I intentionally avoid reviewing photography (or really anything else) on this blog for a slew of reasons, and now we can add this one: trying to write something about a movie that doesn’t sound like it belongs in an ad in the New York Post is a lot harder than you’d think. I saw “The White Ribbon” tonight though, and I absolutely have to write about it. It’s an experience that is at once subtle, beautiful, ghostly, and revelatory. It’s one of the best films I’ve ever seen.

It’s possible to watch this film and see nothing at all but a meticulous, well-crafted confusion, begging for a manual to decipher it. It also seems that one might receive the film’s central theme loud and clear, but then miss the forrest through the trees: if a film about a certain period in German history is inevitably a reflection on the coming of Nazism, how does this one stack up to the scholarship on that subject? I’ve now read several reviews from major cultural arbitrators that are wildly, shockingly, off base, and I’ll note that Fandango does a far better job in one sentence describing this film than do several lengthy attempts by the New York Times. That sentence, by the way, is this: “An undercurrent of malice runs through a German village, as a series of misfortunes plagues its citizens in the year before the outbreak of World War I.”

Alternatively: “Forget about Weimar inflation and the Treaty of Versailles and whatever else you may have learned in school: Nazism was caused by child abuse,” A.O. Scott writes snidely in his review, demonstrating what would appear to be a fundamental misreading of both the film and the nature of history. The history of a people is not confined to specific isolated events, it extends infinitely across the past. And while “White Ribbon” depicts quite a bit of abuse of all stripes, it must be understood to be part of the “undercurrent of malice” engrained into the very way of life of townspeople that populate the film. This is what the narrator means when he says that he does not know how much of his story is true, but it may explain what has happened in his country.

That’s not exactly a shot in the dark, either: A different Times article quotes Filmmaker Michael Haneke this way: “I depict the conditions that have to be in place for people to be receptive to  ideology, to be willing to clutch at any straw whatever that will allow them to get out of the extremely difficult situation they’re in.”

Haneke executes this so perfectly, it’s like getting hit by a bus. Art is not scholarship. Art is art. There should be no question that this film is art of the highest caliber.

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

The White Ribbon

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

I Just Saw Children of Men

Wes Anderson’s 13-minute film Hotel Chavalier was made available exsclusively though iTunes over the weekend, which I only know about because Shane linked to it. Apparently, it serves as prologue to Wes Anderson’s upcoming film, The Darjeeling Limited. It’s a free download, and, obviously, is worth a watch.

Prologue is Anderson’s word for what this is and I don’t think that’s very accurate. Insofar as the piece relates to the upcoming film, it functions more as a teaser. (More questions are raised than answered, unless you’re question is “What does Natalie Portman’s ass look like with a huge bruise on it?”). The prominent placement of familiar Apple products — sort of startling in the context of Anderson’s universe — reveals the intention of the piece: Hotel Chavalier is a clever ad for for Apple. I’m sure Apple wanted to tie themselves to Anderson’s “brand;” they’re fans probably overlap a whole lot.

This doesn’t necessarily make this any less valuable. I loved Anderson’s American Express commercial from a couple of years ago, and I think there can be significant crossover between artistic and commercial endeavors. My point: just saying this is a piece of marketing. I think that’s pretty clear.

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

Wes Anderson’s 13-minute advertisement

I’m not entirely sure how I came across this but the Checkerboard Film Foundation has been making documentaries about artists, composers and writers for 30 years. They produced a documentary on John Szarkowski in 1998. There is also another film called Szarkowski on Eugene Atget and one called Szarkowski on Szarkowski. They’re all available for sale on DVD for the bargain price of $45. I searched Google Video and YouTube for all or part of these guys to no avail. Please let me know if you’ve seen any of them, I emailed and asked if there was a student rate.

Read more: John Szarkowski

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

Szarkowski on (motion) film

I just picked up a ticket to see Black White and Gray: A Portrait of Robert Mapplethorpe and Sam Wagstaff at Silverdocs on Saturday. I don’t know all that much about Wagstaff, but obviously I’ve had quite a bit of exposure to Mapplethorpe. Just from reading the description of this film, I learned that their roommate in the early 1970s was Patti Smith. This flick’s gonna be sweet, I’ll write about it after.

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

Digital movies

At this moment, I am sitting in the Butler Library on the American University campus, writing my midterm for a class I’m in on contemporary art. Or rather, I should say that I’m sitting here with my midterm open and books on the desk and reading photography blogs. That’s not what’s important though. What’s important is this.

My art history professor made a note on the top of the midterm that we are to use Arial (or Helvetica) at 11 point to take the midterm. Who knows why she stipulated this, probably because people write shit really small sometimes when they don’t know what they’re talking about. In any case, as you may have noticed, that’s my typeface of choice, and I, like the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority and man countless others, condense the letters. So, not wanting to be marked down for this, I made a little note on the top of my paper.

A small note before beginning. The condensed font is a common aesthetic choice regarding this typeface, not one made to save space on this particular assignment. I can’t stand looking at something I’ve written with massive gaps between the characters. Why, after crafting an argument, would I present it full of holes?

Yeah, ok, so I know that’s kind of weird, maybe a little pretentious or something to write this kind of thing a prof, but it’s what I do anyway and I didn’t want to be marked down for it. Plus I’m pretty sure she’d think it’s funny and maybe a little endearing. So that’s about as far as I’ve gotten in writing this paper, but then I found this, and I wasn’t even looking for it.

This is a brand new documentary film that has just opened in New York, will be featured at SxSW and will be seeking wider release. How fucking great is that? So all of a sudden I’m inundated with information about the history of this font (it’s having its 50th anniversary THIS YEAR!) and how wonderful is it that something like a completely ubiquitous typeface would have a backstory? So guess what? the film has a blog where you can keep up to date with news, but also learn wonderful things about typography!

I’m so stoked. How rad is it than in this moment I’m thinking about something so mundane as the font I’m going to be using on a paper, that a accidentally by mistake come upon this wealth of information and varitable celebration of the very font in question?

Thus, I christen my new “typography” category with this her maiden post.

The universe is wonderful and strange and works in mysterious ways.

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

The height of procrastination brings news of Helvetica

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

Meshes of the Afternoon

So, this movie coming out about Edie Sedgwick, “Factory Girl,” has two main problems that become apparent just from the trailer. Namely, they are Guy Peirce and Hayden Christenson, the dreamboats cast to play Warhol and Dylan, respectively (though Dylan has been fictionalized in this movie — the character’s name is Billy Quinn, which is lame.) I think one thing we can say about both Warhol and Dylan is that neither of them were, even when they were young, extraordinarily attractive people, so like, what the fuck. Casting these two dudes may give us some indication of what I’m afraid this movie is going to be: sort of stupid.

I really hope not. Warhol and Dylan’s battle over Edie Sedgwick is sort of an allegory for the forces that were shaping the American cultural consciousness. It would be a real shame to waste this making some superficial bullshit movie packed with celebrities. And everyone will be running around talking about how much they adore Warhol and what an impact he had and all that — like getting all into Nirvana after Kurt Cobain done killed hisself.

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

Cashing in on Warhol

I’m sure by now most of you have either seen the preview for or otherwise heard of “Death of a President,” the fake documentary about the fictional assassination of President Bush. The film was controversial for about a milisecond; then it won best film at the Toronto Film Festival, and I think maybe some others. It was supposed to come to theaters, I don’t know if it did or if it didn’t, but it has made its way onto Google Video, and is free for the watching. I also have the torrent for you if you prefer, courtesy of mininova. Man, has the internet gotten great or what?

I want to mention something about the fake news photograph, which is pretty interesting. it really is a fantastically iconic image, instantly recognizable and well done. I imagine that it wasn’t all that easy to coordinate such a shot; it has the spontaneity of a true news photograph, one that would be the go-to image for this would-be violent turning point in a sad period of America’s history. The assassination, however, is staged. So rather than being elevated to icon, this photograph is merely fantastic marketing for a controversial film.

This is a post from Greg Wasserstrom’s Blog About Photography.

“Death of a President”