Looking Back

I'm not going to beat around the bush: this semester was not as well organized as the last semester (FilmP 150). Blog announcements were sporadic and sometimes non-existent so that throughout most of the semester I had no idea when they were due. The Final Cut project was a prime example of how messy things were this semester. Having to film the project in one hour was a problem I was able to get over quickly because I understood it wasn't a huge production we were working on. But then editing the piece was simply disastrous. I lost the audio on my piece during the transfer, then kept running out of memory while I was working on the piece. By the end of it all I was greatly disappointed with the fact that we had to work on computers which were not well equipped for the the assigned project.

The Flash portion of the class was not much better. The lectures on Flash were convoluted and difficult to understand. By the time I sat down to work on the Flash project I really had no idea where to begin. I had to mess around with Flash on my own while watching online tutorials to finally figure things out. The lectures were not able to successfully prepare me for the project but I got through it anyways. As a film major, I was bothered with the fact that I was spending a large amount of time learning Flash because its something I'll probably never work with again. Having this class be a two semester long course seems pointless to me because it is a very basic course and there were things that as a film major I had no interest in learning (such as Flash). There should be a single semester long introductory course for film majors and a separate one for media majors. An introductory course should not be two semesters long.

With all that said, not everything I have to say about the class is negative. Incorporating the Natalia Almada presentation into the semester was a nice departure from the usual lectures. I also liked that the midterm was a creative pre-production project instead of the usual in class exam. Although the blogs were not dealt with as well as in the last semester, I like how they are incorporated into the course work because it gives students a chance to freely explore relevant course material. Ultimately I think there are some things that worked well throughout the semester, but there is plenty of room for improvement for future semesters.

Speaking With Animation - "Papiroflexia"

I came across this animation while browsing through youtube. It was labeled "Orgami World", although the title that appears in the actual animation is "Papiroflexia." The animation was done by Joaquin Baldwin. I chose this animation as the subject of my post because it was both well animated and creatively engaging.

As both a film and creative writing major, one of the things I scrutinize in any piece is story. The story in this animation is simple, creative and effective. The short narrative basically follows a man who is able to transform the world around him into origami. As we follow the man, we see him transform the urban landscape around him into a beautiful natural state. At the end of the piece, the man transforms himself into an origami bear, completing the transformation from crowded city into serene nature. It's a very creative, yet straightforward story; which is what ultimately makes it so effective. The simplicity of the story does not mean that it lacks depth. On the contrary I think that the simplicity of the actual narrative emphasizes the thematic depth of the animation. The two most compelling themes which caught my attention were that of city versus nature (or chaotic order versus serene wilderness) and the ability of the individual to make a difference. The piece is very imaginative and inspires an equally creative response from the viewer.

The animation also works if it is considered from a more technical standpoint. One of the things that stuck out to me most was the use of sound in the piece. The harmonious soundtrack is juxtaposed with the harsh city noises to further develop the theme of city (or civilization) versus nature. Another juxtaposition I noticed in the piece involved the use of colors. The main character himself sticks out in the dull and dark colored urban landscape because of his bright color. As he changes things from their urban state into a natural state, they become brighter in terms of color. For example, when he changes the car into a deer it goes from being a dark gray color to a brighter brown. The dull gray airplane is transformed into a more vivid blue bird. In the scene with the quick transformation of the buildings and roads into trees and paths, the sun comes out and illuminates the entire landscape, casting it in a bright array of colors which highly contrast the stark colors of the urban landscape which has now been fully transformed. The use of such juxtaposition further develops the thematic opposition of city and nature.

Since the environment in the piece is essential to the animation it is important that the landscape be represented in an effective way. In my opinion the use of space in the animation is what makes it so special. The way in which the character slowly travels through and transforms his environment is very creatively and (more importantly) effectively executed. Though it was a cartoon animation, the movement through the piece was not choppy, but very smooth and even lifelike.

The use of depth to create a greater sense of space is extremely important in a story which is about a character who is changing that same space which he is traveling through. There were plenty of objects in the foreground and background (signs, buildings, cars, etc.) which effectively created a sense of depth in the piece. If you look closely at the background, the sky itself looks like a crumpled piece of paper. It was little things like this that made this animation flow so smoothly. The style of the animation is very important as a complement to the theme and story of the piece. Ultimately, all these element help create a very compelling animation.

Video and Flash

As a film major, I found the video project a lot more entertaining and less demanding than the animation project. The video project went smoothly for the most part: preproduction was important in setting up the rest of the project. After Jake
(my partner) and I planned out the film, it was pretty much smooth sailing from there. All we had to do was find someone to act in the film (which one of Jake's friends did very well), shoot the project and finally edit it. Since the actual shoot was only about an hour and fifteen minutes long (which I initially thought was a ridiculously small amount of time to shoot a project in) we had to limit ourselves in terms of locations. But I think we did a good job with managing our time: in the end we were able to get the coverage we needed to in order to accurately cut all the shots together. We also got some very nice shots we had not originally thought up. After the shoot, the editing took a bit of time because we had a lot of material to work with. We actually ended up having to cut out a whole scene from our original plan because it didn't work in terms of continuity (screen direction) with the rest of the film. We also lost our audio- but we quickly fixed that by placing a soundtrack to fill in for the diegetic sounds we had recorded (which weren't essential to the story). Besides those two concerns, editing went over smoothly and we ended up with the film we had originally planned to shoot (more or less).

In order to get the animation project completed, I traveled a bumpier road. As a film major I initially thought the animation project was a waste of my time, but as I worked on it I realized it wasn't very different from the video project. Preparation was just as vital in the flash project as it was in the video project. Before actually jumping into the project, I had to carefully consider what I was capable of doing and how I would go about it. I also noticed some similarities between Flash and Final Cut, such as the use of time lines and key frames in the editing process. The one thing I found much harder was the fact that I was not merely capturing staged action anymore, but was forced to actually create and manipulate staged action. Though Flash jargon makes it seem like a more stifling medium (especially when it comes to actionscript), both film making and creating animation demand a lot of authorial creativity. Actionscript was tough, I'm not going to lie. Most of what I heard in class was forgotten the second I sat down to complete my interactivity project-- or perhaps I never fully digested it. It's difficult to teach something that's not as theoretical as it is practical and that's why I think I couldn't retain a lot of the material covered in the Flash lectures. When you're sitting in a lecture hall trying to take notes on how to work in Flash it's not as useful as sitting in front of the computer and actually working on Flash. It took some messing around with Flash and actionscript until I kind of figured things out (enough to finish my project), but I think it was time well spent.

By the end of both projects I was able to more fully appreciate both the work that goes into making a film and the work that goes into creating an animation. My interest in Flash has actually been whetted by the animation project. As both a film and English major, I appreciate cinema and literature as the outstanding mediums of storytelling that they are. In literature I see the predominant storytelling medium of the past. In cinema I see the predominant storytelling medium of the present. And in computer driven mediums like Flash I see a chance of becoming the predominant storytelling medium of the future. It's a simple rational behind why these mediums progress in such a manner, because each one has something to offer which its predecessor does not. Film has the visual element which lacks in literature and computer driven mediums have the interactivity which film lacks. I'm not saying that cinema will one day become obsolete, just as literature enjoys the same popularity as it has in years past, but new interactive mediums have the potential to revolutionize a dimension of storytelling which film lacks: user participation.

Natalia Almada Presentation

I found Natalia Almada's films (or the excerpts we saw) compelling for a couple of reasons. As a Hispanic American born of immigrant parents, I was able to connect to the subject matter of her films. The struggle between two conflicting languages and cultures is one that I am familiar with. More impacting, however, was the immediate content of a film like Al Otro Lado. The issue over illegal immigration is a predominant one not only in American politics, but in American sociological life as well. Immigration is not just an issue that lawmakers have to deal with, but one that the American population is involved with on a regular basis. Its impossible to come by an American who does not have an opinion on the topic. I think what Almada did well in Al Otro Lado was reveal the situation from not only one side of the issue, but from both. I'm not disputing that her vision is not a biased one, after all the film follows a Mexican immigrant, but she does take the time to interview the citizen "police" force in Arizona to balance out the film. I think another important thing this film does is explore the issue from an angle not often understood, that of the Mexican immigrant facing the decision to emigrate. There are a lot of people blind and often ignorant to the reasons why immigrants find themselves having to make such a crucial decision. Almada successfully explores this angle of the issue.

All Water Has a Perfect Memory was an intriguing film. Structurally, the film is quite intricate. The dominance of audio in the film was a risky venture on Almada's part but it worked because the story unfolds through what we hear. The visuals compliment the auditory elements. Looking at it from a metaphoric perspective, the dominance of sound in the film demonstrates how Almada's memories of her sister are constructed mainly by the details she has heard from her family. The memory is not reconstructed through visual elements (pictures, videos) because without the explicative voices these visuals mean nothing.

I respect the fact that Almada seems to have made this film for herself rather than to gear it toward satisfying an audience. This, however, is probably the reason some people have a problem with the film, because of how "personal" it is. I disagree with this notion because I think the film is more than just a sob story. The film is grounded in the father and mother's parallel cultures, which is depicted in the fact that they speak different languages and in the description of where they were and what they were doing at the time of their daughter's death. The physical and cultural separation is reconciled only after the death of their daughter.
I would argue the notion that the film is too "personal" on the grounds that all film making has to be and is "personal" by nature. We bring our subjective ideas, visions and prejudices to any film we make- whether it be a documentary regarding unsanitary cattle raising practices or a fictitious piece about aliens with not so subtle environmentalist subtexts. Its part of the film making process- from choosing what you place in the frame to choosing what shots are edited into the film. Objectivity is impossible in film making. Almada, however, demonstrates how subjectivity can enhance your final product by making a film that did not seek to convey any objectivity to please an audience but instead creating a piece that meant something for her. It's a lesson a lot of artists (film makers, writers, musicians) forget sometimes: to create art because you are compelled to create something meaningful for yourself, not because you are seeking to satisfy an audience.

Antonioni's Blow Up: Conceptions of Reality

A movie is not a movie without the editing process. Editing is integral to creating not only the sequence of events and how they unfold in a movie, but is also essential to the thematic content of a film. The right editing can emphasize themes already established by other aspects of the movie (e.g. plot, dialogue, mise-en-scene). I think a great example of this type of editing can be seen in Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blow Up."

Although the editing is outstandingly done throughout the movie, I'd like to concentrate on a specific scene to demonstrate the kind of effect it can produce. The scene being analyzed is the final scene of the film. For the most part, the editing in this scene follows the conventions of continuity editing; that is to say that there are no significant jump cuts or any disjointed cuts. The cutting is done seamlessly; all transitions are smooth. The shots of the mime filled car, although cut and edited together from different angles, keep the essential visual and the auditory elements consistent to establish continuity. This fact in itself is important. Since what the audience is viewing moves so uninterruptedly, it simulates the notion that what is being seen is natural, but more importantly real.

Reality, specifically the perception of reality, is something that is brought into question shortly after in this scene, partly through the editing. The way the mime's tennis game is edited, with shots of the two mimes edited alongside reaction shots from the mime crowd and Thomas (the protagonist), create the sense that an actual tennis game is going on. The crowd of mimes follows the imaginary tennis ball, the camera cuts from face to face to show that they are intently following the game as if it were something really occurring. When one of the players "hits" the ball toward the fence, one of the mimes in the crowd reacts sharply as if in direct correlation with the "stray ball." In fact, the combination of the mimes' participation in this imaginary game and the seamless editing, brings into question one's notion of reality. To further muddle our perceptions on what is real, Thomas takes part in the mimes' game.

At first Thomas is just a bystander, smiling at the mimes and acknowledging one of the players as she recovers the ball. But when the ball crosses the gated realm of the tennis court and out into the fresh meadow of reality, he unhesitatingly decides to take part in the reality that the mimes have created by retrieving the ball for them. Another interesting editing point is how Thomas' eye line match is cut side by side with the imaginary ball that has gone over the fenced court as if he were watching an actual ball roll along the grass.

The overwhelmingly intriguing part of this scene (which justifies ever bringing up the point of reality) is located at the very end of the scene, after Thomas has thrown the ball back to the mimes. The camera does not shift back to the mimes, but stays focused on Thomas as he continues to watch the game. Then we hear tennis rackets; the audio track hear implies that the tennis game has recommenced. But there were no tennis rackets being used; this brings everything we have seen to this point into question. The fact that the camera does not cut away from Thomas and the we are hearing sounds not connected to anything in the scene implies that we are inside his head- we are hearing what he is hearing. Throughout the movie Thomas is trying to solve a mysterious crime, but now we are forced to ask if this crime was ever what Thomas perceived it to be or if it is as imaginary as the game of tennis? Has Thomas' perception of reality (i.e. the events that have unfolded before us as we follow him throughout the movie) been erred all along? At the end of the scene Thomas just disappears, a cut that strongly contrasts the continuity editing that has preceded this moment. Thomas' disappearance brings us back to the theme of reality. It makes us realize that we are not witnessing reality but a framed perception- a movie. We realize that everything we have seen leading up to this moment could have been just as dissoluble as the character of Thomas as he fades away.

Media: My Connection to the World

I think society is at a point where the question to be posed is no longer if you use the technology available but rather how you use it and to what ends. Like many others, I am highly involved with media on a regular basis. In my pocket I have my smart phone which keeps me connected to the rest of the world at all times. I do everything from constantly checking my e-mail in order to correspond with my boss to keeping up with distant friends through Facebook to searching for information via the web. Honestly, without my cell phone I'd feel as if I were missing a vital limb without which I could not possibly function and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I would disagree with those that think we are becoming a society "too reliant" on technology such as computers and cell phones. I believe that these different forms of media are there for us to use, not to abuse, but to utilize to progress. From grassroot campaigns to artists trying to get their work out to the world, there have been countless numbers of people whose ideas have shattered the boundaries set by older technologies thanks to the media that is available today. Media today is defined by its ability to help us connect with one another.

To think of all the technological advancements that have taken place over the last two decades amazes me. This is nowhere truer than in one of my favorite forms of media, video gaming. It's impossible not to be astonished when you compare where we are today in terms of video gaming and where we were just a few decades ago. The evolution of media as a whole is reflected through the evolution of gaming: from the humble beginnings of the Atari all the way through the Playstation 3, XBOX 360 and Wii. Despite the huge success of the PS3 and 360, the console that most impresses me is the Wii for how it has redefined the way we interact with our gaming systems. The Wii reflects the ideals of all new technology: revolutionizing the way we think of and use our media. It has stepped outside the boundaries set by remote controllers and has completely redifined the conventional style of play by directly correlating human movements with video game character's movements.

Another aspect of today's media that is reflected through video gaming systems is the idea that technology today has made the world "a smaller place." Its incredible that I can turn on my PS3 or XBOX 360 connect to the PS Network or XBOX Live and play/chat/interact with millions of other players from all over the globe. I play on the PS Network with my nephews all the time and its a comforting notion to know that you can keep in touch with distant friends or relatives through a gaming platform!

We may be living on the same planet as in decades past, but the world has become a much smaller place thanks to the advent of all the media out there that lets us connect with one another.