Manufactured Landscapes
Ever since I learned about him, Edward Burtynsky has held a place as one of my favourite photographers. His work is masterful, with a purpose, and his visual style is innovative, and sharp. To be able to watch the creation of his work, the process and the scale of what goes on 'behind' and around the camera, was unbelievable. The opening sequence set the mood for the film, as the camera rolled past 23,000 employees constructing a mysterious subject (which turned out to be Irons. 23,000 people making Irons. Every day. They allegedly produce 20 million irons a year.), and reveals the true depth behind each image that Burtynsky creates. From here, the film continued to explore 'exotic' areas of waste, hazardous working situations, and seemingly heartless scenes of China's Industrial Revolution. All of which appear beautifully horrific in the eyes and lens of Edward Burtynsky. The way the film concluded, without offering real closure to any of the individual situations it covered, implied, yet again, the scale of the issues which are covered by Edward. It is as if a conclusion is not necessary, once you have seen the destruction of our natural world already, heavily, in action.
One Hour Photo
I'll start this off by professing that I really am not 'into' Hollywood movies. Something about them always seems a bit 'off'. The writing is cliche, predictable, and is rarely cohesive to reality. The plot usually follows along the same lines. Also, I rarely find Robin Williams impressive, as he isn't as versatile as such a 'renowned' actor should be. I didn't buy it. I couldn't get behind him as a 'creep', . Did I mention that Sy is short for Seymour? A photo-guy named Seymour? Hollywood? Really?? (Seymour also made me question if Yorkin was a terrible play on 'Your Kin'... something I would rather have not had to think about.)Also, did they really have to end the movie by having the 'creep' spill his guts and admit that he was only being creepy because his father was a creep to him as a child? Really? Have we not moved past basic psychology in our plot lines? Could there not possibly be a more complex idea behind this story? I know, for a fact, that there couldn't be a simpler one. Ah, and the differences between lens-choices and colour-temperatures to change the mood between scenes in the film? It was a great idea. Unfortunately the extremely implausible paper-thin plot line did nothing to thicken the mood, or enhance the separation between Sy's different 'worlds'. All that aside, I enjoyed the film. It would have been great, if it had been the season finale of something on TV. However, as a film, it lacked legs to stand on. It lacked depth, backstory, it lacked artistic direction... That being said, the Director's history is mostly in Music Videos (Red Hot Chili Peppers, Madonna, Weezer. Feel free to judge now), so I shouldn't really have expected too much more.
Born into Brothels
I was introduced to this film in my High School English class, a few years ago. I remembered it having a strong impact on me, so I was excited to see it again. I wasn't surprised to still feel the same way toward the film, which celebrated education, liberation, the intelligence and purpose of youth, and roused, in reality, outreach towards those featured in the film. Watching kids, who had never seen a camera, run amok with creative freedom and capture honest life, was refreshing to see. Not only was the philanthropy shown in the film inspiring, but the idea of being encouraged, opinionated, and explorative in photography was inspiring as well. As heartbreaking as it is to know that there are many young children stuck in the situations featured in the movie, it brings awareness to us, about another section of our world that needs hope, and help, and hopefully wills us forward to making changes, where we are able, in the world around us. I feel empowered, knowing that photography is one more tool we can use to make those changes.
