Indie Game: The Movie Review

The film Indie Game: The Movie, directed by Lisanne Pijat and James Swirsky, is an in-depth analysis of the underground movement in the gaming world. While most people know of the big names in the industry, such as Bioware and other big companies, some of the greatest and most popular games have come from a few or less who strived for years to make their game absolutely perfect. The film travels between three different programmers, making three different games at different times. It follows a loose chronological order tracing the Xbox development path of the Flash-based online smash-hit Super Meat Boy as it leads up to its release for the console. This structure can seem a bit too loose occasionally. The documentary tries to capture the love and feelings they stuff into their games, but comes up short. At times, it felt rushed and more than a little biased towards the independent developer.

            The film had extremely well done cinematography, as is evident when we first meet the programmers for Super Meat Boy. The film immediately tells the backstory of one of them through shots between him at work, his room as a child, and drawings of what he thought about as a child. Not only is this touching and makes you feel for the artists, it is also very well done, with no background music to take away from it all. It simply ends up being about the story and the visuals, just as it should be. This scene was very touching and very moving.

            Another scene that was very well done was the introduction to the actual film itself, with all its references to classic games. Not being of the generation myself, I can’t truly relate to those who grew up with the classics, but I have been exposed to them enough nowadays to truly understand the path that video games have taken since their birth. The independent artists of the game design world, for their simplicity, difficulty and control schemes are looking to such games more and more. In this movie, the throwbacks they show to the classics of the gaming world really add that second layer of depth to the stories they tell of growing up with those classic systems and programs.

            Indie Game: The Movie is a look into the minds and souls of the modern independent game artists, and is a decently put-together piece of filmmaking. The film at times can be incredibly biased only towards independent artists and even at times disrespects corporate programmers. This, though annoying, does contrast to the issues they try to bring to the forefront, like money issues and trying to sell their products to a large audience. The film teaches us that games don’t have to come from big developers to be good; with a little heart and a lot of imagination, anyone can create a huge success in the video gaming world. This film may have its flaws, but at heart it’s a well-presented piece on the plight of the artist.    

Mulders Yes Men Film Review

The Yes Men, a film that Dan Ollman directs, is a film that explores the anti-consumerism group The Yes Men, and two of their statements that they create by falsifying people and satirizing corporations. The film opens with a scene from the middle of the film, with the two characters trying to work out technical details of their stunt in the bathroom. The film then returns to normal, and lists some of the stunts that the Yes Men had pulled, starting with a satirical website of George Bush that drew fire from the man itself. They then plan their next maneuver, a satire of the WTO in front of a conference in Finland. The presentation they gives claims the US Civil War was unnecessary because there are plenty of near-slaves in third world countries, and that corporations should begin buying votes from citizens. Their next prank takes them to a university, where they try to sell “human digestive by-products” as a potential food source in third-world countries. Their final prank is to head to Australia, and in front of a large panel of accountants and journalists issue a false statement that the World Trade Organization had disbanded, being broadcasted and discussed around the world. The film stays in a rigid chronological order, save for the first few seconds, and generally conveys the message well through their misadventures trough the corporate world.

The film keeps you attention throughout, as the Yes Men attempt to present their satires through their various mediums. The documentary usually uses dramatic footage with which to catch attention of the viewer. For example, in the opening scene, as the protagonists struggle with their comedic suit, and the tension is immediately built as the audience wonders what would happen to these two. Using simple jump cuts and leaving much to the imagination, the film easily hooks an audience within the first few minutes.

Throughout the film, the Yes Men present a strong moral statement. Whether they’re posing as a WTO member on television or speaking at a conference, they always voice the opinion that they are speaking on behalf of those third world nations that cannot have their say at the WTO, which, in their opinion, is a organization the only benefits corporations in the long term. Through the film, they regularly state (when not faking their identities) that they disbelieve in the WTO and what it stands for. This stance makes them appealing to a larger audience, as many people have issues with corporations and what they do. By bringing this statement into the forefront of their activities, the Yes Men appeal to a larger audience in their endeavors.

The Yes Men is a film that truly takes a hard, critical, satirical look at the world of big business in international free markets. The fun it pokes at corporations defiantly keeps the idea of globalization in a slightly negative light; the way they see it, it’s going to happen, but the world is going about it the wrong way. The Yes Men’s take on globalization can be seen as either good, if you are pro human rights, or bad, if you are pro economy/are a big business. All in all, The Yes Men is defiantly a controversial film that will leave the viewer questioning the merits of globalization on a large scale.

Mulders Miss Representation Blog

Begin with the title of the film, the name of the filmmaker(s) and the point of the film. Remember, the point of the film is not a summary of the film, but rather the theme or message it explores. What is the structure of the film (chronological, non-sequential, etc.)? Is this structure effective in conveying the point of the film?

The documentary we saw as a class, Miss Representation, a film written, directed and produced by Jennifer Sybel, definitely got its point across about women in the media. The film explores the misrepresentation of women in the media today through interviews with women in positions of power and studies of successful ads and the culture of American advertisement. The film follows a non-sequential outline; the time periods jump all over and though she switches between topics, she does not do so subtly. However, all this combined is enough to get the main message across, which is that women are portrayed as objects in Western media and are generally shepherded away from positions of power in the United States.

Whose perspective(s) is/are transmitted in the documentary? Was the perspective of the film biased? Who’s perspective did the film represent?

The perspective of the film is generally shown to be those of women, with the occasional male giving their ideas on the situation. The entirety of the film was shot from feminist perspective, meaning that the generally message conveyed, though subtly, was that the entire issue was a male-caused issue. This film was biased heavily towards women, even if it is a major issue for them, they put very little male input towards the idea. Some of the interviewed women were clearly pro-feminists, and showed no opinion of men. However, there were also misleading facts in the documentary to make it seem more surreal. One blatant example, included amongst a series of statistics on young girls and depression, was that “X% of teenagers will cut themselves”, a clear sign of misguidance of facts. If they included, say, members of Congress who make those stupid sexist remarks or only used stats that didn’t apply to both sexes, then the film would seem less biased, yet as it stand, the film comes across as very biased towards a feminine perspective.

From your perspective, what were the strengths of the film? What did you enjoy about it? Choose one or two scenes and describe why you found them effective, interesting or thought provoking.

            The major strengths in the film lay in its presentation and its long and star-studded cast. Both were excellent draws towards the idea of the film, as both are appealing to a large audience. Whenever the display of statistics appeared, I was drawn in to its colours and strange choice of art. These scenes were an interesting draw on the creative side of my mind, and made me more engrossed with the message to an extent. Also, whenever a face or name I knew appeared onscreen, I felt closer to the idea that the message was right. The film, thankfully, showed text in the bottom right corner of the screen whenever the person being interviewed was shown again, so it became somewhat easier to remember the names with the faces, though it seemed to me that they all sang the same tune for each point the director tried to make. This, however, can be forgiven, as this is the main point of a documentary.

 Did the film change your mind about the issue of female representation in media? Did it introduce you to any new ideas, facts or concept about female representation in the media? What are some positive and/or negative outcomes that might occur from a film of this sort?

            The entire point of the film was to introduce me to the misrepresentation of women in the media, and by Jove, did it. I won’t say that I didn’t notice some inconsistencies to begin with, but this film really opened my eyes to some areas of the world that I hadn’t thought about, such as the representation of women in government. I felt, however, that the film could have gained a considerable amount of male input to make it seem less biased. However, I am under no impressions that the target audience of the film’s perspective was for anyone other than women. It’s not that men don’t care, but there are too many issues in the world currently and with our society as a whole for us to focus simply on this one issue.

Verdict:

            Overall, I’d say the film was interesting, but not enough to make me want to watch it again.