For the Love of Ryan Gosling - 'The Ides of March' (2011), 'Blue Valentine' (2010), 'Drive' (2011), 'Half Nelson' (2006)

For the Love of Ryan Gosling

There are very few moments that I gush about a mainstream actor or actress with a few movies under their belt. For the most part I think it is best to look to people like Judi Dench, Ed Harris, Sean Penn, Al Pacino and the other veterans for true talent. But there is a star emerging that I want to draw your attention to if you don’t know his name yet. I remember when I first saw Brad Pitt in ‘Thelma and Louise’. He was a pretty boy in a pair of jeans and a six pack. No one would have expected his role as psychopath in ‘Kalifornia’ or his future-seeing lunatic in ‘Twelve Monkeys’. We couldn’t expect his charismatic handling of ‘Fight Club’ as the anarchist Tyler Durden and we also wouldn’t have thought him capable of the understated cool we saw in the first ‘Oceans Eleven’. By the time I saw him ‘Babel’, it was obvious this actor had shades of Robert Redford and in my opinion even better breadth. The actor who has emerged, the next Brad Pitt, who I have all my chips on (more impressive if I was a gambler perhaps) is of course: Ryan Gosling.

Now I must admit that I think this man is certainly eye candy. I think he is stunningly good-looking on screen and able to captivate all audiences with his cool. But this is simply a veil of handsomeness on a core great actor. The first film I saw him in was ‘Half Nelson’ (2006) where Gosling plays a drug addict teacher who is falling out of control of his addiction. Gosling plays this challenging role with an ease that is extraordinary, nothing short of what Leonardo DiCaprio brought to his early drug addiction film ‘Basketball Diaries’. It is utterly believable and the on-screen chemistry he creates with his schoolkids (also good actors) is also so real that we can’t help but be drawn in. Most memorable is the bathroom scene when Gosling’s character feeds his crack habit and is rumbled by one of his students. The scene is so very moving, Gosling opening up the human predicament in a truly remarkable piece of acting. If you don’t mind seeing a clip, take a look for yourself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MzZNMWUNHo ). It is easy to think it is the impressive camera work that delivers in this scene and that Gosling adds to it. I think I thought that too. But then I saw ‘Blue Valentine’ (2010)….

‘Blue Valentine’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oiY7W7nDeE&ob=av3e) is an impeccable piece of film-making if ever there was one. I saw it soon after my marriage finally broke down (not the best timing for the film) and this film really tore me apart with its heart-wrenching honesty and beautiful simplicity of design. The film tells in short the start and end of a relationship at the same time, the couple pictured happy and in love as they start to date and fall in love and, parallel with this shown, many years hateful of and pained by each other as they break apart. The film was astonishingly profound to watch, drawing comparisons one would rarely see made between the way we can openly and meaningfully love things about a person and then come to openly and meaningfully hate those same things. Ryan Gosling was matched like for like with another rising star, Michelle Williams, whom I also note highly due to her performance in ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and the highly anticipated new film ‘My Week with Marilyn’. I have indeed been watching her for many years as an avid ‘Dawson’s Creek’ fan whilst at university… The two stars were weighted perfectly on screen and seemed for all sense and purposes a thoroughly believable couple. This perhaps has a lot to do with their living together in a small flat to get in to character for their role. You could feel their relationship in every corner of their performance and this was made clear by the fact we didn’t need the story between their meeting and their breaking to understand their life together. Gosling however stood out once again. If you were under the illusion it is the film that is making it work for him, you can see in ‘Blue Valentine’ that this is quintessentially not the case. I surely have never seen such a convincing depiction of a real, un-idealised man falling in love and then being ended with against his power and wants. He shows beautifully man’s inability to articulate feelings, to change, to understand, to admit inadequacies and insecurities. He also shows however how seductive a man can be by being himself. We believe Williams’ character falls for him because he is so genuine and most importantly a symbol of strength for her. I was blown away. I was a believer and couldn’t wait for another of his films to catch my eye.

It was the recent film ‘Drive’ (2011) that I went out of my way to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBiOF3y1W0Y). I knew I was going to love it and sure as hell I did. An entirely different film to the others, this film highlighted further breadth for this wonderful young actor. With hardly any lines, and a splattering of disarmingly sudden ultra-violence, Gosling embodies a getaway driver who gets in over his head with a local crime boss. Gosling is the epitome of ‘cool’ in this film. Strong, controlled, silent, deadly. Think of the dark side of Steve McQueen and you have his character in a nutshell. Again Gosling has a superb director at the helm and an inspiring cast who do very well too, but nothing can take away from this star as he is truly magnetic on screen. Forget men wanting to be ‘Alfie’. They want to be Gosling’s anonymous ‘Driver’. I heard that the director came up with the idea for the film watching the actor as he drove him in his car. Yes, the director had had a lot of medication as he was ill but I can still entirely believe that this could occur. Gosling oozes charm. It comes out in his interviews and it comes out in his film choices.

George Clooney’s fourth and most accomplished directorial piece ‘The Ides of March’ (2011) is the very latest film to feature Gosling’s consummate talent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McCt-_yYLpo). Clooney has always had an eye for actorial skill. He launched Sam Rockwell for the most part who is another star worthy of mention. It is no wonder that he took on Gosling in the main role in his complex anti-political drama. Gosling plays a Stevie Meyers, right hand media PR man to Clooney’s Governor Morris as he moves forward toward presidential election. Clooney pulls back from the spotlight to let Gosling come forward and shine as a young man full of idealistic principles and true belief in the worthiness of Morris as the future president who then sees the errors of his idealism and belief in the political system. We follow, as in a Greek tagedy, the fall of his character from such clean, moral heights to someone who must utilise dirty politics in order not to be smeared and lose his career in the process. It is a masterful piece, another excellent anti-establishment choice by Nespresso-toting Clooney. I must give Clooney the credit he deserves. Clooney knows what films are going to rattle people with its questioning of power, its deconstruction of corporate or national politics. Just look at ‘Syriana’ (2005), ‘Michael Clayton’ (2007), ‘Three Kings’ (1999) and ‘The Men Who Stare at Goats’ (2009). This is an actor who knows what he is doing. I really hope that he is going to take Gosling under his wing and encourage the young actor to keep going as he has done so far. With good film choices, good directors, good supporting casts etc. Less films like ‘The Notebook’ (2004), less sell-out romantic comedies, and more good solid dramas. Gosling is someone who needs to go the distance.

In short, if you have not seen these four films, please please go and see them and remark at the handsome genius of Ryan Gosling. He really is one to look out for. And yes, I am slightly in love with him.

Jana Manuelpillai

http://thouartsgood.blogspot.com/

ANNA BRUDER’s ‘ALINE 117’ @ DALSTON SUPERSTORE

ANNA BRUDER’s ‘ALINE 117’ @ DALSTON SUPERSTORE

Does anyone remember the 80s cartoon ‘Penny Crayon’?(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY5zQXYYMaw) About the girl who draws on walls with her magic crayon and those things she draws coming alive. Okay so it really didn’t go down in history as groundbreaking animation but it was the first thing that came to mind when I met charismatic and cheerful artist, Anna Bruder, at her ‘Aline 117’ installation at the Dalston Superstore on Kingsland High Street. Like Penny Crayon, Bruder always moves around with a thick black, flat-tipped marker in her bag, ready to graffiti, adorn, embellish and create wherever she sees a surface of interest. However, where Penny Crayon (don’t worry I’m gonna leave Penny soon) draws in order to bring to life things that are not there, for Bruder this is not always her interest. In the majority of her work, Bruder two-dimensionalises the world reducing it to black outlines with no implication of tone or shade that would add three-dimensionality. Before approaching a space she paints the entire area white, neutralising it of colour and as much shape as possible. She then applies her black marker line, often outlining what is already there. At her recent installation, ketchup bottles are made to be brandless, generic items very unlike how see them today. Flowers lose their sentimentality, romance and sculptural quality. They become under Bruder’s inspection and recreation flat pieces of card with standard flower shapes outlined on them sticking out of a basic container vase.

The real world is recreated as a series of synonymous emblems of the real world, an alternate place that simply points to what was there or could be there. In this way Bruder’s work activates the viewer in two ways. We have to fill in the blanks as it were, to work backwards from her rudimentary drawing to the real world. Secondly we are activated in that we feel a new romance brought out for this new vision of the world we live in. One that leaves behind the hub-bub and literally goes back to basics. Bruder describes her technique as making a ‘Wendy House’ of the world. This aligns her work with a childish view of the world where the wendy house epitomises a simplified existence. It is a creation of a perfect new space for us all to live in, full size rather than miniaturised, filled with humour and personality. Simplified it may be, but paradoxically we start noticing things rather than overlooking them. In other words, we realise we don’t need the detail. 

Viewing ‘Aline 117’ at Dalston Superstore one is filled with the artist’s love for the world rather than distaste for it. It is undeniably optimistic, particularly due to its location in gritty Dalston. Black outlines on the wall describe shelves of wine glasses, cups and champagne flutes hanging mirrors, fireplaces, lampshades, a bowl of goldfish, a solitary and tame pet kitten etc. Above us fly cut-out giant birds and airplanes. Dalston is given perhaps an ironically middleclass view of the world, idealised and deliberately short-sighted while all the while the poverty of the area is viewable from the window. I remember leaving the space for a smoke outside and standing by the roadworks and polluting cars in deadlock on the busy street and thinking that this is what her installation stands in contrast to. Dalston for a short time is given relief from itself. This is not to say that this idyll is what everyone in or outside Dalston aspires. This Wendy House is simply a manifestation of aspiration in a general sense. It is a parody perhaps of our middle class ambitions or our need to live in a perfect world away from the reality of life today.   

In the last ten years, Anna has had the opportunity to work in a variety of settings and venues, some more unconventional and prestigious than others. From major art galleries and theatres (Somerset House and The Barbican), to TV commercials and full-scale performances at Wembley Arena, her work successfully translates into many varied artistic contexts. She is planning a series of Pop-up Shops to display and sell her work to interested collectors but before this, on Sunday 27^th November, she will be hosting a colouring-in party at the Dalston Superstore to mark the end of her installation. Audiences are invited to come and colour in her black outlines, in a sense activate and personalize them before Bruder’s Wendy House disappears. She invites all to come down and enjoy this experience. It is from 7pm onwards at the Dalston Superstore, Kingsland High Street, E82PB. I would get there early to see the space in all its detail-less glory.

Jana Manuelpillai

http://thouartsgood.blogspot.com/
www.thenoblesage.com

Bon iver - skinny love video

Watch "Bon Iver - Skinny Love - Music Video" on YouTube

Inspired advertisement from japan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGz74VHe3S0&feature=player_embedded


You can almost feel the quiet in this gorgeous video. Enjoy!

POSTMODERNISM: STYLE AND SUBVERSION @ the Victoria & Albert Museum until the 15thJanuary 2012

We all like to bandy around the word ‘Postmodern’ like it’s anyone’s business, right? Well I do. But how many of us stop and actually question what we really mean by this or at least why do we use that word rather than others? When do we most use it? And to describe what? I think most of you right now are thinking the same as me, that we mostly use that word in an ironic sense with a determinable sarcastic note. For example, I have many people come with me to an exhibition in Dalston and, when they see something wacky, they sarcastically exclaim, scratching their imaginary beard: ‘Oh it’s so Postmodern!’. We all then have a good laugh and move on. Sound familiar? A few days ago I went to the V&A’s exhibition, ‘POSTMODERNISM: STYLE AND SUBVERSION’ (@V_and_A) really to see when this term came to be, what it really meant and how it is important to our lives. Now as I did a degree in English Literature and have studied some contemporary art during my time at MASS MoCA in the States, I had some idea of what ‘Postmodernism’ meant in terms of literature and art but still was wanting a firmer footing in this precarious conceptual minefield.

The show was an interesting one. The first thing one must say is that the show certainly has its limitations. For instance the big claim as being the first major exhibition on Postmodernism worldwide does ignore the fact that this for the most part is a show about Postmodern design, fashion and architecture. It doesn’t take in art and literature into its remit even if that also was subversive. Having said that, it does contextualise these three areas to some degree in relation to film and music. Now that we have renamed this exhibition in our minds as ‘Postmodernism in Design’, we can look at its great triumphs. This exhibition is a wonderfully-curated show detailing a period that many of us lived through and of which were part: the late 1970s, 80s and most of the 90s. Through a multifaceted array of objects and styles of display at different eye levels, this exhibition brings this period to colourful life. We are taken (not that far) back to a time with bright luminous colours, clashing fashion styles, androgynous off-centre hairstyles, garishly stylistic TV and music videos, and over the top typefaces and advertising. What came to my mind most was the scene when Michael J. Fox’s character first walks out into the main town square and then into ‘Café 80s’ in ‘Back to the Future: Part II’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-ObLX7lZc ;  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E1P_ZEy6bk&NR=1) and is hit by a bombardment of disjointed occurrences. The famous town hall (yes, the one that gets struck by lightning) is situated right next to an absolutely crazy structure with no attempt to match styles for so-called neat townscaping. It has jutting out edges and facets that block the view of the pristine 1950s town hall, serve no real purpose, and almost purposefully seems to accentuate its poor continuity with its bright blue colouring. Inside the café, Fox is astonished to see people decked out in randomly chosen bright, synthetic plastic-looking clothing though drinking and eating to the music of Michael Jackson’s classic track ‘BAD’. American nostalgia is scattered around the space awkwardly, juxtaposed with haphazard technology. TV monitors career around the room taking people’s orders. Rather than real faces doing the waiting, we have a stylised Michael Jackson and Ronald Reagan, irreverent and unlikely. What was described in essence was a Postmodern future rather than a Modern one. This was the overriding image of Postmodernism as portrayed by the V&A.

Whereas Modernist design aimed at inferring modern efficiency, utopian ideals, streamlining, flat colours, the discreet hiding of technology and clean edges (IKEA is probably the biggest example of this in many ways), Postmodernist design, by contrast, pushed forward the jarring juxtaposition of the old and new, or at least conflicting styles. Thus in the late 70s and early 80s, architectural designs were taken forward that took classical motifs and threw them with more modern structures. The finished products look deliberately awkward and fly in the face of idealism and the user-experience. Fashion and music, exemplified by Grace Jones in the exhibition, had outfits that brought together sharp, non-symmetrical, angular dimensions with the elegance of classic dress. Likewise fashion and hairstyles that meshed the classically male and the classically female in look were also the ‘in’ thing. I thought of the Pet Shop Boys and their outrageously over the top videos of the 1980s, The Tube and its ancestor The Word in the 1990s. These all seemed Postmodernist in many ways, dystopian, chaotic and irreverent. In terms of furniture and jewellery, we are shown cabinets, armchairs, bookshelves and necklaces that are cut across in styles – classical design meets garish, plastic-looking, brightly-coloured blockiness. The exhibition took the seminal film ‘Bladerunner’ (1982) by Ridley Scott as the archetypal Postmodernist film: a vision of the future that was far from somewhere we want to live, where identity is up for grabs and we live in darkness everyday. Costumes, music and imagery were displayed in the exhibition as proof of the hybridity of this important film, a piece that refuses to sit comfortably in the categories of sci-fi, film noire or fiction. At one amazing moment in the exhibition, and I do not use that word often, many of the exhibition visitors were standing in a square space looking from one large screen above us to another adjacent to it, all showing 80s music videos. It felt like we were droids, anonymous sheep-like humans staring at our past in a strange future. It was very ‘Bladerunner’ to say the least.

The exhibition was a success. It opened my eyes to Postmodernism in relation to design and in relation to this early period of my life. We had all been part of it and it reminded me that we should always keep our eyes open and realise what is happening around us, never take anything for granted. We may have never come into contact with Postmodernist high fashion or furniture but we certainly saw the outcomes trickle down into music videos and hairstyles. My only complaint about the show is that it became a bit generalist in its approach to the term by the last segment. Postmodernism seemed to blend into the key concepts of the Pop Art movement and, although there were certainly overlaps in ideas, this was a shame. I think it would have been better to stop the show at 1990 and bring in contemporary art’s response to Postmodernism. For example, does Postmodernism in art have less meaning than Conceptualism when it comes to this era? Where were the Fluxus artists and the Minimalists? In literature, where was Salman Rushdie’s Metaphysics and Fabulation, the increase in black humour or dystopian playfulness, or indeed the much touted ‘death of the author’. Experimental music was handled through the consummate American composer, Philip Glass, but altogether a little too loosely. Dance and theatre likewise were meagre inclusions.

I left the show wishing for more on this important couple of decades, though certainly knowing more about what it means to be ‘Postmodern’. I must admit I did feel that this exhibition was an important start in the continuing deciphering of the term. As such it came across as superficial at points, drawing together aspects of the eighties that were in our face at the time and saying it was Postmodernist in retrospect. Having said that, the period was so recent that it is hard to be totally objective about it all. Either way I enjoyed the show immensely and would recommend it highly to any of you. It occurred to me in conversation with my friend afterwards that one might postulate that when you see your next wacky artwork at a small pokey gallery in Dalston and someone raggedly dressed in your group says in that mock-refined tone that it is ‘soooo Postmodern’, that in their pretended posh speak and choice of words, as well as in their choice of place to say it, they are ironically being Postmodern even if the work is not. There’s something for you to get your head round.         

Jana Manuelpillai

http://thouartsgood.blogspot.com/