Jobs

Few people get a chance to leave a mark in history. In the past they were emperors, conquerors, politicians, dictators etc. As our society evolves the people we admire and recognise changed too, and so do the people we considered leaving a mark in human history. Steve Jobs, the late Apple Computer co-founder was one of them.

His passing has always been considered as an end of an era – not just for Apple but also for the whole technology industry. That’s how influential he is. So it is not surprising that some Hollywood producer jumped on and produced the biopic “Jobs” to recount his life.

To say that “Jobs” is a biopic is a bit of an over-statement. Watching the movie feels like watching a life action chronicle of Steve Jobs. You know what is happening without a doubt, but whether it is really telling a story is another story. That is not to say “Jobs” is a bad movie. I just felt that I didn’t really have a chance to know Steve Jobs as a person. In “Hilary and Jackie” I fully understand the life of Jacqueline du Pre and her rivalry with her sister. In ‘Social Network” I had a good glimpse of the controversy of Facebook and its founder. But in “Jobs” I understand what goes on with Steve Jobs’ life but I don’t understand Steve Jobs as a person or a character.

Ashton Kutcher worked hard to deliver a very promising performance. He proved that he could be more than just a romcom or comedy actor. However, due to the highly fragmented nature of the movie, you sometimes just had no idea why Ashton, or the Steve Jobs he was portraying behaved in a certain way. The movie tried to explain but then the attempts just got muddled up with all the other murky stuff in the movie. The movie felt so hollow to me that at times I could hear the noise generated by the hollowness. There were a lot of things going on and they seem cohesive chronologically but at the same time they were very independent from each other. As a person who has not read up his whole life from his biography, I did not get to know Steve Jobs better or appreciate his vision of revolutionising the computing industry better. I think that is the main shortcoming of this movie.

The movie opens with Jobs introducing the iPod and you could see in that scene Ashton Kutcher was doing his best to impersonate Steve Jobs. The make up he put on and the physicality he displayed showed that he had done his homework. Then the story flashed back to where everything started. From that point onward I felt like I was watching someone turning over pages and pages of a scrapbook for me. I had a glimpse of the events but I did not have enough time to understand or appreciate the events. I understand that it could be hard to cramp all the colourful events of Jobs’ life in around 2 hours, but surely there could be ways to focus on certain events to flash out Jobs lives better. His many accomplishments seemed to have taken over his life in this movie. Maybe the producer thinks that people are interested in the events themselves not Steve Jobs, but then why bother making a biopic? They could just make a news special in a current affairs program.

That said, “Jobs” is not a totally bad movie. It was just not very satisfying as a biopic. The picture was beautifully filmed and set. There was a beautiful score accompanying the movie (although I felt a bit overdosed by the retro music that sometimes came up without much reason). However, as a biopic, I would prefer the producer to explore more about Jobs and his relationships with the people around him and know him as a person from that angle. His many accomplishments could serve as backdrops to enrich him as a visionary thus contrasting Jobs as a person. It is through that kind of balance and contrast that a person’s character can be flashed out in a more engaging manner.

I do not know whether “Jobs” is a fan service for Apple’s  or Steve Jobs’ followers. But the chunk that was bitten out from the Apple seems to be a wrong chunk in my opinion.

The Jurassic Life of Democracy

With the Australian Federal Election coming in quick in a few weeks, the two major parties are on all out assault on each other. I have long decided that I will not vote for either the Labor or the Liberals, as I did not like them a bit. However I would still exercise the power democracy bestowed on me to choose who I want to represent me.

The funny thing with this election, and maybe other countries’ elections is that a lot of time they have become such a two-horse race that you really don’t know whether you have a choice at all. The situation in Australia is similar. It is always about the Labor and the Liberals and it feels that this is all we could choose. I actively try to seek out other possibilities (sorry Greens, I do not share your vision either) so that I could fully exercise my power in this democratic system. However, the upcoming election in Australia had got me thinking – has democracy become such an old establishment that it is now fossilised and become irrelevant?

There are lots of different governing systems. Democracy provides the right for us to choose whom to represent us. However, as it was proven many times in history, mankind is not great in dealing with freedom (if you believe in the Bible, that stems from the good old Adam and Eve). Don’t get me wrong – I am all for freedom and I think freedom is essential for mankind to progress. However, mankind is also good in exploiting the freedom we have and thus making freedom its own personal tool to achieve its own personal goal.

For me democracy facilitates making good visions to come true. Those might not be visions shared by everyone but through the democratic process, the majority’s wish is granted and hopefully being respected. This is the core ideology of democracy. However, as the society grows and evolves, I slowly felt that democracy has become a toy reserved to the privileged few in the society. These privileged few possess the resource to “promote” their own agendas as visions and through the modern publicity machine, these personal agendas were communicated to the mass camouflaging as must have items on the voters’ shopping lists. Whether these personal agendas are for the benefit of the society no longer matters anymore. As a result, democracy, in my view, slowly became more and more like a creature that once roams the world but now only exists in our textbooks. It once had great impacts but now it is a museum exhibit that we check out periodically and teach our kids because they need to know about it.

Democracy might have helped to tear down individual dictatorship and tyranny, however, it has also given birth to a new breed known as collective dictatorship and tyranny. These collective dictators camouflage themselves as people’s representatives but in fact behind these thin veils of democracy is a collective desire to consume the society for their own benefits. As I watched and read media coverage about our election, I sometimes think, “seriously how could someone who despises the public school system and sent his daughters to private school understand the struggle public schools have?” Also, “how could people who got all aspects of their daily lives taken care of understand the pain of taking buses to work everyday; or maybe not having someone to be able to look after their kids when both parents are working full time just to meet ends’ needs?” These people claimed to be the representatives of Australians but how representational are they when they never experienced what average Australians are experiencing? Would visits to school change how they put together their education policies? If an education policy or budget is scheduled way beyond their current election term, could it still be considered as a commitment or it is just something to hook voters in like “ice”?

I have nothing against democracy and in fact I think democracy is something essential to keep the society evolving. What I dislike, especially in the current state of Australian politics, is that everyone seems to be thinking that they have no choices but in fact they do have choices to a certain extent. The current system seems to be facilitating the two major parties to stay in power in an oligopoly manner. However, if more people demonstrate their desire to change by voting for candidates other than these two major parties, then maybe we could slowly introduce variety and thus revive true democracy in our society.  

God bless Australia.

The Time of Our Lives

Although I am an actor based in Australia, I must admit that I don’t really watch a lot of Australian productions nowadays. For me most of the Australian productions fall into just a few broad categories:

• Reality TV
• White-wash “Australian” dramas that do not represent the modern Australian society
• Dramatised Australian true stories – and a lot of times are related to crimes
•  Comedies and satires– sometimes low taste comedies

Since moving to Australia just over a decade ago, I have only watched and follow a few Australian drama productions.

“Sea Change” was the first one I fell in love with and still watch a lot. It is my favourite show to watch when I am doing my ironing. The first season of “The Secret Lives of Us” was also great. Deborah Mailman and Claudia Karvan have made the show so watchable. “Love My Way” was another Claudia Karvan show that I followed although similar to “The Secret Lives of Us” I only liked the first season. “East West 101” was another brilliant show that I think one should not miss. It shows a more realistic Australian society and investigates more interesting issues. Since “East West 101” I haven’t been watching a lot of Australian dramas because they just don’t interest me. I will watch odd episodes from time to time here and there (especially the ones I was in) but I never follow them. Then came “The Time of Our Lives”.

When ABC first advertised it, I understood that it is another Claudia Karvan show and this raised my interests in it. I have a lot of respect for Claudia Karvan although I have never really met her (except for the forum that I went to with her as the guest but I had never spoken to her). She strikes me as a person who doesn’t like to conform to common views but works hard to break the norm. As a person who tries to fight stereotypes and “be myself” both as an actor and a person, I was naturally drawn to Claudia Karvan as an actor and producer. As such, I was determined not to miss this show – especially when it is on ABC.

“The Time of Our Lives” surrounds a family with a few grown up siblings. Two of them were blood brothers, one of them was adopted from Vietnam, and the other was a foster care child. The combination is interesting enough and so are the characters. There are still some quite cliché storylines but then the fact that it deals with these storylines in a day-to-day kind of manner instead of overly dramatising them, the show become a lot more convincing. Claudia Karvan played as Caroline who was a lawyer who gave up her career to build a perfect family. But she eventually had to face the fact that no matter how hard she pretended, the family was far from perfect. Her character change from the first episode up to the current episode displayed a journey of compromising with life without comprising her view of life. I think that was great.

The show also dealt with some quite heavy weight issues such as how could a foster child re-establish his relationship with his own mother? Could an adopted child from Vietnam ever fully recognise herself as an Australian, when she knows that she is Asian? How do you savage a life torn apart by you without tearing yourself apart? These are all very demanding storylines. They could not be over-played or shallowly interpreted. I think the production managed to find a great cast to tell the stories for us. Some of the names are basically who’s who in real Australian acting – Claudia Karvan, William McInnes, Justine Clark, Shane Jacobsen, Stephen Curry etc. Even the supporting cast were some of the best in Australian acting – Tina Bursill, Mick Molloy, and Pia Mianda to name a few.

What I also like about “The Time of Our Lives” is that it shows a more representative Australian society – aka it is not a white washed “Australian” society. Also actors of different ethnicities were not stereotyped in the roles they are playing. This enabled me to relate to this world a lot better than shows that only show hunky surfers and blonde babes living on the beach a lot better. Also the writing has so much more depth when it is not just about insecure people trying to sleep with insecure people to make themselves secure.

I hope ABC would continue to produce original quality dramas like “The Time of Our Lives” and I will definitely continue to sit in front of the TV every Sunday night at 8.30 to watch the show until it is finished. Even so, it is already high on my priority list as a must have TV series for my DVD collection.

The Bran Nue Radiance of the Sapphires

The recent decision of the US DVD cover change of the Australian movie "The Sapphires" has sparked a lot of debates about whether it was sexist and racist. For readers who are not the familiar with the movie, "The Sapphires" is about an Aboriginal women singing group who went to Vietnam to sing for the soldiers during the wars. It represents the courage and life of these four wonderful Aboriginal women. The movie was a hit in Australia and overseas alike. The movies represents Aboriginal cinema at its very best and also proved that when you have a good story and presented it correctly the story telling transcends ethnicity.

The decision of the US distributor to change the cover art to feature Chris O'Dowd, who is a supporting character in the movie and move the four main Aboriginal characters to the back is doing the movie a huge injustice. Changing cover arts across different regions is not something new. It has been done for years. The issue here is how it was handled. I understand that it might be a commercial decision to put Chris O'Dowd as the featured character because he might have better market pulling power than the four Aboriginal Australian actresses. However the question here is whether the move is respecting the movie itself and whether this change is compromising the integrity of the movie, and to an extent false advertising?

The fact is "The Sapphires" is not completely unknown to the American audience. Ellen Degeneres has been featuring and promoting this movie in her show in many occasions. Both Chris O'Dowd and Jessica Mauboy had made appearances on the Ellen show to talk about the movie and Ellen was very outspoken about her love for the movie. Under such circumstance it is strange the US distributor decided to make such changes. What even further baffles me was that "The Sapphires" has a strong theme of battling racism and sexism in the 60s and 70s but the cover art change is exactly exhibiting the same in 2013.

At the time of writing the original Sapphires has written a public letter protesting this and trying to lobby a boycott of the DVD. They were proud of the movie, proud of the four aboriginal actors who portrayed them but are disgusted about the cover change. They stated that the movie represents everything they fought against in their lives. Chris O'Dowd has also publicly criticised the move and claimed that this is not something he would like to see happening. The other actors have not made a public stand yet but most Australians know that both Deborah Mailman and Jessica Mauboy are very proud of their Aboriginality. They were involved in different important projects such as "Radiance", "Bran Nue Dae", "Rabbit Proof Fence", "Mabo" etc. Deborah Mailman also co-wrote the important theatrical piece "The 7 Stages of Grieving", which was Shari Sebbens' agent's day's piece when she graduated from the National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA) because she wanted to tell people who she is. I am sure none of the four actresses would be impressed by this DVD cover.

I do not know what were the true intentions behind this change. Is it just commercially driven? Is it out of ignorance? Or is it a combination of both? No matter what were the motives behind these changes, from different angles this is still a huge disrespect to the movie. I don't know whether any consultations were made but huge insensitivity was with no doubt on display. The fact is if this didn't happen with "The Dreamgirls" why should it happen with "The Sapphires"? This is not about the marketability between Beyonce and Jessica Mauboy but about the essence of the movies - what they are trying to tell us.

I hope the debate would trigger people to think better and deeper about these issues. I do not like to cry foul on racism and sexism every time something happened but I am a strong believer of respect and sensitivity for this is a way to achieve "world peace". By this I am not saying we need to tip toe around these issues but to take proactive steps to understand them so we are more informed and aware of our behaviours. I wish the US distributor would eventually back in but otherwise I am sure the Australian online retailers would be more than happy to step in to provide a better and more respectful service.