I am using this research as the basis not only for my context project but also for my film art consolidation project. Bearing this in mind I would like to briefly discuss how I wish the film to look.
In a session a while ago we discussed how music videos can be a good source of inspiration for film techniques and styles. This got me thinking, so I began to look through my favourite music videos for inspiration. My favourite music video is Before I Forget by Slipknot, for those who are perhaps unfamiliar with Slipknot, their image is based on the idea of anonymity, they all wear the same boiler suits, each wears an individual mask and they are all named with numbers.
In the music video they are all wearing simple black t-shirts, jeans and trainers, they're masks are off and displayed near them and they are performing in a large, white room. To me this music video is amazing, the cinematography fits the theme of anonymity so perfectly. The entire video is made up of close ups, the viewer never gets the full picture, with an extremely shallow depth of field, making anyone or anything appearing in the background of a shot blurry and out of focus, hiding their identity. It is also quite over exposed, making even their location a mystery.
All these techniques not only continue the band's theme of anonymity but it also makes them feel like more than just people. I feel that not only is this a cool look that I wish to explore but also that it would compliment the subject matter of the film, it would make the characters feel more like entities than people just as the music video does. Another thing to note is the use of costume in the video, very simplified that goes well with the look and it will be worth exploring that as well as the camera techniques for the film.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Thursday, 8 March 2012
College students who can't day-dream.
I have recently watched The Shock Doctrine. It is a documentary based on the book of the same name by Naomi Klein. Both explore and explain the rise of what they call Disaster Capitalism, which, according them, has become the dominant economic doctrine over the last thirty years.
The whole idea is based on the psychological effects of sensory deprivation and apply sensory deprivation to entire societies.
The Shock Doctrine explains how these techniques have been used to spread radical free market capitalist ideologies around the world. The basic idea is that by using man-made and natural disaster to distract the public, they can destroy a country and build it from the ground up in their image.
"In Sri Lanka, in the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami. People who lived on the beaches for generations were prevented from returning so that the land could be privatised and sold off to luxury hotels. And this is exactly what I mean by the Shock Doctrine, the systematic raiding of the public’s fear in the aftermath of a disaster. When people are too focused on the emergency, on their daily concerns to protect their interest” – Naomi Klein
The film presents numerous examples of how this technique has been used throughout the last century. From the military coup in Chile in 1973 to the current financial crisis.
For example in Chile, Salvador Allende’s popular Unity Government was elected into power on a platform of nationalisation of large sectors of the economy. The US did all that they could to distablise the Chilean economy and with General Augusto Pinochet in charge of the Chilean military, work began on a military coup. The military assualted the presidential palace, resulting in the death of Salvador Allende. In the days after Salvador Allende was ousted, more than 13,000 opponents were arrested and imprisoned. Many were tortured.
With the Chilean people in shock the government put into action radical free market policies, planned by a group of economist called The Chicago Boys. The plan didn’t work, inflation increased dramatically. Milton Freidman began advising the government. His policies created unemployment, it became clear these policies favoured the rich at the expense of the poor. Used scare mongering of Marxism to support his policies.
Milton Freidman and Arnold Harberger argued that free market economics went hand in hand with freedom and democracy, however in Chile, where their ideas were being implemented within a military dictatorship, the opposite was true. General Augusto Pinochet ruled as a military dictator for seventeen years, despite Harberger arguing that having a repressive government for long is impossible within a free economic system. Freidman denied any relationship with the government of Chile.
It goes on to talk about Thatcher-ite britain and the war in Iraq and other examples. It ends on a hopeful note, It points out that the current financial crisis is unique as now the public understands what caused this crisis.
“This Crisis is clearly understood, by almost everyone as being the direct result of this particular ideology, of deregulation and privatisation... The Shock Doctrine, as a strategy, realise on us not knowing about it for it to work, and what I find most hopeful about the current economic crisis is that this tactic is getting tried because that element of surprise is no longer there. We’re on to them and it’s not working. We are becoming shock resistant.” – Naomi Klein
It was a very interesting and informative film, but it wasn't a fun watch at all. It's a hard watch but it should prove very useful as part of my research, and I highly recommend it, however I still wish to gain the perspective of someone in favour of absolute capitalism, I am considering whether looking into Milton Friedman's work as well as Ayn Rand would be useful.
.
The whole idea is based on the psychological effects of sensory deprivation and apply sensory deprivation to entire societies.
“Sensory deprivation really is a way of producing free monotony. It causes lose of critical capacity, the thinking is less clear. The subject complains that he can’t even day-dream, and when you have college students that can’t day-dream, you’re in a bad way. I began to think, while we were doing our experiments, it’s possible that something that involves physical discomfort, or even pain, might be more tolerable than simply the deprivation conditions that we studied. Well I had no idea that when I suggested that, what a vicious weapon, potentially vicious weapon, this could be. ” - Dr. Donald Hebb
Dr. Hebb was part of the team that performed research into the effects of sensory deprivation, he later stopped being part of the research but it continued in a far less ethical manner. The research began to explore how to use sensory deprivation, shock therapy etc to influence people, the aim was to 'wipe' a person's mind and build it from the ground up. The C.I.A took the research and began using it as interigation techniques. The Shock Doctrine explains how these techniques have been used to spread radical free market capitalist ideologies around the world. The basic idea is that by using man-made and natural disaster to distract the public, they can destroy a country and build it from the ground up in their image.
"In Sri Lanka, in the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami. People who lived on the beaches for generations were prevented from returning so that the land could be privatised and sold off to luxury hotels. And this is exactly what I mean by the Shock Doctrine, the systematic raiding of the public’s fear in the aftermath of a disaster. When people are too focused on the emergency, on their daily concerns to protect their interest” – Naomi Klein
The film presents numerous examples of how this technique has been used throughout the last century. From the military coup in Chile in 1973 to the current financial crisis.
For example in Chile, Salvador Allende’s popular Unity Government was elected into power on a platform of nationalisation of large sectors of the economy. The US did all that they could to distablise the Chilean economy and with General Augusto Pinochet in charge of the Chilean military, work began on a military coup. The military assualted the presidential palace, resulting in the death of Salvador Allende. In the days after Salvador Allende was ousted, more than 13,000 opponents were arrested and imprisoned. Many were tortured.
With the Chilean people in shock the government put into action radical free market policies, planned by a group of economist called The Chicago Boys. The plan didn’t work, inflation increased dramatically. Milton Freidman began advising the government. His policies created unemployment, it became clear these policies favoured the rich at the expense of the poor. Used scare mongering of Marxism to support his policies.
Milton Freidman and Arnold Harberger argued that free market economics went hand in hand with freedom and democracy, however in Chile, where their ideas were being implemented within a military dictatorship, the opposite was true. General Augusto Pinochet ruled as a military dictator for seventeen years, despite Harberger arguing that having a repressive government for long is impossible within a free economic system. Freidman denied any relationship with the government of Chile.
It goes on to talk about Thatcher-ite britain and the war in Iraq and other examples. It ends on a hopeful note, It points out that the current financial crisis is unique as now the public understands what caused this crisis.
“This Crisis is clearly understood, by almost everyone as being the direct result of this particular ideology, of deregulation and privatisation... The Shock Doctrine, as a strategy, realise on us not knowing about it for it to work, and what I find most hopeful about the current economic crisis is that this tactic is getting tried because that element of surprise is no longer there. We’re on to them and it’s not working. We are becoming shock resistant.” – Naomi Klein
It was a very interesting and informative film, but it wasn't a fun watch at all. It's a hard watch but it should prove very useful as part of my research, and I highly recommend it, however I still wish to gain the perspective of someone in favour of absolute capitalism, I am considering whether looking into Milton Friedman's work as well as Ayn Rand would be useful.
.
Thursday, 1 March 2012
"WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"
This is the second time I've had to write this, damn internet ¬_¬
I have just finished the Communist Manifesto, It was certainly an interesting read and was very helpful for my research. It has helped me gain a reasonable grasp of the ideas behind Communism.
Here is a short overveiw, as I understand it:
The ideas behind Commuism is based on the idea of class struggle, it argues that society, praticularly modern 'Bourgeois' society, is founded upon the few oppressing and exploiting the many.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles...oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another... a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
It states that once the Bourgeois overthrew the previous Feudal society and established a new one centered around the acquisition of capital and the Bourgeoisie's own self-interest. In this new society, the Bourgeoisie built a system where the Proletariat, the working class, had no choice but to live and labour in unpealsent conditions for the benefit of the Bourgeoisie.
“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e. capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the Proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who work so long as their labour increases capital.”
It explains how the Bourgeoisie's society is a self-defeating one, as Industry continues to evolve, compete and expand, it increases the number of Proletariat, giveing them more and more power. It argues that the fall of the Bourgeoisie and the rise of the Proletariat are inevitable.
“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the Bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the Bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, is its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the Proletariat are equally inevitable.”
It goes on to explain the beliefs behind Communism, It primarily calls for an end to private property, which it argues is a luxury that only exist for the Bourgeoisie and only exists because the Proletariat does not have that luxury.
“But modern Bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
“But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population: its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.”
It calls for a society where there are no multiple classes, no oppressor and oppressed, where everything is in the hands of the state and everyone works for the mutual benefit of everyone.
“In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
It finishes by calling for all Proletariat of the world to rise up and take the world by force, from the clutches of the Bourgeoisie.
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”
As I said, It is certainly a very interesting read and was very helpful in gaining a grasp of the idea behind communism, I can see why it has become arguably one of the most important books in the past century.
It has some positive ideas, such as the abolishment of slave and child labour and free education for all, but, although I have yet to investigate how I works in practice, it is easy to see how a society where the state has complete power, could go very wrong.
Having now a reasonable grasp of the ideas behind Communism I feel I can now begin to look into other ideaologies.
I have just finished the Communist Manifesto, It was certainly an interesting read and was very helpful for my research. It has helped me gain a reasonable grasp of the ideas behind Communism.
Here is a short overveiw, as I understand it:
The ideas behind Commuism is based on the idea of class struggle, it argues that society, praticularly modern 'Bourgeois' society, is founded upon the few oppressing and exploiting the many.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles...oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another... a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
It states that once the Bourgeois overthrew the previous Feudal society and established a new one centered around the acquisition of capital and the Bourgeoisie's own self-interest. In this new society, the Bourgeoisie built a system where the Proletariat, the working class, had no choice but to live and labour in unpealsent conditions for the benefit of the Bourgeoisie.
“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e. capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the Proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who work so long as their labour increases capital.”
It explains how the Bourgeoisie's society is a self-defeating one, as Industry continues to evolve, compete and expand, it increases the number of Proletariat, giveing them more and more power. It argues that the fall of the Bourgeoisie and the rise of the Proletariat are inevitable.
“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the Bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the Bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, is its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the Proletariat are equally inevitable.”
It goes on to explain the beliefs behind Communism, It primarily calls for an end to private property, which it argues is a luxury that only exist for the Bourgeoisie and only exists because the Proletariat does not have that luxury.
“But modern Bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
“But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population: its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.”
It calls for a society where there are no multiple classes, no oppressor and oppressed, where everything is in the hands of the state and everyone works for the mutual benefit of everyone.
“In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
It finishes by calling for all Proletariat of the world to rise up and take the world by force, from the clutches of the Bourgeoisie.
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”
As I said, It is certainly a very interesting read and was very helpful in gaining a grasp of the idea behind communism, I can see why it has become arguably one of the most important books in the past century.
It has some positive ideas, such as the abolishment of slave and child labour and free education for all, but, although I have yet to investigate how I works in practice, it is easy to see how a society where the state has complete power, could go very wrong.
Having now a reasonable grasp of the ideas behind Communism I feel I can now begin to look into other ideaologies.
Saturday, 25 February 2012
The Bourgeois and The Proletarians
As a part of my research I have been reading The Communist Manafesto by Karl Marx and Fredeich Engels. The book is divided into four sections, the first being The Bourgeois and The Proletarians.
I have just finished this first and I thought I'd note down here the main point and themes it talks about.
It first claims that:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles...oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another... a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
It goes on to describes how as Industry grew, the Bourgeois, formerly the lowest class in soceity, gained power. As they gained power they changed the system from men following their "Natural Superiors", kings, queens etc, and replaced the old system with one that was based on self-interest, the gaining of capital and wealth.
“The Bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’, and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’.”
The Bourgeois' system was dependent on the gaining of capital and wealth through competition, which ment that industry had to keep evolving.
“The Bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.”
As Industry grew and the Boursgeois grew, so did the Proletariat, the working class, described as an army of slaves.
“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e. capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the Proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who work so long as their labour increases capital.”
However, as long as industry expands and increases and competition forces not-so-successful business, out of business and become Proletarians themselves, the Proletariat increases and rapidly becomes the majority.
“The Proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority.”
As the individual Proletariat and Bourgeois struggles become more common and the world becomes more and more connected the Proletariat begin to unionise to fight for better working conditions and wages.
It ultimately argues that the Bourgeois' system is a self-defeating one, because as they continue to change and evolve industry they also create their own worst enemy and set up their own downfall.
“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the Bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the Bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, is its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the Proletariat are equally inevitable.”
Overall It's very interesting and certainly makes it's argument well, I will continue to read it and take notes as I have been doing. I'm sure this information will be invaluable as research for my project.
I have just finished this first and I thought I'd note down here the main point and themes it talks about.
It first claims that:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles...oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another... a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
It goes on to describes how as Industry grew, the Bourgeois, formerly the lowest class in soceity, gained power. As they gained power they changed the system from men following their "Natural Superiors", kings, queens etc, and replaced the old system with one that was based on self-interest, the gaining of capital and wealth.
“The Bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’, and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’.”
The Bourgeois' system was dependent on the gaining of capital and wealth through competition, which ment that industry had to keep evolving.
“The Bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.”
As Industry grew and the Boursgeois grew, so did the Proletariat, the working class, described as an army of slaves.
“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e. capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the Proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who work so long as their labour increases capital.”
However, as long as industry expands and increases and competition forces not-so-successful business, out of business and become Proletarians themselves, the Proletariat increases and rapidly becomes the majority.
“The Proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority.”
As the individual Proletariat and Bourgeois struggles become more common and the world becomes more and more connected the Proletariat begin to unionise to fight for better working conditions and wages.
It ultimately argues that the Bourgeois' system is a self-defeating one, because as they continue to change and evolve industry they also create their own worst enemy and set up their own downfall.
“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the Bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the Bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, is its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the Proletariat are equally inevitable.”
Overall It's very interesting and certainly makes it's argument well, I will continue to read it and take notes as I have been doing. I'm sure this information will be invaluable as research for my project.
Saturday, 18 February 2012
In my unbiased opinion...
For this Project I wish to explore representing political ideologies as characters and using this to examine them in depth, the ideologies I will be examining are Capitalism, Communism, Fascism and Anarchism.
Firstly, I will need to understand these ideologies, what are their goals? what are their reason for following this ideology? and how does it work out when put into practice? I don't want to make a biased and one sided argument, for me the key to this project is to gain a balenced view of these ideologies and examine them from a neutral and objective stand point. I know that in some cases, such as Fascism, it will be hard to not take a biased view towards it, but I want to understand why someone who supports Fascism would do so, why would they see this political system as right etc. equally I do not wish to support these ideologies either, I simply wish to examine them, I want to know the pros and cons of these political systems.
I have begun to look into Capitalism, by viewing a number of documentaries about capitalism and the financial crisis. Although these documentaries are informative, they are very much against capitalism and so It is hard to gain an unbiased perspective and the view point of those support capitalism. I'm considering whether looking into Ayn Rand would be relevant or not.
Overall I am looking forward to understanding these ideologies and I'm very aware that this topic requires alot of research. This project should be fun.
Firstly, I will need to understand these ideologies, what are their goals? what are their reason for following this ideology? and how does it work out when put into practice? I don't want to make a biased and one sided argument, for me the key to this project is to gain a balenced view of these ideologies and examine them from a neutral and objective stand point. I know that in some cases, such as Fascism, it will be hard to not take a biased view towards it, but I want to understand why someone who supports Fascism would do so, why would they see this political system as right etc. equally I do not wish to support these ideologies either, I simply wish to examine them, I want to know the pros and cons of these political systems.
I have begun to look into Capitalism, by viewing a number of documentaries about capitalism and the financial crisis. Although these documentaries are informative, they are very much against capitalism and so It is hard to gain an unbiased perspective and the view point of those support capitalism. I'm considering whether looking into Ayn Rand would be relevant or not.
Overall I am looking forward to understanding these ideologies and I'm very aware that this topic requires alot of research. This project should be fun.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" - Andrew Ryan - Bioshock
I resently played through the game Bioshock after being told about it by my friend Isaac. (trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymg2HzHF9-4 ) Having played the game, I found it a brilliantly intellegent, political and creepy game and I found myself inspired to do something similar.
The game is set in the underwater distopia of rapture, you play as a plane crash suvivor who unwittingly stumbles upon the city and in doing so is caught in the middle of a civil-war that engulfed the city.
*Spoilers*
Most of the games plot is a comment upon the writings of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Industiralist Andrew Ryan, who could be easily argued to represent Ayn Rand in the game, built Rapture as an Objectivist and Laissez-faire utopia, where "The Great", artist, scientists etc are free from the opression of governments and religion and aren't held back by "The Parasite". However, his plan works little too well when a con-artist arrives in rapture with nothing and builds a crime/bussiness empire. The con-artist eventually starts a coup, attempting to take control of rapture from Ryan, it rapidly escalates into a civil-war that proves to be Rapture's downfall.
What I like about the game's story is how well it represents the ideas of Objectivism and takes an ideaology to it's extremes. It's multi-layered plot is wonderfully intellegent. Some of my favourite characters in the game could well be discribed as monsterous because in rapture no-one is bound by mortality or ethics, for example Dr. Steinman, a plastic surgeon who believes he is the picasso of plastic surgery and as he pursues beauty he often kills his patients.
( Dr. Steinman in bioshock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wxb8HjiDLQ )
This has inspired me to explore how characters and monsters can represent ideaologies gone wrong. I would really like to start exploring various political ideaologies, their pros and cons etc and work on representing them in a character in a film.
(First part of a 10 part series of videos analyising Bioshock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkGZy1aoqM )
The game is set in the underwater distopia of rapture, you play as a plane crash suvivor who unwittingly stumbles upon the city and in doing so is caught in the middle of a civil-war that engulfed the city.
*Spoilers*
Most of the games plot is a comment upon the writings of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Industiralist Andrew Ryan, who could be easily argued to represent Ayn Rand in the game, built Rapture as an Objectivist and Laissez-faire utopia, where "The Great", artist, scientists etc are free from the opression of governments and religion and aren't held back by "The Parasite". However, his plan works little too well when a con-artist arrives in rapture with nothing and builds a crime/bussiness empire. The con-artist eventually starts a coup, attempting to take control of rapture from Ryan, it rapidly escalates into a civil-war that proves to be Rapture's downfall.
What I like about the game's story is how well it represents the ideas of Objectivism and takes an ideaology to it's extremes. It's multi-layered plot is wonderfully intellegent. Some of my favourite characters in the game could well be discribed as monsterous because in rapture no-one is bound by mortality or ethics, for example Dr. Steinman, a plastic surgeon who believes he is the picasso of plastic surgery and as he pursues beauty he often kills his patients.
( Dr. Steinman in bioshock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wxb8HjiDLQ )
This has inspired me to explore how characters and monsters can represent ideaologies gone wrong. I would really like to start exploring various political ideaologies, their pros and cons etc and work on representing them in a character in a film.
(First part of a 10 part series of videos analyising Bioshock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkGZy1aoqM )
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Sex, Drugs and a death curse on "Camp Blood"
When it comes to the monsterous feminine and amoral mother figures in film, I think a great example is Pamela Voorhees from the Friday the 13th series.
*Spoiler Alert!*
In the series Pamela Voorhees is the mother of Jason Voorhees the main anatagonist of the series, however in the first film it is infact Pamela herself who is the killer. In the first film, a group of camp counselers attempt to reopen Camp Crystal Lake, which was closed years before, after a boy drowned. As they try to do so they are each killed off by an unknown attacker. Eventually it is revealed that Pamela Voorhees, the mother of the boy who drowned, Jason, is the killer. After she reveals herself as the killer, she dumps a load of exposition on the audience, as all villians do, in which she explains her motives, about how the camp should never have been reopened and that it's the counselers fault he died for not watching him ect ect.
Pamela Voorhees, on first appearance seems warm, sweet and motherly, but it soon turns out that there is more to her than a sweet, loving mother. In her eyes it is the counselers that are the murders, they killed her son and by killing them she is protecting her son.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8QOvJBTcPs
I also have been considering the notion that in all the victims, as in most slasher films, engage in sex, alcohol, drugs ect, all things the stereotypical mother would tell their teens not to do and the killer is a twisted version of the stereotypical mother or the ultimate mother's boy. This continues throughout the series, a bunch of teens go to Camp Crystal Lake, have sex, do drugs, get drunk ect, all of which are as good as a death sentence in a friday the 13th film, and Jason kills them off and the only one to survive is the innocent virgin and possibly her romanitic interest. Almost like a modern, gory grimms fairy tale, warning teens about the dangerous of sex, drugs and alcohol.
http://hopkinscinemaddicts.typepad.com/hopkinscinemaddicts/2010/02/fairytales-of-a-darker-nature-slasher-films-as-morality-tales.html
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art28322.asp
*Spoiler Alert!*
In the series Pamela Voorhees is the mother of Jason Voorhees the main anatagonist of the series, however in the first film it is infact Pamela herself who is the killer. In the first film, a group of camp counselers attempt to reopen Camp Crystal Lake, which was closed years before, after a boy drowned. As they try to do so they are each killed off by an unknown attacker. Eventually it is revealed that Pamela Voorhees, the mother of the boy who drowned, Jason, is the killer. After she reveals herself as the killer, she dumps a load of exposition on the audience, as all villians do, in which she explains her motives, about how the camp should never have been reopened and that it's the counselers fault he died for not watching him ect ect.
Pamela Voorhees, on first appearance seems warm, sweet and motherly, but it soon turns out that there is more to her than a sweet, loving mother. In her eyes it is the counselers that are the murders, they killed her son and by killing them she is protecting her son.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8QOvJBTcPs
I also have been considering the notion that in all the victims, as in most slasher films, engage in sex, alcohol, drugs ect, all things the stereotypical mother would tell their teens not to do and the killer is a twisted version of the stereotypical mother or the ultimate mother's boy. This continues throughout the series, a bunch of teens go to Camp Crystal Lake, have sex, do drugs, get drunk ect, all of which are as good as a death sentence in a friday the 13th film, and Jason kills them off and the only one to survive is the innocent virgin and possibly her romanitic interest. Almost like a modern, gory grimms fairy tale, warning teens about the dangerous of sex, drugs and alcohol.
http://hopkinscinemaddicts.typepad.com/hopkinscinemaddicts/2010/02/fairytales-of-a-darker-nature-slasher-films-as-morality-tales.html
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art28322.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)