Objectified: How do we make a better toothbrush?

Title: Objectified

Director: Gary Hustwit

Featuring: Naoto Fukasawa, Paola Antonelli, Anthony Dunne, Fiona Raby

Grade: A

Synopsis: A closer look into the world of design. From the aesthetic to the functional. Everyday items that have transformed through time and use.

Good Movie For: Everyone

Lately I've been a sucker for good documentaries. I remember once my teacher in directing class discussing the topic of a good documentary. A good documentary can do many things. Some focus on extraordinary people while others help to grow our knowledge of the world and it's worldly possessions. Documentaries always seemed like such a foreign beast to me. How can something that's educational also be engaging? I used to shun the real life story and instead gravitated towards the reel life story, but I've realize that documentaries convey just as engrossing stories as the written feature.

Objectified helps to shine light on things that we would normally just bypass. Things that are the utmost of importance to our functional ability every single day, that we just forget the importance of. It was amazing how much thought and innovation went into the grip and hand of vegetable peeler. Or how many ideas came up when thinking about how to improve the toothbrush. Everyday things that have been tailored and sculpted to help us live better. The cushioned grip and the contoured edge help to lessen the strain on your bones. A removable head will prevent the cluttering of discarded toothbrushes. This movie was short and straight to the point. Every object in our lives has a meaning and a purpose. Whether it's to help with our cleanliness or assist in the dinner preparation. Every thing around us has been thought up by someone, and improved by many others. This was an engrossing and engaging documentary that makes me appreciate every time I brush my teeth.

The "Useless" Degree

So while I was trolling around on the web of world wide proportions I stumbled across this picture. 

The Today Show had recently discussed the topic of useless degrees. Now there is some sort of mathematical and scientific equation that figures out the median income of graduating students added to the circumference of the earth times the latitude of a straw divided buy Shaquille O'Neal's shoe size to come up with a plausible basis for determining the best majors to strive for in college. 

I have a huge problem with this. I've always felt that a career in the arts or degrees in the arts have been deemed as unimportant in society's eyes. As if being an art major was merely just a dreamers sense of false importance. My main gripe is that some people feel so unaffected by these creative people when in all actuality everything we touch, see, hear, and wear are all products of creativity.

Most of my friends have gone the route towards the holy grail of parentally accepted professions; being a nurse. Stable job, stable pay, always a demand. I get scoffed at for picking a major centered on the arts. "What good is that going to do for you?" "Dreams don't pay mortgages."

They feel so isolated from artists and designers, but in all actuality everything centers around art. A fashion designer designed the scrubs you wear to work everyday. A product designer made sure that your syringes and tools were the most efficient use of materials and space. An architect designed the hospital and the halls that you walk down everyday. If we didn't have people pursuing these "useless" degrees, we'd all be naked in the middle of the woods with caves as our shelter.

I think the biggest irony that I see is that the actual Today Show would not be functioning if it weren't  for the skills of the people whose degrees they call "useless".

I'm just taking this out of context of what I see in the picture. I didn't watch the segment, but this has been a sore spot for me for a while now. Taking into consideration the term "useless" in the picture, the list could be implying that you wouldn't actually need a degree to succeed in these fields. Now that, I sort of understand with the whole film school thing. The other degrees I'm not sure that this mentality holds true. But there has always been a debate of whether film school is the answer for people to break into the industry. That's a topic for another post.

All in all, I'll leave you with this. The products of creativity are all around us, no matter how secluded we believe we are. Every time you change your clothes, or watch that movie, or pick up a box of cereal at the grocery store, art and design are forever a presence in our lives. So it's about time we stop overlooking the art and appreciate it. 

Just Take a Look, It's in a Book: The Hunger Games

Title: The Hunger Games

Director: Gary Ross

Writer: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks

Grade: A

Synopsis: Twenty four tributes are sent into a secluded playing field. They must fight to the death until one victor emerges. That victor is allowed to rejoin civilization. 

Good Movie For: Teens, Adults, Parents, Kids. Ok. Maybe not kids. Babies might cry. 

I'm a reader. Or well at least I try to be a reader. I have learned along this wiry road to becoming a scribe that many movies are adaptations of best selling novels (i.e. The Help, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.) I had heard some inklings about The Hunger Games from friends and family and finally bought it once the movie posters came out. It collected dust on my shelf for a couple months until about a few weeks before the release of the film. At first I wasn't all that into it. I had sped through the Twilight books and this was just a bit harder for me to dive into. It wasn't until around the half way mark when I couldn't put it down. There's two more books in the series and I'm itching to start reading those.

I think that the main reason why I had trouble connecting with the book and why I wasn't entirely thrilled that the movie was coming out was because the story was so eerily similar to Battle Royale, a movie that I absolutely love! Did no one tell this woman that she's writing a book that's already been made? Did no one tell these producers that Battle Royale existed? With all my hesitation and apprehension I still found myself hooked on the characters and the story, so when it came time to see the movie, I was completely excited.

The movie was great. I had some gripes about it though. Generally they take out a lot of points in the story because it's a film, which is completely understandable. The movie held true to the book, but that brought up a complaint in my mind. The movie seemed too fucking long. Two and a half hours? I mean it was a time well spent, but still, it was pushing it. This stands at the other end of the spectrum with adaptations. When is too much just too much?

Overall I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, but I did have one major redflag. Why in the hell was everything shot with a handheld not so steady cam? I completely understand using handheld filming while inside the battle grounds because the action and movements help to emphasize it, but a tripod could have been used in their home or at the reaping. I understand that it was used to portray some gritty effect to the shooting, but ten minutes in I was starting to feel bouts of motion sickness. Regardless of that though this movie is a great watch, and I honestly would take the Hunger Games series over Twilight any day.

The Film School Lecture: Talent vs. Marketability

This goes along the lines of a post I did a couple weeks ago, based on a lecture that I heard in screenwriting class about how many new scripts are sold each year.

The film industry is a tricky beast to conquer. It praises for unique ideas, yet scolds because of failure to conform. The idea that you need to fit into this mold is not one that is a new concept. The idea of how marketable a person is, many times overcomes their genuine talent as an actor, writer, etc.

This sadly leaves many of the immensely talented people left on the way side due to their lack of popularity. Big names sell tickets.

Case in point the barrage of teen queens who could take a few (or many) pointers from an actual acting class, that are getting leading lady roles merely based on their status and name.

I'm not trying to ride some high horse here. I too have been sucked into the perils of the newest Twilight movie, but sadly, looking at this career wise rather than audience wise, it's a bleak realization.

I watch trailers for new movies coming out and I think "Who in the hell approved this to be made? Oh. My. Jesus."

I sadly can't seem to find the disconnect. Why is a name much more important than talent? That my friends is a tough question to answer. Amazing actors and actresses are looked over just because they want to sell tickets.

Audiences will watch movies if they are good. True, they will watch bad movies too if they can see some abs, tits, and ass. The idea of the smart audience who can tell what a good story is has been eliminated from the equation of making a movie. The shiny name instead has replaced the talent.

Ugh. I digress. Ramble ramble ramble. Although I've come to this sad realization I still strive to make in the industry. But rather than just break in, I'd actually like to change the industry and make the head honchos realize that just like rock shatters scissors, talent will rise above a name.