Media Burn

While watching Media Burn today I couldn't help but wonder why we don't have any more of these pranks/stunts/artistic statements televised anymore. It's not because everyone has given up trying to change the world. I know there has to be some of this stuff going on, but I guess it's not as important or big enough to be broadcasted on national television. I believe these types of pranks/stunts/artistic statements are useful to make us look at things in a different way because the television is the easiest medium to reach people by.
Coming into class I was in awe with the film playing. That show destroyed all the stereotypes you have about T.V. It made you see a different way, making you believe that television could do anything it doesn't have to be all reality T.V. shows or news broadcasts. It really asks the viewer to reconceptualize what they think about T.V. Today, kids are born into a world where there are stereotypes about everything. To think out of the box is a skill to be developed and one that is normally shunned. So I give praise to groups that perform such artistic statements. They are the revolutionaries that help people remember it is okay to be different.

Sonic Outlaws

The Barbie Liberation Organization

1. The group is a cultural activist organization that challenges gender stereotyping in the toy industry through the intervention of switching voice chips of a Teen Talk Barbie Dolls with those of Talking Duke G.I Joe dolls.
In 1989, the BLO bought Teen Talk Barbie dolls and Talking Duke G. I. Joe dolls and gave them a makeover. The switched their voice chips put them back in their boxes and returned them to the store shelves where they found them (the intervention). Kids would buy these dolls thinking they would be getting a Teen Talk Barbie doll, but got a Teen Talk Barbie doll with a G.I. Joe voice. The BLO insisted that no harm was done, "The storekeepers make money twice, we stimulate the economy - the consumer gets a better product - and our message gets heard." They did this because they were upset with perpetuated stereotypes Teen Talk Barbie dolls gave to the minds of the future, the dolls were not an accurate representation of women in the world (the dolls were considered a form of evil brainwashing). This superficial image the Teen Talk Barbie doll imposed was considered a threat to the BLO. The BLO in turn wanted to make sure the truth was told.

2. The BLO is part of the RTMark which is an activist collective that subverts the "Corporate Shield" protecting US corporations. It brings together activists who plan projects with donors who fund them. It operates outside the laws governing human beings. Another one of their stunts was called Voteauction. Voteauction was a satirical website which offered US citizens to sell their presidential vote to the highest bidder during the presidential elections of 2000. Several US states sued the site for alleged illegal vote trading.

3.

Frampton's Formula

Frampton says that whatever happens the most in the film is what the film is about. When watching Natural Features I picked out dissolving/decaying faces in about every frame, but I don't think that's what the film was about. Because there were many elements in the film all taking part. There were watercolors, paintbrushes, the color black, all of these things were in every frame also. I think what Frampton was trying to get at is the theme of a film or the moral of the story. I don't think he meant a specific thing you see in a frame. Because if you have a moral or reoccurring theme then yes, that is what the film is about. I do believe if we watched a film and just picked out the one thing that happens the most whether it be a color, camera movement, etc, then it would probably change our view of the film. If I just watched Natural Features for the color black I would see the film as being a very dark film in its subject matter and its lighting. Overall, I think that we shouldn't apply his method of discovering what a film is about because then we only focus on one part of the whole, there is so much more in films. Maybe if every new time you watched it you paid attention to something else then I guess you could add up the parts to the whole idea of what the film is about, but who wants to do that. I also believe and want to state that maybe what Frampton was talking about is what the viewer does subconsciously every time when viewing a film. I know I have picked out one certain thing in a film before because I could relate myself to that scene(I had gone through a similar situation) . After walking out of the theater my friends and I discussed the film and they all thought the same thing about it, but when asking my opinion were surprised to hear my reaction to the film. I viewed it in whole different, unique way from the way they did. We all perceive things differently and that's because we are all different and come from different backgrounds and have different experiences. And that's the beauty of films. They are ambiguous. There is no right or wrong answer.

James Benning's Math Lecture

If I remember correctly, Benning said that everything has a certain structure built off of a formula. Math is all about finding out the formulas to certain structures, for example the circumference of a circle. So with this in mind I began to wonder that if the world is ruled by numbers and everything has certain structure could that mean that there is a formula to end war? Or a formula for love or hate or any other emotion or function? And if we did obtain this knowledge would it help the human race or be the demise of it? I know it sounds very abstract, but who knows. Maybe it isn't necessary for us to know those certain formulas if there are any. I mean, how could we ever go about trying to figure out that formula, where would we begin?
I was also thinking that maybe there is a common formula or a universal formula that could solve any problem. That would then mean everything is alike some way or another, we could all be interconnected somehow. And that could lead to the point that we all come from the same thing whatever that may be. These are all just questions to ponder and I realize their is no answer for them right now, but that doesn't mean we can't start to formulate one.

Table Top Project: Artist Statement

My whole project originated out of Bag's interviews of the college student. I became fascinated with the act of revealing. An interview is just a form of revealing. I wanted to create an act of revealing, but in a different form. So I chose to write a word on an all white background in translucent glue. The viewer wouldn't be able to see the word until I revealed it. So I chose colored sand, because it looked cool, and slowly poured it on the word. The sand would get caught on the glue letters and the word would be slowly revealed. The word I chose, and appropriately fits, is revelation. Merriam-Webster's dictionary states revelation is, "the act of revealing." Which is exactly what I was doing. My whole intention was to reveal something. I believe revealing is a key component for good storytelling. Although, my revealing had nothing to do with a story.
What to say about my masterpiece..(ahh)..well, let me begin by saying that I was overall pleased with the outcome, but there were some problems. I'm in the class film 220 right now and I'm used to silent film because we are making a silent film. After coming from that class straight to this class to do my project I totally forgot that this project wasn't silent so you can hear me whisper to my assistant. That wasn't planned and I wish I could have edited those whispers out. Another problem was the that the sand was resistant to slide down the cardboard, but we adjusted and shook the cardboard. That also wasn't planned, shaking the cardboard that is. Shaking the cardboard cut some of the word out of the frame. In retrospect, I enjoyed the intuitive feeling you get from watching my video(it looks as if we didn't rehearse at all). I mean, when you reveal something about yourself most of the time it's not planned it just comes out. This project, with it's shakiness, out of framing, and whispering, looks as if it is not planned. You get a sense of realness that you can relate to.
Revealing is something that will continue to happen as long as this world lives. It's probably because of this lie-filled world. There are so many lies in this world that it is very hard for one to find the truth, if there is any. It's hard to make friends or to even marry anyone because we can't tell if the other person is telling the truth or not. I don't know what started it, but lies consume this world and all this lieing has lead to secrets. Everyone hides behind their secrets now. No one is them self, they are all just by-products or copies of whatever fad that is going on. As I realized revealing has become an essential part of life now, I wanted to capture the act of revealing itself. And I believe I have accomplished so with my table top project.

Reflection on Bag's Work

Raging Bull ending

I chose this video because I thought it was very similar to the little monologues/interviews Bag has throughout her film(a monologue/interview on each college semester her character has been through). This last scene in Raging Bull has a monologue given by the main character. The monologue is a self-reflection piece on all he has been through in his life up till now. Bag's monologues are only a reflection on her character's college life. The Raging Bull scene is framed a different way too. In Bag's movie the character is sitting down looking directly into the camera which is stationed in place framing her from her waist to her head. In Raging Bull we see the character looking at himself in a mirror and the camera is stationed in place looking at him looking at himself. It also is framed from waist to head. The difference between the two is obviously where the camera is placed, but in both situations we get the same affect. The monologues in both scenes reveal something about the character and in each monologue the character has unraveled something about themselves. Both monologues allow the audience to learn something new about each character's character. We learn about their ups and downs. What they like, what they dislike. And what they could have been, and what they are.

Who is the author of the situation?

To find the answer to this question we must first define what an author is and what it does. The author is in control of the story and the aspects of the story i.e. plot, characters, action, etc. This, of course, is my definition of what an author does. The author of a movie is something or somebody that controls what is in the shot/the frame(whoever or whatever controls what you are looking at). Point of view shots are widely used and accepted as telling who is the author of a certain shot. So when watching those four films in class today I looked for things that controlled what was within the frame. The author of that specific space. And I came out with this conclusion:

Tree - The wind was the author. It was in control of everything within the shot. It blows the tree, the subject of the shot, and the camera moves as if it is being blown by the same wind that is blowing the tree. This causes the viewer to feel as if it is moving along with the tree, becoming one with the tree.

One Black/One White - The white dog is the author. The white dog is in control of the other subject(the black dog) and the black dog's actions. It walks from dog bowl to dog bowl forcing the black dog to go eat at the other dog bowl. The black dog becomes submissive and allows the white dog to take over the bowl that it was eating at and moves onto the other bowl without fighting back. The white dog seems more aggressive, dominant, and competitive.

Two Dogs and a Ball - The ball is the author. The ball controls the dogs(the subjects) within the shot. It specifically controls the dogs' eye movements while they sit in place. Their bodies adjust accordingly to the movements of their eyes. The viewer is drawn in and starts to follow the dogs' eyes in hope of finally catching a glimpse of what the dogs are following with their eyes.

My Parents Read Dreams I Have Had About Them - The dreams that are written on the papers are the authors. They control what the parents say. The parents are just puppets to portray/bring about the dreams. The dad reads dreams that the dreamer has had about him and the mom reads dreams that the dreamer has had about her. What bothered me the most was the indifference the parents showed. They delivered the dreams with a very mundane tone of voice, I don't know if this was implied or if the parents thought it was a stupid idea to be filming this or maybe they are just too old. But, if I were them I would ask the dreamer about the dreams and try to come to a conclusion why he had them. I mean, if I were a part of the dreams that means that I was significant in that person's life, either in a bad way or a good way.

Althea Thauberger

Thauberger's "Not Afraid to Die" really had an effect on me. It was a very sad, emotional piece. Because of the gestures the girl gives, the indifference in her eyes, the slow methodical movements of her eating the snack, and the eerie calm of the woods noises gives a sense of
loneliness. She looks at the camera as if it's a cry of help. Then the lyrics come in and it's as if the lyrics are her inner thoughts expressing how she really feels. The lyric, "I'm in a dark hole" acts like a blatant sign of her loneliness.
What I liked about this film is how it relies very heavily on emotion. The emotion is drawn out through the girl. And as it is explained in the article we read, the human being impulse to empathize is irrepressible. We long to connect, we want to connect, we need relationships to be sane. "We look at artworks in order to see ourselves reflected, to feel not alone, and to identify with a speaking, empowered subject". The empowered subject in "Not Afraid to Die" is the girl. And different parts of films can affect people in different ways. Characters, a song, dialogue, or even events in the film all have the ability to affect the viewer. Althea even mentioned that "Not Afraid to Die" had many different reactions ranging from this being a funny film, to a film about buliema. This whole idea of connecting to artwork has taken on a new form in the 21st century. Now people have the chance to connect with blogs, youtube videos, google videos, and etc on the internet. The internet is a vast plane to show artwork and to allow viewers to participate in the artwork. The internet has become a more accessible way to reach artworks. And with such websites like youtube, anyone can become an artist just by posting a video on it.
Art is very personal. It is argued that no great artwork has ever been created by someone without an inner struggle. I direct reference would be Althea's "A Memory Lasts Forever". The whole story is about something that happened to her in the past. Maybe this was Althea's way of confronting the issue. Because this is a very personal film much emotion is played throughout the characters. It becomes very poignant and draws in the audience. There is so much emotion that we want to be part of it. It's our impulse to empathize. We want to help them out, tell them we are there for you.

Deadpan

While watching those four short films in class I couldn't help but notice how slow paced all the films were. My written question for that class was asking why these filmmakers decided to use this slow pacing. These films were a complete contrast from what we have today in theaters. The movies nowadays are very fast-paced, and full of action, once you sit down you sit back up again. I was thinking about what professor Carl Bogner said about deadpan and then it hit me. To produce deadpan such slow pacing, as we saw in these films, is essential to create its affect. In Semiotics of the Kitchen deadpan is in clear effect through the movements of Martha Rosler's body. She delivers these movements without any expression or reservation. Deadpan can only be delivered through expression and emotion. A clear example of this emotionless expression is provided by Buster Keaton. He keeps a dead beat face all throughout his films, which involve an array of stunts where he is humiliated and physically put in harm creating an offbeat laughter. I think because you wouldn't expect his face to be that emotionless in such crazy stunts that it creates a certain laughter. Deadpan, to me, is the opposite of what we would normally see in a comedy. Although it is a more rare form of comedy, deadpan can be used in all forms of comedy, like slap-stick, situational, etc. So deadpan becomes an acquired taste.

Play

To me, all of these trick films are eye candy. Very entertaining. They draw you in with those tricks and then you can't wait to see what will happen next. When I go to the movies I want to see something that can take my imagination to the next level and all of these types of trick films are very imaginative and creative. They are like children storybooks, mixing fantasy with reality and allowing us to join in on the adventure. I could watch A Trip to the Moon today and it will still blow me away. The trick cuts it uses are brilliant, like when they hit the bad moon guys they poof into smoke. I guess these films pioneered the way for special effects and animation that we see in films today. These types of films create a surreal environment, almost like a dream because you can't believe what you're seeing. I wish more of these films were around today. Spectacle, nowadays, is less emphasized than narrative is. The only person I can think of that does these spectacle types of films is Michel Gondry. Everything is not what it seems in his films. I think cinema needs to find a way to make films that have a balanced mix of both spectacle and narrative.

Clowns vs. Theorists

I found all the works expressing either professionalism or amateurism or both and all works expressing some form of comedy. In terms of the Freudian language of jokes, Keaton's "The Boat" takes on the form of playful judgement, July's "The Amateurist" takes on the form of bringing something forward that is hidden, and Ben-Ner's "Moby Dick" takes on the form of the sense in nonsense. I call "The Boat" playful judgement because Keaton's character has to make decisions because of the problems he creates for himself. He ends up coming up with the worst solutions for the problems he encounters (an example would be the pancake covering the hole in the boat). Throughout "The Amateurist" we get a sense of something that is hidden and is about to be revealed. It could be because of the uneasiness in her voice, the music, or the fact that the person in the television screen was played by the same person talking about the person in the television screen. Because of this it hints to the fact that maybe the professional talking was once that person in the screen or is that same person in that screen in the way that the person in the screen is all the internal desires and feelings of the professional outside the screen. Another hint to that proposal is the fact that there is a black diamond in the background of the foreground. That black diamond shape is repeated in a paradigm in the background of what is in the television screen, meaning they are in the same room. Ben-Ner's "Moby Dick" takes on the form of sense in nonsense because throughout the film we see clips of random shots. Like in the beginning where he holds his daughter up, her face into the camera and the shot of him climbing up a ladder and falling. All the shots with the complete white wall in the background seem out of place and that could because he was experimenting. Either way we see the story line progress through the shots in the kitchen (the sense) mixed with these random shots of him doing something against a complete white background (the nonsense), altogether making a funny film. Each film uses a different type of joke to make their film hilarious.