Quote:
Originally Posted by wabrit
I think Radiance are just a bit behind on booklets; for one thing their photos and illustrations are way too small, and I'm surprised this is something they haven't corrected yet.
|
I've not managed to read as many of my Radiance ones as I'd like, but I really loved the one that came with
The Dead Mother. I'm not sure if it was because they were Spanish pieces that had been translated, or whether they were simply native Spanish speakers writing in English, but there was a real poetic quality to the writing that made it a pleasure to read. There was something almost ethereal about the whole booklet. Hard to describe. Good film too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackyJacquard
they’re just my toilet reads lol
|
I'm exactly the same!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Thorne
This nearly makes me feel there should be a film books thread, but given this discussion took a year(!) to get going, I'm probably pushing my luck suggesting that. This is such a nifty idea for a thread btw, I can only think the week you posted it there must have been a lot of heated discussions on other topics and by the time this thread went to page 2 everyone had forgotten it was there.
Second Sight are a mixed bag with their books. I bought a couple of the heavy deluxe editions and there were a lot of colour pics and the text was in a really big font, so barely a book at all.
|
If I am able to, I'd be happy to tidy up the first post and amend the thread title to be inclusive of books as well!
I did staunchly defend Second Sight books in the past, but I must admit the last few I've read were slightly underwhelming. They are definitely a mixed bag at this point. It can sometimes feel as though the writers wouldn't have anything to say were it not for the fact that they've been commissioned to do so and so need to churn something out to get paid. Those big quotes from the main body of text that they plaster on some of the pages can be annoying and distracting too. Your eyes are naturally diverted to them and they break the rhythm of your reading. And of course, some are guiltier than others when it comes to filler pages of images...
***********************************
Seeing as this thread has suddenly gained some minor traction tonight, I may as well use this as an opportunity to briefly (
yeah, right!) opine on one of the recent ones I've read which I've been itching to try and articulate my thoughts on. The Second Sight
Possessor book specifically. Spoilers ahead for the film and it's going to get political. If you haven't seen the film it would be much better to avoid reading on, mainly as it relates to how the opening scene plays out as well as how it could be 'interpreted'. It's a film that should be experienced with a clear head so I genuinely think it would be better not to have the following baggage at the forefront of your mind going in. You've been warned...
[Show spoiler]
A Meandering Stream of Consciousness Regarding the Thorny Issues Brought Up in Second Sight's Book About Possessor or Please Don't Cancel Me For My Politically Incorrect Mind Vomit
The same themes and observations are brought up by two writers and (as is often the case) they are seemingly singing from the same hymn-sheet under the assumption that they are preaching to the same choir. They both talk about how the opening scene is essentially an allegory for blackface, without so much as a hint of a suggestion that it might not be. I have absolutely zero problem with this reading in and of itself, but there was no reflection on whether or not it was intentional or whether the authors were simply projecting their own hang-ups on to it. This is of course their prerogative as film critics, but there was just something about how they stated it so matter-of-factly that got me thinking.
The internal logic of the film tells us that this black girl is simply the best match for our protagonist to 'possess' on this particular mission. And so what of it? Maybe the idea in the script was that the protagonist would simply inhabit a younger woman? Then when they were casting for it the black girl, echoing how the character is the best match in the story, was simply the best actress. I don't know if Cronenberg has spoken about it but it wasn't referenced if he has, which is kind of the problem here. Maybe that was his intention and if so, fair enough. In fact, if it was intentional then I would praise it for being subversively subtle and not at all preachy. But maybe there was no allegory here at all and it would have been nice to see that acknowledged or clarified. Go full-blown Death of the Author by all means, but give me the alternative too. Especially if two of you are going to talk about it.
One of the writers flat-out describes the main character as "blacking up" and at this point the fourth wall ceases to exist and the laziness of the writing comes to the fore. The character isn't 'blacking up'. They're simply possessing a girl who just happens to be black, in the same way they have presumably possessed countless other people of all races and sexes. It's literally irrelevant to her. She's 'just doing her job'. Is the writer earnestly suggesting that the character, in the reality of the film, should be conscious of the fact she is going to be possessing a black person and think twice about it? That she should treat a black person differently? They could have at least followed through on their premise and taken it to it's logical endpoint: that the entire genesis of our protagonist's unravelling is the act of 'blacking up'. That her gradual mental demise is some kind of cosmic sci-fi justice for this sinful act at the beginning of the film!
In all seriousness, the problem is that this section feels so rushed that there's simply no room to do the topic justice. I'd have much preferred an entire essay about blackface and representation which tackled the issue honestly from both sides. Talk about blackface, but also talk about the dangers of how this reading can deny a black actress the agency of simply embodying a character whose race is actually unimportant. I just couldn't help but think of the actress involved (assuming she really was just 'the best actor for the job') and wonder whether or not she would appreciate her race being shoe-horned in like that. The more I think about it, the more I think it could have been intentional - this is after all a film about identity and wearing metaphorical masks - but that doesn't change the fact that I found the tone of the writing problematic (to steal a phrase that I'm sure the authors use regularly).
Personally, it kind of felt like I was reading the thoughts of someone who is incapable of seeing a black person on screen without politicising it. This pernicious idea that whilst we clamour for 'representation', we are at the same time unable to see a black person on screen as actually being equal. As being fully autonomous. They aren't allowed to simply act. They can't be a character, they have to be a black character. Their inclusion has to be making some grander point to satiate the white guilt of the commentariat.
I realise that there is some meta-irony about what I've just said about embodying characters and that the character in question literally isn't autonomous in the reality of the film, but this is exactly the kind of deeper thinking that I felt was lacking from the book. I objected to the way it was hastily written about without unpacking all the different avenues of thought it can lead to. They just casually bring it up, write a couple of paragraphs and move on. Look, blackface! Blackface is bad, dear reader. Did you know? I am a good person who thinks the correct things.
Then there's the police shooting. Only one of them mentions this, but the idea was that this sequence was a commentary on 'white cops killing black people', or as they so eloquently (grotesquely) put it, "black bodies sacrificed to white agendas". I don't want to get too side-tracked here but the usage of "bodies" to describe 'people' is a major tell as to the twisted ideological bent of the author in question. And if anyone is exploiting 'black bodies' I'd argue it is the author themselves using someone else's race as a soapbox to extol their own virtue. Talk about white privilege.
So, a commentary on police brutality. Maybe? But then the implication is that the scene would have played out differently had the girl not been black. Which to me just doesn't track. She viciously kills a man and when the police arrive she aims her gun at them. I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what race, sex or age the person is in that situation, they're going to get pumped full of lead regardless. Yes, the girl is the victim as she isn't in control of her own body, but the police don't know that! It should also be noted that one of the officers is (to my eyes at least) an Hispanic woman (yes, I begrudgingly checked).
"A powerful reflection on the violence committed against people of colour", apparently, in a scene where we also see a white man hacked to death and in a film where the most vicious act of violence is reserved for another white male character. How very trite. This attitude feels overly paternalistic and condescending. A black woman cannot have a role in a film that involves her either being violent or having violence done to her without it being treated and analysed wholly differently to how it would be if her race was different. Three cheers for equality!
If the blackface commentary has some legs to stand on (and it definitely does), the police brutality angle certainly doesn't. If that one was intended by Cronenberg, then I think he failed.
Once more for those at the back, I do think there is a lot to say about the blackface reading, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if it was intentional, but it deserved far more than a couple of paragraphs.
At this point I should also acknowledge how my own biases play in to this. I'm no doubt fatigued by both American politics generally and the critical theory style of film analysis which is so overly prevalent, so I was probably always going to groan internally when I came to these sections of the book. Maybe my White Fragility is showing! And I'm only half-joking. But I truly believe that the topic could have been broached in a way that was more engaging, neutral (not in the sense that we should be saying blackface isn't bad, obviously) and thoughtful. I don't need to be told that the film "committed an offence". And frankly, I don't believe the writer actually found the blackface allegory "shocking". I suspect they found it interesting, which it is.
I was going to move on to the gender/trans parts of the book which felt similarly glossed over and one-track, but I think that can wait for another day, if I even dare wade into those particular waters. I'd need to re-read the essays anyway at the very least.
***********************************
I know I write way too much (by all means push back on anything I've said), but I'm pleased this thread has gotten going a bit. Thanks folks!
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
The Booklet Critique & Discussion Thread
)?
Linear Mode
