How does this film celebrate change or ‘raise questions of prejudice and development in our formative years’? And if so what questions are these? Is there any attempt at their resolution? I believe it is ethically important for an artist to deeply consider why they accept a platform to make a political comment, to interrogate what and how they saying and to recognise how important this purpose is. I strongly suggest a look at George Orwell’s essay ‘Why I Write’ (1946).

My reading of this piece is gender based. Subject (woman) concealed and alluding to fetishisation and containment via metaphor of ballerina in a jewellery box who spins sweetly on demand (when ever the lid is opened), but of course is never herself in control of the performance. There is an odd androgyny yet sexualisation of this supposed ‘childhood’ figure ( for instance her red nails are suggestive of embellishment and desirability). Is there something in her drink that is related to her self induced vomiting and the extremity of how it looks? If so does she consume the liquid knowingly? Is the vomiting symptomatic of a disorder, or could it be read as defiant and empowering - ie a way of using her own physicality to disrupt the performance. Is it release and cleansing or contamination? My main problem is when the scene switches from white (purity?) to black – hard not to read along the lines of a fallen woman who ate the apple, or in this case drank the milk (?) thereby bringing on her and everyone else’s misery for eternity. Woman simultaneously as perpetrator and victim AGAIN. Kind of boring.

Alice Prim makes some intelligent and interesting observations, but as is the case in the UK, any form intellectual debate is ridiculed; I doubt this would occur in France or Germany. It is no wonder that the UK has not produced any great philosophers or cultural theorist that have a world wide influence. I suppose this is to be expected where the facile, vapid and mediocre is praised and even honoured.

I have chosen to ignore the personal insults, as I do not want to be drawn into such debates, e.g. ‘Your comments now appear less educated and more bitter and personal’. The person who wrote this assumes that he knows me personally from a few postings.

It is obvious to me that people who work in the fashion industry try to make 'art' type work, but it always fails due to the fact that the people involved to not do the relevant research, plus they seem to lack insight and perception in relation to their work, and how it relates to wider contemporary political or theoretical debates. I suppose this is why the people who post works on this site do not engage in any of the debates relating to their work, due to the fact that most of it is conceived to look ‘fashionable’ or ‘appealing’ and ‘subversive’. It seems that they follow a particular trope, in that they try to imitate short art type films. I cannot see the reason for using such a high number of people on each production, as it only has the effect of pushing up the production values. I can understand this in a commercial context. I am sure a talented film maker or photographer can produce outstanding work without the aid of a large number of people.

Anyway, I am not sure what some of these films are meant to be, are they hybrid ‘art’ or just self-promotion for the people involved.
It seems that there is fare too much pretensions fashion photography in the UK, that trying hard to make some sort of statement.

I though Alice Prin advanced some interesting questions relating to the production by Jez Tozer.

I think ChrisB has also advanced the topic about self promotion. I'd quite like to take up the chap in the photo's preferred thread, but maybe too off base. I think any production price is worth the promotion this film has achieved. I had a look at Jez Tozer's site. Not exactly Hollywood, seems to me a rather unpretentious approach to photography but pulls in some favor's for the films.

Thank you Alice for all your interesting questions and also your recommendation of George Orwell's essay. I look forward to reading it.

The fact that the film has posed so many unanswered questions means it has achieved what it set out to do. I don't, in any way, think that a piece of this nature and in this context is obligated to "resolve" any questions.

Politics surely is about debate?

I too believe "it is ethically important for an artist to deeply consider why they accept a platform to make political comment" and as such did not undertake this project lightly.

I'm sorry Alice, that you think it is "hard not to read along the lines of a fallen woman who ate the apple, or in this case drank the milk (?)" this wasn't the intention.

Ultimately however, I didn't make this piece without fully embracing the potential distance between intention and meaning. I'm very glad and humbled that you were engaged enough with the film to post such a well considered forum response.

Lastly, for those of you who aren't aware - Millie Brown is amongst many other things a well established performance artist. A little insight in to how the project came about may help contextualise the piece - I phoned Millie up and proposed a rough version of the idea and she said: "I can't believe you just said that - I've been wanting to perform as a ballerina in a jewellery box for ages but didn't know how to make it all happen." (Apologies Millie, I have paraphrased) The project grew from there.

Synchronicity ... luck?

Thank you Millie.