We Live In Public

"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU". Those words will conjure up visions of totalitarianism, disregard for privacy, and living in public. Although we will try to avoid this dystopian future as much as possible, our efforts may be slowly disintegrating in the viral world known as the internet. With the abundance of social networking, anybody can become an overnight celebrity with videos of you screaming at a double rainbow. To the average prole like you and me, the internet is our world of tommorow, and our Big Brother is seldom known internet pioneer Josh Harris.

This interesting foretelling of the future (and the chain of events that go with it) is none other than Ondi Timoner's "We Live in Public". Using a chronological chain of events in Josh Harris' life (from Pseudo.com in the late 90s to present day Ethiopia), this film was shown from his perspective with parallels from his friends, family, business partners, and residents of "Quiet". This film is a mix of expository and observational styles (archival footage, interviews, no narrators, ect), and was able to tell an unbiased tale of the potential world of tomorrow.

I found that the strengths of this film include the sheer magnitude of interesting information presented. My favourite information tidbit was the exposure of the many parallel sides of Josh Harris' television raised personality (eg. Luvvy the Clown), and all of his intricately complex "art projects". It was very interesting to deconstruct his way of thinking and enter the mind of a futuristic (if not somewhat weird) internet genius.

In terms of value, "We Live in Public" can have very high ranking in our modern day culture. Much like "1984", it shows us what can happen if we let our future (weather it be in technology or politics) spin out of control. Positive outcomes could be a raising of awareness for the results of a dystopic future (or the life of a crazy genius), while the only real negative is that someone else might try living in public, only to have it go horribly bad for them. When all is said and done, we are left with one important statement regarding the effects of the internet. Will we use the internet to connect, create, and inspire, or will we end up living in the basement of a Manhattan apartment filled with cameras, drugs, and mindless promiscuous sex. It all depends on what we let happen.

FIN.

RIP: A REMIX MANIFESTO.

As you could probably tell by the title of this blog post, I recently saw a documentary called "Rip: A Remix Manifesto" by Canadian filmmaker Brett Gaylor. It is an interesting and intricate story about the "culture jammers, mouse warriors, and remixers of the world" and their battle against the harsh control tactics of big media. The point of this whole 86 minute joyride of information was to show the issue of copyright, and how it affects us as a whole. This film also uses a semi-linear structure that alternates between the story of Girl Talk, and the chaotic history of artists vs the man in a quest for free speech, and it works very well in getting its message across, which that the rules of the game are up to us, and the era of passive-consumerism is over. Blended into all this is the titular remix manifesto, devised by Mr. Lawrence Lessing. It states that culture is always built on the past, the past always tries to control the future, our future is becoming less free, and to build free societies you must limit control of the past.

This specific documentary is a combination of both expository and reflexive. While it does have a narrator, present a POV, and is structured like an essay, the film focuses on Brett Gaylor as much as Girl Talk and the other artists. Despite some brief snippets of the so called "copyRIGHT" (big media), the film's POV is sided with the "copyLEFT" (the general public). Some conventions that this type of documentary film uses includes fast editing when appropriate (during the concerts), archival footage/music (during a highlight of a historic copyright moment), interviews (scattered throughout the movie), voice overs (whenever the filmaker wants to express his POV), and montages (at the beginning of the film, and interspliced between the rest of the film).

Both in terms of information and visuals, I liked everything about this film. From the animations to the testimonials of average hard working people, and everything in between, this film was able to perfectly showcase the copyleft and the remix manifesto. I also though it was very clever how Brett Gaylor ended the film by encouraging people to remix his movie (tailed by a funny remix of the Colbert Report), and putting public domain music over a Girl Talk concert to show how after you've shown a point with fair use, you cannot legally justify using any more. But nothing in this world is perfect, and there are two things I do not like about this movie. The major problem was with how far the copyright holders would go to persecute innocent people (including a church pastor and people on welfare) in order to prove a point and fuel their endless greed, unless of course you lived in Brazil. This in itself shocked me, and made me aware of how much power the MPAA and the RIAA really have (what was dark became light). The minor weakness was a part earlier in the movie where Girl Talk explained how to make a mashup. It seemed to be very drawn out, and it got redundant after a while (possibly because I am not interested in that sort of thing). Despite these 2 detriments, the film was able to keep me on the edge of my seat for a full 86 minutes.

To summarize it perfectly, this film was a compelling and eye opening saga that helped me to comprehend the magnitude of the issue at hand. Maybe this film will be viewed remixed by a new generation of artists (just like that free Radiohead album), and it will show how the future can build the past without the possible fear of repression.

FIN.