We Live in Public Review

By Sam Caldarone

In We Live in Public, filmmaker Ondi Timoner takes the audience on a journey to explore a side of media many people have not considered before. With all the positives to all the new media that’s being created, it’s easy to overlook the downsides of media. That is the theme that this explores, and it is done through the eyes of Josh Harris. Josh Harris was a media prodigy, but, through an increasing series of bad investments, eventually wound up losing all his money. The film starts off with a shot of Josh Harris saying good-bye to his mother (who has terminal cancer). This is done to show just how heartless Josh Harris is. He doesn’t break a tear in the video, and won’t even talk to her in person. Timoner then goes back in time, and, in a chronological sequence, shows how Harris came to be what he has become. It’s not defending Harris or accusing him of anything, but showing his life and how he predicts that the media will take over our day-to-day life. I liked Timoner’s idea of showing one recent shot, and then going back in time to explain how they got to that point. I thought it was effective in conveying the point of the film.

Although the narrator is almost never seen (except one scene near the end of the film where Timoner finally tracks down Harris in Ethiopia), she is still present, and providing the occasional voiceover. Voiceovers are very uncommon in this documentary, but are still present, making this documentary a hybrid of expository and performative. The film includes a lot of archival footage, and features many interviews with some of Josh Harris’ past acquaintances. It was filmed with an unbiased approach, and let the audience draw their own conclusions. I believe that Harris is an insane genius, who has become so heartless because of a bad childhood. He was the youngest child, and it sometimes seemed as though his mother had no time for him. He claims that he was ‘raised by television’.

The strength of the story was within the main character, Josh Harris. His fascinating story is what made this documentary a great one. I enjoyed hearing a story that I had never heard of before. I thought the way the documentary was started (Josh Harris saying his good-bye’s to his mother) was brilliant, and was a great foreshadowing to the rest of the film. My favorite scene would have to be the scene where Timoner finally finds Josh Harris in Ethiopia. It ends the story somewhat of a good note, since Josh has become successful there, but he does get his comeuppance for being somewhat of a bad person (he goes bankrupt for a while). It was a genius way to end the film.

Even though Josh Harris wasn’t exactly a great guy, he was very smart. He made intelligent and accurate guesses as to where the future of media was going, and he made a lot of money off of this. When he created the ‘We live in public’ building, despite the disastrous end results, it was asking citizens to re-examine the situation they were in. Do people want to wind up like these people, being watched all the time? It clearly did not work out for the members of the ‘We live in public’ building. The building was asking us to be more careful, and to not let us get overrun by cameras all around us. I doubt that this is the type of future that we are headed towards, but nevertheless, we still must be careful. All things considered, We Live in Public is a great documentary, that explored some very interesting concepts.

Rip: A Remix Manifesto review

The documentary Rip: A Remix Manifesto is designed to change the way we think about the remixing phenomenon. It is defending remixes, and claims that the copyright laws have gotten out of control, and if we do nothing about these laws then we will soon be living in a dystopian future where the government regulates everything we do. The documentary was created in mostly a chronological structure, as filmmaker Brett Gaylor occasionally references instances in the past to accentuate his point. The film follows Gaylor, as he attempts to find reasoning for the current copyrighting laws.

It is told from the perspective of Brett Gaylor, and it draws on some of his own experiences, and also references some major events in the history of mass media (examples include but are not limited to: the invention of the printing press, the creation of Napster, etc.). In the documentary, audiences watch Gaylor travel to Disneyland, Stanford University, and many other places to meet with media literate people to try to find a plausible solution to this media dilemma we have. The people he meets with, including author Lawrence Lessig; provide valuable insight into this conundrum. This factor, along with many others, classifies this documentary as a reflexive one.

Many of his arguments involve the fact that if you aren’t able to take samples from other artists, Brett Gaylor should be jailed for including some samples of artists in his documentary. He also uses some clips from other TV shows and movies, and argues that the same penalty inflicted on artists such as Girl Talk, should be used on him. It’s a risky argument, but he is not just referring to himself here. He’s saying that many prominent TV shows use samples of other shows or movies on a daily basis. Examples of this include The Daily Show, or The Colbert Report, or even, albeit rarely, shows on CNN, or Fox News. Gaylor has a valid argument here, and this leads back to the ultimate question: Where does the copyright law draw the line? Why can a show like CNN Newsroom use clips of past events, but Girl Talk get sued whenever he uses a loop from an old Elvis Presley song? It all seems very reasonable, and Brett Gaylor, along with many other fans, are anxiously waiting for a feasible, equitable answer to this problem that will keep everyone happy. But, until that answer is found, there will be many arguments over this issue.

One thing that I didn’t particularly enjoy about Brett Gaylor’s documentary was his official ‘remix manifesto’ list. It bugged me because it makes Gaylor sound a little bit conceded; in the sense that only he knows what is wrong with the copyright laws. Also, he seems to take this belief he has to some extremes (for example, the fines handed out to those who used Napster). I realize his intent is to shock the audience, but it bugs me because I don’t like that whole philosophy of shocking someone into agreeing with you. While I didn’t really like the genre of music being defended, I do have to tip my hat off to Brett Gaylor for making a compelling documentary that is sure to be a turning point of his budding career as a filmmaker.