The Arts in New York City

Quite surprisingly, I absolutely love documentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11. It might be because I like to know what’s behind the scenes, but everything about these types of documentaries I really admire. Another documentary that hit upon a similar topic was The Arrivals. The Arrivals also hit upon the inside story of 9/11, but in much more detail. I’m really fond of how these types of films present their information and how convincing they can be. Of course, we should all still be aware of why and how the information is presented but I feel it’s amazing to create such a wonderful piece of work filled with information from numerous sources. Making such films really requires a lot of effort and determination.

Fahrenheit 9/11 hits upon many political issues. It starts with the political controversy over Bush’s election, the policies of the government at that time, and how they changed over the years. A lot of the film explored the inconsistencies of the Bush administration and how poorly they handled 9/11. According to the film, before the attacks, Bush was careless and overlooked the terror threats surrounding the nation. Even after the attacks, he was slow to react. However, every move that Bush made was for his own families’ benefit and not really in the interest of the nation. For instance, what did Iraq really have to do with the September 11 attacks? Nothing really. Also how is it that the Bush family was so close to the alleged terrorists? We learn that a lot of the actions hidden from the common citizen had to do a lot with money. Everything done was for economic gain and control of the market.

Moore narrates the film using a semi serious tone but still uses some humor in his approach. He also cleverly chose sources that are vital witnesses or experts of the 9/11 attacks, Iraq and Afghan War, and the whole economic scandal behind it. These people are effective in proving the weak structure of the government’s actions because they are primary sources. He also uses historical facts to prove his points more efficiently. The structure of the documentary also helps to convince the audience. It starts off by showing some clips of Bush that were shown later in the film, in the beginning. This is effective because it shows the viewer a sneak peak in what would happen throughout the film. Furthermore, it gives us more of an interest to what Moore is trying to prove. The film explains how one thing led to another, chronologically. The election of Bush and the debate around his victory is shown in the beginning and the events followed are shown in order (more or less). The election is an example of how structure is used to support the unsuccessful nature of Bush. From the start, we already start to dislike him for basically cheating his way into the election. Additionally, towards the end we view the struggle of the families that have loved ones in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. We sympathize with all the troops that have lost their lives and those that are still losing their lives. With this, Moore tries to prove that the war is unnecessary and has caused many families to fall apart.

Throughout this documentary, Moore specifically chooses certain pictures and videos to evoke emotion in us. We feel angry, betrayed, sorry, and sad all in one sitting. He effectively uses this technique to persuade his audience. I think Fahrenheit 9/11 was a great movie overall and I really enjoyed watching it.

Politics are tricky little mofos. That’s why I am always confused with them. I try to choose a side but then always get swayed. I think the problem is that I see the good points of both sides. I’ll choose one side and then listen to the other sides points and be like “Oh, you’re right.” That’s what I love about movies that have a political purpose. They entertain me and at the same time help me choose a side or at least formulate an opinion on an issue.

Do the Right Thing by Spike Lee sparked a lot of political controversies in my mind, the main one being racial relations. Lee did an amazing job balancing all the different races together and was able to effectively show how each and every one of them displayed their hate to one another.

That was one of my favorite scenes and it was brilliantly executed. No race was safe from Lee’s slurs. This is one of the many ways that Lee brings up the issue of racial tensions in the movie. Race was and always will be a heated topic in our society. As hard as it is for me to say, I believe it is something that we may never be able to get rid of. Lee portrays this in a serious but comical way which in turn makes it easier for the viewer to digest.

Another scene where Lee yet again depicts the racial tension in the neighborhood is when the white guy steps on Buggin’ Outs shoes and he proceeds to go into his apartment. Buggin Out, his friends and some other neighbors proceed to gang up on him and ask him a bunch of questions as to why he’s in their neighborhood, on their block, on their side of the street. They even go as far as to tell him to go back to massachusetts (because obviously that’s where all white men live) and the white man proceeds to tell them that he was born in brooklyn which creates an outburst from all the neighbors =)

Mookie seems like the main character in this movie but I feel that  Spike Lee wanted to make every character in the movie a main character. Although the story was centered around the pizzeria, there was a myriad of other stories going on around the neighborhood as well. This style of movie making is effective in a sense that all the little stories come together to form a bigger pictures. In this movie for example all the different ethnic groups and their relations with each other come together to show the immense racial tensions in that neighborhood. Ultimately it creates the bigger picture of what happens when those relationships are tested and a mob mentality forms.

I think it’s very interesting that Lee decided to act in this movie as well as write, produce, and direct it. Was it because he felt that as an artist he was the only one that could correctly portray his message out to the viewers? I think so. Isn’t that why documentary makers like Michael Moore put themselves and their own voices in their documentaries? As artists and preservers of cultures an artist is probably the best person to portray his work, especially when it has a strong political message they need to get out. And if you really think about it, Do the Right Thing is sort of like a documentary in a sense that he follows all the people around from the neighborhood and showcases the problem in that neighborhood which is their racial tensions.

Isn’t this picture just adorkable? =)

Politics again? Really? Well, since I have no other choice, here goes….

Since the most obvious choice here is Fahrenheit 9/11, I’m gonna stray from that movie and write about Taxi Driver. Since Taxi Driver was probably the most universally hated film in the class, I decided to take it to a new level and try to understand it…and I actually kinda liked it.

The political positions and motives of Palantine and his campaign show up throughout the movie, but they are never really remarked on. But although there is a blatant political campaign going on here, that campaign is not where the real politics lie. The politics lie within the people….within the characters of the movie. The political problems, which are, in this movie, interchangeably social problems, are the selling, buying, owning, and carrying of weapons, prostitution, pimps, and the general corruption of the city.

First of all, the weapons. I mean, we all saw how easy it was for Travis to buy a gun? Where the hell are all the cops who are supposed to be preventing that from happening? Now, I know it was a different time period and all, but seriously? Even then it shouldn’t have been that easy to procure a weapon. By showing the inside dealings of the gun-buying process, the film shows how deep-rooted the political corruption of the city is. If the guy selling the weapons  can walk around with these weapons AND drugs, how does he not get caught? That’s completely incredible. And what’s the government doing while he’s out selling guns and drugs? Spending all their money on campaigns. Not even paying the least bit of attention to the dangerous criminals walking the city streets.

The whole theme of prostitution as a political and social institution shows the desecration of the city. Allowing prostitution rings, when they could be prevented, is horrendous. Because what is the government doing? What are all the political professionals doing? Still, they are spending their money on campaigns and not paying attention to the dangers and immoral activities of so many city people. The government’s avoidance of such topics shows their nonchalance, and their ridiculous “laissez-faire” attitude toward such things.

Throughout the film, the political aspect of the city is very distant from the people. When Travis tries to “infiltrate” their system by dating Betsy, the other politicians become very wary and hesitant of his presence. They regard him with a sense of distrust, as though he, as a normal person outside the political sphere, is going to dirty the face of their politics and destroy what they have done.

But really, what have they done? Sit around and type up ideas and make posters displaying Palantine’s name, advertising all the things they supposedly stand up for. Yet, while doing this, they are completely ignoring everything else that’s going on in the community. They are trying to persuade people to vote for a man who cares nothing about the city in which he lives and wants to take care of.

The film accentuates the idea that people have no idea what the government really cares about. You have to dig deep into the hidden message the film is trying to send in order to realize that the reason everything in the movie is set up as such is because the whole movie is mocking the organization…or lack thereof… of politics and the government. Most people will watch the movie and think to themselves, “oh what a pathetic lonely guy”…”oh, it was about prostitutes and then the guy came and killed all the pimps, cool!” Upon first seeing it, I wasn’t sure what to think, but watching it again, with this whole new political outlook really made me double think the way everything was set up.

The colors in the movie for example, show the way the government cares more about themselves and their own personal politics, which is why they are so colorful and supposedly “patriotic” in the film while everyone else is dressed in dark hues of mainly gray. Also, the campaign has its own building, showing the selfishness of the government, while Travis and other members of the city community own a small apartment, if anything at all.

Although the political themes are there, they are underneath the many layers of this film. You hafta search and search until you finally see the mockery of the government and the way Martin Scorsese as a director planned subliminally planned everything out in order to give the film such a magnificent underlying tone of political corruption and indecency.

Scandals, lies, controversy, argument, violence, and manipulation.  All of these seem to characterize the last twenty years of American politics.  The most relevant, and easiest to remember, examples include the election of 2000, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the following the war on terror.  Fahrenheit 9/11 starts with the election which Moore feels must have involved foul play.  Though he never says it directly, Moore insinuates that Fox News purposely misreported the election results when he tells the audience that President Bush’s cousin had high power within Fox News.  Later, he uses a similar tactic when revealing the fact that one of the people involved in counting Florida’s votes is associated with President Bush’s political career.  Moore never states these views directly, he simply tells the facts which lead to them and implies through tone, music, and types of imagery what he believes.

Moore next takes issue with what he sees as a lack of appropriate seriousness on President Bush’s part.  He shows images of the president enjoying himself with silly, fun music in the background.  The music does not give the audience the idea that the man shown is to be respected, it implies mockery and foolishness.  Again, Moore does not call the president a fool, but it is clear that he feels this way.

Right from the happy, carefree music and imagery of the president on vacation Moore goes to a dark screen with audio footage from the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Screams and crashes are heard in sharp contrast to the music played just a scene before.  Clearly, the attacks are a serious issue, and this contrast helps convey the a grave tone.  Moore then brings us to another light-hearted setting: a kindergarten classroom.  President Bush is again shown doing something frivolous when, Moore feels, he should be “doing his job.”  The contrasting atmospheres serve to emphasize the disconnect Moore thinks exists between the president and what he needs to be dealing with.

After showing the audience that Osama Bin Laden is the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks, Moore implies conspiracy by showing a relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.  To Moore, this relationship makes it clear that their is some sort of conflict between the Bush family’s business interests and national security.  Moore asks questions and gives the audience information, adds in sarcasm and humor, but he never actually states the end of his argument.  For Moore, this business relationship, in addition (I hope) to other factors leads to the conclusion that President Bush would be reluctant to interfere with Osama Bin Laden.  This, however, is not the only conclusion possible and Moore does not state it as so.  He simply gives and talks about the information in a manner which he believes will lead the audience to a similar conclusion.

Whether it is to avoid accusations of treason or just because he finds it more engaging, Moore uses not-so-subtle implications instead of implicit statements.  He states facts and shows his feelings with the use of tone and music, and leads the audience to feel the same way he does.  Regardless of your personal views on the topics discussed, it is hard to say that Moore is unintelligent or ineffective.  Art influences people, and he is one of the best at using this influence to further his agenda.

Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver deals with justice. Through the telling of the story of New York taxi driver Travis, Scorsese questions the limits of justice: What is just? Who should determine what is just? Can murder be justified? While Taxi Driver may not be seen initially as an example of an artist’s political voice, I believe that Taxi Driver tackles one of the most controversial political issues: murder as a form of justice.

Scorsese takes an interesting perspective by telling the story through the eyes of the murderer: revealing Travis for what he really is, not as a hero but as a less than average, lonely man looking for a purpose.

Craving to be remembered, to be important, Travis decides to be a vigilante, an unauthorized administer of “justice” thus presenting the first set of questions: Is Travis as an individual entitled to decide what is and what is not just? While each individual has his or her own sense of morality, is it ok for one person to do what he or she thinks is right? Or is it necessary for a person to have his or her beliefs confirmed by a group of individuals deemed more qualified to make decisions concerning justice?

The foundation of our American justice system is based on the belief that the alleged “unjust” be judged by a jury of their peers, by everyday people. Should it matter if one person or twenty people make a decision that could alter a person’s life forever?

Should any human being be given the right to judge what is or is not just? Should any human being be given the right to destroy or take away another human life?

The way Scorsese structured Taxi Driver is extremely important. The film itself can be divided into three main parts: Travis’ search for meaning and pursuit of a “normal life” with Betsy, Travis’ failed pursuit of Senator Palantine and Travis’ “heroic act” involving Jodie Forester’s pimps. If Scorsese had wished that Travis be viewed solely as a hero, only the third part would have been necessary. Instead, Scorsese chose to juxtapose the three parts, each portraying Travis in a different light. The use of the additional first and second parts forces Scorsese’s audience to question whether or not Travis is a “hero.”

In the first part of the film, Scorsese portrays Travis as a classless, pathetic character who watches dirty movies and has no goals. He appears to be one of the city’s lowlifes, a nobody, scum. In the second part, determined to give his life purpose, Travis decides to deliver “justice” by murdering Senator Palantine. By this point in the film it becomes clear to the audience that something is off about Travis. He is clearly not stable mentally.

After being chased off by the authorities, Travis decides to abandon his mission to assassinate the Senator and pursue a new, saner mission: saving Jodie Forester from her pimps. With Travis’ attempt to assassinate the Senator (an act that would have earned him a death sentence and/or the rest of his life in a straightjacket) juxtaposed along side Travis’ successful murder of a group of drug-pedaling pimps, Scorsese raises another series of important questions: How is it possible that murder can be viewed as both good and bad? Why would one instance of murder be deserving of a life long prison sentence and another be deserving of a metal? Is murder a good form of justice? Can/should murder be a heroic act? Why does the social status of the victim and/or the murderer make a difference? What crimes, if any, are deserving of a death sentence?

In Scorsese’s film, Taxi Driver, the director seeks not to provide answers but to provoke the audience to ask questions.  That is what qualifies Taxi Driver as art.

Academically speaking, I’m not the most insightful person in the world.  I don’t see hidden references in texts and movies; it’s why the magic of “Taxi Driver” just flew right by me.  However, I’d be a fool if I watched “Fahrenheit 9/11” and didn’t see that Michael Moore dislikes President Bush.  Everything in the film, from references to pop culture, to the choice of music, to Moore’s own wit and sarcasm, drips with dislike for Bush.  What’s amazing is that Moore manages to convey his dislike in an informative and entertaining way.  Depending on the viewer, he even manages to reel you in and join him in his dislike for Bush.  And it all begins with, “Was it all just a dream? … Look, there’s Ben Affleck”.

Moore must be a big fan of juxtaposition, because from the beginning of the film, he uses it to get his point across.  The film begins with melancholy, thoughtful music playing.  Al Gore is shown celebrating his win in Florida and Moore ironically points out Ben Affleck in the crowd.   All of a sudden, the music and mood change.  Country music starts playing and there is footage of reporters saying that Bush, not Gore, won the state of Florida in the election.  Due to numerous voting complications, the contested election of 2000 was a hot political issue and Moore points out how “daddy’s friends” and Fox news helped Bush get elected.  He then switches back to somber music as he reveals all the people who had complications with voting and hopelessly opposed Bush’s win.  The music and the juxtaposition of shots, from Bush laughing like a fool to House members’ unheard protests against his win are meant to induce anger within the viewer.  Moore also adds his wit, which reveals his own objection against Bush’s “victory”.

Moore also questions Bush’s competency as a president.  He reveals that Bush spent almost half of his first months in office vacationing.  We get that Moore does not see this as a wise move through the footage that Moore uses of Bush on vacation, golfing, hunting, and cruising around on a golf cart.  Moore uses music as well, the bubbly pop song “Vacation” this time, as a humorous tool to attack Bush’s choice to vacation.

Moore questions Bush’s competency again when he shows Bush’s reaction to the attacks of 9/11.  Bush had initially been schedule to read with a class of first-graders on the morning of 9/11.  Moore reveals that upon hearing that the “nation is under attack”, Bush did not do anything and just continued on with his “photo opportunity”.  Again, Moore’s choice of words reveal his bias against Bush and even plant a little bias within the viewer.  However, it is important to remember that this film is structured to reveal only one side of the story.  Moore does not use any footage or reveal any facts to show Bush in a positive light.  Moore clearly reveals that Bush did not react appropriately to the news about the terrorist attacks.  However, what he does not reveal is that the president was told by his Secret Service not to do anything.  With the footage that shows Bush just sitting like a lame duck, however, one would think otherwise.

The film also confronts the way Bush handled the issue of terrorism before and after 9/11.  Moore reveals that Bush cut spending on the war against terrorism when he first came into office.  Bush also did not pay attention to reports which stated that terrorists were learning how to fly a plane and planned to attack the American nation.  With his classic wit, Moore reveals that apparently Bush did not pay attention to these reports because their titles were not “specific” enough.  Even after 9/11, however, the film shows us that Bush’s actions against terrorism did not improve.  He let relatives of  Osama bin Laden leave America after 9/11, something that bothers Moore greatly.  Moore uses clips from old detective movies to show families of criminals being interrogated.  He’s basically saying, “This is the way it’s supposed to be done and should have been done”.

Lastly, there is the issue of the war in Iraq.  Moore shows us that the realities of the war in Iraq are gruesome and horrific.  He juxtaposes images of Americans naively supporting the war to images of the bloody reality of the war.  He shows footage of soldiers who have lost limbs and have nowhere to go, and footage of innocent civilians in Iraq who have gotten hurt in the middle of all the fighting and lost everything, including their homes.  Moore even follows the story of a woman named Lila Lipscomb whose son was killed in Iraq.  Right after showing footage of Lila breaking down and sobbing, he shows Britney Spears looking bored and popping bubblegum, saying that she supports the President.  Michael Moore clearly get across his point that there is a brutal reality of the war in Iraq that Americans have no clue about and are blindly supporting.