Tag: pop-culture

Amy Winehouse Was More Than “Back To Black”

On By WinstonIn Media, Pop Culture, SocietyLeave a comment

Whatever else Amy Winehouse may have been, regardless of how she may have lived, she was a person. According to Stephen Marche writing in Maclean’s magazine Aug 9, that doesn’t matter. In a burst of self-indulgent idiocy of truly epic proportions Mr. Marche not only pretends to know the “real” meaning of her album “Back to Black”, he insists her talent was of greater value than she was.

Among his more egregious violations is the claim that by placing deep chimes in the middle of the song “Back to Black” she “rings the bells in her own memory”. He then goes on to say the song was a “funeral elegy to herself”. He draws prescient meaning from drug references, to create the impression she knew she was going to die. He doesn’t quite accuse her of suicide, but close to it.

Even these conceits are not extreme by Maclean’s standards. Indeed, many of those who have chosen to cash in on her death have presumed to know her mind based on her public persona. I understand. That’s the type of article the public wants, and it’s their job to give it to them. No, Stephem Marche had something much more vile and insidious in store.

He quotes an interview she gave to Rolling Stone magazine in 2007. “I don’t want to be ungrateful,” she said. “I know I’m talented, but I wasn’t put here to sing. I was put here to be a wife and a mom and look after my family.” What was this loathsome hack’s response you may ask? “What self-conception could be more in error? What statement could be further from the truth?”. That is his response to this young woman’s desire for a normal life. She wanted at some level to step back from precipice at the end of the path she was on. He accuses her of throwing away her talent. Of being so talented, she had no understanding of how precious that talent was. In this there is an implied obligation to share. An objectifying vocal slavery requiring her to sing at his whim regardless of her wishes.

But it is in the final line of his article we find by far the most telling insight into his grotesque and distorted psyche.

“Sometimes 33 minutes can be worth more than 27 years.”.

If Stephen Marche truly believes that 33 minutes of music is of greater value than Amy’s life, he should be put on a pedestal in a museum. The plaque would read, “Here stands Stephen Marche. The Defining Example Of All That Is Wrong With The Cult Of Celebrity”. Nearby would be baskets of spoiled fruit and rotten eggs for patrons to throw at it.

p.s.
The premature end of Amy Winehouse’s life is truly a tragedy for her family and friends. So are the thousands of other lives lost to drugs and alcohol both literally and figuratively every year.

Cheers, Winston

Critics And Commoners

On By WinstonIn MoviesLeave a comment

I enjoy Michael Bay movies. There, I’ve said it. According to the vast majority of film critics this makes me no-taste, mouth-breathing Troglodyte. This must be true because everyone knows that critics know more about movies than I do.

This great deception is based on the idea that the masses wouldn’t know or appreciate art if they tripped over it. Critics are all about meaning and depth and (my least favorite) importance. Without these, they tell us, a movie is cheap, trashy, worthless etc. I think they are missing the point.

Art serves two purposes. The first is the expression of the artist’s vision. No one can judge the success of this except the artist. The second is to generate a response in the audience. As the audience I think I can figure out my reaction for myself. Once art is commercialized in the form of movies, music or any other medium where a third party has an interest then profit must also be added to the purposes.

Because movies require a significantly larger third party investment, that need for profitability increases proportionately. This leads to the divide between high cost, profit-driven studio pictures and lower cost, vision-driven independent films. Given a choice, critics will almost always snub the “populist” studio movie in favour of the more elitist independent film. Personally, I enjoy both types. Which is why it irks me to see alleged experts insisting on this artificial divide. They tear down the popular to build up that which is less so. In doing do so they cut away two of the tripods three legs. They ignore the audience, and in doing so deny the ugly truth of that art costs money.

Of course they also maintain the myth that for art to be art, it must be inaccessible to the “average” person. If I or anyone else can say that something is good where does that leave the professional critics?

The only valid critics are those whose subject requires specialty knowledge. An example of which would be an automotive journalist. They have knowledge which I do not and so it makes sense for me to pay attention to what they say. Movie critics can claim no such specialization. Film school notwithstanding, they are still not qualified to tell me what I do, or do not enjoy. It is fine to say that they did not enjoy a movie for whatever reason. When they say no one else should either, they cross the line from simple opinion to self-important delusions of grandeur.

The other leg of the the tripod is of course profit. While everyone treats it like a dirty word, nothing could be further from the truth. Profit is a convenient measure of success in the public space which movies inhabit. If a movie is created to have broad appeal and generate large profits it is still art. For such a movie success is measured by it’s popularity and thus profitability.

By this measure, contrary to what critics and their parrots will tell you, Michael Bay is a good film-maker. (See, I typed that and the Art Gods didn’t smite me.). Let me clarify. Any 100m Olympic sprinter can tell you, you don’t take the gold by sucking at running. Michael Bay is the artist putting his vision out there, the audience is overwhelmingly positive in their response leading to high profits and happy studios. Mr. Bay gets hired to make movies that fill theaters and make money. That’s what he does, and he does it extremely well. He has filled a niche in a highly competitive market, and his success is proof of one important fact: no matter how they try, critics can’t actually tell a person what they will like.