Some time ago I wrote an article about fighting the WhatsApp monopoly via my work-place. In that article I explained how I managed to make a simple matrix-to-whatsapp bridge thingie that makes it possible for me ( a Free Software user ) to communicate with people on the WhatsApp side of things. And how I made it specifically to advertise matrix to the WhatsApp useds. But... that was just a simple tiny little program that barely works. This... on the other hand... this, is much bigger. This is probably a little bit insane. So buckle up...
There is a trio of directors who could be considered the masters of depicting water: James Cameron, Luc Besson and Guillermo del Toro. They have shown themselves to be...
I remember 2015. I remember the hype people had when the first teaser of Star Wars: The Force Awakens was dropped. I remember the memes depicting screenshots from old classic Star Wars movies, with super-imposed, fake lens-flares all over them. The meme was: it is J.J. Abrams, he is going to lend-flare the fuck out of Star Wars. I also remember the disappointment watching The Force Awakens for the first time, not really seeing many of those lens-flares people so anticipated. What happened? Well... Star Trek Into Darkness happened.
Unreliable narrators are a very fascinating plot device in literature. If somebody tells a story, they tell it from their point of view, with their biases and their misunderstandings. And they might lie here and there to make things look better or worse than they really were. In a way you can't believe anything they say, but oftentimes this is the only point of view available. So the narrative becomes a sort of a puzzle.
But how about multiple, non-linear, unreliable narrators? How about a mystery where they are all intertwined? Well...
To the people complaining, the concerns are understood. There was especially a gross breach of them during a big and important speech. People complained, so he stopped with them. Even for such an impediment...
I love Mission Impossible II. In my opinion John Woo directed an action masterpiece with that film. But unfortunately we live in the world where critics have no appreciation for good action. Come on, Oscars for stunts are just now started to be considered. So... in an unfortunate set of events MI2 was a critical failure. Too dissimilar to what Bryan De Palma did on the first picture, they said. J.J. Abrams with his feature film directorial debut decided to fix everything, while still making a movie that action fans would enjoy. How?
There is nothing I love more than multilayered storytelling references. Here I am not referring to plot details which have multiple layers of meaning, although that is great too. No, I am referring to the meta-textual references. There is a director whose filmography boasts a considerable amount of referential material. That man is none other that ~Quentin Tarantino}()~ [J. J. Abrams.
A short story exploring one interesting thought I had a while back while sitting on the toilet. From one side is explores DARVO, a common technique used by offenders of all kinds to re-frame their offense such that victim and offender is flipped. And on the other hand it explores certain loopholes in certain ideologies that might give the DARVO mindset people some credence. I specifically avoid to have my own conclusion. I want it to stir people's minds. Sorry I'm Jewish. That's how my brain works.
Having watched films from all the decades, a rough understanding of the cinema techniques is picked up, even when not specifically looking for them. Early decades of cinema-making are characterized by experimentation of the medium and the development of special effects.
Seven years. Seven years after Steven Spielberg ( as a young fella ) was traumatized by the Cecil B. DeMille's 1952 film The Greatest Show On Earth another film-maker ( who also was a great inspiration on Spielberg ) Alfred Hitchcock decided to Hitch a train. But not in the same way Spielberg would end up doing over and over. Not into a car. If I lost you there, welcome to my review of North by Northwest.
The true brilliance of the film is the focus on the minute details. All puzzle pieces fit together and once you put the puzzle together, it feels so good. Given it is detective thriller, that's to be expected. The issue comes when you're watching it from the modern day perspective with all the Martin Scorseses and Destry Spielbergs out the, making actually messed up pictures. The thrill presented is light, tame in comparison with what is present now.
Contained thrillers are a very interesting sub-genre of film. They are usually cheaper to produce ( because they happen in one location ), but if done right, are masterful test-grounds for a film-maker. Look no further than M. Night Shyamalan and his excellent entries into this genre: Signs, The Village, Knock at the Cabin, Trap ( though this last one cannot be called cheap, I suppose ). Yet, when it comes to this kind of restricted film-making, one director takes the crown - Alfred Hitchcock and his 1954 film Rear Window. Let me explain...
There are 2 types of rebellious code-era film-makers: You have people like Alfred Hitchcock who's career is based on walking on the very edge of the censorship rules, and then not knowing what to do when these rules are lifted with the introduction of the MPAA rating system. And you have people like Stanley Kubrick who makes fucking Lolita under the code and then rejoices when the rules are lifted and makes fucking A Clockwork Orange. Yet, the question still stands: WTF is A Clockwork Orange?
Remember this situation: Mark Zuckerberg in court asked about his surveillance technology, tries desperately to make an argument that being spied on is good actually, because they can shove more personally relevant ads down people's throats. Like come on man... how do you want this to be a good argument? But you think about it and realize: he is fucking rich. He might actually have a huge issue with what to buy. For him a system that learns what he likes and suggests what to spend his money on, is a system that solves his problem.
Suppose a family, fleeting from abuse, comes seeking shelter. Do you hesitate to take them in, provide for the basic needs, when the cause of their hardship is an old nemesis of yours. One whose family and yours have been at war since time memorial.
Ricardo Stallmansky ( Richard Stallman ) is a divisive figure. He is the face of probably one of the most important social movements in today's day and age ( the Free Software Movement ), but also a lot of people borderline hate him for some rather serious-sounding stuff. There were open letters attacking the man and communities in support of him. Those who hate him, usually claim he says things that are inappropriate for him to say. Those who support him usually claim that he is Neurodivergent and therefor doesn't quite understand what triggers people.
WhatsApp, fucking WhatsApp. The app that everybody uses without thinking twice, that makes no sense being used in places that I have seen it being used. Fucking police officers share police-work-related stuff via WhatsApp groups for the entire user-data department of Meta ( and their data-brokers ) to see. This has to stop! WhatsApp has to be defeated!
So I made a bridge.