Alien 3 (David Fincher, 1992)

"Why? Why are the innocent punished? Why the sacrifice? Why the pain? There aren't any promises. Nothing certain. Only that some get called, some get saved."

Introduction

I love how this film starts. Acknowledgement of the past yet re-establishing Ripley as the lone wanderer, forever to drift through space - Weaver herself states that she believed Ripley is a "solitary person". The happy ending that finished Aliens is no more - Fincher (who would go to direct the ever-pessimistic Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac) is behind the camera. Walter Hill and David Giler dictates that Newt and Hicks are dead - and Ripley is now (Its not a dream this time folks!) impregnanted by an alien - and she has the Queen Alien growing inside her. Alien 3 was famously a troubled production - possible stories considered included a plot whereby Ripley became a minor role and Michael Beihn's Cpl Hicks became our lead protaganist whilst another plot involved a planet made of wood and inhabited by Monks. Directors considered included a possible return for Ridley Scott and newcomers Renny Harlin and Vincent Ward. It really sounds like producers wanted to make a truly incredible film but simply couldn't trust a directors singular-vision to follow-through on. At the very least, you can tell from the outset that as flawed as Alien 3 is, it clearly harks back to the single-alien killing off humans one-by-one ... rather than an overblown, excessive 'action-war' movie. In addition, unlike Aliens, Alien 3 actively tries (and fails) to tackle bigger issues than simply survival - possible themes about disease and evil, faith and class, are all touched upon. The unevenness of the film, I believe, is an attempt at ensuring the film had a certan 'pace' and 'action' that imitated James Cameron's interpretation on the franchise. But Fincher's version was trying to honour Ridley Scotts vision - and so you have a flawed-film ... that aches to be so much more.

The Evil Inside

The story takes place on an industrial, lead-refinery whereby it is inhabited by a group of convicted criminals - effectively a maximum security prison. Ripley crashes down on the planet, Newt and Hicks are dead, and a face-hugger attacks a dog (an Ox in a 'Special Edition' version of the film). During a ceremony that cremates the bodies of Newt and Hicks, the alien is born of the canine and consequently begins to kill off the prisoners one-by-one and Ripley comes face-to-face with the alien but is not killed...

Ripley, with the Queen inside her, is immune to the alien ... but she knows the creature is growing and she knows that the other alien needs to be killed. The very nature of the story bears a constant theme about evil inside a human. Does such a thing exist? Interestingly, akin to the themes of Ang Lee's Hulk (Green, alien-creature inside a human), the film seems to constantly refer back to the idea about biological and hereditary evil. For example, the convicts have changed their perspectives through the religion they have adopted, but we question how true they are to their beliefs as Ripley is threatened and attacked by a small group. In another instance, the character of Clemens (Charles Dance) is shown as a character who has been rehabilitated - he committed a crime and is held accountable for it. Dillon (Charles S. Dutton) is equally held on account of being a "murderer and rapist of women" but he leads the prisoners on the inside and ultimately sacrifices himself for another.

I am also aware of an interpretation whereby the 'evil inside' represents cancer or AIDS? The imagery within the film depicts bodies with little hair whilst the Queen inside Ripley constantly seems to eat away at her and cause her to become worse and worse throughout the film. Akin to these diseases, you cannot fight it and it preys on anybody- weak or strong. The AIDS parallel continues further as the main setting is amongst men who are isolated from society - potentially highlighting the gay-community in the 1980's and early 1990's. Society discriminates them and hides the prisoners from view. The prisoners look for answers too and turn to celibacy and faith - even adopting 'routines' but it is still not enough - the alien will still reach them.

This interpretation can be supported further as the 'birth' of the 'disease'/alien is juxtaposed with the cremation of the Hicks and Newt - the two characters who made the family unit. Dillon, a prisoner says:

Why? Why are the innocent punished? Why the sacrifice? Why the pain? There aren't any promises. Nothing certain. Only that some get called, some get saved...

Crisis of Faith?

Briefly, the adoption of faith by the convicts is equally interesting. Does it highlight how people trapped and isolated develop faith while Ripley, unlike the convicts (except Dillon perhaps?) accepts death gladly and gives her own life for the future and life of others. Opposed to dying for a spiritual cause, Ripley dies for a human and earthly cause. Unfortunately, I have not seen Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc, but I understand that this film is an inspiration for Alien 3. At any rate, like Ripley, Joan of Arc was a martyr - so the martyrdom of a woman of faith is contrasted nicely with Ripley - a martyr of no-faith ... except her constant-faith in humanity.

The Capitalist Underbelly

The one thing that constantly challenges Ripleys faith in humanity is our favourite company - Weyland-Yutani.Weyland-Yutani, equally representing capitalism and the authority of those in power, portrays a very sinister attitude towards that small sentiment within Alien. "Crew Expendable". What is the value of an employee in comparison to the value of a businesses financial wealth. What is the value of a soldiers-life - have they not accepted the 'risk' of death and gambled their chances? And finally, what is the value of a convicted-felon? A murderer ... a rapist ... can we place a value on their life? Interestingly, I have only watched Werner Herzog's three-part series Deathrow about the very question about the state taking a life - and the nature of capital punishment. Alien 3 tackles it in allegory and within the concept of a more sinister evil at work - not the alien - but the power and control of others.

The underlying tension regarding a Medical-Evacuation crew due to 'save' the convicts is revealed to save the alien instead. The trust Ripley had for Bishop at the end of Aliens is destroyed as Bishop II is sent to comfort Ripley ... revealed as a liar, sent to save the alien. Where is the human element? Where is love for one another? What is the future of the world if these are who control it?

David Thomson writes how the "prison is Dickensian: the inmates are shabby, eccentric, startling characters who share in a type of subdued, oppressed state". The capitalist-stance manages to control these archaic and traditional attitudes to life - and erases the history that humans have created.

Fincher's Vision

David Fincher was brought to the project late-in-the-day. Much of the story was adapted and changed throughout production. Fincher does not discuss the film much, but he spoke to MTV and stated the following:

My notion was that the third movie would be Ripley's acceptance of the notion of sacrifice. She'd had the Me Decade of the first movie. She'd come from the periphery of the story. Anybody could be the commander as long as they stuck to their guns and had a moral compass. And then the second movie she found a maternal instinct. And then I wanted the third one to be that she realizes that it's not about her generation. It's really about the future. The notion was to put the monster among the wretched. She was going to galvanize the wretched to self-sacrifice. Giving up their lives to save people who had banished them and should have been outside their scope of interest and that they would find some value in dying for the right reasons.

One thing that Fincher's film did reveal is Ripley's first name: Ellen. The name she was given at her birth - the name her admirers and family would refer to her by. Lt Ripley is her professional, company name - but Ellen is her personal and human name.

From the corrupted script Fincher was handed, he gave the third film a warmth of colour. The idea of fire and heat, throughout the film almost gave the impression we were in hell. When the filmis edited together and, I would assume the CGI was incomplete, Fincher showed long sequences from the perspective of the alien itself - chasing the convicts around the wide-corridors and sewers of the complex. Yes, I prefer Alien 3 to Aliens - not because it is consistent or perfectly made; it is not. But Aliens aspired to be an action movie - a balls-to-the-wall shoot-em-up. It lacked substance and depth. Alien 3 tried so hard to be something more meaningful and with a depth that rivalled the first film - and that ambition alone, combined with such hard work from Fincher on his debut feature film, cannot be ignored. Personally, if I think about an iconic shot from the alien franchise, it is from Alien 3. I don't think about Ripley suited-up for me to quote "Get away from her, you bitch!" and if I was to choose a sequence I would obviously choose Kane's chest-bursting in Alien - but I don't think I could choose a single shot from that sequence that effectively represents the bloody on Lamberts face and the alien looking-around. I choose the moment the alien holds its face next to Ripley - saliva dripping from its mouth, the inner-mouth millimetres away from Ripleys face as she holds a scream in. That single shot - the tone, the fear, the look-of-Ripley, are all down to David Fincher and the team on Alien 3.

The Film Locker #7: David Fincher and 'Se7en'

Fincher. Good ol' Fincher. There is always time to discuss David Fincher. Hatter and I were aware that we didn't want to have shows about 'the obvious' directors - cancelling out Spielberg, Nolan and Hitchcock - in the hope that we would discuss them on a separate series. But Fincher was a must.

Obviously, email the filmlocker [at] hotmail.com to enter the competition because, now half-way through, there is indeed a tight race with many new folks taking part! You can also email in if you want to simply expand on stuff we're talking about - we will endeavour to email you back!

Finally, the blog itself is filmlocker.blogspot.com and it has access to lots more reading material on the directors we have discussed. This next week, keep your eyes peeled for in depth reviews of The Social Network from Hatter and a discussion on Finchers music video 'Who is it?' for Michael Jackson...



And, as usual, it is already up on itunes and can be found easily on podomatic - so, please do try and write reviews and support us if you can! We have the ol' RSS feed and 2.0 RSS and, if you link in different ways, we also have it on Google and Yahoo

A-Z #78: Fight Club

You can pick up hundreds of DVDs for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. It's never about quantity, it's about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em

#78 - Fight Club

Why did I buy it?

I was friends, when younger, with a guy called Mark. He was into football and was quite the ladies man. Ultimately, we didn't stay friends for very long but, considering how proud he seemed to be of his masculinity, it is ironic how he also introduced me to Fight Club and Snatch. Both very much about men and about being a Man. With a capital M.

Why do I still own it?

Mark owned the films himself so after watching the film once, I then hunted down the DVD - and ensured I got that sweet paper-like sleeve. David Fincher, when you watch this film, you realise is a masterful director. His incredibly savvy use of special effects and stylised shooting in this film completely contrasts to his reserved and non-stylised direction in The Social Network. You can see that he understood the zeitgeist - following the capitalism of the 80's, now people became obsessed with products ... to the point that products and items became to define people. Today, it still stands and the film hasn't dated as the older-PC's simply look retro in the grubby, dirty world that Fincher has created. Incredible filmmaking and, I believe, the most important Fincher film.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (David Fincher, 2009)

"What if I told you that instead of gettin' older, I was gettin' younger than everybody else?"

Re-Introduction

I have had a gander at some of the older reviews and analysis and thought to myself, hey, I've been blogging for a few years and some reviews didn't get that much attention. Especially from 'back in the day'. This is one of them - published in June 2009. I love David Fincher, but its fair to say that I hate The Curious Case for Benjamin Button. Even now, nobody really mentions it anymore. But lets re-light that debate and flash back to 2009 and this misjudged movie.

I watched the film in the run up to the Oscars and - as a huge fan of David Fincher, Brad Pitt and Eric Roth (Well, Forrest Gump is one of my favourite films) - I had no intention to dislike the film so ... be prepared for a review that contains explicit language.

Quick Synopsis

We start in New Orleans, whereby Daisy Williams is on her deathbed hours before hurricane Katrina hits, and she begins to recount a story to her daughter, Caroline. First she tells of a clock-maker whose son died in war. Because of this tragedy, he makes the clock turn backwards so that everyone knows he wishes he could go back in time and keep his Son alive. Following this, Daisy asks Caroline to read out loud the diary of Benjamin Button - a man whose affliction is growing old and getting younger. Beginning life as a diseased, dying old man, Benjamin defies expectation and lives, getting younger and healthier as each day passes. Initially raised by Queenie, Benjamin also gets many morals from her that he keeps throughout his life - specifically a statement: "Just be thankful for what you got". Daisy met Benjamin through her grandmother, who was a resident at Queenie's care home - the home where Benjamin was raised. Throughout their lives, both Daisy and Benjamin stayed in contact meeting up briefly in their twenties - where Daisy's career as a dancer was stopped by a car accident - and then meeting again in their forties, whereby they both matched in age. When finding out about Daisy's pregnancy (of the woman this story is being recounted to), Benjamin decides to leave knowing that his affliction will be problematic in raising children. Years later, Daisy is in a new relationship with a new husband - who her child believes is her actual Father - and Benjamin, now as a teenager - turns up. They have one special night together and part. Many years afterwards, Daisy sees Benjamin as a child, having lost his memory and then, eventually becoming a baby, dying in her arms.

After this, I was unsure how I could explain the finale, but it was summarised best on a detailed synopsis on IMDB:

"Fully spent by this story, [Back on Daisy's deathbed with her daughter] Daisy and her daughter share a sense of relief and closure that comes with the revelation of long-hidden truths. In the background, Hurricane Katrina is getting dangerously near the hospital and soon diverts Carolines attention away from her mother. Daisy looks to the window and sees a hummingbird approach and then fly away into the storm. The camera pans out to reveal hospital staff scurrying to evacuate patients and transport medical supplies. We then see a montage of some of the memorable characters from the film, spoken of by Ben himself, and ending with the hurricane's waters washing into a storeroom where sits the old clock, still ticking backwards."

Special FX and a Timeless Narrative

This is really quite a film. The special effects are flawless - and showing the range of ages of Benjamin and Daisy does look quite smooth and in no way affects the watching-of-the-film. Basically, these groundbreaking effects, do not interrupt the narrative. The narrative has enough problems.

First off, the 'New Orleans' context. Whats the point. Why? They might as well have set it on Greenwich Street, NYC on September 11, 2001. Or any other major historical event - the idea of Hurricane Katrina somehow linked to this fictional story, if anything, is quite insulting to the actual people who were affected by the disaster. Not to mention the simple fact that, as a viewer, you are interested in Benjamin Button, not Granny's tale. Eric Roth used a similar 'flashback-to-the-events' in 'Forrest Gump', but that's because the bus-rider who sat next to Forrest on the bench was in a state of awe as he recounted his life, while - first off - Caroline, is more concerned about her dying mother and the disaster waiting to hit the hospital, so - understandably - she is not in the same position as the bench-sharers in Gump. She might simply be interested in the bunch of secrets her mother kept from her - secrets that she didn't really have to keep. Whatever the case may be, it was unnecessary and simply stalls the story. It would have been better to simply cut out the entire 'Titanic' rip-off sequences.

Is it wrong to not like Brad Pitt?

Next point is Brad Pitt. I have never had a problem with Brad Pitt. 'Seven' and 'Fight Club' I would put amongst the best films in the 90's -'Fight Club' possibly the best. So David Fincher directing Pitt again was a brilliant combination, but alas, Brad Pitt is not playing a young, arrogant, self-satisfied smug character. He's playing a slow-speaking, slightly nervous, old/young man and, the fact of the matter is, he's not that interesting. Now my blame for the film goes to Brad Pitt (could he have made the character a little bit more interesting) and Eric Roth (the script has so many problems I feel). But I don't want to dwell on how shit Brad Pitt is but, put it this way, I got bored of his gormless look. His semi-awe, semi-astonishment with eyes half-asleep. Where the hell was his passion? Maybe he is positive about life, maybe he lives by his sounds-a-lot-like-life-is-like-a-box-of-chocs "Just be thankful for what you got" statement, but - unlike Gump - Benjamin Button isn't stupid, he is actually quite perceptive and knows a lot so why on earth do they not dwell on these factors? why do they insist on zooming-in on Pitt's face as if his face-of-astonishment is good enough to clarify what he says?

To add to this, why does he not utilise his getting-younger affliction. He might as well have a scarred face or be burn victim, because other than his patronising attitude to life, he seems to be completely unaware that he has this amazing gift. Cate Blanchett's 'Daisy' goes through her own lots-of-boyfriends phase and pursues a dream and fails - all very interesting life situations which many people can relate to. While Benjamin Button seems to not have any dream - he just loves all the people he meets, and during his thirties and twenties, we see about 5 minutes of flashbacks showing him travelling. These five minutes could have been the film itself - showing how he is tackling being a young, Brad Pitt: maybe an opportunity for the smug arrogance Brad Pitt can do so well! (Probably wouldn't work). Does Benjamin Button go through any emotional turmoil? Considering the problem he has, you would think there is scope for real anger, frustration or desire but alas, this is never seen. If I recall, at one point he gets angry telling Daisy that his daughter needs a 'father not a playmate'. This is the most emotional he gets - even leaving Daisy asleep, leaving her all his assets, he does not at any point seem unsure. You don't feel him longing to stay, but aware he has to go. He simply skulks away quietly - patience showing thought I guess - and gets on his very cool bike wearing very cool clothes. Him, breaking down as he leaves wold have been too much to ask. Maybe he doesn't cry - another affliction that doesn't bother him.

In closing...I can't believe it was even nominated for Best Picture, it really falls flat on any emotional level. I really am unsure how to approach the next David Fincher - a flawless legend prior to this piece of trash.

Originally Published: 20th June 2009

[It's nice to know that the next David Fincher was The Social Network ... Fincher you are okay in my book now!]

Incredible Soundtrack #2: The Social Network (Reznor/Ross)

The music attached to a film creates the environment, I believe, moreso than the literal environment depicted through the visuals...

Having just won the Academy Award for Best Score, this soundtrack truly is the deserved winner. Trent Reznor, of Nine Inch Nails, joining up with Atticus Ross, is no suprise. Ross has worked with Reznor on four Nine Inch Nails albums as programmer and/or producer. Indeed, two tracks from this soundtrack is reworked from an album titled Ghosts I-IV.

At any rate, the deeply unsettling electronic album completely shifts the tone of what could have been a potentially up-beat film. Reznor discusses on the DVD how he was initially concerned that the film would have required a teenage frat-boy-movie soundtrack, whereas the first track, Hand Covers Bruise, that opens the film is actually unnerveing and almost-sinister with its soft melody simmering a-top of the grating - is it strings? - underneath. As noted, an incredible start to an incredible film.

You may notice that my chosen tracks are from the start of the album and, if I'm honest, it starts off exceptionally well but I always get a little less interested by the time I get to In The Hall of the Mountain King, track 12 of an 18-track album. The selection of highlights are as follows:

2. In Motion - Dave Chen of SlashFilm conducted a interview with Trent Reznor and, amongst playing a wealth of music from the soundtrack, this track was one of, if not the first track used in the interview. I bought the soundtrack pretty much exclusively because of this track. It really is that good...


3. A Familiar Taste - As previously mentioned, two tracks on the album are reworkings of tracks used on a Nine Inch Nails album called Ghosts I-IV. This is one track - the other being Magnetic. As soon as the bass hits 15 seconds in, the creaking and squeking reminds me of insects creeping in. The guitar grind, and broken chords. Jilted, broken and soon enough merging into a melody. Tempts me to buy the aforementioned Nine Inch Nails album.



5. Intriguing Possibilities - All the tracks I chose are fairly fast-paced and this is no different. Again another epic use of electronic sounds. The tapping and incessant rumblings before a great bass bumps along introducing the melody. Incredible

TSAJS: 10/10/2010 'The Social Network' and Raindance Film Festival

Beginning at the BFI Southbank and moving to the Clapham Picturehouse, this weeks podcast puts us ahead of the game again as we watch and review David Fincher's The Social Network a week before its UK release! Obviously, you US of A folks have had the film for a couple of weeks already so, unfortunately, we are a little behind you guys. C'est La Vie.

The show then moves into discussing the London Box-Office, the latest News and small shoutout to our Facebook fans again - with a nod to the comments from Fitz and Mr Cabin.

The podcast finishes as we discuss the Independent Film Festival, Raindance. Simon managed to watch Do Elephants Pray starring Marc Warren and Jonnie Hurn and, though not overly praising of the film, he did have a few interesting aspects to discuss.

Trailers





Music

All music is from the soundtrack to The Social Network by Trent Reznor and Atticus Finch - available on Amazon amongst other places.

Links

We mentioned Fitz and Mr Cabin, who have their own blogs, which we highly recommend!

Who Is It? (David Fincher, 1992)

"Don't You Judge Of My Composure'/ Cause I'm Bothered Everyday/ And She Didn't Leave A Letter/ She Just Up And Ran Away"

Introduction

This is the first of a guaranteed three (but there are seriously so-o-o-o many) music video reviews. As a huge Michael Jackson fan, I felt that this might be the perfect opportunity to 'review' (is it a review?) lesser known music videos created by the King of Pop. So, 'Thriller' and 'Black or White' is not going to be reviewed. John Landis and his 'American Werewolf' movies might be reviewed in the future - but, as everyone knows those videos so well, there is no point in me stating 'Then a zombie appears and, in time, they dance'. Means nothing to me anymore and, I'm sure, it means nothing to you either. To kick start though we have a Pre-Benjamin Button, Pre-Panic Room and Fight Club film directed by David Fincher. Its quite funny how much from this film shows how brilliant a director Fincher is ...

Summary

We see NYC, whereby Michael Jackson's character has found out about his lovers relationship with 'Alex'. "Who is it?" he asks - only for it to be revealed that 'Alex' is not a lover of hers - but in fact an alias she goes by when she is working as a high-class call-girl. She has some very shiny cards all with different names on: Alex, Diana, Celeste, Eve, etc.

Michael is - obviously - cut up by this and decides to leave one night while she is out working. he gets on a plane and she tries to run back to him but it is too late. Michael Jackson's assistant throws all the cards back in her face and she realises he knows. But, alas, she returns to her employers - a man and a woman - who promptly slap her and then start making-her-up again for her next client.

Michael is in China (?). Alone.



What I reckon...

This has so many clear links to Fincher's work - specifically 'Panic Room'. The entire beginning of the video recalls Hitchcock's 'Psycho' credits sequence, which was in turn, copied by Fincher in 'Panic Room'. Even the warm colours and false-looking NYC buildings in 'Panic Room's' opening credits could have been taken directly from the opening shots - before the beat kicks in and flips from the warm palette of oranges to the cold colours of black and blue.

The entire atmosphere reeks of Neo-Noir, 'Blade Runner'-esque influence - smokey woman, shadows and shiny surfaces (elevator walls, the cards themselves, mirrors). Then again, there is more to it - to the point that it feels a little like a 'Dairy Milk' advert. The woman with a white hood in this high class society: All because the lady loves ...

I'm going to mention two directors whom I know little of - David Lynch and David Cronenberg. The shiny cars, the shiny walls, the mysterious hooded woman ... am I right? I watched Cronenberg's 'Crash' years ago and - obviously - due to the nature of the film (eroticism and cars) it relied heavily on the metallic sheen of vehicles, so this did seem to recall that but 'Crash' was made three years after so clearly that is just me. Maybe a Cronenberg fan can clarify if this type of 'look' is his influence ... David Lynch though ... I don't know exactly where I got his influence from, especially when currently I have only seen 'Mulholland Drive' (I've got 'Blue Velvet' sitting on a shelf!) ... so completely discard that last paragraph if you know better, if you don't then ... be aware it might be rubbish. Throughout the video, we often see a face emerge from flat, clean surfaces and this is completely surreal so that might be the link - Lynch and his Surrealism.

Nevertheless, Fincher doesn't seem to be making a run-of-the-mill music video. We have the product-nature of the woman, constantly reiterated in the nameless-faces that emerge from the artists drawing paper initially (deigning woman, designing humans, products thus prostitution) and then blank surfaces throughout. One specific special effect is incredibly haunting as we see what Michael feels, as a couple are underneath sheets - but when the sheets blow away there is nothing there (Strangely enough, in the recent trailer for Scorsese's 'Shutter Island' there is a similar effect as Michelle Williams disappears in DiCaprio's arms...) But we, the viewer, get to see the real identity of her clients intermittently - one of which is not only disturbing, but quite amazing to see in a Pop music video. A man sits in the shadows and then reveals himself to be wheelchair bound - cut to this client using an oxygen mask while she dances seductively out-of-focus, soon enough he gets the energy to stand, cut back to Michael. Lonely as hell. This is pretty serious stuff - prostitution, disability, sex and money. A feature ... if only

An interesting side-point is how the video raises concerns about what is the role of a man - and what is the role of the woman. When she realises Michael is gone she is found by her employees - a male character moves close to hear (does he smell her?) and moves off disapprovingly, while the female employer comes up to her and slaps her. It would make more sense for a woman to slap a man but this 'girl' was slapped. Bear in mind this is a woman who has slept with many men. Maybe the role-reversal of a woman with many partners, opposed to a man accepted if he has many partners, is a factor. But, in this case, she is slapped because she wanted to be with one man opposed to the many clients who desire her - and pay for her. Normally your are chastised for having many partners, but her employers chastise her for wanting one partner: Michael Jackson.

The entire video is steeped in expressionistic visual signals - Michael awaits in a dark and cold environment while feeling pain and anguish - but as the video progresses, he moves into the city through to the airport as he faces not only the city lights, but the reality of his life and his relationship and its impracticalities. When we first saw her she was dressed in white as some sort of saviour, but by the end she is in the shadows with dripping make-up in the rain - clearly, this career option began as beauty and class but degenerated into a destructive and ugly lifestyle.

But Fincher did not ignore Michael's trademark socks - and, as he sits upset, he shows a quick shot of the iconic socks. This is a Michael Jackson video of course.