thectower

[thectower]

Death of the. How we Draw Conclusions from Incomplete Data.

I want to talk about the relationship between Artist and Viewer.

When we comes to art there is a very old argument about whether the value of a piece of art requires the artist's input. Whether the interpretation of the artist is more or less valuable than that of the person involved.

This is the question that Thomas Malory hoped to answer in his iconic essay Le Morte D'Arthur, or Death of the Author. In the piece, Malory puts forward that the artist's interpretation of their own work holds only as much weight as any singular observer.

In order to discuss this further, I'm going to simplify the issue. At the centre of this conversation is one about the value of interpretation and the role of uncertainty in art. To illustrate this, I'm going to use this image:

What does this image depict?

We might be quick to jump and say that it is a square, but literally speaking, it isn't. It is a series of four corners which imply the shape of a square.

One of the great strengths of humans is our ability to draw meaningful conclusions from incomplete data. When we see this, we recognise the general shape of a square and confidently declare it as such. But it doesn't actually depict that. It only depicts four corners.

In essence, this is what art does. It offers to us an incomplete account of real life, often stylised to emphasise a particular emotion. However, it does not depict, so absolutely that no question can be drawn to its intention, what it is trying to depict. It is incomplete and it is our job as the audience to fill in those gaps.

Now, this is not always intentional. It is possible that the author had gone out of their way to depict something they're intimately familiar with. To perfectly capture an experience they had. But by virtue of not being the author, we do not have that necessary information to interpret that work as the author did. We didn't experience the event. We instead, bring our own experiences.

In this sense, we can say that while the author's intentions are valuable, they are valuable in that those intentions can be lost in communication. They forms the holes, produce an incomplete experience, something for an audience member to fill in.

And to further this, we can see this effect in action by way of this essay. This above image is called: "Square Paper Corners Shadow Transparent Png". It is meant to depict a square. And nevertheless, despite the intention only being to create the image of a square, I have taken that work and filled in gaps which allow me to speak to it as a metaphor for art.

[thectower]

Spoiler culture is this increadible phenomenon and its existence was far more fragile that i ever gave it credit for.

So for a long time I'd tell tell people that my boring super power is the ability to avoid spoilers for a show, game or movie. But as i was reading an interview with Orville Peck for a theatre production he was in, he reveals the twist of his character.

What i realised was that a lot of theatre, especially classical theatre, goes on assuming that the audience is familiar with the source material. The plot, its structure and the characters are already known. The focus is placed on the particular telling and portrayal, things that are difficult to spoil.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have meme humour. There, you have two kinds of relationships with familiarity. First, that familiarity with the source material is required to understand the joke. People who aren't in-the-know can't get the joke. As such, it can't be spoiled. The second is the novelty of the joke runs so deep, and the joke is so quick that even explaining the joke means telling the joke. Very little humour is lost.

So what we see is that spoilers can only exist in this middle ground between absolute familiarity and absolute unfamiliarity.

That's kinda neat

[thectower]

I think there is power, strength, and validity in Peter Singer's idea that one should give to others, within their capacity, beyond their immediate circle. That kindness shouldn't be limited by proximity.

However, I think he fails to consider the emotional toll of caring so much about every moment of suffering endured everywhere in the world.

Those who do care, while they make a difference, endure a great deal of personal suffering as a result. This is, in large part, due to the insurmountable nature of the problem utilitarianism aims to address.

When I watch the news, I see how difficult everything is, and I watch unable to meaningfully help. But when I look out my window, I see a world that's doing fine day-by-day. And, the problems of the world outside my window are both accessible and addressable.

[thectower]

Film Review #38: Longing

“Although the things I perceive and imagine are perhaps nothing at all…. They certainly reside, and are met, within me.” – Rene Descartes.

The closing line to cinematic mastermind John Limbasko’s new film Longing. Limbasko’s ability to capture familiar yet indescribable feelings continues in his latest film, this time focusing on the feeling of love in a dream.

This philosophy gets to the heart of the film as we follow Drake Portel (portrayed by character actor Greg Daniels), a penniless writer, lost in a hostel in Japan and his bizarre experience of falling in love.

The film opens with a start as Portel suddenly wakes up in a surreal Japanese hostel. He has no memory of the place or how he got there, and as he struggles to get his bearings, he finds himself quickly falling in love with the young woman Yana, portrayed by Holly Yamagata. Although they only meet in passing at first, Yamaguchi’s performance evokes a sense of longing so potent that, not only does Portel fall for her, so does the audience.

However, not everything is as it seems, and it becomes quickly clear that despite what seems like Yana feeling the same for Portel, she quickly turns cold and aggressive with his ignorance. Her entourage of friends help to reinforce the barrier that stands between Portel and her, each seeming to know something about Portel that he doesn’t.

It is here where the soundtrack makes its mark. The unique talents of legendary composer Angelo Badalamenti evokes his past work on Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive, reminding us that not everything is at it seems.

Furthermore, it lays the foundation for the film’s third main character, the hostel itself. A feeling of momentum and instability is created as each scene of the film is shot on a unique set. We are often left disoriented as we cannot get a proper sense of stability in an ever changing environment. Even scenes which take place in the enigmatic ‘courtyard’ maintain a lack of continuity that reinforces the film’s dream-like nature.

It is here where the setting and story collide. Through Yana’s heartbreak performance, she reveals that this was not the first time the two had met. He had been with her in the hostel before and the two had fallen in love. But when he left, her break was broken. And when he returned with no memory of her, she came to hate him wholeheartedly.

But as the narrative goes on the two are able to begin to mend their relationship and fall for each other again. But before true resolution could be reached, we hard-cut to Portel in his bed. The noise of the world outside his New York apartment overwhelming us as he tries to wake up, realising it had all been a dream. Despite his efforts to fall back to sleep, the film continues on as Portel returns to a normal life. While this new, grounded world is foreign to us as an audience, its certainty and contrasting continuity remind us that this is reality.

It is often said that the ‘it was all a dream’ trope is a cheap cliché, undermining the stakes and intentions of a film, but here it cements the film’s emotional goal; longing for closure. The choice to continue the film for 20 minutes following this realisation helps that feeling sink in. We feel robbed of what could have been, but that is what falling in love in a dream feels like.

“Our dreams don’t bring closure. I wanted to remind you of that.” said Limbasko in an interview for Cinéma du Monde. “He’s having a great night’s sleep, and dreaming of love. But that’s not real. It sucks, but its not real.”

Limbasko has identified the 1997 Austrian psychological thriller Funny Games, as an inspiration. Drawing from the film’s insistence on leaving its audience uncomfortable, disoriented and unhappy. “They don’t stop. Even when the family gets away, they come back. So you either keep watching or you leave. You feel like shit but that’s the point.”

This motif of striking deep and unusual emotional states isn’t new to Limbasko’s work either, with many of his films playing with its audience’s feelings.

His previous film Etterath followed a domestic terrorist who spends his life planning and waiting for the right moment to plant and detonate a bomb. The film’s climax, however, is delivered half way through the film, with the second half following the emotional journey of getting away with it such a crime and a life lead after its purpose.

“You know when you go out. Its loud at the bar. People are talking. Music is loud. The cars are loud too. Then you get home and your ears are ringing. There’s no one else. Just you and your ringing ears.”

His short film, We Shall-Not Overcome, was the first of his films to explore this, following Kelly Knightingale, played by amateur actress Danielle Brochevski, who begins her first day at a new job where high heels two sizes too large.

Its Lambasko’s continued commitment to unusual emotional resonance which has helped Longing stand out as it toured the independent film circuit. Leaving many viewers at a loss, but nevertheless with a lasting impression.

We look forward to the coming strangeness Limbasko makes us feel.

8.5/10

[thectower]

To The Bone - Digital Art & Cut Paper

An album cover i made for a friend of mine's single by the same name to be released in March

[thectower]

One is the smallest number to identify existence.

Two is the smallest number to identify difference.

Three is the smallest number to identify sequence.

Four is the smallest number to identify a pattern.

Five is the smallest number to identify transition.

[thectower]

Control Through Social Convention in Film

I recently caught up to date with Severance and I wanted to comment on some of my thoughts about the show.

I think the way the first season introduces the work place is fascinating. The bone white walls, enormous empty spaces and mindless and impossible to describe work does well to reflect the way that corporate office work tends to feel. Someone once described working in an office as 'sifting sand' all day and I couldn't agree more.

In particular what stood out to me is the way that control is leveraged against the members of MDR. There is almost no physical control leveraged against the group, with many willingly following their managers and bosses orders, even if they knew it led to pain and suffering.

Yes, there are ways in which the group are punished and, in turn, brainwashed for acting out of turn. But, it is shown that those methods have limited effect on the group or are gamed after the first few incidents (eg. when Dylan tells Helly that you need to imagine something you're regretful for when in the Break Room to rig the detector).

I've seen this in other shows and films as well. For example, in The Menu, control is regularly leveraged over the guests through the stewards. When the guests try to leave, they're often gestured towards locations more appropriate, like the bathroom or back to their seat. People are, for all intents and purposes, allowed to leave, but do not in accordance with some unspoken social convention.

What I struggle with is with identifying this phenomenon. It strikes me as an intentional decision, often highlighted by the structure of a scene and repeated throughout. If something serves to stop a character from following their path, it is significant. However, I can't connect to this phenomenon at all.

I have two theories as to what this may reflect. But each centres on the control of social convention.

First, primarily reflecting its use in The Menu, this phenomenon serves to highlight the wealthy's dependence on social convention. That they are so entrenched in it, they will be willing to throw their own life away in service to what is good and proper.

Second, as depicted in Severance, it reflects the way that social conventions control work spaces. Fear of management and their ability to leverage ignorance is a huge theme of the show. And one's understanding of a situation compared to their subordinate enables them to control those social conventions. They do not follow Mr. Milchek because he is threatening them, but because they don't know what will happen if they don't. This is also seen in Mr. Milchek's relationship to Ms. Cobel, and her relationship to The Board. Each level of management leverages the lower's ignorance to maintain control. This is furthered even more in the structure of the work place as a cult. Knowledge is, literally, power.

Anyway, I just think that's a neat literary device I hadn't noticed too much before and wanted to highlight it.

[thectower]

Stop Talking by June Waterhouse

An artistic expression of my frustrations with the modern internet. How the shift to a more aggressive form of digital capitalism has served to alienate us from ourselves. We are not enough, and we can't be enough. To be enough, we need to pay attention, look at what they are selling, and become the best. Doomscroll for the Soul.

The work is shared as a Zine and can be printed out, trimmed, and folded into a little book that explores this narrative linearly.

All images sourced from Instagtam were found in the same 20-minute scrolling session, emphasising the raw volume of this inadequacy narrative.

If you are in the Ballarat, Victoria area during the month of February 2025, this Zine will be for sale at TBH studios for $4 and will include a bonus page/ poster.

I will be offering high-quality files in the future for a $2 donation. But if you want it now, feel free to save the uploaded copy.

[thectower]

The paradox of adult friends is the conflict between:

1. Knowing what you want in a friend due to having to tolerate bad but abundant friends in your youth and,

2. Having a much smaller supply of potential friends.

As a child we learn to cope within a certain social structure. We have many opportunities to make friends so we learn how to keep the best ones. But i've we leave our supply of friends and our regular exposure to friends dries.

As such, we have two options moving forward for making adult friends

1. Do the work to put yourself in places where you can meet people like you did in school, or

2. Make friends with everyone you meet and take the initiative to catch up regularly.

In either case, you have to break free of the "only keeping my best friends" mentality until you know enough people to narrow it down. This final process actually happens naturally as you will be drawn and more willing to catch up with people you enjoy more. The fat will float to the top.

[thectower]

Naivety is the product of specific affordances we are given during different times in our life. They are certain privileges we have.

As a child, you are afforded freedom from acquisition. Everything is given to you.

As a teenager you are afforded freedom to discover. Your mistakes are not long lasting and your reputation is yet to be developed

As a young adult you are afforded freedom to choose. You don't have children or external responcibilities holding you back.

As an middle ages adult you are afforded the freedom from your body. Your body has yet to fail you, requiring minor maintenance.

As an older adult your are afforded freedom from external pressure. Able to act as you see fit.

When you die you are afforded freedom from existence.

[thectower]

Objectivity // Subjectivity: Holding Space for Conflict

In order to construct a complex understanding of the world, one must understand two things.

First, that any attempt we make to articulate the world is limited both by our pinhole view of the world and, second, that all other attempts to articulate the world do so through a pinhole.

The first is important to understand because it allows us to come at an issue with an honest perspective. As much as I may spend my life construction a complex and comprehensive understanding of the world, I still fail to account for all variables, perspectives and positions. While my understanding may feel complete, I am only articulating the world I have experienced. And even if I were to explore other perspectives and incorporate those into my understanding, there is simply not enough time in a life to be able to internalise and account for everything.

Moreover, my ability to then articulate that perspective is further limited by my language and a reader’s ability to internalise it. I bring to a conversation a history of understanding and thought that makes what I say make sense. A key part of any form of writing is to understand your audience and serve them, because it is impossible to write something for every knowledge base. I cannot answer every question, begin from the ground floor, and construct a perspective which anyone can enter and walk away from understanding. And those who have tried have run into the all too common issue of writing a book which is awful to read.

The second is important because it builds on this. Anyone’s attempt to articulate the world will be the limited. Some opinions hold more weight in certain fields than others. But in order to hold that weight, they must sacrifice the breadth of their opinion.

For example, when laymen discusses science, they do so broadly. They combine a number of different disciplines into one. They discuss physics and biology in the same breath. Due to this limited perspective, we might not take what they have to say seriously. We may then turn to an expert to build a better understanding. However, in order to be an expert in a field, you need to take on an area of study, typically one small part of a broader topic. In fact, many experts are the only people who understand their field of study. Because of this, a niche physicist may struggle to discuss issues of biology. Our take away from this is that both people have a limited scope of science. Neither can articulate it in full.

As such, we should listen to their opinion while holding space for that.

By understanding these the limitations of our perspective and others’, we can do some interesting things. First, we can approach all perspectives, including our own, from a place of humility. We ground those perspectives in the understanding that they are limited and incomplete. Suddenly our work becomes less about trying to prove someone wrong and instead becomes an on going conversation to try and put the world together. Second, we can humanise others. We are less inclined to ridicule others as selfish or personally motivated, because we can understand that that way of being is an extension of how they’ve lived their lives.

For example, all major mistakes made by people have one thing in common: the pressure to act. In any given situation, an optimal course of action can be created. However what stops people is the external pressure to act preventing them from taking the time to factor in all variables and construct an optimal path of action. We can ground many actions in the world in this perspective. Politicians face external pressure to act from a number of places: their parents and peers, the pressure from the people to maintain a balanced lifestyle which is, at once, constantly changing but also always staying the same, as well as balancing the economics of money going in and out, and pressure from investors and lobbyist who’ve committed significantly financially to their campaigns. Not to mention their own financial investment in the systems at hand. These factors increase the complexity of a decision exponentially, and cause its outcomes to be much harder to know beforehand, and on short notice.

This is also why it is easy to see an action as good or bad in retrospect. Retrospective looks lack the pressure to act immediately. It also has the benefit of on-going conversation. A major bombing of a city may have only had the accumulative thought power of 10-20 people over the course of a few weeks or months. This is limited further by the on going nature of war, where the goal is not to make the best decision, but the least destructive for your side. While a retrospective look has the collective thought power of millions, or billions, over the course of decades and centuries following and no immediate pressure to save people.

Based on these pressures, politicians will develop opinions and take courses of action which satisfy those pressures, even if it it doesn’t have the long term benefit everyone else wants. Suddenly politics becomes less about helping people and instead becomes about satisfying and resolving the enormous pressures put on them.

Its also important to understand that the list of pressures I’ve provided is nothing short of incomplete. The role of a major politician extends to all major facets of life: infrastructure, military, safety, control, drug policy, global economics, the interpersonal pressures of the wealthy and powerful, status, old decisions by other politicians which have proven themselves to be bad and yet have ingrained themselves into culture for so long they can’t be gotten rid of, judiciary systems, their next campaign, the environment, the complex opinions of all people, the need to satisfy everyone, international relationships, employment, social services, educations, the way that language has evolved and caused the literal letter of the law to change in meaning along with it, to name a few. The pressure to act, and the limited perspective of a single individual will result in the wrong decision being made. But the belief that a decision is wrong is itself a product of a limited perspective.

None of this is to say that their actions are right. I say this to highlight the way in which conflicting truths can form.

There are complex and on going conversations within philosophy about whether subjectivity or objectivity are true. I am not going to contribute to that conversation. Instead I’m accepting both subjectivity and objectivity as truths of the world and trying to articulate how both are able to be true.

And the answer to that question is what I opened this discussion with: My perspective is inherently limited, and so too is the perspective of everyone else. The only true way to understand the world is to hold space for a theoretical infinite number of conflicting opinions.

While the pieces may not fit together, they can be overlapped to create a complete picture.

[thectower]

When we talk about the left as being fragmented, we often do so with a vile taste in our mouths. We believe that our ideas failed because, if more people supported us, we could be right. And so we blame those around us, push them away, and say its their fault for not believing in us.

But the truth is that the fragmented nature of the left is not its weakness, but its strength. It is guerrilla politique. It is throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks. What we are seeing isn't a fragmented belief system but a messy attempt to build the future out of nothing, raw unfiltered uncertainty. It is often lonely at the bleeding edge.

When people are upset, it is an expression of disappointment that their system, their beliefs, are unpopular and are unable to hold ground. But the noble pursuit is not in succeeding. It is in trying. Of discovering what doesn't work so we can ignore it. These failed ideas bring us back to the drawing board to try again and see what else the future might hold.

We can't keep seeing politics as left vs right, two opposing dichotomies. We must see it as a spectrum that ideas pass through. The left is the birth of new ideas. The middle holds and believes in some of those ideas, bringing them into popularity; into the mainstream. And the right, devoid of all creativity and obsessed with traditional, are where those ideas go to die.

It is the life cycle of ideas.

[thectower]

In saying this, my goal is not to shit on AI. It will be a useful tool. What it actually is and how it will change the world are questions that are yet to be properly answered, and the answer to those questions may well define the generation to come.

I cannot, in good conscience, with an eye to the future and with acceptance for the next generation in my heart, say it is useless drivvle. I will only alienate the makers of tomorrow. It is this generations Autotune, CGI, digital drawing and animation tools, Garageband, CAD software, Word Processor, Digital Spreadsheet, Printing Press, Compass, Radio and Television.

It is hated because it is new and will change the landscape. The ways it can be used for art have not been discovered yet, and so it's considered a waste and robbing other tallented artists of their craft. But it will come to be accepted in time.

But it is not magic. It is not a new God. It is a learning algorithm and a computer it runs on.

I, well and truly, I believe all forms of AI will fail to meet expectations for the following reasons:

1) it is an attempt to create a system of intellectual engagement such that any one person can engage with it and receive absolutely exactly what they want to know, fully interpreted and understood. A feat that is not even achievable between human people.

2) that such a feat can be accomplished in less than a single human lifetime and,

3) without that system having a tengible connection to the ever changing world and the intention to engage with it.

In order to be able to achieve what is expected of AI, the system would need to be able to understand and predict what any given human being could wish from it. Those expectations from us are predicated by the world around us, our history as participants in the world, and as part of a history of participants in the world.

AI systems are, at best, infantile and develop far, far slower than any single human would. What AI learning models, in theory, could afford is growth beyond a single human lifetime. This means that the only way for it to come close to meeting expectations is after several human lifetimes of development.

To push this idea further, let's discuss fidelity. Since AI is, in essence, an attempt to create a high fidelity outlet for the sum total of all human knowledge, it is important to discuss the limitations of creating something of absolute fidelity.

The tension of any representation of the world is that it compromises fidelity for form. An adaptation of a novel into a film cannot hope to recreate 1 to 1 the fidelity of the text. This is because the form of a novel with the highest possible fidelity is a reproduction of the novel. Any adaptation will have to sacrifice fidelity.

Another way of looking at it is through the lens of film since it's a visual medium. A film cannot be a full fidelity recreation of the world. Good film makers know this. It is, instead, attempting to create a focused representation of the world. But, due to that focus, it is limited by that focus.

In order to create a film that reflects the world to the highest degree, one ought to simply film the world, second by second. But even that method would result in the details beyond the scope of the camera, limitations of the microphone, and the organic nature of human action being lost. The only way to experience the world in the highest fidelity is to experience the world.

We must then understand that AI cannot hope to achieve what's expected of it. It cannot recreate it. It cannot represent it to us. In the same way that nothing but the world itself can. The only way to contain the sum knowledge of the world is to produce a 1 to 1 recreation of the world, to ask all of its inhabitents what they know and to pool that information. But even if you did that, your ability to understand it would be limited by the lens of your own existence. The work of interpretation will always be necessary.

[thectower]

I, well and truly, I believe all forms of AI will fail to meet expectations for the following reasons:

1) it is an attempt to create a system of intellectual engagement such that any one person can engage with it and receive absolutely exactly what they want to know, fully interpreted and understood. A feat that is not even achievable between human people.

2) that such a feat can be accomplished in less than a single human lifetime and,

3) without that system having a tengible connection to the ever changing world and the intention to engage with it.

In order to be able to achieve what is expected of AI, the system would need to be able to understand and predict what any given human being could wish from it. Those expectations from us are predicated by the world around us, our history as participants in the world, and as part of a history of participants in the world.

AI systems are, at best, infantile and develop far, far slower than any single human would. What AI learning models, in theory, could afford is growth beyond a single human lifetime. This means that the only way for it to come close to meeting expectations is after several human lifetimes of development.

To push this idea further, let's discuss fidelity. Since AI is, in essence, an attempt to create a high fidelity outlet for the sum total of all human knowledge, it is important to discuss the limitations of creating something of absolute fidelity.

The tension of any representation of the world is that it compromises fidelity for form. An adaptation of a novel into a film cannot hope to recreate 1 to 1 the fidelity of the text. This is because the form of a novel with the highest possible fidelity is a reproduction of the novel. Any adaptation will have to sacrifice fidelity.

Another way of looking at it is through the lens of film since it's a visual medium. A film cannot be a full fidelity recreation of the world. Good film makers know this. It is, instead, attempting to create a focused representation of the world. But, due to that focus, it is limited by that focus.

In order to create a film that reflects the world to the highest degree, one ought to simply film the world, second by second. But even that method would result in the details beyond the scope of the camera, limitations of the microphone, and the organic nature of human action being lost. The only way to experience the world in the highest fidelity is to experience the world.

We must then understand that AI cannot hope to achieve what's expected of it. It cannot recreate it. It cannot represent it to us. In the same way that nothing but the world itself can. The only way to contain the sum knowledge of the world is to produce a 1 to 1 recreation of the world, to ask all of its inhabitents what they know and to pool that information. But even if you did that, your ability to understand it would be limited by the lens of your own existence. The work of interpretation will always be necessary.

[thectower]

Film Review #23: From Beginning to End

From the surrealist mind of Greg Ivan, From Beginning To End, follows the life of Kegan Stanley, a penniless writer from New York who is struggling to raise a family and overcome cycles of family abuse. 

The film looks closely at the events of Kegan’s life, the relationship he shares with his father and eventually his son. But what gives this film its edge is the fact that the same actor portrays all three men. What’s more, that actor is Ivan himself. Alongside him is silver screen star Pamela Nondlecomp who’s role contrast’s Ivan’s, playing Kegan’s sister, mother, best friend, lost lover, wife and eventual nurse. 

The surrealist masterpiece aims to reframe our understanding of the people around us. As we watch, we are confronted by answers we may not like to questions we can’t help but ask: Who are we? Who will we become? What is everyone thinking?

The film expertly misdirects its audience, as we are first led to believe that Ivan is only portraying Howard, Kagan’s father. But as we follow the life of this young boy, we begin to notice the similarities the two characters share. 

This misdirection is executed perfectly and isn't fully revealed until the end of the second act, as Kegan waits for his son to be born. What follows is a shot for shot recreation of the opening scene, of Kegan's birth, but now from his father's perspective.

From this point onward, all scenes are recreations of scenes the audience is already familiar with, but told from Howard's perspective. Suddenly the fear we've had towards him is recontextualised.

But this perspective shift could not be done without the support of Nondlecomp and the many roles she portrays. The actress has gone above and beyond to instill in her characters distinction while still making each feel eerily familiar: her absent stare as Kegan’s mother, her joyful disposition as his sister, and the lurking sense of familiarity we feel as she portrays Kegan’s wife. 

This strange tone is a mainstay in Ivan’s filmography with many of his works serving as grounded observations emphasised with surrealist imagery, and this film seeks out to pay homage to many of those past works. 

His first film, To Wring One’s Own Neck, is where we see him begin to explore ideas of duality and personhood. Culminating in a focused, but almost conservative, film about what it means to be a person.

His follow up film, Who Likes to Talk to the Universe, really leans into its surrealist elements. In both films, small mistakes by children are met with abuse in public spaces. In the basketball game scene, as the stands catch fire and Howard remains unscathed, the wreath of flames around him both isolates and embolden him.

Ivan's penultimate film, Tour, brought us back down to earth. A film which sought to master the mistakes of his youth, but ended up robbing the film of its charm and personality. And it is with regret I say similar problems arise in the final act of From Beginning to End. 

I would be remiss not to acknowledge the strange release this film had. It was four weeks after the director's death, that his daughter, Dee Ivan, teased the film on twitter. 

The world was abuzz with fascination at the idea of a posthumous release from such a unique director, with parallels being drawn between it and John Malkovich' film's 100 Years. A film which is not set to be released until 2115.

In an official statement released by the family of Greg Ivan, they said: “Greg was many things. A father. A brother. A friend. But more than anything else, he was a filmmaker. He spent every waking hour of his life making films. What we have released today is the culmination of a lifetime of work, filmed and edited from the day he could hold a camera to that day he died in his apartment. A number of small edits have been made after his passing to help complete the film, but we know he would want the world to see it.”

It is here where we can truly understand the film. When we see a 5 year old Kegan, we are seeing a 5 year old Greg Ivan. When we see a haggard and abusive 32 year old Howard, we are seeing a 32 year old Greg Ivan. When we see the father and son refuse to make peace in the final hours of Howard's life, we are seeing Ivan's unresolved problems, not only with his father's death, but his own.

What's more, we see how he has grown as a director. Scenes shot in his youth are old and grainy, poorly shot and badly acted. But the film intermingles these moments with shoots taken much later in his life, in such a way that Kegan and Howard naturally contrast each other. Howard is more capable than Kegan, and we see that not only through their choices, but also reflected in the capability of Ivan at the time each scene was shot. 

So when Kegan first raises his fist to his son, you really do feel the weight of every moment which came before.

In a sense, this film represents all of who Ivan is. It is his alpha and omega; his beginning and end; his first film, and his last film. He took us, not on any journey of self discovery, but on his. One of navigating life, meaning and relationships. One of defiance and return. One that reminds us that, despite what we might believe, we are all on the same journey. 

10/10. Rest in peace Greg. 

[thectower]

The wilted gloss of ancient photographs,

people frozen in time

Images lost in the forest of leaflette lined

Library books.

Amusement parks, based in history, clawing

To connect the past with the present

But what they didn't know was that children

Who are not old enough

To see the frozen faces of a million lost souls

They see only manaquins.

But now I look. The aged faces. Rivers and

Estuaries of the flesh.

And I see people like me. Anxiety. Fear.

Happiness. Pride.

The joy of capturing a moment so that one day

People might just believe

You are like marble statues of old.

[thectower]

Hell Dive into Collective Action

So if you haven't followed the Helldriver's 2 drama, I'll give you a quick rundown. About a week ago Sony outlined a plan which required all players to link their existing in-game accounts to the Playstation Network. Including players on Steam.

This decision was met with severe negativity. Not only would this force many users to make PSN accounts just to play one game, it would limit access to the game for 118 countries. This resulted in a targeted review bomb.

(image from Kotaku)

Review bombing is nothing new. Historically it has been used as a form of guerrilla activism used against digital producers where the product is distributed online. It is done by a large group of people leaving negative reviews on the product.

It has a long history of not working.

However, what stood out about this moment is that this bomb actually achieved something. Sony has since gone back on their word.

(image from @Dexerto on X)

Such an accomplishment has not gone unnoticed by the fans. What only a week ago was seen as the death of one of the strongest fan bases in recent history, has become a badge of honour.

The imagery of the steam review timeline and the subsequent increase in positive reviews is marked proudly on their skins

(image from @helldiversmedia on X)