1. The dialogues and characters are similar or parallel to those in Shakespeare's Henry IV, such as Bob Pigeon who is a parallel to Falstaff, Scott is equivalent to Shakespeare's Prince Hal, and Van Sant has modernized and placed Shakespaere's dialogue into Portland, with Scott's line to Bob about how he he would only look at clocks if they were lines of coke.
2.They represent the conventional(old) and the unconventional (young)Falstaff, and the link between the characters is established from the very beginning when Mike is wearing a shirt that says Bob on it. When I watched it, I actually thought Mike's name was Bob for the first couple scenes. Chimes at Midnight is significant because Van Sant comments on it in My Own Private Idaho, with the character Mike, and draws parallels and dissimilarities from it in this film. He reverses the role of Scott and Mike in the prank on Bob from what it was in Chimes.
3. It emphasizes the relationship of Scott and Mike as equals, as brothers. The rejection of the Falstaff characters in this context makes Scott more heartless than Prince Hal is in the play, because it is not necessary for him to reject them, he does not need to erase them from his past like Hal does in the plays.
4. He becomes a crueler character, one who throws away relationships and is fickle. He conforms to heterosexuality and the world of his father's politicians at the end, abandoning Mike and Bob, and the film remains centralized on them, forgetting Scott, because its focus is on the usually-forgotten Falstaffs.
Michael Newman, “Indie Culture: In Pursuit of the Authentic Autonomous Alternative”
5.He says that the "indie" movement "challenges the mainstream" and that in doing so, it creates another consumer audience for which it is produced. He believes the tension is that indie cinema has created a group that is straying from the mainstream to be non-commercialized, but in doing so they create a commercialized product, just for a different, prosumer audience.
6. Independent was known to be contemptuous of the mainstream, purposely straying from it, believing that modesty is virtue, and low budgets can be an aesthetic choice. Not only is it present in film, but also in music such as Green Day, with audiences that are constantly rejecting "sell outs" because they have given up artistic integrity for money or conformity. Independent filmmakers maintain credibility by keeping consistent with their indie style, even if they just so happen to become popular, but will lose it if they change to appease the masses.
7. There was a shift when TV commercials began using indie bands, but this was not seen as selling out, it was seen as getting good, interesting music out there since it could not air on major label-controlled MTV. It challenges the idea of mainstream being anti-indie.
8. He says that indie music creates its own audience of a certain type, usually urban, white, and male, who are given a group to join that is above the mainstream. The "imagined audience for indie culture is a cliche' of liberal elites".
9. The film stayed authentic by keeping in the scene that Universal did not like, therefore they did not distribute it. Solondz was disappointed by the box office sales though, and blamed it on Good Machine for not being an experienced distributor. But he still accepted the money that Universal gave him under the table, in case the film made money. This makes the artistic autonomy questionable because they still took money from the company that tried to change it, and then wouldn't distribute it because Solondz didn't do what Universal wanted him to do.
10. He says that indie culture is not autonomous because there is no contradiction between "consumer capitalism and that of alternative cultural movements", and it depends on the maintream to be anti-mainstream. He also says that the mainstream culture has in a way "bought in" to the indie culture, making indie culture no less credible than mainstream culture because that culture's participants are the ones who ultimately decide what is and isn't credible, within the context of their culture.
2.They represent the conventional(old) and the unconventional (young)Falstaff, and the link between the characters is established from the very beginning when Mike is wearing a shirt that says Bob on it. When I watched it, I actually thought Mike's name was Bob for the first couple scenes. Chimes at Midnight is significant because Van Sant comments on it in My Own Private Idaho, with the character Mike, and draws parallels and dissimilarities from it in this film. He reverses the role of Scott and Mike in the prank on Bob from what it was in Chimes.
3. It emphasizes the relationship of Scott and Mike as equals, as brothers. The rejection of the Falstaff characters in this context makes Scott more heartless than Prince Hal is in the play, because it is not necessary for him to reject them, he does not need to erase them from his past like Hal does in the plays.
4. He becomes a crueler character, one who throws away relationships and is fickle. He conforms to heterosexuality and the world of his father's politicians at the end, abandoning Mike and Bob, and the film remains centralized on them, forgetting Scott, because its focus is on the usually-forgotten Falstaffs.
Michael Newman, “Indie Culture: In Pursuit of the Authentic Autonomous Alternative”
5.He says that the "indie" movement "challenges the mainstream" and that in doing so, it creates another consumer audience for which it is produced. He believes the tension is that indie cinema has created a group that is straying from the mainstream to be non-commercialized, but in doing so they create a commercialized product, just for a different, prosumer audience.
6. Independent was known to be contemptuous of the mainstream, purposely straying from it, believing that modesty is virtue, and low budgets can be an aesthetic choice. Not only is it present in film, but also in music such as Green Day, with audiences that are constantly rejecting "sell outs" because they have given up artistic integrity for money or conformity. Independent filmmakers maintain credibility by keeping consistent with their indie style, even if they just so happen to become popular, but will lose it if they change to appease the masses.
7. There was a shift when TV commercials began using indie bands, but this was not seen as selling out, it was seen as getting good, interesting music out there since it could not air on major label-controlled MTV. It challenges the idea of mainstream being anti-indie.
8. He says that indie music creates its own audience of a certain type, usually urban, white, and male, who are given a group to join that is above the mainstream. The "imagined audience for indie culture is a cliche' of liberal elites".
9. The film stayed authentic by keeping in the scene that Universal did not like, therefore they did not distribute it. Solondz was disappointed by the box office sales though, and blamed it on Good Machine for not being an experienced distributor. But he still accepted the money that Universal gave him under the table, in case the film made money. This makes the artistic autonomy questionable because they still took money from the company that tried to change it, and then wouldn't distribute it because Solondz didn't do what Universal wanted him to do.
10. He says that indie culture is not autonomous because there is no contradiction between "consumer capitalism and that of alternative cultural movements", and it depends on the maintream to be anti-mainstream. He also says that the mainstream culture has in a way "bought in" to the indie culture, making indie culture no less credible than mainstream culture because that culture's participants are the ones who ultimately decide what is and isn't credible, within the context of their culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment