A difficult topic

Within the film industry there is a spectrum from pure entertainment to intense challenging art; this is one of the reasons that makes film so appealing to me. When you choose to take on a serious topic your perspective and mindset plays a huge role in how genuine your final project will turn out. The films we watched in class that dealt with the topic of rape were amazingly crafted to combat this topic with out feeding into the problem at all. The reason for this is because they were created by women directors who see the topic of rape through a completely different lens then men. From my masculine perspective the only way i could think of taking on the topic of rape would be showing the devastation that comes along with this crime and trying to show an over dramatized scenario to make people disgusted by rape. However, now i know this the wrong way to come at this topic after seeing how these female directors handled it with class and a different perspective. They were able to symbolically capture the terror and pain of rape without any sexual content. Amazing stuff.                                                                                                  

Sexuality

After watching those few animations on Thursday about women’s experiences with rape and sex, no doubt worries grew about whether we should be watching something that’s such a personal topic.  Although I agree that sex and rape isn’t something we should talk about regularly, I feel like there are certain environments that it is beneficial to us when that topic comes up. 

Sexuality is something very prevalent in the world and is something that is, for the most part, kept in the dark and isnt spoken of. This is especially true in Christian communities.  And I feel like since this is something that happens often, then there has to a time and place for us to talk about it and share our views on it.  I feel like Intro to DMA is one of times and places where talking about this kind of stuff is good, and watching movies about rape can actually be insightful.  I feel that with Prof. Leeper we have a special opportunity to ask questions and develop our standing on such topics that normally we would never develop on our own because we don’t want to think about it.  In this way, watching those movies on Thursday about women being raped or in a sexual relationship helps us get a better understanding on that subject, yes, it’s hard to watch but I think we need to watch it.  I think it’s good to open our minds to what’s happening in the world around us.  And like Prof Leeper said, it is possible that even people in the class could experience such things, and looking back at those movies that we were once ashamed to watch could become of great comfort, and could help through a rough time like that in our lives.  

Fairy Tale in Music

So, I've been wanting to share this song for a while now since we had been talking about fairy tale before....I guess this is a little delayed, but oh well. So this song is by Dream Theater, one of my all time favorite bands, and it's called The Count of Tuscany. I know...you probably see the length and you're like, "I'll just listen to a little bit of it and that'll be enough to get the gist of it..." PLEASE DON'T DO THAT! The awesomeness of this song can only be fully experienced if you listen to all 19 minutes of it...I know it's a lot but I think you'll be glad you did it :)

So, basically this song is a fairy tale about a guy who goes on an adventure, experiences a vast number of strange and frightening things, and then kind of discovers the purpose of it all at the end. It's difficult to really describe it all, and really I hope that the music will speak better than my description. But the reason I'm showing this to you guys is, firstly, because it's one of my favorite songs ever, and second, because it is a fairy tale in song-form. I think it's pretty cool that fairy tales not only exist in books and movies, but also in music. And Dream Theater does a phenomenal job at letting you experience the awesomeness of whatever story is being told here. I'm just glad that there are bands out there who are willing to write about something other than love, sex, partying, or breaking up; instead, they get down to the heart of it all and show us something that I find to be truly beautiful and mysterious...

Brave Saint Saturn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ZPtZB6VeY&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Hey guys. I just figured I’d do a little bit of a shout out for one of my favorite bands. I promise this is also actually related to somewhat of a larger issue. It might take me awhile to get to the point, but I’ll get there.

I really love lyrical music. It’s basically poetry set to a beat, and it makes it sort of special in its own way. It’s interesting, because a lot of the time people actually have a hard time explaining why some types of music or a specific song speak to them so much. It’s very deeply rooted within the soul and psyche of a person.

For a while I was really searching for music that spoke to my soul.

 I found a lot of great music along the way, but the one band that stood out among all of them would have to be Brave Saint Saturn. There are always multiple artists and songs that speak to one person’s soul, but if I had to choose one that speaks the most truth into my life it would have to be them.

It is so important to find things that speak to the human soul. It’s a very strange thing to me how often times people don’t seem to seek out nourishment for their souls. We have music that is okay on the pop stations and such, (Not dissing popular music at all) but why don’t we seek out something more?

I don’t mean to point any fingers, or say why don’t you just go like all of the weird indie music, but what I am asking is why do we continue down the path of vapidity? We could be so much more, and do so much more, why do we settle for what is so easy?

I know the answer to the question in part. Because we have a sin nature, and because out culture has conditioned us to accept what is placed in front of us. And there is nothing wrong with any of that per say. I just can’t help but continue to question why we don’t go beyond what we have been given? I don’t think the cop out nature of, “well, that’s just how society is” covers  the problem of continued ignorance.

We are the ones who make our media, and therefore our culture.  Why can’t be expand our minds? Seek out what is pure and good for our souls as people, so as to expand the culture dynamic around us.

It always feels so presumptions to just say something like this, but I can’t help but continue to ask the same question, because it seems as though for so many people the concept just doesn't get through to them. 

It’s just my thoughts, but it is a very human’s right, as well as responsibility, to attempt to improve themselves. 

Who knows, maybe I’m just snarky and home-schooled. xD 

Games Can Be Indie, Too

That little yellow ship with the claws right there? The most evil thing to have ever been conceived by a game designer.

There is an obvious rift between independent films and big-budget blockbuster films. Both have their ups and downs, but the independent films are usually considered the more ‘artsy’ and intelligent while mainstream films are just bigger and flashier. This doesn’t seem to be just the case for film, however; many can argue that other mediums have this exact same split as well.

Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy versus Harry Potter. Radiohead versus Green Day. Homeworld versus Starcraft. All of these are examples of the ‘underground’ versus the ‘mainstream’. None of these (in my opinion) are bad; all have excellent traits and qualities. But they are different; Hitchhiker’s is a very humorist story with bizarre and utterly deranged plot points that resonates well with nerds, while Harry Potter is an epic tale of good versus evil that appeals to nearly everyone. Radiohead is purposefully underground and meant to toy with various instruments while Green Day pumps everyone up and uses established punk ideas to rock the house. And Homeworld versus Starcraft?

That might take a bit of explaining for some members of the class.

Homeworld and Starcraft are both PC games from the 1990’s, both revolutionary in the industry. Both are real-time strategy games, which often revolve around starting from scratch to construct a base and build up an army to battle either the computer or other players, which both games do. Starcraft revolutionized the genre of real-time strategy by giving the player the choice between three distinct factions to play as, each unique in army composition and even base-building, but all perfectly balanced so as not to overpower each other, which no RTS (real-time strategy) game had before. Homeworld was even more revolutionary; rather than have players build a base on land, Homeworld gave players a mothership to produce, upgrade, and repair all of their units, all while moving about in all dimensions in the depths of space. Both introduced concepts no other game had done before, and both were critically acclaimed.

But Homeworld was left in obscurity while Starcraft exploded in popularity. Homeworld is almost impossible to have a conversation about, while Starcraft is so massive South Korea has several TV channels dedicated to its existence. Homeworld had a sequel four years after the original hit shelves and only diehard fans of the original bought it, but when Starcraft 2 launched TEN YEARS LATER (an eternity in the video game industry), every kid with a PC scrambled to grab a copy. Why?

Because Homeworld was developed by Relic Games, who at the time were almost nobodies working for Sierra Entertainment, which was not a large video game publisher and would ultimately go under within a few years. Starcraft, on the other hand, was developed and published by Blizzard, an industry giant which was at the forefront of the PC game industry. Homeworld was released no more than a year after Starcraft, which was still shipping copies well after Homeworld was released. Because Starcraft had multiplayer based in a more established vein within the RTS genre (ground-based combat with lots of base-building) over Homeworld’s smaller multiplayer and greater emphasis on a persistent, single-player story.

Both are excellent games. I love both of them, and I have to admit that I’ve spent more time with Starcraft than Homeworld. But Homeworld deserved so much more attention. Even games that tried to follow in its wake by simulating grand space battles have failed to achieve mainstream popularity. Was it the lack of focus on multiplayer or the lesser credit of Relic that prevented it from achieving mass popularity? I don’t know. I may never truly know, even if many people may have well-informed opinions about that matter.

But I do know one thing; both games have computer-controlled armies that will crush you at the slightest sign of weakness, and I can’t understand how they keep me coming back to them.

Boy A

Leeper said Tori and I had better blog on this one, so here I am blogging. Let me first say my family doesn't watch British movies anymore. The reason being British movies always drop you off a cliff at the end, and my family hates that. This movie, although it was British, was not as cliff-dropping as most. It actually made sense, and didn't leave you hanging on anything, really, except for two things. First: what happenned to Philip? Yeah, he got hung by a bunch of guys, but who were they? Why did they hang him? Did I hear Jack, in one part of the movie, say that he, Jack, killed Philip? Didn't Terry say something about Philip killed himself? (The British and Scottish accents were hard to understand, at times). I, personally, would have liked to know how that all played out, but really it wasn't that important, so I'll say it was ok for the movie makers to not explain that part.
    The second thing they didn't explain was EXTREMELY important. It was the reason there was a story at all: why Jack/Eric committed the murder. If he had run away and gotten help, the rest of the story would have been so different. HOWEVER, I applaud the filmmakers for not explaining Jack's motives for murdering. I think it was a very good tactic, this unexpaination. I think American filmmakers would have tried to get into Jack's head. They would have had him monologueing about his memories of that moment; of what he could have done differently. It would have been cheesy and typical.
    You people who saw the movie might be wondering what I mean when I say Jack's motives were unexplained. The explanation was obvious: he was influenced by his bad friendship and his lack of a loving home. But American filmmakers would have, like I said, gone so much farther, and it wouldn't have been as realistic. We'll never understand what goes through most murderer's heads when they decide to kill someone; and the psychology of child murderers especially frightens people. This movie was not about sensationalism; "Ooh, look how evil and messed up this kid's head is". It was about how we treat these kids after the fact.
    And by the way, what's with the title; boy A? That's kind of abstract.

Good Idea!

I have enjoyed the idea behind spending a week on specific women in animation, mostly because they have brought something unique to the table. New ideas such as animating sand or scratching on film is a great contribution to the animation, especially since the only type of animation we see anymore is computer generated. The other thing that women have done is introduce new topics in films. Although this isn't a necessarily new idea, it's a great way to showcase the fact that people with passions can do powerful stuff.

Before coming to Huntington, I had rarely thought about the messages I wanted my films to share. For one thing, I know that filmmaking is a group effort, and would rather someone with better writing skills make my scripts (even without dialogue). Even brainstorming ideas doesn't excite me. I'd rather work out all of the technical details on someone else's idea. Although this may sound even more like I don't mind being controlled by the entertainment industry, that's not my intention. I'm not a complete robot with no thoughts or emotions, I simply feel outmatched when it comes to developing great ideas.

If there's ever a message I'm able to share though a film, it would probably be one that address the actions of Christians themselves. It's clear that Christians have developed a label that associates our group with all of these rules about what not to do. It has impacted almost everything about us, but we're missing the point, because the Bible certainly has specific guidelines about things we should do. The simple command to love your neighbor is often forgotten, especially in films where it causes the interesting conflict a good story needs.

But the church has also been known to complain about society without any sign of helping it. As an example, why can't we be more for adopting unwanted babies rather than against abortion? In theory, both sides would accomplish the same thing. As much as people may like to believe, unwanted pregnancies won't stop if abortion is outlawed.

Coming up with a story to address issues like this is not my calling. I want to serve in a film production because it's a technical talent that I also enjoy doing. I can fulfill my calling in whatever I do, it doesn't have to be related to the message I tell in a film. That's not my focus.

Uncomfortable

 

Yay for infinite laziness! I think that last panel is my worst by far ^___^

I've always had a level of difficulty watching things that pertain to sexuality, not necessarily because for the most part the sexuality of our culture is totally immoral, but because when I watch it, I feel like I'm seeing things I shouldn't be seeing because they are private. Even when the relationship is between a married couple I get a little uncomfortable if the scene spends too much time in the bedroom because I think sex is something special and private between them, and watching it is a little weird.

Its even worse  if it has to do with rape, which we got a pretty good look at in A Feather Tale. Even though it was not graphically explicit with what it showed (which was brilliant. Making a movie about rape 'sexy' would completely ruin the tone and power), I could tell what was happening, the emotions she was experiencing, and more and more I got uncomfortable. But that was the point of this piece, wasn't it? Surely she wasn't retelling her own, very personal story of being raped with the intent of 'Wow, I bet a ton of people will love this! Its the feel-good movie of the year!' No, it was meant to jarr you, to make you get a taste for the trauma that goes along with it. And as far as that goes, I think it did an incredible job.



Boy A

Sleep is hard to come by tonight, so I'll blog instead.

Tonight's Signs and Wonders movie, Boy A, was really good, and I wish more people could have came to see it. The premise is Jack Burridge has just been let out of jail after being in jail since he was a child. He is now a young man and really has no clue how to live a functional life. He gets help from a man who plays the role as his "uncle" named Terry, and Terry views Jack as his "greatest achievement" because basically, Jack is successful at getting himself off to a good life.

Sadly, his name isn't really Jack.

And he has a twenty-grand bounty on his head.

And his life has only just begun before it's all over.

I discussed this a lot after the movie, so sorry for those who were present and have to put up with me saying it again, but I almost feel like this movie is an extension off of today's class. Jack 's road to becoming a child-aged murderer is one that occurred because -I think- he was lacking that love and structure of a family and/or friends.

In order to find acceptance and companionship from someone Jack befriended a boy named Phillip Craig, who's temper and evil nature wound up engulfing both of Jack and Phillip. But the common denominator between both these boys is the fact that both had no family behind them, and really no example to follow.

Phillip went home and got raped by his brother. Jack went home and got yelled at for having sympathy for his dying mother, and had a drunk and ignorant father. And while these circumstances are horrid, they reflect a lot of familial situations well, even if some families aren't yet to this extreme.

Anyway, when Jack is released and is trying to create a life for himself, he falls in love.

At one time, he says to his girlfriend Kelly--who by the way is not a stick like most of female actresses the audience likes to see today; she's a real, genuine and pretty woman that's [oh no]  overweight [oh the shame]--- "I never thought I'd say those words to anyone or ever have anyone say those words to me." He's talking about when she says she might love him by the way.

It's a cruel end to what could have been a well meant life. Society ultimately won't accept Jack. And while I could see that coming early on in the movie, I like to focus more on Jack not accepting Jack. His real name is Eric Wilson, and I think that keeping Eric Wilson a lie would override Jack's good intentions in the end.

A neverending, crying Andrew Garfield

There's a certain price to pay when it comes to sinning and then using more sin to cover it up. This arises a discussional point that Leeper brought up after the movie but we never really concluded: What if Jack had gone on living as he had begun and no one had figured out he was a criminal? Would his life have been good?

I think that Jack's using a lie--which he felt guilty to use--to cover up that he was a murderer would have more vices than not. My mom has always told me "Your sin will find you out" and so far, it always has, whether through someone else or through eating through me. I'm a believer in not being able to cover up a sin with good deeds, or even good intentions.

But then again, committing a murder when one was a child with monumentally different context is warranted to having the individual change in say a decade or so. A lot of correction can happen from childhood to adulthood, so maybe Jack was in the right by lying and starting over?

And, while I'm contradicting myself, don't Christians often end up sinning and covering it up by smearing good intentions or deeds over it? Isn't repentance itself a good intention? But repentance is absolution and absolution is the end of it but what if it wasn't really meaningful in the first place? I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I'm hoping no one will read this anyway you see, because it's pretty long. Long blog posts can be intimidating. No one goes to a blog to read a book, so I'm riding on the hope that no one will actually read this far down. :D

Rape...

I am going to go right to the point. 

RAPE IS A SAD EVENT TO HEAR OR BE A VICTIM

it does not matter male or female. Yes if a woman is rape its more nerve racking cause of besides STD's and stuff. Becoming pregnant is a risk as well. It is one touchy subject. I have never met someone who has been raped or what. I am always sad and angered to hear that someone was raped. It is one evil thing.

Woman anywhere need respect and protection. They need love and tender hearts. Needs a guy to be with. One who will respect them no matter what. 

I think one reason that someone will get rape is that they just want to have the experiance. Well hello. wake up. Its a sin to ya....  People do it just because they were cheated or out of angered. Thats what i have a sense from, from the news and CSI and NCIS. Its an aweful story to have.

I just want to say. Who ever is reading this and is a rape victim. I am honestly sorry for you, i dont know what its like to be abuse or raped. But I am here for you all. I feel bad for writing all of this. It just really bugs me that someone would ever do such a thing to an innocent girl. It is just sad to hear.

Prays out to the people of the world who need a better man in their life. 

LA Times "Surprisingly few hard facts and figures were available about the prevalence of rape-related pregnancies. Many news outlets, including this one, cited a 1996 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which estimated that more than 32,000 women experience a rape-related pregnancy each year. The report also concluded that 5% of rape victims become pregnant, which would mean that 640,000 rapes occur each year."

A Feather Tale

The thing is, I want to write a blog post about this film because I have never in my life seen anything as emotionally devastating, but I am struggling with even recalling the most disturbing moments of the film itself. I think, instead of writing about my digestion of the film, I'm going to write about how much I respect and admire Michele Cournoyer for making this.

Leeper said the animation process required her to actually replay the role of a rape victim by stripping down naked and doing the motions herself. That she had to then sketch each and every moment, and relive that experience 24 times per second, is one of the most strongest and empowering things I have ever heard. The amount of emotional conflict that had to have gone into this work is honestly just breath taking. I can't even imagine myself being strong enough to ever do something so brave for the sake of informing others of how revolting and mentally distressful rape is. I just think it's absolutely the most admirable thing a person could do, is to look their demons in the eye so they can spread the word and help other victims.

I am just in awe of that strength, and I won't ever forget the film. We've watched so many films in Leeper's class, and honestly 20, 30, 40 years down the line I won't remember them all, but this one I will; I already feel it anchored inside me.

Putting that aside, I thought the entire discussion on how men could not make something like that is interesting. I agree, but would that make a man's film about rape not as powerful? I find it interesting that I probably wouldn't have had such a strong reaction to a film about rape through the eyes of a man. So that leaves me with a question: I wonder what the guys in the room were feeling during A Feather Tale?



- R.

Romance Or Sex: American Graffiti Vs American Pie

In old films, boys used to give class rings or school pins to their "steady."  They would talk on the phone and actually go out.  Once in a while sex was referenced but seldom did it actually happen (whether seen or unseen).  They would normally just neck at some romance place.  Also it used to be in some places that guys would just drive around for hours trying to court a specific woman for more a date.  In those films there was really a sense of innocence at that there wasn't a lot of peer pressure into having sex.  It was just about having a girl to take to the sock hop or to the drive in.  Along with that there was a lot of respect for women.  Even Fonzie respected all of his women.

In American Graffiiti that was the case.  Steve and Laurie had a great relationship despite some disagreements.  That movie was about love and innocence that was about to go away with Vietnam and free love.

Well certainly times have changed.  Now it's really just about the sex.  Films seem to present a sense that you need to "bang" her and drop her after prom. You either want to do that or are pressured into it. This is the American Pie World

.

 Also there isn't many actual dates anymore.  Mostly just texting.  Even Skyping is better than text.  People seem to present the fact that romance includes sex which it really doesn't in the unmarried world. I miss innocence.

There still is pain

First of all, I really liked how Leaf used sand in her movies.  But watching that along with the film of the war and how the women waited while their men became injured in battle reminded me of an act in Ukraine’s Got Talent show.  A woman used sand to depict a tale right in front of the audiences eyes, but more importantly she depicted the women whose lovers where sent away to fight the war.  There is even a part that shows a woman holding a letter and crying because she knew he was either dead or injured.  Later in her act, the camera shows people in the audience, especially the elderly people who would have experienced themselves, crying because the pain of the war and its bi-products are still very much prevalent in the Ukraine and also in Russia. And there really is something to be said about those countries that had so much death and struggles in the war.  I feel like the losses are still felt throughout those countries, and although it happened years ago, it is still a soft spot for those societies.

Ps. I just now realized someone posted pretty much the exact same thing below, but I guess that’s fine

Caroline Leaf's Films

 

After watching some of Caroline Leaf's films in class, I have to say that I really respect her for coming up with a new way of creating films by using sand. However, my favorite film that we watched would have to be the one called "Love in the Cold", I found the film scratching technique to be really cool, and definitely not a common technique that is used.

When Professor Leeper said that one of his previous students asked why the characters were so ugly, I have to say that does not shock me. I kind of agree with that student in the sense that, it is not the typical characters we were used to seeing growing up, like those happy perfect looking Pixar characters. It is a different technique of art in creating that needs to be respected, I think it is great to see other ways of characters being portrayed than what we are so used to typically seeing, it opens our minds up to different forms of art, and the fact that in actuality people in real life are not that perfect looking cartoon character Pixar makes everyone out to be. I would not consider Caroline Leaf's portrayal of characters as "ugly", but just different, and different is good.

more on stop animation

i found this film while i was on youtube i found it very interesting its amazes me the work it took to make stop animation even simple claymation is amazing this film just reminded me of that enjoy!

rein

i love this film because it showes us as humans for who we are sometimes were all ways haxve a desire for more you can almost compare it to film making and how we want more and our greed may be then end of allot of film makers all these other companies just do it for money and how many millions there film makes but maybe I'm wrong let me know your opinion

the man who planted trees

i love the story about the man who planted trees its was really a masterpiece how much this "old man" really knew iv seen this a couple times since then how 1 man could do such beutiful work and the art is georgeous this film deserves an epic comment i just dont know what to say its very inspiring

sand art

i really enjoyed Steve's lesson yesterday about women artist and sand art it amazes me how so many beautiful works of art there are for those who watch Americas got talent there was an awesome sand artist named Joe Castillo he wasn't as good as the people Steve showed us but he knew how to make you feel something in 45 seconds LIVE! and its amazing how with just a jar of sand you can show people the world

Inspiration - Man Who Planted Trees

The Man Who Planted Trees - Talk about inspiration, I don't know if it inspired other people but it inspired me. Why? Because of the fact that one man can change the world, in this sense, a lifeless isolated valley. This story demonstrates his determination and drive towards changing an area. This just inspires me because anyone of us can change the world, one step at a time. Or as in the story, one tree at a time. When I say "world" it can also mean all the people that are surrounded in your life. As you've probably heard, we can be considered the only bible that people read, which means we are basically a walking image of Christ, and we can inspire so many people by who we are. Can you relate to people who inspire you in your faith? These people probably taught you in your way of faith. In other words, Jesus told His disciples to teach their disciples everything He first taught them. And look what happened: "Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied" (Acts 6:7, New King James Version). Now go out and be an inspiration to others and change the world. 

Robert Zemeckis and Product Placement

In today’s world of film and television there is a lot of product placement.  Mostly the reason is because food and beverages companies offer money.  This flatters directors and producers.  However what if the placements are also used to make a scene more real?  A great example is Back to the Future.  Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale (who were also the writers) decided that they wanted realism in there story.  At a time when product placement was still not very common this was a good idea.  They used this belief when they made their first movie I Wanna Hold Your Hand.  At that time brand names weren’t really allowed in film and tv.  But back to the case of Back to the Future.  

When it came to doing product placement, along with realism, they wanted to use brand names that had logos that contrasted between 1985 and 1955.  Shell Oil offered more money than Texaco did but Texaco’s logo changed and Shell different.  Also Pepsi-Cola’s logo changed and Coca-Cola never has so Pepsi was decided.  Big contrast.

With Forrest Gump nobody wants to see Forrest drink generic soda,.  They will want to see Forrest drink something real.  Dr. Pepper it is.  

Also in Cast Away what would Chuck call his volleyball friend?  Other then some random name Wilson is perfect.  Also having a real delivery company is better than a fake one.  So in that case FedEx was the one.

Now whether or not money had much to do with this I don’t care.  Whether or not it could be an evil for good it worked.  Those placements were the icing on the great chocolate cake. film.  Now Zemeckis doesn’t ever take money anymore because with money it felt like another creative person was put in the mix.  Also Produce Bob Gale (Producer and Co-writer of BTTF) says, "Use products where it makes sense. Don't bend over backwards to promote a product that doesn't make sense. That's the difference."

This was said over 20 years after BTTF so I doubt he was lying.

The mind has changed... Heart is the same

"The Greatest Movie Ever Told" sounds like a great movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1743720/

here is the link for the trailer and plot summery for it.

Time to dive into todays lesson.

I could relate to the short film of the two sisters to another movie about someone who looked ugly but had a heart and no one knew about it.

here is the two sisters video

and here is the elephant man.

i watched this my sophmore year of high school for english. I thought it was interesting to say the least. That was the time i was just getting into media and film.

Just seeing the two sister movie and seeing the second sister and hearing her be called ugly brought this film back to me. Of how he the elephant man had to be sent to one room for his whole life and die.

Besides that i thought both of them were good films.

And woman can be in the same work area as men.


As we watch movies lets not be a sponge and just absorb all the action but have an eye of an film maker and watch it through their eyes.

Leeds Animation Workshop

In the reading there was a topic about the Leeds Animation workshop. They were a group of women that got together in order to create an animation studio. They made independent films with a different purpose then many other studios that made films for commercial purposes. Their films were made in order to create a discussion, rather then just to make money and entertain the audience. According to the article these women changed the political climate of the 80’s in Britain.

Gillian Lacey, later in the article talked about her experiences at Leeds Animation Workshop. She felt that she was being “dis-abled, restricted, bound to the formula.” She felt that her ideas were being held down by their convectional ways at the workshop, and she needed to use more radical methods to get her message across. 

Another interesting part of the article is about the four part series called Blind Justice, which was also made entirely by women. They showed us how the law, and how it is enforced, affected women’s lives. The article talks about a lot of different women that were involved on the project, and their individual roles. Gillian Lacey had a particularly important role on the films. She was in charge of discovering ways that the women could better work together. She made the project better by connecting with more experience animators and having them help out with the project.  

Form 17

 I know I should be blogging amount today's class, but I watched a short film today that I wanted to share. I think the idea is fantastic and the production level seems much higher than what it likley was. It's called Form 17.

It's about a father who brings his daughter with him to work for "Bring your Daughter to Work Day." The catch is that the father is actually a bomb defuser. It's comical, well done, and even a bit suspensful, and it's entertaining. I've always believed that the story is the most important part of a live action piece, and this is a great example of why. We've all seen the traditonal Hurt Locker type scene where a bomb is being defused and lives are all the line, but the scene here has such a different feel because of the story. The acting was decent, and the diolouge was well written. Overall, the film is worth a watch and I'd love to hear what you guys think about it. 

Product Placement/Sand

I've always been interested in advertising. Not working in it, but the psychology and studies behind it. In our modern era we are so saturated in ads that we don't even realize it. Nearly every video you watch on the internet has an ad before it. I was pumping my gas last week, and there was a screen that was running commercials on the pump.

I've seen The Greatest Movie Ever Sold and I am a fan of Morgan Spurlock. There are some horrible product placement in films that I think compromised the filmmaker's integrity. That being said, I don't think products should be avoided all the time in feature films. We do use these products. I never really cared about Pepsi in Back to The Future, because it was getting the point across with the juxtaposition of the '80s and '50s. Should Marty just order a "cola" with a fake label slapped on it? That would be more distracting. Would it have mattered if it was Coke or Pepsi? No. That movie is about putting you in a specific time period. It works fine in this instance. Also, when I see television shows that have characters using fake brands (so the studio doesn't have to pay companies) it actually takes me out of the show and basically says "hey, this isn't real." Of course it's not real, but we all want to believe our favorite characters have a possibility of existing in our world. All that being said, the documentary shows some shameless ways that ads fund a movie and they are distracting.
---
I thought the sand films were very well done, but it seemed so meticulous that it was hard for me to enjoy knowing how crazy long that must have taken.

Thieving the Cobbler

...I try to generally post about about things that would add to the collective conversation, but I encountered something really cool over the weekend for the first time and had to share about it. I'll try to make it somewhat relevant as well.
Youtube kept suggesting that I watch some movie called The Thief and the Cobbler: Recobbled Cut, which I knew nothing about, so I figured it was youtube giving irrelevant suggestions again. Then, when I was researching more about Cartoon Saloon, I found out the this movie was an inspiration for The Secret of Kells.
So, naturally, I wanted to find out more about it.
Thief technically never got finished, and has the longest production time of any animated movie, being made from 1964-1993. It was conceived and directed by Richard Williams, best known for his animation in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Due to the fact that he was taking too long and wasn't even following storyboards, the project was taken away from him with only fifteen minutes of animation left to finish. Some big wigs took over, added bland copies of Disney songs, took out some adult content and just overall plot and made several mute characters speak in order to market it as a children's film. If you buy a copy of the movie now (or check out the copy in the Digital Media Library), that's the butchered version you are going to get.
HOWEVER
Some geniuses made a not-for-profit organization who is working on restoring the original movie as close as Williams originally intended it, using workprint copies and archived rough animation in order to fill in the missing pieces: thus, the Recobbled cut.
So I watched this version on Friday night.
And it sort of blew my mind.
I'm not going to delve too far into plot, because to be honest it wasn't that great. It wasn't awful, but it wasn't anything super unique. However, the characters were pretty fantastic, especially Charlie Chaplin inspired Tack, the evil rhyming Zig Zag, the Thief, who has to be the cousin of Wile E. Coyote, and I even sort of liked Princess Yum Yum's design.

Yeah. I know. I probably lost you there with those ridiculous names. To be honest, I like them, but yeah, they aren't normal at all ^__^
What I really liked about this movie was the animation, which is what I always look for in an animated movie. And I could definitely argue that this is the best animated movie ever made. Not meaning in terms of content, but in terms of animation.

Just watch this and try not to be amazed. And remember that this was done BEFORE the advent of computer animation. AKA ALL BY HAND.
I wish more animated films looked as beautiful as this...

Beautiful and Lethal

So...I'll admit this blog is more of a time for me to express what's going on in my mind than anything about class.... But right now I can't come up with anything coherent that will satisfy me. For the most part, I'm pretty tired of thinking. I'm tired of being a good reader and figuring out what is good and what is worthy of praise in a movie, verses what deserves to be criticized and doubted. All of this has worn me out to the point of being relatively apathetic to watching the art that is out there. I think I've come to a point where (and Leeper might cringe at this, but whatever) I'd rather be entertained than think critically about a movie. The reason for this is not really crystal clear, but I think I have a pretty good idea of why...

I have been so attracted to the beautiful things in art to the degree that now I can't watch a wonderful, beautiful, well-made film without feeling like I am dead. I feel that, though the rivers flowing with wine remind me that they actually flow with water, I cannot go back to water without dying to the part of me that wishes they were wine. The beauty of art kills me, because there is no fulfillment in this life of what I long for when I am presented with the fairy tale. Yes, this world is beautiful, and yes there are things that we can experience that will take us almost to another world. But that's as far as they take you. At the end of the day, you're still stuck here. You're still stuck in the incomplete; the temporary pain that seems to go on for an eternity. One of the most powerful questions that I have not yet been able to find a satisfying answer to is this: What meaning is there here that makes this life worth it in light of the fact that when we die, heaven will be bliss? Is there really no other motivator to keep living other than the fact that heaven awaits you when it's all over? That seems like an awfully foolish argument to me.... one that is extremely inadequate at inspiring endurance.

Now don't worry, I'm not saying that I'm contemplating suicide or anything, but I am challenging the claim that this portrayal of otherworldly beauty is completely good and harmless. People are really good at enjoying things... and I think that when you show them heaven, you should be prepared to give them a satisfying answer when they ask you why it is that suicide is so frowned upon. After all, death is the only barrier to bliss, provided Jesus has saved your soul. And another thing that I must discuss is this talk of how, once Jesus is in your life, you will just want to do everything in your power to praise Him and how life is suddenly worth it and you can suddenly do things with purpose. Frankly, I must disagree. I have Jesus in my life, and life is actually more difficult to live now that I know what I'm really made for, and how that is not going to be given to me until the day I die. For me, this earthly life is, in essence, purgatory. So please don't go around claiming that I should be so full of joy and life because Jesus has saved me, and I darn well should be giving Him my all if I can claim to be a Christian. All that that does is fill me with (a) anger at the fact that I am the way I am, (b) guilt for not being what grace should have made me, and (c) hopelessness in light of the circumstances. God is much bigger than my limitations, and I trust that He knows me and is able to guide me in the path He has planned for me.

Ok....that was a bit of a rant, but I needed to get that out there. I think my main point is that being a Christian artist is more painful than you might think, especially if you do it right. Your calling is to show the world yourself and your feelings and everything in light of the fact that God is the one doing the real magic. Being caught up in that tension is painful... but I think it's the only thing that can really communicate the Gospel in the most raw, personal way known to man. And that, I guess, makes it worth it.

Art...or a Waste of Money, Time, and Ministry?

 

 

 

     In most of my posts so far, I have given some sort of an opinion on whatever topic I had chosen. This post will be a rare exception. I am going to pose a question, and perhaps a few things to think about, but I will do my best not to give much more.

     Three summers ago, I had the opportuntiy to go to England with my high school soccer team, along with the dads of some of the kids. We were at Westminster Abbey, which is not only a cemetery for the England's great sons and daughters, but is also a quite large cathedral/church. It was quite impressive, and while I was standing their admiring the building, one of the dads came over and said that he wondered whether or not spending so much money on making the intricate building, it wouldn't have been better to spend the money helping the poor. This was a thought that had never occurred to me. Now, before I go on, let me address the people who think that the dad was some non-artistic bigot. He is one of the most friendly, godly, smart, and wise people I have had the pleasure of meeting. If he were a fool, this would not have affected me the way it did. After we got back from the trip, I was reminded of a story in Tolkien's The Silmarillion. In it, we discover that the fall of the Numenoreans (the great men who would later rule Gondor) came about because the kings of the people, rather than concerning themselves with the needs of the people, spent their time in solitude studying the past and building ever grander tombs. This seems in many ways to parallel the rise of the great cathedrals, at least in my mind.

      I will end with this thought. While I do not disregard art, and those who think that the church should have room for it, I also completely understand those who would say that such efforts could be spent elsewhere. After all, while I think few people would argue that Notre Dame (the picture at the top) is not a work of art, yet when I read my Bible, it does not command me to build monuments to my faith, but to live it out.

Commercials Can Be...Art?

 

          I find it interesting that so many of us complain about the ridiculously poor films coming out of Hollywood, and yet we completely neglect perhaps an even greater epidemic: the amount of ridiculously foolish commercials that are produced each year. Many of these commercials are not only poor quality, but they can be downright offensive in their stupidity and lack of logic or relation to the product they are trying to sell. Now don't get me wrong, I know that the very famous commercial from which the above image is taken does not directly talk about the product and its qualities, but the creators at least attempted to appeal to the audience through empathy and in a uniquely heartfelt presentation. Compare this to most modern commercials, and the difference is stupendous. Not only do they not attempt present the product in unique ways, but many times they don't try to push the medium and do something neat with the aesthetic. The commercial below shows what can be done, if the creators choose to push the medium, and present the product in a unique way. The characters in the car are 2D, but the car is 3D. The car may be 3D, but the backgrounds are 2D. To top it all off, the monsters stalking the 3D car are cutouts. I would have to say that it looks like it is obviously influenced by Maurice Sendak's Where The Wild Things Are.

 

 

 

     I can't help but wonder whether or not, if instead of relying on slap-stick comedy so much, the creators thought of their work more as art. I think that we should hold those in the art of commercials to a higher standard, just like we should hold Hollywood to a higher standard. Now, before I close I will say that I realize that commercials have a different purpose than movies. But I think that commercials are no different to movies in that both are trying to show you something that will convince you that this is worth your time. I think that commercials could be even more successful if they learned to convince us to like not only the product, but how well they can present it. Below are some more examples (and yes, I know that I said that humor should be used less, but these are handsomely done).

 

 

 

 

 



A Wonderful Success Story

 

 

     I take great proud in finding artists who create great art, but are very underappreciated. Many times their work is better than the most popular stuff that everyone has heard of. I have found many, but perhaps the group that inspires me the most is a group called The Piano Guys. These five guys went from being a group of guys in St. George, Utah, to one of the most popular groups on youtube. They began when Jon Schmidt (Piano Guy) met Paul Anderson ("The" Guy), who owned a piano shop. They made a few basic videos, and then Jon introduced Paul to Steve Sharp Nelson (Cello Guy). The group was rounded out by Tel Stewart (Video Guy) and Al Van Der Beek (Music Guy). This group takes popular songs from today and combines them with classical tunes of old (Jon and Steven are classically trained in their respective instruments), to create something that is quite unique (and sometimes better than its parts, if you ask me), as well as usually being very well filmed. They began posting there works a few years ago, and they have grown in popularity to the point that their new music videos average well over a million views per video, and there total number of views across all their videos recently reached 130 million. For a group of five guys with a passion for their work, this is impressive. To me it is also a great pleasure to see a success story from a little town in Utah, become one of the most popular groups on the internet, and reminds me that Hollywood and Nashville do not own a monopoly on the world of the arts. I have included some of their mot popular videos for your viewing pleasure.