Talk:MOCK UP ON MU
From mediaartiststudio
Film Discussion
There are many things I wish could be different in this world. I wish Bush never ran for the presidency, I wish the double cheeseburger would go back on the dollar menu, and I wish I could have understood and enjoyed Mock Up On Mu. It's not that it was "bad", in my opinion the concept was amazing. Baldwin had some great trices that leaked the air of his genius onto the screen, with witty splice-ins of classic horror and sci-fi films, as well as great comic timing. The line "too much science too fast" in the earlier minutes of the film had me believing Mock Up On Mu would be everything I had anticipated from reading the treatment provided in the O.F.F. program guide. The concept however, was the only aspect of the film that I found interesting upon walking out of Capitol Theater.
The dialogue evoked a mixture of bemusement and lethargy, as I struggled for a reason to actively engage any of the characters on screen. I found them to be so utterly uninteresting, I began tuning the characters out, and imagining my own dialogue which turned out to be an utter failure due to their on-screen performances, that were equally uninteresting for me. In the same vein as the dialogue, I felt I would have been more immersed into the film, had the recorded dialogue been more carefully mixed; it was just TOO LOUD and jarring in comparison to the well balanced audio of the spliced in clips.
I really wish I could have liked this film, I anticipated its screening since I first cracked the binding on my O.F.F. program guide. I was far too uninterested to care for the would-be-interesting social commentary that the film obviously possessed, but was bogged down by dialogue that would make a Tarintino flick seem like a silent film...
but this is just my opinion...
- James Kupihea
You know, maybe I'm just not smart enough, maybe I'm not 'artsy fartsy' enough, but is it bad to say that I didn't get a single element of this movie? I mean, I like to think I'm open minded enough to watch stuff like this with no problem, but as soon as the film started, I found myself uninterested and itching to leave. By the time Chapter Five had started, I was already wondering why there wasn't one of those Self-Pouring Butter Machines in the lobby for my Cajun flavored popcorn. Not to say it was BAD, but its not my type of movie and I felt stupid watching it. I tried to enjoy it, I really did, but like the broken Shock Tarts under my seat, my attitude was oh-so-sour.
The dialogue was far from interesting. Don't get me wrong, there were times when a couple of quirky made me laugh, but really, I found the voice to be lacking in emotion and proper delivery for what I assumed were to be jokes. The pacing was far too quick, and I feel as if the point of the movie was never clearly established. The audio was poorly composed, being too loud at the parts that weren't simply recycled sci-fi movies. The only thing about the audio I liked were the obvious mixes of existing sci-fi scores like the "Twilight Zone Theme." Otherwise, I found myself wishing I couldn't hear the characters, or it was a silent film.
Oh, and I owe Alexis 8 bucks for asking her to come to the movie with me for company. She wasn't to fond of the fact I had made her sit through all of that and demanded some type of retribution. Maybe I can get my money back and then give that to her? -Kamaria Daniel
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mock Up On Mu had many elements in its favor: a clever aesthetic, amusing (if not frightening) premise, captivating visuals... I particularly enjoyed the cut up characters, how though the voices in a given scene would represent the characters the bodies themselves would change based on the clips being used (think Cameron and Parsons in the car scene). That was a neat idea -- sort of playing on the fluidity of their identities, especially given that they were both struggling with elusive memories of the past. Also poignant was the use of the cave for Cameron to enter as she rediscovers herself, which to me seemed to represent her repressed memories or the subconscious. The use of footage from old films -- many of which I was frightened that I recognized -- was generally well placed and complimented the movie nicely.
On the other hand, this movie was simply way too long for this kind of gimmick. The device of cut-and-paste filmmaking lends itself, at least for me personally, to a shorter kind of film, where it can be considered novel rather than obnoxious. The first four chapters or so passed relatively quickly, but by the time we reached chapter nine I was getting antsy. For me, the boredom might have been alleviated if I had the opportunity to connect more with the characters on a deeper level -- some empathy would have helped greatly. But the aesthetic -- the choppy, often silly or satirical, use of old footage -- made the characters themselves little more than icons of good and evil. The device was used to make the film clever, but instead kept its audience at arms length, undermining any opportunity to give a real damn about anyone on screen. The film may not have intended to create dynamic characters, which is completely fine. But for me, if it doesn't have dynamic characters, I find it best enjoyed in a short film format.
-- Chandra Farnsworth
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To be fair, creating a coherent and entertaining narrative from found footage from several genre movies would not be an easy task, so it's not all that surprising that Craig Baldwin failed completely at this. It seems to me that the problem was that the filmmaker tried to do too much, cover too much ground in too much detail with too many jumps of logic using too many films to represent the same characters, and more than anything making the movie too long. The inaccessibility of the dialog became apparent when I saw how many people gradually began to leave the theatre. The problem, from my point of view at least, was that the images on the screen often did not correlate all that well with the confusing and fantastical narration that accompanied these collages. Watching the screen made it nearly impossible to follow what was being said and I soon found that if I really wanted to understand the story I'd have to close my eyes or look away from the screen and just listen; but of course I didn't do that because the dialog was poorly written and the delivery was even worse. At the end I decided that I only enjoyed the movie as an experimental collage of sci-fi culture, and although I have to be impressed with the bravery of any filmmaker that goes after Scientology with such scathing intent, the message was so convaluded and poorly presented that any properly brainwashed Scientologist would probably think the film was praising thier "religion"
-Matt Olson
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I, on the other hand, enjoyed the film because of my own infatuation with the occult sciences. Baldwin was able to connect the most popular celebrities of speculation and used audio, radio clips to fill in gaps. There was a whole lot of information thrown at you all at once, and any attempt to dissect and absorb the dialogue was undermined with all the distracting visuals. I was surprised at how the infamous Aleister Crowley was made to be a hero, as opposed to "the most evil man in the world", as he is typically known in occult circles! Talk about appropriation! Baldwin did his homework, revealed paths from blurry connections, and shedded light on an underrated artform known as Ceremonial Magic, a tool used by many leaders, artists, and filmmakers to infuse an ancient, magical current in their work. These occult themes can be seen, as pointed out by Parsons, in many Hollywood films, if you look closely. In the beginning of the film it is implied that the government was working with filmmakers in order to keep the greater public from questioning their covert plans. They were trying to put the fiction into "science fiction" to distract us from the truth of their agenda.
My theory is that filmmakers knew what was going on and were portraying the truth in an exaggerated, Hollywood fashion. In fact, Baldwin portrays this by re-telling history with footage involving the same themes. These parallels of clips are not for entertainment value or to show another side, but exist to remind us that the filmmakers were aware of these conspiracies. They reveal that this powerful information was always hidden within these films. This makes them more than just filmmakers, but true magicians that are connected through a timeless tunnel. So, next time you refuse to watch a Hollywood film starring Tom Cruise and produced by Scientologists, remember that they could be revealing to you exactly what the government won't tell you in the news. Truths are revealed when we are ready to accept them.
-Sean
Before I delve into the unceasing collage of crap which was "Mock Up On Mu", I feel I need to brighten this post up with a review of probably the best movie showing at the festival, if not the best movie of 1978. This of course would be the rock n' roll tour de force-super epic "Stunt Rock".
Yes, the audience was alive that night with the spirit of Australian Rock and two dollar barley-pops. I walked into the movie expecting to see a documentary on some random Australian bands stage exploits, but what I got was so much more! It turned out to be a narrative about this random Australian band, Sorcery (a la Pentagram, Deep Purple), who put on theatrical performances during shows consisting of battles between Satan and a magician. Coinciding with the face-melting was a story about Grant Page (Worlds Greatest Australian Stunt Man) performing amazing feats of courage and stamina. How these two stories fit together I was not quite sure until the last scene when Mr. Page helps Sorcery with a magic stunt. The climax would have to be when Grant Page climbs a rope across two buildings to make a phone call to his girlfriend through her window. Keep in mind there were no cell phones back then, so watching Mr. Page fumble for his clunky rotary telephone (still plugged in, I might add) eight stories high was quite hilarious. Overall, an amazing awe inspiring piece of cinematic history.
What to say about "Mock Up On Mu" that hasn't already been said, the other reviews pretty much tell it all. This would be the second Craig Baldwin film I've seen in the last two weeks and both were vastly different. Spectres of the Spectrum and Mock Up On Mu were both in the same style, even using the same voice actors for the major female and male actors, yet Spectres was simply a more cohesive and entertaining piece. The voice acting was more inspired and the found footage wasn't cut so short to the point where it was nauseating, as in Mock Up On Mu. Final verdict, I'll see Stunt Rock before I see Mock Up On Mu again.
-Ryan Ortgiesen
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It was Nick Marchlewski who said:
Mock Up On Mu or, just perhaps, Mock Out! This movie was creative and unique. But after a while the novelty wore off, and we (by “we” I mean “me” and in this case “I”) were left waiting for something different. For the individual scenes were not unique among the rest of the film. The narration (what was supposed to be dialogue) was not humorous after we established that the whole film would be about crazy sci fi technologies and weird scenarios. I feel this film should have been a really interesting 21 minute 34 second piece. I guess the total lack of any hint of consistency (other than the dialogue and the characters, when they weren’t replaced by Sean Connery or Ernest Flechingston) was a bit daunting when I realized there were 5 chapters to go. I don’t mean to excrement all over this film, but I was just not satisfied with the lack of attention captivation, that it DID supply early on in the film when it was still unique. There were moments I liked and I commend Craig Baldwin on making something different. As a 21:34 minute movie, I really enjoyed it. As a 109:00 minute movie, Wowie Zowie! I am feeling the pain of a joke stretched and milked way passed its expiration.
These have been the words of Nick Marchlewski.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I found it nearly impossible for my tired brain to keep up with anything that was happening in this movie. The random audio and visual clips were flashing by so quickly that this movie really required a diligent attention span. I caught myself floating off into day dream world and when I would shake myself back into reality I would be totally lost on what was happening. I think I left the theatre before the fifth chapter. This was I believe the 10th film I had seen at the festival and I was too tired to try and make sense of what was happening before me.
I'm glad that there are some out there who made sense of this movie.
Tasha 12:55pm November 17th 2008
Sally sez: Mash Up on Mu indeed. Funny, yes. Scary, no. While this comment is not about Baldwin's earlier films such as Tribulation 99: Alien Anomalies Under America it is hard not to compare MU with them and their ability to deliver social critique with a big plate of satire. There is no doubt in my mind that his virtuosity as a found footage filmmaker/editor and his extensive archival knowledge of the history of the B movie and Hollywood in general are significant reasons for his success. But this film strained my attention and interest. Like others, I was glad for the countdown of episodes just so I knew how long I had to endure his wild ride. Regrettably, I do not know enough about Scientology to really care about the narrative. But I did laugh out loud at numerous junctures. I guess it is important to note that Joan Crawford does make me laugh. And I know many of the films that Baldwin is quoting. I found myself (as usual) trying to derive meaning from the narrative structure. We do this with every film we watch but there is something about his puzzle that pulls me into his universe. By the end he slightly convinced me that I should be worried about the militarization of outer space. (Aside: wasn't it odd that "real" scientists announced that very day the discovery of a new solar system with three new planets. I'm not kidding.) So in sum, I wasn't bored but I was too mystified for any significant impact. I did think about the relevance of this piece to my own work with "fictional memoir" but did not take new lessons from MU. I did think it interesting that he chose to keep the lip sync loose in all scenes, even the ones he shot himself. But I am not sure if I understand why he did that. Anyone?
If this were a real web page and not a Wiki I would insert a clip from Beneath the Planet of the Apes right about here. Oh, right I can:
19 November 2008------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sorrelle said: Mock Up On Mu, Well I really wish that I could say I truly enjoyed this film. After reading it's disciption in the Film Festival flier I was really excited to watch this film. Than about half way thruogh I just wanted it to be over like a hangover headache. Now to be fair the begining had me laughing and I anticipated a well rounded film with the use of archived footage, which I love to incorperate into some of my work. Infact I believed that this film would inspire me, sadly I was wrong. As embarrassing as it is to say I had to leave the film early in fear my snoring would ruin the film for everyone around me. I do believe if the film was shorter even half its length I may remember it's statement it was trying to make. Now what was it again?
[edit] Mock Up On Mu 2008, USA 109 Min Dir by Craig Baldwin
When I went to see this movie I was in a very tired and in a zombie like state. For the first 30 minutes I was infatuated with the video’s radical story telling style with heavy usage of found footage interwoven with original footage. I very soon found myself extremely lost in the story and just felt like I was being visually bombarded with all the found footage. I found it very hard to keep up with any of the social commentary the video was trying to proclaim. I felt the longer it went on the more convoluted it became. When it finally ended I was trying to recap what I had just seen in my head and I found I couldn’t really put together a recognizable synopsis for it. I just felt the film dragged on and on should have ended around vignette 9 or 10, instead of its exhausting 13.
-Tommy Thompson Nov, 22, 2008 5:15PM
