Tarve ymmärtää

Enter the Void, Avatar, elokuvan muoto ja visuaalinen stimulaatio.

2010-09-10T21:34:00.027+03:00

Enter the Voidia katsoessani vieressäni istuva, minulle siis täysin vieras, tyttö piti käsiä silmillään melko ison osan elokuvasta, silloin kun pää ei ollut uneliaisuudesta notkollaan. Elokuvan loputtua takapenkissä ollut mies nousi ylös ja totesi "Tämä oli kyllä todella paska!".

Elokuvan alkaessa reaktioni oli päällisin puolin melkolailla verrattavissa siihen, kun olin katsomassa Avataria 3D elokuvateatterissa. Koin, että nyt näen jotain, kirkasta, värikästä, aikaisemmasta näkökokemuksistani poikkeavaa, silmiä viehättävää/ärsyttävää; Enter the Voidin kohdalla en ollut heti varma. Tämä visuaalinen ärsyke piti vallassaan melko lailla elokuvan puoleen väliin saakka, jolloin aloin siihen hieman kyllästyä. Samoin kävi Avatarissa, vanhana Sci-fi nörttinä olin ekstaattisessa lapsenomaisessa onnen tilassa, kun näin värikkäitä avaruuskukkia ja hauskasti pyöriviä aluksia ja muuta vilisevää, mutta kun elokuvan puisevuus puski läpi, ennalta-arvattavuus ja vääjäämätön loppurymistely lähstyivät, vaikkakin olin jo antautunut sisällöttömän piirretyn viihdyttävään kuvavirtaan, takaraivoani jyrsi kyllästyneisyys. Piristävä trippi oli saavuttanut huippunsa ja laskeutuminen alkoi ja puudutti aivot.

(Huomio: En todellisuudessa ajattele, että Avatar ja Enter the Void olisivat missään määrin verrattavia elokuvia, enkä vertaa niitä nyt laadullisesti taikka sisällöllisesti toisiinsa.)
Enter the Voidin leijuva kamera alkoi myös lopulta harmittamaan, osittain samoista syistä kuin edellisessä: se ei enää viehättänyt, henkilöiden taria toki piti saada loppuun, mutta minkäänlaista yhteenvetoa en heidänsuhteen kaivannut, oli vain ajatus, teema, kierto. Osittain toivoin, että elokuvan muoto rikottaisiin, siihen tulisi jotain ilmaa, osittain arvostin jatkuvasti sitä, ettei näin tehty.

Puheet kuolleiden kirjasta, uudestisyntymästä ja yksittäiset huomautukset elämänasenteista olivat pintaraapaisuja, heittoja, jotka toki tarjosivat pohjaa ja syvyyttä, mutta jäivät melko ohuiksi. Tuhannennen kerran kameran sukeltaessa lamppuun huokaisin ehkä itsekin hieman hermostuneena ja pohdin, kuin Avatarissa, aliarvioidaanko minua nyt?Kuten muutkin Noen elokuvat, Enter the Void rakentuu yksinkertaisista palikoista toteutettuna visuaalisesti koukkuttavalla, uskaltaisin väittää; elokuvallisella tavalla. Niinkutsuttu tarinahan elokuvassa on melko yksinkertainen, samoin tapa jolla se esitellään: henkilöt puhuvat ensin asiasta joka sitten tapahatuu. Harvinaisen selkeää. Elokuva ei missään tapauksessa ole sekava. Tämä on niin hyvä, kuin huonokin juttu.

Avatarin, kuin monen muunkin kaltaisensa, juonenkuljetus ja ns. sisältö ovat selviä katsojalle välittömästi kun ne on asetettu näytteille (jos on sattunut niin, ettei ole nähnyt traileria) jonka jälkeen minkäänlaista yllätystä ei ole luvassa, vain rakennettuja, helppoja onnistumisenkokemuksia; "Jes! Mä arvasin!". Enter the Voidia katsoessa alkaa myös nopeasti odottamaan, että koska sielu pääsee takaisin kohtuun, koska ympyrä tiivistyy niin, ettei muuta vaihtoehtoa ole, mutta tuttuuden turvallisuutta se ei tarjoile, elokuvan lopussa ei tule mieleen todeta "mä arvasin". Sillä siihen kerronta ei perustu.Enter the Void vaatii kuitenkin nykyään niin harvinaista taitoa; antautumista, ei niinkään älyllistä analyysia. Mielestäni tämä viestietään katsojalle yksinkertaisella muotoseikalla: olette nyt päähenkilön pään sisällä, koette hänen trippinsä, kuulette hänen katkonaiset ajatuksensa.

Päähenkilön kehosta irtautumisen jälkeen sielu käy läpi ensin elämänvaiheet, sen jälkeen kiertää sykleissä lähimmäistensä läpi, sukellellen pyöreiden aukkojen ja valojen kautta syvemmälle spiraaliin, kunnes saavuttaa oman alkupisteensä. Muoto siis sisältää lähtökohtaisesti ennalta-arvattavuuden. Tämä nostaa esille keston.

Tosin sekin elokuvassa mainitaan, että DMT trippi kestää ikuisuuden, muttei se mielestäni ole riittävä peruste pitkitetylle elokuvalle, joka nyt ei kuitenkaan ikuisuutta kestä. On mielekästä pohtia, mitä elokuvaan olisi jäänyt, jos se olisi karsittu minimiin? Riipivän toistuvaa leijumisia olisi vähennetty ja saatu vain kosketus siitä, että nyt leijutaan, muiden elämä etenee, meillä ei ole siihen kosketusta. Tämä tietenkin myös nostaa kysymyksen, että jos tämä ajan tuoma ulottuvuus tuo jotain merkittävää elokuvaan lisää, onko se riittävän arvokasta? Mikä on silloin elokuvan sisältö, jos se ilmenee vain keston, muodon, kautta?

Elokuvallinen kuva saavuttaa maksimikestonsa ja vaihtuu toiseen, jossa se paljastuu, muuttuu, etenee. Luo sisältöä. Noella on kahdessa viimeisessä elokuvassaan selkeä kuvakerronnallinen tyyli, jonka sisällöllisyyttä ja mielekkyyttä on oikeutettua kyseenalaistaa. Oman kokemukseni mukaan se kuitenkin on naturalistinen ja samalla vieraantuneisuutta lisäävä, välinpitämätön ja eteerinen. En ole elokuvamaailmassa niin korkea auktoriteetti, että uskaltaisin väittää tämän olevan jotenkin vähäpätöistä tai vain jokin merkityksetön muotoseikka. Elokuvan kuva on kuitenkin sen tärkeimpiä kerrontatapoja ja verrattuna aikalaisiinsa, ei mielestäni ole perusteltua väittää Noen kuvaa sisällöttömäksi, sillä Noe pyrkii ulos yhdestä kuvasta, pakoilee freimin rajoitteita, niinkuin kokeellisessa elokuvassa tapana on ollut.
Kokeellisen elokuvan historia on pitkälti keskittynyt juuri välineeseen ja muotoon, tarinan eri ulottuvuuksien ja kerrontapajen etsintä elokuvassa liittyy elimellisesti myös tähän. Näytelmäelokuvan puolella Synecdoche New York tosin keskittyi onnistuneesti tarinankerronan, sen ajallisen ulottuvuuden kautta saamiin mahdollisuuksiin edetä ja porautua henkilöön. Youth With Out Youth jossain määrin samoin. Näissä elokuvissa ei siis kuvakieli ole taitavuudestaan huolimatta erityisen poikkeavaa. Trierin Direktøren for det hele edustaa taas samankaltaisuutta Noen elokuvien kanssa, jossa tarina on melko yksinkertainen, mutta kiinnostavan siitä tekee toteutustapa. On ehkä väärin kutsua näitä elokuvia "Kokeellisiksi" mutta perusteltua on väittää, että ne ovat vähintäänkin "progressiivisia".

Täytyy tässä vaiheessa myös sivuhuomautuksena kertoa, että olen ihminen jonka mielestä Transformes 2: The Revenge of the Fallen on viimevuosien suurimpia kokeellisia elokuvia. Selitys: elokuvassa ei ole samaistuttavia henkilöitä, elokuvan tarina on lähes käsittämätön, sisältöä ei käsittääkseni ole ja elokuvan tekeminen on maksanut enemmän kuin osaan kuvitella ja kaikki tämä raha on käytetty muotoon; siihen tehosteiden karnevaaliin joka sytyttää aivoissamme viihtymisen tunnetta stimuloidessaan silmiemme tappisoluja.

Eli, Enter the Void lukeutuu kokeelliseksi, suoraviivaisuudessaan kuitenkin eri lokeroon kuin kaikkien ihailema unimaakari Lynch taikka aavikkomystikko, symbolitykittäjä Jodorowsky.

Vaikka Enter the Void oli minusta ylimitoitettu, kotiin päästyäni en kuitenkaan koe että se aika olisi hukkaan heitetty. Se ei välttämättä ollut hyvä ratkaisu, mutta koska mm. tylsimmän elokuvan paikasta mielessäni taistelee joko Batman & Robin tai Muumio, en voi väittää kokeneeni että aikaani olisi tuhlattu. Kun ajattelee postmodernin Hollywoodin popcornipojua Tarantinoa, jonka Pulp Fictionin jälkeiset elokuvat ovat kuin luokan tähtioppilaan tarravihko kaikessa kylmyydessään ja kiiltelevyydessään, on EtV:n jokainen minuutti oli minulle nautittavampi.
Avatarin henkilöt olivat karikatyyrejä, selkeästi määriteltävissä. Samaa voisi sanoa Enter the Voidista. Henkilöistä ei annettu järin moniuloitteista kuvaa. Toisaalta, näin taannoin 5 ja puolituntisen elokuvan Carlos, joka ei kestossaan saanut aikaiseksi juuri minkäänlaista hahmoanalyysiä. Päähenkilö oli kokoajan etäinen ja vähän vituttava. Ehkä se oli tarkoituskin. Verrattuna vaikka Profeettaan, joka normielokuvan mitassaan kertoo äärimmäisen herkästi henkilöstään, voisi tätä seikkaa kummastella, mutta tässä palataan muotoon; Elokuvan muoto, kerrontatapa määrittelee pitkälti sen, miten lähelle henkilöä päästään tai miten lähelle häntä on tarkoitus päästä. Avatarissa karikatyyrimäisyyden vuoksi, EtV:ssa leijuva kamera ei yksinkertaisesti mahdollista kuin pintaraapaisun henkilöihin, tai ehkä Noe ei onnistunut saamaan henkilöhinsä syvyyttä. Henkilöiden keskustelut työn orjuuttavasta luonteesta lisäsi tietenkin elokuvaan jonkinasteista pihviä ja päähenkilön uravalinnan vuoksi tässä tilanteessa ollaan, mutta koin nuokin nopeat informaatiot osana hentoa kudosta jonka avulla katsoja voisi kokea jotain henkilöitä kohtaan, eikä varsinaisesti kannustuksena laajempaan yhteiskuntakritiikkiin.

Helposti hauskoja hahmoja jotka piristävät pakettia löytyi toki, mm. geneerinen mutta toimiva huumediileri ja hänen läävänsä. Mutta, muoto myös antaa meidän ymmärtää, että oikeastaan me olemme päähenkilö, meidät pakotetaan kokemaan päähenkilön elämä ja kuolema. Noe haluaa antaa meille tämän tripin, ja henkilön menneisyys on läsnä selittämässä nykyisyyttä, jotta ymmärtäisimme edes vähän siitä, miksi hän oli sellainen kuin oli.

Vaikkakin psykedeliakuvauksia on tehty mielinmäärin, Blueberry, Avaruusseikkailu 2001 ja Trippi nyt esimerkiksi, eihän EtV ole pelkkä trippikuvaus, vaikka sekin tulkinta on mahdollinen, mutta jos näin on, onhan se sellaisenakin merkittävä. Jo pitkän tradition omaavat psykedeliakuvat eivät EtV:n screentimeä juurikaan vaatineet ja se, mikä oli, oli ansioikkaasti toteutettu. Yhteys Avaruusseikkailu 2001 loppuosaan on myös kiinnostava, sillä EtV alkaa värityktyksellä, ja vielä psykedeliatripin alkaessa kuvamaailma on katsojalle melko uutta ja siihen on vielä totuteltava. Psykedeliakohtaus toimii rauhoittavana ja näköhermoja hivelevänä, vaatien antautumaan. Jos sen haluaa ottaa vastaan. Psykedeliakuvasto on hyvin sumuista ja muistuttaa sitä miltä näyttää kun painaa silmäluomia sormilla, eikä näin siis keskitytä elokuvissa usen nähtyihin huumehallusinaatioiden symboliseen maailmaan. Kohtauksen jälkeen elokuva tuntuu pitkään siltä, kuin 2001:n psykedeliakohtauksen jälkeinen aika tuntuu, jokin on sijoiltaan, jokin on vinossa, mutta irrallisuus estää saamasta siitä otteen. Huomioitavaa on myös elokuvien samankaltainen lopputilanne.
Kuten Irreversible, Enter the Voidin teemat olivat nivottu erottamattomasti elokuvan muotoon. Ei tuollaisella tyylillä voi kertoa tarinaa, missä rikas poikamies ottaa otteen elämästään, oppii vastuuta ja löytää kumppanin. Tässä mielessä elokuva oli harvinaisen onnistunut, vaikkakaan ei yhtä häkellyttävä, kuin Irreversible aikoinaan oli, pikemminkin tyynnytelty versio siitä. En tiedä korvaako seikkaa se, tämä elokuva oli huomattavasti positiivisempi ja toiveikkaampi.

Perustuiko Tokion valinta lokaatioksi noenvalojen täyttämä ympäristö? Valo oli, kuten monesti kuoleman ja elämän välistä tilaa kuvattaessa, tärkeä elementti. Tokion kaduilla ei näy luonnollisuutta ja elokuvan todellinen Tokio sekoittuu pienoismalliTokioon.. Julistettuani asetelman yksinkertaisuutta tämä kuitenkin jäi minulle arvoitukseksi.

Tämä oli selvennys siitä, miksi mielestäni ei ole oikeutettua todeta että Enter the Void oli "paska leffa." Eikä vain siksi, että on niitä paskempiakin. Kuten Trierin Antichristin tapauksessa, totean myös tässä: Älkää katsoko tätä kotona, dvdltä, pausenappi syyhyten. Teatterin pimeyden, suljetun, intiimin muttei kuitenkaan yksityisen tilan merkitys on joissakin elokuvissa lähes yhtä suuri, kuin katsottavan elokuvan tarina.

Inception ja länsimainen tuhoutunut alitajunta Reloaded

2010-07-27T08:35:00.009+03:00

Harmittaa kirjoittaa toistamiseen jossain määrin niinkin apeasta elokuvasta kuin Inception. Todetessani kyseisen elokuvan tarjoaman maailman kylmäksi ja markkinatalouden läpikoitaisesti syövyttäväksi, heräsi tänään mielessäni hauskempi ajatus, joka on ollut monelle varmaan täysin ilmeinen alusta asti.

Inceptionissa esitellään tasot; elokuvan todellisuus ja sen jälkeen unitasot; Ensimmäinen uni, uni unen sisällä, uni sen sisällä ja sen sisällä ja tyhjä tajunta, limbo. On arkkitehteja ja Uneksijoita, joita käytetään viemään kohde unen maailmaan, jotta kohde kokisi unen todelliseksi.

Ilmeistä on, että kyse on elokuvanteon vertauskuvasta. Inception siis esittelee sen koneiston, miten katsojille luodaan elokouvan maailma, samaistumisen kohteita ja lopulta istutetaan ideoita. Kun he käyvät näkemään unia, me astumme teatteriin.

Päähenkilö on kuitenkin ryvettynyt ja henkisesti tuhoutunut mies, joka on tämän kuvamaailman syövyttämä ja tuhoama. Nykyaikainen ihminen. Päähenkilö ei myöskään enää voi luoda koska ei voi kontrolloida alitajuntaansa. Niin sanotut vakavat ongelmat puskevat läpi. Miksi päähenkilö sitten on niin ahdistunut (sen lisäksi että vaimo on tietenkin kuollut ja kytät jahtaa ja kaikkea muuta paskaa)?

Koska se sisältö, unien tai unikuvien maailma on kylmä ja tyhjä, toistuva, puuduttava. Mitä syvemmälle mennään, päädytään aina samoihin ongelmiin "isäni ei rakasta minua" tai "vaimo jätti" ja tämä vaikuttaa väistämättä johtavan aina James Bond- tapaiseen moottorikelkka sotimiseen. Eihän sellaista kukaan ihminen kestä! Varmasti lakkaisin itsekin uneksimasta (tekemästä elokuvia) jos se olisi se ainut vaihtoehto!

Narsismi, tyhjäpäiset toimintakohtaukset geneerisessä kuvastossa, yksinkertaiset ihmisen tragediat, oma riittämättömyys jyräävät. Yksinkertaiset juoniratkaisut, oikoreitit läpi kiinnostavien sokkeloiden! (elokuvaan, tai siis uneen suunniteltiin sokkelo, joka piti lopulta kuitenkin ohittaa täysin!!) Uusi sukupolvi on aina parempi (kuten tässä uusi tyttö arkkitehtina, näkee ongelmat, osaa ne ratkaista). Kuka sellaista jaksaa?

Näin nähtynä Inception on traaginen kritiikki nykyelokuvakulttuurista ja lohduton kuvaus sen tekijöistä. Get out before its too late.

Tämä tulkinnan mahdollisuus ei kuitenkaan mielestäni oikeuta sitä 2h30min James Bond toimintaa mitä täytyi kärsiä läpi ja siinä ehkä piileekin tämän tulkinnan probleema.

Inception ja länsimainen tuhoutunut alitajunta

2010-07-26T08:10:00.012+03:00

Inception, hieno elokuva. Varsin viihdyttävä koko kestonsa ajan, sisältää muutamia hienoja ideoita ja ajatuksia; miten ideat riivaavaat mielen ja miten unessa kokemus ajasta muuttuu hauskasti. Jo elokuvaa katsellessani reagoin yhteen mielestäni hälyyttävään seikkaan.

Inception tapahtuu alitajunnan syövereissä, unien arvaamattomassa maailmassa ja vaikkakin elokuvassa esitellään se, miten nämä kyseiset unitilat rakennetaan kyseistä kohdetta varten ja tätä tehtävää varten on Arkkitehteja, jotta uni tuntuisi "uskottavalta", on kuitenkin se, millaiseen mielikuvamaailmaan astutaan lopulta äärimmäisen kyseenalainen.

Nolanille tavalliseen tyyliin hän on päättänyt olla erottamatta unta ja todellisuutta millään visuaalisella kikalla ja sehän on erittäin hyvä. Ei minunkaan unissani ole savukoneita tai vääristyneitä linssejä. Mutta kuitenkin tämä ns. "realismi" johtaa seikkaan joka on koko elokuvan ja koko Hollywood elokuvakoneiston ja sitä kautta niille elokuville altistuvien ihmisten ongelma.

Inceptionin realismi ja niinikään myös alitajunnan tuottama mielikuvitusmaailma on niin kylmää, kankeaa ja vieraantunutta, että ahdistaa. Ja ennen kaikkea se, että pilvenpiirtäjäkaupungista siirrytään "syvemmälle" ja päädytään lumiselle vuorelle laskemaan sotavarustuksessa kohti jonkinlaista armeijan linnoitusta, commandovarusteet ja rynnäkkökiväärit käsissä, viestii jo siitä, että amerikkalaisen (ja sen mukana pian myös kaikkien länsimaalaisten) alitajunnan on läpeensä täyttänyt amerikkalainen tomintaelokuva kuvasto. Kaikki Inceptionin tarjoamat visiot alitajunnan sokkeloista ja salaisista paikoista, olitvat kuin Casino Royalen kuvakäsikirjoituksista. Kalliita hotelleja, suuria kaupunkeja, nopeita autoja, kommandoja. Hotellin käytävillä pukumiehet ampuvat toisiaan...!?

Ongelma tässä kuvastossa on juurikin siinä, että ainakin minulle tuli vaikutelma, että kun nyt unet halutaan kuvata "realistisina" tuollainen kuvasto kuitenkin on juuri sellaista fantasiakuvastoa jota muutenkin amerikkalainen maailmanvalloituspropaganda haluaa levittää. Ns. aikuisten satuja, missä charmikas mutta vaarallinen James Bond juoksee ja ampuu smokissa, eikä hikoile eikä koe tunnontuskia tappamisesta ja jossain odottaa täysin meikattu iltapuvussa oleva nainen.

Tuo on elokuvien alitajuntaa. Elokuvien kollektiivista kuvastoa, mutten voi uskoa, että yksikään ihminen kokee omien salaisuuksiensa olevan jättimäisessä pankissa futuristisessa kassakaapissa, jos omat salaisuudet löytyvät kaukaa oman mielen syvimmistä sopukoista. Itselläni ne ehkä löytyisivät lapsuuden kodistani tai lapsuuteni kesämökin salaisista paikoista, portaiden alta jossa on laatikollinen erilaisia nappeja. Sitä ei vartioi pukumiehet rynnäkkökiväärein, vaan sisiliskot ja Lissi-mummu, tai Remu-kissa. Eikä elämänkumppanini olisi juuri menossa johonkin cocktailkutsuille muistini sopukoissa, vaan luultavasti kotona aamutakissa, juuri suihkusta tulleena. Mutta nämähän ovat vain minun kokemuksiani.

Ehkei Inceptionin kuvasto olekaan niin poikkeuksellisen painostavaa kuin ensin tuntui. Onhan sitä tarjottu juo vuosia meille omaksuttavaksi. Matrix tapahtuu täysin samoissa lavasteissa, vaikka siinäkin maailmassa olisi käytännössä mahdollista "mikä vain". Siinä asia kuitenkin selittyy hieman sillä, että Matrixin maailma on robottien luoma ihmisille ja siitä kylmä, kliininen nahkatakkihyppely jotenkin saa potkua. Kauniit ja Rohkeat, Miami Vice, Nolanin Batmanit jossa ennen goottihenkinen Gotham näyttää nyt häkellyttävästi geneeriseltä pilvenpiirtäjäsuurkaupungilta.. ja kuten jo mainittu; James Bondit ovat pelkästään tätä fantasiakuvastoa.

Kuka oikeasti rakentaisi järjettömän pilvenpiirtäjäkaupungin, jos eläisi maailmassa jossa itse voisi jumalan tavoin luoda kaiken? Pilvenpiirtäjäkaupungin, ilman ensimmäistäkään puuta tai pensasta. Ruohikkoa ei missään, paitsi ainoastaan muistikuvassa omista lapsistaan, he istuvat nurmikolla, ovathan ne lapsia. Aikuisten maailmassa betonia, lasia, hienoja arkkitehtuurisia kikkoja. Ja merenranta heti vieressä. muttei mitään vihreää missään.

Haluaako siis ihminen lopulta oikeasti näitä asioita? Kalliita pukuja, tyylitellyn kampauksen, kiiltäviä autoja ja tepastella lasisessa pilvenpiirtäjässä? Jos hollywood toimintaelokuvia, jotka ovat itsessään jo jonkinlaisia kuvia alitajunnan haluista ja tarpeista, on uskomista, niin kyllä. Täytynee myös mainita, että tämä kuvasto on länsimaisen kapitalismin kuvastoa. Länsimaisen kasvun, riiston, menestyksen, vaurauden, pörssimeklarien märkien päiväunien. Eli tämän hetken, tämän kulttuurisen tilanteen äärikuvia, ehkä alussa nähdyt mielenosoittajat aasialaisen bisnesmiehen unessa yrittivät viestiä siitä kääntöpuolesta, jonka sellainen elämäntapa aiheuttaa.

Ehkä Inception herätti tähän vain siksi, että se sanoi suoraan kuin idiootille "tältä sinunkin alitajuntasi pian näyttää, näitä asioita sinäkin haluat". Juurimainitussa ympäristössä tärkeää ihmiselle näiden kuvien mukaan on menestys, sosiaalinen status, ydinperhe. Mies, nainen 2 pellavapäistä lasta.

Mutta merkityksen, mysteerin ja ennenkaikkea luonnollisuuden puute näissä alitajunnan kuvissa on se, joka nostaa karvat pystyyn. Elokuvan päähenkilön vaimo vainosi häntä alitajuntansa sopukoissa ja heilui iltapuvuissa ja meikeissä, seksuaalisuuden, kosketuksen ja läheisyyden tai minkäänlaisen lämmön loistaessa poissaolollaan. Vain silloin kun mies on menettänyt onnistuneen elämän statukset, kodin,vaimon ja lapset, vaikkei muistoissakaan tunne heidän läsnäoloaan tai kaipaa heidän kosketustaan, hänen alitajuntansa alkaa säröilemään, ja silloin pilvenpiirtäjät murtuvat. vesi täyttää kaupungin ja pukumiehet tulevat mustissa autoissaan konekiväärit käsissä ja takaa ajo moottorikelkoilla voi alkaa. En kaipaa kiemuroita ja hyppiviä tonttuja, mutta pelkään sitä kylmyyttä ja vieraantuneisuutta ihmisestä, kehosta ja luonnosta joka vahvasti rapakontakaa välittyy.
Kun ihminen kertoo unistaan, on kiinnostavampaa oikeastaan se, mitä jätetään kertomatta tai mikä välittyy rivien välistä. Joita hävetään tai jotka koetaan liian raskaina. Monet ovat huomanneet sen jo Inceptionin tapauksessa, toivottavasti pian koko elokuvakulttuurin suhteen, niin Amerikan kuin Suomenkin.

Nyt aamupalaa syödessä mieleeni juolahti The Road, jonka jokseenkin tavanomaiset, mutta karuudessaan vahvat kuvat kuolemasta, kaaoksesta ja maailmanlopusta, ainakin minun defenssini läpäisivät. Sen kuvaava maailma oli kuin yksi niistä maailmanlopun unista, joita näen. Ja, no, Antichrististä puhumattakaan.

Kouvolassa 01.07.2010

2010-07-02T07:52:00.008+03:00

CrewGallup. Huomaa oikea alalaita.

Egon pullistelua

2010-05-28T12:54:00.004+03:00

Invictus vs. Shutter Island, Paha perhe vs. Havukka-ahon ajattelija

2010-04-17T10:18:00.004+03:00

Sain koulussa tehtäväkseni katsoa 4 elokuvaa ja vertailla niitä pareina keskenään. Tekstiin sisältyy oletus, että lukija on nähnyt nämä kyseiset elokuvan, tämän takia teksti ei sisällä juonikuvauksia yms..

INVICTUS ja SHUTTER ISLAND

Ensisijainen elokuvia yhdistävä seikka on, että molemmat ovat pitkän linjan, jokseenkin tasokkaiden ohjaajien tuotoksia, jotka ovat täydellisiä pohjanoteerauksia.

Invictuksen tapauksessa tilanne harmittavampi, sillä yksi elokuvan ns. päähenkilöistä on Nelson Mandela ja jossain määrin elokuva kertoo myös hänen tarinansa. Tästä herää kuitenkin kysymys, että mitä on liikkunut ohjaajan mielessä kun hän on venyttänyt elokuvansa yli kaksituntiseksi, antaen kuitenkin siitä suunnattoman paljon aikaa, lopussa vielä hidastetulle, rugbyn pelaamiselle. Mandelaa ei voi kutsua päähenkilöksi, sillä hän pääasiassa vain istuu eri tuoleilla ja hahmo on kuin maahan lyöty lyhtypylväs, jokseenkin kirkas, mutta liikkumaton. Mandelassa ei tapahdu minkäänlaista kehitystä suuntaan tai toiseen, kuin ei myös Matt Damonin esittämässä rugbyvalmentajassakaan. Tästä päästään elokuvan ongelmaan, siinä ei ole päähenkilöä, vain kaksi henkilöä, jotka puuhaavat jotain.

Filmihullu 1/10 arvosteli Shutter Islandin maasta taivaaseen. Kun arvostelija hellitti otteensa kirjan ylistämisestä ja siitä kuinka suuri Scorsese selätti ns. mahdottoman tehtävän ja saanut aikaan "geneerisillä elementeillä tietoisesti pelaavan, kuitenkin samalla niiden ohi ja ylitse kohoavan subliimin fantasmagorian, joka lopulta niittaa katsojan penkinpohjaan pala kurkussa ihmettelemään kaiken tämän järjettömän vanitasin perimmäistä tarkoistusta", jäin hetkeksi miettimään olinko nähnyt saman elokuvan.

Vaikkakin voi olla genrelle ominaista esitellä henkilöt ja tilanne niin, että päähenkilö seisoo paikallaan ja kertoo ns. tärkeät faktat, (jotka tietenkin ovat vain simänlumetta), on se kuitenkin niin kammottavan huonoa elokuvakerrontaa että tästä hetkestä lähtien elokuvaa katsoo epäuskon ja tuskastuneisuuden tunteita kokien, vai oliko tämä sitä tietoista pelaamista? Olisiko tästä pitänyt syntyä ajatus "Eihän Scorsese näin voin tehdä!" ? Jos näin oli, tämä epäilys olisi pitänyt jotenkin lunastaa. Elokuvan suurin ongelma on kuitenkin se, että jokainen katsoja odottaa lopussa tapahtuvaa paljastusta tai käännettä, ja ennen sitä tarinan ja henkilöiden pitäisi viedä mukanaan. Jännitettä ei voi syntyä jokaisen hahmon ollessa äärimmäinen karikatyyri ja jopa lavastuksen korostaessa koko elokuvallisen rakennelman falskiutta, mikään ei juurikaan herätä mielenkiintoa, ja 3/4 elokuvasta katsoja tuskailee että "koska se nyt löytää sen tyypin ja sitten tämä juttu selviää."

Elokuva on hetken kiinnostava lopussa, kun päähenkilö hyväksyy itsensä ja odotamme miten hän siihen reagoi. Tämä odotus kuitenkin palkitaan sanomalla katsojalle ”Jos et kestä totuutta, elämää tai itseäsi, ota lobotomia.” niin kuin elokuvan päähenkilö lopussa päätti tehdä. Koska elokuva ei millään tavalla jättänyt kysymystä ilmaan ”valitsiko hän sen vai oliko hän taas vaipunut illuusioonsa” tai ylipäätään mitään ajatusta mistään, näyttäytyy mielestäni koko edellinen kaksituntinen erittäin hämmentävässä, moraalisesti arveluttavassa valossa. Kun on kaksi tuntia katsellut visuaaliessti hienoja mutta ylidramaattisia ja sen takia luotaantyöntäviä unia ja flasbackejä, jotka ovat kuin harmittavia kuvituksia "Psykoanalyysin perusteet"-oppikirjasta, milloin rakastetusta tuhkana, milloin keskitysleirien uhreista, ja nähnyt ties kuinka monetta kertaa rakastetun palavan tai sulavan vedenmukana pois, alkaa tämä kehno symbolinen tykitys tulla korvista ulos. Filmihullun mukaan Shutter Islandissa lopulta "ihmisen ja sielun sietokyky punnitaan." Todellakin. Kuinka kauan katsoja jaksaa katsoa juoksentelua rankkasateessa ja synkissä käytävissä, ja kun lopulta elokuva päättyy ja toteaa "Kyse olikin päähenkilön omasta psykoosista"aivan kuin se ei olisi jotenkin kekseliästä. "Että aijaa? Tämä ei ollutkaan elokuva natsilääkäreistä ja fasistisista ihmiskokeista vaan olikin kuvaus päähenkilön hajonneesta psyykestä? Ihan tosi?" Itse jäin vain miettimään miksi näin tämän elokuvan. Mitä siitä sain?

Leikkauksen ja kuvakerronnan osalta kyse on erittäin perinteisestä elokuvasta. Leikkaus on sulavaa hollywoodleikkausta, jatkumoa ja kuvakokoja, paitsi kun kyse on unista ja hallusinaatiosita, jotka erittuvat nekin perinteisillä symboleilla ja laikkauksilla höystettynä. Tuli ja vesi, kieltäminen,menetys, kuolema, suru. Oivaltavaa?

Verrattuna Invictukseen Shutter Islandin leikkaus ja kerronta kaikenkaikkiaan on toimivaa, vaihtelevine tempoineen ja jännittävine "nyt vesikuppia ei olekaan"-kikkoineen. Invictus on tasatahtisesti etenevä tylsä tarina missä ei ole juurikaan mitään sisältöä. Ilmeisen ja poliittisesti tärkeän aiheen lisäksi, tarkoitan elokuvallista sisältöä, havaintoja, henkilöitä, tunnetta tai elämää. Vaikuttaa siltä että Invictus on tehty vain siksi että Morgan Freeman voisi näytellä Mandelaa, joka on kieltämättä rooli joka Freemanin piti näytellä. Harmi vain, ettei siitä ole saatu tässä elokuvassa mitään irti.

Vaikutelmani oli että elokuvassa oli pitkähköjä keskusteluja jotka olivat leikattu perinteikkään hyvin, jopa niin, että puoleen väliin asti odotti että ehkä tämä tästä johonkin kehittyy. Kun kuitenkin ilmeni ettei kumpikaan ns. päähenkilö ota tuulta siipiensä alle, olisi leikkaajan pitänyt saksia elokuva poikki puolen tunnin kohdalta. Näin ei kuitenkaan tapahtunut vaan elokuvaa jatkettiin tasapaksusti ja yllätyksettömästi loppumetreille. Leikkaajalle on elokuvan loppumetreillä ilmeisesti tullut jonkinlainen aivohalvaus kun lähes kahden tunnin mielenkiinnottoman draaman jälkeen hän päätyy vielä hidastaa jokaisen rugbykuvan.

Kiinnostavimmat henkilöt elokuvassa ovat Mandelan henkivartijat. He olivat ainoita joilla oli konflikti ja kehitys hahmoissaan. He oppivat hyväksymään toisensa, ottaen kuitenkin huomioon että suurin osa elokuvasta on kuvaa Mandelasta pitämässä monologia, Rugbyjoukkuetta puuhastelemassa ja pelaamssa, en usko että henkivartioita on tarkoitettu elokuvan kantavaksi voimaksi, jota he nyt ainakin minulle ovat.

Invictusta ja Shutter Islandia yhdistänee teema päähenkilöstä ilman omaa tahtoa ja korkeammalla olevan ohjailu. Invictuksessa Mandela ohjaili Rugby valmentajaa, Shutter Islandissa psykiatri potilastaan. Molemmat elokuvat ovat siis jossain määrin psyyken kehityksen tarinoita, kasvutarinoita.

Molempien elokuvien ihmiskuva oli ehkä hieman lattea ja arveluttava. Invictuksessa lähinnä pinnallinen, ihminen on kuin kone jolla on yksi päämäärä, yksi tehtävä jonka takana raskas suru tai kunnianhimo ja Shutter Islandissa saman kaltainen “tehtävän kaava” toistuu, joskin se on vain väline oman psyyken kanssa painimseen, kun ydinperhe on hajonnut erittäin väkivaltaisella ja häiriintyneellä tavalla. Perheidylli on tuhottu, suorastaan teurastettu ja vaihtoehtona on enää lobotomia.

Molemmat elokuvat painoittuivat miehen matkaan kohti kohtaloaan ja kuvasivat miehiä ammatissaan. Vahva mies voi olla rugbyvalmentaja, päästä vangista presidentiksi taikka olla terävä, vaikkakin kuvpitteellinen, yksityisetsivä, naisten ollessa heitä tukemassa ja heidän unelmiensa kohteena.

PAHA PERHE ja HAVUKKA-AHON AJATTELIJA

Nämä kaksi, kuin kaksi amerikkalaistakin elokuvaa jotka tähän tehtävään kuuluivat, kuvaavat erittäin miehistä maailmaa. Molempien elokuvien maailmassa on tärkeässä roolissa miehen maine, kunnia ja paikka, tai status suhteessa ympäröivään maailmaan. Mikäs siinä, ovathan nämä tärkeitä asioita. Mikä erottaa selkeimmin nämä kaksi elokuvaa toisistaan on se seikka, että toisen on tehnyt elokuvantekijä.

Sen, ettei Havukka-ahon ajattelijaa ole taivutettu elokuville perinteiseen rakenteeseen voi lukea myös positiiviseksi asiaksi, mutta huolimatta joistakin yllättävänkin toimivista, visuaalisista ja ehkä intensiivisistäkin kohtauksista, elokuvasta puuttuu kokonaisvaltainen särmä ja ote, joka keikauttaisi sen pois kesäteatteri-ilmaisusta. Potentiaalia nimittäin erääseen suomen hienoimpiin elokuviin tässä oli ja se potentia näkyy elokuvassa yhä, mutta se ei realisoidu kuin muutamassa kohtauksessa. Näitä ovat mm. vihannostatus keskustelu jostakin kylän venevalmistajasta, jossa keskustelun tahti kiihtyy ja kiihtyy ja kahden miehen agressiivisuus nousee huippuunsa ennenkuin heidät keskeytetään. Tämä yllätti minut täysin hienohkolla toteutuksellaan, yksinkertaisesti kiihtyvin leikkauksin ja tiivistyvin kuvakoin kerrottu, näyttelijäntyötä tukien. Toinen mieleen painunut kohtaus oli Pylkkäsen tutkimukset mikroskoopilla humalassa. Tässäkin huumori yhdistyi hienosti hienohkoon kuvalliseen kerrontaan, puhumattakaan Pylkkäsen unikohtauksesta, jossa rakennetaan seinää avaruuteen.

Toisaalta en ole aikoihin nähnyt elokuvaa jossa kuvauksella näin kattavasti laiminlyödään suomalainen metsä. Muutamaa laajaa maisemakuvaa lukuunottamatta kuvaus oli mielestäni keskivertoa huonompaa, jähmeää ja mielikuvituksetonta. Mielikuvat itselläni kohtauksista joissa miehet kävelevät läpi metsän ja tutkivat sen kummallisuuksia antaisi mahdollisuudet Terrence Malickin The New World- tyyppiseen visuaaliseen matkaan läpi kansallismaisemamme varsinkin kun se tämän kaltaiseen luontoelokuvaan olisi sopinut kuin nappi silmään. Tämä tilaisuus on kuitenkin jätetty käyttämättä.

Tuntuu, että koko elokuvan painopiste on jatkuvasti hukassa, tai vaihtelee sen mukaan, mikä alkuperäisteoksessa on hauskinta milläkin sivulla. Monet varmasti hymistelevät teoksen näin olevan "uskollinen alkuperäistekstilleen", kun itse kuvaisin tätä jonkinlaiseksi henkiseksi laiskuudeksi.

Uskollisuus alkuperäistekstille, genrelle, tietylle aikakaudelle tai ihan mille tahansa elokuvan alkukipinälle, voidaan ainoastaan osoittaa tekemällä toimiva tulkinta. Ei kopiota, niinkuin tässä tapauksessa melkein on tehty. Tämä suhtautuminen on traagisesti kadonnut elokuvista, siitä hirvittävimmät esimerkit ovat ylistetyt ruotsalaiset Stieg Larsson filmatisoinnit, jossa, ainakin kahdessa viimeisess, jännitysdekkari on kuvitettu pöhöttyneillä kasvoilla ja lähes Salatut elämät- tasoisella kuvakerronnalla. Puhumattakaan Dan Brown filmatisoinneista, jotka ovat kuin Teletappeja katsoisi. Selkeät "symbolit" toistuvat jatkuvasti ja kasvottomat ihmiset juoksentelevat ja puuhaavat. Lisättäköön vielä huomio Enkelit ja Demonit elokuvassa täydellisen seksuaalisen jännitteen puutteesta. Voisi pitää tietyssä mielessä hyvänä asiana, ettei ilmiselvällä sattumalta samaan tilanteeseen joutuneen miehen ja naisen suhteella mehustella, varsinkin kun se jännityselokuvagenressä on niin suuri klisee. Mutta samoista syistä, päähenkilöiden yksinelämisestä ja genretottumuksista johtuen tämä tunnekylmä teletappius vain korostuu.

Näitä elokuvia katsoessa yleisö oppii lukemaan vain sitä, mikä pointataan noin tuhanteen kertaan ja kun kirjafilmatisoinnit tuovat esiin vain kirjan pinnalliset tapahtumat, jotka mielestäni hyvin usein ovat toissijaisia, opettaa se yleisöä myös lukemaan kirjoja eri tavalla. Jos minulta kysyttäisiin, tulisi tällaisista elokuvista ohjaajille antaa sakkorangaistus.

Paha perhe, sen sijaan. Verrattuna edelliseen, fokus ei tässä ollut hukassa. Jokainen kuva kantaa pääasiassa Ville Virtasen ilmaisun, tarkemmin sanottuna niiden punottavien viirujen takia, jotka reunustavat ja korostavat hänen katsettaan joka vuoroin kertoo sulkeutuneesta ahdistuksesta ja vuoroin tukahdutetusta raivosta.

Vaikkei Paha Perhe ole kauttaaltaan täydellinen elokuva, se on esimerkki elokuvallisesta tulkinnasta ja tarinankerronnasta, joka oikeastaan kaikistä muista kurssin elokuvista puuttui.

Tarkoitan että se, miten Pahan Perheen tarina on kerrottu, käsikirjoituksen, ohjauksen, kuvauksen, leikkauksen ja äänenkin tasolla, kielii elokuvallisesta ajattelusta ja elokuvan dynamiikasta täysin eri tavalla, kuin muut kolme elokuvaa. Esimerkkinä tästä se, että suurimman osan ajasta emme tiedä mitä poika ja hänen siskopuolensa puuhaavat, tai jos tiedämme, niin emme ainakaan kuule mistä he puhuvat. Olemme samassa epätietoisuudessa kuin Isän hahmo. Tämä ei kuitenkaan ole mikään "kuka on 67. vanki!" tyyppinen loppukäänne, vaan se herättää täysin toisella tavalla katsojan mielikuvituksen, eikä elokuva koskaan kumoa sitä, mitä tästä asiasta olemme itse ajatelleet.

Kuvakerronta on paikoitellen erittäin hienoa, ei tosin mielestäni kauttaaltaan. Asetelmalliseksi se muuttuu silloin kun henkilöiden kasvot ovat aseteltu taustalla olevan nykytaiteen jatkoksi, tosin vaikken tätä ihan ymmärtänyt, toimi sekin ihan kivasti.

Heikoimmillaan elokuva on "juonenkäänteissä" kuten pojan sähkölamauttimella tainnuttamisessa tai miekkasekoilussa saarella. Koko tämä kyseinen episodi on mielestäni tyylistä poikkeava ja hieman hämmentävä, enkä ole aivan varma miksi se on elokuvaan ujutettu. Saman olisi voinut tehdä pienieleisemmin, elokuvan yhteinäisyyden säilyttäen.

Tässä elokuvassa oli selkeästi havaittavissa ajatus, jolla myös leikkaus oli toteutettu. Se ei ollut silmille hyppivää, mutta se seurasi selkeää logiikkaa. Keskustelukohtaukset ja toiminta painoittuivat aina niin että huomio keskittyi olennaiseen. Tästä ilmeisin esimerkki on tytön ja pojan loppukohtaus baarissa, jossa suuntia leikellään edes takaisin, kuin dialogissa, poikkeuksena vaan se, ettei kuvissa sanota mitään. Tämä mielestäni lähentelee mestarillista kohtausta, tosin ei aivan sitä saavuta, johtuen ehkä elokuvan toisesta heikosta lenkistä, Pihla Viitalasta, tai hänen roolihahmostaan, joka ei suorituksellaan vakuuttanut niin syvästi, kuin muut näyttelijät. Hänelle ei ehkä annettu siihen mahdollisuuksia, sillä Viitalan hahmo oli hieman liian yksiuloitteinen "pilveäpolttava hippityttö" joka ei oikein välitä mistään mitään.

Suhteessa Havukka-ahoon elokuvassa on siis samoja heikkouksia, huonoja suorituksia ja ontuva käsikirjoitus, mutta suhteessa kaikkiin kolmeen muuhun elokuvaan, tässä on vahva näkökulma ja vahva päähenkilö, joka pitää elokuvan kasassa muiden elementtien heiketessä.

Tämä on merkki siitä, että kyse on elokuvantekijästä, joka ei hairahdu nojaamaan visuaalisesti viehättäviin unijaksoihin, hidastettuun toimintaan kuten rugbyn pelaamiseen, eikä myöskään jätä mitään asiaa puutteelliseksi nojaten johonkin "alkuperäistekstiin".

Eräs tavoite suomalaisellle tarinankerronalle, siis myös leikkaukselle olennainen tavoite, on poistaa se jähmeys, joka on niin tavallista suomalaiselle elokuvalle. Tällä en tarkoita että tulisi käyttää nopeaa hyppyleikkausta, tai muutakaan nopeatempoista sohellusta, vaikkakin se on ilmeisin tapa jouhevoittaa kerrontaa. Jähmeys näkyy myös näissä kahdessa elokuvassa, silloin kun katsojalle tulee olo "nyt juoni etenee, nyt jotain täytyy saada kerrottua että päästäisiin asiassa eteenpäin". Tämä on tavanomaista myös esim. Amerikkalaisille komedioille, joiden hauskuus kuristuu tarinaan. Kyse on tietenkin tarinan käsittelystä ja kerronnan näkökulmasta, jolle ei aina leikkauksella ei voi paljoakaan tehdä. Pahassa perheessä kerrontaa oli mielestäni juurikin jouhevoitettu nokkelasti mm. poistamalla kuultua dialogia runsaasti, eräässä kohtauksessa näemme vain ihmisten puhuvan musiikin soidessa. Havukka-ahon ajattelijassa olisi kaivattu kokonaisvaltaisempaa painopisteen löytämistä, jotta elokuvaa voisi kuvata jouhevaksi.
Tarinan orjia eivät ole esimerkiksi useimmat Kaurismäen elokuvat, mutta hänen jähmeytensä on erilaista, joka toimii niin etuna kuin myös haittanakin.

Mikään "jouhevuus" ei tietenkään ole tavoite sinänsä, tarkoitan siis elokuvallisen kuristuksen hävittämistä ja eräänlaista orgaanista oloa elokuvassa, ilman että elokuvaa katsoessa syntyy tunne juonikäänteistä jotka muistuttavat raskaiden metalliovien avaamista, vaikka ne käänteet ja aristoteliset kaavat siellä olisivatkin. Tällainen esimerkki on viimeaikainen Profeetta, jonka rakenne on selkeä ja suoraviivanen, mutta joka kehittyy hiljalleen, ilman alleviivausta ja pakottamista - tai tältä se ainakin ensimmäisellä kerralla tuntui.

Ehkä juuri kuvakerronnan ja muodon vuoksi, jotka ovat elokuvan hyviä puolia, myös pitivät sitä rautaisessa otteesaan, näin tukahduttaen sitä ehkä liiaksi. Se oli kuin ikään kuin kahden aikakauden väliin putoava teos. Paha perhe kurottaa kohti kansainvälisesti noteerattua nykyelokuvan muotoa, Havukka-ahon ajattelija kohti perinteistä, ns. kansallista tarinankerrontaa.

Matti "Rekku" Kuortti 1948-2010

2010-03-22T17:54:00.013+02:00

En tuntenut Rekkua sen lähemmin kuin monet muutkaan ELO:n opiskelijat, mutta siitäkin huolimatta, tai ehkä juuri siksi hänellä oli tärkeä rooli minunkin henkilökohtaisessa matkassani elokuvataiteen mutkaisella tiellä.

Päällimmäisenä Rekku on mielessäni tietenkin koulun arkipäivästä, valehtelematta aina tyytyväisenä ja innokkaana usein niin painostavassa kouluympäristössä, energisenä Sodankylän elokuvajuhlilla, mahdollisuuksiensa mukaan aina majoittamassa meitä opiskelijoita omaan mökkiinsä festivaalien aikana ja viimeisimpiin muistoihin lukeutuu Rekun muutaman viikon takainen hilpeä dj- sessio Pub Magneetissa.

Vuonna 2006 kuvasin erään lyhytelokuvan. Juuri ennen kuvausten alkua jäimme jostakin syystä ilman äänikalustoa ja vaikkei lyhytelokuva ollut koulumme tuotanto, antoi äänisuunnitelun professori Kuortti minun välittömästi lainata äänityskalustoa koululta, kun hänelle hädissäni asiasta soitin. Noin vuotta myöhemmin hän näki elokuvan festivaaleilla jossa hän oli tuomaristossa ja kirjoitti:

"TÄNNE EI VOI JÄÄDÄ on raikas elokuvakokemus -- Hienosti kuvattu materiaali on vapautuneen hengittävästi leikattu, eikä ihme: Jussi Rautaniemi on erittäin taitava leikkaaja -- TÄNNE EI VOI JÄÄDÄ on kuin virkistävä tuulahdus niiltä ajoilta, jolloin erityisesti eurooppalainen elokuva käsitteli vakavia aiheita ja teemoja ilmavan kepeästi, totutuista kaavoista ja säännöistä piittaamatta. Toivon sydämestäni, että Rautaniemi-tuotanto tekisi kaupat jonkin televisioyhtiön kanssa elokuvan esityksestä." (lue koko teksti)

Vaikkakin Rekku oli aina kannustava, välitön ja niin ystävällinen että toisaalta olisi vaikea kuvitella hänen sanovan mitään pahaa kenestäkään tai kenenkään elokuvasta, tämä lyhykäinen mutta syvää ymmärrystä ja intoa elokuvaan huokuva arvio nostatti mielialaani aikanaan todella paljon, kun olin jo vaipumassa välinpitämättömyyteen kyseisen elokuvan suhteen. En siis nosta tätä esiin siksi, että haluaisin esitellä kyseistä teosta tai väittää että se olisi jotenkin erinomainen, vaan kertoakseni tällä esimerkillä jotain siitä tavattoman hienosta tavasta jolla Rekku näki ja koki elokuvat, ihmiset ja varmasti koko elämänsä.

Olen yksi monista, joka vielä kerran haluaisi kiittää Rekkua kaikesta siitä tuesta jota hän niin vilpittömästi ihmisille antoi. Tiedän että tämä on vain yksi esimerkki Rekun kauniista persoonasta ja siitä positiivisuuden hehkusta, johon voin vain toivoa itse joskus yltäväni. Elokuva-alalla ja erityisesti koulussa tällaista asennetta tarvitaan, varsinkin, kun enää meillä ei ole Rekkua.

Lisäys:
Lue Peter Von Baghin muistokirjoitus tästä.

fiktiivistä tekstiä syksyltä 09.

2010-01-24T21:10:00.000+02:00

Yökerhon jonossa tilaat kännykällä pikavippejä, firmasta jonka omistaja ei ajattele ihmisiä, joita hän niin pyyteettömästi auttaa joka päivä ja yö, 20 prosentin viikkokorolla ja joka todennäköisesti on samassa yökerhossa, sisällä jo tietysti, antamassa rahojaan kuin sinäkin, lateksiin kietoutuneelle naiselle joka tuo koeputkia täynnä myrkkyä ja tukkii verisuonet, jotta voisit yksin istua taksissa turtana, etkä havaitse ympärilläsi kärsivää kaupunkia, jonka kadut eivät ole vaarallisia maahanmuuttajien, kerjäläisten tai humalaisten paikallisten takia, vaan juuri näiden taksikuskien, sillä suojatielle astuessasi taxi kiihdyttää ohitsesi ja huutaa solvauksia tien tukkimisesta, ahdistuneena töölöläisestä pariskunnasta jotka hän kokee itseään paremmaksi ja haluaa palvella ja miellyttää heitä kuin koira, viedessään heidät lentokentälle matkalle Thaimaahan, jossa aurinkovoiteelta ja hieltä tuoksuva pariskunnan mies ajaa mönkijällä ympyrää trooppisella saarella ja illalla auringonpistoksen vaikutuksesta ja juopuneena solvaa paikallisia, kunnes joku heistä sivukadulla lyö tätä pullolla päähän. Nainen ymmärrettävästi kauhuissaan raahaa miehen sairaalaan, jossa näkee jonon suomalaisia turisteja, ihot sian punaisena auringon ja mausteisen ruuan ärsyttäminä, tajunta sumeana joka kuitenkin huomattiin vasta vieraassa ympäristössä.

Ostat pizzan, mausteena päällä on rasvaisia suikaleita, jälkiä eläimestä joka ei koskaan haistanut maassa kasvavaa ruohoa, lisääntynyt tai oppinut selviytymään yksin, vaan vietti aikansa pimeässä hallissa koneiden ohjailemana, hukassa puutteellisen olemassaolontajunsa kanssa ja tietämättäsi koet tällä hetkellä syvää samaistumista tuohon olentoon joka kuitenkin päätyy sinulle aamulla kylmäksi ja limaiseksi tyynyksi sohvalle, asunnossa jonka hinta aiheuttaa sinulle huonon ihon.

Lähdet töihin viettämään koko päivän sokeri- ja kofeiinihumalassa näet miten ihmiset tunkevat ratikoihin kuin sisäänpäin räjähtävässä pakokauhussa ja jalkoihin tallautuu mies kävelykepeissä, joka jää hengästyneenä istumaan pysäkin penkille hahmon viereen, joka illalla nostetaan ruumisautoon kenenkään tietämättä miksi hän siinä makasi. Jättimäiset kuvat kouluampujasta peittävät ratikan lattian, kuvatekstinä "yksittäistapaus".

Työpaikalle saapumisesi oikeutat korkealla vuokrallasi, etkä oikeasti ole vastuussa vaan vain palkattuna toteuttajana, joka tekee niin kuin käsketään ja käskyt tulevat pomoltasi joka oikeuttaa oman toimintansa sillä, ettei varsinaisesti ole vastuussa, sillä haluaa suoriutua pomonsa edessä vain mahdollisimman hyvin, joka hänkin vain tekee niin kuin käsketään, ja käskyketjulla ei ole loppua ja se muuntuu omaksi eläväksi orgaaniseksi vastuutapakoilevaksi olennoksi, joka saa energiansa tuhansien yksilöiden välinpitämättömyydestä ja lopulta tämä ei-materiaalinen olento realisoituu satojen tuhansien ihmisten pahoinvointina, epärationaalisina haluina ja ongelmina, joita ei ennen tämän olennon syntyä ollut olemassa.

Tekijöille reissuvihko

2010-01-19T19:55:00.016+02:00

Kun Suomessa elokuvia rahoitetaan suurelta osin Elokuvasäätiön ja Ylen toimesta, jotka pyörivät vero- ja veikkausrahoin, ja näillä tahoilla on erittäin suuri valta siihen, ketkä voivat elokuvia tehdä,vaikkakin kaikilla on tietenkin mahdollisuus lähestyä tahoja käsikirjoitustensa ja ideoidensa kanssa, tarvittaisiin systeemiin lisäksi jonkinlainen tasoittava elin joka valvoisi myös sitä, mitä sitten tulee tehtyä kun rahoituspäätökset on tehty. Jonkinlainen vaihtoehtoinen laadunvalvonta, joka keskittyy valmiiden tuotosten arvioimiseen, rahallisen menestyksen ja katsojalukujen vierelle.

Nyt ajattelet "Niin, mutta kuka päättää, tai miten on mahdollista arvioida, mikä on hyvä tai onnistunut elokuva"? Sitä tehdään jo. Nykyäänhän elokuvasäätiö jakelee jälkikäteen eräänlaista "laatutukea" menestyneille (katsojamäärissä), mutta silloin tällöin myös jollain muulla tavalla arvokkaille elokuville. Tämä ei riitä ja usein rahaa annetaan niille joilla sitä jo on. Edellämainitun lisäksi tällaista "taiteen arviointia" joka katsotaan usein niin mahdottmaksi, harjoitetaan myös jo tukihakemuksia arvioitaessa joten ei olisi vaiketaa siirtää mekanismi ketjun loppuun, teosten arviointiin. Katsoittaisiin, mikä se elokuva itsessään on ja tehtäisiin arvio kuten ennen tukea/ei tukea. Tässä tapauksessa kyse olisikin vastakohdasta, "pääkallomerkki vai ei".

Huonoksi katsotuille elokuville annettava sakko ei sinänsä olisi hyvä idea, jo muutenkin tuotantoyhtiöiden hankalan talouden vuoksi, mutta jonkinlainen varoitusmerkki, antipapukaijamerkki, joka vaikka huomioitaisiin aina seuraavassa hakemuksessa, esim. yhden teoksen viiveellä, tai vaikka parin vuoden ajan, eikä se estäisi rahan saamista, mutta näillä varustettuja tekijöitä syynättäisiin erityisen tarkkaan, skarppattaisi jo elokuvan käsikirjoittaimisen alkuvaiheessa erityisen kovasti.

Otetaan nyt esimerkiksi Solar Filmsin "Matti"-elokuva. Tämä pörähdys sai laatutukea, koska se oli yleisömenestys. Kehtaisin väittää, että Matti Nykäsen elämästä kertova elokuva olisi myös siinä tapauksessa yleisömenestys, jos se olisi tehty ajattelen, että nyt tehdään jotain jolla on edes jonkinlaista positiivista merkitystä. Jotain joka ei aliarvoi ja vähättele aihettaan, eikä sitä seuraavaa katsojaa.
Riippumatta siitä kuinka huono elokuva Matti Nykäsestä, Mannerheimista tai nyt esimerkiksi Tony Halmeesta tehtäisiin, ne olisivat katsojaluvuiltaan vähintäänkin hyväksyttävissä luvuissa.

Timo Koivusalokin maintsi taannoin jossakin tv-haastattelussaan, että kaikki se negatiivinen palaute hänen edellisistä elokuvistaan opetti häntä ja sai ajattelemaan asioita uudestaan. Joku onkin jo maininnut että Täällä pohjan tähden alla ei kuulemma ole mitekään erityisen huono.

Tällainen varoitustarra ehkäisisi ajattelutapaa, että jonkinlaisen "välielokuvan" voi tehdä, jolla kerätään rahaa "suurelta yleisöltä" ja sitten tehdään jotain kiinnostavampaa. Tällainen ajattelutapa sopii ehkä Amerikan kokoiseen maahan, mutta Suomessa, jossa pitkiä elokuvia ei vuodessa liikaa tehdä, yksikin "välielokuva" on rangaistava teko, sillä tämän tapainen ajattelu nojaa täysin perusteettomiin, omituisiin illuusioihin.

En missään tapauksessa väitä, että kaikkien tulisi keskittyä sellaiseen, mikä yleisesti koetaan "taide-elokuvaksi" tai "älykkäälle yleisölle"-suunnatuksi. Vaikkakin väitän ettei tällaisia genrejä ole, käsitys sellaisen elokuvan olemassaolosta on vahva ja sillä oikeutetaan tietynlaiset elokuvat "suurelle yleisölle". En näe siinä juurikaan haittapuolia, että niin katsojia kuin tekijöitäkin pidettäisiin hereillä siitä, mitä he tekevät/näkevät, muutenkin kuin jatkuvan rahavallan ankaralla kouralla.

Olisi myös hyvä että se olisi tällainen anonyymihkö lautakunta, jota kohtaan yhteinen vihamme voitaisiin suunnata. Nyt hienovarausuus elokuva-alalla työntekijöiden kesken vaikeuttaa sosiaalisia suhteita ja teoksista puhumista. En itsekään kannata "suoraa" puhumista, jos se tarkoittaa siis sitä että tokaistaan vain "paskaaaaa", mutta eipä omissa nurkissa pilkkaaminenkaan mihinkään johda, ei sellainenkaan ole rakentavaa. Kun nyt manaillaan että "ei taaskaan tullut tukea, ei kelpaa mun käsikset vai hä" niin sitten voitaisiin myös manailla "no nyt luulee tietävänsä paremmin mikä on hyvä elokuva ja mikä ei, mähän niille näytän!"

Koska valtavirtalehtien kriitikot vaikuttavat olevan järjelliseen arviointiin kykenemättömiä, levittäjät ja muut päättävät tahot tuijottavat vain katsojalukuja, olisi tämä, traagista kyllä, kenties tervetullut lisä systeemiimme, kunnes kollektiivinen arvomaailma muovautuisi suuntaan, jossa tällaista kontrollia ei enää tarvittaisi.

Fiktiivinen kohtaaminen ruokalassa

2009-12-18T22:29:00.006+02:00

Henkilöt ovat MM ja JR.

MM: Miksi olet kasvissyöjä?
JR: Mitenniin miksi olen kavissyöjä?
MM: Mikset syö lihaa?
JR: Miksi söisin? Kun päivittäiseen ravintooni kuuluvat suurissa määrin erilaiset pähkinät, soija ja sen monet monet eri sovellukset, siemenet, kuten auringonkukan siemenet, tofu, tempeh, vehnägluteeni eli seitan, idut ynnä muut, niin miksi söisin tämän lisäksi vielä lihaa? Täytyyhän sitä jättää tilaa kasviksille, salaatille ja sellaiselle.
MM: No heh heh, miksi siis syöt noita etkä lihaa?
JR: Vastaan kysymykseesi vastakysymyksellä. Miksi sinä syöt lihaa etkä varmastikaan juurikaan juuri luettelemiani ravinteita?
MM: Se on normaalia, noita et saa joka ravintolasta mitä äsken sanoit. Suomessa on tavallista syödä lihaa, mutta tuollaiset ovat erikoisuuksia.
JR: Eli et syö tofua koska olet tottunut lihaan? Ok. Olen lyhyessa ajassa vieraantunut lihasta täysin enkä enää voi sitä syödä voimatta pahoin. Jos tarkoitat miksi alun perin lakkasin syömästä lihaa..no, miksi joku lakkaa polttamasta tupakkaa? Tai yrittää vähentää ylipäätään haitalliseksi kokemia tapojaan?
MM: Eli olet kasvissyöjä terveyssyistä, et esim eettisistä syistä?
JR: Näin voi olla. Väitän kuitenkin että olen kasvissyöjä tottumuksen vuoksi. On mielestäni perusteltua väittää ettei lihasta saatavaa energiamäärää aikuinen tietokoneella työskentelevä ihminen päivittäin tarvitse. Mutta ei mistään voi luopua vain sen takia että ajattelee sen olevan haitallista. Luopumiseen tarvitaan todellinen havainto tavan tarpeettomuudesta.
MM: Sanoit että aikuinen ei tarvitse lihaa, lapsille kuitenkin syöttäisit lihaa?
JR: Todennäköisesti syöttäisin lapsille sitä ruokaa jota osaan valmistaa ja jota voisin itsekin syödä.
MM: Mistä voit olla varma ettet vahingoita lastasi tällaisella ruokavaliolla?
JR: Mistä itse voit olla varma ettet vahingoita lastasi omallasi?
MM: Se on perinteistä ruokaa.
JR: Suomihan on kansanterveydeltään hyvinvoiva maa? Ei sydänsairauksia tai liikalihavuutta?
MM: Väitätkö nyt että nuo sairaudet johtuvat vain lihansyönnistä?
JR: En mutta että et varsinaisesti voi perustella perinteeseen vetoamalla juurikaan mitään. On olemassa sivilisaatioita jotka elävät ilman lihansyöntiä.
MM: Niin, jotkin kehitysmaat?
JR: Kuten intia tai kiina, näissa maissa ei ole juurikaan erottelua "kasvissyöjän" ja "lihansyöjän" välillä. on vain ruokaa.
MM: Ihminen on alkujaan ollut lihansyöjä, tieteellisten tutkimusten kanssa on voitu todistaa, ettei ihmisen aivot olisivat voineet kehittyä sellaisiksi kuin ovat nyt, jos lihaa ei olisi syöty. On taantumuksellista olla syömättä lihaa!
JR: Varmasti. Jos arkipäiväsi on yhtä raskasta kuin luolamiehilä, tai edes teet raskasta fyysistä työtä tai urheilet, en tiedä asiasta niin paljon että neuvoisin sinua olemaan kasvissyöjä, vaikkakin monet kehonrakentajat ovat. Luulen, että alkukantaisella ihmisellä on ollut jokseenkin vaikeampaa hankkia tarvittavaa ravintoa kuin nykypäivän ihmisellä ja mitkään merkit eivät mielestäni osoita että juuri lihaa syömällä älykkyytemme tänäpäivänä nousisi. Pahoin pelkään että trendi näyttäisi olevan toisinpäin.
MM: Älä ala pilkkaamaan, liha on minusta hyvää, en aijo siitä vuoksesi luopua.
JR: En tullut syyllistämään sinua lihansyönnistäsi, tilanne taisi olla toisin päin. Sitäpaitsi, jotkut saavat samanlaista "nautintoa" kuin itse äsken kuvailit, eläimiin tai lapsiin seksuaalisesta sekaantumisesta, mutta se että he nauttivat siitä ei sovi perusteeksi oikeudessa taikka sitä ei jätetä hoitamatta psyykkisenä sairautena nautinnon vuoksi.
MM: Turha mennä asiattomuuksiin.
JR: Sori.
MM: Et siis ole eläinaktivisti ja kasvissyöjä siksi että kannatat eläinten oikeuksia?
JR:olisi enemmän kuin absrudia totutella takaisin lihansyöntiin, kun sitä ei selkeästi tarvitse ja sen lisäksi lihatuotanto saastuttaa ilmastoa, aiheuttaa nälänhätää viedessään tilaa tehokkaammalta viljelyltä ja on järjettömän brutaali eläviä olentoja kohtaan.
MM: Eli oletkin eläinaktiivi ja kiertelit vain aihetta?
JR: Aloitettiin kasvissyönnistä ja aloit myöhemmin vasta kysymään eläintenoikeuksista, jotka tietenkin kulkevat käsikädessä, mutta syödessäni soijaani en ajattele että teen poliittisen teon, vaikka ehkä kuuluisi ajatella. Ajatteletko itse syödessä pihviä että kannatat tehotuotantoa ja vihaat eläinaktivisteja?
MM: no en varsinaisesti, ajattelen lihan herkullisuutta.
JR: Itsekin ajattelen ruokani herkullisuutta.

Kalat ja Makkaramiehet

2009-12-08T12:04:00.010+02:00

Makkaramies

" Makkara on nimitys, jota käytetään kuoreen tehdystä, pääasiassa lihasta valmistetusta elintarvikkeesta. Makkaran kuori voi olla joko niin sanottu luonnonkuori tai luonnonsuoli, jolloin se on puhdistettua eläimen suolta." - wikipedia.
Makkara usein yhdistetään myös jonkinlaiseen perinteiseen suomalaiseen elämäntapaan, makkaraa syödään saunassa, makkaraa grillataan juhannuksena, makkaraa syödään futis- ja jääkiekkopeleissä.

Makkaramies-termi ei kuitenkaan kohdistu suoranaisesti makkaran syöntiin. Termin ongelmana on, että siinä missä englannin kielessä "man" tarkoittaa myös ihmistä, miehen lisäksi, suomenkielessä se täytyisi korvata sanoilla "henkilö" tai "persoona". Mutta "Makkarahenkilö" tai "makkarapersoona" ei mielestäni sisällä samaa latausta kuin "makkaramies". Samoin englanniksi käännettynä "sausageman" ei myöskään omaa merkitykseltään samaa tenhoa kuin suomenkielissessä sanassa Makkaramies. Englannissa, taikka Amerikassa makkara ei sisällä samanlaista kulttuuriin juurtunutta arvomaailmaa kuin suomessa, joten ehkä täytyisi tutkia mahdollisuuksia "hamburger- tai steakman".

Tästä ei kuitenkaan ole kyse.

Sanalla Makkaramies tarkoitetaan keskivertoälykästä ihmistä, joka kykenee käyttämään älykkyyttään toimivasti ja pääasiassa tehokkaasti. Miksi sitten kutsutaan tällaista ihmistä makkaramieheksi? Koska älykkyyden laajemisen ymmärtämiseen ja luvuovuuteen estää makkara. Makkara (sisältäen siis kaikki kulttuuriset ja ruokatottumukselliset merkitykset yms) tukkii älykkyyden laajenemisen ja ohjaa sitä kapeaan, koko ihmiskunnalle vahingolliseen suuntaan.

Makkara on siis metafora pinnan alla oleville konservatiivisille perinteille, tottumuksille ja tavoille.

Ongelmana on juurikin se että monet makkaramiehet vaikuttavat päällisinpuolin hyvinkin älykkäiltä, ja sen takia he ovatkin paljon julkisuudessa, politiikassa ja käytännössä täytyy olla makkaramies jotta menestyy bisneksessä. Ihmisen ajattelu on luonnonkuoressa, kuin makkara, ja se on sidottu molemmista päistä perinteillä ja tottumuksilla.

Tällaiset makkaramiehet ovat mm. päivittäin televisiossa. He monesti hyökkäävät pinnallisen radikaalisti jotakin ilmiötä, vaihtoehtoliikettä tai mitä tahansa vastaan, esittäin päällisin puolin järkevältä kuulostavia argumentteja. Ajattelu kuitenkin stoppaa ennenpitkään makkaraan. Tavallinen makkaramies ei ikinä pysty menemään yli sen pisteen, että hänen täytyisi mahdollisesti luopua omasta makkaransyönnistään. Mikään asia ei vaikuta olevan niin tärkeä.

Useimmiten makkaramiehen tunnistaa siitä, että hän lopettaa keskustelun argumentein "on olemassa muunkinlaisia arvoja, kuten esimerkiksi elämästä nauttiminen ja rentoutuminen" tai "perinteet kunniaan" tai "välillä täytyy päästä vapaalle" tai "ei se ilmasto nyt niin paljon voi lämmetä". Pahimmassa tapauksesas makkaramies vetoaa tottumukseen tai siihen että jokin asia on aina ollut näin, tai että "se nyt vaan maistuu niin hyvälle".

Vaatii jatkuvaa valppautta välttääkseen makkaramiesten huijaukset. Makkaramiehiä löytyy myös ns. "aktivisteista" jotka aktiivisest taistelevat omien tottumustensa ja mielihyviensä saavuttamiseksi. Tämä täytyy pitää mielessä, sillä makkaramies voi myös olla tofunakkimies. Monet niinsanotut eko- , ympäristö- tai eläinaktivistit ovat puhtaita tofunakkimiehiä, jotka ovat omaksuneet viiteryhmänsa aatteet pinnallisesti ja kritiikittömästi. Se sisältää tietenkin lähtökohtaisesti, alkuvaiheessa vähemmän haittoja kuin perinteinen makkaramies, mutta pitkällä aikavälillä lopputulos on todennäköisesti suurinpiirtein sama, sillä tofunakkista on vain yksi askel makkaraan.

Kalat.

Jos huomaat jatkuvasti saavasi soittoja joiden sisältö käytännössä on "mikset ole jo tehnyt tätä mitä juuri sinulle sanon " tai "kerron sinulle tämän nyt, tämän piti olla valmiina eilen" tai "itse tajusin tämän juuri äsken, mikset sinä huomannut tätä aikaisemmin!", tiedät että olet tekemisissä kalan kanssa.

Koska ihminen on kehittynyt evoluution pitkän aherruksen kautta vedessä lilluvasta solusta nokkelaksi nisäkkääksi, on enemmänkin kuin todennäköistä, että silloin tällöin kehitys tekee meille tällaisia kepposia. Jotkut ihmiset siis omaavat vielä kalojen ominaisuuksia, myös henkisellä tasolla.

Kalat elävät hyvin hektistä elämää. Kaloilla ei juurikaan ole muistia, mutta niiden aistit ovat terävät. Ne reagoivat välittömästi ärsykkeisiin ja aistivat hyvin mitä ympäröivässä vedessä tapahtuu ja miten muut kalat liikkuvat. Tämän takia monet Kalat menestyvät mm. niin taiteellisilla elämän kuin yritysmaailmanalueilla. Kun akvaarioon tiputtaa ruokaa, kala syöksyy välittömästi sitä syömään. Kun hetken päästä tiputat lisää ruokaa, kala ei muista juuri syöneensä vaan vaistomaisesti hyökkää ruuanperään uudestaan, sillä se ei pysty hahmottamaan tulevaisuutta, että koska äsken, ja joka päivä ennen tätä, ruoka on pudonnut akvaarioon, niin ehkä se tulee huomennakin. Näin kala ei ajattele. Kun jotain tapahtuu, kala reagoi välitömästi, tulevaisuutta suunnittelematta tai menneisyyttä muistamatta.

Tällä tavalla käyttäytyvät siis monet ihmiset, he ovat kaloja. Heidän kanssaan joudut jatkuvasti tilanteisiin, jossa omista ponnisteluistasi (ennakko keskusteluista, varmisteluista ja suunnitelmista) huolimatta sinulla on jatkuvasti kiire, joudut muokkaamaan aikataulujasi erittäin lyhyellä varoitusajalla ja olemaan kokoajan valmiina juoksemaan lähimmälle toimistolle tekemään erilaisia tehtäviä ja mieluiten sinulla tulisi oppa iPhone jossa jatkuva nettiyhteys kalamaisten, katkonaisten, moneen kertaan lähetettyjen sähköpostien lukemiseksi.

Mies elokuvissa

2009-11-28T23:18:00.010+02:00

Katsoin loppukesästä 2009 valikoiman viimeaikaisia suomalaisia elokuvia. Ajattelin kirjoittaa niistä samantien blogiini, mutta katselmus jätti minuun turtuneen ja välinpitämättömän olon, osittain aivan tyytyväisenkin, sillä jotkut elokuvat osoittautuivat odotettua paremmaksi ja monet jopa eivät läheskään niin tuskallisiksi kuin olin ennakolta pelännyt.
Tässä tekstissä en nyt pureudu siihen kuinka hyviä tai huonoja elokuvat mielestäni ovat, vaan kommentoin vain erästä sisällöllistä seikkaa, johon törmäsin elokuvia katsellessani.

Osaako kukaan sanoa, mikä (ainakin) yhdistää elokuvia: Musta jää, Käsky, Sooloilua, Blackout, Kolmistaan, Toinen jalka haudasta, Riisuttu mies - muu kuin että kaikki ovat suomalaisia elokuvia?

Kaikissa on, tietenkin hyvin eritavoin, enemmän tai vähemmän perustellusti, keskiöön kietoutunut teema miehestä kahden naisen loukussa. Varsin kummallista. Teemasta on eri variaatioita, jotka loppujenlopuksi eroavat kuitenkin hyvin vähän. Tämän epätieteellisen tutkimukseni lopputuloksena totean kuitenkin, että lähtökohta on, että miehellä on (ei välttämättä heti aluksi) 2 naista, seuraava taso on että toinen naisista himoaa miestä, mutta mies himoaa vain toista. Kolmas taso on että molemmat naiset himoitsevat miestä raivokkaasti, neljäs: mies saa toisen näistä naisista raskaaksi ja viides ja kaiken huippu on että mies kuolee saatuaan toisen tai molemmat raskaaksi.

Jäätävin esimerkki tästä on mielestäni Musta Jää, jossa näennäisesti voimakkaista naisista kertova tarina kertoo loppujenlopuksi hulttiomiehestä joka pelehtii opiskelijoiden kanssa, kun kaksi naista todistelevat kaipuutaan miehen luokse. Elokuva huipentuu näiden kahden kilpailevan naisen tietynlaiseen homoeroottiseen hetkeen, joka, ainakin yleisiin mielikuviin nojautuen on monen miehen päiväuni. Naiset siis toteuttavat miehen unelmaa, vaikkakin mies on siitä autuaan tietämätön, niin kuin mies monesti parisuhteen asioista ilmeisesti on. Mies saa kuitenkin rangaistukseksi huonosta käytöksestään naisia kohtaan kävellä pakkasessa kotiin joka johtaa miehen traagiseen kuolemaan, josta vielä kuitenkin tulee naisia yhdistävä tekijä, sillä toinen naisista on raskaana miehelle, ja toinen sattuu toimimaan sitten kätilönä synnytyksessä. Elokuvan nimi "Musta Jää" täydentyy miehisen näkökulman voittaessa elokuvan lopussa, kun jokainen mies katsomossa miettii "mitä musta jää?".

Käsky- elokuvassa miehen suvunjatke esiintyy jonkinlaisena sovinnontekijänä, valkoisen (mutta oikeudenmukaisen) sotilaan lapsi punaiselle, räväkälle ja voimakkaalle naiselle. Mies kuolee sankarina, mutta äiti ja lapsi pitävät uskon tulevaisuuteen vahvana. Olkoonkin että Käsky käsittelee valtaa ja sukupuoliproblematiikkaa syväälisemmin kuin edellinen mainittu elokuva, ja päähenkilö tekee myös jonkinlaisen myönnytyksen oman sukupuolensa puolelle, on mainitsemani asetelma kuitenkin elokuvassa vahva.

Riisuttu mies - esittää vastenmielisen kuvan pappien henkisestä rappiosta ja käyttää kahden naisen asetelmaa hyvin yksipuolisesti välineinä miehen selvittäessään omia ongelmiaan. En muista, tuliko tässä tapauksessa kukaan raskaaksi. Luulisin että tuli, ainakin sitä yritettiin pitkin elokuvaa.

Toinen jalka haudasta - esittää kahden naisen tilanteen, yhteydessä uuden elämän mahdollisuuteen, edellisten virheiden poispyyhkimisenä, vähän kuten Blackout, jossa entinen elämä ja nainen on päähänlyöty naula, joka vasta itselleen totuudellisena pysymisen seurauksena tulee ulos.

Myönnän tähän kuitenkin, etten tohtinut kuluttaa aikaani Sooloilua ja Kolmistaan elokuviin, mutta luin synopsikset molemmista jotka kertoivat kaiken tarpeellisen. Molemmista elokuvista kirjoitetut muutamat rivit informoivat katsojaa ensimmäisenä siitä että tässä on nyt mies ja kaksi naista, erilaisissa tilanteissa.

Tietenkin on mahdollista nähdä naisten aseman yliotteena miehistä, jolloin naiset riitelevät miehistä kuin villieläimet eläimenraadosta, laskien miehen osan välineeksi. Kun mies kuolee, nainen on vapaa ja parhaimmassa tapauksessa hän on saanut prosessissa elämän suurimman lahjan, lapsen. Tämä on myös oikeutettu tapa havaita asetelma. Mustassa jäässä kaksi naista löytävät toisensa hulttiomiehen takia, ihastuvat toisiinsa ja lopulta saavat yhteisen lapsen, näinollen miestä ei enää tarvita, kuin oikeastaan siittämiseen.

Väittäisin kuitenkin, että jos esimerkiksi Mustassa Jäässä tämä oli tarkoitus, olisi fokus ollut enemmän naisten kohtaamisessa, ilman taustavirettä petturuudesta ja kostosta - jota motivoi mies. Elokuvan mies on hirvittävän vähän läsnä fyysisesti, mutta se on motiivi molempien naisten toimintaan. Jos tarina olisi kehittynyt naisten syvään ymmärrykseen toisistaan, eikä toispuoleiseen hyväksikäyttöön ja kieroutuneeseen yhteyteen lopussa, olisi helpompi nähdä elokuva "naisten elokuvana", nyt se on vaivalloista.

Voi siis kuitenkin olla, että olen lukenut elokuvia kuin piru raamattua, mutta nähdessäni näin monta elokuvaa peräkkäin, jossa teema toistui, jouduin jonkinlaiseen pakokauhun valtaan, osaksi myös siksi että tarinat pohjimmiltaan muistuttivat niin paljon toisiaan, ulkoiset puitteet vain vaihtuivat.

En varsinaisesti tiedä, mitä tästä pitäisi ajatella, kuin että tunnen itseni miehenä hieman vähäarovoiseksi, sillä en selvästikään täytä elokuvien esittämää kuvaa suomalaisesta miehestä. Jossain määrin kokisin elokuvat myös hieman loukkaavana miehiä kohtaan, jos ajattelisin että elokuvat esittävät meille ihanteellisiä ihmisiä. Onneksi näin ei kuitenkaan mielestäni ole, vaan henkilöt ovat osa tarinaa joka kerrotaan jonkin ajatuksen välittämiseksi, ne eivät kuvasta suoranaisesti todellisuuden ihmisiä, vaan heillä on elokuvassa tehtävä.

Koska katselmuksestani on aikaa muistan varmaan monia juttuja väärin ja tiivistykset ovat hyvin yksinkertaistettuja, joten huomatessasi selkeän asiavirheen tekstissäni, pyydän että korjaat sen kommenttiosioon.

Minä tiedän, minä vaadin!

2009-07-18T12:25:00.026+03:00

Jonkinlainen uusitsekkyys on valloittanut jo suomen, todennäköisesti koko länsimaisen kulttuurin niin syvästi ettei sitä enää edes havaita, vaan pidetään tavallisena asenteena elämään.

Ilmiö ulottuu työhön, ihmissuhteisiin, kuluttamiseen ja kaikkeen hyvin laajasti, minua se on viimeaikoina, helposti käsiteltävässä muodossa ärsyttänyt mm. lukiessani (tiedän ettei pitäisi) erinäisiä sanomalehtien keskustelupalstoja, "elokuva-arvosteluja" ja kommentteja kulttuurituotteista ylipäätään.

Esimerkkinä viimeisin, Tv-sarja Ihmebantu, jonka sisältöä olen itse jäävi kommentoimaan, mutta jonka aiheuttamaa keskustelua koen voivani kommentoida:

"Eihän se ole edes komedia. Komedian tarkoitus on viihdyttää" on yksi monista vastaavanlaisista kommenteista tästä sarjasta (toki sarjalla on myös kannattajansa). Tällaisen kommentin laukoja suhtautuu tv-viihteeseen (ja todennäköisesti aivan kaikkeen muuhunkin elämässään) niin, että hänellä on oikeus saada sitä mitä hän haluaa, ja se mitä hän haluaa on oikein ja pysyvää. Luulen, että tämä on yleisempää kuin monet itsekään tajuavat. Tällainen suhtautuminen on, no, ellei väärä, niin ainakin ihmiselle henkilökohtaisesti vahingollinen ja sulkeutunut.

Uskon ettei kukaan väitä, että suomalainen televisiotarjonta olisi liian vaikeaselkoista. Väittäisin ettei ole saivartelua kysyä "mikä on viihdettä ja mikä viihdyttää?". Jos koet arkipäiväsi lomassa olevasi niin älyllisesti haastetttu ja väsynyt, ettet jaksa katsoa tv:n tarjontaa, pitäisikö sinun pikemminkin miettiä onko esimerkiksi työsi liian haastavaa? oletko laiska? tarvitseeko tv:tä katsoa? Voisiko se oletettu vika, jos sellaista edes on, mahdollisesti olla sinussa itsessäsi? Se, että tämän kaltainen turhautuminen, joka suhtautuu vihamielisesti liian vaikeaselkoiseen, poikkeavaan tai hämmentävään sisältöön, suunnataan palvelun tarjoajaan on käsittämätöntä. Niin käyttäytyvät ehkä alle kouluikäiset lapset, jotka elävät vanhempiensa armoilla. Elämme maailmassa jossa ainakin näennäisesti mahdollisuuksia on erittäin paljon.

En missään nimessä tarkoita, etteikö kritiikki olisi elintärkeää joka tilanteessa. Tietenkin on tärkeää puida kulttuuristen tuotteiden pätevyyttä, toimivuutta, sisältöä ja vaikutusta. Mutta mielestäni sen tulisi tapahtua muuallakin kuin sisäpiirilehdissä. Sen sijaan media tulvii lapsellisia syytöksiä: "eihän se ole sitä mitä halusin" ja se
on se, mistä tässä nyt puhun, ja johon n. 70% tämän hetken valtavirtakritiikeistä luisuu. varmaa kuitenkin on, että sitä tavallista maitoa saa kaupanhyllytä aina.

Muistan kun kävin katsomassa 12 apinaa elokuvan kun se julkaistiin suomen teatteriessa. En ymmärtänyt siitä mitään, olin täysin pallo hukassa. Olin suht. nuori, mutten enää mikään pieni lapsi. Elokuva jätti minut häkeltyneeksi enkä pystynyt oikein hahmottamaan mistä oli kyse. En kuitenkaan mennyt, niinkuin tällähetkellä niin monet ainakin kuvainnollisesti, lipunmyyjälle itkemään, että koska näytitte minulle elokuvan jota en ymmärtänyt, haluan rahani takaisin! Ei, vaan kun myöhemmin toisen kerran näin elokuvan, sain riemastuttavan kokemuksen havaitessani, ettei elokuva ole millään tasolla epäselvä. Tässä on mielestäni konkreettisesti, ellei henkistä kasvua, niin medialukutaidon oppimista, jota ei tapahdu ellei ole erilaisten (ei välttämättä pelkästään uusien ja omaperäisten) ärsykkeiden vaikuttamana. Keskipäivän aave - elokuvan olen nähnyt varmaan 10 kertaa, enkä tälläkään hetkellä pystisi oikein sitä tässä analysoimaan..Kaksi ensimmäistä katselukertaa taisin nukkua.

Antichrist on hieno elokuva, jonka vastaanotto suomessa, ja maailmalla, on ollut todella surullista seurattavaa. Suomessa pahimpana esimerkkinä roskalehti City julkaisi "arvostelun" joka itsessään sisälsi niin monta ristiriitaa että sen lukeminen aiheutti minulle syvempiä traumoja kuin itse elokuva.

"Lapsen kuolema viihteen elementtinä on mautonta. Tällä kertaa siitä on saatu aikaan leffa, jota on vaikea suositella kenellekään."

Tässä lyhyessä lainauksessa niin sanottu kriitikko ei arvostele elokuvaa, vaan ensin esittelee sen miten epäonnistuneesti hän on elokuvan havainnut ja miten kapea-alaisesti hän ylipäätään kokee elokuvan viihteen ja taiteen lajina. Sen jälkeen hän sanoo idioottimaisen mielipiteen, jonka voisi vaihtaa lauseeseen "minä pidän makkarasta" eikä kukaan huomaisi eroa.Tämän tasoista ajattelun taitoa ei voi perustella edes lehden kohderyhmällä. että se on suunnattu "kevyempään" lukemiseen tai mitä ikinä.

Olen kyllästynyt siihen ajatteluun, että paskaa pitää tarkoituksellisesti tuottaa, edes tekstin muodossa. Sitä kuitenkin tulee tahtomattakin, aivan varmasti.

Se että tämän tasoinen kirjoittelu valloittaa nyt jo valtakunnalisessa levityksessä olevaa Nyt-liitettä, josta viimeviikolla joutui lukemaan sen kammottavan tosiasian, että ennen suhteellisen hauskan viihteellisen lehden kirjottaja ei kykene älyllisillä ponnistuksillaan analysoimaan edes Brünon kaltaista elokuvaa vaan päätyy yhtä tyhjiin lauseisiin kuin city-lehti. Elokuva-arvostelijan kai tulisi olla kykeneväinen havaitsemaan elokuvan metodi pystyäkseen siitä kirjoittamaan. Maininta myös elokuvan "juonettomuudesta" ; itse koin elokuvassa hyvin selkeän juonen, mm. siksi että se oli identtinen Boratin kanssa.

Kyse ei ole myöskään mistään ylianalyyttisestä suhtautumisesta elokuvaan, sen henkilöiden motiivien ja juonen kikkojen avaamisesta nippelitiedolla. Sillä monet tuntuvat ajattelan, että tätä ovat ns. "älykkäät" elokuvat jotka eivät ole "viihdettä". Tässä on toiminnassa samanlainen, sumea havainnointi, josta tulisi kasvaa ulos. Elokuvat ovat ihmisten tekemiä ja jokainen kykenee ymmärtämään jokaisen elokuvan, siitä ei ole kyse, sillä elokuvia ei tarvitse "ymmärtää" ;jokaista repliikkiä ei pakosti tarvitse kuulla. Pikemminkin elokuvat, tv-sarjat, kirjat, taideteokset nautitaan, imetään sisään ja niiden vaikutuksia itseen ja ympäristöön tutkiskellaan, joku naurattaa, toinen ärsyttää.

En esimerkiksi voi sanoa ymmärtäneeni Inland Empireä, sillä tasolla että voisin selittää mitä siinä tapahtui ja mihin se johti ja miksi. Raivostuin elokuvan lopusta ja olin pitkään ärtynyt, mutta lopulta olen onnellinen että näin sen ja se fakta että elokuva on ollut laajassa teatterilevityksessä on ainut valonpilke muuten synkkenevässä taivaassa.

Toivon, että näen jatkossa tv:ssä sarjoja ja teatterissa elokuvia, jotka häkellyttävät minut täysin, kertovat minulle jotain mitä en pysty käsittelemään.

Pitkä kuuma kesä 2009 - loistavat esiintyjät - paska festari

2009-06-29T07:21:00.008+03:00

Olin sunnuntaina Pitkä Kuuma Kesä - festivaaleilla Helsingin suvilahdessa. Esiintyjälista oli erinomainen; Henry Rollins veti nerokkaan spoken word keikan, jota seurasi lämminhenkinen Asa & jätkäjätkät josta torvisektion edustaja säntäsi suoraan seuraavalle lavalle soittamaan indiepopbändi Rubikin riveihin. Immortal Technique oli selkeästi huolissaan festivaalin koosta ja yritti epätoivoisesti saada ääntä yleisöstään ja myöhemmin heput palloilivat hukassaolevan näköisinä pitkin festivaalialuetta. Suomalainen Les Corps mince de Francoisen esityksen perusteella ymmärrän täysin bändin hip-statuksen joka oli myös kevyt alustus Crystal Castlesille, jonka raastava tanssimusiikki aiheutti auringon paahtaessa pienehkön päänsäryn. The Temper trap soitti lähes koko keikan tylsiä coldplay-covereilta kuulostavia biisejä, mutta esityksen kaksi viimeistä kappaletta osoittivat että bändillä olisi paljon omaakin tarjottavaa, jos vain viitsisivät tarjota. Mogwain tunnelmointia seurailin anniskelualueen puun alta varjosta ja Atmospherea en nähnyt sillä odottelin The Flaming Lipsiä, joka räjäytti tajunnan megalomaanisella, 70-luvun progepsykedelia henkisellä lavashowlla loputtomine ilmapalloineen, serpenttiinein ja teletappeineen. Lavalle tuli mm. hämmentävän hupaisasti hytkyvä, puhallettavaan aurinkopukuun pukeutunut henkilö, oranssien kaluston ja ilmeisesti ennakkoon ilmoittautuneiden teletappipukuisten fanien joukkoon.
Ja tietenkin laulajan seikkailu yleisön päällä "space bubblessa" oli mieletön avaus keikalle, joka ei kuitenkaan ollut kovin intensiivinen musiikkiesitys vaan jonkinlainen rauhallinen leikkitunti joka kasvoi erittäin tunteelliseksi loppuakohden, vaikken itse edes bändin suuri fani ole.

Nyt asiaan;
Viikonloppuna, jolloin on Tuska, Puisto Blues, Pax 09 festivaali ja muutenkin erinomaisen aurinkoinen sää, on jossain määrin sietämätöntä viettää koko päivä festivaalialueella jossa ei ole varjoa ja josta ei saa lähteä pois. Tähän kun lisätään se, että ruokavaihtoehdot ovat ns. "indie festarille" täysin ala-arvoiset, tarjolla mikroitetun näköistä kebabbia, kuivahkon oloisia kananuggetteja (nämä arvioin vain ulkonäön perusteella) ja 2 vaihtoehtoa ilman epämääräisen näköistä lihaa; currymössö 7e (jonka valmistaminen kotona ei maksa juuri mitään) ja pizza 8e, jossa oli riisiä lukuunottamtta samat ainekset kuin currymössössä, festivaalit voivat nopeasti muuttua erittäin harmittavaksi kokemukseksi.

Juomana oli jokaisessa ruokakojussa (olivat kaikki samaa firmaa ilmeisesti) tarjolla samat tylsät - jaffa,pepsi, sprite...Anniskelualueella tietenkin jo auringon tainnuttaman kansan seassa kierteli moraalittomia Jägermaister tyttöjä, tyrkyttämässä myrkkyjään festarikansan kurkkuihin, maassa, jossa ei muutenkaan harjoiteta pöytiintarjoilua, ainakaan festareilla.

Enkä nyt edes jaksa puida anniskelualueiden järjestelyä suomalaisilla festareilla, muutakuin sen että 8 euroa 2dl viinipullosta on missä tahansa liikaa.

Tarkoituksenani on sanoa, että imagoltaan jonkinlainen vaihtoehtofestivaali, joka tarjoaa hienoja esiintyjiä on kuintenkin asenteeltaan yhtä ääliömäinen kuin mikä tahansa makkara fest; Ihmiset siis viihtyvät kun saavat syödä jotain paskaa ja juoda kaljaa. Alueella, jonka istuskelumahdollisuudet vaikuttivat huonommilta kuin surullisenkuuluisessa kaisaniemempuistossa, en olisi sietänyt olla, ellei esiintyjät olisi kiinnostaneet, sillä mihinkään ei musiikka päässyt karkuun.

Varsinkin kun tietää, että festivaalialueen vieressä, käytännössä festivaalialueella, sijaitsee hieno kahvila Aaltopelti, jonne en tietenkään päässyt kokopäivänä, koska kulku oli estetty metalliaidoilla. Kahvilasta olisi saanut myös nautittavaksi jotain vaihtoehtoja kansan syvien rivien lempijuomille: sokerilitkuille ja oluelle, joista molemmista tulee huono olo.

Suomalaiset festivaalit markkinoivat lähes kaikki samaa asiaa "juokaa kaljaa, syökää roskaruokaa - se on kivaa ja niin te viihdytte." Tämä on sietämätöntä paskaa. Jos olisin ruokatarjoilun tiennyt etukäteen, olisin tuonut kotoani eväät, nyt en päässyt enää pois alueelta, joten olin voimaton ja koitin selvitä, sillä mistään ei myöskään saanut mitään pientä suolaista naposteltavaa, esim sipsiä, jota ilman on vaarallista heilua auringossa koko päivä. Ainoana plussana järjestäjille se, että alueella oli koju josta sai aurinkorasvaa. Esiintyjien lisäksi tietenkin.

vaihtoehdot vähissä

2009-06-23T09:13:00.011+03:00

Pakko kommentoida aamutuimaan tätä "kohuttua" "vapaa-ajattelijoiden" kampanjaa. On järkyttävää että tahot kuten humanistiliitto ja vapaa-ajattelijat murskaavat omaa uskottavuuttaan tekemällä samoja typeriä virheitä kuin ongelmien kanssa painiva kirkko, joka on jo jonkin aikaa mainostanut täysin hirvittävillä mainoksilla kirkon nuorekkuutta ja merkitystä nuorille.

En pysty hahmottamaan mitä asiaa ajaa tämä mainoskampanja, joka niin konservatiivisesti mainostaa "Jumalaa tuskin on olemassa. Lopeta siis murehtiminen ja nauti elämästä."

Käsittämätöntä että itseään ateisteiksi kutsuvat kirjoittavat mainokseen "Jumalaa tuskin on olemassa". Lause ei ainoastaan anna ymmärtää että sen laatineet tahot hyväksyvät tämän jumalan olemassaolon, mutta kertoo myös sen, että he pelkäävät käsitettä siinä määrin, että pyöristävät lausuntoaan kirjoittamalla siihen sanan "tuskin."

Mainos ei eroa katukuvassa jo muutenkin päivittäin olevista täysin moraalittomista mainoksista, jotka kehottavat unohtamaan kaiken muun ja "nauttimaan", milloin mistäkin turhanpäiväisestä tuotteesta.

Ennemminkin kuin humanistien ja vapaa-ajattelijoiden, tämä kampanjia vaikuttaa olevan uusliberalistien kiero juoni saada ihmiset niinsanotun laman aikana kuluttamaan taas vähän enemmän, unohtamaan todellisuuden.

Sata vuotta sitten länsimaista kulttuuria ravisteltiin julistamalla "jumala on kuollut, me olemme hänet tappaneet". Edistystä on siis tapahtunut sen verran että julkisesti uskalletaan markkinoida mielikuvaa, jossa ei sanota että jumala olisi henkilö joka voisi kuolla, mutta argumentaatio roikkuu kuitenkin yhä valkopartaisen miehen hameenreunassa, ellei salaa toivoen että sellainen nyt kuitenkin olisi, niin ainakin edistäen tätä lapsellista mielikuvaa.

Tämä mainoskampanja on taantumuksellinen ja surullisen typerä joka todennäköisesti saa ihmisiä liittymään kirkkoon enemmän kuin eroamaan tai, mikä todennäköisempää, tekee ihmisistä entisestään turtuneempia kuluttajakoneita.

Mainoslause on kuin "pomosi tuskin huomaa, ota nokoset töissä". Se ei kyseenalaista sitä, miksi tai mikä tämä pomo oikeastaan on tai miten työntekijät pomon länsäolon kokevat ja mikä sen merkitys on, vaan kannustaa välinpitämättömyyteen ja pakoiluun.

Eikö tällaisella ajattelulla pitäisi päätyä aivan toisenlaiseen johtopäätökseen: Jos mainoslauseen jumala olisi olemassa, silloin nimen omaan voisimme lopettaa huolehtimisen ja nauttia elämästä, sillä olisimme kuin kotieläimiä, kissoja, jotka elelisivät tietämättömänä suuremman olennon talossa, nauttien sen länsäolosta ja huolenpidosta.

Antichrist

2009-06-09T08:08:00.005+03:00

So, last year there were news about Cannes, that the film by Charlie Kaufman "Synecdoche, New York" was a failure and people laughed and booed to it at the festival. As we later found out - the film is a great piece of American cinema and an important work.

This year similar news was released through out the world about Lars Von Triers Antichrist. Supposedly people booed, walked out and laughed to his new film, and called it naive and stupid, overly violent...stuff like that. WELL, as I thought, this film too, turned out to be an amazing masterpiece, even more so than Synecdoche, although I am not comparing them in any other sense than by the way they were supposedly received at Cannes.

Now, my poin is that 1. Do not believe the newspapers writings about a film. Just do no t believe it. 2. Should we come up with a new respected film festival, if Cannes constantly neglects important films like these 2? Although the films that win are always nice films too..3. We should revive the culture that people actually go to see a film not to be entertained, but to experience. 4. We should react to the way so called "high culture" especially important films are treated in the media. It seems that film no longer can be considered as art, but it is always seen first through the screen of entertainment and after this quality, it might have a message which seems to be secondary.
5. Go see this film, you wont forget it:

What you see and hear

2009-05-03T11:29:00.004+03:00

Recently I've noticed this very obvious fact, that the things you see, the things you watch and things you consume, really affect the way you think and the way you see the world. This is of course really obvious, but I think that people should remember this.

From the facts that films like "Dirty Harry" made the .44 Magnum really popular gun in USA, to the decrease of sales of Merlot-wine connected to the film Sideways, one could draw a conclusion, that films at least affect our consuming habits.

But I think it does not stop there. Eisenstein at his time believed that he could make the audience think in a certain way, by showing images in a certain way. Leni Riefenstahl tried this out by glorifying the nazi regime and I think we all know what commercials are trying to do, but actually, I am not talking about this, cause you know, when you see a commercial, that it tries to effect you in a really concrete way.

However, where a single film won't effect the way you think about the world, at least no too much usually, but the mass media, the mainstream culture, the films, books, tv-series and music which, even tough from time to time really good, interesting and special, seem to be quite uniformed. It is this uniformity that is the problem.

Watching a film is learning a language, usually you don't have to learn it again, and good films use a familiar language in a new way. But there is no reason, why films shouldn't use really different methods for storytelling, and no reason why people shouldn't watch films like this.

I am not only saying that the modern film style is in need of improvement, there are some good films no doubt. I am saying, that the modern culture by which films are distributed and sometimes criticized and categorized and marketed is evil and regressive.

Latest example of this terrible tendency to keep the majority of people from expanding their cinematic experiences was the fact that a film called Synecdoche New York was not distributed in Finland. WHY!? could one ask. It has the most famous screenwriter in america, a cast that is full of famous faces. But it is not distributed, cause it did not make enough money in the USA...

When I saw this film, the fact that it is so modestly distributed around the world almost feels like censorship. That the film is a danger in some way. Of course you can argue if the film works or not, I don't disagree with that, but that again is not the point. The point is that this film is clearly an attempt to make something new, to improve us, the viewer and only for that, these kinds of films really, really should be distribudet. Instead they are showing yet another comedy about some couple having some funny incidents, and the film follows the 3 acts and has a happy ending, and after that you feel numb, like you´ve taken some painpills.

The only thing I can say is, what ever you do, try to do it differently. Eat differently, watch films that you don't like. Listen to music that sounds irritating for you and read books that you feel like are really boring and too long. Cause otherwise..I don't know what will happen, but it does not look good.

Barack Obama in Prague - review

2009-04-05T15:49:00.025+03:00

"The Czech Republic has a long history of puppetry, puppet-making, and marionettes. Czech puppets have been a part of Czech tradition since the middle of the 18th century."Today we saw the biggest puppet show ever held in Prague! The performance was not Czech, nor had it anything to do with Czech puppetry, but seems that they wanted to respect the tradition, so they arranged the only performance of this show in Europe to be held in the puppetry capital of Europe. Being "one time only", I too climbed up the hill to Prague castle and went to see the amazing show. I expected more from the script, even though the performance and delivery was amazingly good. The charisma, the Smile..all of that was there. My main problem with the monologue was, that I found it a bit unlogical and therefore hard to relate to. I understand that Barack addressed the Czech people, and not everyone in the Europe, but I feel that this concerns us all. Like he said himself: "Nuclear missiles are threat to us all." And I agree.

Barack spoke about disarming the world from nuclear missiles, thus wiping out the last remains of the cold war. This is, of course, really good thing to do. But still, the way to do it is, according to Barack, to unite with USA, allowing them to build their military bases around Europe, thus contributing to the cause of pressuring certain countries to disarm themselves from nuclear weapons. Barack also said, that it is cowardice to oppose this action, cause it takes strength and will of power to defeat the evil that lurks in the world.
He said, that USA will start, as an example, to reduce their nuclear weapons, and this should inspire everyone else to do the same. Then he emphasized that every country that "breaks the rules" (in this missile-matter, like for example North Korea just did), has to face immediate consequences, they must be punished. But, USA will definitely keep an adequate resorts of nuclear missiles to be able to protect themselves from their enemies, he said.
I don't support nuclear missiles in any way, for sure, but neither do I appreciate this attitude of "you are either with us, or against us". Because that does not differ in anyway from what Bush was preaching about few years ago. And If we want to unite against the "evil forces" why should that mean that everyone should allow USA to build their military bases around Europe? Couldn't they, just for example, build their own? I mean, who said that USA is the good guy? But oh yeah, a nation which doesn't have nc-missiles already is not allowed to have one (which of course is definitely a good thing.) but that would be breaking the rules.

For me, the country of USA doesn't look like one that everyone should follow, just looking at their internal matters, poverty, education, crime rates for example. If, say like Denmark or Sweden or something started to gather a group against the evil in the world, that group I could join.
And that the countries that brake the rules must be punished? Who makes these rules and who makes the punishments? USA? And, Barack said, that one nuclear missile in the hands of a single terrorist, could spread destruction in enormous amounts in the world, and just 5 minutes before that he had said that USA will definitely keep "sufficient supplies" of these missiles their selves..So, the ending point would be, that no one else has any "big" missiles, but USA would have them, and in addition, bases all around Europe, ready for action...? What do you think, would they get rid of them at that point?
We should fight together, as free nations and individuals, for the freedom and peace on earth, said Barack. So let's do just that, let's unite, and respect each other. It can't be that either you agree with USA or you are considered as a coward or a terrorist.
All and all, it was a good show and I am happy to have been able to experience it.

3/5

Battle in Seattle

2009-03-02T14:10:00.005+02:00

I just stumbled on to this movie "BATTLE IN SEATTLE". Haven't heard from it anywhere, maybe because I haven't been looking, but from my point of view, this movie deserves more attention.

It is a fictional story based on the true events of the demonstrations against World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Seattle in 1999. Things went quite badly and people got hurt.

The storyline is nothing special, but I think the matter is very important and the characters are put in the right place, giving atleast a decent look to "both sides", kind of, since the sides fighting in this film are not enemies with each other, as the ending successfully tells us. This is the most important fact in the film: it is not the police force and the activists who should fight each other, or even the politicians and activists, they are just the middle men, and there will always be more of them to fight with.

For some reason I was a bit irritated by the lovestory-subplot, which seemed totally irrelevant, but I guess something like that has to be there always..even though I can't see why..All and all I like the fact that the film is obviously quite low budged, but it contributes to the atmosphere of the film. It is also nice to see the usage of archive material and fictional story, mixed together.
But, a nice film and I am happy that it was made and I saw it!

Something is happening!

2009-02-15T21:20:00.004+02:00

An idea, which was invented sometime during last fall is starting to take form. So I am announcing the starting of a new blog!

BLOGUMENTARIES - blog will be the channel for publishing and hopefully discussing some home made documentary short films, which are meant to be kinda like blog writings, but in video form. So the aim is not to make movies that explain everything and give a deep look from all points of view to a certain matter, but highly personal and strictly from our point of view films. The form will be quite free so you will hopefully see different kinds of videos.

The start is with a short look to the new university law-thing going on in Finland. It consists mainly of speeches and interviews shot at certain events, so the cinematic side is on purpose a bit "punk". But sorry, this has no subtitles.

It takes a while to do these films, but more will be coming sooner or later, so keep checking! And of course, this blog will keep on rambling.

If you haven't clicked links above, click here to go to the new blog!

Tampere film festival 2009 4.3-8.3

2009-01-29T20:18:00.009+02:00

UPDATED 31.1
I'm just announcing (not boasting too much) that the following films can be seen at the mentioned festival;

in the competition series:

Kaupunkilaisia / Citizens, by Juho Kuosmanen
Jalil, by Mazdak Nassir
Chabalu, by Amir Eskandari

and in New from Finland Screening:
Valon Lapset - The Illuminous ones, by Jaakko Ruuska
Suurin ja Kaunein, by Teppo Airaksinen
Saurofoniaa, by Mazdak Nassir

All films above are edited by me. In the music video screening you can see:
Goon - Taas sen täytyy muuttuu, by Jussi Rautaniemi
Saurofoniaa, by Mazdak Nassir

So, that makes it 7!
So go to the festival, cause I can't be there for I lurk in the narrows streets of Prague by then.

Trying to keep it short: Year 2008

2008-12-29T11:20:00.033+02:00

Yeah, again its the end of a year filled with wide range of experiences. I try not to blabber too much about different parties and events that took place in the year 2008.

In a way, what sums this year is work, or working. I've been working a lot. From May 2008 to dec 2008 I pretty much just edited stuff, didn't have time to go to school or do any other projects that I would have wished to do by my self. We did the last modifications on the film Chabalu, I got my first real editing job on a tv film "Citizens". I edited a nice short poem-art video "Saurofonia", I got a job to edit a 7-part TV-series "Ihmebantu", another tv-film "Jalil" which was edited on Steenbeck, and one can read some sort of diary about it here on the blog. And the third tv-film "Suurin ja Kaunein" was edited also. In addition there were some small helping jobs I did and a music video i directed, OG-Nail which had its own story to it. Oh and of course the music video for Pohjoinen kuri was also made, during that shooting I noticed that low budged video making starts to taste like wood. But the video turned out to be nice.
When I didn't work was in June, when I was in Israel for 9 days. That was crazy. I attended a student film festival, and got the flights and a place to stay for free. After that I visited the Sodankylä midnight sun film festival. Which, as always has its special moments. And after that me and Eevis went on a road trip to the west coast of Finland. Pretty amazing.

Also, the bar "seitabaari" in the first photo is now closed. So no more breakfast and Lapinkultamoments in Sodankylä..:(

Before that, sometime before spring, our school took us to Göteborg, which was insane, in a bad way. We were there about 7 to 9 days, I can´t remember, and we didn't have nothing much to do and it was raining all the time..so we watched mostly bad films on the festival which was going on and sat around bars and at the hostel. Memories...memories..It was a part of some project that later on produced few really sad short films.
During spring I participated this competition for Poets of the Fall fans...I am not their fan, never listened their music. NEVER. Well, the competition was to make a 30sec video for them, and I did. You can find it in the right side (3. Juspen Tuholaiset) And I won a cellphone! I also "got to meet the band" at their gig at some awkward nokia promo evening..that was a bit uncomfortable. Fortunately there was 1 of their fans, since there were 3 of us that won the competition.

I also appeared in a documentary by Kanerva Cederström. "Erikoisia Tapauksia" ( unusual cases). It'll be on tv1 sometime during spring!Before summer there was also an awesome trip to Repovesi with maspe, netta and eevis. We slept in a tent and it was cold as hell.The most annoying thing this year was the situation where someone scammed me my identity and opened cellphone interfaces and ordered quick loans to my name. That was really irritating! I got to know the slow paced movements of finnish crime police and the whole shit of the byrocrazy that seems to control things in our society. But I hope the guy responsible for these frauds steps on a nail or something.

Of course a lot of other stuff has been going on, life keeps on sliding on. There was the Wedding of Leenu, which was amazing and few people got engaged! Happiness to you all.
New projects are coming up. At the moment I am planning a full length film, an indie production, a dark and anarchistic film, but which has a warm heart in side of it :) But the project is not coming in near future. Also stay tuned (at least once in a while) to check out if we get going our BLOGUMENTARY-project. More info coming later.

A nice event was also an art-show-party held by Mäkkylä-folk. It was very nice. All and all, life has been good. The burden of working has clouded my memory so I cannot talk about small things much. One positive tendency this year has been that I've been more in contact with old and new friends. This might just seem like it, cause before I was in school everyday, thus in contact with people much more. This fall I´ve just been editing in my chamber.

One important fact about this year was the gig of Anathema at Nosturi. That was truly amazing and worth mentioning cause I rarely go to gigs. So thank you Anathema guys! Yeah!

PHOTO OF THE YEAR:
I chose this cause it is taken with a polaroid camera, at Sodankylä 2008 and it has a weird collection of people in it. I can not remember who took this photo.

VIDEO OF THE YEAR:
See it here.
I chose this cause I never actually believed that I woud be doing this, even when I was travelling to Israel. How cynical of me. Check it out. And no, that is not me in some shallow water sitting, but floating in the middle of the dead sea. Video was shot by Martin from Estonia.

Now the global category, for the previous ones are always selected from my own stash;

SONG OF THE YEAR:
Asa - Alas virtaa ararat
from the album Loppuasukas
This is kind of popular music now, won some prices and stuff, but since I never before listened this kind of music, I think it deserves to be mentioned..or something.

FILM OF THE YEAR:
I would write here There will be blood, but I think it is 2007 film...well, Then I would write The Dark Knight, but that would be too obvious. Another choice would be WALL-E, a great surprise for me and a lovely film or the French movie ENTRE LES MURS (THE CLASS), which is amazing, but no,
I will choose IN BRUGES - cause it seems that many of my friends have not seen it and I think it is absolutely brilliant in its storytelling and characters. It is really entertaining and fresh in its own way.

FOOD OF THE YEAR: SEITAN.
It really became a smash hit this year. MMmm.

The most unessential thing of this year is the Marc Ecko Boba Fett hoodie! During some momentary loss of I.Q. I ordered this shirt, and had to wait almost 3 months for it to arrive. I threatened the shop with cops, cause they did not answer my emails. Well, now I have it. I am probably the only idiot in finland who bought this, atleast of people who is over 15yrs old :)
So I traveled quite a bit and ordered stuff over the net, thus polluting the world a lot...what can I say.

I would recommend everyone who reads this blog to check out the Ihmebantu series on March 2009 on saturday evenings 9:00 p.m. on TV2. I worked really hard on that one, did all kinds of effects and videoart pieces to it. It is going to be great!

Now, I am off to Thailand. and soon after that I set my sails to Prague, so the blog will not be too active in the near future.

Just an announcement and James Bond

2008-12-03T10:28:00.006+02:00

Haven't been writing for a while...
I'm just announcing that I uploaded all my videos again to youtube, for better quality.

So go check out the videos!

One topic I was about to write was the new James Bond film. I'll just talk about it briefly. I liked it. I know that even though Bond is now portrayed a bit confused and clearly lost person, they still are not intellectual films, and they possibly shouldn't be , but I like the way Daniel Craig makes James Bond feel like a complete lunatic from time to time. He has this crazy-look in his eyes, which is nice.
All the old James Bonds were just clean fellows who had no soul but it did not worry them, now it feels like Bond is all the time ready to fall apart, when he has no clear mission, like chasing a bad guy. But I think the new bond is a bit more real and there is some moral in his character, absurdly violent as he may be, but at least he clearly is a non-well person.

So, I can't understand why people have disliked the new Bond film. It is fast and exploding, but that is just the way an action film has to be, and since it was a clear sequel, continuing straight after Casino Royale, it is totally understandable that there is no need to stop and explain what is happening. Even though there were some plot holes in the film, or some bad writing at least, but they were hard to notice when the movie went on forward so fast..

But I think that the next Bond is hard to do, because this film worked because of the blow of Casino Royales freshness, but it wont last three films, so if Bond doesn't go mad in the next film or something, the series will fall back to the uninteresting saga of films that it was before Casino Royale.

Zeitgeist, Loose change, Earthlings and us

2008-10-27T14:16:00.004+02:00

When movies were born, first films ever made were documentaries. Back then there was talk about people not having to travel around the world to see things anymore, cause film would bring all the wonders of the world to them. It was to be a new strong medium for education and civilization.
Now we live in a time when everyone (who has the level of wealth as most of Finns have) can buy a decent video camera and a laptop with cheap editing systems and produce films, much easier than Lumiere bros and our subjects could be examined more thoroughly, than the social commentary about workers leaving factory, by Lumiere brothers, because of the infinite material we have for filming, seemingly no cost at all.

When I look at films like Zeitgeist- Addendum, Loose Change, and Earthlings, I feel like "this is what we should all do, this is NOW". These three appear to be some of the flagships of internet distributed indie documentaries.

The internet and the easiness of working with moving images has only now, 100 years later of the first documentary film filmed, reached the level of really starting to work as the medium it was supposed to be. And services like Youtube contribute also to this cause. The fact that writing an essay or publishing an opinion letter on newspaper is not the only way to state your mind and taking part. Of course youtube in all its good has also set an example of the surplus that a good service always produces, and it struggles with not drowning to it.
The documentaries I mentioned are almost completely compiled of archive material or animated material. Only some interviews have been shot and they both work pretty much because of the strong text, read by a voice behind the repetitive images - meaning that the language of cinema they use is quite simple and old fashioned. But this only shows that you wont even have to film anything to make an important, or at least strong and interesting film.

And there has of course been films like this before, but now combining the lightness of digital cinema to the lightness of broadband internet, the information and viewpoints are free to take their place, out of the cages of: festivals, cinemas and the totally lost medium: TV.

The argumentation on both films is clearly simplified to serve the aims of the movie makers, but this is the fact that needs to be understood: There is no way around it that they tell us the things in the light as they want us to perceive them, but never think that this is not the case in all the movies, books, newspapers or news you see every day.
Meaning that they only give a new angle on things and I believe that this is their goal. Even though there is always a slight touch of mass psychology since all these films tell us to "Join" something..But since we already are members of this capitalist-religion, this can be accepted.

So I am not saying that a new age of political movie has begun because of these internet documentaries, but in my opinion there could be something to it. The only problem is that being a new interesting subculture, it won't be taken seriously in the mainstream media. It is partially a good thing, cause it aims to take the lead from the mainstream media. But also gives large amount of people the view that theses kind of docs are just conspiracy jibberish, not to be taken seriously.
The fact that there has not been, at least not to my knowledge, a public statement against the "proofs and theories" that Loose Change gives out, which are quite easy to believe, has two sides. On one hand it gives the image that these theories are ridiculous and therefore not worthy of a official response. But the other side of it is this: Now in the time of freedom of speech, internet, blogs and everything, we drown in opinions and theories. Therefore, to raise one or two from this mass of information, even to deny or criticize, is to state that it has some truth to it.

And since it seems probable that they can not explain for example about "the building 7" in 9/11 attacks, they see it better just not to answer the question. This is the new censorship of information: When asked - don't answer. The people will forget and stop asking and get on with our everyday life with money problems and jobs and entertainment.
We can write to our blogs, even make documentaries, no one says to us we can't do it. But it won't help, as long as the arguments don't get "publicly recognized" (whatever that means). But you still get the feeling that you have said what you had to say. This works only as long as there is the mainstream media that has some authority.

Of course, countries like Finland are still quite safe from this. The circles are so small that even one sms-message sent by some politician goes straight to every paperstand. But that is also a way of restricting our knowledge. Finnish news media tend to attract our thoughts in totally wrong things.

Now a film Earthlings, differs a bit, not building any theories of how governments enslave mankind. It just shows the facts behind our habits concerning our place in this planet,what we eat and so on. Make the connection.

So links at the end, for films to watch:

http://www.earthlings.com/

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/

To believe? Well, I watch them as I watch any other film..And of course there are tons of others, but just these 3 for starters.

Only way to kill imaginary things is to stop believing in them.

2008-10-22T08:22:00.010+03:00

We seem to live in a strictly religious world with inflexible rules and rituals. Everything that most people do with their everyday life revolves around these rules and the wish to gain a higher place of glory by serving our all mighty God, who is of course not called Muhammed or Jesus, but different symbols like €, £ or $. Money and Profit.
Well, this is no new news. And quite hard topic to discuss, cause the system we live in now, gives us no other chance than to bow to this over lord. Like in countless sci-fi movies where human beings have been enslaved by their own creations, usually by machines, we now live in a system that no one sees a way out. The system that works in numbers and currencies, sell and buy, has taken over and there seems to be nothing that can be done. Some people know how to use this system, but most of them don´t know what they are doing to the world while they play in the abstract world of stock market.Every time I hear about a suicide, or even more, murder of others like ones own family members, when the reason has been for money, I feel like exploding. I just can not understand how someone can be in a situation where the lack of money leads to a conclusion of ending life. Reasons are several, but some of the blame can be put on the school system and now-a-day politics which seems like all the choices are being made by the reason of more profit.

From elementary school we are thought how to get money and the importance of money and competence. This can not be escaped anymore even in the sanctuary of knowledge, culture and science; the university. And of course, in the system we live in now; all this is good knowledge, cause we all have to get money somehow or we are dropouts. As money is a man created value, man can undo it. One way to undo this false authority is to renounce its power.

Although we would all like to burn all the money we have and be free, this can´t be done, cause life would become impossible. We have to start making choices that seem to be unprofitable or where we seemingly loose money, the point is only that we have to be careful where our money goes. Stop buying cheap electronics and cheap clothes. Buy those amazingly expensive organic clothes and shirts or buy all your clothes from the most expensive shop you can imagine or even better; use only flea markets. The basic illusion of todays consumerism is that everything is cheap and even if you don´t have a lot of money you can have all the things you ever wanted. Well we all know that this is bullshit. Buying cheap laptops and dvd-players only result in them breaking in a year or two. The quality of new multimedia cellphones and "mid priced" digital cameras is something so scandalous that it is hard comprehend.

The whole system works by producing more stuff from cheaper parts which leads to using more natural resources and creating more waste and filling this world with plastic and toxicbatterywaste. Like "it was in the old days", buy one jacket or one pair of shoes, and wear them for 10years, even if you have money to buy each year a new one. Buy a camera so expensive that you wont need a new camera ever again (read; in a long time), if that is possible. Cause we all know that this is not what the companies want, cause the sales would drop dramatically. of course there is the fact that short term usage increases sales which rises profit which leads to development in products and so on... which seems to be quite rational way of thinking but results in the situation we are approaching now in our world.

The problem in this world is not the lack of food and water, but the fact that they are considered as things to buy and sell. There is no such thing as a fair deal, if it involves money. Market economy works with the idea of cheating others to get more personal profit for oneself.
One would have to stop thinking like one is still in living in poverty, as a nation and as individuals, (if one is not in poverty). What I mean is that when we know that there will be food for tomorrow, for sure, we should not find it so attractive to get "the most with this money that we can get." We should only buy the amount we need, and if wanting to enjoy the money we have, to buy "quality" or : Make the choice with ethical reasons.

All these "super-sizes" and "eat all you want for 7 euros" they are all part of this same betrayal. They are disgusting. There is nothing fun in getting too much to eat, it should be revolting. When you are getting more and paying less you know you are doing wrong. If one has money to spend one should pay more and get less. There should be nothing worth striving for in a life of constant over wealth. It is our own imagination that gives us the view of that being something to adore. The idea of working a lot to get a lot of money should sound ridiculous, but is sounds like "that guy is a good member of society"

I know that this can lead to pretty odd conclusions, which is why I stop now. The bottom line is that our well-being society has ceased to exist cause the "well being" seems to mean gaining more profit. Profit leads in someway to development, and If we stop wanting more, we might stop developing ourselves and our surroundings..? Is it like that?
The system that we live in now doesn't give much choice to this "i want it all now"-attitude, cause if you don´t care about your money you might end up living on the street, even though Finland has good social allowances but still, for example the rents are so high that even though students get 500euros of free money in a month, that is not enough for them...
this is my post number 100! Wuu!

Star Wars - the story about fathers love

2008-10-04T15:59:00.000+03:00

Now comes an interpretation of Star Wars and an attack towards a great film theorist.( I put this back on the front page)

Some time ago I watched all the Star Wars movies, yes, all 6 of them, even the 3 new ones. I must admit, that even being an old somewhat "hardcore" star wars fan, it was quite a struggle. The new 3 movies are just bad movies, bad cinema, and there is no way around it. The most pleasurable view were the episodes 4 and 5, New hope and The Empire Strikes Back. Even Return of the Jedi was a bit eerie. But, although I´d like to, I am not going to complain about the 3 newer episodes or the changes made to the old ones, even though they make me feel sick.

But now when all the 6 Star Wars movies are out there, what is the saga about? If we look at the characters, we see that there are 3 characters appearing in all 6 of them. R2D2, C-3po, and Anakin Skywalker, although he appears as Darth Vader in 3 of them, but the core person stays the same. So I think it is safe to state that the main character of star wars clearly is not the 2 robot buddies, although they are 2 important ones.

So the the lead character of star wars is Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader. He goes trough the biggest changes, he learns the biggest lessons.
Anakins mom states to Qui-Gon, that Anakin was born without a father, miraculous birth due to the high count of midichloriants. So, wanted Lucas is or not, we make an instant connection to Jesus, and all the talk of Anakin being the chosen one makes the matter even worse and irritating. Well only thing I´m going to say about that is this; Jesus had somewhat complicated relationship with his father, don´t you think?

Originally a slave boy, Anakin is characterized in a quite cartoonie way to be lost and unbalanced kid who has mixed emotions and is quite temperamental. He longs for recognition from the Jedi council but the Jedis are not so eager to accept him to be their savior and wonder child. This strange and somewhat unexplained longing for recognition and power is not too clearly explained in the film. Anakin just is that way. Yes, he misses his mother who had to be left behind, but the emotional motives for Anakins behavior are not too clear, possibly due to bad directing. Anakin is constantly saying lines like "I am the best pilot!" and "I am the strongest Jedi!", like he had something to prove someone.

Well, isn´t there a theory about sons and fathers, and the emotional distresses they can create? Anakin, a fatherless child never had the fathers love and acceptance that he is important and adequate to full fill his place in the world. He longs for it, but can never have it. Anakin finds his father figure from the "most powerfull man" in the Galactic senate, a strong senator Palpatine who quickly rises to be the leader of the Galactic senate. This person is the only one who Anakin sees to be sufficiently great to be his replacement for a father. And he turns out to be a Sith lord. So what choice Anakin has? He has to be his apprentice, cause he is like a father he never had.. A note for later: Palpatine appears in 5 of the six movies, as same as Yoda, but has much more screen time..In Episede III Anakin is totally lost, he needs Padme, but doesn´t seem to be able to emotionally connect to her (there is something realy fake in their relationship, is it the acting or the story?), he respects and hates The Jedi´s at the same time, Padme and Anakin have this secret relationship that is unaccepted and Padme is pregnant, and it is forbidden to Jedi´s to have children. This is like a too young kid going trough life too fast, not quite understanding whats happening and ultimately unable to take the responsibility needed. (the story telling might be similar to Anakins feelings, concentrating on the wrong things, alot of extra stuff..)

The scene what we all were waiting, where Anaking finally turns in to the Darth Vader we know, is irritatingly inter cut with the scene where Padme, his fiancee, gives birth to Luke and Leia and dies in the birth her self. So we witness the birth of Luke and Leia and the birth of Darth Vader - the birth of the next(or the old)chapter of Star Wars saga. And we see the death of Anakin, Padme, the Jedis and the Galactic senate as it turns in to the Empire. Death of this trilogy. How brilliant...
But more importantly we see the transformation of a fatherless Anakin,to a father him self. Not having a father he can not become one now, without turning in to some kind of monster. Even tough he is not aware of the children surviving. Hes anger towards himself is catalyzed by the lie that he killed Padme himself. But the concrete thing we see is, that when Anakin becomes a father, he becomes this inhuman dark machine. As I heard somewhere that Darth Vader is based on Dark Father..eh.

So now, the old, good, Star Wars films tell a story about Luke, an orphan, a bit restless and rebellious. He has this unexplained longing to somewhere, which is common to teenagers, I think. He hears a tale about great wars and about how great pilot his "real father" was and how Darth Vader betrayed and murdered him. Luke starts to follow the path that eventually leads him to confront Darth Vader. This is of course told in a way much more believable way than anything in the new saga.
Luke becomes something of a hero and seems to be pleased about the fact, but something still troubles him. There is the tension that Luke must confront the man who supposedly killed his father and therefore robbed him of the love and bonding between father and son. Comparing to Anakin, Luke has a goal which he can reach for, the supposed reason for his detachment where Anakin never had any target to put all his energy to, cause there was no clear reason for his fatherless life.

Luke sees a hallucination which tells him to go to this distant planet to became a Jedi and for some reason he follows it. There he has another vision of his friends being in danger. He also fights imaginary Darth Vader and kills him, seeing that the Darth Vader was actually he himself. This is later referred as "the failure in the cave". As in if Luke just kills Vader, he fails and kills a part of himself, the chance to become complete. To reach the unity which lies in the truth about the true relationship of Luke and Vader. And also gives clues to still ignorant viewer about whats going to be revealed.

Well, soon enough Luke finds out that the reason for these weird visions was that Darth Vader did not kill his father, but is his father. Then we see a great scene where he shouts "No! That´s not true! Thats impossible!" Yeah.
"Join me, so we can rule the galaxy as father and son!" As we know, Luke jumps down from that thing, he chooses to take the chances of dying in the fall and not to join Darth. Cause the fact of Vader being his true father, his origin, is at this point seems too terrible to live with anyway. It is in incongruity with everything he had believed. This can be argued that Luke knew that he would not die when he jumped down..but then a gain..did he?

When realizing that Palpatine was evil, Anakins most precious father figure, he dropped down to his knees and pledged his obedience. And when Luke hears that hes true father was the devil, sort of speak, he dropped to almost certain death.

Comparing to Lukes situation to Anakins: Palpatine represented the "Galatic Senate" and "democracy" at that point. Jedis were there to protect them, so the revelation of Palpatine being evil was much more difficult for Anakin, cause now he knows that the leader of the Republic that he had served and the father figure he had needed so much is, what only the Jedis call evil, so there was too much mixed feelings for Anakin. Palpatine supported Anakin on purpose constantly told him that he was "becoming the greatest Jedi" giving him this feeling of importance that parents often give, so how could he deny this.. Where as Luke and his friends fight the evil Empire anyway and it represented everything that they hated. So the knowledge of Vader being his father was too much, cause all the basis for his life was suddenly gone, the target of Lukes hatred was wrong.

Luke: "I am a Jedi, like my father before me."
Surviving and unable to avoid the fact, Luke again seeks confrontation with his real father, and whats most important: with acceptance of the fact that Vader, the so-called ultimate evil, really is his father. He goes to Vader and Palpatine and again Luke chooces the almost certain death to joining the evil, for the second time, when Anakin had failed at the first try. The saga ends to the point where Anakin who never had a father, sees that his own son, who he did not raise himself, loves him enough to trust his life in front of the Emperor (formerly known as Palpatine). Kind of unconditional love that he has never experienced. At this point Anakin gets all the recognition he has ever needed, the void of never having a father is surprisingly filled from unexpected feeling of being one himself, so and decides to end the manipulative and demanding relationship to Palpatine, and saves his son, who despite all the things Vader represents, believes in him. Vader sort of accepts that hes search has been futile, but sees that he is now on the other side and has now a chance to take the place of the father he should be.

There is this close-up shots just before the act of saving, which i think is the only shot, or series of shots, that had some extra meaning with the "new saga". In that shot we see the story of Anakin gathered to this one moment. But then again, it worked without the new saga..

Like the quote above states, that even though Lukes father had become a dark lord, he had a father, therefore he has something to cling on to, he wants to be a Jedi, like his father was, there is a meaning in that. Where Anakin was to become a Jedi, cause, well, he had no place else to be. Some one told him that he must be cause he is so good at it. But in the light of the new episodes, Luke is no longer a leading character, but supportive to Darth Vader in completing his story.

A famous film theorist Zizek said that in the birth-death scene, Anakin becoming Vader, we see the ultimate nightmare, our father becoming immortal. And this is what the old saga is about. There is this Dark figure that dominates everything, until the final confrontation of father and son.

But where Zizek was wrong, was that, at first, Anaking never wanted to be immortal. Both Anakin and Luke suffer from attachment to the persons near to them. I mean they can´t bear the thought of them dying or even being hurt and are always running to help them. They don´t trust their loved ones to survive them selves, they have this kind of narcissistic thing going on, where they their friends exist only to compensate some missing feelings of importance and safety.. Of course this has to do with the person surviving himself, but from my point of view Anakin does not seek a path to immortality, he seeks only to make sure that the persons he loves stay alive, what matter the consequences. This is stated very clearly in many Anakins lines in the movies "Someday I am able to stop people from dying!" and "I won´t let you die" and so on. Actually it is the good side of the force, the Jedis that find a way to make themselves immortal. There is only talk about this some sith lord able to save others from dying, but then not able to avoid being killed themselves.

So Zizeks Freudian theory of never dying father being the ultimate nightmare is somewhat irrelevant, I think. And takes things out of the wholeness of the story and manipulates the story and character to fit the spychoanalytic analysis. This seems to be common for this sort of analysis. He should treat the StarWars saga as a whole, cause he takes the basis for his Darth Vader-theory from Episode 3 but it only aplies in episodes 4-6. So in that way it becames a bit meaningless.

Through my view, view of Vader being the main character, all of the Star Wars films seem to be about finding the lost father. Anakin does not choose to became immortal(or in a sense immortal), he needs to become, because had he died in the burning lava after Obi-wan cut of both of Anakins legs, the longing for acceptance and love would never be fulfilled, and finally he dies right after the moment it has fulfilled. In the scene where Anakin almost dies, he does not beg for anyone to come for his help he just shouts "I HATE YOU!" to Obi-wan, as if now that he hates everybody he could as well die..
This somehow connects to the scene where Luke jumps down in ESB, seeing what his father was, makes life feel too unbeareble and meaningles and he feels that he´d rather die, but Luke survies the fall for the same reason as Anakin survided the burn.
The Zizeks explanation of Darth Vader is at least totally inadequate. As we see right in the beginning of Empire Strikes Back, is that Darth Vader is no overlord, that he obeys the Emperor still as an apprentice. In episode 4 Vader is all the time under the power of Grand Mof Tarking, he orders, Vader obeys. And as we can understand with the help of the new saga, this is the only thing that Anakin has ever wanted; to obey and get recognition about the good work he has done. He tries forever to be the "good son" he never could be. That´s why Vader is constantly shown to kill his vassals, when they fail to do the jobs Vader needs them to do. The whole saga ends with the death of the false father figure, the true source of all evil!!

At Luke does not treat Vader as this dark father figure that must be defeated, in Episode 4 there is no confrontation directly between Luke and Vader, Episode 5, the firs saber-duel Luke still thinks Vader killed his father, Episode 6 They fight for a time, but Luke repeatedly says "I will not fight you father" and Vader is the aggressive one, because of the Emperors will.

In Return of the Jedi, Luke still has chance to think if he would joins his father and complete their relationship as the Emperor wants, but if he does that, they´ll both be under Emperors might, and by joining Darth he would never find his real father.

If Luke is Vaders son, therefore there must be something of Vader in him, so it must work the other way around also. And because of this the final battle is not between Vader and Luke, but Luke and Palpatine, the Empreror. Vader intervenes, he wakes up from the dream that started in Episode III, killing the younglings and all that, and now kills the false father figure that has been around for so long and finally gets to see the acceptance and love of his son. Now, when the false father of Anakin has died, he can be a father himself, for the brief moment. He asks Luke to take the Vader mask of, which he psychologically does not need anymore, or which Luke has already taken off in a way. "Let me look at you with my own eyes." Anakin becomes what he never had, the thing he could never own. The saga could have ended there: The real father and son are united for the first and the last time. Had there not been all the other characters of course.

This theory might explain why the new Star Wars saga is so badly directed. I don´t know, but if Lucas had some father-son trouble of his own, the feelings might have been too clear for him self, so clear that he could not, or forgot to transmit them to the audience. So that we would know whats going on.

End question: Do you know how many times a hand is cut off in all the Star Wars films? Everybody gets their hands cut off!?! The theme of cut-off hands? Could some one tell me whats the idea behind that?

Boba Fett Hoodie by Marc Ecko

2008-10-03T09:34:00.007+03:00

When I was a young boy, buying star wars- and other films related clothes, I always would have preferred the clothes worn by the characters in the films, not these clothes with pictures of the characters...

Well, now, about 15 years later, thanks to a friend of mine I found out that someone else had thought like me and made this:

I tried to order this but the shop was not able to send any orders outside US..Why?. And now they are all out of stock.

I know, it looks like some 90´s rapper outfit, or something out of 90´s cyberpunk films. There is an older edition by same designer that looks like something stolen from a homeless person. That I don´t want. They are sold in eBay for ridiculous prices.
So in case they bring more of these to the market, and if anyone from US happens to read my blog, get me this hoodie, Size L, please! :)

Monte Rosso review and the "short story film" project

2008-09-30T09:45:00.019+03:00

Finnish Film Foundation and Yle have started a great project to produce 4 "short story films" every year. The films are supposed to be about 30 mins, so they are not quite short films nor tv-films. The funding is something around 170 000 euros per film and the scripts are chosen by careful choosing process.

I think that this is a great thing and for the looks of the films that have already been made, the quality is at least promising. In the sense that this kind of film, which is produced professionally and usually with high ambition, it might have an effect to the Finnish feature film business.

Not to mention the benefit for young film students who get the chance to work in these projects, like me for example. Due to the fact that I´ve already edited 2 short story films, and will soon be editing third, my views could be argued as biased.

Well, during the last weeks there has been a lot of talk about the film made by the Madventure-guys, Monte Rosso. It is a story about a guy who looks forward for the weekend, a chance to chill out and smoke some weed and maybe meet a girl or two. The story takes as to a trip around Helsinki and we meet a few colorful characters along the way.

Monte Rosso is a feel good-movie and a funny one at times. There is a lot of Helsinki slang in it and the main point has been to show a certain view of life in Helsinki today.

Well, the story is small and the characters are quite simple and familiar. The leading character is a normal guy who works at a restaurant and his goal in life, at the moment, is to chill and meet chicks. Of course he has no money and that makes life difficult. Side note: We see many times that he checks his bank account, and there is only 3 euros. Still, we see couple of times him going to a bar and buying a beer, which costs, at least the district he hangs in, about 4-5,5 euros.

Well, anyway, the other characters are the Friend, who seems to have no character at all. He is just a guy he hangs out with.

Then there is the laid-back Weed-man. Who drinks tea in his apartment and talks slowly and doesn´t want to be disturbed.

Then we have the Bad guy and his gang of muscle.

And then we have the Girl. Who seems to be attracted to any guy who looks at her, but then we realize that she just uses the guys for her own pleasure, lets them buy drinks to her and take her to picnics etc, with out a real interest in the persons who do this to her.

Simple, but the way this kind of characters work is that they are portrayed in a fresh way or, more importantly with good actors. There is nothing funny in a bad character played by a bad actor. Which is the situation in all of the characters in this film, exceptions only the lead guy and the girl. This is why the film gives a feeling of amateurism and teenage-humor.
Which is only catalyted by the constant showing of weed and cannabis products. And the constant talk about them. I have nothing against this kind of thing in films, nor in real life, but in this film, smoking of weed is portrayed as something exiting and overly essential, giving, again a image of teenage enthusiasm to these kind of products. Which I think is kind of embarassing.

Only clearly positive side of the film is the somehow capturing start of the film, and the fact that everyone bicycles everywhere.

The structure is similar to a film I made earlier, a man leaving a place he dislikes (this case: work), meeting up with his friend, falling in love with a girl, getting a vehicle ( a new bike, old is stolen), getting the supplies (in this case: weed) and going to a party (party=picnic) .
I am only saying this to prepare for the reason why I had to write something about this film:

My opinon is, that had this film been made by any other guys and even more, in an other city, the only publicity there might have been, if noticed at all, could have been something like "Do youngsters really use this much drugs?" in some evening newspaper.

I know for my own experience that if something is made in and about a small town, there is a lot of local publicity, no matter what the content or quality of the product made is. But the problem with Newspapers in Helsinki, like Helsingin sanomat, is, that it is not a local newspaper, everyone reads it in Finland, cause all the other newspapers seem to be quite badly written. Eventough my opinion about Helsingin Sanomat has shaken during the last years, seeing that it is also quite narrow viewed and sometimes has truly bad journalism in it, I still think of it as the best newspaper in Finland..well what can one say if there can be found more objective film rewievs in Iltasanomat that in HS!?

But also, being an editor I claim that there is no reason for Monte Rosso to be 38minutes long. Of course every artwork grows to its organic lenght, but being that long it conlicts the aim of "short story films" and puts in danger the whole project of FFF and Yle. Especially when it easily could have been shorter.

Now, I must remind, I kind of liked Monte Rosso. But my problem is the media. Why it has been risen over all the other short story films and why people talk of it as an incredible debute movie? There is nothing wonderous about the fact that 2 guys who have done a marvelous tv-series manage to make a 38minute film..?

Today there was a analogy published between Mika Kaurismäki´s Liar and Monte Rosso in the HS. Well, a fair analogy and a ok one, but for me, there is a danger for a profanation there :) . Well, they both take place in sunny Helsinki and both have a lead character who "wanders around" and it is quite interesting do compare the view of this "wandering" which is drastically different. But this kind of publicity gives people a view that these movies are the same or done by the same reasons or something..

Monte Rosso shows, possibly by intention, a view of life that is known from many of teenage-comedies, and many know it by their own experience. It shows it in a way which gives no new angle to it and has nothing to offer for a deeper meaning. This might be the point: sometimes we just want to chill out. But this is still an immature view to an immature, but true world. The people who are enthusiasts for this kind of living will like it, for others it gives almost nothing but few funny moments, which is then again, more than some other films can ever give. I think, having done a film similar to this once, it is not enough for a film to be praised for.

Well, I must admit, that being part of the other films and having done a film that is much like monte rosso, (but with out weed), might have triggered this. So I apologize if some of my views are misplaced. Please correct me if you feel like I am wrong!

And Now I noticed, that I could have used this time to write something about some other movie, but ended up giving Monte Rosso some more publicity :)

It is done!

2008-09-27T16:03:00.005+03:00

Yes, the editing with steenbeck is over! At least for now. We decided to send the film to sound post production, and after the first sound version we´ll take a look and see if any changes are needed.

Great! At the beginning there was moments where I was certain that the film won´t be finished and I felt quite a bit anguished at times. But, as people told me, it got a lot of easier with time and the "rounds" of editing became quicker.

As I said earlier, my opinions about the material and working methods were a bit coloured by the fact that I was stressed out about timetables and felt a bit frightened with the job that needed to be done. But everything ended well, although I had to edit 2 things at the same time and this has been quite time demanding.

But, nothing else now! The deeper look to editing with steenbeck and the effect it has is still coming someday.The final film is in down left corner. The boxes are the left over material to be archived for a while, if needed.

A bit gloomy stuff now.

2008-09-24T10:08:00.006+03:00

I think everyone realizes that we are trough blaming video games, music, movies and the internet, or even bad friends and family for the violence done by young adults in this country, or anywhere. The answers are not found by making a distance between the wrong-doers and our selves. "He was a drug addict!" "He spent too much time on the internet!" "He was a drop out and didn´t have a proper human relationship."

Although some of this might be true in some cases, they are not reasons for mindless acts of violence. There are a lot of people who have been mistreated as a child or bullied at school but they don´t end up killing people. And this kind of reasons don´t distinct the offender from you and me.

Aren´t we all humans? Aren´t we all Finns?! The only way we are ever going to understand what went wrong, why this happened, is that we try to identify and put ourselves in the position of the offender and ask: What would it take, for me to be in that situation? At what point I would make the same irrational choice? How much bad things of life would have to be on my shoulders so that I would not see any other choice.

And why wouldn´t I see any other way, cause I think for many of us it is harder to see his kind of action as a choice anyway.. I know that this might seem distant and distressing for many.

And to be clear, even tough I say that this is the only way to finding out, it seems be too hard for me also, to try to imagine this.

But My point is, that these kind of people did not come someplace else than you and me. And why they ended up to be so different than you and me, we can not ask them. Only by this way someone can find the answer and through that,see what is wrong with our society. So wrong that it allows this kind of tragedy to happen.

Handguns

2008-09-23T17:05:00.018+03:00

From wikipedia:
In comparison to longer guns such as shoulder firearms (rifles and shotguns), handguns are smaller, lighter, and easier to carry. Since firearms don't rely on the user's strength, they put weaker individuals on an equal defensive footing; when Colt produced the first practical repeating handgun, it gave rise to the saying "God created men, but Colt made them equal".^[8]^,^[9]

Another important tactical consideration in the context of civilian self-defense is maneuverability. An attacker in close quarters with the defender could more easily wrestle a long gun's muzzle to a position where it is not covering him, or could more easily wrestle the gun away from the defender, whereas a handgun offers little to grab, and would be more likely to still be covering some portion of the attacker during the struggle.
-----------------------------------------
We do not live in U.S.A. We do not have a constitution that states that everyone has the right to carry a gun.

A hand gun is not a sports instrument. Although you can shoot target shooting with it, it does not make it a target-shooting weapon. One can shoot targets with a paintball-gun and no one does that. Or one can keep papers in piles by using a laptop as a weight but they aren´t sold for that purpose. Rifles and other long range guns can be described as sports or hunting tools, so why not target shoot with a rifle??

If someone can give me one reason why anyone should be able to buy a handgun, please tell me. The only restriction in Finland is that you have to be a certain age ( 16 or 18 I think ) and you have to belong to a shooting club.

I am not saying that banning handgun-sales would end for example school shootings. I am not that naive.I am also not arguing that restricting the selling of handguns would reduce criminality or murders.

I am just saying that society does not need to encourage and make things like that so easy!

If one insist on shooting target with a handgun, the handguns could be held at the shooting range, like tha goals and balls often are in sports arena, and in the evenings a janitor puts them behind a lock. Don´t they do something like that in England?!
if for example cannabis (the first thing that came to my mind that is a thing you can get seriously punished for possession, I don´t support legalization) is too dangerous to be sold in pharmacies, then why are handguns sold? What does a person need a handgun for? In Finland I mean? Here, where only one firm has the right to sell liquor and wine?

Maybe countries with serious problems with criminality, corruption and unstable political situation, where there is truly dangerous to go out at night..maybe places like that. But Finland is not yet like that. Do we have to wait it to turn into that?

And it is not an argument to say that it is ones right to own one. Maybe it is. Some people see that it is their right to paint walls with graffities or walk naked on the street. Or download copyrighted stuff from the net, but it is still not legal.

True man fights with his fists. "You win some, you lose some, but you´ll always live"

Tools and styles

2008-09-20T21:00:00.001+03:00

I must confess that I´ve partly been wrong about certain matters. The fact still is, that computers, cameras, steenbecks, pens and brushes are all just tools to deliver a message and if a letter is written with a quill pen or with a computer the content stays the same. Or does some one disagree?

But, when talking about art and why not letters, there is still something that the tools and the medium delivers and contribute to the wholeness of the work. At an age when it is common to write a letter with email, what would it express if someone sent you a hand written letter, written with an ink quill pen? Well, atleast that he/she has possibly written the letter many times, if the text is clean and there are no errors. Or atleast the writer has thought about it carefully before writing it, and possibly concentrated much more to the actuall writing, drawing the letters, than it would have been necessary with a computer. But does this change the message? If the letter has some bad news? If it is a love letter, then it could be understood, but almost any other letter would seem odd, don´t you think? So we live in a time when we can choose the appropriate medium for our expressions. Therefore the mediums have an effect to the content, or support it in a way.

So, the choice of editing with a steenbeck has been in line with the choice of shooting in 35mm, and unlike I said earlier, it brings a certain value to it. The only thing is that it might be a value that no one else is able to see, than me, the director and possibly other filmmakers...

Even though some might argue that recieving a love letter written with a quill pen would me too melodramatic or romanticism, this is the problem with little style nuances, everyone has their own opinion about them.

I really look forward to seeing this film on screen, without hearing the sound that the steenbeck makes, and there is a sound every time a cut is coming, cause the tapes have glued to the film while being rolled to the reels, and now they are opening and streching, so I can hear every cut. So I hope that seeing it in a digital form gives me this feel of relief, cause now when watching it, every cut feels kinda bad.

Previously posted view of the digital age-director is much due to my own way of shooting and directing. There has not been a single thing I´ve directed that I´ve hadn´t thought trough editing. I mean, during the shooting I´ve thought "Oh, this I can use from this shot, this from the other one, and lets take few more if something else comes up". And ofcourse this is the way to make an outside editor crazy. I hope there will be a day that I have a chance to work with an editor. I really look forward to it and I am planning to use an editor I ever get a film done.

And as I some time a go stated during the shooting of my own short film, shootin a lot of material is not a sign of "indecisivines", sometimes that is the only way to get the look for the film that is carefully planned. So it is not like if the is a lot of shots and variation, that it means that director does not know what he wants, usually it is the opposite. It about the style of the storytelling. But I think this kind of style has grown with digital editing.

As I spoke about the clear and unclear material before, well, the situation was that the mechanics of using steenbeck took most of my energy and I might have been a bit frustrated about it, so this may have had some effect on my creative thinking :)

But, the experience of editing with film has given me insight more about my self as an editor, than it has about editing a film. Cause editing stays the same, but my attitude and my abilities to use the tools change. This has been interesting.
But I leave deeper contemplation for later.

Trouble

2008-09-13T07:34:00.002+03:00

No, really everything is going ok. I´m just having this illness going on right now, hope it will pass, cause I still have to edit 2 things at the same time. Jalil-film is nearing the end, it looks fine and the duration is something about 30mins 15s. Including end credits so we still have to cut about 20s. out and that is not that much.

I had some deep thoughts about editing, but right now I can´t remember them, cause I woke up with a sore troath too early.

Youtube happenings

2008-08-30T21:40:00.000+03:00

Oh I did not realize that I hadn´t published the previous text. Sorry, well now you get 2 texts in one day. Hope you have the strength to read both...well this is short.

Yesterday I went to panic when I came home and opened my messenger and it informed me that I had over 600 new mails in my hotmail. I thought that this was some sort of spam-mail attack but went to look anyway.

Well, all the mails were from Youtube, and since I have this option there that youtube informs me always when someone comments some of my videos, these were all comments to one of my videos: Loose joints.

For some reason it was placed to the front page of Youtube- to the "Featured" section and at that time it was watched over 80,000 times. Well now the count is somewhere over 120,000 and rising..

So, now I have some new subscribers and friends in youtube! :) Here is the video:

And this is a video from last summer! The footage is from my slovenia - croatia trip with Eevis and the music is by Eevis also. Its a short fictional story about a girl travelling! Enjoy!

the almost first version

2008-08-26T22:31:00.001+03:00

Soon I have defeated the enormously hard job of fixing the rough cut to first decent cut..but not yet, or almost. There is still some cut-fixing to do, but now the editing is much much more easier when the film is beginning to have some shape.

Few days ago I enjoyed one of the brighter sides of my work. Being at the Sputnik oy, Mr. Kaurismäki visits there occasionally and today I had a chance for a small chat with him. We briefly talked about editing and I whined a bit about this Steenbeck business, being so slow and all, to which he replied "It is much faster than a computer...or have they shot some extra material? If they have shot only what is needed and no more, Steenbeck is a much faster way to edit."

Funny man and very nice and supportive. But this made me think. When I looked at the raw material before I started to edit it, I thought "how nice, this material is really simple and clean". Meaning that it was easy to see what they had thought about in the shootings. Well, during the editing it did not appear so clear to me anymore. I could not tell by looking at the material what was intended and seemed like many shots were shot with out a clear idea where or how to use it.
Well, If I had worked with final cut it would be a clear material, but editing with steenbeck makes you think what you are going to do before you do it, and I noticed that not only is this a challenge for me as an editor, but maybe for the director and cinematographer as well..

It appears so that many directors have completely absorbed the working methods of digital editing. And why shouldn´t they? But it is seen in the material. My guess is, that if, for example all film schools made the directors edit their first film on a steenbeck, they might think an alternate way to shoot a scene, in comparision to being able to edit it digitally.
What I mean is that the knowledge of being able to twist the material to almost any form and try again and again in few seconds might give directors this feel of safety and putting the "decisions" for later, to the editing table.

So in a sense, with digital editing, the emphasis of editing has grown. I did not think like this before I edited with steenbeck. But editors now-a-days usually get all the material, eventhough the selection of shots is usually done with director, but we still have all the material and we can use bits and pieces from here and there and with digital editing the sound editing has become bigger part of film editing, being able to connect different lines to different shots already in the editing room and so on.

And I know, that all this has been possible before digital editing. But it has been much harder. Much slover. Like Kaurismäki said "If they have shot something extra, its slover". Like I assume that he is a man who knows how he wants his picture be framed and knows what he is going to use. That is the reason he often edits his own films. Cause he does not need an editor because he has done most of the editing already in the shoot.

Of course for me, this digital age with "indicisive" directors ( I don´t say this to insult any of the directors I´ve worked with, just pondering about this matter) is much more interesting for me as an editor. I guess I would not be an editor, had there not been this breaktrough in digital editing, about the same time I grew up.

The cowards way...or the smart way?

2008-08-23T16:14:00.000+03:00

So, maybe I now ruined everything, or maybe not. If working with film has something to offer, did I neglect the chances of learning by using modern tool to help my editing? Let me elaborate on the matter.

Few days ago I looked the material and was in anguish because of its complexity. My teacher had said that complex dialogue scenes would be better to plan with a pen and paper before cutting the actual film. So I sat there, watching the raw material I had put together and wondered should I start to draw some storyboards or what.. Then my eyes moved on the table and I saw my mobile phone. Nothing happened yet but when I looked it a bit longer I realized that it has a "good quality" video camera in it.. There was not yet a thought in my mind.. I just slowly opened the videocam-opiton from my phone and pointed it to the screen of Steenbeck. At this point the idea formed in my head. "If I shoot with this the raw footage I´ve gathered and done preliminary editing on, I can do the ´demo´of the final edit using this mobilephone video material!" Isn´t that the same as doing it with storyboards?? Even better!? (in picture "the nail closet" a real life replacement for "bin" look down for more info)

So I shot some scenes and went home to edit them. The director found this really funny, but in my opinion it really gives me a big help. I can do the thinking as I would do it normally in editing, but then go there to cut the film, using the video as a reference. And it worked, today I cut one of the scenes I had edited with my laptop and it was easy and fun. So, do I now miss all the teachings that editing with steenbeck has to offer? I believe not. I just speed up the editing, cause I don´t edit the whole film like this. Only the few harder scenes. In my point of view it would be stupid not to use this method for help.

After all, in the movie Space odyssey 2001 the monkeys that learned to use tools, bones as a weapon, defeated the monkeys that did not understand to do this. So it is idiocy not to use all the help that is available. And I still work with the film and I had to overcome some problems concerning the sound. And I did! Although I´m still not using 2 soundtracks, cause I find that hard and weird. I just do edits in different places in sound than in picture. Simple, but keeping the sync wasn´t easy at first.

So, I have only one week time to do this, then I have to start editing this tv-show. So after next week I have to do this on the evenings. But now I feel that this will work, that maybe we can get this film edited someday :)These are the alternate "bins" where I collect the material which I´ve edited out..And this is what I am used to->
Or actually at first I use the nail closet, then I move the film to the bins...

Omnium Gatherum - Nail

2008-08-21T21:00:00.000+03:00

About a week ago I finished the editing of a music video for omnium gatherum. Again I did not want to do the video but somehow I said "ok".

Well we set the date for the shootings, outdoor band-playing-video. I had done some storyboards and quite good plans. Well, when the day of the shootings came, it rained. We shot about 1/10 of the stuff I had planned and stopped shooting. The mood was bad, nobody was happy.

When I went home I stated that this won´t be a video. Waste of money and time. But on one evening I started to edit it and showed a raw version to the band and said "something like this or no video at all". They were all excited about the material for my surprise. Harri just said "do your stuff" and I did.

I am only pleased with the final 20 seconds of the video. I hope I would have had time to do something proper, for example the scene with the red image...that is boring and stupid. But, everybody is happy again.

Omnium Gatherum - Nail (official promo video)

Rough cut - version 0.0

2008-08-19T21:01:00.000+03:00

So, today, after 2 weeks. I finally finished the first assembly of the movie. It is still quite primitive version, whit parts of many takes including the same action/dialogue. From this version I start to scrape the final film.
(in picture: the raw cut reels, duration: unknown)

I must say, I´ve gone through some variable emotions during these 2 weeks. The knowledge that the time wont be enough always pops to my head and if I am doing something difficult, the indignation starts to rise.

Sometimes it has been hard to control the rage that boils, but mostly I´ve been doing fine. I guess now I am at the point that every other day feels good and every other bad.

I just mostly think "Why am I doing this?" . Today I thought about development in mechanics and all these electronics. And the over all importance of all these equipments. Like a cellphone is basically totally unnecessary, but when it was invented, suddenly everyone had one and now, it is hard for me, for example, to think about living with out it. So even though the human race managed with out a cell phone for all these years, was there a need for that kind of equipment in our species or culture? Cause if it had been a totally unimportant invention, there would not be so many of them in the world. Like for example, I don´t own a tamagochi or whattehell they were, or a palm-computer...
So, before digital editing was invented, people made good films. No doubt about that. But for me, a person who has never used even an analog video-editing system, just edited some stuff with 2 normal vcrs, but basically learned editing with a computer, it seems really, really odd to be editing with Steenbeck. I mean, yes it is cool to use the old-school method. But it feels so hard. It is so ponderous to do..And I still would like to question the fact that it is somehow more real way to do it or more hard-core. I think it is just more harder.

Cause although digital editing has made editing easier and more approachable to everyone, it still requires some skill to do it well, some understanding about things that not everyone seem to understand. Using steenbeck might be the old hand way to do things and it might include some heavy thinking that "the soft generation" today can not do, but I claim that if you find an old editor who has never used Final Cut pro, he might find it quite hard. It is only a question about what have you become accustomed to. Nothing else. Editing basically stays the same.
So at this point, my claim is that I´ll just learn to use steenbeck, but that is all I am going to learn and what we achieve with this? Well, I just hope that the movie will become as good as it would have been If i´ve edited it the normal way. And I possible will be soo tired after all this.

And still, I feel that using digital editing, lets you sculpt the material in a really special way, compared to steenbeck-editing..

but I think we still sometimes miss the romanticism there was in meeting a person, and not being able to keep in touch with him/her all the time with multiple equipments (like facebook, cellphone, messenger...). So is there something in not using the latest inventions of everything? Or is it just stupidity. Sometimes maybe, not all the time.

"So, you think you are a good editor?"

2008-08-13T20:10:00.000+03:00

First full day of real 35mm film editing behind. Before today I was just syncing the material and we watched trough with the director and my teacher came to give me some advices with the editing yesterday.

I tried to do something yesterday, but suddenly I realized the magnitude of work needed and the work being so slow that our timetables would not hold. I got really anxious and could not work at all. Luckily clock was something about 6´00 p.m. so I went home to cure my anxiousness with some jasmine tea.

Today I started fresh but it still seemed hard. It is hard to explain. People call me "a fast editor" or "a good editor". But the thing is, that like with writing, which I prefer to do on a computer because for me it is much faster and more pleasant to write with keyboard, cause with a pen I must concentrate to every letter, cause my handwriting turns really really bad if I write too fast, same thing applies here.

With Final Cut Pro, for example, I don´t need to use the program to edit. What I mean that I don´t feel like I am using some tool to shape the material. I am just shaping it. I feel like I have almost straight contact with the material cause all the versions of all different ways of cutting appear in front of me right a way, almost simultaneously when I think about them. ALMOST. Working with FCP is so fast, when you´ve learned it, of course, that just seeing the material, and with few clicks seeing the cuts, lets you imagine in a very concrete way.

People always talk about the different way of thinking. Well, that is true. But right now I am not convinced that the thinking method with steenbeck-editing is in any way better than with digital editing.
It requires that you visualize the cuts beforehand in your head. This you can do with a computer instantly. Here you look at the material, think that "this might work" then you do it, then you evaluate. The process is in its simplicity the same with digital editing, but at this stage, I feel that there is a machine between me and the material. This is of course present with all new instruments.

But the way I´ve learned to use digital editing, which enables me to work fast with it, I cut corners with some stages of thinking, editing with digital edit is more like feeling for me. I never think about my first versions. Or not that much, I just make what feels good, then I watch it, and see that some of it is good, some of it is bad.

This sounds bad, I know. "with digital editing you don´t have to think". But that is not what I mean. Or even if it was, that still would be a good thing I think, cause for editor, feeling is as much important than thinking rationally. Even more important and for me, it is good that feel comes before rational though and not the other way around.

What I mean is just that with Steenbeck, it takes a very long time to complete a single cut. So during that time, at least for a beginner, you have to concentrate on doing the right markings, keeping the sync and rolling the left over material to left-overs reel and do all the taping and cutting. All this time is away from thinking about the film itself.

So, it might be that this procedure becomes mechanic for me that I don´t have to think about all the stages, but still... There is some reason that I still write with computer and not with a pen. And I believe that it is not only because it is just easier.

This connects straight to one other thought I´ve had aboud editing. It´s about all the people that talk about the beauty and power of editing and use examples of Eisensteins´ montage. . . Yeah that is a cool thing.and interesting. But the real power of editing comes with the feeling of the material. The ability to evolve already shot scenes with actors to the next stage, only with choosing the right moments and what to leave out and what to show and editor also can think about how to show it. Emotional editing. And I don´t mean pictures connected with weird ways. Just a simple conversation scene for example. A really good editor is found through these kind of scenes.

Syncing is done!

2008-08-09T08:39:00.000+03:00

Now I´ll rest for the weekend and see on Monday if the reels really are all in sync. After the screenings begins the editing, which will be interesting.Before the film cutter was invented, or the film splicer, editors cut the film with scissors, stropped the frames with sandpaper and glued them together. After adding the glue they hold the glued frames with 2 fingers for about 10 seconds. Then the cut was done.

Dr. Leo Catozzo was editing Fellinis´La Dolce Vita (Now if I am wrong, please correct me), and during the editing, I guess he got frustrated to the constant changes and versions Fellini wanted to see, and he started to think that there must be an easier way to do edits. Why cant we use just simple tape? would it hold? what about the perforation-holes on the sides? Well, he started to design a machine and soon enough the guy invented the Self- Perforating Adhesive Tape Film Splicer.
It has a track for the film to go in, and little metallic holders for the perforation holes. The topside opens and you can put the film there, and on the right side there is a blade to cut film with.After you´ve cut the film you move the film to the right side of the splicer, so that the end is in the middle, and the other end, which you want to cut to, to the other side, so that the cut is in the middle of the splicer, and use the tape which can be seen in the middle of the splicer in the photo. Then you press the thing down with some strength and the splicer cuts the tape and does perforation holes also. This thing takes about 10 second. So in its time this was an awesome improvement, and possibly saved many editors lives out of stress-related deaths.

So the good doctor Catozzo got a patent for the machine became very rich, stopped editing films, bought a mansion at an island somewhere and lived nicely there. And might still be living, I could not find any birth dates or like that on the net, so lets hope he enjoys himself where ever he is.

Of course, from my point of view even using the film splicer takes a lot of time, cause I am used to the little "razor icon" on the screen that i can click. Or even better the fast key for it on my keypad.

Proceeding with syncing sound with images

2008-08-07T21:25:00.000+03:00

On Tuesday I worked 10 hours, on Wednesday 11 hours and today, Thursday 12 hours. There seems to be too few hours in a day. Today I left work just because I counted that I won´t get enough rest for tomorrow, if I don´t leave now.
(in picture: film cutter )

My working tempo has improved and if everything goes well I have all the scenes in sync by tomorrow evening. But if everything doesn´t go well...Like today at around 7:30 p.m when I had been working already over 11 hours. I was going to ad one shot to a reel, when I noticed that almost the whole reel, except few of the last shots are out of sync about 2 frames. I started to fix this, and when I was nearly finished, I realized that I had not gone from the beginning to end fixing the mis-sync, but from end to beginning, rewinding, and fixing the sync. This was a great mistake. The problem would have been fixed by adding 2 frames to the beginning of the reel, but now I added 2 frames to 10 different shots in a reel, so the first shot that I fixed was now something like 18frames out of sync. I realized this when I was nearly finished, and started to fix it again, removing all the other "fixes"besides the first one...how foolish of me.

But this is something that at least I need to work on: Linearity. Computer editing is non-linear. And it truly is that. I sometimes hear that in comparison to Steenbeck editing, digital editing has different "direction" in editing than in Steenbeck. People sometimes speak about editing "on the right side" on the computer, or "on the left side" on Steenbeck. Yes, on Steenbeck you do the editing on the left side of the table, but on a computer, there is no sides. You can edit however you want. Not on the right or the left, but on both or in the middle or up and down if you will. So..Nonlinear editing has made it difficult for me to always understand that things are linear.. but of course this is not a major problem.Here you can see some film cases on the upper shelf. Below that you can see (from the right) some empty film, for the beginning of the reels or where there is no image but it is needed, some empty sound (the blue thing) for the same purpose. Some cleaning liquid for the sound sensors, and some sound reels for syncing.

I have some anecdotes to tell, as soon as I get some time to write here properly. Now some sleep.

Editing with the Steenbeck apparatus

2008-08-05T20:01:00.000+03:00

So, now that I again do something that differs a bit from my everyday doings I might as well write about it here, cause I feel empty and out of ideas.

Today started the editing of Jalil- shortfilm, at Sputnik-production company. I am editing it the "old school way", I cut 35mm film, I roll the reels. I tried to talk my way out of this, I just wanted to edit it with my laptop or something, you know, the usual way, but the producer and director were quite strict about this and laughed at my worries about working with real film.
Many times I emphasized that I have no idea about how to work with film or with the Steenbeck apparatus. But everybody told me that it was going to be fun and I would learn it in a few days or something.

Well, last week I went to see the horrific apparatus and my teacher from school came to give me some advices about using the ghastly machine. The main thing now is that working with Steenbeck is soooo slow. But it is different than computer being slow. If computer is slow, you get mad and start to hit it and your blood veins start to pop from your eyes and temples, but steenbeck goes as fast as you can use it. You have to rewind the material all the time, you have to check the sync all the time, you have to do your little markings all the time and make sure they are correct. So it is kinda like more natural way of working, even tough you operate an infernal gizmo.

What I noticed right away is that it feels really good not having to work with computer all the time. You can not just click the screen and go to check your facebook site, see the status updates of your friends and you can not check your e-mail every 5 minutes. I find this really soothing. The one thing I hate in editing is the fact that you have to sit in front of a computer all day, and when you have free time at the evenings or weekend, and you have time to write or something, you always end up sitting in front of a computer. If you are not outside.

What bothers me a bit is the fact that picture and sound never really meet while working with film. They are always separate and that makes me feel uneasy. Working with computer you sync the sound and picture to the same file and they stay that way. With film you just make the film and sound the same length. So every time you load a reel you have to check the sync.

But quite quickly I got rid of the first weird feeling of handling the real film material. That you have to really pull and roll and touch and cut the film. This was something that I thought about before I started working with film, that it must feel weird, but that feeling went away fast. At first I didn´t even dear to touch the film, at the end of the day (I worked 11 hours at the first day) I grabbed it and pulled it and made some strange markings to it and cut it with no worries..
So, let´s see what tomorrow brings, I only have this month to cut this film. It should be 28 minutes long. Im not sure how much material I have cause I can not count from the reels given to me.

I got almost 3 scenes to sync on the first day. There were many delays and I worked slowly, I hope my tempo quickens.. but there are 22 scenes so a good start! :)

randomal thoughts about my music taste

2008-07-25T10:19:00.000+03:00

I just saw my favourite band Anathema, live yesterday. My common opinion about live shows is that they tend to be boring and most shows resemble watching people work out in a gym. This is of course result of not connecting to the show emotionally, when only thing left with out the emotional connection is just watching sweaty people playing guitar and standing on a stage.
It is hard for me to find anything so interesting in that, that I could stand it for a hour or more. Usually the fact of not knowing all the songs adds to this disconnection.

This kind of approach seeds from the fact that there is not much music which means anything to me on a personal level. Or even less artists or bands who have a spectrum of songs that would all appeal to me. I am not a good music listener, or not in the sense that I would remember who´s song was this and what was the name of the song and what other songs is on that record. Not to mention the fact that I rarely like music just for what it is. I need some mental image or a strong feeling which connects to the music and occupies my mind for the time I listen to the song. This is the reason why I sometimes listen to just one song on a repeat over and over again. Cause I am not just listening the song, my mind wonders in the world that the song helps it create.

This is partially the reason I like the new CMX record, Talvikuningas, so much. It creates a strong environment with the music and the lyrics. And this applies to other CMX records also, but I think it is the most clearest in the newest one. Not to mention that the music is actually really good and the records has some cinematic value on it, in the story and structure. Weird thing is that the music on Talvikuningas is, in my opinion, sometimes really heavy, more than the "heavy" or heavy metal that seems to be so popular these days, but I don´t consider the record to be a heavy metal record. because it is not..but anyway.

From this can also be found the reason for my interest in music videos. There was I time when I strongly believed that music video can, and should ad something to the musical and emotional message of the song, using images and situations to communicate or dig deeper to this kinda abstract world . But maybe because I myself failed to do videos like that or that the mental images and feelings differ so much from person to person, I don´t think that so much anymore and definitely don´t feel the need to do music videos. Some day it would be fun to do a videos exactly like i see them in my head, but I guess that it will never be possible, if I don´t do animations, and I dislike animations.

But, talking about Anathema, I think I´ve listened them about 10 years now. And why my interest has lasted so long, might be because of the fact that me and Anathema have had some kind of simultaneous growth, or process in the music/taste of music. Anathema started as a doom metal band (never actually my cup of tea) and progressed its way through melancholic metal to what it is today.

The fact that some of the older song are quite silly, being so over dramatic, can be enjoyed because of the emotional connection to the time when I myself had no criticism towards them. This is a thing that only a long time listening to a certain band enables, cause the songs have different meaning during different times in ones life, and they all pile up. There is also the side of nostalgia-trip there, but that is more the case while listening the songs home on cd. I suppose the artists themselves see the songs from a different angle cause their music is slightly different now a days, and the live show ( that I was actually really afraid to go see ) proves the fact. Now, this has nothing to do with being ashamed of what was in the light of what is now, or with being ironic towards it etc., but to accept every aspect of your own work and existence and using the same base from where the older stuff came with the situation of today. The duality is important and all the good films and songs have a duality in them.

About the gig, it was overwhelming to see the energy of the band. Positive energy. I especially enjoyed the songs played from Alternative 4, a really dark record and sometimes hard to listen. At the gig, the feelings were real, but the range of feelings was much wider. Anathema plays really emotional music, and what separates them from all the emo-dark-gloomy bands is that their music has a different approach in it (from what I´ve seen, and that is not much). Playing angsty music doesn´t mean that you have to be sad and gloomy on the stage. Its about communicating emotions and releasing the energy of the emotion trough the song...or something. Anyway I think that the same applies to performing arts (like a band show) like to everything else, that you must internalize the idea in the core, and then learn to transmit it out.

And I think this was achieved in the gig. Of course this is also present in their albums, but it is much more hard to find.They seemed happy guys who enjoyed their music and even during the slower more dark songs the energy was there ( i just now can´t find any other word for it than energy). They had a small rockstar-thing going on, which kinda gave the gig the "gym" effect, but that was acceptable side effect of the energetic show. And this should not be misunderstood, its good to be physical on the stage and play loud etc. but done with out motive or feeling that comes trough to the audience it looks like working out. But that wasn´t the case here, just clearing this thing.

Small detail of the mood change of Anathema is that the played an older song which last lines are "nothing left, but to kill my self again." From alternative 4 record, but at the end of the song the singer just said "nothing left, but to. . .(mumbling..)" where in the record the killing part is shouted out.. .

In a way Anathema succeeded in what I would like someday to do in a film of mine. I wish to show hard and sometimes depressing and anguishing emotions and situations, but whit the understanding and acceptance towards them. They are a part of life and we must deal with them and there is nothing wrong about sometimes feeling sad and gloomy, cause what other choices we have? And through all this agony what the core feeling that is transmitted is not misery but happiness and hope.

So these were the thoughts of the morning after the gig, still a bit shaken and not thinking too clearly. Maybe this wears of during the day...but I am happy that I went to see the gig and maybe I´ll go to see them again if I have a chance. Maybe.

Some news

2008-04-19T20:20:00.000+03:00

Hi,
Here is the video I shot during easter. Some of you may wonder why it is so old school and nothing as fancy as the previous videos I´ve made...but thats just the way it is now. A nice little project and everybody is happy:

So, some dude from leffahullut.fi contacted me and wanted to do an interview and an article about the short film We Can Not Stay Here. Weird, I was surprised but of course also excited about it. So let´s see what will happen.

I attended to a documentary shootings, a new film by Kanerva Cedesrtröm. I was a dude with hair pointing to the sky:
I did a new personal record, I edited a music video during one day and on the second day i did some trimmings and exported it out. It is a music video for poets of the fall, but the project had nothing to do with the Nokia-thing I mentioned earlier. This one director just contacted me and asked me to edit it. But I had so little time that I decided to edit it in one day. I have had some good feedback of it already, although it is still in production, there will be massive animated backgrounds and so on on the video, so stay tuned!

Projects.

2008-03-28T11:13:00.000+02:00

It has been a while since I´ve written here about the projects I´ve been doing or I´m going to do. Thats because I don´t see the point anymore in writing here things that I do cause I do kinda same things all the time. Other reason is also that I am not sure anymore about what is appropriate to write here, cause many of my projects and daily doings include people and situations that I alone don´t have the right to write about publicly. Or atleast thats my view. And one could question the publicity, cause I know that only about 4 persons read my blog :)

But, during easter I reluctantly agreed to shoot a music video for upcoming Finnmetal band Pohjoinen Kuri. At first I didn´t want to do the video cause I have some personal issues about doing no-budged music videos now-a-days. But since the producer and the band seemed to be really nice fellows I agreed and we shot 2 days and everybody had fun I think. I improvised the situations and shooting angles and framing and all that, so the look became somewhat documentaristic..or not so shiny MTVlook atleast. But I think that was the thing wanted in this case. It was a nice little shootings, for me the main thing was to get in touch again in camera work and get out from the editngroom.

But, now I am again back in the editing room with the video!

Last week I won the Nokia trends Lab / Poets of the Fall-musicvideo competition! I was shocked cause at first I thought that it was a competition for children and I had ruined some boys dream to meet POTF, cause I personally don´t enjoy their music. Anyway, I went to this horrid Nokia-event to get my phone, and I "got" to meet the guys of POTF and "had a chance" to shoot their gig, with my new multimedia apparatus. It was Ok, since I met Stobe who is a celebrated musicvideo director and I also made some job contacts there. Possibly.
And ofcourse I was relieved when I met the other 2 who had won and they were ordinary people, and their videos were much better than mine. But still I felt that I cheated cause I did my video on one evening, where those 2 used about 3 weeks to do theirs. And the phone is awesome, although now every time someone sees me talking to it I have to explain that I did not pay for the phone, cause it is ridiculously expensive.

So now I am starting to edit a 28min shorfilm by Juho Kuosmanen. It is the first job where I am fully employed editor whit more than a decent salary :)
After this film I have nothing yet for the summer, but I have a feeling that something will come up. In August I get to spend some time with old school editing table Steenbeck, which I use to edit another 28min shortfilm!

I sent my applications for student exchange program to Prague, but the answer will come sometime during summer. so we´ll see if I´m going to spend my fall in the mazed streets of Prague.

Here is 2 old films I redid for a one minute movie contest. Other one is in the wrong picture format.. .. .

Stay tuned for upcoming ramblings about some films I like and the Pohjoinen kuri video will be availeble in a week or two.

There is no gene for faith

2008-03-15T14:45:00.003+02:00

The during the discussion about Fight Club some elements rose up that reminded me of another of my favourite films, or a film that like previous one, has made a strong impresion to me. I started to wonder the characters and the story in this particular film, and how I could compare it to Fight Club or to Demian possibly.
This is an underrated film called Gattaca, from 1997. Story takes place in near future, where children are conceived by genetic manipulation, to create a perfect human. Natural born humans are now a new underclass. Its a story about Vincent who fights against the future predicted for him, from his genes. Gattaca is a basic tale of one mans fight over unbelievable obstacles. So nothing new.

The Lead character Vincent has "invalid genes" and to reach his goals he has to become Jerome Morrow, a good gened guy with bad luck. He buys his personality. He becomes a so called "de-gene-rate", which is illegal of course.
In the world of Gattaca, where genes mean everything, the most unclean, and intimate things, which humans usually don´t exchange with each other, things that might be regarded as dirty, or the Abject maybe, are now the most precious and expensive things and things that matter the most. A big part of becomin Jerome is that Vincent must leave behind traces of the good genes. Humas loose all the time hair, spit, skin, things that all hold the persons individual gene in them. Vincent practically buys Jeromes blood and piss. (because the frequent blood and piss test).
In Gattaca humans personality is diminished to genes. If your blood is good enough, no one cares about anything else. when Vincent and Jerome meet and they don´t look anything alike, but the middleman says that "it is close enough! when was the last time you´ve seen anyone looking at a picture" or something.So now, an outcast man want´s to dive deep in the wrong-gone society and be one of the elite, but being an outcast he has to become some one else. Where in fight club, getting out, becoming an outsider, meant becoming someone else. So the direction is opposite from Fight Club.

The question of individual and personality in proportion to society and its expections and limitations is obvious.

Vincent: I can't go anywhere without seeing my own face. They'll recognize me.
Jerome: They won't recognize you.
Vincent: They'll recognize me.
Jerome: I don't recognize you.

It could be argued that Gattaca shows us what most of us are doing in real life. We have weird imaginations and expectations of our selves and what we should do with our lives, like Vincent has, he wants to go to space, and thats it, no explanations.

In order to attain these goals, like a good job or a career, the society around us gives us no choice but to leave our natural selves behind and become something else. We all must be better, cleaner, more intelligent and more good looking. We must be productive and happy. We willingly do unnatural acts to become these roles we have imagined for our selves. Because we think, or are made to think that we aren´t enough we have to be like society wants us to be, to reach happines or whatever.

Still, Gattaca shows us a hopeful view that anything can be done, but also shows the cost of it. Everything Vincent does, is for his career in space. Is that a good thing?There are 2 men in a really close relationship, which is not approved by surrounding society. And there is the one woman in the middle of them. The relationship between Vincent, Jerome and Irene is somewhat similar to the relationship of the Narrator, Tyler and Marla in Fight Club. Irene is in love with Vincet, but for her he is Jerome, much like narrator is Tyler for Marla. So Irene is in love with the "imagined" person of Jerome Morrow, which is not real, like Tyler isn´t. Of course Vincent can never discuss Jerome with Irene, like in FC "never talk about me" says Tyler.

This arrangement is not the main focus of the movie, but its still clearly there. When the process is reaching its end, the real Jerome kills himself, leaving only the secretion bags for Vincent to last the rest of his life. And when the real Jerome disappears from the world, Vincents identity is also finally destroyed and replaced by Jeromes, by a push of a button. The rebuilding of ones personality is complete, and there is no coming back.

Vincent: [voiceover] For someone who was never meant for this world, I must confess I'm suddenly having a hard time leaving it. Of course, they say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I'm not leaving... maybe I'm going home.

In the movie Vincent has just reached his goal, but having second thoughts, cause he has now conveniently stepped to the life of a "valid", but fortunately he still remembers that his main goal was not getting in to a society of elite-people, but to use it to fly away from it.

So compared to Demian, where a bird must break the shell around it to break free, in Gattaca Vincent had to first built one, then be shipped in it to freedom. :)

A person from the dark world works his way up to the clean and desired world. Element similar to Fight Club are: society that gives the boundaries to fight against, 2 guys in a close uncommon relationship one being the unwanted starting point and the other the goal or the desire, the personality game, the process in which one becomes something new, a synthesis of 2 different factors, and maybe the Soap thing, if it is interpreted that way of the fat that it is made of is now being used to the goals of the characters, like here the real leftovers from human are precious for our main character.Im going to totally set aside the fact that this movie deals with gene manipulation and makes a strong statement about it.

There is the question of brothers in Gattaca. Vincent is a "child of love" a product of passion where is younger, better brother is carefully planned and properly produced child.
Brother becomes a cop who tracks down a killer, who he suspects is Vincent. So this is a kind of Kain and Abel tale, which brings us to Demian and to the Bible of course.
"The mark of Kain" is the mark of Vincent being an "invalid". But it is also the mark from Demians interpretation, mark of desire, power and determination.

Water and swimming play a big part in Gattaca, to be honest, I really don´t know what that is about. The 2 brothers compete by swimming, yes, but they could do it running I guess.. Except being in water is like being in space, there is no way out, you can´t just stop swimming and walk away, you have to swim, or you die. We all swim in the current situation we are in. We can´t stop it if we want to survive.. Maybe that´s the point? Anyways, it is the part that made an affect on me when I saw it the first time. Swimming scenes with the beautiful music score. Check it out.

Jos iltapäivälehtiä ei olisi, mitä emme tietäisi?

2008-03-11T22:06:00.000+02:00

Ja nyt kotimaahan.

Kannustan jokaista aamuisin töihin/kouluun menevää järjestelmällisesti repimään kioskien sienistä ja ovista irtilähtevät lööpit.

Näin vähennämme yhdessä maamme roskainformaation leviämistä. Who´s with me?

Alkuperäinen viesti:

Jos vielä kerrankin luen/kuulen uutisia joidenkin yhdentekevien, valtionvirkamiesten tekstiviesteistä tai muista asioista joita henkilöt tekevät vapaa-ajallaan, näen asiakseni tehdä toimenpiteitä jotta kyseiselle uutisen/artikkelin julkaisijalle/kirjoittajalle langetetaan kuritoimenpiteitä, esimerkiksi pakollinen kurssi median vastuusta ja eettisiä ja moraalisia arvoja seuraavan, kansan sivistystä vaalivan uutisoinnin perusteista.

Turning Demian into a movie

2008-03-02T18:07:00.003+02:00

I´ve had this imaginary plan to interpret Demian by Hermann Hesse for the big screen. This is a project I´ve just rolled around in my head from time to time for 6 months or so, just for the interest of it. Project is in its beginning, nothing is written yet or anything, just some notes done. And of course I realize that this is never going to happen.

First I though that it should take place in the modern society, not in the period before World War 1, like the original story. But soon noticed that the time and the surroundings have too much to do with the story and the meaning of it that I just started to do gather the main events and characters and developments of the story, keeping it in its original surroundings. Like it should be.

But today I started to think that If the story is put to present day, all the symbols and meanings had to be changed, all but the basic story of Sinclairs (main character) development as a person from displaced and scared, and somehow missled person to understanding his significance and true self, in the context of the state of the world around him, and finding the same patterns from the whole world that he finds in himself.

-- Now follows a long and possibly pointless comparison of a book Demian, and a movie, Fight Club. This is insane, I know. I should probably read the book Fight Club, but the point is, that if Demian should be translated into a film about this time, could it resemble Fight Club and is Fight Club somehow the Demian of the 90´s? I am not saying that Fight Club is as good as Demian, but examining their similarities just as a curiosity. The point might be that the basic story is somehow architypical (?) and thats the main and only reason for any similarities. One difficulty is that movies and books use different kinds of methods of expressing things, but thats partly what this is about. And just to point out: I am not over excited about Fight Club. This just came to my mind today. --

So in Demian the main things are Sinclairs religious up bringing and the struggle of the "light" and "dark" worlds. Meaning the traditional (way of the parents and teachers) and way of the "outsider"seen as dark and forbidden, alternate way of interpreting things and living ones life. And there fore the whole state of European culture at the time had the same arrangement in it self. Old traditions started to tear themselves apart until it all culminated to WW1. So there is all the time this situation with opposites, with out any synthesis.

In order to move this story to present time, we would have to find analogous phenomenon from the present culture, which could be presented as being on the verge of breaking down.

In Fight Club, there is the empty, clinical and shallow world of white-collar worker whit negligent father who has told him what to do, but not why and never really got to know his sons. It shows a whole generation, which is described in the film ; "We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. "

So there is the abstract culture of jobs for money, money for furniture and fun, but no deeper meaning. No knowledge of the spiritual side of life. Which could be seen as reverse arrangement, but also somehow similar to Demian, cause the old, firm religious tradition keeps young man from getting to know himself taking on a own perspective to life. Shallow traditional and restraining religion has changed into shallow restraining consumerism.

Next comes some obvious, or interpreted similarities, on factual events in the stories.

First, there is the Bully, Kromer, that keeps pulling Sinclair to the "Dark" side of life. In Fight Club, Jack is bullied by his insomnia which starts to notify that everything is not right.

The character arrangement is similar. While Sinclair is in school, he first starts to see Demian, not to talk to him, he just notices this boy with special substance. In Fight Club The Narrator, or Jack, doesn´t really see Tyler, but the audience sees him. On the one frame flashes and going past him on the escalator.

The first time Sinclair meets with Demian, He tells him that the story of Abel and Cain can be interpreted differently than the teachers want them to interpret it. ( Cain having the mark cause he is different and strong, not because he is evil). First time Jack and Tyler meet, Tyler tells him that the safety instructions are there just to give false hope and that one can make explosives from items found at home. Both tell a story which is about looking things in a different light, not the way we are thought to look. On both situations an important element of the story is introduced. In addition to the other character of course.

After this starts the journey for both, Sinclair and Jack, out of the past world to search for something new. Where Sinclair is tossed about in the life of a student, trying to fight his bad feelings and rip everything from the old person away from him, Jack starts literally to fight against the other people with same kind of problem, he fights with Tyler, and as we later on get to know, he fights with himself.

At this point the stories differ, cause Fight Club has taken more obvious view that Jack and Tyler are the same person, where in Demian, Sinclair is not so obviously "same" with Demian, but Demian shows the path and stays behind the curtains, but obsessing the mind of Sinclair. These 2 journeys are different, due to the different natures of the stories, but some similarities can be found.

When Tyler and Jack organize the Fight Club, they (or he) becomes some kind of icon or a celebrity. In Demian, because of Sinclairs "uncertainty" about his own personality and the world around him, he becomes, for a while, a daring "bar hero" drinking the most and talking the meanest things. And he is known to his entire school.

In Demian, dreams have an important role. and they tell us about the state of Sinclairs persona like in Fight Club scenes of fight or arguments with Tyler etc. Also the painting that Sinclair does in the story, which starts as a girl he likes, becomes Demian, then Demians mom Eva, then Sinclair himself, describes the lack of consistency of Sinclairs identity, or the path of finding the connection to his subconsciousness. And almost all the scenes in Fight Club can be seen from this angle.

Sinclair also often contemplates the fact that things that Demian says sound like answers to the questions an thoughts in his own mind. Much like the situation with Jack and Tyler. "Sometimes Tyler spoke for me.."

Cause Sinclair is a young student it is natural for him to paint and think and dream, as in Jack´s situation that would seem odd. So in FightClub the chain of events is presented by scenes of action and mischief.

Tyler saves a character named Marla from suicide in Fight Club. Marla has same kind of problems as Jack, and they form a problematic relationship together. Later on in Demian, Sinclair saves a young boy, Knauer, from suicide. The boy resembles himself when he was younger. In both stories the saving occurs unintentionally, or unconciously. Jack doesn´t remember that he went to Marlas place, cause it was Tyler, but he remembers the sex scene, but thinks he has dreamed of it. In Demian, Sinclair wakes up from a dream, goes out in the middle of the night and just walks "like a sleepwalker" to the place where Knauer is about to kill himself. Knauer develops an obsession to Sinclair for a while after this. Of course Marla plays a much larger part in Fight Club than Knauer in Demian...

Quote from Demian (translated from Finnish to English by me): "The most true calling for one is only this: To become your self. Should it be a poet or a madman, prophet or a criminal - it is not for us to decide, and at the end, it makes no difference."

From Fight Club: Tyler Durden: You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

Fight Club is more individual based, in terms of content I guess. Demian gives a lot more spiritual and possibly hopeful view, where as FightClub is a lot more violent in its opinions and has more harsh tone. And because of the different time periods they deal with different worlds and ideas. Demian dwells in the depth of subconsciousness and the unified soul of the world, finding answers from staring to the fire and listening to music, where as in Fight Club there are the same themes, but answers are found in more concrete level, on the dark streets or basements, doing a thing that most certainly feels and is real, fighting.

Demian describes an end of an era, Fight Club is done in the end of a millenium. And both describe an end of an era on a person.

The scene where Tyler leaves Jack, resembles the scene where Demian is last seen in the book. Jack and Sinclair both lie almost unconscious, Jack after near fatal car crash, Sinclair after a near fatal explosion. Jack tries to speak to Tyler, but can´t, same with Sinclair and Demian. and in the mornign Demian and Tyler are gone. We get the impression that Demian is dead. Or is he?

Because of the War Sinclair is sent to the army. Scene before of the scene where we meet Demian for the last time, Hesse describes very beautifully and with many image-like descriptions that can be interpreted in many ways, the event of Sinclair almost getting killed by a bomb.

In Fight Club there is this cool slow motion shot about Jack shooting himself to the mouth. We can see the explosion in his mouth and everything.

So, in a way, both, Demian and Tyler are dead in the end.

In the book Demian, we are left with the strong message, that with a person or with the world, in order to become what we are supposed to be, like a bird must break the shell around it in order to get born, we must break the shell, the shell being the restricting and "old" ways of seeing our selves or the world around us, if we want things to change.

And in the end of Fight Club we see a total destruction of the person Jack/Tyler used to be, and the destruction of the basis of the current career and money driven culture; The exploding buildings of banks and credit records.

One important thing missing from fight club is the symbol of synthesis. In Demian it is the god Abraxas.
But in Fight Club there is numerous remarks that refer to god and making a synthesis; it is not wanted anymore. " Fuck damnation, man! Fuck redemption! We are God's unwanted children? So be it!" So at this time, we do not search for god anymore, we don´t care about those kind of thoughts, as long as there is something to believe in, something that is real.

Demian tells a story about a boy from 8 years old to 20-something. And Fight Club? About 25 to 30? maybe. So being done in a different time, it is only appropriate to tell about the next phase. Or is the culture today infantile? Tyler himself refers them selves, grown up guys to children. In both of the quotes I´ve written here.

The thing might be that this is no news for some, but for me it was some kind of revelation today. The stories and character arrangements are similar in many stories through out the history of literature and it is not a big deal. The things I´ve written here might come across quite shallow in terms of similarity. But what interest me the most is that Fight Club might well be a dated version of Demian. They are in many ways parallel to each other, just because of their differences. Differences caused by the time they were conceived and the way they´ve been made (book/film). These things have an effect on the way a story develops and where the emphasis lies. Is the similarity there just because of the 2 main characters and the story of finding your self in this messed up world?

I am also quite sure that there is a scene in Demian when Sinclair feels like destroying something beautiful and does some kind of act because of this, al tough I can´t remember/find it now.. In Fight Club Jack beats the face of this blond guy like a maniac and after this says "I felt like destroying something beautiful".

24/10/2008: I've noticed that many people come to read this post, It would be nice to hear your thoughts about it!

Blow of Fight Club

2008-02-26T17:18:00.001+02:00

-- updated 27.2 2008 --

I just watched the movie Fight Club and realized that the movie is somewhere deep in my subconsciousness. Or the affect of seeing this particular film at a certain age, 16 at the time, is irreversible.

I won´t argue that the movie doesn´t use some shallow methods at times and represent a flawed view of the world. It is Ok for a movie to do that to a certain point. And I am not saying that is so "deep" or so "cool". There are many movies that include heavier substance than this movie.

But I remember the night I saw the film. For some reason I had nothing to do on a friday night. I asked my dad to drop me off to a movie theater located in Kotkansaari, about 9 km from where I live. When our car stopped in front of the theater, the door man was just opening the doors and watched me get off the car in my leather jacket and long scarf. When I walked inside to the empty lobby, the doorman (who also sold tickets) said " Was that your dad outside? Yes? Well, then I can let you in. This movie is not for people under 18". At the time I was irritated by the fact that he did not take me for a 18 year old. Not even with my leather jacket!

There was something like 4 people in the theater. The movie had been shown something like 2 weeks or so..When the movie began, and the scene with Norton against the tits of Bob was on the screen, I remember thinking "what the fuck is this..?" And after that I was in a state of muddled confusion right to the point when Tyler leaves and the ending starts to reveal. I wasn´t excited about the film, like "OMG fucking great movie!" It was more like a quiet enthusiasm and feeling that I just saw something I had not seen before.

This was the time when I started to really see movies, not just watch them. Time when I started to get interested in different kinds of films. Same time I tried to watch Le Mempris for about 7 times and never understood it. This was the time, when ( I´m ashamed to say) my consciousness was opening and possibly expanding, at least in terms of film and the world of cinema. So although I´ve never really considered this to be a film that is really important to me, it is one of them that really left a mark.

Weakest thing, possibly quite fatal thing in Fight Club is that biggest movie stars of our time with great muscles and looks talk about things like "self improvement is masturbation" and "not everyone will be movie stars and rock gods".. and so on. They represent the thing this movie is against. Or atleast tries to be. So this is the frustrating double-dealing point of this movie. But if we look past this, we can see a quite good package of visual storytelling and ideas about the world and the lifestyle going on in the late 90´s and feel the excitement and energy of the movie.

Interesting point is that when "the narrator" starts realizing that his life is not what he wants and tries to change it, he goes insane ( or meets Tyler). Like one must go insane to act like he feels like... The lead character never gets any help to his insanity, but works it all out himself. So this is a story how to over come schizophrenia. And how this one messed up guy becomes an icon for hundreds of people. Unwillingly. And how his mental illness just toys whit these people.
Scenes like where one guy tells tales about the "mysterious and great Tyler Durden" How he sleeps only 1 hour a night and was born in a mental institution, tell us something about the absurd grip of this story. And when one of the Tylers gang members says "when he said ´you are not your job!´ I was like; FUCK YEAH!". Viewer can easily understand that the makers are not so serious about this revolution..

I remember that somebody criticized the film about being fascistic. That might be, but that is also part of the attraction. At least for me. I´m not saying that I would like to live in a Tyler Durden- house. But in a way FightClub deals with freedom and finding alternatives to the way of living in our society. Oddly these kind of explorations often lead to situations that are easily interpreted as fascistic. If freedom is organized it ceases to be what it originally was.

And even if I don´t live like the guys in the films, I still have something in me that resonates with lines like these (even though they might be a bit corny) :

"Fuck off with your sofa units and strine green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may."

"Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. "

"You have to know the answer to this question! If you died right now, how would you feel about your life? "

" Fuck damnation, man! Fuck redemption! We are God's unwanted children? So be it!"

" First you have to give up, first you have to *know*... not fear... *know*... that someday you're gonna die. "

Prejudgment defines the opinion

2008-02-17T11:50:00.000+02:00

I´m somewhat concerned about the fact that most movie reviews and opinions of movie goers have little to do with the movie, but much more with their own opinions about what they would have wanted to see.

( At this point, I´m quite sure that I´ve written about this here earlier. )

This is something I´ve noticed by analyzing my own behavior and people around me. For example, If I wait for a movie for a long time, read what it is about and what kind of characters it has and so on, the probability for me not liking it rises. If I go to movies, wishing to see say like a romantic comedy, I want to see the classic figures in these kind of movies, not seeing what the movie offers me instead. If I go to see a film with a "clean table", I give the movie much more changes to give me emotional or intellectual experience. Whether I like it or not, which I then can decide after the movie.

This applies to all things, not only movies. There is no simple way to get rid of ones prejudgments or not having them to affect the experience. And it cannot be measured or predicted what the outcome would be if the person wouldn´t have known anything about the film just watched. But I guess the important thing would be to see that this affects the judgment. And more importantly the way one experiences life.

One of the most heart braking things I know is a person who plans and thinks a lot about what kind of things are going to happen and what they are like and how perfect is this and that when we go to this place...and so on. In small things in life, like going to holidays/trips/restaurants...
Cause life is not like that. Nothing is ever like you plan it, and that is a good thing.
The amount of stress and tension decreases considerably when a person can let go of these pre assumptions and exact visions of things beyond ones power. I am not talking about cynicism, like everything will suck anyway so lets just be happy that this sucks less. I´m talking about accepting and adjusting to situations, whit minimal demands for surroundings from your narrowed vision of the situation.

Getting back to movies and reviewing them, the lack of prejudgment comes more difficult whit every movie one sees, but I think that for example it could be a good thing that movie critics should not be allowed to know anything about the film they are about to see. The press shows would be just anonymous screenings during the week and critics would go there to see films randomly. This would not be practical, but interesting.

The saddest thing is that usually high hopes of things end up causing the most severe criticism. Sometimes much more severe than appropriate. Like I just saw a bunch of new Finnish films and hated almost every one of them.

Movies that make sense

2008-02-07T22:49:00.002+02:00

Million Dollar Baby is a film about a boxing coach who loves the people he trains and therefore is unable to give them "big fights", cause he is afraid that they get beaten up too badly. So sooner or later the Fighters leave him. Until he reluctantly starts to train a girl and gets her to the top, then loses her just the way he fears. Se gets injured in a fight.

In the Valley of Elah is a film about a father who is a patriot, whose 2 boys have gone to the army. While investigating the missing of his older son he finds out that everything he has believed about the army, U.S.A. and therefore his entire life, has been, or at least is now, totally wrong and twisted.

Both of these movies are written by Paul Haggis. I am not surprised if 6 out of 10 would write the plot synopsis differently. For Example that Million Dollar Baby is about a woman boxer who wins her dreams or something like that.
That happens also in the movie, but it does not matter.
Valley of Elah tells us that the father finds out who has killed his son and so on, or the conspiracy in the army, but that is not so important also.

In both of these movies the main focus is how the lead character, and old man, deals with what decisions he does and how he copes with them and the decisions done in the past. In the Valley of Elah broads the view to the decisions of a whole country and to the war.

Lead character being a well-built, old, decent man also gives an interesting perspective. That same man could have been the hero of the movies while he was younger, but now he is just and old hero. Realizing that he is alone and all he has believed, or what he has done, has been wrong or meaningless. Now he tries to cope and find peace in himself, while, in both movies, a young energetic woman has taken the place of the hero, or the achiever. And it could be argued that the arrangement could have been the opposite some time ago. It also tells us something about our time and the ways of old perspectives.

These films give a simple, but meaningful statements, using somewhat usual stories or characters, but twisting them or making them the opposite. Sometimes a basic story, is a good foundation to a good filmmaker to do a film that has a meaning. These films are not great works of art. But in the field of film making they are good examples of films that at least make sense and are really well done.

It just seems to be the case that too many of us, including the people who study film making or watch them a lot have lost the ability to really watch movies. Some might say, including me, that these films contain some clichés or too common plots or characters. But no one never takes under consideration that a filmmaker would do this to use it for a purpose. Or just that we should or grow a bit more humble and not demand something innovative every time we see a movie.

Do we also have to grow old and on our last days see the iniquity of our ways? I think so. Or am I wrong?

People make them selves sick

2008-01-08T21:22:00.000+02:00

...by not watching what they eat.
...by watching too much what they eat.
...by acting with out thinking.
...by thinking too much before acting.
...by working in a job they don´t enjoy
...by forgetting to enjoy life while working.
...by not telling others how they feel.
...by telling others how they should feel.
...by believing that they can change the world by then selves.
...by believing that one person is too insignificant to make a difference.
...by wanting to have more meaningful lives.
...by neglecting the meaning they already have.
...by claiming that they don´t cause all this themselves.

Year 2007 in short.

2007-12-25T11:16:00.000+02:00

I just read the text of 2006. What a horrible text. I apologize.

The year had an exeptional start. 5.1 was the premiere of the infamous short film We Can Not Stay Here. The first week of 2007 was about planning the premiere. I waited for the dvd- shipping to arrive from estonia, wondered if anyone would come, and arranged a festivity with large amounts of red wine to a place where you could not serve alcohol. But I got that fixed. It was quite intensive week. If I can remember correctly, we shot the music video for Kaihoro- Years of christ on that same week.
Well the premiere was a success, over 300 people came to see the film. Thinking back, I think it was a mistake to make such a big deal about the film, which was, in the end, just a mess bulging with immature ideas and fire of youth. Its not even a film, not from the point of characters or storyline. But in any case it was something that had to be done. And I am proud of it and happy that it at least had a successful premiere.In january I joined up in Jaakko Ruuskas documentary project ”Scoundlers” as an ”assistant director” or ”directors assistant” which I have written about here few times. Check here, and here. Shooting the films has been an experience which is hard to describe in short. Tampere became a lot more familiar place to me and the alternative lifestyles that can be found in the heart of that city. Also the awesome sauna of Rajaportti. Things like the insane situation with the illegal eviction of one of the main characters of our film, and the weird student commune –place where we slept during the first trip, will be forever tattooed on my brain. . Now, in december, I have started to edit the film with Jaakko and things are going interestingly.

I also did a video for Omnium Gatherum – into sea. All I can remember about the shoots was that it took a lot of time and we shot an insane amount of material and I was so ”in mental states” just because of the debilitation and some kind of excitement of shooting situations that when I got a ride to helsinki in Janne´s car I almost felt like I was drunk.

At School I started to edit my second fiction film High Hopes, which later has become a great success and given me an opportunity to work with the same director again on bigger projects. Thank you for that. Editing high hopes was somewhat annoying process tough. But thats school.

At some point, for some reason, me and Eeva- Lotta decided to move together.. We looked for an apartment for some time, and didn´t get any of the places we would have wanted. That was frustrating and exhausting thing to do, but Eevis came up with a great solution, her ( and mine ) friend Teemu was moving to Kotka, so we moved to his old place. When we went to see the place, Teemu had made some salad for us and served some home made liquor.

We moved in on Vappu. So vappu went there, being tired. Like almost every party this year.

In december of 2006 I was contacted with some weird athlete guy, about producing a sports- training DVD. I decided to go with the project, cause it seemed like a laborious, but in some way easy way to get some cash. Well, I regret to inform you that the DVD still isn´t ready. But in few months or so it will be. I hope.

During the late fall of 2006 this awesome dude, Duncan Patterson contacted me to do a video for his upcoming album. It took a while for me to do it, but finally I got it done, some time during May 2007. The video became a bit artsy and long-ish, but what are you gonna do. Later I had some dicussions with Anathema-guys about a video for them but I guess, due to me not being able to do something to show them, to begin with, this has been forgotten.

The Tampere Film Festival of 2007 was a nice event Even tough, one night I woke up when our hotel room (where I was sleeping on the couch, so it wasn´t even my hotel room) was assaulted by drunken movie students. I sat for a while quiet and then I threw everyone out (about 10-15 people) on a moments crazyness. I still hope that no one took it personally. It was something like 4 a.m. in the morning and I had already fallen a sleep. Also, some legends were created there, some testosterone moments at the streets of Tampere.( picture not from the actual situation)

In the Summer I started to edit a film called Chabalu and the monkey bike. This was an interesting production, shot in England, on film, a midget played the lead role. The project had its good and bad things, but now at least it has been edited, and im looking forward to seeing it finished.
We had a housewarming party at our new place, and that has propably been the best party of 2007. At least I cant remember any better ones. I proved that you could wash red wine off from anything, if you have enough willpower and there was also some discussions about what kind of information has now been given about some limousine driving around helsinki. The afterparty seemed like some fellinian-scene, cause it happened in a boat and the dialog was absurd.

We had a nice traditional Juhannus at Attes cabin in Hillonlahti. Some punk-music and sleeping in tent. Nice party.

My leg got hurtfull at the beginning of the summer. I could not walk properly. I had to by some sport-sneakers in order to walk. THat was weird. I later got some medicine for it. Al tough the medicine was just regular burana, but I had to take it 3 times a day.This lasted trough the summer. Weird. I still can´t wear certain kind of shoes.

I had one month of vacation on the summer and me and Eevis traveled to Slovenia and Croatia for 2 weeks. That was an awesome trip, sometimes a bit challenging but that´s the way I like it. My motto is, ”If you are going to go to a trip and demand the same conveniences you have in your everyday life, dont go at all”. One must think, even if you are in a tent which is slowly filling with rainwater, that ”this is something different, that wouldn´t happen at home”. But im not saying that our trip was like that all the time. No. One of my dearest memories is this macrobiotic restaurant in Zagreb. Food that made you feel good!One high point of my summer, and the best story of 2007, was this story I heard at Koffinpuisto, Helsinki. While we were chilling there, this black dude, with rastafarian hair and clockwork orange T-shirt came to sit with our group. Soon he introduced himself and started to ask questions from the girls. This ”Stan” (name changed!), seemed to be happily drunk, and he soon found out that one of our group was finish-swedish. Then he got excited. He started to tell the story:
”The mother of my son, asked me to come to dinner to her parents place, who are finland-swedish. She wared me saying ”My parents are little bit strange, so be prepared.” Well, on the day of the dinner, I got fired from my job, because my drinking problem. So I was kinda in a bad mood when we went to the parents place. Soon I notices that they don´t serve any alcohol. No wine with food for example. My hands started to shake and i got cold sweat. I tried to be sharp. The was this inconvenient silence during the dinner, and soon the Father asked, in svedish: ” Stan, masturberar du?” I was stunned. ”well, I was warned that they were strange” I thought. I gathered my self and said ” ibland”. Everyone looked me strangely and were quiet. I was confused, I was sweaty. ”I must continue this conversation somehow” I thought. ”Masturberar du?” I asked back. The mother started to cough and gathered the plates and went to kitchen. I was totally out of what was happening. Then the father looked at me with a angry look and said calmly in clear finish ”Stan, I asked you, what do you study? ( Vad studerar du?).” End of quote.

Rest of my vacation I watched Battlestar galactica and fire fly Tv series. This was when I ate the buranas.. During the spring I planned a small short film project. But that never happened. I lost the ”mood” for doing that and probably its better that way, cause I still wasn´t totally recovered from the damage of ”WeCanNotStayHere”-project.

This year I was again at Meripäivä-party and that was total bullshit.

I worked for a few weeks as a teacher at the university of applied science of Helsinki, Stadia. I was teaching few basic avid classes, and I think, that no one learned anything. That gave me a perspective to many things. At least I proved to my self that I could talk almost the whole day with out planning. Almost. Nice to find one self in a situation when one just talks and talks, then someone ask some question that doesn´t seem to make sense in any way, and one loses track totally and everything falls a part. This only happened once or twice.

While I was teaching there, I got a call from Snapper films and that started my first ”real” freelance editing job relationship. I edited tv-commercials, a making of documentary and a music video for Antti Tuisku. The whole time I spent there was somehow enjoyable, but sometimes I was just too tired cause I went to school, worked at stadia, did a bit of videos home also, and had to do jobs at Snapper at really fast tempo.

So, before all this we shot the videos for Goon and HellCity 13. During the same week!? Also some mind opening experiences. These two projects finally cleared to me that I must stop making music videos. Or that I mustn´t do them just the sake of doing, cause at some point of the fall, with all these jobs going on, I almost had a mental breaktdown. Or I came closest to it than ever before. I remember looking at some material that I was supposed to edit and almost throwing up or fainting. This period made me do some decisions about the future and think about my studying and so on. I probably will go on a student exchange next fall.

Lesson 1: Never take on a job with artistic responsibilies if you feel from the beginning that this is not what I want to do.
Lesson 2: Never take that kind of jobs more than 1 at the time.

Well, I think, both of the videos came out as good as they could have been anyway. Only thing that suffered was my health. I think the video for Goon is a good place to stop for a while. But now when I think of it, almost 3 years had gone and I just did some terrible music videos during that time. Apart from the massive shortfilm thing. I have mixed feelings about this.

Few weeks back I graduated to be a Bachelor of arts, or a candidate of arts, I don´t know which one it is. So I have a university degree now done.

And yes, this was the year I finally cut my hair. It wasn´t such a big deal after all. Next week after the cutting I went to school and one of my friends there looked at me weirdly and said ”didn´t your hair used to be shorter?”. So..what can I say.

All and all, this has been a really busy year, usually I have been feeling tired and wanting to just sit and do nothing. Compared to -06, lot less ”self pity -emo”-things going on. More this grown up stuff of stressing about work and so on. Of course I´ve had my moments this year also. And of course the relationship-side of this year has been a change. Year 2006 was filled with humanrelationship situations, tense feelings and uncertainty. Now I have been living in a stable relationship over a year. Which I find to be good thing.

Feels like I´ve been a lot angrier about things going on in the world lately. Like Abe ”grandpa” Simpson I´ve been getting angry for things I´ve read from the paper and yelled at the clouds. This may soon have some effect on the text published here.
And now, the picture of the year. none of these are taken by me. But both include my good friend Kuippi (might be that this fact has influenced on my judgement, but it matters not).This Year I got a new laptop and I also bought a digital camera. Well, few moths ago I accidentally deleted all my digital camera pictures! How about that. Well, since I dont have a lot of material, this will be the pic of the year: A slow morning moment, which was taken with my laptop webcam without me knowing. Just look at the innocence of this picture.And the digicam- video of the year, well, it tells a story, a bit like Rocky. Overcoming obstacles, putting our self to the limit etc. Check it here

Best films I saw were The Fountain , Inland Empire, Control and.. come to think of it, I haven´t seen so many films this year. I possibly saw the Million dollar baby over a year a go but just watched it again and it was the best. Best book was probably J M Coetzees Disgrace And Planet of the apes -book was funny. Best place i visited was a Tearoom in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Greatest misfortune is that I didn´t go to sodankylä film fest.. Biggest change in my life was that I now live with Eevis, as before I lived in student apartments with all kinds of maniacs and renegades. And I am not exaggerating.

Again, a totally different year. Totally new situations, and I am totally in a different place now than a year a go. It feels that the premiere was something like 4 years ago. Maybe because thats the time that the film belongs to.

When looking at the pictures from 2006, I noticed that I have no ”happy group”- photos from 2007. This is so sad.
I can mention that "evil nature" has won 3 prices in some videocompetitions and more is possibly coming.

I´d like to thank everyone for the premiere on 5.1, for all the projects that I´ve done, everyone who have helped me, and I promise, not to ask so much people to work for me for free anymore. I feel bad about some things I´ve done and I feel I haven´t been thanking and respecting some people as much as they would have deserved. I try to fix this.

But now, lets all collect these memories of ours, and now yours also, put them to the brewing facilities of our brains and use them to make next year even more interesting.

You can start by looking up these films:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

http://www.loosechange911.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/

Newzz

2007-12-12T21:37:00.000+02:00

Yeah Christmas is coming! My calendar is starting to fill up, so next spring will be quite busy. I´m exited about my new script that I try to star to write, working title "murder threat".
I´m also planning to write a manifest-like piece about my thoughts on food, words, life and everything.

But in the meanwhile, if you haven´t seen appropriate to support your local artist and already bought the WE CAN NOT STAY HERE - DVD, well, you can DO IT NOW! An awesome present with overwhelming extra features to give to your work friends, neighbors and family members. only 5 euros + postal!

Or, you can just watch it from youtube:

Go there and give it some good ratings so we can fool everyone.

Soon its time to take few steps back and do my view on the year 2007. Thats something for you netheads to wait for.

Popcorn.

2007-11-25T21:34:00.000+02:00

Went to the movies today. I got a free ticket which included a free "children´s combo" meaning a children´s size soda and popcorn measured for childrens usage. There was 1,5 liters of popcorn and 0.4 liters of lemonade.

I was with my girlfriend, so we ate it together. Movie was something over 2 hours, and when the movie ended, there was one or two popcorns left and some leftovers.

So, I´m just saying, that there was enough for us. in the children´s popcorn combo. for 2 hours for 2 adults. So, of course it is good that there are more choices in the menu, but the "normal" size is way too much for one guy, who in any case, is there ( or should be there ) to watch a film. Not to eat a whole meal. What would be a good thing, I think, to get them change the names of the "combos". It would please me if they were something like: regular, big and huge. Not: for children, normal and large.

here are the information available in finnkino website:

-----------

POPCORN
Lasten	2,70 €
Normaali	4,10 €
Iso	5,60 €

MIKSI POPCORN ON NIIN HYVÄÄ?

Koska sen valmistamisesta on monen tuhannen vuoden kokemus. Maissin alkuperä on arvoitus, se tunnetaan ainoastaan viljeltynä. Intiaanit kasvattivat maissia jo 7 000 vuotta sitten ja Kolumbus toi sen mukanaan Eurooppaan.

Maississa, kuten muissakin viljalajikkeissa on runsaasti hyödyllistä energiaa, hitaasti imeytyviä hiilihydraatteja, tärkeitä ravintokuituja, hyviä valkuaisaineita ja korkealaatuisia kasvirasvoja. 100 grammaa Finnkinon popcornia sisältää peräti 10 grammaa ravintokuituja! Popcorn on turvallinen kivennäis- ja hivenainepommi. Popcorn on siis paljon yleistä käsitystä terveellisempi snack-tuote. Finnkino käyttää Popcornin paistamiseen kookosöljyä. Popcorn ei sisällä gluteenia, joten popcorn sopii myös keliakiaa sairastaville henkilöille.

------

Noni.

2007-11-19T19:51:00.000+02:00

Opetushallitus varoittaa opettajia Platonin ihannoinnista

Jokelan koulun ampumavälikohtaus vaikuttaa siihen, miten filosofiaa vastedes opiskellaan Suomen lukioissa. Opetushallituksessa filosofian opetuksen kehittämisestä vastaava opetusneuvos Pekka Elo sanoo, että ainakin Platonin oppeja käydään tarkemmin läpi muun muassa opettajien täydennyskoulutuksessa ja opettajatapaamisissa.

&

Platon voi panna pään sekaisin

Helsingin sanomista 18.11 2007

------

Juuri kun tyytyväisenä hymistelin ettei tällä kertaa ole pahemmin syytetty televisiota,musiikkia tai muita nykyajan vaarallisuuksia, huomioon ottamatta sitä Suomen "NRA"-liiton jehua, joka sanoi telkkarissa että internet pitää kieltää, niin opetushallitus läväyttää tiskiin, että Platon onkin se paha jätkä. Hyvä homma.

Näin hetken mielijohteessa voisin todeta, että tämä on jopa pahempi kuin se että ruvettaisiin puhumaan siitä miten internet vaarantaa lasten mielen.

Koulujen ongelma ei ole koskaan ollut siinä mitä siellä opetetaan, vaan aina siinä MITEN siellä opetetaan.Enkä nyt siis todellakaan tarkoita mitään asennetta tai näkökulmaa aiheeseen.
Olen ollut jo vuosia sitä mieltä, että suomalainen peruskoulu ei valmenna ihmistä ajattelemaan. Suuresta osasta tulee koulutuksen myötä yleissivistykseltään pakostikin vähintään hieman alle keskitason, mutta edellistäkin pienempi ryhmä oppii soveltamaan, tai vielä harvempi, oikeasti ajattelemaan.

Jos lukioikäiselle ei ole selvää ettei hänen tarvitse opiskella esim. matematiikkaa oppiakseen kaavoja ynnä muuta ( jotka toki ovat itsessäänkin tärkeitä ja mielenkiintoisia) vaan että hän oppisi ajattelemaan loogisesti ja rationaalisesti, jotta osaisi myöhemmin käyttää välineinään näitä kaavoja, niin koko opetus on mennyt hukkaan. Ongelmana on ettei opettajatkaan ajattele näin.
Tarkoitan siis, että kouluissa ei opeteta analyyttistä ajattelua tai asioiden/tekstien/tarinoiden/ideoiden tulkintaa, nämä kun ovat tavallisen ihmisen työkaluja jotta hän selviää tästä nykyajan informaatiotulvasta. Kaiken suhteellisuus ja sovellettavuus pitäisi tehdä alusta asti selväksi, eikä ajatella että se vaatii "kehittyneempää" ajattelua tai ikää. Tämän pitäisi olla erittäin tärkeä pointti mediakasvatuksessa, joka ilmeisesti on jo yleistynt oppiaine kouluissa..

Tietenkin on hyvä jos koulujen filosofian opettajat saavat lisäopetusta Platonin kirjoituksista, jotta he osaisivat esitellä ne selkeästi oppilaille, mutta nämä uutiset antavat vaikutelman siitä, että ongelma on Platonissa. Missä se tietenkään ei voi mitenkään olla! Platon kuitenkin ajatteli ajatuksensa yli 2000 vuotta sitten..

Jos ihmisellä ei ole välineitä informaation purkuun, analysointiin ja suhteuttamiseen, mikä tahansa tieto voi tehdä mahdottoman paljon vahinkoa.

Toinen asia ->

Pajunen haluaa lisää autoja Helsingin keskustaan

Hesarin juttu

..Ei herran tähden.

Findie: March of The Mediocre

2007-11-18T00:21:00.000+02:00

I can not understand why Findie-scene, which has been quite well on the media lately, aims to be, at best, mediocre.

Usually things like computer graphics are quite impressive, length something close to respectable 90 minutes. But the script is nothing. Acting is unbearable and the image-storytelling is something too inferior to describe. And why is the humor so bad?

Being able to show your skills in technical pragmatics is one thing, but I think is not enough. That is not the function of making and indie film. No one is ( or maybe i should write: I am not) interested how well someone can frame a picture or light it with no money. That is a thing that one can learn, to some point atleast. To tell a story in the language of cinema, is the thing that is lacking from the indie (and mainstream) makers of today. And this is not only my personal opinion. Of course, this "to be original" might be something of a cliché, but there is some truth to it. "There is no need for intellect in maintaining a culture, but a genious, a true human is needed to create it." -....

Maybe (F)Indie is facing some sort of crisis now, when films made with big money deals whit splatter/horror/teen- sort of themes, which are commonly the subjects of indie-films. Or so it seems, cause I haven´t seen an indie film with any originality in years. If I have, it has been an american film with big distributors, and that doesn´t count.

For me, the most important things are; the idea of the story and the way of telling a story and characters, of course These things are almost every time set aside when making an indie film. Or so it seems. The way I see it it is more important to show how well one handles storytelling, apart from for example imagequality.. Of course findie is a large phenomenon and there are lots of different makers, but still, often it seems that some take pride in being "Findie-makers" and there fore it is a good thing to do something which does not even aim to be anything different. Apart from being somehow grotesque, containing bad humor or using in it self, the mark of indie, for to justify bad storytelling in some urban lovestory.

Santa Claus: The Final Tabu

2007-11-16T09:41:00.000+02:00

Today is the premiere of the biggest Finnish Christmas movie Christmas-story ( Joulutarina ), I had the pleasure of getting invited to the special-guest screening on Wednesday.

I won´t argue ( too much anyway ) about the success of the movie it self, but what surprised me is how people reacted to the fact that it tried to present Santa Claus as a normal human being, a lonely and traumatized boy. In fact, the lead character wasn´t even santa claus, it was a boy/man called Nikolas.

It is an interesting pheonemon when movie doers now-a-days try to make films about superheroes. They quickly come to the conclusion that only when a man is somehow mentally damaged, can he do the things that most superheroes do. Think about Batman. A rich guy who beats bad guys wearing black rubber clothes. Well Santa Claus is not a super hero, but there are lots of similarities to the story and I think the approach has been similar in this case.

A man comes out once a year to deliver presents to children, what kind of man would he be like in reality? I think that the starting point in the story is at least logically true. A lonely ant traumatic child, who misses his parents and sister, who feels obliged to compensate being a burden to the small town whose people are taking care of him, being an orphan. First he gives presents to people who have helped him, later on to all children.

The fact that Nikolas stays in that state, that his madness grows even bigger during the years, is in no way funny or nice, but if we want that he keeps bringing the presents to the children, he must not find happiness in any other way. And trough suffering one becomes a saint, like St. Nicholas. (this is not in the movie, apart from small references and a very odd and symbolic ending of the film).

My point is, that it seems that Santa Claus has more power than we, or at least I think. Everyone hates the Coca-Cola santa, but everyone seems to reject the look of what could be the real santa. The story looks to me like being a basis for the myth that now-a-days surrounds the santa claus thing. This is how stories and myths are born; from some messed up guy, usually a loner who does something out of ordinary.
If the movie had been a tale about a jolly old man with elfs and singing, everyone would have hated it. But now the same people reject this story.

Is Santa Claus really that sacred? That it cannot be viewed from any other point of view? not to me. I think I´ve never had any relationship to santa. I hear that I was afraid of him when I was younger. But it is really funny that in our freedom of speech, liberal and politically-incorrect, nothing-is-sacred-kind of time, santa claus still holds his position of an icon, not to be changed.

The movie has many problems, I think it deals with the subject too lightly, superficially, even for a children movie. Children movies can be more scary than grownups seem to think. That kind of scary and dark stories are what affected me most when I was a kid. The movie is too fast, there is no space to breath and get in to the emotion.. Things like this. Acting is poor from time to time, even tough the lead man was good all the time. music was good but it increased the feel of the movie being "ahead of emotion" so the viewer was forced to feel, which is bad. But if there was something good, I think it was exactly this point, this what someone calls a Finnish way of looking life; melancholic and lonely life, of santa.

Things wrong in the world today..

2007-11-12T20:51:00.000+02:00

Ok, from time to time I feel like I should turn my blog in to Finnish and start to write about something else than my own projects.. like politics and stuff. Then I realize that I really don´t know much. But I still have opinions. So some ramblings are about to follow...

No one has to be succesful for somebody else, just to achieve some really abstract goals, for reasons that make no real sense. Of course the way you do, for example, in school tells you something about your intelligence and and how fit are you to our society, but the focus is really in the wrong place, in schools and in the society overall.

People need to understand that they learn or work for their own good (and therefore the society), there should not be such a race for grades, cause they mean nothing. No one has never asked me what was my grades in school. Never. And they were pretty good.

Things like grades, career and profit are total and utter illusions. There are other more important values, these things I´ve mentioned should be just means for something not the goal to achieve.
Not everyone is ment to study in the university, the students there are no better in any way compared to anyone else, people should do what they feel they are equipped to do, not what is some way considered "better" or honorable for some. That kind of people are sick and wrong.

It is wrong to think that some "high place" like being a Boss in some organization or being a student in some high class school is something desirable. No they are not. You do what you are capable of or what you feel you want/have to do, and if that leads you to be a boss, then you are. Just a boss, nothing more. A boss is nothing without his workers, which create the job for the boss. So we should not give such a credit for people with big paychecks, cause we know that they are enslaved by that paycheck.

As long as people do things like study like they were on some control from outside their own mind, they end up being disconnected from their self and others.

The whole system of our democratic "well-being" society, being a quite good system, holds in it self some compromises that endangers the mental health of sensitive personalities. We all have to agree on and adopt to certain rules, knowing that we loose something of our freedom or humanity one might say, for the greater good. I believe that everyone knows this, atleast subconciously.

So we don´t have massive differences in our wealth, everyone gets along and gets support. This is a good thing, but at the same time we have evened mental suffering, for everyone evenly. In addition the state of spiritual world, the value of spirit and ideas is corroding steadily. Im not talking about religion, even tough no one knows what the meaning of the word God is, no one wants to think of it.

The way of the government is to solve problems not by digging to the core of the problem, but to create new laws to "secure" the systems functioning. So they leave the problem unsolved, bulding a new structures over the weak foundations. Im talking about the "forcing people to work" law, which they have clearly set up not only to "secure the treatment of patients" but to direct the attention of public away from the real problem and the fact that the government is really in deep shit whit this one. with the strike and all.

At the same time Avarage Joe opens his TV and puts on channel 4, and sees this big breasted chick in bikinies talking like a lobotomy patient about the famous people in Hollywood. I rarely get upset by the programs on the telly, but this was too much! Naked Hollywood. Alaston Hollywood, is probably most idiotic and regressive tv-show I´ve seen for a while.

Potential for developement

2007-11-10T20:40:00.000+02:00

So, 10.11 2o07 was the year competetion of FVL ( Film and video amatuers of Finland..) Kaakonpiiri (south east district).

We Can Not Stay Here - won the 1. price there in the Youngsters- series.
Wuu-huu. Lets look what the "judges" said about the film (selected comments):

- Needs tightening
- Potential for developement
- Parts are better than the whole
- Did it really answer the question, why one can not stay here?
- Professional touch
- Good picture quality, nice editing + sound recording
- Educational film for youth
- Some parts left me thinking
- Did not touch me, needs tightening

So, thats that.

Also, evil nature won the 1 minute competition, so Double win for Jussi this time.

It is so clear to me now

2007-11-01T14:00:00.000+02:00

From now on, I start to use cover names (for people, projects, places maybe) in texts that deal with the projects that I do (If I do any projects anymore). This is to avoid inconvenient situations, caused by my writings, possibly done here in a state of great exhaustion or mental distress. This way I also can write more freely. Weird that I haven´t figured this out earlier.

Finally

2007-10-29T17:20:00.000+02:00

So, I finally cut my hair. I didn´t cut it as much as I planned, mainly cause of the barbershop-woman. She wanted to cut my hair to be like the hair of Sawyer from the Lost -series. I just said "well...ummm. Ok".

The barbershop was in the central Helsinki, a place called "Pikkukulkuri" ( Little hobo ). I picked the place because of its name. I was a bit nervous at first, but everything went smoothly.
I don´t know will I cut my hair even shorter, or just let it grow again. We´ll see.

At this moment I´m not interested in doing any projects of my own. This is kinda weird. I feel a bit tired and somehow peaceful just going to school and doing the editing jobs I do now randomly.

I have one ready script, 2 that need to be written and 2 ideas for bigger projects that I just think of for fun. But I´m not considering of doing any of these in the near future. Why? I don´t know.
I´m planning to go to Prague for a student exchange thing. This would take place next fall. So I´m now starting to arrange it.

This is how I look now:

This is how I used to look (few months ago):

The Fall

2007-10-16T08:06:00.000+03:00

Curious, how certain kind of music starts to feel good when days start to get shorter. I´m referring, of course to the bands like Katatonia and Anathema. I can´t remember how many nights I´ve spent listening to those guys and drinking jasmine tea. Few years back, I mean.

Yesterday I tried to get my hair cut. Last Friday I had planned to go to schedule a haircut time, but I had a small flu and because of that I forgot to. On Monday I went to the planned barber shop, but when I got there, there was a note on the door saying "Closed due the changing of the owner. We are open again in..." This note was dated last Friday. So, I guess that the universe just won´t let me to cut my hair. Well, today I might go to another barbershop here in Kallio, if I have the time.

Being an editor is hard. I guess being a Director is harder, but at least you know that this is your film that everybody is making. And I´m not saying that I´d want to be the director always, but sometimes the line which exists when two creative persons work together, well sometimes, It just doesn´t work. When an editor feels like that he is not making a film that is his, even in some distant way (like usual), I guess it is easy to loose the touch and the film becomes very distant and not so good as it could have been. This might happen for many reasons, not only because of the directors attitude towards the material/editor/his ego/his fears/his plans.. Reasons can be found in the editor as well. He has given up and too easily bows to the directors every idea.
But this kind of dilemma has caused me to think; where does the line go, who´s film are we making? how do I know how much I should just obey a director, how much keep my own opinions... Well, the answer is right here in the question, don´t you think? Never "just obey". yeah. And I must admit, this is what I did in one project not so long ago. And now I have to pay for the consequences.

Well, this kind of problem has occurred to me once, a situation when the views of the director and mine have not matched, and are different in a few important places so.. But I guess usually everything goes well.

New videos

2007-10-10T08:44:00.000+03:00

Goon - Taas sen täytyy muuttuu

Add to My Profile | More Videos

This other one I´m not so proud of, but it was just a job to do. It looks nice anyway. A week earlier Teja called me and said "we have a script and everything, come next week to shoot a video" and I jut went there with Juice and Teppo, with almost no plans...-->

Hellcity 13 - In Love With Love

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Myspace TV has a lot better quality for videos than Youtube, that´s a shame cause a lot of people uses youtube. But the videos are there also.

Tänne ei voi jäädä - arvostelu / We Can Not Stay Here - review

2007-10-04T07:39:00.000+03:00

So, this is in Finnish only,

Minun Elokuvani 2007 - tapahtumassa annettu arvostelu

TÄNNE EI VOI JÄÄDÄ
Jussi Rautaniemi

TÄNNE EI VOI JÄÄDÄ on raikas elokuvakokemus. Päämäärättömästi harhailevan, työtä vieroksuvan ja muutenkin juurettoman nuorison keskuuteen sijoittuva tarina ei ole aivan tavallinen viime vuosien suomalaisessa elokuvassa. Tai ehkä on sittenkin: ajatelkaamme vaikkapa Perttu Lepän tai Dome Karukosken elokuvia. Tarkoitankin tässä sitä, minkälaisella tyylillä tarina on kerrottu. TÄNNE EI VOI JÄÄDÄ on kuin virkistävä tuulahdus niiltä ajoilta, jolloin erityisesti eurooppalainen elokuva käsitteli vakavia aiheita ja teemoja ilmavan kepeästi, totutuista kaavoista ja säännöistä piittaamatta. (Älköön kukaan nyt ymmärtäkö sanomaani siten, että jotenkin väheksyn Lepän tai Karukosken elokuvia. Päinvastoin, “Helmiä ja sikoja” ja “Tyttö sinä olet tähti” ovat ihastuttavia elokuvaelämyksiä. Haluan vain sanoa, että kerrontatavaltaan ne ovat klassisempia kuin Jussi Rautaniemen elokuva.)

Päiväkirjaa kokemuksistaan kirjoittava Eero saa Helsingissä tarpeekseen sikailevasta kämppiksestä, heittää tämän ulos kämpästä mutta lähtee samalla itsekin. Kohti entistä kotikaupunkia Karhulaa ja vanhaa ystävää Olavia, joka puolestaan on saanut häädön asunnostaan. Yhdessä kaverukset varastavat auton, hankkivat kasimillisen kameran ja lähtevät baanalle – lähirannalle bileisiin.

Hienosti kuvattu materiaali on vapautuneen hengittävästi leikattu, eikä ihme: Jussi Rautaniemi on erittäin taitava leikkaaja (tässä elokuvassa myös ohjaaja, käsikirjoittaja ja kuvaaja, tuottajakin). Kuvassa viipyillään harkitusti vain silloin kun se on tarpeen. Aivan riemastuttava on kohtaus, jossa auto varastetaan. Eeron ja Olavin jurona näyttäytynyt kaveri puhkeaa pälpättämään paskaa (kahvinjuonnin suhteesta sotien syttymiseen!) pysäköidyn auton omistajalle sillä välin kun Olavi piiloutuu auton takapenkille. Samalla jumalaisen kaunis Kevät esittäytyy Eerolle, ja hetikohta Olavi ajaa paikalle autolla. Merkille pantavaa on, että Olavin jonkinasteista väkivallan tekoa auton omistajaa kohtaan ei näytetä. Tässä kokonaisuudessa se olisi täysin tarpeetonta.

TÄNNE EI VOI JÄÄDÄ on elokuva valinnoista elämässä. Rantabileet määrittelevät Eeron lopulliset valinnat: ei enää sitoutumista. Kevät jää rannalle, kokemukset lentävät tienposkeen (josta elokuvan Markku Lahtelan aforistiikalla aloittanut hippi ne löytää). Kevät on enää läsnä vain kasimillisen haikeissa kuvissa.
Miksi tällaisia elokuvia ei voi nähdä missään? Tässäkin kuljetaan kaikilta osin aivan professionaalilla tasolla. Toivon sydämestäni, että Rautaniemi-tuotanto tekisi kaupat jonkin televisioyhtiön kanssa TÄNNE EI VOI JÄÄDÄ-elokuvan esityksestä.

Matti Kuortti

Life of a media worker, part 2

2007-09-23T20:52:00.001+03:00

First, I am fed up with doing low-budget music videos with no time to plan them and no money to make things happen the way I wan´t them to. So now on I´m just going to not do them, cause it is like poking needles under my fingernails. Idiotic. So, If some one wants me to do a video, we must have a great song, awesome idea, and the means and TIME to do it properly.

So a couple of weeks a go I had some really intensive time. In one week I had to finish the editing of the film Chabalu And The Monkey bike, direct 2 music videos, and attend to class in school. It was a bit rough since on Monday of that particular week I screened "chabalu" to some folks and they basicly said that the film is shit. So that kinda put me in a good mood.

On tuesday I was not in school but shooting the video for HC13, in Gloria, Helsinki. Teppo and Juice came to help me out and Teppo did a great job shouting and doing grip-works and Juice did the cinematography. We didn´t have any time to plan the shootings and the script was done by the producer "The Producer" (name changed).

Shootings went well and we had a lot of fun. On friday we journeyed to Kotka for the weekend to shoot the video for Goon. There was a lot of planning to do, and things to set up, we didn´t have any lights at some point, car had to be get from some weird place, we didn´t have a make up artist, and whats most important, the script wasn`t ready and there was no image plans in paper. Joonas came to shoot it and I basicly told him what is going to happen next and what I want from the shot and he did the best he could. Good job. Saturday went fine but on sunday when we shot the interioirs we didn´t have enough crew and everything went to shits. But we got the video done.

I had one week to edit the HC13 video, and right after the weekend of goon shootings, I started In Stadia, teaching the basics of avid. In the evenings I edited the video.

Teaching is a completely new experience for me and it was really interesting. I took it with "loose wrists" and did some quick lists of things I was going to teach each day. The first day went badly cause I wasn´t familiar with the systems in Stadia.

I got a job from Snapper films, editing some small thingies for them, for their upcoming feature film. Promo material etc. On tuesday I was there and did the contract.

On friday Hc13 was supposed to be ready.
I did not have time to do decent color correction, cause that takes a long time, when done in home equipments, so I had to give not yet fully color corrected video to "The Producer" on monday. That lead to an event with some executive guy in MTV who said that this video looks too much like a low-budget video. I guess "The Producer" got upset by that remark, but I was aware that the video was like that, cause 1. it was low budget 2. we didnt have time to plan it 3. I didn´t have time to do it properly to its end.
But we´ll see if I can still do some repairs to it before it gets aired or something.

In snapperfilms I did one promo-musicvideo last week, but im not sure if I can write it here, cause I might have some quietness-agreement with them. so I´ll have to tell everyone in person who I met and how funny it was. Kind of.

So a lot of work, I continue to edit the Goon video, tomorrow I´ll visit snapper films again, and I teached 2 weeks in stadia in total. And there is some teaching work still coming.

And this one woman keeps calling me to edit her music video, I said one time that I don´t have the time, but she called again. I promised to call her today, but I forgot, maybe I´ll call her later...

It begins again.

2007-08-26T20:58:00.000+03:00

So, the summer has reached its end and now is the time for autumn and the work it brings along with it. So, I´m editing a wedding video again ( ! ) and the sports dvd is still waiting to be finished. "Chabalu and the monkey bike" has to be finished during the next week or two.

I´m now planning a video for Goon, for their upcoming album, released through BALE- records. We are shooting on film, and that is really exiting.

Also I´m going to shoot a video for a band called HC13 or HellCity 13. I´m not sure what happens in the video, or why Im doing it, but I got the job and jobs need to be done.

Check out my new website on www.jussirautaniemi.com!

We need girls to act in the music video for GOON! 8-9.9 Kotkassa!! Goon!!
Helppo juttu, tulkaa mukaan ja pääsette videoon!! ottakaa yhteyttä goonband(at)hotmail.com.

"the Scoundlers" Day 2: Materials ruined!

2007-08-10T22:48:00.000+03:00

Jaakko just informed me that the vegetablefield scene and the scene on the hill with the lake on the backround (2 extremely complicated and truly amazing scenes) were on a film that got ruined. Totally destroyed.
I´m shocked.
We must return to Tampere and do this all over again!
(if we can)
This is a bullshit situation. Film can´t be made without these scenes. or it won´t be any good.
sad sad sad.