GOOD WRITING AND KEEPS ME BULWARK SUPPORTING SO #Sonnyneedsaraise@SLongwellnoits@Sarah.L,to#notbespecificandJVLmaybe.Sonnydeservescompensation.myopinion/nobody
TBH, I am not sure that most people would recognize "art" if you hit them in the face with it. But this has always been true, I think.
I foresee a future where everything has been bent, folded, stapled, and mutilated to death by AI... and the mass of people will still consume it and think it is at least okay. Because the immediate satiation of their boredom, need for entertainment is what motivates.
I think that the root of your objection, Sonny, is that an actual human spent the time and effort and the accrued experience, mediated by (for lack of a better term) their humanity and created something out of their obsession/love/hatred that was unique, that spoke to others, that was an authentic human statement about something--and a computer comes along and appropriates it with (in comparison) basically little effort, no actual thought--none of the things that drove the human to do it in the first place.
Mostly to play devil's advocate, in the '90s there was a lot of kerfuffle about electronic music producers sampling other people's music in their own, and where does it cross the line from homage/sample to outright plagiarism? The Avalanches made an (amazing) album out of 100% sampled music (and other media), and depending on your music and culture acumen, you might recognize a lot of it. But it's also it's own thing, and doesn't take away from the original material it borrowed, and a lot of times spurns interest in an old song.
Minnie Riperton got a huge burst of popularity when The Orb sampled "Loving You".
I am a classical musician. For various reasons, I have used a music writing program (Finale ---not composing, just copying!) and as a proof-reading (listening?) tool there is a playback option. This produces mathematically perfect translations of notes on the page to sounds, it even imitates a piano well (and a violin, sort of). But the fact that it is note perfect down to the fractions of a second makes it so maddening to listen to that I stopped using it. The tiny little modulations of sound and time that a human performer adds to a live performance are a universe apart from the soulless reproduction of exact notes at exact times. I would expect that if someone is gearing up AI to compose music (no doubt several someones are) the results will be similar, maybe worse with ,say, a mashup up of Haydn and Gershwin or Beethoven and Bernstein. I am very grateful that I am retired and would not have to face playing something like that on a job.
As someone who the youtube algorithm spent many months sending videos in the vein of "Lord of the Rings in Wes Anderson Style AI," I have to say, it's left me very appreciative of a well-made parody/homage. (The Michel Gondry parody in "Sorry to Bother You," for instance. Or even a good chunk of "Community" episodes/gags.)
I agree with you regarding Valenzuela's comments. It's the same shitty argument as "guns don't kill people, people do." While not untrue, it puts all responsibility on the gun owner and absolves gun makers, sellers, lobbyists, marketers and legislators. It ignores the basic fact that everything in this world is a result of multiple factors and folks working together.
Sonny, yours is the first review I’ve read of Anderson’s latest. I don’t think I need anything further. I’m a Wes fan so would see it regardless of your opinion (with all respect). As a reviewer/critic, you choose what your key points will be. Your closing comments in this review say at least as much about your human-ness as about Anderson’s. I appreciate you both for making me think
Wonder how your thoughts on that AI issue were especially triggered by the use of Anderson style in the discussion? Essay question, no chatbots allowed 😉
oh yeah I read that and it totally triggered me, lol, at least in part because a lot of the discussion about Anderson is ALREADY so reductive, like, the whole "he just does twee symmetry, why is he so precious," etc.
Yeah the colors & costumes & soundtrack are really his main tools, right? 😉
Starting in the ‘60s I trained on LP records. Learned to leaf thru a thesaurus.
So I can do a passable gravel/nasal twang with random rhyming words. But me & my infinite monkeys never wrote Blowing in the Wind, All Along the Watchtower, Not Dark Yet, Key West…
1. I am not a Wes Anderson fan -- for me, the one I unabashedly like, "The Grand Budapest Hotel," had actual stakes involved and is the exception that proves the rule -- but it says a great deal about him and his sets that he can line up the casts he does, with many actors coming back for more. I've read bits and pieces about the atmosphere (great food, lots of conversation, a sense of a theatrical troupe) and, even if I don't like his films much, I hope he makes them for decades more, just so Jeffrey Wright can play anything he wants.
2. I use ChatGPT advisedly as a kind of editor/sounding board for my writing. But it makes my skin crawl to use it to, you know, actually WRITE. I'd rather vomit up a bad first draft, argue with ChatGPT's changes, and then revise it myself. However, given developments in industry (creative and otherwise), I'm in the minority.
The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of my favorite movies of all time, despite not loving the rest of Wes Anderson's work (I always enjoy them, but don't tend to rewatch them). I think it's because the visual style seems just seem to serve the story and themes of movie so well.
I may revisit earlier movies though, because my son had watched The Fantastic Mr. Fox about 20 times this year and it's growing on me instead of destroying my sanity. It's making wonder if I didn't give some of his other movies a fair shake.
GOOD WRITING AND KEEPS ME BULWARK SUPPORTING SO #Sonnyneedsaraise@SLongwellnoits@Sarah.L,to#notbespecificandJVLmaybe.Sonnydeservescompensation.myopinion/nobody
TBH, I am not sure that most people would recognize "art" if you hit them in the face with it. But this has always been true, I think.
I foresee a future where everything has been bent, folded, stapled, and mutilated to death by AI... and the mass of people will still consume it and think it is at least okay. Because the immediate satiation of their boredom, need for entertainment is what motivates.
I think that the root of your objection, Sonny, is that an actual human spent the time and effort and the accrued experience, mediated by (for lack of a better term) their humanity and created something out of their obsession/love/hatred that was unique, that spoke to others, that was an authentic human statement about something--and a computer comes along and appropriates it with (in comparison) basically little effort, no actual thought--none of the things that drove the human to do it in the first place.
It has become a widget, stamped out by a machine.
It is about the removal of humanity.
First movie opening this year that I've cared about. I am interested to see Mickey17, but not enough to subscribe.
Ironically, I thought Henry Sugar looked like somebody trying to make a Wes Anderson movie. Bottle Rocket is one of my all time faves.
Mostly to play devil's advocate, in the '90s there was a lot of kerfuffle about electronic music producers sampling other people's music in their own, and where does it cross the line from homage/sample to outright plagiarism? The Avalanches made an (amazing) album out of 100% sampled music (and other media), and depending on your music and culture acumen, you might recognize a lot of it. But it's also it's own thing, and doesn't take away from the original material it borrowed, and a lot of times spurns interest in an old song.
Minnie Riperton got a huge burst of popularity when The Orb sampled "Loving You".
I am a classical musician. For various reasons, I have used a music writing program (Finale ---not composing, just copying!) and as a proof-reading (listening?) tool there is a playback option. This produces mathematically perfect translations of notes on the page to sounds, it even imitates a piano well (and a violin, sort of). But the fact that it is note perfect down to the fractions of a second makes it so maddening to listen to that I stopped using it. The tiny little modulations of sound and time that a human performer adds to a live performance are a universe apart from the soulless reproduction of exact notes at exact times. I would expect that if someone is gearing up AI to compose music (no doubt several someones are) the results will be similar, maybe worse with ,say, a mashup up of Haydn and Gershwin or Beethoven and Bernstein. I am very grateful that I am retired and would not have to face playing something like that on a job.
As someone who the youtube algorithm spent many months sending videos in the vein of "Lord of the Rings in Wes Anderson Style AI," I have to say, it's left me very appreciative of a well-made parody/homage. (The Michel Gondry parody in "Sorry to Bother You," for instance. Or even a good chunk of "Community" episodes/gags.)
Thank you, Wes Anderson, for giving Cera a good role after the humiliation of Barbie.
HUH ??????
Not bolts -- "bashable rivets".
I'm really looking forward to the Phonecian Scheme. They had me at the trailer when Mia Threapolton told Michael Cera "You're drunk. On three beers".
The idea that you could make "art" with AI by replicating an aesthetic makes me want to punch a wall.
Great review, I will see it in the theatre Monday thanks to this!
I agree with you regarding Valenzuela's comments. It's the same shitty argument as "guns don't kill people, people do." While not untrue, it puts all responsibility on the gun owner and absolves gun makers, sellers, lobbyists, marketers and legislators. It ignores the basic fact that everything in this world is a result of multiple factors and folks working together.
Any criticism against AI takeover is good criticism.
Sonny, yours is the first review I’ve read of Anderson’s latest. I don’t think I need anything further. I’m a Wes fan so would see it regardless of your opinion (with all respect). As a reviewer/critic, you choose what your key points will be. Your closing comments in this review say at least as much about your human-ness as about Anderson’s. I appreciate you both for making me think
Wonder how your thoughts on that AI issue were especially triggered by the use of Anderson style in the discussion? Essay question, no chatbots allowed 😉
oh yeah I read that and it totally triggered me, lol, at least in part because a lot of the discussion about Anderson is ALREADY so reductive, like, the whole "he just does twee symmetry, why is he so precious," etc.
Yeah the colors & costumes & soundtrack are really his main tools, right? 😉
Starting in the ‘60s I trained on LP records. Learned to leaf thru a thesaurus.
So I can do a passable gravel/nasal twang with random rhyming words. But me & my infinite monkeys never wrote Blowing in the Wind, All Along the Watchtower, Not Dark Yet, Key West…
I hate Wes Anderson movies. That is all.
so you're not getting the Criterion box set?
Giggle
🤷♂️
1. I am not a Wes Anderson fan -- for me, the one I unabashedly like, "The Grand Budapest Hotel," had actual stakes involved and is the exception that proves the rule -- but it says a great deal about him and his sets that he can line up the casts he does, with many actors coming back for more. I've read bits and pieces about the atmosphere (great food, lots of conversation, a sense of a theatrical troupe) and, even if I don't like his films much, I hope he makes them for decades more, just so Jeffrey Wright can play anything he wants.
2. I use ChatGPT advisedly as a kind of editor/sounding board for my writing. But it makes my skin crawl to use it to, you know, actually WRITE. I'd rather vomit up a bad first draft, argue with ChatGPT's changes, and then revise it myself. However, given developments in industry (creative and otherwise), I'm in the minority.
Bottle Rocket?
Haven’t seen it! Will do so eventually.
The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of my favorite movies of all time, despite not loving the rest of Wes Anderson's work (I always enjoy them, but don't tend to rewatch them). I think it's because the visual style seems just seem to serve the story and themes of movie so well.
I may revisit earlier movies though, because my son had watched The Fantastic Mr. Fox about 20 times this year and it's growing on me instead of destroying my sanity. It's making wonder if I didn't give some of his other movies a fair shake.
I did like “Fantastic Mr. Fox.” But you’ll have to pay me to sit through “The Life Aquatic” again.
I remember watching the Life Aquatic and thinking "there must be something I'm not getting about this movie". Maybe there wasn't though.