"The Cove"

     Taiji, a fishing hot-spot located in Japan, has been named “the little town with a big secret.”  Each year 23,000 dolphins are captured and brutally slaughtered while unaware townspeople go about their daily lives.  This was all planned to change when “The Cove” (directed by Louis Psihoyos, 2009) was filmed and released.  A team of filmmakers, ecologists, divers, and activists sought to uncover the hidden cruelty, proving they would do whatever it would take to begin and carry out a major ecological movement.

            Richard O’Barry, the crews’ leader, trained dolphins for thirty years in captivity.  His main project was to find and train the five dolphins used in “Flipper.”  After witnessing the ongoing stress and eventual suicide of “Flipper’s” leading dolphin Kathy, he felt responsible to tear down the industry he had spent his whole life creating.  In “The Cove,” O’Barry and his team uncover a hidden cove used to hide dolphins that that no others had ever before captured on film.  The documentary thoroughly explores the reasoning behind the demand of dolphins, the hunters’ methods and secret marketplaces, and the ongoing arguments of captivity versus the wild.

            “The Cove” is shot from the point-of-view of the animal rights activist, and Psihoyos does a great job in showing the opposing sides’ opinions on the matter of dolphin slaughtering.  Townspeople, government officials, and the fishermen themselves were all interviewed or secretly captured giving their side of the story, creating a well-balanced documentary.  However, from the get-go you see this documentary isn’t your typical form of documentary, which creates a very entertaining twist.  The film takes on the role of storyteller, setting out to display a serious injustice in the form of a thriller and suspense.  Effective imagery is created using photographs, old, new, and secret footage, and interviews with the team, IWC (International Whaling Committee) and fishermen.  

 The most difficult obstacle in creating the film was finding a way into the cove without getting caught.  This is where the modern technology really made the movie.  The crew had footage of the town, fishermen, boats, and of course, the dolphins, but they still needed that one money-shot.  In the most suspenseful scene of the film, the team sets out in the middle of the night to install both cameras hidden in rocks and microphones hidden underwater.  All of the installation was shot using night-vision and heat-sensitive cameras that vividly displayed the silhouettes of each person, making it difficult to decipher the “good” guys from the “bad” guys and creating a spy-like atmosphere. This mission became necessary because the rock cameras would be able to shoot from every angle possible inside of the cove.  The filmmakers accomplished what no one else had done before, and the use of technology aided in the success of the film.

            Though the technology played a large role in making “The Cove” an emotionally powerful documentary, the risk the team took to create the film and show the issue with as little subjectivity as possible stands out the most.  O’Barry began with an issue much too large to fight alone and with too many questions to keep up with.  The documentary served as a tool to figure out how to bring light to this serious ecological problem.  The more they filmed, the more educated they became, adding to the drive to uncover the issue into further detail.  He wasn’t afraid to show the world exactly what he found, in hopes it would spark interests, and this courage adds to the impressive detail in the film.

            In the final scene, O’Barry strapped a television to his chest with graphic footage from the cove playing, and he pranced around an IWC meeting in protest.  He was quickly shot-down, but he should be proud to say he helped create and lead an all-inclusive, well-researched, technologically savvy, entertaining and emotionally challenging documentary that is only the start to a long battle for animal rights and ecological issues.

"Copyright Criminals"

Art wouldn’t be viewed as art if there weren’t an underlying controversy of some sort.  It is questionable what a completely original idea is, and this uncertainty has sparked debate in every art form imaginable.  In the case of “Copyright Criminals" (Directed by Benjamin Franzen, 2009) the concept of sampling music is analyzed and argued by musicians, lawyers, sound engineers, and sample artists themselves, making the documentary a balanced and judgment-free source when exploring the issues of copyrighting music.

            The strongest component that makes “Copyright Criminals” so effective and coherent is the use of commentary and the subjects chosen to do the commenting.  Clyde Stubblefield, an original member of the James Brown Band, is one of the most sampled artists ever, making his interview on the subject necessary.  It was logical to go straight to the creator to find out how he deals with the drama.  He spoke with a real-life-artist’s perspective that left the viewer feeling sympathetic after learning that all he yearns for is recognition of his name, not money in his pocket.  surrounding the subject.

            On the opposite end of the spectrum, the documentary takes a look at artists using these samples in their work and the legality issues they face. The progression of music and its creation with the use of sampling is outlined in the film starting with some of the earliest forms of sampling artists such as the Beatles and Prince and on into today’s music world with artists such as Jay Z. The use of this historical progression helped to make the documentary a reliable and credible source. 

            The successfulness of the documentary is also aided by the comparison of musicians to artists such as Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, and Shakespeare.  Andy Warhol for example was influenced heavily in his work by icons such as Marilyn Monroe, and he used this influence to create a new masterpiece. The comparisons aid the viewer in better understanding why artists even consider using samples, which is a question many need and want answered.  Using examples outside of the hip-hop realm helps to put artistry as a whole into a better perspective. 

            The effectiveness isn’t just from the content contained within the documentary however.  Every so often, a split-screen was used comparing and layering two or more images of artists accompanied by their music to show how easy and unrecognizable sampling has been used in the past and present.  The layering gives a break from the face-time commentary and adds a new level of fun to the documentary, while still showing the development and use of sampling as a tool within the art.

             Though musicians have been known to sample for years, and as music and the technology behind the creation of this music evolves, it gets harder to pinpoint what has been “copied” and what is “original.”  “Copyright Criminals” took on the challenge of covering this hot debate topic and did so in a visually appealing, unbiased, and unique way.  Though no real end to the battle of “copier vs. creator” can be seen, the documentary lays all of the moral and ethical issues out on the table, leaving the viewer responsible to make up his or her own mind.

It's a boy? It's a girl? It's a Gaga!

After 5 hours of anticipating incubation in what looked like an oversized alien egg, Lady Gaga hatched on stage at “The Grammys” to perform her new hit single “Born this Way.”  The song was quickly named the LGBTQ community anthem with lyrics, “Don't hide yourself in regret/Just love yourself and you're set/ I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way.”  Wanting to make political and social statements about accepting everyone for who they are and the way they were born, it was a no brainer that she would perform the song at the award show.

Gaga had been carried down the red carpet the night of by scantily clad men with six packs and refused to come out of her shell for interviews.  One of the designated carriers stated, “Lady Gaga is in creative embryonic stage and won’t be born until this evening.” Little Monsters didn’t have to wait long seeing as though she was the second performance of the night.  The egg appeared on stage glowing, and Gaga emerged, or was in context of the song, birthed, horned shoulders and all.

Gaga’s performance and choice of clothing, or lack there of considering she is hardly ever seen wearing pants, was a hot topic, and after all the hype, she left her monsters underwhelmed.  She’s all about “rebirth” and accepting the skin you were born in at this stage in her career, and yes, the costumes are supposed to represent Egyptian fertility gods, but wearing a flesh-toned sheet as a skirt to represent skin isn’t going to cut it when you’re considered a fashion god in today’s world.

The high ponytail, referred to as the “Madonna pony,” on her head wasn’t a smart move either.  The comparison of “Born this Way” post-release to Madonna’s “Vogue” has already been thrown out countless times.  When confronted about ripping Madonna off with out giving her due credit, Gaga replied, “How do you like this then, I’ve made a song that sounds like some of her big hits (but also like its own song) because obviously I know who Madonna is, it’s not as if I am somehow expecting you all to imagine that I have never heard of this ‘Madonna’ singer, it’s bloody Madonna after all isn’t it?”  This makes one ponder whether or not these similarities were done for the hell of it, knowing very well what she was doing and the criticism it would bring.

Though the costumes were a bit of a bore, it made the focus on the song and performance more prevalent. Choreographer Laurieann Gibson’s choreography matched the upbeat spirit of the song.  However, mid-song, Gaga whipped out an organ that did not match this upbeatness and did nothing more than bring back memories of sitting at a Cubs game during the seventh-inning-stretch.  It was awkward and ill-fitting with the song; pop or gospel, Lady, not both. 

It’s obvious that Gaga’s vocal ability is at its peak; she didn’t falter once, which is rare these days in live performance, just ask Christina Aguilera, but as impressive as her pipes were, all of the built up hype surrounding the performance before and during the red carpet left Little Monsters and most viewers confused. There was no real, wow factor, unless the abnormally large egg strikes your fancy. It made one ask whether to stick by Gaga and declare the performance artistic genius or stick with the internal gut reaction and pray that it will only get better.

This new spirit and love for music that Gaga is currently all about is uplifting and for lack of a better word, happy even if the “Grammy” performance didn’t live up to most expectations.  If her “birth” is truly representational of the new Gaga, it’s a toss up as to what the new album expected in May will consist of; maybe the next time around, Gaga will live up to her obscure expectations.

Donna Seaman's Approach to Reviewing the Arts

Everyone has their own personal spin on being critical whether they can realize it or not.  Some people do it with ease and can whip out a review faster than a teenage girl “whipping her hair back and forth” on the dance floor.  In the Chicago Time out piece, ten pretty well known critics chitchatted about their tricks of the trade and how they go about reviewing the arts.

Donna Seaman of Booklist and WLUW’s Open Books seemed to have a pretty lucid take on ways to be an effective critic and the way she does it.  First and foremost, she’s passionate, and this rings clear considering she comes right out of the gate stating so.  “Dedicate yourself to and devote your critical attention out of hunger for what books or music or, literally, food grants you.” You’re not going to want to write about Swan Lake if you’ve spent the entirety of your life listening to Black Sabbath; you’re not going to be knowledgeable either. Go to the events, read the books, look at the paintings, and eat the food that you feel inclined to.

  However, she believes you shouldn’t completely immerse yourself too deep in your emotions and should be able to see the whole picture without blinders.  When you understand the way you see something, why you see it that way, and still understand what the purpose is, you’re going to have a well-rounded view.

She’s become stubborn with her work too; she thinks about what she’s working on, and that’s it!  When she immerses herself in reviewing something, an urge comes over her to learn more and she self-educates herself.  If some little know it all then feels the need to strike back at her, she will know what she’s talking about and give them an informed piece of her mind.  This is also how she earns trust from her readers.  Not everyone is going to like what she has to say, but if she says from a passionate and well-educated place, she’s going to get that trust she strives for. 

            Writing should obviously always have some sort of creativity to it in order to keep it from becoming a total snooze-fest.  Donna uses wordings that flow like conversation in the readers mind so they can get those brain cells working, if they don’t already.  When they feel they can relate to their critic of choice, they are going to become loyal to him or her, and they are going to want to be thrown into more and more art.  They are going to want to live it and breathe it along side their critic because they can trust her. 

Though some people out there are making a disgusting amount of money writing cheap articles that frankly just don’t cut it, Donna Seaman isn’t in it for all that.   The passion she feels for books gives her this constant urge to dedicate her life to them.  It’s critics like this that we should follow because after all, we don’t want to waste our precious lives away reading a thoughtless and unenthusiastic work.