Movie Responses

Body Modification – Documentary or Mockumentary?

In our photography class we watched a video about a man named Jerome who thinks of himself as a collector of wearable art. He claims that he does this in order to express himself, lifestyle, and deal with his “suppression from society”. Jerome states that he is tired of tattoos and piercings, and wants a new style of self-expression through art. We follow Jerome and his traveling till we finally get to the destination, a garage. It is there we learn that Jerome is paying a person to shoot his left arm. The video continues showing Jerome being shot by the “gun body artist”, and Jerome leaves to the hospital. The video ends with an oddly placed video cut, about Jerome talking about a future modeling career. What makes people question about whether or not this video is a documentary or mockumentary is how the scenes were taken by the camera. There is not clear evidence for the actual shooting, as well as noticeable clip cuts from the filmmaker.

                In western society there has been growing acceptance of body art and body modifications for self-expression. However, this video shocks viewers in questioning if bullet wounds and such drastic measure are considered “art” or in general reasonable expression. In my view, I still have questions for Jerome as to why he needs to take it so far as to pay someone to shoot him, in order to gain a scar to talk about. In some views of others, a wound has different connotations, you were hurt and the scar may be there forever. I could see many people who were shot, especially service men and women, having questionable or negative reactions to Jerome’s decisions. For them their wound was a painful experience but also holds great honor for serving their country. While Jerome’s wound history involves him going to a garage and paying a man to shoot him. I am more positive towards art being added to previous scars of peoples experiences. For example, a breast cancer survivor tattooing around or over her/his scars in order to express their feelings. Same goes with wounded warriors. I am not saying that you have to have a traumatic experience in order to show off a wound, but I do think it makes more sense in my point of view of expression of the yourself and your past than Jerome’s case. However, it is a free country and I do support the freedom of self-expression. Since Jerome was not hurting anyone else with his new idea of self-expression, I can’t complain too much. Who is to say how far art and expression can go when it comes to your own self?

                I am very torn as to whether or not this is a documentary or mockumentary. The cut scenes are can be quite convincing or deceiving to the audience. I am also bothered by the fact that the body artist used little to no protection for himself when shooting Jerome. He didn’t think legal paperwork was needed, which is “sketchy” enough. This portrays a “real life underground-like” deal, or a clue that the documentary isn’t real. If I where the artist I would also be covering myself more during the procedure, because you do not know if your client has any blood related diseases. Or if the client is not satisfied with the purchase, they could come back and blame the artist. Another thing that I couldn’t comprehend was some of Jerome’s statements. He says he is “suppressed by society”, yet clearly he has his own car, and $500 dollars to have someone shoot him. Clearly there are people in the world who are less fortunate as him financially. There is also question-ability as to Jerome’s thoughts. I couldn’t help wondering if he was uneducated in some aspects, or if it’s a deceiving script to shock some viewers. However, I cannot judge someone completely, because I don’t know their whole story, or any inner turmoil. The video definitely creates provoking thoughts to its audience.



 __________________________________________________________________________________

Movie Response: RIP: A Remix manifesto

                This creative common’s film discusses the issues of copyright as well as human nature and intellectual property. Before watching this video, I already had opinions on the laws of copyright. Copyright was created with the intent on protecting people’s ideas and creativity. This law also addresses the notion of previous ideas and works made in the past. However, when you think about creativity and new ideas, you could say there is no such thing. The film states an important phrase, that culture builds on the past. For example, today’s technology was always based on past technology, and before that, the notion or means of creating this technology. Another example is music. If an artist creates a song, there is a chance that the tune, lyric, or notes were used previously. But even those past songs are copyrighting too. Aren’t they copyrighting the notes or language of the past? This argument may seem like it is taking copyright to the extreme, however, that the issue society is experiencing today. 

                The ideas of copyright and creativity can get tangled and create issues in society. One example the film talks about is remix music artists taking small pieces of other works of songwriters and musicians and mixing them to create their own song. However, they are not paying for the rights to use the songs. I personally go back and forth on the issue. On one hand, he didn’t do all the hard work of singing, or playing the instruments for the song, his talent and creativity was combining old beats and speech to create something new. He also didn’t pay the original artist that worked so hard. It seems even more controversial when they make a profit out of it. On the other hand, I still like the follow the notion of letting others express their creativity, and pushing the boundaries of society. What is considered right or wrong in this situation? 

                It doesn’t help matters when copyright is being used by large companies who realized that the common people were able to take over their jobs of spreading movies or music. The consumers were now becoming the creators. They use copyright now as a means of keeping their profits. I understand when someone works so hard to create something, and wants to protect it from people who blatantly steal. What really stood out most to me was when businesses are very harsh on the common people. I realize that it is the common people who illegally download movies or music, but today it has almost become a common crime that people admit to. There is something to be said when a billion-dollar company, not the artist of a song, tries and succeeds in suing or settling against a father whose child’s friends downloaded a song on their computer, or a single mother from a lower social class. These people are forced to pay sometimes over $150 thousand dollars per song downloaded, and/or have a chance of prison time for 5 years. There is no way to kill off the technology that may dampen or hurt an industry, but does that mean we have to criminalize those who use it? There is also an issue of these companies extending their copyrights privileges so much, that their company is profiting and controlling the entire market or ideas that coincide with the professional work.

                The copyright issue extends to beyond just the United States. Many countries unlike ours don't have the same copyright regulations. The United States pressures or helps these countries conform to our copyright laws, forcing the countries to start criminalizing their own people. It is a system that isn't working. Copyrighting has also been shown in some cases to limit scientific progress, specially in medicine. To the extreme case, there are now copyrights to patent organisms. For instance a person who patented a particular plant in the rain forest now benefits from all profit and use of the plant. What about the issues of the indigenous people who lived their first and used the plant as an important medicine? What about making sure the plant is preserved, and doesn't go extinct due to a man's greed for profit? If a living organism can be copyrighted how far will the laws go in the future?

                In the end comes an important question, can we put a price or limit to human creativity? And if so, who would be even given the authority of doing so? I personally support the idea of having the free will of expressing yourself through creative means. I also believe this comes with some rules that should be used for at least some sense of courtesy. If you use someone’s idea or work, you should give them attribution or cite them. Creativity is expressing your own feelings of another idea or work but in the manner of how you feel or take from it.