Sunday, November 28, 2010
influential
The reading from a few weeks ago, concerning Citizen Kane, helped Kenny and me with our approach to the fiction documentary. We were inspired by the creative initiatives of the director and the cinematographer to incorporate experimental shots into our story. For example, one of the scenes takes place in the library and we tried shooting the scene with the camera placed on a bookshelf, instead of on the tri-pod. Similarly, we shot the same scene with the camera resting on an opened book on a desk. In addition to these shots, we also filmed one of our characters entering a room and completely disappearing from the camera's sight, except for his reflection in a wall of glass. Another shot was filmed from an opening door to a stairwell, in which the character was walking around the stairwell and opening the door. We filmed from the door's window, bringing the window into focus and leaving the character (as he approaches the door) out of focus. Then, when the door opens, the character comes into focus and releases an important line for the story. With shots like these, Kenny and I hope our short fiction piece will be successful, not to the extent of Citizen Kane --- but, then again, maybe. We wanted to be creative while having fun unfolding the story and I think we accomplished that. We tip our hats to you, Citizen Kane. Gracias.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
inevitable progression
I like McLuhan.
Here's some of how I interpreted his discourse on film.
The Progression: We moved from one technology to the next. We progressed from the spoken word to the written word. From that came books, magazines, and short stories. Then, we had radio, television, and film. McLuhan talks about the birthing of short stories from idea articles in magazines and relates that to films conception from books. Films condense pages upon pages of written words in a shortened sequenced segment of visual and aural description.
A Counterintuitive Truth: Change invariably leads to loss. We cannot experience change without experiencing loss. For this reason, change is not simply additive in nature.
Implications: As words in books are now represented visually and aurally in films, we experience a loss of imaginative interaction. The sounds and pictures of film require less creative participation. The characters and actions and dialogues and settings (and MORE!) are given form. They have been defined in the film. We can no longer picture a character acting in such a manner or looking a certain way because it has already been identified as such. Film removes the imaginative participation that books create. However, film does require interaction. Participation from the audience is necessary; a literacy of films is needed to understand and interpret them.
Another Counterintuitive Truth: The medium is the message. This is another one of McLuhan's main ideas, though not explicitly expressed in this sample of his literature. Any technology influences, shapes, and restructures more than the message's content. What is on the television is not as important as the fact that we are watching television and utilizing that particular media. There are consequences for utilizing media and we are subject to them, not independent from them (which is another counterintuitive truth). We are shaped, but we do not shape. Material forces shape us. The media that exist within our culture shape us. The media is the message; content secondary.
Technology!
FUTUUUUURREEE!!!! --- Yes, that's a Spongebob-Squarepants reference.
Here's some of how I interpreted his discourse on film.
The Progression: We moved from one technology to the next. We progressed from the spoken word to the written word. From that came books, magazines, and short stories. Then, we had radio, television, and film. McLuhan talks about the birthing of short stories from idea articles in magazines and relates that to films conception from books. Films condense pages upon pages of written words in a shortened sequenced segment of visual and aural description.
A Counterintuitive Truth: Change invariably leads to loss. We cannot experience change without experiencing loss. For this reason, change is not simply additive in nature.
Implications: As words in books are now represented visually and aurally in films, we experience a loss of imaginative interaction. The sounds and pictures of film require less creative participation. The characters and actions and dialogues and settings (and MORE!) are given form. They have been defined in the film. We can no longer picture a character acting in such a manner or looking a certain way because it has already been identified as such. Film removes the imaginative participation that books create. However, film does require interaction. Participation from the audience is necessary; a literacy of films is needed to understand and interpret them.
Another Counterintuitive Truth: The medium is the message. This is another one of McLuhan's main ideas, though not explicitly expressed in this sample of his literature. Any technology influences, shapes, and restructures more than the message's content. What is on the television is not as important as the fact that we are watching television and utilizing that particular media. There are consequences for utilizing media and we are subject to them, not independent from them (which is another counterintuitive truth). We are shaped, but we do not shape. Material forces shape us. The media that exist within our culture shape us. The media is the message; content secondary.
Technology!
FUTUUUUURREEE!!!! --- Yes, that's a Spongebob-Squarepants reference.
a second helping of stuff from my notes
This exposition of notes is a rant that occurred during one of the documentaries we viewed after the K-B sports documentary. I think it was a crime scene investigation. Anywho, here's what I had written as a massive paragraph in my notes...
The more I'm working with film, the more I'm realizing that it's an aural medium, not visual. The visual aspect of film only carries film so far -- the image cannot tell the story. It merely suggests what is real. Audio brings truth to visual's reality. So, audio tells what is true. We hear what we see; the audio effects of a film dictates the film. We can hear the audio and picture (for ourselves) the movie's visual presentation, but I don't think we can see a film and imagine its audio (for ourselves). That is to say when we only hear the video and do not see it, we can visualize it. However, we cannot, as effectively, see the film and consciously create or think of its audio content. The visual is easier to create than the audio. Film must be aural medium. That's why film is passive -- you must hear it. You need to be silent. Dead. Dumb. It is a hot medium. It tells a story and you need to listen. You must hear it. You must be passive. If not, you'll misinterpret the story being told. TV is different. The story is repeated, recaptured, reviewed, and retold. The audience is temporary; not permanent. TV must capture its audience and sell its product's programming. People decide if they want to buy it or not; they are active in this form of decision-making. So, TV is a cool medium. TV and film are different. However, it is not the stories being told that's important, it's the way in which they are told and the products being sold that are important -- the way in which they are told and sold. The medium is the message, in both broad and narrow terms. We are a digital age and the media utilized in this age are worth studying.
The more I'm working with film, the more I'm realizing that it's an aural medium, not visual. The visual aspect of film only carries film so far -- the image cannot tell the story. It merely suggests what is real. Audio brings truth to visual's reality. So, audio tells what is true. We hear what we see; the audio effects of a film dictates the film. We can hear the audio and picture (for ourselves) the movie's visual presentation, but I don't think we can see a film and imagine its audio (for ourselves). That is to say when we only hear the video and do not see it, we can visualize it. However, we cannot, as effectively, see the film and consciously create or think of its audio content. The visual is easier to create than the audio. Film must be aural medium. That's why film is passive -- you must hear it. You need to be silent. Dead. Dumb. It is a hot medium. It tells a story and you need to listen. You must hear it. You must be passive. If not, you'll misinterpret the story being told. TV is different. The story is repeated, recaptured, reviewed, and retold. The audience is temporary; not permanent. TV must capture its audience and sell its product's programming. People decide if they want to buy it or not; they are active in this form of decision-making. So, TV is a cool medium. TV and film are different. However, it is not the stories being told that's important, it's the way in which they are told and the products being sold that are important -- the way in which they are told and sold. The medium is the message, in both broad and narrow terms. We are a digital age and the media utilized in this age are worth studying.
stuff within my book of notes
This entry spurs from the Ken Burn's documentary we watched a few weeks ago. At the time, I jotted down some notes in my notebook (go figure) and now finally decided to document them online.
Woo-Hoo.
Here are some thoughts I had many moons ago:
Television is a social event. We watch televised programs in communal groups -- with friends, co-workers, family members, etc. If other people are not physically present with us while we watch t.v., there are people across the country and the world watching the very same program at the same time. Therefore, television is a social medium because it involves more than just the individual.
A television show premieres at a specific time (present) and releases specific information (active). Episodes of American Idol, House, Monday Night Football, and the 11 O'clock News are only fascinating to the extent that people do not know what will happen. The information, when it is revealed on t.v. is fresh and exciting. The program itself will be dull (or perhaps less exciting or interesting) after it has premiered because it is not present. However, the medium as a whole is present and active because each t.v. program premieres to an audience, whether it's a repeated episode or not. It is in motion nevertheless.
The reason for these thoughts originated from one instance during the K-B Documentary. There was a shot of Japanese teenagers watching a televised baseball game at a restaurant. They were cheering for Ichiro. The act of watching t.v. is demonstrated as a social event: they were together as a group of people in public place. The act of watching t.v. was also present and active: they watched t.v. a specific time (during the game) and received information (about the game).
Some other thoughts to consider:
- You don't have to limit yourself to just watching t.v. while watching t.v. -- you can do other stuff at the same time! This doesn't mean that you'll escape the grip of t.v.'s influence. Instead, I think it suggests the opposite. When you watch television and do not multitask, you can be consciously aware of its many influences. However, when you dull televisions blade, its influences are less obvious and more unconscious.
- Both film and television are passive in nature: you sit and watch. However, I think film is even more passive than television. If you are multitasking during a t.v. program, you can usually return after a commercial break and pick the story up again, aware of what you might have missed. The story is completed by the end of the episode (or maybe prepares you for a second part of that episode's story -- but there is a sense of completion within that time slot). A movie doesn't allow its audience to multitask. If a viewer misses time during a movie, the experience is lost and the story is incomplete. Films do not repeat in the same manner that t.v. programs do. You must be passive in watching a film; therefore, you are subject to its advertising more than t.v. (Hello McLuhan!).
- Film is a social event, too. We go to the movies together, rent movies together, watch old movies on television together, and watch home-videos together. But, since we cannot multitask while watching a movie, movies are also a very independent event. We cannot interact with one another or else we will disrupt and interrupt the movie and its story. I think this element of film also emphasizes its passivity. We must sit and watch the movie without having human interaction, even though it is presented as a social event.
- The way a story comes across creates and releases a different mood or tone within us when we change or alter the dynamics of the viewing options.We will experience and react to t.v. programs and movies differently when we watch them by ourselves versus in group settings. It's an interesting alteration of the viewing experience.
Woo-Hoo.
Here are some thoughts I had many moons ago:
Television is a social event. We watch televised programs in communal groups -- with friends, co-workers, family members, etc. If other people are not physically present with us while we watch t.v., there are people across the country and the world watching the very same program at the same time. Therefore, television is a social medium because it involves more than just the individual.
A television show premieres at a specific time (present) and releases specific information (active). Episodes of American Idol, House, Monday Night Football, and the 11 O'clock News are only fascinating to the extent that people do not know what will happen. The information, when it is revealed on t.v. is fresh and exciting. The program itself will be dull (or perhaps less exciting or interesting) after it has premiered because it is not present. However, the medium as a whole is present and active because each t.v. program premieres to an audience, whether it's a repeated episode or not. It is in motion nevertheless.
The reason for these thoughts originated from one instance during the K-B Documentary. There was a shot of Japanese teenagers watching a televised baseball game at a restaurant. They were cheering for Ichiro. The act of watching t.v. is demonstrated as a social event: they were together as a group of people in public place. The act of watching t.v. was also present and active: they watched t.v. a specific time (during the game) and received information (about the game).
Some other thoughts to consider:
- You don't have to limit yourself to just watching t.v. while watching t.v. -- you can do other stuff at the same time! This doesn't mean that you'll escape the grip of t.v.'s influence. Instead, I think it suggests the opposite. When you watch television and do not multitask, you can be consciously aware of its many influences. However, when you dull televisions blade, its influences are less obvious and more unconscious.
- Both film and television are passive in nature: you sit and watch. However, I think film is even more passive than television. If you are multitasking during a t.v. program, you can usually return after a commercial break and pick the story up again, aware of what you might have missed. The story is completed by the end of the episode (or maybe prepares you for a second part of that episode's story -- but there is a sense of completion within that time slot). A movie doesn't allow its audience to multitask. If a viewer misses time during a movie, the experience is lost and the story is incomplete. Films do not repeat in the same manner that t.v. programs do. You must be passive in watching a film; therefore, you are subject to its advertising more than t.v. (Hello McLuhan!).
- Film is a social event, too. We go to the movies together, rent movies together, watch old movies on television together, and watch home-videos together. But, since we cannot multitask while watching a movie, movies are also a very independent event. We cannot interact with one another or else we will disrupt and interrupt the movie and its story. I think this element of film also emphasizes its passivity. We must sit and watch the movie without having human interaction, even though it is presented as a social event.
- The way a story comes across creates and releases a different mood or tone within us when we change or alter the dynamics of the viewing options.We will experience and react to t.v. programs and movies differently when we watch them by ourselves versus in group settings. It's an interesting alteration of the viewing experience.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
On Rosenthal's A.S.S.
This is how I understand Rosenthal's A.S.S.
(1) Approach = The angle (perspective) from which the story is told. R-Dawg calls this the "handle" or "key." Establishing the angle or "key" from which the story will be told gives the script-writer greater clarity on how to address (or approach) the story and its purposes. Therefore, the key helps define the movie's purpose. Rosenthal seems to suggest utilizing non-gimmickry, so as to attract audiences with fresh perspectives not anticipated, overused, or expected approaches.
(2) Structure = The means by which the movie's story unfolds. In other words, the movie's framework. The structure of a film shapes the film's argument to achieve the film's purpose. Rosenthal mentions how there are many paths (means) for a filmmaker to take and still reach the same goal (ends). He said the nature of the movie's framework can be natural or invented. However, I suggest the film is always invented. Here is why: Film, as a medium of communication, forms an argument. The argument is structured in an order prescribed, visualized, and authorized by the filmmaker. Even if the events naturally unfold, the framework is still created. Consequently, the film's structure depends on how well a filmmaker can organize, construct, and communicate an argument.
(3) Style = The manner by which the story is expressed. Expression is important because it conveys the story purpose, which influences, impacts, and (re)shapes the audience's heart and conscience. Rosenthal seems to think that incorporating "style" is incorporating humor, shock, or nonsense. However, that is just one end of the spectrum -- whatever happened to seriousness, tensions, or dissonance? Filmmakers must fully utilize freedom and imagination to express the nature of their films, as Rosenthal suggests. For the expression can either enhance or distort the film's purpose, directly serving the audience for better or worse.
(1) Approach = The angle (perspective) from which the story is told. R-Dawg calls this the "handle" or "key." Establishing the angle or "key" from which the story will be told gives the script-writer greater clarity on how to address (or approach) the story and its purposes. Therefore, the key helps define the movie's purpose. Rosenthal seems to suggest utilizing non-gimmickry, so as to attract audiences with fresh perspectives not anticipated, overused, or expected approaches.
(2) Structure = The means by which the movie's story unfolds. In other words, the movie's framework. The structure of a film shapes the film's argument to achieve the film's purpose. Rosenthal mentions how there are many paths (means) for a filmmaker to take and still reach the same goal (ends). He said the nature of the movie's framework can be natural or invented. However, I suggest the film is always invented. Here is why: Film, as a medium of communication, forms an argument. The argument is structured in an order prescribed, visualized, and authorized by the filmmaker. Even if the events naturally unfold, the framework is still created. Consequently, the film's structure depends on how well a filmmaker can organize, construct, and communicate an argument.
(3) Style = The manner by which the story is expressed. Expression is important because it conveys the story purpose, which influences, impacts, and (re)shapes the audience's heart and conscience. Rosenthal seems to think that incorporating "style" is incorporating humor, shock, or nonsense. However, that is just one end of the spectrum -- whatever happened to seriousness, tensions, or dissonance? Filmmakers must fully utilize freedom and imagination to express the nature of their films, as Rosenthal suggests. For the expression can either enhance or distort the film's purpose, directly serving the audience for better or worse.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Landrum is THE MAN
During the spring semester of 2009, I took a class entitled: The Art of Film. We surveyed a large collection of foreign and independent films. Our professor, Mike Landrum, emphasized the role of that cinematographers play in constructing the artistic wonder behind each film. In fact, the very first movie we watched highlighted some famous cinematographers and their works. So, during that semester, I was paying attention to the various lighting effects for the movies we watched.
Reading Chaptaaa 6 about lighting brought back memories of that class. Specifically, how painstacking the work can be in order to produce a particular lighting effect for the film. The science of understanding light, technology of contributing light, and techniques of distorting light are very complex. However, when artists can comprehend all three and put them into practice, the product can be astounding.
I hope that my videos will progress in terms of lighting effects. Usually, I might go as far as turning one light off and turning another on -- but the techniques spread well beyond that! If I can incorporate greater visual/lighting effects, perhaps my videos will not bore audiences (but, they'll probably be bored anyways).
Ah. Oh, well.
Reading Chaptaaa 6 about lighting brought back memories of that class. Specifically, how painstacking the work can be in order to produce a particular lighting effect for the film. The science of understanding light, technology of contributing light, and techniques of distorting light are very complex. However, when artists can comprehend all three and put them into practice, the product can be astounding.
I hope that my videos will progress in terms of lighting effects. Usually, I might go as far as turning one light off and turning another on -- but the techniques spread well beyond that! If I can incorporate greater visual/lighting effects, perhaps my videos will not bore audiences (but, they'll probably be bored anyways).
Ah. Oh, well.
An Angel Among Mere Humans
In reading "Chapter 5," a.k.a. the low-down on sound, thoughts of R.J. Clarke came to my mind. I remembered his luscious, dirty-blond locks and glorious, slender running legs, but even more than his physical attributes, I recalled his studious research in the field of Time-Based Media.
For his senior honor's project, R.J. researched the relationship between aural and visual effects for videos. In his project, R.J. video-taped a runner galloping through the North Campus Cross-Country trails. He had two different musical tracks constructed to fit the footage. One track was slow and involved minor chords to heighten thoughts of reflection in emphasizing an internal "run," or escape, of the character. The other track was upbeat and promoted a sense of rush, furry, and anger through an exciting run.
R.J.'s research pointed towards the significance of audio effects for videos because the same footage, when applied to different audio accompaniments, can evoke varying moods and feelings within the audience. Reading this chapter helped clarify the crucial role that audio plays in video. Barton could have emphasized this if he wanted to better argue the audio qualities of videos (loser!).
Also -- there's a bunch of technical sound equipment and what not! Although it's a little overwhelming, hopefully I'll have a better grasp on the terminology and practice by the end of the semester. We'll see!
For his senior honor's project, R.J. researched the relationship between aural and visual effects for videos. In his project, R.J. video-taped a runner galloping through the North Campus Cross-Country trails. He had two different musical tracks constructed to fit the footage. One track was slow and involved minor chords to heighten thoughts of reflection in emphasizing an internal "run," or escape, of the character. The other track was upbeat and promoted a sense of rush, furry, and anger through an exciting run.
R.J.'s research pointed towards the significance of audio effects for videos because the same footage, when applied to different audio accompaniments, can evoke varying moods and feelings within the audience. Reading this chapter helped clarify the crucial role that audio plays in video. Barton could have emphasized this if he wanted to better argue the audio qualities of videos (loser!).
Also -- there's a bunch of technical sound equipment and what not! Although it's a little overwhelming, hopefully I'll have a better grasp on the terminology and practice by the end of the semester. We'll see!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)