Perfection?

Marina Grzinic makes an interesting argument about imperfections, arguing that it is these exact imperfections that make things interesting and, in effect, “restores their aura.” She further argues that the aura of objects or people is lost in translation when they are manipulated by technology. I don’t fully agree with Grizinic on this point—it is easier to identify and appreciate certain goals when it takes one time and energy to achieve their goals. She might be underestimating the importance of this issue.

Imperfections are indeed what makes us unique. However I think Grzinic is remise to not point out that it is the allure of perfection that draws individuals to modern media and technology. Not only does technology make our lives arguably more efficient, but it allows us to escape into a world where perfection exists. Consumers and audiences alike understand realism—we experience our own lives in reality. To argue that objects can lose their “aura” simply through being processed through technology—does it give people enough credit? Is there anyone who truly looks at a computer screen and at reality and doesn’t recognize that there is a tangible difference?

In addition, I feel that there is a further hole in Grzinic’s argument. It is important to be an informed consumer of the media and I think it is fair to say that people who watch the evening news (and thus are getting five minute abbreviated and edited stories about wars or world news) understand the fact that what they are being shown has been manipulated and compiled by anonymous person. As the audience, we generally do not have the luxury of being able to discuss and talk to the editors in the newsroom or the journalists who take the footage. There are many levels of censorship and as the audience, we have to be active receivers of the news and acknowledge that choices were made along the way of producing certain stories—the cameraman had to decide what was worth filming and what was not, the anchors, writers and editors, had to decide how to talk about what footage would be shown. It is naiveté to take what we are given at face value, to trust that individual biases affect us and there is no such thing as truly unbiased and fair journalism. I’m not convinced that Grzinic gives people enough credit.

A Moment in Time

The use of time was brilliant in Run Lola Run, a film I truly enjoyed because it showed the randomness of life—one only has power over their own choices and cannot plan for events out of their control. In Run Lola Run, we see Lola fighting to protect her boyfriend, Manni, who has gotten into deep trouble with mobsters. The film unfolds in 20 minute intervals (as Manni only has 20 minutes to come up with 100,000 marcs or face impending death), with 3 very different scenario’s playing out. These scenarios are directly a result of a difference in time of a second—for example, in all 3 scenarios, Lola has an interaction or effect on a white car. The white car either gets hit in the front of the car, side of the car or Lola herself lands atop of the car depending on the amount of time it took her to make a decision about what to do next to save her boyfriend. Her timing with this white car is a direct result of her choices and whether she is able to quickly get down the stairs and begin running.

The insightful thing to this film was truly in the endings of each scenario, which showed how easily one decision can derail a person’s life or one moment in the wrong place can end a person’s life (just as Lola was accidentally shot in the first scenario or Manni was accidentally run over by a car in the second scenario). It’s incredibly cliché for a film’s ultimate theme to be “time is fleeting” or “live each moment as if it were your last”—however, Run Lola Run provides a new and refreshing perspective on this whole genre of filmmaking, as evidenced in the different endings. In the first two endings, both Lola and Manni are accidentally killed—the only overlapping theme of their deaths was, simply, bad timing. However, timing worked in their favor (as did luck, with Lola winning thousands of marcs gambling in the casino) and they both walked away from the situation unharmed and extraordinarily rich.

Another interesting aspect of this film, which added to its complexity, was that the audience was rooting for Lola to succeed and for Manni to be saved. The audience felt this way, despite the fact that it was clearly poor choices that put them in this particular predicament. The audience also bore witness to the destructive capabilities of both of the characters, with Manni finding it within himself to rob a supermarket and Lola taking her own father (or the man she thought was her father) hostage in his own bank. The order of the scenarios was also particularly interesting to me, as well, with the last and final scenario showing the goodness and kindness of both characters (juxtaposing against the horror of what had happened in the two previous scenarios). Had the orders of the scenarios been reversed, the audience would have been left with a very different perspective on Lola and Manni—would we have thought that they deserved it, especially after what we saw they were capable of? Or was it the extraordinary circumstances that led to unusual behavior out of both of them? The order of the narration is particularly crucial for the audiences' understanding of Lola and Manni.

Virilio's Concerns

Paul Virilio, in his article titled “Indirect Light”, constructed his argument around the notion that the impact of technology has had an incredibly negative for and on society. He is primarily concerned about cinema and the more specific capability that video images and projections have to automatically transfer information from different points and locations. He argues that this is a present crisis of cinema, arguing that “it expresses a crisis in the idea of representation linked to rapid spread of the ‘live’ dimension.” In other words, Paul Virilio expresses a fear or concern about what will happen to us as human beings as a result of the effect of fast media.

I disagree with this idea that technology and technological advancement is a purely negative thing for society. I can understand the argument that human dependency on technology is not necessarily a positive notion (that we are dependant on machines and not self-sufficient) but societal advancement is a product of human intelligence. Our ability to communicate with people around the world and to receive information as it is happening is incredibly useful and constructive.

If you take a look at what the day of September 11^th actually was (for many people) it was a day where we all sat in front of our televisions and computers craving more information and demanding knowledge, especially for those of us who were here on the West Coast. After that day, my grandparents told me that it was for my generation what Pearl Harbor was to theirs and what JFK’s assassination was to my parents. Without the technology that allowed us to be importantly aware of what was going on in the world, we would have been left vulnerable and susceptible. The Virilio idea that the nature, manner and time in which information is received is somehow harmful is an idea with which I cannot understand. I am not sure that Virilio's concern are completely warranted, either. I'm curious to hear what other people have to say.

Time, Productivity and Family

What struck me as particularly unique and insightful in H.G. Wells “The Time Machine” was the revelations about contemporary relationship with and purpose of time. Time has very often been the source and the reason for the way society functioned—night implied a time of darkness where work could no longer be done and daybreak marked the beginning of the working day, the time when it would once again be possible to be productive. In past societies and in our own, time alone has been responsible for many facets of natural life. In the United States, for one example, time dictates just about everything: political life (through elections and/or times of service), social life (with what is deemed appropriate at a certain time in an individual’s life) and economic life (monetary gain and loss being marked by time periods). Time very much impacts the daily life of our productivity.

In “The Time Machine”, however, the Time Traveller stumbled randomly upon a world that’s conception of time is solely revolved around night and day. There is no importance placed upon productivity and initially the Time Traveller marvels at this societies ability to live in a truly Communistic world (where greed or ambition simply don’t play a role in the day to day goings on of the year 8271). He plays particular attention to the familial structure, which, according to the works of several theorists studied in sociology, political science and anthropology, unveils the most discerning and discriminating facts about the beliefs and traditions of any one society. The family structure, which the Time Traveller argues is basically nonexistent in the year 8271, is one of a few major ways that outsiders are able to understand what is valued by a society as well as expose the basic power structure within a particular society.

The lack of familial structure in 8271, as theorized in this book, was further emphasized through the story of Weena, who would have drowned without so much as an glance from the others had it not been for the duty felt by the Time Travellers. This duty, that is a staple of our modern way of interacting with others, says much about the relationship that we in the modern day have with time in that time is not something that is wasted. Just in the same way that the Time Traveller would not stand idly by and watch the life of Weena go to waste (and her “time” cut unceremoniously short), our modern relationship with any “waste” of time (or taking time for granted, rather) was unveiled and highlighted.

Ultimately the modern relationship and emphasis on productivity as well as what is revealed by the lack of familial bonding and structure is one of the core ways that the conception of time is played with and manipulated in “The Time Machine”. The fact that everybody in the present time of the novel is referred to by their occupations is revealing of the implicit notion that time is not important unless productivity is evident. The lack of family structure is simply a byproduct of this mentality seen at its most shocking height.