Fascinating legs
While riding home last night, I was listening to Studio 360, and they had a bit about Olympic-level athletes who have artificial limbs. The current media darling for this topic is Oscar Pistorius, but I found Aimee Mullins' contributions to the story to be more poignant, more insightful.
The story goes, that each of these athletes had lost their lower legs as a result of birth defects. And, with the use of their specially-designed prosthetic limbs, they are able to run like the fucking wind. Many of their able-bodied competitors like to cry foul because they think the carbon-fibre legs give the amputees an unfair advantage. When people accused Aimee Mullins of using the appliances to lengthen her stride, she had them shortened. And she got faster. That shut 'em up.
Fascinated as I was with this story, I got home and started looking up photos and YouTube videos to learn more. I was surprised to learn that Mullins was not only an accomplished athlete, but also a model and an actress. The bits about her being a model were interesting for a lot of reasons, but I was amused by the fact that she looks crazy-tall when she's wearing her "model legs." Unfair advantage, indeed...but it's hard to call it "unfair" when the fact is I'm cheering for her. Last I checked, overcoming a handicap was a good thing.
But it's when I looked up her acting experience that I started to wander into another territory that's perplexed me in the past. One of the movies she has starred in is called Cremaster 3, an extremely abstract art film, part of a series by Björk's partner Matthew Barney. I mean, extremely abstract. Go ahead, click the link, and make sure you watch the trailer.
The thing I can't quite figure out is how, exactly, funding is procured for such a project. The mind reels. Clearly, Barney had a really detailed vision for the creation of this project, but what's the audience? Who do you pitch it to, in terms of funding? Who buys this stuff?
My friend Peter, from high school, is an actor, and he has starred in a slew of artfilms like this. I recently re-connected with him through MySpace, and he has links to trailer videos for the projects he's been in. And dude...it scares me. They're abstract, like the Cremaster Cycle is, but they're far-lower-budget. Hand-held cameras, scraped-together wardrobe, lots of gratuitous nudity that crosses the line into the obscene (one man's opinion-a man with no problem with nudity), and generally the type of stuff that only gets shown in small, deviant circles. Don't get me wrong: more power to 'em.
But it still perplexes me, and leads my brain to make up wild theories, bordering on Eyes Wide Shut territory. I'm not implying secret-society-type stuff, so let me explain: My impression is, the people responsible for creating these types of movies are independently wealthy, whether by inheritance or by wild success (or marriage to Björk). And they've got artistic aspirations and/or outside-the-mainstream sexual proclivities which they would like to express through a group artistic effort. It's kinda like...a really scaled-down, much more tame/artistic version of the "themed orgies" we've all heard about but never actually seen. Small societies of people who somehow have the time and money to invest in ambitious/large projects that aren't intended for a wide audience, but more intended to scratch an individual (or small group) itch. It's freakin' fascinating.
Clearly, I've pigeon-holed myself as a complete prude, misanthrope and art-ignorant snob. But that's totally not the case. I'm just taking a different tack - after deciding that the art itself isn't my cup of tea, I'm still fascinated and curious about the scene-behind-the-scenes. That may not be my cup of tea either, but, on the face of it, I just don't get how it's being done.
Anyway, even though the sum-of-its-parts vision of the Cremaster Cycle doesn't tickle my fancy, I must admit I am very impressed by the imagery of Aimee Mullins wearing the lucite lower legs. It's one of those things you might've seen in a Hellraiser movie, and you don't even need computers to make the image!
Alright, I've led you down a meandering path for long enough. Sorry about that.
The story goes, that each of these athletes had lost their lower legs as a result of birth defects. And, with the use of their specially-designed prosthetic limbs, they are able to run like the fucking wind. Many of their able-bodied competitors like to cry foul because they think the carbon-fibre legs give the amputees an unfair advantage. When people accused Aimee Mullins of using the appliances to lengthen her stride, she had them shortened. And she got faster. That shut 'em up.
Fascinated as I was with this story, I got home and started looking up photos and YouTube videos to learn more. I was surprised to learn that Mullins was not only an accomplished athlete, but also a model and an actress. The bits about her being a model were interesting for a lot of reasons, but I was amused by the fact that she looks crazy-tall when she's wearing her "model legs." Unfair advantage, indeed...but it's hard to call it "unfair" when the fact is I'm cheering for her. Last I checked, overcoming a handicap was a good thing.
But it's when I looked up her acting experience that I started to wander into another territory that's perplexed me in the past. One of the movies she has starred in is called Cremaster 3, an extremely abstract art film, part of a series by Björk's partner Matthew Barney. I mean, extremely abstract. Go ahead, click the link, and make sure you watch the trailer.
The thing I can't quite figure out is how, exactly, funding is procured for such a project. The mind reels. Clearly, Barney had a really detailed vision for the creation of this project, but what's the audience? Who do you pitch it to, in terms of funding? Who buys this stuff?
My friend Peter, from high school, is an actor, and he has starred in a slew of artfilms like this. I recently re-connected with him through MySpace, and he has links to trailer videos for the projects he's been in. And dude...it scares me. They're abstract, like the Cremaster Cycle is, but they're far-lower-budget. Hand-held cameras, scraped-together wardrobe, lots of gratuitous nudity that crosses the line into the obscene (one man's opinion-a man with no problem with nudity), and generally the type of stuff that only gets shown in small, deviant circles. Don't get me wrong: more power to 'em.
But it still perplexes me, and leads my brain to make up wild theories, bordering on Eyes Wide Shut territory. I'm not implying secret-society-type stuff, so let me explain: My impression is, the people responsible for creating these types of movies are independently wealthy, whether by inheritance or by wild success (or marriage to Björk). And they've got artistic aspirations and/or outside-the-mainstream sexual proclivities which they would like to express through a group artistic effort. It's kinda like...a really scaled-down, much more tame/artistic version of the "themed orgies" we've all heard about but never actually seen. Small societies of people who somehow have the time and money to invest in ambitious/large projects that aren't intended for a wide audience, but more intended to scratch an individual (or small group) itch. It's freakin' fascinating.
Clearly, I've pigeon-holed myself as a complete prude, misanthrope and art-ignorant snob. But that's totally not the case. I'm just taking a different tack - after deciding that the art itself isn't my cup of tea, I'm still fascinated and curious about the scene-behind-the-scenes. That may not be my cup of tea either, but, on the face of it, I just don't get how it's being done.
Anyway, even though the sum-of-its-parts vision of the Cremaster Cycle doesn't tickle my fancy, I must admit I am very impressed by the imagery of Aimee Mullins wearing the lucite lower legs. It's one of those things you might've seen in a Hellraiser movie, and you don't even need computers to make the image!
Alright, I've led you down a meandering path for long enough. Sorry about that.