Rachael Larkin

When I was a kid I used to play a game.  I don’t know what it’s called but it required two people; one person would extend one arm fully and close their eyes while the other would slowly move their finger up the inside of the other’s arm, starting at their wrist.  The person with their eyes closed would have to instruct the other to stop once they reached the bend of the arm at the inside of the elbow.  What was always remarkable about this game was if the person whose eyes were closed had never played the game before, they would always tell them to stop long before they were at the bend of the arm. There is something about the sensitive skin on the inside of the arm that disorients the person.  A veteran of the game would almost always guess it at just the right spot or maybe just after.  The experience had by the receiver in this game is much like the experience a viewer has while watching a Terrence Malick film, particularly Knight of Cups.  The key to enjoying the game is to submit to it, and to find a way to connect yourself more fully to your body and your experience with the outside world. While watching Knight of Cups (KOC), the viewer finds themselves having to connect with the images on a deeper level in order to understand the film.  If you do not allow yourself to connect with the characters, and accept unanswered questions, all while being disoriented by beautiful but random images, then the film may never resonate with you.  Same as in the game; if you are not willing to push your mind to connect with your body then you will not win the game.

KOC is a labor of the heart and mind to submit to the unconventional story-telling of Malick.  It forces the mind and heart to work together in order to fully comprehend the film.  Though Malick’s films are played in mainstream theaters, they are by no standards mainstream. Sure, they are usually loaded with A list celebrities, but they are regarded as a rare visual and spiritual journey for both the actors and viewers.  A rare opportunity for the actors to work alongside such a visionary and a rare opportunity for the viewer to expand their ideas of conventional stories

KOC moves slowly through a man’s life, backwards and forward in time as he struggles with reconciling his past with his present. His past being his father and the death of his brother, and his present being his thrill in immersing himself in trysts with a model, a stripper, his ex wife, and a married woman. It is never clear if it is moving chronologically, and it is because of that unknown that the viewer is forced to connect with the story in an unusual way. The way Malick structures Knight of Cups is not as a conventional storyline, but as a stream of consciousness. In that way, there is not beginning, middle or end. It is simply a snippet of one mans life and his struggle to make sense of his surroundings. As the story unfolds, a series of haunting narratives are layered over raw and organic images that use only natural light. These narratives along with a haunting soundtrack, serve as the only audible guideline for the viewer. The narratives seem to be the innermost thoughts of the characters and could also be heard as prayers. When the visuals combine with the audio, it feels as if you are seeing in on someone’s memory of an event, rather than a retelling of the event itself. And because of that, it forces you to feel things and assume things that you may not otherwise assume.

For instance, it is never confirmed, but Bale’s character holds resentment towards his father for his brothers death. This is conveyed to the viewer in a brief scene of his father washing blood from his hands. The way that it is edited makes it seem as if it is calling on the metaphor of someone being peripherally guilty of something by having “blood on their hands”. This metaphor doesn’t necessarily imply they were directly responsible, just that it may not have happened without them. Other scenes, however, are more obvious as real events, not metaphors. It is in the metaphorical visuals that the viewer finds themselves constantly searching for meaning or truth in every movement, every sound, and every moment.

We Are Legion is a powerful documentary that unpacks the origins and motives of the famous/infamous hacker organizations known as Anonymous and the like-minded organization known as Wiki-Leaks.  While the idea of hacking (or “pranking”) originated in computer communities like M.I.T, Anonymous was born within a website called 4Chan. Which was essentially a forum-based website where anyone could anonymously post on any topic with a comment and a photo.  The forum was organized by topics and the culture of 4Chan was best represented according to it’s members in the /b/board, founded by Chris “Moot” Poole.  It was on /b/board that members posted the most alarming, offensive, vile, or outrageous images that “could not be unseen”.  This gave this large community of people a place to voice their opinions without repercussion for the sole sake of entertainment and to also find solace that they were not alone in this desire.  It was here that meme’s were born and also where the idea of “trolling” was born: the act of infuriating someone on the internet just to see how angry you can make them.  It was raw, unfitted and the absolutely opposite of social media in the sense that it was a space of complete anonymity and social media was solely about being yourself. This documentary focuses on how /b/board went from being an uncensored and outrageous community forum to morphing into the unrelenting force that not only attacked major corporations and groups like Scientology, Paypal and MasterCard, but also major Governments like Egypt, Tunisia, Australia and even the US.

The information in We Are Legion was presented by many different individuals who were either a part of Anonymous or had heavily researched the group and the causes and effect of their actions. The opening scene of WAL immediately sets the tone of average, seemingly harmless people being investigated by the government for “harmless” acts of protest. This is a trend throughout the entire film; where it is implied that the members of Anon and Wikileaks were facing legal repercussion for internet assaults that were within their constitutional right to “freedom of speech”.  After lying the framework of how Anon was born, the film began to describe a concept called DDos’ing, or Denial of Service Attack (also known as Virtual Sit-ins). This was when a group of them would all decide to shut down any website of their choice by essentially bombarding it with so much traffic that it could no longer function. When describing this, Anon members, which remained Anonymous for most of the film (with the exception of Gregg Housh, Mike Vitale and Brian Mettenbrink) they were nothing short of giddy and completely empowered by their actions and belief that they had done the right thing.  Most notably their DDos of Scientology in which they completely overwhelmed the infrastructure of Scientology not only with technology but with massive, worldwide meet-ups organized on the Anon forums.  Former member Mike Vitale gives the most detailed account of this and remembers it as the most invigorating experience of his life. He and Greg Housh explained how this worldwide protest against Scientology was proof that the power of Anonymous could be harnessed for good and that these . Brian Mettenbrink used a website tool called Low Orbit Ion Canon, which did what virtual sit-ins could only dream of doing with just a push of a button. Six months after doing this he was sentenced to a year in prison after being tracked down by the FBI.

The idea of “sticking it to the man” became even more powerful than ever before with the help of the internet. Anonymous, with the help of the internet was able to unite a massive group of individuals who may have otherwise not been able to make a difference: essentially power in numbers. It is obvious in the film that the filmmaker believed in the ethos of Anonymous and may well have been a member himself. There were no other opinions sourced for the film. It was solely interviews with members of the community or people who were giving objective knowledge of the group, with the exception of Aaron Barr who was the CEO of a company called H.B. Gary. Aaron Barr came out publicly against Anonymous, which was seen as career suicide at the time. This footage of this interview that was included was incredibly brief, and possibly edited to suit the goal of the film. He said something that sounded a lot like something Anon might say in support of their cause. Something to the effect of “You can either do nothing, or do something.” As a result of his public declaration, he was attacked by Anonymous and had to eventually step down. The film did not acknowledge how this may have affected Aaron Barr’s family or the employees of his company. In fact, that is not something that Anonymous ever acknowledged. In this way, the film felt contradictory at times. The film was aimed at engraining the idea of free speech on the viewer, it did not acknowledge that they were attacking companies who also had the same rights to free speech.

Who is M.I.A. you ask? Only one of the most radical female performers of our time. Growing up during the civil war in Sri Lanka her childhood represents one of a refugee. Which is why “Borders” has been a subject matter she has covered throughout her career. This music video specifically has weeded out a lot of hate from Neo-Nazi groups and people thinking it would cause white genocide. But on the other side it’s recieved an tremendous amount of support from her fans and people like me who think its important for artist to talk about common affairs and things that affect us. 

“Your beliefs (What's up with that?) Your families (What's up with that?) Histories (What's up with that?) Your future (What's up with that?)”

The politically charged single tackles issues that refugees are currently facing. The Self directed video follows M.I.A. with refugees climbing fences and filling small boats. It illustrates the horrifying situations that many refugees are dealing with.

All M.I.A.’s work has a clear idea and objection. Her eye for color palettes and shots never seem to disappoint. The video starts out with her in a matching peach rain coat and hat. Behind her in the distance runs two strong lines of refugees marching through the clay earth. She then starts her chorus which always ends with her saying (What’s up with that?). Here she questions borders, politics, police shots, identities, the new world, and things like privileges. She remains calm and collective while reciting the lyrics as hundreds of refugees behind her are trying to jump over the high fence barrier. 

While on top of a high chained link fence with bob-wire she criticizes that governments failure to act by saying,

“Guns blow doors to the system Yeah fuck 'em when we say we're not with them We're solid and we don't need to kick them This is North, South, East and Western”

A pretty powerful shot comes next of the refugees latched onto the chain link fence forming the word LIFE with their bodies. Next M.I.A. comes back onto the camera in a new peach colored rain jacket reciting the word,

“Queen (What's up with that?) Killing it (What's up with that?) Slaying it (What's up with that?) Your goals (What's up with that?) Being bae (What's up with that?) Making money (What's up with that?) Breaking internet (What's up with that?) Love wins (What's up with that?) Living it (What's up with that?) Being real (What's up with that?)”

She’s clearly calling out social media platform terms and trying to understand them within what is really happening in our world. As she sings she stands on a cloudy sand beach with hundreds of refugees behind her in matching carmel raincoats conjoined with each other to create what looks like a tug boat. The next shot is of her wearing a different outfit, green pants and a shirt that I can make out the words “Jesus” on. She is standing in ankle deep water as she parts the sea and two long boats completely packed with refugee men standing up pass by her. All the rest of the shots of the video include boats over packed with refugees laying down next to hear as she sings. 

Freedom (What's up with that?) Your power (What's up with that?)

In Kurt Anderson’s, “You Say You Want A Devolution?” he states that popular style has been stuck on repeat the last twenty years. He makes a lot of really great points explaining how generations such has the 60’s to 70’s stand out far more than the 90’s to the 2000’s.  But I do have to disagree with him being born in the 80’s I could look at a photo from 92’ and 2012 and definitely distinguish the two.  

To start it off Anderson agrees that technology has made leaps since 1990. But he doesn’t take in to consideration that teenagers are growing up completely different than teenagers were in the 90s. Cell phones and social media have replaced a lot of what the norm use to be. Coming from the generation that was all about hand written letters and face-to-face interactions I do miss it. As does most of the population that was born before 90’s, so I can see why we do resemble such a nostalgic culture. A lot of things seemed better, more raw, and organic before the digital years. But ninety percent of teens these days own a cell phone, and their world heavily relying on technology, without knowing anything different.

Because of the rise of technology we do process more content daily than ever before. So I can see why a lot of people are overloaded and don’t have the capacity to make distinctive change. Being comfortable is what the media is constantly throwing at us. Sure the artist lifestyle is fantasized over, but the majority of Americans feel that urge to move to the suburbs, settle down, and have kids. Having a child myself and not fitting this mold I know how rare it is. But that’s not to say it’s not more accepted today than it ever has been, and I have found other young tribes I connect with on this level.

Staying up with the trends that have been completely monopolized. I think fashion over the last twenty years have bounced off past genres but to reinvent it and make it our own. I think this is where the remix culture comes in. But he is right that a majority of the population, aka middle class, tend to all shop at the same places like, Gap, Target, H&M, etc. I read in an article that President Obama only owns the same style suit just in multiples so he never has to exhaust his energy on what he is going to wear. A lot of Americans think this way or feel the incredible pressure to fit in with what is trending. I think the fashion industry has felt it the most. There use to be so many innovative clothing labels, who mass-market American companies like Zara and H&M use to rip off of.  In the last New York times I read about how Louie Vuitton is having a hard time staying in business trying to keep up with these mass-marketed companies, and really there is just no way they can. These companies are using the lowest quality materials, with the most unsustainable methods to create the cheapest product for the general public. So I do feel as if true fashion has become stagnant because small independent labels are being driven out of business by HUGE companies like Target were you could get the exact same look for a fraction of the cost.

I also agree and disagree with him on his thoughts that music is repeating itself. Music has always been influenced by culture and past generations. Because of sampling I do agree that a lot of Pop music in the last ten years does sound the same. But the musicians themselves are more unique and controversial than years before. I mean just look at Miley Cyrus; she’s a full-blown character. Sure her image may be superficially composed, but it still is new. Also there is no way you can compare Adele to Mariah Carey, I mean common, or Madonna to Gaga, they all have their own identity.