You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Film’ category.
While paying my obligatory thirty minutes to goofing off on the Internet before hopefully beginning productive work, I came across this gem. For some reason, parts of it reminded me of Cleo. Mostly the part of the contemplation while staring into the mirror. I don’t know if this could be fuel for fruitful conversation, but I hope it at least makes someone’s day as we move into the final count down.
In my defense, I did have more to go with this originally, but then I got distracted and now I don’t remember what I had that was actually useful to put here.
[Above: this is the book I mentioned in class concerning the metamorphosis of the concept of a 'hero' to one that changed the purpose and identity of the masculine ideal to better align with popular American beliefs about 'evil' and manifest destiny.]
Charlie Chaplin as ‘The Tramp’
Chaplin made silent films in the style of ‘slap-stick’ comedy from 1914-1952 (source: wikipedia). His films often depicted himself as living in poverty or ‘working-class poor’, in ill-fitting clothes, stumbling all over himself while trying to ‘get by’ throughout his daily adventures. While most of his films depict this slightly down on his luck yet blissfully ignorant character, his movies became more overtly political from the middle of his career onward (up to his 1952 film ‘Limelight’ which was pulled from American screens due to his stance on American political issues).
Films like ‘The Gold Rush’, ‘Modern Times’, ‘The Great Dictator’ (to name a few) highlight Chaplin’s criticism of American greed, poor working conditions, poverty, and the horrors wrought by tyrannical regimes. All of this was delivered with Chaplin’s style of satire through physical comedy, and stereotypes of bourgeois and poor working-class lfe, politicians, dictators, and masculine and feminine identities of his time.
The Thesis of ‘Nothing Isn’t Free’
The title ‘Nothing Isn’t Free’ should be somewhat of a clue into the role of capitalism at play here. In the title screen ‘Nothing’ and ‘Free’ are underlined, and the double negative of ‘Nothing Isn’t’ seems to negate the popular American trope ‘Freedom isn’t Free’ or ‘Money doesn’t grow on trees’ though a bit closer to the line from the Kris Kristofferson penned ‘Me and Bobby McGee’…’Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose’. Being that the notion of freedom is a relatively new concept and a particularly American one at that, I found it interesting to play with these notions especially given what I present below as my interpretation of the movie I made.
Part of the film competition was entry into the running to win a $10,000 grant from Elfenworks Social Justice organization so when I was considering what to put together, Chaplin came instantly to mind. Granted I am concerned with and keep myself informed about matters of social justice (especially with respect to income inequality, the pervasiveness of neo-liberalism, and the role that bankers, investors, politicians, and corporations play in bringing this about), but in addition to this, I happen to love the style of satire and the overall aesthetic of filmmakers like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton (lest we forget my interest and mention of the $10,000 grant above…paradoxical as it may seem).
That being said, I also approached this film with a sense of the lack of understanding and acknowledgment among strangers, especially strangers belonging to different soci0economic classes. So the first point I am trying to make with this film (via physical comedy and the estrangement of stop-motion animation and pre-programmed xbox kinect graphics) is that while people who are living in poverty and unemployed may need assistance, they are not necessarily “looking for hand-outs” (the woman character innocently mistaking the mans coffee cup for a beggars coin cup, her showering him with gifts upon his leaving her much bigger/nicer place). This tension is further established with his appropriating of the $7 ‘honor system’ coffee without paying, the hurting of his pride upon being given a ‘hand-out’ by the woman who also ruined the coffee he didn’t pay for, his subsequent gift of two broken flowers (also taken without permission) for the woman, and the ruining of the orange he acquired in the woman’s house by roaches he carried in from his neck of the woods.
The second argument I want to make with this film is that while these two people come from different socioeconomic backgrounds (he lives in a little shack surrounded by weeds, briars, and junk; she lives in a big house full of stuff, with a kitchen, stove, fruit, etc…) they are still trying to connect (albeit unsuccessfully and not without some boredom) and at least being congenial and (in their own way) generous to one another. That is, while these two strangers do not have much in common, they still find it rewarding (and redeeming) to interact and show respect the best way they know how.
The third point I want to make which aligns more with my capstone work is that of the role of civil inattention and the tension created in the presence of so many unfamiliar people and places. These two characters are trying to externalize their thoughts and identities though purely physical means (a constraint of the films aesthetic) and not very successfully doing so. They seem to be looking past one another, while both struggle to maintain their interest (during the kitchen table sequence, the use of headphones, the body language of boredom, the dream sequences, the exchanging of niceties) in the other. This may also say something about the relationship and sense of connection between disparate socioeconomic classes, but I think the metaphor can also speak to acquaintances or strangers from the same socioeconomic class. There is a mixture of politeness and ambivalence about their interaction, which is the sense I am trying to capture while designing prototypes, concepts, and theories for my capstone work.
I would also like to explore the notion of ‘heroism’ and the roles of the masculine and feminine ideal at work in this film some other time.
notice that this one is called: The Eames. “A husband and wife team.” Though he refers to them in their usual order “Charles and Ray Eames” the language seems to speak of them more as a unit.
I saw this awhile back and thought there was also some interesting things going on “back-stage”. For instance, this is a video meant to reinvigorate the cultural history of Los Angeles through the voice of a culturally relevant contemporary representative of L.A. Cool. The language Cube uses to describe his awe before the ingenuity of the Eames’ is telling…as does the fact that its shot in black and white.
“each freeway has its own personality”
“the 45…that’s bourgey traffic…the 110…haha…that’s gansta traffic right there…there’s a difference…you gotta know where you’re at…”
commenters footnote: posting comments has become INCREDIBLY buggy as of late! i’ve lost at 3 comments in the past week from a ‘login’ issue.
I ran across an interesting article on Destructoid today talking about the upcoming Alien: Colonial Marines game:
“Colonial marines writer: All good games are collaborative“
In the post, auteur theory is shot down by both the game writer and by the blog post author. This made me a bit curious about the idea of video game auteurs, so I Googled and found this article by Kotaku:
“The Search for the Video Game Auteurs“. It may be a particularly interesting article for those interested in video games now that we’ve read through much of the stuff in the course.
An interesting part of the article discusses the differences between movie and game development environments and how that particularly affects the concept of auteur theory in gaming. The point that stood out to me the most was that movie crews tend to disband after the completion of a movie, while game crews tend to stay together for the most part. This then leads to a discussion about “Studio Auteur” theory, and how development studios as a whole have to be looked at to get a good understanding of the games themselves.
I think this can be easily applied to many other technological endeavors, like interaction design work done by consultancies, software and gadgets created by companies, etc.
Interestingly, another recent article talks about how that same Alien: Colonial Marines writer claims about users’ not having the right to push their opinions onto development studios (this in response to the Mass Effect 3 ending situation): “Aliens: Colonial Marines Writer Players Have ‘No Right’ to Petition Endings“.
So within the video game community and within the software/hardware development communities, do users really have no right to push their views of products onto development studios? Unlike the nature of paintings, film, music, etc., where there is an acceptance of finality and no interaction investment from users, much software (and even hardware, through new iterations) have the ability to be changed and influenced by users and by the media. In a way, it is kind of a combination of both the context-perspective and the user-perspective. Perhaps a new kind of theory can be created that can reflect this development?
Just a really quick post. I was reading this hilarious article about the movie “Titanic” and realized that maybe the goal of the movie was to make people feel sorry for rich people a little, and be glad that they aren’t rich and, therefore, aren’t “fake.” Ideologies. False consciousness. etc.
This seemed to fit in with what we’ve been talking about most recently, so I decided to share. Also that article is hilarious.
As I was reading the Corrigan reading, I found myself trying to make the connections in critiquing current technology and interactions. So here’s my go at making the connections on a few of Corrigan’s approaches. Whether they are correct or not, I’m not too sure. But its a try.
Film History – Corrigan stated that this approach was typically used in investigating the historical context of a film. He said that “some historical analysis informs most writing about the film.” I guess with interaction design, the historical analysis would inform us about the evolution of interactions and devices. In regards to interaction, I took this historical analysis not of the context of the time, but the historical context of the artifact. For example, if we take a look at how music players have changed throughout history. They have evolved from radios, large boxes full of wires used to play recorded music, to more portable forms. From radios, we moved to things like tape players, Discmans, mp3 players, to the iPod, the iPod Nano, and eventually the iPod Shuffle. Looking at the history of music players, we can see a historical trend of devices getting more compact. And now that I’m writing and thinking about it, this is a historical trend that reflects us as a population. Because music players are not the only devices in history that have evolved to become smaller and more portable; we notice this trend in phones, and even video playing devices.
National Cinemas – I had a harder time with this theme in regards to technology and interactions. To Corrigan, the national cinema approach dealt with the culture and national character of a film. I suppose in our case, this means that technology is portrayed differently within different cultures. This is a long shot in the dark, but could this play into how western cultures typically read left to right and up to down, and how most of web interfaces place their menus on the left side of the page, or at the top of the screen? I feel like menu placement is a standard across the web, but how does this affect cultures that read in the opposite way? Is it possible that other cultures may try formatting their technology differently because of this?
OR does the national cinema approach deal with specific cultures and how they interact with technology differently (with less of a focus on the actual technology, and more focus on the cultures using it)? Again, I’m not too sure…
Genres – The genre analysis approach focused on finding patterns of form and content in a film. With genres, we identify themes, structures, and techniques that are similar within a set of films- or in our case, technologies. I relate this to having certain design patterns for different companies. Take Apple for example. Apple products have certain patterns when it comes to gestures. I consider them one of the first companies to play with gestures successfully. On macs, Apple made use of the no button track pad. They played with gestures and how a user can use the two finger swipe to scroll up and down, four finger swipe to display all applications, pinch to zoom in and out, etc. As a company, Apple has carried on these types of gestures to other technologies. They moved to the iPod touch, eventually to the iPhone, and now the iPad, which has similar use of gestures. This is just one example, since Apple has made various design patterns recognizable to the brand. When someone says “That’s an Apple product”, the phrase has a certain connotation of design patterns that follows it.
Auteurs – This type of analysis deals with associations of films to certain dominant figures. I saw this as associating certain technologies to specific companies, or those at the head of the company. I’ll use Apple products as an example again; they have a direct association with Steve Jobs. Other examples include associating Macintosh products to Bill gates, or social media products to Mark Zuckerberg.
Kinds of Formalism – This type of criticism dealt with style and how features are structured within different films. In film, Corrigan stated that critics focused on different patterns in narrative, camera techniques, etc. I could be wrong, but I related this to different UI elements. If you compare Android phones to the iPhone, both have their own unique design patterns. Android phones typically have a sort of static menu structured into the phone at the bottom of the screen. Because of this, apps designed for an Android device don’t typically need a “back” button. The iPhone however does not have a static back button, so typically in iPhone apps you’ll see the back button as a back arrow with text on the top left of the phone.
Ideology – The beliefs we have about the world… honestly, I had no clue how to relate this aspect. Any thoughts?
Recently, I was watching the documentary Helvetica, which led to a question I thought would be more relevantly saved for this unit of the course. During one of the interviews, a designer stated that there was an increase in design of all sorts following World War II. Her assertion was that – in a time following great destruction – it was the impulse of designers to seek to actively create new cultural contexts for understanding in their own efforts to rebuild the world, as well as a sense of cultural identity. Certainly, I can see the relevance in that – in telecomm, we talk about the responsiveness of films and other media to current events and cultural underpinnings. However, based on the focus of this particular documentary, it was just reference to designing an art piece, like an avant garde film, but to the whole world of design – functional tools, fonts, styles, etc. I’m not really sure I consider myself a designer – at least, not in the context the film seemed to be indicating – so I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on the role of major cultural events in shaping how designers design, and/or, conversely, the role of designers in changing the face of cultural contexts and identities at major points in history through design.
While working on another project, Tony Pattin and myself came across this nice little sequence analysis worksheet. If you can get past the super-awesome-in-the-1990s background, it’s actually a pretty nice set of fill-in-the-blank questions to guide a sequence analysis.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/gdavis/231/231s97/sequen.htm
I was curious if anyone could help me with some diagetic/non-diagetic elements I am having some confusion with. I get the basic idea but I thought of a couple of particular examples that I’m not sure I understand.
I understand that non-diagetic sounds come from outside the storyworld. Recently I’ve watched some episodes of Luck on HBO, which is done by Michael Mann. In his work he often completely silences the storyworld and inserts music instead. This is pretty common in his work. I know the music is non-diagetic, but what about the complete absence of the storyworld sounds? Is that non-diagetic also? And what kind of message might someone try to portray with this technique?
My other example comes from specific scenes in LOST or Walking Dead. When a character whispers something to another character, and the audience is completely left out of the loop as to what was said. Is this non-diagetic? It doesn’t seem so.
Any clarification on these would be appreciated.
Recent Comments