Blog #9

For this final blog entry of the quarter, I’ll be summarizing and writing about David Rendell’s manifesto entitled Freak Factor, which can be accessed at: http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/45.02.FreakFactor

This manifesto, in short, states that the key to success is not to overcome our weaknesses, but to embrace the corresponding strengths that come with our weaknesses (finding our “freak”).

One section in particular that I would like to summarize is section 3: Flawless: There’s Nothing Wrong With You. Although when reading this section I immediately found it true that people do indeed have corresponding strengths and weaknesses, I’m not so sure if it’s so simple or black and white as Rendell makes it out to be. This caused me to question the validity of his statements, but with a little thought I’ve come to the conclusion that they are indeed valid: just maybe too simplified to be relatable and understood.

Let me explain. Looking at his table of “typical” strengths and weaknesses, I found myself contradicting many of them. Here was my dilemma: I know I am a creative person, but I’m also one of the most organized people you’ll ever meet. I’m constantly needing to express my creativity (it’s how I get by), yet I also have to be organized in order to control my emotions (and well, I like organization). I am also an extremely calm person on the exterior, yet I am far from emotionless—if anything, I’m too emotionally intense. I could go on, naming the many ways I contradict this table. And initially, this made me doubt Rendell’s entire point. However, I do understand the point he’s trying to make. A flaw that I must cope with everyday is my tendency to be too emotional, and for years I also struggled with my inability to discuss these emotions with others, only expressing it through art. Considering this, I’ve realized the truth in Rendell’s point. My emotional instability is what drives my creativity and my organization.

This brings me back to section 2: What’s My Problem? Here there is a list of Rendell’s apparent “flaws,” but he goes onto say how he has learned to use them as strengths—for example, he can’t stay quiet, so now he is paid to lecture students. He wants us to realize that there is nothing “wrong” with us, we find success when we find the right situation to reward our characteristics, and that our weaknesses make us all “freaks” (and this is a good thing). I also find this point highly valid. It’s simple: success comes to those who are able to utilize their talents. Finding these talents can be hard sometimes, but our quirky flaws are often clues to them. And once you find these talents, you realize it’s good to be a flawed freak after all, because that’s what makes us unique and potentially valuable.
As I mentioned above, my biggest weakness is my tendency to feel a little too well. My life is often an emotional rollercoaster ride not only because life can be crazy, but because I am always highly affected by life emotionally. I think too much; this leads to feeling too much. I'm also initially uncomfortable in talking about my deepest emotions, but when I force myself to talk about them I am almost always happy with the effects. I dislike the fact that I’m sometimes depressive, but I’ve also realized that this tendency is what causes me to express positive qualities. I have learned to be vocal about my feelings because if I keep them bottled up inside, it saddens me. I am naturally organized because if I’m not, I get overwhelmed—my mind is already cluttered enough. I am creative because my emotions produce creativity; when something is unbearably depressing, the only thing that makes me feel better is expressing it through art.

Another section of Rendell’s manifesto that speaks to me in particular is section 5: Foundation: Build on Your Strengths. Here he states that our strengths are what we are passionate about, what we enjoy doing , and what we do well. He has formed three primary reasons why we, as people who want to succeed, should build on existing strengths: it’s enjoyable, we have the most potential in areas where we are naturally talented, and well-developed strengths make their corresponding weaknesses irrelevant. I find this section of the manifesto valid as well, because it is certainly true that the strengths that are naturally prominent in our personalities are what are easiest and most fun to turn into something useful when working towards success. This is the reason why I am a student in the Scripps media school: it’s the best of both worlds because I can have plenty of fun learning about creativity, but I also am working towards a goal that can make me a “successful” person with a decent career. I have learned to implement this idea of doing what I love, because it is the only way I felt I could be happy. By a stroke of luck, it also happens to be my personal route to success—and if you are truly passionate about something, isn’t that always your route to success? This is the point Rendell (and many before him) have argued, and after thinking about it, I find it to be extremely true.

As far as the creative process is concerned, I think my greatest weakness is my tendency to sometimes waste too much time only pondering and planning, yet not doing. I am inclined to write because it allows me to be ponderous while still expressing myself. However, my classic journal-entry type writing has its limitations. Lately, I’ve forced myself to express my creativity (and the underlying emotions behind my creativity) through more productive doing—I write scripts, analyze films regularly, and am working with AVW Productions this year. Doing these things are not only beneficial to my career, but they bring me a sense of happiness and satisfaction. However, getting myself out there and forcing myself to do them is always my strongest challenge. Simply put, I just need to get things done and stop being an unproductive recluse.

It all relates back to what Rendell talks about in his manifesto: our characteristics have a “strength” side and a “weakness” side. Not to turn this assignment into an advertisement, but because of my switch this year (my sophomore year) into the media school, I am being encouraged to express my creativity. This has made all the difference, and I’m so thankful that I’ve made the decision to be here. As overly dramatic as it may sound, my creativity was stifled in the real world until now. Here, I’ve found that my weakness of thinking and not doing is being discouraged, while my strength of being extremely emotionally creative is being encouraged.

Blog #8: Brainwashed

For this blog assignment, I'll be reading and discussing Seth Godin's manifesto Brainwashed. You can access it at: http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/66.01.Brainwashed.

Summaries:

In the section titled "Acknowledge The Lizard," Godin states that the part of our brain (what he calls the lizard brain) is designed to keep us safe. He goes onto say that artists are afraid of the danger of being laughed at, which results oftentimes in the desertion of creative ideas and art. When we abandon our creative desires and our art for fear of being judged or punished, this is called “the resistance.” It is what tells us to follow the directions we have always been brainwashed to follow. Godin then argues that in order to resist the resistance, we must first acknowledge its presence and accept that it is an obstacle we must overcome.

Another section of this manifesto that particularly speaks to me is the one entitled “Make Art.” This section states that art is the human ability to make a difference, to enforce change and create something brand new. Godin says, “Art is the opposite of trigonometry.” It has no rules, no boundaries, and it is always uncharted territory. He goes onto say that one can be rewarded for creating art, but this journey towards reward is always risky—and therefore so is art.

The section called “Learn” is another that I found particularly intriguing. It says that the current school system used to exist to learn a trade so that you can go on to get a job in that trade and do the same thing for your entire life. But this system is not nearly as relevant as it used to be with the changing times, nor is it very appealing. What Godin wants us to realize is that “school” is everyday life, and it never ends. We are always learning—it doesn’t just stop once we exit the school system—and “school” is the cycle of shipping, failing, learning, and trying again. In order to reinvent ourselves, we must learn every day.

Do these layers relate to the MDIA203 blog?:

These layers are related to our blogging assignments on several levels. The blogs are designed to make us think creatively—they encourage us to analyze, think abstractly, and apply the terms we learn in class. However, I’m not sure if many people in the class realize that there is much to be learned by putting genuine effort into these assignments. They don’t get much out of the blogging assignments because they are used to what Seth Godin talks about—being brainwashed. School is oftentimes a chore, not a valuable learning experience. So many students shut off, enter “school” mode, and don’t open up their minds to what they could be learning from doing an assignment that may, on the surface, seem like another product of our brainwashed system.

I hope I’m not losing you here. Basically, as successful students who are also creative (AKA many, many people within the media school), we must adapt a mode of thinking where we shut off our creativity and churn out A+, cookie-cutter academic crap. So when an opportunity for us to actually use our creativity and create art comes along, we might not see it. We might not embrace the chance to really learn because we automatically assume that we are not going to. After all, that’s what we’re used to.

I’m sure you’re going to get plenty of blogs from people in this class who argue that the blogging assignments are useless. I understand this view, yet I disagree. I have enjoyed these blogging assignments (some much more than others, I admit) and I have most certainly learned and made art from doing them (and those aren’t the only layers of Godin’s path to reinvention these blogs have touched on). As a writer, maybe this is easier for me to do through blogging than it is for non-writer students. But I believe there was something to be gained for all creative media kids via these assignments—they touch base on all aspects of the media school and therefore all students’ possible fortes.

This is made unapparent by the fact that we are still within the school system that we’ve grown to sometimes despise, yet still feel pressured to be a part of. We assume that every assignment where we have to apply terms and do slightly tedious work is completely useless to our learning process. I get this, but I believe you must be resourceful in using your creativity. And if that means you have to be creative through “boring” blogging assignments, so be it.

Personally I like MDIA203 (and the Scripps media school in general) so much because of the way it crosses over the line of the boring brainwashed system we’re used to. It is often a contradict of the system, yet it works within it; this makes it progressive. And a little bit ironic.

Blog #7: Scene Deconstruction

For this assignment I'll be analyzing a closing scene to one of my absolute favorite movies: A Single Man.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH2QQ4Pj8oE

I think the theme of this movie (and this scene) is, in short, to live in the moment in order to appreciate the little things in life that can bring you joy. The theme is exemplified in this scene extremely strongly, largely through George’s closing monologue. Because of this, I’d argue that the theme is expressed didactically in this scene. However, there are also countless things actively enforcing the theme as well, such as extreme close-ups of Kenny (the younger man in the scene) which artistically reinforce the concept of taking in your present surroundings and truly appreciating them.

In my opinion, this scene is extremely well done. The director, Tom Ford, made sure to make use of lines in order to frame in important objects or people (both George and Kenny), therefore enhancing the thematic importance of these things and the moments associated with them. For example, he frames George’s face with a doorway that is behind him when George notices how beautiful Kenny looks when he’s sleeping. We can see the emotion on George’s face illustrate this, and the usage of lines further draw our eyes towards his face and therefore his emotion. This very strongly actively enforces the theme because it encourages the viewer to see that George is experiencing a simple kind of happiness from taking in the present and experiencing life fully.

Another element that Ford took advantage of and used quite well is movement. One example of movement that strongly enforced the theme for me was the slow-mo shot of the owl flying away (an example of movement through the frame) when George walks outside. This use of movement shows us what George was seeing and draws our attention to the beauty of the bird. Ford also used several camera movements that subconsciously enhance the viewer’s absorption of the theme: for example, there is a subtle zoom towards Kenny when George is observing him. This sort of usage of movement manipulates our attention. While the viewer may be conscious of the affects of these movements in enforcing what we visually focus on, I believe these movements also subconsciously affect the viewer by enhancing the concept of taking in the present. The viewer may or may not be conscious of this, but I find it unlikely that they would be without a decent amount of thought being put into their viewing of the movie.

I applaud the artistic choices used in A Single Man. Something I greatly appreciate about this movie as a whole is its stylistic feel: it is very fashionable, perfectly composed, and just plain stunning. Everything from the way it’s shot to the art direction is somehow flawlessly clean. This actively and inherently enhances the theme as well, because it shows how lovely something can be.

iMovie in-class project

MY BEST WORK YET jk

Blog #6: Animation Deconstruction

For this assignment I'll be analyzing two scenes from an animated show that will always be a personal favorite of mine... Spongebob Squarepants.


Scene 1 - Band Geeks


Scene 2 - Sweet Victory

In the first scene (Squidward’s phone call with Squilliam), bright, saturated color is used. Although there is a significant amount of neutrals in the scene, they remain richly hued, with a high value. The characters themselves particularly pop out, as they are either mint green or bright purple.

Lighting, in this scene, is used mostly to create visual depth; the shadow behind Squidward’s bookcase makes their world feel three dimensional. In Squilliam’s room, the part of the room that is supposed to be farther behind him is washed in darker colors, creating more “shadows” and therefore more depth. There is little symbolism created by light in this scene as far as I can tell—it is well-light and light seems to be used only for practical purposes, or perhaps to create a mood of every-day life.

In the second scene, where Squidward’s quickly assembled band performs at the Bubble Bowl, there is still a usage of bright, saturated color and interesting hues. This is characteristic of many cartoons—particularly Spongebob—so it comes as no surprise to me. However, in this scene, the value of the color is a bit darker in order to create dramatism and the sense that they are outdoors at nighttime.

Lighting is used more creatively (as well as practically) in this scene. First and foremost, the lighting creats shadows to represent the depth of the stage and the supposed three dimensional quality of their cartoon universe. However, lighting is also used symbolically, particularly when Spongebob is first revealed—he is in the shadows, then suddenly lit by a bright spotlight when he begins to sing. This creates a dramatic, empowering effect. The mood of this scene is highly influenced by the dramatic lighting: it gives the sense that what they’re doing is epic and powerful. I’ve also noticed that they illustrated the characters from a point of view below eye level, furthering their empowerment.

Blog #5: Storyboard Imitation

For this assignment I've storyboarded the scene that I posted in Blog #3. (click to see full size)

Now here are drawings of where I think the cameras were placed in the scene:

In this scene from 500 Days of Summer, the director followed the 180 degree rule closely. This rule states that after a line of action is established, the camera cannot cross over that line (on a 180 degree arc) except under certain circumstances. The line of action is established between Tom and Summer in this scene, and the camera stays in front of them for the entire scene; this makes for a very simple scene with little camera movement. We observe them from a position with only slight variations.

The director obeyed the rule of thirds a bit loosely, but he still used the general concept of placing the main focus of the scene in the left or right third of the shot; Tom (who is the main focus in the scene, whereas Summer is only meant to be partially focused on) is always at least slightly off center. In the shots where they are inside the elevator, the rule of thirds is used more intensely.

The rule of 30 was not followed as closely by the director of this scene. The rule states that you should change the size of your image by 30 percent—or two size levels—when switching views. The scene begins with medium shots of Tom and Summer (waist-up, or there about), and then moves directly to a close up shot of them inside the elevator. However, because the elevator doors close in between these two shots, I would argue that the director avoided a jump cut. Although perhaps technically he did not follow the rule of 30 exactly, he did not (in my opinion) make a mistake by doing so. The viewer was not disoriented by the transition nor was the artistic value of the image decreased.

I’m personally a big fan of the way this scene was directed—it is minimalist, yet quirky and creative nonetheless. One detail I noticed and liked was that the director placed Tom in between two lines that were running down the back wall of the elevator, boxing him in and drawing the viewer’s eye to him. However, the same is not done to Summer—instead, she obscures the line that could have otherwise framed her in.

Blog #4: Song Deconstruction

For this assignment I'll be comparing two versions of the song Suspended In Gaffa. Originally a Kate Bush song from 1982, it was covered by the indie rock band Ra Ra Riot in 2008.

Click here to hear the Kate version

Click here to hear the Ra Ra Riot version

(Click photos to view full-size)

Although both versions of Suspended In Gaffa  use the same lyrics, song structure, and general melody, they end up being pretty different songs as finished products. I think this is largely, first and foremost, because of the different instrumentation used in the songs: in Kate Bush’s original version, there is piano usage, whereas in Ra Ra Riot’s version there is no piano but a lot of violin and cello. However, both songs rely on the usage of drums and bass to drive the song and create the tempo. The varying qualities of Kate’s female voice and the lead singer of Ra Ra Riot’s male voice differentiate the songs, too.

The adding of loud, slow-paced cymbal beats in the chorus of Ra Ra Riot’s cover results in a very different feel to the chorus of the song—unlike in Kate’s version, this version’s chorus is more calm and mellow. The choruses set the songs apart from each other because their differences change the emotional architecture so much. In the original, the song drops and releases more built up tension. It is more fast-paced in the original, as well. But in Ra Ra Riot’s cover, the chorus remains relaxed, with a slower tempo, despite the release of the buildup formed in the bridge. Instead of relying on increased tempo in the drop, Ra Ra Riot’s cover relies mostly on more layers of instrumentation and depth for effect. Kate’s version of the song gets deeper in the chorus too, but she also adds a quicker tempo to intensify the emotional architecture of the song. This way when her chorus ends, there is a clearer recession into calmness.

The tempos of the songs, overall, are different. Although I classified both as moderato, I think Ra Ra Riot’s version has an obviously slower tempo, creating a different “groove.” I classified the original version of the song as “whimsical” and “flowing;” this feel was caused by the playful melody of the song contrasted with smooth harmony. I chose to describe Ra Ra Riot’s cover as “whimsical” and “mellow.” I think what made their version more mellow was the slowed tempo and deeper pitches used. The tempo and emotional architecture in the original also made me classify it as “emotionally intense,” but I did not get the same emotional intensity in the cover. For this reason, although I am a fan of both versions, I like Kate Bush’s version more.