No Invented Material with Adequate Framing
1-Nature Documentaries
2-Kenny Burns
3-Autism Reality
No invented Material and No Framing
4-Surveillance
Some Invented Material/Situations
5-Jersey Shore
6-Ghost Hunters
7-American Idol
Completely Invented
8-Parks and Rec/Borat
10-Pirates of the Caribou
I would put the documentary I watched (My Fellow American) Between Autism Reality and The K.B.D. I don't like having to rank these things, but I imagine that Autism Reality and My Fellow American have an inescapable skew just from their perspective. This is fine and great and not a detraction, but the more of one person's viewpoint you get, the less of a full picture there is. Autism Reality and My Fellow American were both clearly from one person's point of view, but My Fellow American had less absolutely personal testimony, so I had to rank that one slightly higher.
I would put my documentary below Autism Reality and above Surveillance Footage just because mine will have more personal skew and creative license than Autism Reality does, however it will have the necessary framing to make it fit the documentary criteria more than Surveillance Footage would.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Oops, I Think I Was Supposed To Post This Here Too [Proposal]
Date: 3/26/12
To: Professor Yergeau
From: Matthew Rutkowski
Subject: Video documentary proposal
Topic:
I plan to make a documentary about the linguistic aspects of digital communication. My intention is to juxtapose two ideas:
1) That digital culture is changing language in a way that hampers effective communication
1) That digital culture is changing language in a way that hampers effective communication
2) That digital culture is allowing us to communicate more freely than ever before
The question I hope to ask is whether or not the "corrosive" language changes outweigh the fact that language is now more freely exchanged. Is it something we should stop or fix? Is that even possible?
Goals:
I'd like to communicate the opinion that language change is not only unavoidable, but not even a bad thing given the fact that we are now able to communicate so much more easily. I know it's a broad statement to make, and it's one that people have strong opinions on one way or another, so I'm not out to directly change anyone's mind. All I really hope to do is give enough evidence throughout my documentary to allow people to pause and consider how quickly technology has moved recently and how much.
I'd like to approach this in a more casual, possibly humorous way. I'd like to present the more academic questions and interviewees in a serious light, but given the fact that meaningful communication does not need to be rigid and professional, I'd like the majority of my documentary to not to feel that way.
Key elements, scenes, and social actors:
I plan to conduct a series of interviews through very different means. I hope to do an in person interview with Professor Anne Curzan, a phone interview with another professor (TBD - hopefully within linguistics), an email interview with Rhetorics Professor Alisse Portnoy. Moving beyond the academic scope I'd like to ask questions, via texting, facebook messaging, the "ask a question" function on Tumblr, the chat function for the Steam community, gchat, MIRC, and any other method I can think of.
The way I have it pictured is for each of the questions to continue the conversation of the interview. If the first question to professor Curzan is "how do you think digital media affects language," I'd like the followup to that to continue down the same path. For this to be effective, the interviews will have to be conducted in the order they will be presented. The answer or the directions this goes will be determined by the responses. It will be more honest that way, but possibly more time-consuming.
I don't intend for all the people I ask to be doctors or academics. I'm hoping for clear, honest answers that advance the conversation. Language is not the property of a specific group, so getting the thoughts of as many groups as possible seems important.
Timeline:
3/26 - 4/1 - Map out the direction/questions of the documentary. Figure out who exactly to interview and attain permission. Figure out which method to ask questions, and make sure the broad scope of the project will fit under 4 minutes.
4/2 - 4/6 - Conduct/document interviews. Assess progress and adjust scope if necessary.
4/7 - 4/8 - Compile everything into IMovie or Final Cut Pro. Record voiceoever
4/9 - 4/13 - Tweak final project until it's something I would be embarassed showing to grad school admissions' people. Execute transcription.
4/14 - 4/15 - Spillover in case I have a massive freakout and can't finish on time.
4/2 - 4/6 - Conduct/document interviews. Assess progress and adjust scope if necessary.
4/7 - 4/8 - Compile everything into IMovie or Final Cut Pro. Record voiceoever
4/9 - 4/13 - Tweak final project until it's something I would be embarassed showing to grad school admissions' people. Execute transcription.
4/14 - 4/15 - Spillover in case I have a massive freakout and can't finish on time.
Blog Post 5 - Maybe This Would Be A Good Time For A Topical Joke About The Matrix
Like the article states, we all have some idea of what a documentary is. We may not be ableto define it absolutely, but there is at least a bit of consensus. There was common outrage at A Million Little Pieces not quite being non-fiction. However, there is little uprising at documentary scenes being dramatizations. There’s a line somewhere, but it’s not clear where.
So I guess I’m as able as any to have some thoughts on this. To me, the difference between documentary and fiction is their representation of reality. [For the sake of simplicity, I’m just going to think of reality is the world’s common storyline that will continue to progress whether or not anyone is filming it.] Documentaries will never be entirely realistic. To make a final point, there must be a conclusion. This means there has to be some sort of built-in conflict or action to move through that will make the film’s ending mean more.
The way this is achieved in a documentary is different than the way it is achieved with fiction. Fiction invents reality whereas documentaries attempt to frame it.
A documentary is an extraction from real life that is edited in a way to make a point. Security footage could form a basis of a documentary, but it's difficult to find someone who would want to watch 8 hours of tape of an over-the-shoulder shot of a speedway station attendant. It’s real, but lacks inherent purpose. It's less about making a difference than making a point. It's still the viewer's choice on whether or not he wants to translate the film's message into his own personal views.
That is something that is shared in fiction. Fiction takes things from real life too, and in turn people in the real world can take lines and lesson out of it. Otherwise they would be irrelevent or even impossible. However, fiction distorts (not in a bad way) the real world rather than focus it. It offers an alternative context to view problems within the real world, but does actually represent the real world itself.
I guess it comes down to the a basis of framing vs. fabrication. Documentary does one while fiction does the other. That’s far too simple to cover everything, but it’s a starting point.
So I guess I’m as able as any to have some thoughts on this. To me, the difference between documentary and fiction is their representation of reality. [For the sake of simplicity, I’m just going to think of reality is the world’s common storyline that will continue to progress whether or not anyone is filming it.] Documentaries will never be entirely realistic. To make a final point, there must be a conclusion. This means there has to be some sort of built-in conflict or action to move through that will make the film’s ending mean more.
The way this is achieved in a documentary is different than the way it is achieved with fiction. Fiction invents reality whereas documentaries attempt to frame it.
A documentary is an extraction from real life that is edited in a way to make a point. Security footage could form a basis of a documentary, but it's difficult to find someone who would want to watch 8 hours of tape of an over-the-shoulder shot of a speedway station attendant. It’s real, but lacks inherent purpose. It's less about making a difference than making a point. It's still the viewer's choice on whether or not he wants to translate the film's message into his own personal views.
That is something that is shared in fiction. Fiction takes things from real life too, and in turn people in the real world can take lines and lesson out of it. Otherwise they would be irrelevent or even impossible. However, fiction distorts (not in a bad way) the real world rather than focus it. It offers an alternative context to view problems within the real world, but does actually represent the real world itself.
I guess it comes down to the a basis of framing vs. fabrication. Documentary does one while fiction does the other. That’s far too simple to cover everything, but it’s a starting point.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
I'm a Matt, I'm a Marquee
Daniel Anderson's "I'm a Map, I'm a Green Tree" is an extremely dense work. Even after watching it a couple times, trying to understand it feels like trying to cut a piece of paper in half with a leaf.
To me, he seems to be making the point that text is a baseline. Text is a border, a class of bondage, and a clear distinction between black font and white paper. However, the way it's used, the language it can express, the feelings it can evoke, the connections it can foster, the metaphors it can make is where it's greater function lies. It's the vehicle of communication, so as a vehicle it shares a border with metaphor.
Metaphors blur boundaries. It takes qualities of one thing and attributes it to another to find a thread of meaning that wasn't there before. While in the past this could mean a red wheelbarrow, or a map, or tree, today it means us. I am a mac. I am a PC. This claim isn't just confined to characters on the mac commercials. Real people make these claims as well, not only in regards to what type of computer they use but in regards to music choice or sports teams or school mascots. I am a Wolverine. The line between who who we are is blurred by metaphor. If text is being held in relation to metaphor, then it becomes blurred as well.
And this isn't a bad thing.
This blurring isn't just due to text being conveyance for metaphor. Text used to be ink on paper. Now it's the shape of ink on paper on Google docs. You could read it, highlight it, and speak it. You could work around it, but you couldn't interact with it. Through hypertext, you can. Through Adobe Flash, you can take the word "font," zoom in on it, filter it, animate it, and proliferate it. Text is not the final product of a printing process, it's the first step in coding, online conversation, and circulation of ideas.
"Click here and win a free IPad"
Of course I could be wrong. If I am, I can always just go back and erase this text entirely.
To me, he seems to be making the point that text is a baseline. Text is a border, a class of bondage, and a clear distinction between black font and white paper. However, the way it's used, the language it can express, the feelings it can evoke, the connections it can foster, the metaphors it can make is where it's greater function lies. It's the vehicle of communication, so as a vehicle it shares a border with metaphor.
Metaphors blur boundaries. It takes qualities of one thing and attributes it to another to find a thread of meaning that wasn't there before. While in the past this could mean a red wheelbarrow, or a map, or tree, today it means us. I am a mac. I am a PC. This claim isn't just confined to characters on the mac commercials. Real people make these claims as well, not only in regards to what type of computer they use but in regards to music choice or sports teams or school mascots. I am a Wolverine. The line between who who we are is blurred by metaphor. If text is being held in relation to metaphor, then it becomes blurred as well.
And this isn't a bad thing.
This blurring isn't just due to text being conveyance for metaphor. Text used to be ink on paper. Now it's the shape of ink on paper on Google docs. You could read it, highlight it, and speak it. You could work around it, but you couldn't interact with it. Through hypertext, you can. Through Adobe Flash, you can take the word "font," zoom in on it, filter it, animate it, and proliferate it. Text is not the final product of a printing process, it's the first step in coding, online conversation, and circulation of ideas.
"Click here and win a free IPad"
Of course I could be wrong. If I am, I can always just go back and erase this text entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)