I cannot start this blog without mentioning how amazing it is to know that Obama is going to be our next president!! Not to mention how shocking and wonderful was Brown's reaction. Marching down Thayer, through RISD, past Kennedy Plaza, and into the steps of the State Capitol, was a great way to celebrate, and a great addition to my freshmen year memories.
Anyways back to screens and projections.
"Not least since Orwell's 1949 vision of an aggressively invasive authoritarian 1984, our sense of the future -- and increasingly of the present--has been marked by the fear of being watched, controlled, and robbed of our privacy."
Just that first page got me thinking. Live Free or Die Hard is a combination of both films that we watched. It takes The Conversations' public spying on the public idea and Enemy of State's use of private cameras to spy on the public. Unlike in the Tiennamen Square incident, harmless traffic control systems are used to spy on the public in hopes of over throwing the government. It can be argued that when this happened after the clashes in Tiennamen Square, it was for the good of the people, for their protection. Live Free or Die Hard shows how easy it is for our forms of protection to be exploited.
The article also commented on the secret camera being part of the narration. Its impossible for me not to think of The Truman Show. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYj2m1yVpGU ) I love this trailer because it shows not only this week's topic, but past ones. To begin with, we can see that many things cannot be seen until the secret camera leads us to it. In the scene were Truman's wife arrives with the groceries, you can also see how advertising is intertwined with the rest of the narration. The trailer also shows a scene where Truman is talking to his best friend. You can see the editing team adding dramatic music and editing the scenes. Just proof of how music has as much importance as the angles the movie is shot in. Most importantly, this also shows Levin's argument of how you just assume what you see is real when in reality it can very easily be edited.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
OBAMA SMASH!
I know we aren't at the video/computer game section of the class, but I felt with all of Chun's examples of media coverage of the election I feel I have to include this:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/31/mercenaries-2-gets-political/#more-4712
Yes, you can blow up the world as either Obama or Palin
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/31/mercenaries-2-gets-political/#more-4712
Yes, you can blow up the world as either Obama or Palin
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Boom!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHDVSW5OpI4
In relation to Joyrich's Hypermasculinity article and the article on TV sound, I want to examine a show that my (very masculine) friend put on during some down time and a drink. This show, Destroyed in Seconds from the Discovery Channel is one of many sort of "live camera" TV catastrophe shows, in this case focusing on technological and natural disaster that (as they claim) happens in a matter of seconds (as opposed to feral animals, wild criminals, etc). Since every spectacle happens only in a matter of seconds, they take their time to rewind, replay, analyze, and dissect the horror inside out.
In contrast to Good Morning America or soap operas, these shows focus so much on the visual spectacle, calling for rapt attention of the gaze, lest the viewer "miss something". The replays serve to emphasize the importance of making sure the viewer catches every detail. Yet the disembodied sound narrative is necessary to carry out the act of precise analysis and almost scientific authority to explain this all to us. And just as these disasters are slowed down and analyzed for us, they are also shot at us at a pace of one per every one to three minutes. The onrush and sheer amount of videos given to us between each break shell shock us, until every explosion looks the same, yet each one is meant to incite, excite, glue, sensationalize, and horrify. Furthermore, the fact that most of these videos are taken by home cameras, surviellance cameras, etc. parallels to TV's own lack of high visual quality, such that part of the spectacle is the video's grainy "realness".
This is certainly a masculine show, but does this show cut against the grain of "essential television qualities" of sound and feminine reception? I would argue the opposite, for I think shows like these that are non-narrative, fragmented, and ADD also build upon inherent qualities of the TV as medium, and very much reinforce the visual over the aural. However, this does not negate Joyrich or any of the other theorists, but rather merely serves to reinforce the idea that television is full of polysemy.
In relation to Joyrich's Hypermasculinity article and the article on TV sound, I want to examine a show that my (very masculine) friend put on during some down time and a drink. This show, Destroyed in Seconds from the Discovery Channel is one of many sort of "live camera" TV catastrophe shows, in this case focusing on technological and natural disaster that (as they claim) happens in a matter of seconds (as opposed to feral animals, wild criminals, etc). Since every spectacle happens only in a matter of seconds, they take their time to rewind, replay, analyze, and dissect the horror inside out.
In contrast to Good Morning America or soap operas, these shows focus so much on the visual spectacle, calling for rapt attention of the gaze, lest the viewer "miss something". The replays serve to emphasize the importance of making sure the viewer catches every detail. Yet the disembodied sound narrative is necessary to carry out the act of precise analysis and almost scientific authority to explain this all to us. And just as these disasters are slowed down and analyzed for us, they are also shot at us at a pace of one per every one to three minutes. The onrush and sheer amount of videos given to us between each break shell shock us, until every explosion looks the same, yet each one is meant to incite, excite, glue, sensationalize, and horrify. Furthermore, the fact that most of these videos are taken by home cameras, surviellance cameras, etc. parallels to TV's own lack of high visual quality, such that part of the spectacle is the video's grainy "realness".
This is certainly a masculine show, but does this show cut against the grain of "essential television qualities" of sound and feminine reception? I would argue the opposite, for I think shows like these that are non-narrative, fragmented, and ADD also build upon inherent qualities of the TV as medium, and very much reinforce the visual over the aural. However, this does not negate Joyrich or any of the other theorists, but rather merely serves to reinforce the idea that television is full of polysemy.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Tonight Show
I am really interested in the relationship a commercial has to both the other commercials surrounding it as well as to the program it "interrupts." So, i tuned in to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on NBC thinking that this was the best way to see "mainstream" advertising.
What I found interesting is that I saw a series of commercials all focusing on the home/family, immediately before and after an interview with Sarah Silverman.
The first commercial was a Verizon commercial, you know the one where the dad goes in to work and asks his secretary what his schedule is and he is essentially spending the day texting his family. Then, it was a local commercial about carpeting your home. Finally, and this is the best... a commercial showing a family around the breakfast table. The mother is silently tidying up the kitchen while the father respectfully "asks the tough questions" of his teenage daughter who missed curfew for a (gasp!) boyfriend. I thought this was going to break into a joke, but it was actually sponsored by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Then immediately to Sarah Silverman...
...who dives into making fun of Sarah Palin's giant family and the way she brings the kids all over the campaign trail. Then she talks about her "The Great Schlep" video which I'm sure lots of people have seen and its fairly edgy.
The next commercial segment begins with a depression medication, then goes into MetLife so "your family can watch its dreams bloom," then 2 plugs for NBC shows, then a car commercial, then a commercial for local politician (senator?) Jack Reed talking about "working Rhode Island families."
And then back to Sarah Silverman making sexual innuendos.
So whats the deal? Is NBC just screwing up and surrounding a controversial figure with family-values propoganda? Is there some other way to understand this particular flow?
The Allure of Live TV
Feuer's argument about liveness being the ideology of television struck a particular chord with me in light of the recent Olympics. Although the time difference between America and China made live coverage extremely impractical, American news corporations lobbied to have popular events (like swimming and gymnastics) take place in the morning in China, so that they would be live during primetime broadcast on the east coast of the U.S. I read about this in the paper while the Olympics were going on, and I was quite surprised to find that American news companies were actually able to pull that off.
But despite being aware of the impracticalities of live broadcast (and perhaps the undue attention to American TV in the scheduling of certain events), I found myself completely a victim to the allure of live broadcast. I remember staying up until ridiculous hours of the early morning to watch how events turned out (in live time), even though I knew I had to get up early in the morning and the events would likely be replayed or put on youtube.
Even more interestingly, my sister (who is very into swimming) made a big to-do about us recording all of the swimming events for her, because she was hiking in the widerness while the Olympics were going on. But when she got back, she barely watched any of the recorded footage. Something about it not being live made it much less interesting to her.
But despite being aware of the impracticalities of live broadcast (and perhaps the undue attention to American TV in the scheduling of certain events), I found myself completely a victim to the allure of live broadcast. I remember staying up until ridiculous hours of the early morning to watch how events turned out (in live time), even though I knew I had to get up early in the morning and the events would likely be replayed or put on youtube.
Even more interestingly, my sister (who is very into swimming) made a big to-do about us recording all of the swimming events for her, because she was hiking in the widerness while the Olympics were going on. But when she got back, she barely watched any of the recorded footage. Something about it not being live made it much less interesting to her.
In the spirit of television's fragmentation, my post tonight is incredibly fragmented. A few main points came up for me with this week's readings.
First of all, I was very interested in Feuer's use of the word "aura" in describing the videotape as eliminating aura, as well as the relationship between aura and the sense of liveness we see in television. It seems to me that the images shown on television have some semblance of aura whereas the images of a film do not; regardless of the ways in which television can manipulate these events - in terms of replaying them over and over again, using slow-motion, etc. - the fact that they ocurred once - and once only - in time has an organic and authentic quality, a uniqueness, to it, that film cannot.
Secondly, I was really in the relationship between spectator and television, and the relationship between this relationship and that between spectator and film. When Feuer discusses Good Morning America, she discusses how David Hartman acts as a link between us and the guest he is interviewing. She writes: "David sets the circuit of address: he may look into the internal monitor and he may look at us; but the guest looks only at David - so that David mediates all discourse. The format denies the possibility of direct address from the interviewee to spectator" (18-19). In this sense, it seems that television does not offer its spectators the same ability to conquer the individuals onscreen as does film. In film, the spectator can possess the female celebrity, both directly and indirectly. In television, by contrast, there is only indrect contact with the indvidual being interviewed, and indirectness underscored by the technical shots used in these interviews. I guess the issue that came up for me in observing this relationship is how television seems to overpower its spectator, yet previous texts we have read equate television with femininity and film with masculinity.
Lastly, in the readings and in the lecture, the idea of aperture kept on coming up in relation to television, contrasting the closure of film. However, I remember aperture as being an element of counter cinema, and I am curious about the relationship between the aperture of counter cinema and the aperture of television.
First of all, I was very interested in Feuer's use of the word "aura" in describing the videotape as eliminating aura, as well as the relationship between aura and the sense of liveness we see in television. It seems to me that the images shown on television have some semblance of aura whereas the images of a film do not; regardless of the ways in which television can manipulate these events - in terms of replaying them over and over again, using slow-motion, etc. - the fact that they ocurred once - and once only - in time has an organic and authentic quality, a uniqueness, to it, that film cannot.
Secondly, I was really in the relationship between spectator and television, and the relationship between this relationship and that between spectator and film. When Feuer discusses Good Morning America, she discusses how David Hartman acts as a link between us and the guest he is interviewing. She writes: "David sets the circuit of address: he may look into the internal monitor and he may look at us; but the guest looks only at David - so that David mediates all discourse. The format denies the possibility of direct address from the interviewee to spectator" (18-19). In this sense, it seems that television does not offer its spectators the same ability to conquer the individuals onscreen as does film. In film, the spectator can possess the female celebrity, both directly and indirectly. In television, by contrast, there is only indrect contact with the indvidual being interviewed, and indirectness underscored by the technical shots used in these interviews. I guess the issue that came up for me in observing this relationship is how television seems to overpower its spectator, yet previous texts we have read equate television with femininity and film with masculinity.
Lastly, in the readings and in the lecture, the idea of aperture kept on coming up in relation to television, contrasting the closure of film. However, I remember aperture as being an element of counter cinema, and I am curious about the relationship between the aperture of counter cinema and the aperture of television.
...Broadcast news makes me want to kill myself... (alternate: makes my brain melt)
For some reason I thought we were supposed to do the flow analysis thing of the half hour of TV we watched, and even though no one else did that (so I'm guessing I misheard), since I already did it, I'll just post that. It's pretty interesting--it's like the normal fragmentation of tv on crack (as there's a new story like every 10 seconds minimum pretty much), but there's distinct themes that run across sections of a few of the segments to keep it semi-continuous even though it's shifting stories so rapidly (i.e., the illusion of continuity to disparate subjects).
Anyways, here's a half hour NBC news (with commercials!--from 5:53-6:23 today):
-man driving in car, reporter says you can save gas by driving manual cars. It goes back to the woman in the studio to end the story.
-commercial--two men fishing, talking about bank--New port fed. One of them is getting tangled up in his fishing line as he talks about his current bank which is bad or something.
-political ad for Jack Reed--images of him talking and shaking hands with happy, smiling people. He's for cutting taxes, creating jobs, alternate energy, lower healthcare costs.
-commercial--man bowling--Alzheimer's ad--his wife is confused at the bowling alley--prescription Arecept--image of old people happily going on boat, then at the beach.
-Back to the show--Image of fire burning in Florida.
-image of gunshop--man in studio says gun sales are up in the bad economy--people feeling unsafe
-lead singer of Bare Naked Ladies arrested for coke possession. Image of him in courtroom.
-high heels race--image of drag queens
-man in studio--then reporter giving preview of what's to come
-Access Hollywood commercial--tonight at 7:30--something about a "spooked stage" and "psychic medium"
-Political add against Question 1--woman at hospital
-ad for potato bacon soup--images of soup and other things up close. White background.
-Toyota ad--zero financing--cars driving up and then away. White background.
-NBC news intro. animation/graphic
-quick previews of stories to come (go by to fast for me to write even a bit about)
-ethics case dropped against Bill Irons--image of hime--back to studio--to reporter in Providence. Reporters talking to Irons. Shot of ethics commitee
-Back to studio--man talking--something about Urciuoli (someone's last name)
-mother charged in child abuse case--his father had already been charged
-Fed. cuts interest rate--image of capitol building--images of Wall street--market closes down despite rate cut--graphic of stock market
-back to studio
-reporter--talking about people trying to unionize
-interview--female busdriver talking about efforts to unionize (she's fighting for it)
-reporter outside hospital--nurses vote to join union
-woman talking about healthworker unionization
-rescue workers rallying outside hospital, trying to unionize
-woman in studio
-reporter in Providence--in front of workers picketing against change in healthcare plans (from Blue Cross to United Healthcare)--crowd booing mayor as he walks by
-interview with mayor--says he's confused with reaction, that the plan is good, that it will save taxpayers 8 million dollars.
-reporter says many taxpayers agree with mayor
-interview--woman saying she doesn't get how people can say that, people won't have healthcare.
-man in studio--Rhode Island students protesting new fee increases
-graphic--statement from RI College
-gambling sales down--images of various gambling games--graphic of lottery sales (they're down)
-traffic update--reporter in different location, in front of screen--graphic of roads, dotted lines represent traffic, the color of the lines the amount of traffic.
-weather update (in different location, in front of screen)--wind speeds fairly high--says cold will stop soon though.
-previews of news to come: cats found abandoned in tupperware containers, troops headed for Iraq, some others I didn't catch
-RI bank ad
-Jack Reed ad--same as earlier one
-Nissan ad--advertising fall sale--car showroom
-NBC news --advertising it's radio show
-tomorrow on NBC news--state worker story--something about stealing taxpayer money--that's all i caught
-woman in studio--soldiers going to Iraq--images of soldiers, American flag waving in the wind
-family members of soldiers/soldiers talking about leaving--how hard it is
-police officer had his badge, gun, other police items stolen from his truck at his home by teenagers--he was suspended without pay for a week
-image of construction workers taking down bridge--reporter assures us it's only supposed to last a few days
-next at 6--cats abandoned in tupperware (again)
-Cerrones GM-car ad
-carpet and flooring ad-man installing-->happy couple in newly furnished house. Ends with cartoon and song.
-Ad-man says Democrats in control of congress are taking to much taxpayer money--urges people to vote Republican
-bath splash showroom ad--images of bathroom stuff
-Cerrones GM ad again--this time he's in front of 4 cars.
-studio-cats
-reporter-they were in bad shape--image of cat scratching itself--person who left them unknown--interview with woman saying where she found the containers they were in--outside animal shelter--workers there describing how bad their condition was--images of cats in cages scratching--says in a month or so people who want to adopt them can
-reporter gives a number to call to adopt them
-elementary school closing--kids will be transferred to other schools--images of school--teachers to lose jobs, apparently like a similar event recently.
-mayor and recycling coordinator taught recycling to kids at a public elementary school
-author of Scooby Doo and You (I have no idea) talking to kids
-image of dog dressed like skunk--woman in studio (or maybe a reporter) asks for people to send in their Halloween photos
-weather report--graphic of globe (mostly North America)--image of jetstream--cool air here currently will be replaced by warm air brought by the jetstream--but, tonight cold--images of clouds
...and thank god, that's the last of it.
9/11 Coverage and Flow
Raymond Williams talks about how important flow is in broadcasting. According to Williams, stations deliberately plan out their entire schedules, making sure that there is a continuous flow throughout their broadcast. Whether there is a commercial, promo, news, or a serial show on, the continuity remains. Rick Altman adds to the theory of flow, showing how the soundtrack of the broadcast lets the viewer know when to pay attention.
The coverage of 9/11 seemed to be an instance where the flow of the broadcast was interrupted. The reason for this seems to be that the events of 9/11 were so extreme that the stations did not plan for them and had no plan in place to deal with them. Normal news happens without the stations knowing what is coming, but in general they are prepared to respond to it. During the coverage of 9/11, the broadcasters were shocked and often seemed to be at a loss for words. This led to lots of time where there was no sound at all. According to Altman, this would lead to a loss of flow and the viewer would not be able to tell what was happening. Part of the problem ws that there was very little new information to report on, even though the stations clearly had to stay on the same topic. There seemed to be attempts to reinstate the flow by offering new information, but this led to times when they had to redact what was said, such as the car bomb going off in Washington. The stations also had a limited number of clips to show, and ended up playing the same clips over and over. This also contributed to the lack of flow and seemed to diminish the "liveness" of the broadcast, despite the fact that it was breaking news and basically was live.
One concept that the 9/11 coverage did reinforce was the one of intertextuality. Like any breaking news, all of the stations were focused on the same thing, even to the extent that some were showing the exact same shots. Watching any of the news stations would have provided the same information and news.
The coverage of 9/11 seemed to be an instance where the flow of the broadcast was interrupted. The reason for this seems to be that the events of 9/11 were so extreme that the stations did not plan for them and had no plan in place to deal with them. Normal news happens without the stations knowing what is coming, but in general they are prepared to respond to it. During the coverage of 9/11, the broadcasters were shocked and often seemed to be at a loss for words. This led to lots of time where there was no sound at all. According to Altman, this would lead to a loss of flow and the viewer would not be able to tell what was happening. Part of the problem ws that there was very little new information to report on, even though the stations clearly had to stay on the same topic. There seemed to be attempts to reinstate the flow by offering new information, but this led to times when they had to redact what was said, such as the car bomb going off in Washington. The stations also had a limited number of clips to show, and ended up playing the same clips over and over. This also contributed to the lack of flow and seemed to diminish the "liveness" of the broadcast, despite the fact that it was breaking news and basically was live.
One concept that the 9/11 coverage did reinforce was the one of intertextuality. Like any breaking news, all of the stations were focused on the same thing, even to the extent that some were showing the exact same shots. Watching any of the news stations would have provided the same information and news.
Television Theories_ monotonous view?
I feel as if the views that we have covered so far are mainly focused in the domain of the U.S. ... I would be interested in expanding the view onto the international level. I am watching the broadcast from France 24, BBC, etc. Will post the review soon.
I had never really taken a step back and thought about the unique media that is television. A film lasts about two to three hours... during this time, one may be completely immersed in the characters, plot, etc... but afterward, the film is over (with the rare exception of a sequel or something of that sort). Many actors get several leading roles, so we as an audience think that we know them on a familiar level.
Television is like film.. amplified. Multiplied by ten billion... but put in the background. We are constantly bombarded with images-- familiar faces of stars who we think we know personally, commercials telling us what we need to buy, plot lines that are all too familiar... just with a different twist.
We become so accustomed to our television that some don't even bother to turn it off. It's just background noise... We also become accustomed to the characters who we see on our shows. I have told people numerous times that when I grow up I want to be Olivia Benson (from Law and Order SVU). In reality, she doesn't exist (although this is idea is hard to grasp-- I love Olivia...).
How did this happen? Why are we so connected to this little box?? Without it, would we be missing a sense of imagined community within our city, state, country...???
Television is like film.. amplified. Multiplied by ten billion... but put in the background. We are constantly bombarded with images-- familiar faces of stars who we think we know personally, commercials telling us what we need to buy, plot lines that are all too familiar... just with a different twist.
We become so accustomed to our television that some don't even bother to turn it off. It's just background noise... We also become accustomed to the characters who we see on our shows. I have told people numerous times that when I grow up I want to be Olivia Benson (from Law and Order SVU). In reality, she doesn't exist (although this is idea is hard to grasp-- I love Olivia...).
How did this happen? Why are we so connected to this little box?? Without it, would we be missing a sense of imagined community within our city, state, country...???
Movies on TV
To me, one of the most striking things about television commercials is the way they manage to reduce feature length movies into small enough fragments to fit in with the text of TV. The full film is reduced into a minute-long skit, filled with shots from the movie. There are quick characterizations, usually through repeated situations. Consider an advertisement for Role Models, an upcoming feature. First, we are told of Danny and Wheeler's mandatory community service, and forced time spent with youths, then their formal punishment: karma in the form of excessively precocious children. The only bit left out, is Danny and Wheeler's ultimate realization of the good in the kids, which we are all programed to expect. Essentially three full acts are played out in a minute long bit: perfect for television consumption.
"Rip...he's no ordinary cat..."
So, as I'm writing this right now I'm watching Goosebumps on Cartoon Network, a show which during my childhood days honestly used to give me nightmares. Why? Because Law and Order is boring and I've already seen the episode of the Daily Show.
The context of the episode(which is ironic) is a girl TV actress, Allison, starring in a very poor satire of the Exorcist revolving around some kind of zombie cat. The girl is, of course, a drama queen who knows bounds, and leaves the set to study her lines. She runs over an eerily similarly mutilated cat, named Rip, that belongs to a family who doesn't own a television because "they lie," and so they live in a very pre-television era setting and have no idea who Allison is. The cat then proceeds to haunt the girl actress and everyone thinks she's going crazy and she sorta is....then the episode ends, what the hell?
The episode after is conveniently the next part, I have to watch it...I am sucked into the flow of children's programming...
While watching, the commercial and societal structures implemented into the flow are so amazingly obvious due to its targeted audience, which makes perfect sense. Catching and retaining the focus of a child is so much more difficult than that of an adult and there is much done to compensate for this.
Within the show the sound advance, a concept which I could not quite grasp at first, was blatant. While I write this I can hear the crescendo and tremolo of synthetic strings which foreshadows a mutilated demon cat under the blanket Allison is reaching for. When the show pauses and resumes there are always goofy shorts to transition back into the show, utilizing familiar cartoon ghosts and xylophone sound bites that serve well to alert me the show is doing something and I should look.
The commercials are colorful and commanding, fluffy creatures saying "ask your parents to buy me today," some involving relevant social contexts, Holloween, Election season, parodies of popular songs, many images of tv within a tv, and action figures, all of which tell me that I am in control of the image, that I can even own the image (and physically touch them in the case of an Iron Man figure which tells me "his power can be mine"). This is almost a direct correlation with Altman's quote:
"we turn towards the screen to complete our sense of the star's presence"(575) or the image, hero athlete, and in this case is Iron Man.
In response to the 9/11 footage which I found to be shockingly brutal even still, I found it annoying that despite the severity and brute trauma of the event, the competition between channels was still quite evident. Each station seemed frantic to interview the most important people they could find, quantity of interviews over quality, the captions were all the same but the banner graphics and transitions were still colorful and distracting. At one point the Rhode Island news station ran a banner which at the end asked viewers to "stay tuned for complete coverage!", overtly competitive. The voices of the internal audience, the anchors, still sounded monotonous and directed which really pointed a cold, mechanical feel in the people whom are supposed to be warm and human like. However, I did notice that the coverage was completely soundless/musicless at times which really added reality impact to the footage which says something about how the absence of sound is just as powerful as sound weapons themselves.
Question: Has the modern television era with its overabundance of sound turned silence into a powerful symbol of reality and sound into an emblem of professional superficiality?
I guess its more of an opinion than a question.
So now my blog is tremendous but the end of the story is ridiculous. Get this...Allison begins turning into a cat because Rip is apparently stealing her life force and they go back to Rip's owners to find a solution to the problem. Turns out that Rip is actually the product of a failed genetic experiment and this mother who has become half of a cat person, its nasty. Allison is expected to suffer the same fate in which the magnificent line is shared "its not so bad...you get used to it." blah blah blah, Rip is killed, the effects are reversed and the event is turned into a TV show. The show ends with Allison being a good person and her best friend randomly eats a mouse revealing an incredibly annoying second cliff hanger ending.
Double aperture...I change the channel only to find futurama...the flow never stops
Television Is My Friend
The first time I ever saw a guest actor in a famous TV show was a special episode of Friends when Brad Pitt made an appearance. I figured that since Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were married, they assumed it was a cool idea to have him on the show. At the time (mostly because of my age), it seemed like plain old fun, no publicity or hidden intentions.However, it is evident that this is not true. As White allows us to see, these appearances have a different agenda.
White gives a lot of examples of TV shows weaving their plot lines together. When I read these examples I was reminded of a MadTV skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JImyMGNQSs ) which joins the shows Grey's Anatomy, House, and ER. The main characters of this show interact hoping to save a patient. Although a skit meant to mock these shows, I think they had a good idea. Had it been a little (or a lot) less stupid and with the real actors, the skit would have shown the bizarre cases and remedies that House shows, the dramatic and comedic aspects of Grey's Anatomy, and the drama and action that keeps you on your toes of ER.
This strategy gone bad can be seen in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Not being a fan of these shows my information might be in correct, but the main characters seemed to be dating each other. Buffy was not an actual character on Angel and neither was he in Buffy. Now I'm not aware of when exactly these shows started mixing (was it because both shows were at their best, etc.) but I do know that it became so complicated that they had to break up the character's relationship. This basically shows that although it is a good idea to join shows and have guest appearances, its best if its kept at a minimum of an episode.
I feel that shows are no longer doing this as much as White's article leads us to believe. However, guest appearances are still being made. This happened a lot in Will & Grace. You would see Jack trying to be a back up dancer for Jennifer Lopez or Janet Jackson or Will dancing to the music of Footlose with Kevin Bacon. There are also many episodes in which one of the main characters meets an actor and insists they are the character they play on TV. Not only bringing attention to the actors, but the shows they are on.
Both Harold & Kumar movies, for example, have Neil Patrick Harris play a drug and sex obsessed version of himself. Harold and Kumar would idolize Neil Patrick Harris. These characters would act like crazy fans, just like we would. I feel like this may have more impact. They are telling us that these actors are worthy of being written into the show. However, they aren't going to play the server or love affair, but themselves. They are so "awesome" they are worthy of having these fictional characters be obsessed with them.
On one last note, big name companies have been taking this idea to advertise their products. White mentions Robert Young/Marcus Welby, M.D. promote Sanka decaffienated coffee, and Neil Patrick Harris promoting Old Spice comes to mind. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TusJ8HSLaUs)
White gives a lot of examples of TV shows weaving their plot lines together. When I read these examples I was reminded of a MadTV skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JImyMGNQSs ) which joins the shows Grey's Anatomy, House, and ER. The main characters of this show interact hoping to save a patient. Although a skit meant to mock these shows, I think they had a good idea. Had it been a little (or a lot) less stupid and with the real actors, the skit would have shown the bizarre cases and remedies that House shows, the dramatic and comedic aspects of Grey's Anatomy, and the drama and action that keeps you on your toes of ER.
This strategy gone bad can be seen in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Not being a fan of these shows my information might be in correct, but the main characters seemed to be dating each other. Buffy was not an actual character on Angel and neither was he in Buffy. Now I'm not aware of when exactly these shows started mixing (was it because both shows were at their best, etc.) but I do know that it became so complicated that they had to break up the character's relationship. This basically shows that although it is a good idea to join shows and have guest appearances, its best if its kept at a minimum of an episode.
I feel that shows are no longer doing this as much as White's article leads us to believe. However, guest appearances are still being made. This happened a lot in Will & Grace. You would see Jack trying to be a back up dancer for Jennifer Lopez or Janet Jackson or Will dancing to the music of Footlose with Kevin Bacon. There are also many episodes in which one of the main characters meets an actor and insists they are the character they play on TV. Not only bringing attention to the actors, but the shows they are on.
Both Harold & Kumar movies, for example, have Neil Patrick Harris play a drug and sex obsessed version of himself. Harold and Kumar would idolize Neil Patrick Harris. These characters would act like crazy fans, just like we would. I feel like this may have more impact. They are telling us that these actors are worthy of being written into the show. However, they aren't going to play the server or love affair, but themselves. They are so "awesome" they are worthy of having these fictional characters be obsessed with them.
On one last note, big name companies have been taking this idea to advertise their products. White mentions Robert Young/Marcus Welby, M.D. promote Sanka decaffienated coffee, and Neil Patrick Harris promoting Old Spice comes to mind. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TusJ8HSLaUs)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Knowing Death
I'm a bit tired, so I'll keep it short and sweet. I came into this movie knowing it was about Tim Treadwell's death, and that seeing the opening where he gets dangerously close to the bears set me at unease, and made me realize that that man, whom the camera is pointed at, is dead. Although most people who probably came to see the movie knew the premise of the movie, the background information, coming in, Herzog put in a little subtitle of "Timothy Treadwell (1957-2003)" as a signifier to label him as a dead man. In a way I feel this is how Herzog tries to manufacture punctum, but that's not what I'm really going to talk about. See, there's Herzog's footage that he films and Treadwell's footage, and the two sources are sometimes not easily discernable from each other. The whole confusion that I felt between the switching of the two cameras seemed to link Tim's death with a reminder of Herzog's own mortality. The camera became a pointer of death, that in the hands of "Tim" (or rather Amy) the camera is both bringing the dead back to life and a constant threat to that life on film, that at any moment for all we know that man on film may be attacked, and we will witness his death.
Objects of "Mummy Complex" in Film
I find Bazin's comparison of aesthetics of painting and film quite intriguing (and a bit bothersome, from a painter's point of view.. ) I find it a bit problematic - his simplification of painting as a medium in pursuit of "realism" mainly... Yes, the question has become "the creation of an ideal world in the likeness of the real, with its own temporal destiny," and that painting is permanently tied with "inescapable subjectivity." (Bazin, 12) But what about the essence of the medium, the "presence" that is "the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity," as Benjamin argues? (Benjamin, 220) That authenticity that fades in the products of mechanical reproduction, the decay of aura, but of works of art?
Bazin argues that at the origin of painting and sculpture lies a "mummy complex" - the psychological need in man that is the view of survival as "depending on the continued existence of the corporeal body." Yes, originality in photography lies in the "essentially objective character" and thus is separated from the realm of painting in its different quality. However, consider the films La Jetée and Grizzly Man. A considerable number of scenes of both films captures objects that are mummified - the museum of "ageless animals" in La Jetée in which the couple is situated, becoming immersed in the world of the museum, the collection of past lives and memories - the scene that screams punctum of the mummified animals. (How do we view this merge of life (human) and the life ceased and yet captured in the frame of appearance/ resemblance to the life in existence of one point?) Also consider the scene in Grizzly Man in which a man is being interviewed in a room of mummified human adventurer and of a bear with his paw cut off - covered with a bandage.) The quality of "mummy complex" of painting is revived through the actual presentation of the mummified objects - thus a significant, defining nature of painting is examined rather unmistakably and evidently in film. Curious.
I am interested in comparing further the aesthetics and qualities of painting and film - and at which points they overlap... how Benjamin's idea of "decay of aura of mechanical reproduction" stands in relation to the appreciative speech of Bazin and Barthes of photography (and film.) One idea that I am strongly opposed to is to devalue a medium of art to another in order to set a hierarchy within the arts... "Painting is, after all, an inferior way of making likenesses, an ersatz of the processes of reproduction. Only a photographic lens... satisfy the deep need man has to substitute for it something more than a mere approximation, a kind of decal or transfer." (Bazin, 14) I would like to consider the vast evolution of painting, not solely its period of rampant realism... What about other aspects of human judgment/ view/ interests? Is it only the psychological or aesthetic needs that one longs for, that are needed to define real - true - ? What about the sentimental, emotional, sensational, sensual values, the ones that are not necessarily evoked by realism but perhaps by purely abstract/ expressionist representation?
...relating this thought to the projected theme of the moment: real - true - time..?
Moms, Bears, and Planes...oh my...
I found it interesting how in the beginning of Lucinda, Barthes describes his torturous shifts between genuine and pose and how lifelike we try to be we are still posing, muted and we become dead in this respect "to make oneself up was to designate oneself body as simultaneously living and dead"(31). The camera seems to always elicit ingenuity accept in the case of the surprise shot. This directly coincided with Mr. Treadwell's constant shift between persona and the genuine and in a very morbid analogy his obsession with not assuming but becoming the pose (and becoming a bear) lead to his very literal death.
Barthes states that punctum in the photograph is not coded, this seems to provide evidence of reality. Incapacity to name is a good symptom of disturbance. This is what I feel gave La Jete its very powerful visual performance. As a film composed of photographs it re-demonstrated to me the power of the photo, a medium I rarely have the patience for. The effort and care put into the composition and organization and pacing of the photos evoked a number of inexplicable feelings and emotions that in film i very rarely have time to process, to add. Using punctum as a measure of reality, does Jete exemplify a film which achieves authenticity?
I feel that punctum is rare in cinema but can be detected. For instance in Grizzly Man, one thing that really smacked in the face/disturbed me/sought out and destroyed me were the behavior of the foxes. This absolutely did not coincide with my understanding of nature, as the bears so predictably did, and made the movie authentic to me amongst an awkward director, cruel ironic edits used to foreshadow, and sentimental reenactments which are used to establish a history. If the fox behavior was in fact a punctum, this punctum would be exclusive to film in that a single photograph cannot properly reveal the in depth wild dog/treadwell relationship as movement and sound do.
Where I disagree with Barthes is his Winter Garden Photograph amongst digressions of his mother. This photo to him was just an image, but a just image that truthfully captured the essence of his mother, it was the photographic epitome of truth to Barthes. But in this scenario the truth is entirely specific to him and him alone, which he alludes to kind of, but I believe that it is impossible for a photograph's meaning and interpretation to be real because this truth it depends on varies to much, there is no constant.
Touching on the questions from the lecture, I believe that a raw photograph cannot lie about the objects in the frame under the laws of science. But the meaning and interpretation has no real base as soon as language, an unreal entity, is applied to it, if that makes any sense. Along the lines of the dead, death is an undeniable reality, it is a truth which is linked strongly with history, the photo seems to incorporate both of these...
Grizzly Man
Barthes idea of the punctum and the ideas of truth and reality are complicated in many ways in Grizzly Man. I agree with Ben that the version of himself that Tim Treadwell presents is not exactly truth. He does multiple takes a umber of times, comments on the different takes, and even suggests that his footage be used in a television series. He is clearly playing to the camera, as opposed to the camera being an unseen viewer to Tim's actions. He also presents himself as being alone the whole time, even though Werner Herzog reveals that for a few of his trips Amy was with him. The audience is distinctly aware of the camera because Treadwell speaks directly to it and at one point mentions that both cameras are rolling. We cannot be sure if the person we are watching on the footage is the real Tim Treadwell or the persona he has created for himself. The documentary tells us that Treadwell used to create alternate personas for himself before his trips into the wildnerness, and that his original name was not Treadwell. Besides his obvious love for bears, we can't be positive that what Treadwell tells us about himself is true.
In Camera Lucida, Barthes speaks of the punctum of being different for every person, and being unintentional on the part of the photographer. In Grizzly Man, Herzog narrates how some of Treadwell's shots show unintentional shots of extreme beauty. While these shots may not have been intended as beautiful by Treadwell, does this make them punctum only for Herzog or for the audience as well. It seems that by pointing out the punctum, Herzog destroys it for us by accepting what he sees as punctum and not being able to find it for ourselves. When Herzog tells us of the beauty in the shots, our attention is drawn to them, and we are specifically looking for a punctum. Barthes suggests that the punctum cannot be find by looking for it but that it seeks out the viewer. Is it possible for the punctum to seek out the viewer if the viewer is already looking for it?
In Camera Lucida, Barthes speaks of the punctum of being different for every person, and being unintentional on the part of the photographer. In Grizzly Man, Herzog narrates how some of Treadwell's shots show unintentional shots of extreme beauty. While these shots may not have been intended as beautiful by Treadwell, does this make them punctum only for Herzog or for the audience as well. It seems that by pointing out the punctum, Herzog destroys it for us by accepting what he sees as punctum and not being able to find it for ourselves. When Herzog tells us of the beauty in the shots, our attention is drawn to them, and we are specifically looking for a punctum. Barthes suggests that the punctum cannot be find by looking for it but that it seeks out the viewer. Is it possible for the punctum to seek out the viewer if the viewer is already looking for it?
Punctum in terms of mythologies
I am curious about how studium and punctum are related to mythologies, and whether or not they can each be used to manipulate an audience to think a certain way. It seems to me that any photograph will inevitably produce some sort of mythology, because its image has been taken out of context. I am confused as to the way in which a photographer can avoid the framing of a photograph.
Also, the punctum is meant to evoke a feeling of sensitivity or humanity in the observer. It goes beyond the symbolic, and resonates within an audience. Isn't this punctum necessary to successfuly sway an observer to believe a mythology? I understand that 'staged punctums' are not real punctums, simply because they are not natural. But can a someone use a punctum, taken out of context, to manipulate an audience?
Also, the punctum is meant to evoke a feeling of sensitivity or humanity in the observer. It goes beyond the symbolic, and resonates within an audience. Isn't this punctum necessary to successfuly sway an observer to believe a mythology? I understand that 'staged punctums' are not real punctums, simply because they are not natural. But can a someone use a punctum, taken out of context, to manipulate an audience?
I had one small problem with Barthes's concept of the “punctum” vs. the “studium.” Barthes description of it states that while one is able to engage with the photograph and the myth of the photograph—the statement that the photographer is trying to make with it. The punctum, on the other hand, is described as something that is unintentionally eye-catching.
In the example we looked at in lecture, the studium had to do with the social context of the image of the two Italian girls, and the punctum was the crooked front teeth of one of the girls. My problem is that Barthes seems to imply that the punctum is something that the author never chose to present in his photograph, something that is not part of the message he is trying to convey within his myth.
But, having some experience with photography, I find that things like that punctum are exactly what catches the photographer’s eye. Little visual quirks of composition are what make photographs unique and interesting, and it’s safe to assume that the photographer is aware of them, is probably even intending that your eye be drawn to them.
I know that Barthes says that the punctum is the result of the viewer’s engagement with the photograph, and that perhaps different people see different punctums. But if obvious visual quirks are incorporated into the composition of the image, it is likely that the photographer intended to capture them and intended for them to be noticed. How then can they really be separated from the studium, and the myth of the photograph, if you’re finding yourself visually attracted to something that the photographer intended you to be visually attracted to?
In the example we looked at in lecture, the studium had to do with the social context of the image of the two Italian girls, and the punctum was the crooked front teeth of one of the girls. My problem is that Barthes seems to imply that the punctum is something that the author never chose to present in his photograph, something that is not part of the message he is trying to convey within his myth.
But, having some experience with photography, I find that things like that punctum are exactly what catches the photographer’s eye. Little visual quirks of composition are what make photographs unique and interesting, and it’s safe to assume that the photographer is aware of them, is probably even intending that your eye be drawn to them.
I know that Barthes says that the punctum is the result of the viewer’s engagement with the photograph, and that perhaps different people see different punctums. But if obvious visual quirks are incorporated into the composition of the image, it is likely that the photographer intended to capture them and intended for them to be noticed. How then can they really be separated from the studium, and the myth of the photograph, if you’re finding yourself visually attracted to something that the photographer intended you to be visually attracted to?
Oh man! I forgot to talk about Grizzly Man.
I forgot to talk about Grizzly Man. So I'll do that now.
When we see Timothy Treadwell cultivate this persona of a lone - but kind, lest we forget, warrior in front of his camera, I felt forced to question Bazin's ideas to an even greater extent. It seems that the camera becomes Treadwell's metaphorical paintbrush or chisel with which to create an artifical eternity that Bazin perceives to be the purpose of "plastic art."
I have an issue with what is illustrated as the mutually exclusive roles of "plastic art" and photography/cinema. To me, "plastic art" can seek to depict reality, and in turn, photography and cinema can seek to document and give life to a constructed reality. Bazin almost writes of photography with a language of machinery and technical aspects; he writes of the camera but not the human mind behind it.
While reading the Bazin, I thought of an episode of America's Next Top Model. Though my memory is escaping me, I remember that the models were made to resemble vampires, professional make-up artists devoting hours and hours to teasing hair and applying thick black eye shadow to transform these real people into characters. That which was depicted in these photographs were real people, yes, but real people portraying characters like those in a painting. Bazin does not account for photography's potential to be an art in and of itself.
When we see Timothy Treadwell cultivate this persona of a lone - but kind, lest we forget, warrior in front of his camera, I felt forced to question Bazin's ideas to an even greater extent. It seems that the camera becomes Treadwell's metaphorical paintbrush or chisel with which to create an artifical eternity that Bazin perceives to be the purpose of "plastic art."
I have an issue with what is illustrated as the mutually exclusive roles of "plastic art" and photography/cinema. To me, "plastic art" can seek to depict reality, and in turn, photography and cinema can seek to document and give life to a constructed reality. Bazin almost writes of photography with a language of machinery and technical aspects; he writes of the camera but not the human mind behind it.
While reading the Bazin, I thought of an episode of America's Next Top Model. Though my memory is escaping me, I remember that the models were made to resemble vampires, professional make-up artists devoting hours and hours to teasing hair and applying thick black eye shadow to transform these real people into characters. That which was depicted in these photographs were real people, yes, but real people portraying characters like those in a painting. Bazin does not account for photography's potential to be an art in and of itself.
Bazin and the Immortality of Photography
First of all, I was really interested in the link between the language of Bazin and that of Benjamin. Bazin writes that "in achieving the aims of baroque art, [the invention of] photography has freed the plastic arts from their obsession with likeness." For Bazin, prior to the onset of mass reproduction in the form of photography, art had a duty of replication, of manifesting reality. Benjamin also speaks of mass reproduction as freeing art of its previous obligations. Benjamin discussed how mass reproduction, in reducing the aura and cult value, emancipated art from its ties to ritual and tradition. It is interesting to me how both of these descriptions depict mass reproduction as freeing art of obligations it acquired in the absence of other media, and how through the development of these media, the so-called "plastic arts" were able to return to their essential purposes. For Bazin, photography enables plastic arts to regain their aesthetic autonomy...however, why can't painting and sculptury have the autonomy to create reality? The first counterexample that comes to mind, though this is by no means a perfect counterexample, is Michelangelo's "David." The two occasions on which I have been lucky enough to see the statue, I am in awe of how realistic the muscles and contours look; it seems to me there is merit to human hands replicating the work of a machine, the camera being a machine. Granted, Michelangelo carved David long before the age of mass reproduction, but the fact that we are still in awe despite the prevalence of photographs says something, to me.
I had a few issues with the role of time in Bazin's observations. He writes that "photography does not create eternity, as art does, it embalms time, rescuing it simply from its propery corruption." Though I am not entirely sure of what he is saying, I understood the distinction as photography embalming a real moment in time whereas art creates an artificial immortality, "create" being a key word in this distinction. But for me there is a problem with this formulation. Yes, the moment itself that a camera renders permanent is "embalemed," but this moment merely becomes the subject, or in Barthes-speak, the studium?, of a photography which is itself immortal. Do photographs, as artifacts, not have the same immortality of paintings and sculptures?
I had a few issues with the role of time in Bazin's observations. He writes that "photography does not create eternity, as art does, it embalms time, rescuing it simply from its propery corruption." Though I am not entirely sure of what he is saying, I understood the distinction as photography embalming a real moment in time whereas art creates an artificial immortality, "create" being a key word in this distinction. But for me there is a problem with this formulation. Yes, the moment itself that a camera renders permanent is "embalemed," but this moment merely becomes the subject, or in Barthes-speak, the studium?, of a photography which is itself immortal. Do photographs, as artifacts, not have the same immortality of paintings and sculptures?
Death as Punctum
"I now now that there exists another punctum (another "stigmatum") than the "detail." This new punctum, which is no longer of the form but of intensity, is Time, the lacerating emphasis of the noeme ("that-has-been"), its pure representation." (96)
Barthes deduction of time as a second punctum somewhat confuses me. First, it implies greater universality than his earlier definition of punctum, which is completely subjective. Can anyone help but perceive time in a photograph? Can one just accept the pose in the aorist tense without trying to contextualize it?
To me, this comes as part of Barthes madness for photographs. Spending too much time with them, he can't help but fill in the missing spaces left, write in the stories, the cinemas of each picture.
Barthes deduction of time as a second punctum somewhat confuses me. First, it implies greater universality than his earlier definition of punctum, which is completely subjective. Can anyone help but perceive time in a photograph? Can one just accept the pose in the aorist tense without trying to contextualize it?
To me, this comes as part of Barthes madness for photographs. Spending too much time with them, he can't help but fill in the missing spaces left, write in the stories, the cinemas of each picture.
Staged reality in Grizzly Man
Grizzly Man presents a very complicated view of reality. Unlike many of the films we've watched, Mulvey's first two looks are not subordinated to the third--in this film, we are incredibly aware of the camera. In fact, the camera is almost a character in the film--Tim talks to it, many times as if he were talking to a therapist almost, describing his innermost worries and fears, and at other times we see him wielding a separate camera than the one that is filming him. This in addition to the fact that his work is documentary, and not fiction, would suggest that the film presents a more authentic reality than most films do.
However, this idea is very strongly undermined in many ways by the movie. For example, in many of the shots, we not only see the part Tim intended to film, but also the parts that would almost definitely be cut were he to have edited them--e.g., him setting up the camera, him offering commentary on his own remarks, him saying things after he's done shooting a scene, etc. These scenes reveal the fact that the "reality" he sought to present with the camera is not an unfiltered one, but rather a highly thought out one that he himself created. Even though he is shooting scenes of nature, and of reality, at the end of the day he will still choose specific scenes and cut others. Thus, the view he gives is not that of reality, but reality filtered through him, and through what he believes to be significant and important.
In addition to his portrayal of reality, Tim's portrayal of himself in his videos is also extremely important. He very much created a persona for himself, many aspects of which were completely false--e.g., his accent, his loner status (as Amy was there, a fact he hid in almost all of his footage).
In addition, just as Treadwell's hand is clearly shown in his portrayal of reality, so too is Herzog's touch very clearly shown in this film. In multitude ways he appears in the movie, both with his extensive voice overs, and even appearing in the scene himself when talking to Treadwell's ex and listening to the tape of his and Amy's deaths. His voice overs are also rather heavy handed at times, such as when he said that he did not see nature as being harmonious and gentle, but rather being full of chaos and violence and murder. In these cases, Herzog is very clearly projecting his own interpretation onto the images he is presenting.
The troubled state of reality in this fill is even further complicated by the fact that in many of his documentaries, Werner Herzog actually introduces fictional aspects. For example, in his ducomentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly (which I have not actually seen, but I did see Rescue Dawn, Herzog's fictional account of the same story), at one point Dieter tells the story of a dream involving flight that he had had. However, he never had that dream, and it was Herzog who wrote that part and told him to read it. Herzog felt that the dream perfectly represented the "truth" of the situation, and accurately revealed a part of Dieter, so it did not matter to him that it had actually not occured. Thus, the actual reality of the situation is abandoned in favor of a fabricated hyper-reality of sorts. Now, I don't know if Herzog had any such scripted moments in Grizzly Man for sure, but there are several scenes that I highly suspect might be. For example, when Treadwell's ex received the watch of his from the coroner (or whatever he was). Why would she not have gotten the watch back before? How did Herzog happen to be present when she got it back? Obviously, these questions do have plausible answers, and it's very possible this scene was genuine--but, it's also fairly likely that it is not. Another such scene was at the end, when the camera watched the airplane pilot as he flew off. He was singing, mirroring the song that played in the background throughout the last sequence. The fact that this singing matched the song (which provided an extremely apt soundtrack for the last scene) seems a highly fortunate coincidence--in addition to the fact that he ended his singing with "and Treadwell is gone." There is something about that scene that struck me as being too perfect, too fitting of an end--and, with Herzog, even when he is shooting a documentary, if something seems too perfect, too real and true, there is a fair probability that it is (i.e., that he made it up).
Photographs
"When we define the Photograph as a motionless image, this does not mean only that the figures it represents do not move; it means that they do not emerge, do not leave: they are anesthetized and fastened down, like butterflies. Yet once there is a punctum, a blind field is created (is divined)..." p. 57
La Jetee was an extremely interesting film. Since you cannot see the story unfold before your eyes, you are are left with your own interpretation. When we read Mythologies, I didnt quite understand how it was possible for the creator of the image to have control of the emotions the photograph invoked. It seemed like a game in which the meaning had to find the myth, and the reader is the only one who defines this myth. To me in a film, it appears that the creator has several opportunities to create this myth. Not only do you get to see emotions and stories unfold, but the dialog places the desired idea into your head.
Now I feel like photographs only have one chance. In La Jetee, each frame had to deliver a message. The angles and lighting were choosen in hopes that the myth would be invoked. However, the reader finds a punctum. Something in the image that seeks the reader. That catches his attention and helps him interpret what is happening. It is not what the photographer is trying to invoke, and it varies from person to person. Sometimes it can invoke the emotions the photographer wished for or the complete opposite.
I don't know exactly how to explain this. However, The Grizzly Man seems to do what a photograph cannot. Film cannot posses this punctum. There are many scenes in which Tim seems to be acting out a scene in a play, finishes, and corrects himself. This shows that although the scene is supposed to be unedited, the scene is actually planned out. You probably could have believed Tim's argument if the scene had finished a few seconds earlier. Now a photograph cannot do this. It has one chance and hopefully it will work.
La Jetee was an extremely interesting film. Since you cannot see the story unfold before your eyes, you are are left with your own interpretation. When we read Mythologies, I didnt quite understand how it was possible for the creator of the image to have control of the emotions the photograph invoked. It seemed like a game in which the meaning had to find the myth, and the reader is the only one who defines this myth. To me in a film, it appears that the creator has several opportunities to create this myth. Not only do you get to see emotions and stories unfold, but the dialog places the desired idea into your head.
Now I feel like photographs only have one chance. In La Jetee, each frame had to deliver a message. The angles and lighting were choosen in hopes that the myth would be invoked. However, the reader finds a punctum. Something in the image that seeks the reader. That catches his attention and helps him interpret what is happening. It is not what the photographer is trying to invoke, and it varies from person to person. Sometimes it can invoke the emotions the photographer wished for or the complete opposite.
I don't know exactly how to explain this. However, The Grizzly Man seems to do what a photograph cannot. Film cannot posses this punctum. There are many scenes in which Tim seems to be acting out a scene in a play, finishes, and corrects himself. This shows that although the scene is supposed to be unedited, the scene is actually planned out. You probably could have believed Tim's argument if the scene had finished a few seconds earlier. Now a photograph cannot do this. It has one chance and hopefully it will work.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Blowup
I love that Barthes references Antonioni's 1966 Blowup on page 85 when he is exploring the boundaries of photographs as a kind of proof or evidence of reality, and what the implications of those boundaries are. He talks about a situation that arises when he receives a photograph of himself that he does not remember being taken. "And yet, because it was a photograph I could not deny that I had been there (even if I did not know where). This distortion between certainty and oblivion gave me a kind of vertigo, something of a "detective" anguish (the theme of Blow-Up was not far off); I went to the photographer's show as to a police investigation, to lear at last what I no longer knew about myself."
If you haven't seen Blowup, the idea put way too simply is that a photographer thinks he has unwittingly witnessed and taken photographs of a murder in the park, but he is not sure if it really happened or not. Because he sees a vague image of a body as he is developing his film, he becomes obsessed with determining whether it is really there and blows up the image larger and larger but it becomes decreasingly clear each time. The film never really resolves whether the murder actually happened, but it does raise the question: is photography surreal, or more true than our own knowledge/memory? I think that is part of what Bazin is talking about too.
To connect Blowup with Barthes more overtly, it seems that the studium of the photograph is the couple frolicking in the park (what the photographer was intentionally shooting), while the punctum is the murder. It is a small detail captured accidentally that pricks you. I think it is interesting too that the specific punctum itself is a violent scene in Blowup, considering that Barthes uses violent language like "prick" and "wound" to describe the concept in Camera Lucida.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)