot of the aforementioned films, and taking them for what they are- an enjoyable couple of hours entertainment. Also, this isn't a form of cultural snobbery, as I've said, I am a fan myself. But, as human beings, what makes us actually want to watch, what is essentially the same story played out time after time with different characters? Why are films so formulaic, and more importantly, why do we lap them up, unchallenged? Why don't we get bored of watching the same thing over and over again?
I suppose humans are creatures of habit. We like routine. We get up, go to work, come home, eat chips, go to bed. And repeat. Routine and the expected, these are the things people enjoy. I imagine that people like the fact that they can go to the cinema, and engage with a film without having to actually think about it- if you fell asleep for ten minutes in Batman, you'd wake up and still have a pretty good idea what was going on, because you can apply all the cultural conventions that you've learned from your previous engagements with a film. It's safe, you know what you're going to get, you can leave the cinema unchallenged, happy in the knowledge things went the way you thought and knew they would.
From the film industries point of view, the reasons for them making these kind of movies is obvious. The clue is in the phrase 'film industry.' It is an industry based around making money, and lots of it at that. Why on earth would they change the approach to storytelling, when it makes shed loads of cash? From watching the trailers before The Dark Knight Rises, it is obvious they have no imminent intention to change either. The friends I was with pointed out that they couldn't believe the five trailers beforehand were advertising films based on comics, sequels, or re-boots of existing franchises. When they know people will flock to see Batman, why not give the public more of what they want, and make lots of money at the same time? Are there actually no original ideas for scripts than literally stealing storylines from comic books (Superman), television shows(The Sweeney), or sequels (half of Hollywood)? As Paul Weller once said, 'The public wants what the public gets...'
I still feel that in honesty, cinemas' strength lies in it's ability to tell a story. To me, the storytelling in film in the nineteen fifties and sixties is unsurpassed. The quality of the narrative in, say, a film noir movie, is just as good, if not better than anything that is scripted today- the only thing that has changed is the special effects, which can decieve people into believing they are watching a better product than they actually are. Because of the visual limitations of effects in early cinema, I feel this meant writers were far more creative than todays scriptwriters. Scenes had to be filled with great dialogue, gripping stories, cliffhangers, ala Hitchcock. Nowadays, a child could have scripted the majority of a film, but because of the stunning visual effects and CGI, the audience is far too distracted to even notice how formulaic and shoddy a script is.
An interesting theory is that of Theodore Adorno, from the Frankfurt School. He claimed that the world, many decades ago, was about a Culture Industry, and his theory in a nutshell, stated that every type of art form was basically stealing from previous generations, meaning that nothing could ever be original again, as after the nineteen fifties, everything had had been 'done.' Despite being a pretty pessimistic theory, in many ways, he was correct. In music for example, there are only so many chord progressions and notes in a musical scale to use, meaning that the limits had been discovered, and any song is essentially a re-hash of a previous one. The same does apply with film. I'm aware of the fact there are only so many ways to tell a story, and I don't expect a revolutionary way of telling a tale to immerse from nowhere, as we've been telling the same stories since we were cavemen painting on a wall.
Obviously there is an amount of generalisation in what I've said, as there are some very clever storytellers and filmakers out there who have a sparkle of originality in their art form. There will always be pioneers, be it in the independent film sector, mainstream cinema, or art house, but predominantly, the films that bring in the most revenue will always be the most formulaic.There are without doubt revolutionary pieces of art house film out there, and a lot of European cinema is far more innovative than anything Hollywood comes up with.
I've got to say though, I do highly recommend watching The Dark Knight Rises, as it is an epic, great peice of cinema. This isn't written in any way to attack what is a well directed action film. There are some stunning setpieces and visual effects that really are aesthetically pleasing, but that aside, it just essentially another superhero film.
I do really look forward to the day that we can see a summer blockbuster hit that just thinks slightly outside the box, something that strikes a slightly different chord with audience than what we've seen before. Or until the audience gets bored with being fed the same old same old. Until then, I'll just sit with my popcorn and enjoy the show with everyone else.
However, something struck me as I sat in the dark, about three quarters of the way through the film. I actually knew how the film was going to end. No, I'm not psychic, or a genius, or anything like that, and I imagine ninety nine percent of people reading this blog have had the exact same experience. I just knew what was going to happen. Now, I won't spoil the film for anyone yet to enjoy it, but the film follows what you would describe as the conventional Hollywood narrative, I guess. This wasn't the thing that bothered me, however. Sure, I enjoyed the experience, but it struck me that this movie is going to be the biggest selling thing for quite some time, and all it is, is essentially a re-telling of the same old narrative device.
Every genre has it's own set of narrative 'rules,' be it in a Rom-Com, a horror film, or a biopic. All forms have a clear set of rules that happen, and demonstrate something that we the audience expect to see when watching the film.
Take the "Disney Formula" of storytelling, which I think we can agree, applies pretty much to most blockbuster/family film. Hero/heroine is sat at home, when life changing experience happens to them. They resist it at first, test out their powers, become competent and set out on a big adventure. Things go well to start with, but then the villian/obstacle steps in the way, things go wrong, allies betray you, and things get bad. As bad as they can, to an impossible, inescapable pit of bad (something that is not just metaphorically seen in The Dark Knight Rises). Then, shock horror, the central character finds strength from somewhere, be it an inner strength, or the help of friends who they thought had long since abandoned them, and with this new found strength, evil is overcome. People live happily ever after. Yay. Tears all around. Obviously some films deviate slightly from this structure, we may have a nice twist somewhere, some unexpected endings involving sacrafice or selflessness, but the narrative above can be applied to the overwhelming majority of mainstream cinema. Harry Potter, Spiderman, Star Wars, Lord of The Rings, every Disney film since nineteen fifty-something...all the same.
This isn't me getting on my high horse and complaining, because I'm the first to admit that I enjoy a lot of the aforementioned films, and taking them for what they are- an enjoyable couple of hours entertainment. Also, this isn't a form of cultural snobbery, as I've said, I am a fan myself. But, as human beings, what makes us actually want to watch, what is essentially the same story played out time after time with different characters? Why are films so formulaic, and more importantly, why do we lap them up, unchallenged? Why don't we get bored of watching the same thing over and over again?
I suppose humans are creatures of habit. We like routine. We get up, go to work, come home, eat chips, go to bed. And repeat. Routine and the expected, these are the things people enjoy. I imagine that people like the fact that they can go to the cinema, and engage with a film without having to actually think about it- if you fell asleep for ten minutes in Batman, you'd wake up and still have a pretty good idea what was going on, because you can apply all the cultural conventions that you've learned from your previous engagements with a film. It's safe, you know what you're going to get, you can leave the cinema unchallenged, happy in the knowledge things went the way you thought and knew they would.
From the film industries point of view, the reasons for them making these kind of movies is obvious. The clue is in the phrase 'film industry.' It is an industry based around making money, and lots of it at that. Why on earth would they change the approach to storytelling, when it makes shed loads of cash? From watching the trailers before The Dark Knight Rises, it is obvious they have no imminent intention to change either. The friends I was with pointed out that they couldn't believe the five trailers beforehand were advertising films based on comics, sequels, or re-boots of existing franchises. When they know people will flock to see Batman, why not give the public more of what they want, and make lots of money at the same time? Are there actually no original ideas for scripts than literally stealing storylines from comic books (Superman), television shows(The Sweeney), or sequels (half of Hollywood)? As Paul Weller once said, 'The public wants what the public gets...'
I still feel that in honesty, cinemas' strength lies in it's ability to tell a story. To me, the storytelling in film in the nineteen fifties and sixties is unsurpassed. The quality of the narrative in, say, a film noir movie, is just as good, if not better than anything that is scripted today- the only thing that has changed is the special effects, which can decieve people into believing they are watching a better product than they actually are. Because of the visual limitations of effects in early cinema, I feel this meant writers were far more creative than todays scriptwriters. Scenes had to be filled with great dialogue, gripping stories, cliffhangers, ala Hitchcock. Nowadays, a child could have scripted the majority of a film, but because of the stunning visual effects and CGI, the audience is far too distracted to even notice how formulaic and shoddy a script is.
An interesting theory is that of Theodore Adorno, from the Frankfurt School. He claimed that the world, many decades ago, was about a Culture Industry, and his theory in a nutshell, stated that every type of art form was basically stealing from previous generations, meaning that nothing could ever be original again, as after the nineteen fifties, everything had had been 'done.' Despite being a pretty pessimistic theory, in many ways, he was correct. In music for example, there are only so many chord progressions and notes in a musical scale to use, meaning that the limits had been discovered, and any song is essentially a re-hash of a previous one. The same does apply with film. I'm aware of the fact there are only so many ways to tell a story, and I don't expect a revolutionary way of telling a tale to immerse from nowhere, as we've been telling the same stories since we were cavemen painting on a wall.
Obviously there is an amount of generalisation in what I've said, as there are some very clever storytellers and filmakers out there who have a sparkle of originality in their art form. There will always be pioneers, be it in the independent film sector, mainstream cinema, or art house, but predominantly, the films that bring in the most revenue will always be the most formulaic.There are without doubt revolutionary pieces of art house film out there, and a lot of European cinema is far more innovative than anything Hollywood comes up with.
I've got to say though, I do highly recommend watching The Dark Knight Rises, as it is an epic, great peice of cinema. This isn't written in any way to attack what is a well directed action film. There are some stunning setpieces and visual effects that really are aesthetically pleasing, but that aside, it just essentially another superhero film.
I do really look forward to the day that we can see a summer blockbuster hit that just thinks slightly outside the box, something that strikes a slightly different chord with audience than what we've seen before. Or until the audience gets bored with being fed the same old same old. Until then, I'll just sit with my popcorn and enjoy the show with everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)