Jalou

Full disclosure: I ♥ Dolce & Gabbana and I am going to be unabashedly biased towards anything that has a D&G tag on it.

Here are a few facts:

• For those of you who have not heard about Dolce & Gabbana, it is one of the biggest (and one of the best IMO) luxury fashion houses of the world and is based in Milan.
• Sony Ericsson has collaborated with D&G and released a limited edition of their phone called Jalou. The name of the phone is derived from a french word jaloux which means jealousy!
• The D&G edition is plated with 24 carat gold and is faded-rose in color. There are other colors but they are do not carry the D&G tag on them.
• The retail price of the phone is $800 and the price of the D&G edition is undisclosed. D&G is known for it’s notriously high pricing especially since it’s a luxury brand.

Since we have been reading some fashion texts and trying to apply that to interaction design, I thought this was a particularly interesting artifact to talk about. We have talked so much about a phone like the iPhone where owning the latest tehcnology is fashion. So I was wondering how does it work when it comes to something like the Jalou. Clearly it cannot be discarded as “advertising” and “branding”. It gets even more interesting when you compare the advertisements of the same phone – one made by Sony Ericsson and the other by D&G.

Thoughts/comments?

Dolce & Gabbana

Sony Ericsson

Practical Suggestions for Semiotic Approaches

So, some of you seem interested in semiotic approaches, but also are uncertain as to how to pursue one. For example, Yujia writes in her blog post,

I don’t see how camera angle, depth of the field and montage can be applied to interaction

More generally, Yujia writes that she is not quite sure how to use some of the semiotics readings to do her own. I suspect that she is not alone in this, and so what I want to do in this post is maybe shed some light on how you can use those papers as models for your own thinking. I’ll start with Yujia’s point about some of the film theory.

Those aspects of film she mentions all have an effect on the way (or style with which) reality is presented. A low camera angle (looking up at the actor) magnifies the actor, making her or him look bigger, more imposing; a high camera angle likewise diminishes the actor. Thus, decisions like that establish a relationship between the audience and the actor–of superiority or inferiority, in the case of vertical camera angle.

How do interactions present reality? How do they structure users’ relationships with their reality? What paradigmatic alternatives could have been chosen that were not? (Example: every shot of an actor must have a camera angle; there is no such thing as no camera angle at all. But among all the possible camera angles–close, far, low, high, etc.–that could have been chosen, why was that one chosen for that shot?)

Notice what I am doing here. I am not trying to directly apply a concept from film semiotics to interaction in a literal way (though I would say that you can apply some film theory directly to interaction in the case of cinematic interactions, e.g., contemporary video games). Instead, what I am doing is asking, “what does this semiotic theory actually do for film?” Then I ask, “what could fill the same kind of role for interaction”? Thus, instead of trying to apply camera angle or depth of field to interaction, instead I ask, “given that camera angle and depth of field get at issues of ways that cinema presents reality in certain ways to viewers, how do interactions present reality to users, and what are the techniques and options interaction designers use to present reality in certain ways?”

We can apply a similar approach to other readings.

Let’s look at Entwistle’s power dressing paper, which looks at ways that clothes are enmeshed in discourses that construct subject-positions for people who wear them. If a woman wears a feminine uniform, she is constructed as a “laborer” with no upward mobility. If she wears a power suit, she is constructed as a “professional” and even an “entrepreneur.” (We talked about this in class last week.)

How might that apply to interaction? Well, what are the ways that interactions construct subject-positions for people to inhabit? Example: OneStart and Oncourse look different for students and faculty. What views, data sets, and operators are available to faculty but not students? And vice-versa? How are these two types of users constructed as subjects by the system? To what extent do these discursive constructions align with the empirical reality/needs of actual users (to rephrase: what is the difference between Oncourse users-as-addressees and Oncourse users-as-recipients)?

Another example.

In the resume cover letter example we talked about weeks ago, the phatic relationship between addresser and addressee was one of polite, formal submission. The addressee was constructed in a position of power–to decide who gets a valuable resource (the job)–and the addresser is constructed as a candidate seeking both the job itself, and more immediately, the approval and interest of the addressee. The point here is that the cover letter establishes a phatic relationship between addresser and addressee that is inscribed with a power relation.

Can you think of a software application that just by using it puts people in phatic power relations? I can imagine, for example, project management software differentially empowers managers and employees. I can imagine even a calendar application in which some types/classes of users publicly post their entire calendars for all colleagues to see, while other classes of users do not, and the latter class signs themselves up for meetings with those whose calendars are always available. There is a surveillance aspect to such calendars, and while one person (the latter) is always able to take the action of signing up to meet the other (the former, whose calendar is always posted online), the former cannot sign up to meet with the latter, because the latter’s calendar is not available to view!

So these are some examples I just made up. The point is that I encourage you to abstract a little from your readings in order to apply them to interaction; don’t try to apply them directly. Instead, ask the question, what does the semiotic approach get for a film/fashion critic, and then seek to get that same thing for yourself for an interaction.

For $230 Million, It’s Worth A Second Of My Attention

I’ve been somewhat obsessed with the trailer for the upcoming Avatar movie lately, one because I’m a sucker for epic sci-fi films, and two because I’m a total sucker for sci-fi art direction. The first teaser trailer was so horribly bad, I was initially curious if it was a function of poor editing on the teaser’s part, or a function of the movie, which could be described as Fern Gully III: Our Work Here Is Done, Let’s Go Destroy Some Other Planet. Fortunately, this trailer is better, far, far better, than the first one they threw out to us.

Now, I loves me some eye candy, and at $230 million this movie may have some of the most expensive eye candy to date. And so, based solely on that, I have deemed this movie worthy of my attention. Thus, having watched this trailer numerous times, it would be a shame for me not to interpret it, now, wouldn’t it?

(apologies for the video controls and obvious screen grabs from QuickTime… this was by far the easiest way to do it)

Jeff mentioned in class how actors are unavoidably situated in the history of their own work, and Jim Carrey’s career is one example of how difficult it can be to shake those first impressions. The main character of Avatar, Jake Sully, is played by Sam Worthington, a relatively unknown Australian actor. As a result we are able to enter the theater without any preconceived notions of what type of character he is going to play.

If Sully were played by Vin Diesel, Will Smith or Nathan Fillion, we would have very different expectations for his character. If it were Tom Cruise, for example, we can expect that he would demand the film feature a passionate make-out scene with a beautiful women (to settle any questions about his sexuality), and that his wheelchair would need to be over eight feet tall (so he could tower over any other actors, and perhaps crush them).

The first time we meet Sully in the trailer, he’s cruising around a sports bar in a wheelchair. A projection screen in the background shows a game of soccer, juxtaposing the able-bodied nature of these players with Sully’s disability. His Harley Davidson shirt could be interpreted as indicating he’s a rebel, an ex-motorcycle rider (something that he could no longer do if he lost the use of his legs) or old and rich (as the Harley in American culture is increasingly situating itself as a luxury item of rich retired men).

What’s really amazing is that, in 2154, we still play pool, ride motorcycles and go to bars. American football, however, has been surpassed by real football as the spectator sport of choice. Sorry, CJ.

How do we know it’s 2154? Because a computer interface in the trailer tells us so, duh!

To that end, the appearance of Sigourney Weaver in this film, who played Ellen Ripley in the Alien Quadrilogy, is certainly no coincidence, and is filled with cultural significance. James Cameron directed Aliens and he directed Avatar, so what we have here more than twenty years later is a sci-fi reunion between Cameron and Weaver.

From what I’ve seen so far of Michelle Rodriguez’ character, there are no surprises here. She’s a bristly tough-talkin’ marine who’s seen it all, just as in LOST she was a bristly tough-talkin’ cop.

The art direction of the attack helicopters, I believe, is clearly inspired by the design of the Orca Assault Craft from the original Command & Conquer PC strategy game. What’s more, even four years ago someone named X-Warrior had created a 3D rendering of a similar craft.

Think the video game comparison is a stretch? Think I’m grossly over-estimating the influence that video game art can exercise over multi-hundred-million-dollar cinema productions? Check this one out:

The Na’vi of planet Pandora are mystical blue-skinned, long-eared beings that live in the forest.

The Night Elves of World of Warcraft are magical purple-skinned, long-eared beings that live in the forest.

Ashenvale is the ancestral homeland of the Night Elves (where yours truly would always get his corpse camped by twinked-out level 50s with nothing better to do than pick on a level 30 hunter), and it is decked out in rich tones of blue, green and purple.

Likewise, nighttime in the forest on Pandora is decked out in rich tones of blue, green and purple.

There are numerous symbols used to indicate that the Na’vi are a people of nature. Their hair is braided and bedecked with beads, reminiscent of the 60s movement, hippies, and the cultures that they had originally appropriated these styles from. Their clothing and jewelry are largely comprised of leather, feathers, wood, vines, fibers, seeds… items that a foraging culture in the jungle would likely come across.

Similar to some native cultures, the Na’vi adorn themselves in paint when they go to war, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate the opposing side. How did these indigenous people, a million lightyears away, happen to cultivate many of the same cultural codings that are present here on Earth? It’s a mystery!

Fortunately, tribal cultures aren’t the only victim of stereotyping in Avatar. Here we see Mr. Douche Bag Business Man, who was sent by corporate to make sure the mining project continues operating smoothly, no matter the cost. How do we know he’s a douche bag? Because he’s wearing a striped douche bag tie, of course!

Finally, I casually drink coffee in the morning while reading email, a boring and mundane task. The fact that Colonel Miles Quaritch drinks coffee while flying in an attack helicopter and commanding the annihilation of an entire alien race shows just how casually he approaches such an activity.

Sequence, scene and shots

Here’s my understanding of these terms..

A sequence is any meaningful unit in a film.  It is mostly a collection of scenes and/or shots but depends more on how it adheres to each other in terms of meaning.

A scene is any continuous event captured by the camera and happens in the same setting/ location/place. It might also be a montage as long as it is  perceptually continuous and occurring in the same place.

A shot is more related to the editing and is defined by where the film is cut.  In other words it’s a frame or sequence of frames in between each edit.

I think that a scene by itself can be a sequence, especially in terms of the sequential occurring of shots and if it qualifies in terms of being a single unit.  Yet, I also find that there are two major distinctions
a) a scene always appear in a single setting/place whereas a  sequence can have more than one setting.
b) a sequence will always have the quality of wholeness whereas  a scene need not necessarily have this wholeness as much as it can contribute to one.

Is my interpretation correct? I still feel fuzzy about this.  Please share your thoughts.

Hang Em’ High…

So the other night I decided to watch a Clint Eastwood western. I watched Hang Em’ High for the first time; since it was one of those movies I had wanted to watch and always eluded me (available on Hulu).

I really enjoyed it, but in particular, there was one scene that got me thinking about ready-to-hand, and present-to hand. I know Ben brought up this point earlier when he wrote about his experience with Casey playing DDR. Though my point is really that in the scene I watched, the director used some interesting techniques to really capture the visual action, and make Clint Eastwood’s handling of a gun look very ready-to-hand.
Here’s the scene, where Clint Eastwood’s character (who is an expert gunman) guns down a criminal that had tried to kill him earlier:

I know this film is a work of fiction, but it is kind of scary to fathom that there are people that are so well trained to use firearms that their guns become ready-to-hand. Then their intention to kill becomes reality, almost as if their mind kills another person instead of their hands and a gun. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; well, while I don’t completely agree with that saying, in the case of this scene, I’d say the ready-to-hand-ness of the gunman is pretty well portrayed.

Now that I’ve said that, since we’ve been talking about sequences lately, I thought I’d do a sequence analysis so the director’s design is out there, in front of us, and we can think about how he used camera/film techniques to portray Clint Eastwood’s character as a tough, pissed off, expert gunman who can shoot so well with a revolver that it’s ready-to-hand to him.

Shot # & description	Shot Type	Dialogue
#1 Eastwood tipping his hat, leaving jail	medium	N/A
#2 Worried look of local Sheriff, looks back at grinning prisoner	Close up	N/A
#3 Eastwood strolling calmly across the street, lighting up a cigar (striking a match on his boot), then noticing something important he sees	Continuous medium, zoom in to close up upon realization of something	N/A
#4 a brown horse that Eastwood recognizes	medium	N/A
#5 Eastwood starts walking towards the horse for closer inspection	Close up, zooms out to long shot and follows Eastwood	N/A
#6 The saddle reads the word “JED”. It is Eastwood’s previously owned saddle that was stolen from him	Close up	N/A
#7 Eastwood then turns towards the saloon, and goes in to find one of the criminals he’s looking for	Continuous long shot follows Eastwood into Saloon	N/A
#8 Eastwood’s reflection in the bar mirror as he bursts through the doors	Long Shot, pans following bartender till Eastwood comes into view, follows Eastwood as he walks left, and closer towards the camera, stopping once he reaches the criminal he’s looking for	JED (Eastwood): You’re under arrest Reno.
#9 Reno responds to the Marshall (Eastwood) while he’s drinking liquor	Close up	RENO: You talkin’ to me Marshall?
#10 Eastwood looks pissed	Close up	JED: You’re name’s Reno, isn’t it?
#11 Reno responds to the Marshall (Eastwood) while he’s pouring liquor	Close up	RENO: Look Marshall, I dunno what kind of town you’re runnin’ here….
#12 Reno is pouring liquor, ignoring Eastwood, and Eastwood is getting angrier	Medium shot	JED: This isn’t my town.RENO: Well I wouldn’t know…see, I just rode in….gonna wash down some trail dust..
#13 Shot Reno, with Eastwood extinguishing his cigar into Reno’s glass of liquor	Close up	RENO:…and
#14 Full shot of Eastwood still with his cigar in Reno’s liquor. Eastwood looks pissed	Medium shot	N/A (stare down)
#15 Reno stands up	Close up	RENO: All right Marshall, whaduya say I done?
#16 Eastwood looks pissed	Close up	JED: You don’t remember me, do you?
#17 Reno	Close up	RENO: No.
#18 Eastwood looks pissed, pulls down his scarf to reveal his hangin’ scar	Close up	JED: When you hang a man, you better look at him!
#19 Reno looks scared as hell	Close up, zooms in to Extreme close up of Reno’s scared face	N/A
#20 Eastwood’s scar is visible to the audience	Extreme Close up, pans up from scar to Eastwood’s eyes. He looks pissed.	N/A
#21 Reno looks scared, starts to back away from Eastwood as camera follows	Close up	N/A
#22 Reno continues to back away from Eastwood. Angle makes Eastwood look tall and towering, and Reno looks small like a scared little kid.	Medium shot	N/A
#23 Eastwood continues his stare down, and covers his neck again	Close up	N/A
#24 Shot of Reno backing away, with Eastwood in the foreground	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	JED: Don’t go for that gun Reno…
#25 Shot of Eastwood with a low camera angle, makes him look tall and in control	Close up, low angle	JED: ..I need you alive.
#26 Reno pulls his gun to kill Eastwood	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	N/A
#27 Quick, clear shot of Reno pulling his gun on the Marshall	Medium shot	N/A
#28 Quick shot of Eastwood pulling his gun fast, in reaction to Reno	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	N/A
#29 View of Reno’s eyes widening as he is shot and killed	Extreme Close up	N/A
#30 Eastwood looks pissed as he shoots and kills Reno, pulling the trigger again and again	Medium shot, low angle	N/A
#31 Eastwood continues to gun down Reno as Reno falls down over the barrels of whiskey	Long shot of Reno, Eastwood in front of camera, over his shoulder	N/A
#32 Reno collapses and falls from his feet, dead, whiskey pouring on his face.	Medium shot, pans to follow Reno’s corpse falling to the floor	N/A
#33 Eastwood looks satisfied as smoke clears from his gun	Medium shot, low angle	N/A
#34 Shot of Eastwood walking towards the corpse, saloon patrons can be seen in the background. The local Sherriff runs into the saloon.	Medium shot, pans left following Eastwood, zooms out as he checks Reno on the floor	N/A
#35 Shot of local Sherriff checking the corpse	Long shot, changes to medium as Sheriff stands up to address Eastwood	JED: You know em’?SHERRIFF: No…JED: Anybody here know em?
#36 Shot of Eastwood and the saloon patrons	Long shot, holds steady for a while, then zooms into a medium shot.	JED: Goes by the name of Reno. Come up here and take a look at him. SHERRIFF: He musta just rode in.JED: That’s what he said, how much to bury him? SHERRIFF: Elwood?ELWOOD: Well…15 dollars oughta do a fair job Marshall.   JED: All right, there seven dollars there, I’ll give you 8 more. Mark it down there. Don’t anybody leave! I want everybody to write down in this book exactly what they saw… PATRON #1: I didn’t see nothing marshall…
#37 Shot of Eastwood responding to patron.	Close up	JED: Fine, then you say that in writing.
#38 Shot of patrons talking to Eastwood	Close up	PATRON #2: Nobody’s gonna fault ya Marshall…you gave him every chance.JED: Then say it in writing.PATRON #1: Marshall, I can’t write!
#39 Shot of patrons talking to Eastwood	Close up	JED: Well the Sherriff here can write it down, and you can put your mark on it.
#40 Shot of everyone in the saloon.	Long shot of patrons, Eastwood in foreground at medium distance	JED: Sherriff, there’s a saddle out there that belongs to me, I’ll be takin’ that.
#41 Shot of Eastwood	Close up	JED: Any of his friends or relatives show up, want his horse or his belongings, you let me know, heh…
#42	Long shot of patrons, Eastwood in foreground at medium distance, holds steady as Eastwood walks away from camera towards doors, and out of the saloon.	JED: …you can wire me in Ft. Grant.SHERRIFF: You gonna pick up the Swede now?JED: No….I’m gonna have that steak now.

Well, after looking back, it’s interesting how rapidly the shots begin to change and cuts happen as tension builds before Eastwood guns down the criminal, and then the shots get longer again after the shootout and calmness returns. I’d say that this is a classic example of rhythmic montage: the cutting of the shots is based on the visual narrative, and the feeling that is being communicated to the audience, (of calmness or high intensity), is communicated through the contrast of a rapid succession of shots, or rather, long slow shots.

Ok, that’s all for now,

-Joe

link from sequence analysis to task analysis

Thanks Yujia for finding the link in her last post. Today, when I was reminded of task analysis(TA) by sequence analysis(SA), I knew there are some similarities, but also some difference, but I could not articulate at that time. This paragraph from Jeff’s post helps me think,

“But whereas task analysis if often used as a means to measure efficiency to ascertain usability, sequence analysis in film is used to gain insight into the objective basis of a subjective phenomenon: the experience of a film.”

Here is a definition of task analysis from Dan Saffer’s book, Designing for Interaction,

“A task analysis is a raw list of activities that the final design will have to support.”

“[it] is especially useful later in the design process as a check to see whether the design supports all the tasks required. … the designer can make sure the design meets all the requirements.”

From Jeff’s analysis about the SA, I got the sense that it is to make the invisible visible, and the unconscious conscious by seeing the break down of a sequence from the film, and find out and analyze what exactly shape the experience. While TA is about logic, exploring all possibilities of an interaction. The purposes are different.

However if going further, by laying the two out, I can see the possible connection here. If TA could also be used to analyze the sequence of interaction, instead of just examining whether something is missing, but also exposing the elements that consist of the design, we could also make the invisible visible, in terms of finding out how they affect the user experience. Any thoughts?

Ha, it seems that I should explore Jeff’s old posts as supplementary class readings.

Notes from class on 11/10

What is sequence analysis:

• Picking out a piece of a film that seems cohesive as a part
• Look at it in parts to find the meaning or intention
• Sequence into parts to look at the pieces and distinct parts to examine the details for meaning
• Deliberate detail analysis, painstaking
• Language of film – allows you to identify elements and talk about them on different levels

Sequence

• Self-identified
• Has a beginning and end
• Analogous to a chapter in a book
• 7 – 12 minutes of film
• song/verse

Elements of sequence analaysis

• chart/camera angle/dialogue – transcription
• depth of field
• effects
• color
• articles of a film and reviews of reviews (source materials)

Why do we do sequence analysis?

• reflect on it, see meaning in the detail
• structuralist approach for symbols
• deep awareness
• fine points
• pinpoint issues
• important features of relationship
• determining how much intention the director or interaction designer used at this level
• Gestalt verses looking granularly.  Emergence
• Merging lifeworld of the creator of the film and yourself – how well they conveyed the meaning, what worked and what didn’t
• More than the individual – relationship between things, the small and the larger picture

Activity #1 – Sequence counting in a minute in a half:  World of Warcraft – Here Without You

• Ranged from 35 – 2
• Time, movement, location, scene, expressions, narrative, editing, transitions (how people in class determined sequences)

How do we pick a sequence for interaction design

• look at it from a particular ideal user
• look at it from several small sequences based on different individual users
• we want to situate and analysis from a particular lifeworld and experience
• ideal reader of the text in terms of film, should still be that way for interaction design (addresser and addressee) rather than one real person in the world

How do we do it in interaction design

• Key strokes – old style no necessarily reflecting of the end user
• Silverback, think aloud, eyetracking –> put these together for comparative sequences

Activity #2

• Short, simple and manageable interaction for sequence analysis, work on in class during Thursday to turn in next Tuesday, group of 3

Excuse to post a Ninja Turtles clip

So when I was doing my Outline last week I re-found this quote in the Prince True Lies reading.

“Spielberg’s dinosaurs made such a huge impact on viewers in part because they seemed far more life-like than the miniature models and stopmotion
animation of previous generations of film.”

But as I read this the first time and again last week all I can think about is how much I miss movies where the special effects were done without as much technology, and I don’t think technology always makes it more life-like. When some freaking ninjas had to wear 80 pound turtle costumes to do flips and jump kicks and stuff it was AWESOME.

And I’m not trying to say that the effects available today are not incredible too.

But too often I feel like I see movies that could do really cool stuff with live action or “old skool” miniature models that dont, and I wish more movie makers wouldn’t just settle for using technology for special effects.

Sample Hot Pockets Scene Analysis

So while reading for Tuesday’s class, all of the movie references I found were pretty inaccessible for me, (partly because I haven’t seen any of the movies they were trying to reference, and didn’t have any videos for me to look at while trying to read their breakdown) so I thought I would try to do a mini-breakdown-scene analysis of one of my favorite comedians: Mr. Jim Gaffigan. This clips is about one of his most famous bits: his commentary on hot pockets. Please enjoy.

Shot #	Shot Type	Dialogue
1	medium	“feeling slow”
2	pan out	applause
3	medium	“white trash”
4	close	audience laughing
5	close	“i’ve never eaten…”
6	closer	“i’ve paid for that!”
7	medium	“my back hurts”
8	close	“ow”
9	closer	“hot pocket!”
10	far	audience laughing while saying hot pocket
11	close	audience applauding
12	far	see all of the audience and the stage
13	medium	“i like nascar”
14	close	“never see that going to dinner”
15	close	audience laughter after ceasar salad
16	close	his waiter impression
17	close	cut to the hypothetical orderer
18	medium	waiter again – “it’s frozen”
19	close	waiter “boiling lava hot”
20	close	audience laughter
21	close	“burn my mouth”
22	close	“it’ll destroy your mouth”
23	far	“everything will taste like rubber”
24	close	“i’ll have the hot pocket”
25	far -> close	“hot pocket!”
26	medium	“haven’t been around”
27	close	“i got an idea!”
28	closer	“cook it in a nasty sleeve”
29	far	laughter to toilet
30	close	veggie hot pocket
31	closer	“still want diarrhea”
32	medium	“roll of toilet paper”
33	close	“dignified way of buying”
34	close	“stick it in your cart”
35	medium	“hot pocket!”
36	medium	“lean pocket”
37	close	“take out of box”
38	medium	puts it in the toilet
39	close -> far	response to flush pocket
40	close	“pocket pocket pocket”
41	far	“introduced the breakfast hot pocket”
42	close	“finally!”
43	closer	“can’t think of a better way to start the day”
44	medium	“hot pocket”
45	close	audience applauding
46	medium -> far	audience applauding
47	close	“hot pocket for breakfast”
48	medium	“do love that jingle”
49	medium	“what do you got so far bill?”
50	close	“hot pocket?”
51	medium	“that’s good”
52	close	audience laughing
53	medium	“now what can we run in mexico?”
54	close	“caliente pocket?”
55	medium	“you’ve got a gift my friend”
56	close	“hot pocket”
57	far	“commercial for”
58	close	“now they’re just messing with us”
59	closer	“he went crazy up there”

So here’s a couple of thoughts to start a discussion. I think it is very interesting that when there’s a cut to the audience, it is either to show people directly laughing, or to show the enormity of laughter and applause. I guess it is used as a means to show how good Gaffigan is at standup. It also helps me see when and how people are laughing at the jokes. Also, it is interesting that when Gaffigan assumes different personas during his standup, there is a rapid series of cuts, which I guess is used to serve as a “transporting” of Gaffigan to his other personas so the people at home can follow along with whom he is supposed to be. I also thought it was interesting that the “normal” perspective is to show Gaffigan at normal eye level, to show him as right in front of the people at home, which is used to help us not only see him (which may be hard for some at the show), but to also see the nuances in his body language to get his jokes better.

I didn’t end up realizing how many different shots there were in a simple standup routine. It’s amazing! What did you notice?

Semiotics of The Walker

I’ve been following One in 8 Million, a NYTimes.com section, for a while. Each week there will be a different story. I choose a recent one, a story about a walker in New York City, as an exercise for semiotics. (Click on the image to watch the story in the website. Sorry, flash player is needed.)

I am not sure what genre it is, but it is different from a movie. There is no movement, but continuous static photographs.

MONTAGE

Due to the pictures are chosen to match what the character says, so I think they use montage as one of the editing techniques to make the sequence of this story.

MISEN-EN-SCENE

I am sure every picture is deliberatively selected, including the composition of each photograph, how that photograph match the voice over, etc.

Production Design

They shoot on location, and the props are from the real settings in the city and costumes are all from the character her own.

Actor

Although the “actor” is not a professional actress, I think there is still a sense of performing in this story-telling, photo pose as a performance.

Sound

They use voice-over as parallel sound, and I think it is non-diegetic sound, since in this case, only us as watchers could hear it, not the people in the photographs.

Color

Black and white, so that people could only focus on the content of the photograph and the story itself.

Framing

There are some photographs use close-up camera position, and the one above is a deep depth of field but with the character blur. My connotation is that this photo reveals the inner voice of the character that she doesn’t like to walk in the city, as her voice over in this part is “I don’t feel like in the city.”

There is one look-down camera angle. My connotation is that it reveals the loneliness of the character.

ICON, INDEX & SYMBOL

The walking man sign on the road is at the same time iconic, indexical and symbolic sign. It is iconic because it is the resemblance of human being; it is indexical because it is caused to exist by the existence of human being; it is symbolic because the sign is not exactly like human, but by convention, a sign with a shape like this would make people think it is human. [I am still not confident when trying to distinguish these three concepts. These arguments are copied from Barnard's book, page 148-149. Please help me.]

At when there is 1:13 left, the photo of the character’s sketchbook is seen as an index to her thinking, for her voice over is “if I don’t walk, I can’t think”.

I think the graffiti picture when there is 1:28 left is an icon. It is like a portrait for a lady.

The photograph when there is 1:20 left with a picture on the ground with two women in cheongsam on it, (I think they are from old Shanghai time), it is iconic, but I am not sure whether it is symbolic. Can you find any conventions?

QUESTION

When there is 00:38 left, I don’t understand why when she said”I noticed buildings”, but the photograph shown is having a shallow depth of field and making the building out of focus, instead focusing on an old man. Maybe they don’t have a better photograph? Probably not so.

CONFESSION

This exercise really helps me to think deeper of the terms, instead of just memorizing.

This is by no means a complete analysis. I would like to hear your voice.