True story, like Fast Food Nation, I've already seen it. That is, I read it. No I hadn't seen Fast Food Nation before class, but I have seen Inconvenient Truth. It was good the second time.
It's alarming. That is, when I first saw it, I basically felt like the world would come to an end if I didn't do anything about it. Which is the rhetorical object of the film, I suppose. What makes this film so great is Gore's use of Keynote, that wonderful Apple Powerpoint killer. You gotta love the wealth of charts he uses during the first half or so of the film, especially the one that highlights mean temperature (or carbon emissions, whatever it is) that he has to use a cherry picker to point to it. That visual evidence is enough. But then he shows all the ice fields that have broken up in recent times, like the gigantic ice field in patagonia or the ice sheet in Antarctica that had broken off. Pictures like that are worth much more than a thousand words, but our administration doesn't really think so I take it. Global warming doesn't make money. Unless you're Al Gore and you're scare-mongering people into seeing his terrifying prediction of the future. But seriously, Gore had genuine intentions in producing this film, it's been his labor of love making this presentation for months, years, etc. He makes it personal by injecting it with the anecdotes of his sister who had died of lung cancer or his son who was hit by a car. He makes it clear that he doesn't want to lose something precious to him, and that just happens to include that thing we live on - the Earth. The pictures he uses of our planet are stunning reminders of just how wonderful this planet is, but also how small and fragile. We are a tiny dot in comparision to the the vast universe around us and we gotta start treating it better.
In terms of argumentation, this was the most successful piece we've watched in class, better than Fast Food Nation and it's fictionality and frivolous inclusions but painful imagery, or Iraq stories and it's overt biases but unique perspective. Inconvenient Truth has just such a well-crafted argument and high production values. And it's completely true. It's the perfect package of story-telling and persuasion.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Argument post-production notes
I started with the middle, musical interlude. I shot the first bits of my friend Chris walking through Loews specifically for the purpose of depicting him walking into Loews to buy robot-making supplies. I laid down the music first and over the course of the days I edited, split up the Sufjan track into whatever would give it the most dramatic effect. I had to start with the vibraphonic part at the beginning and then work my way up to his heavenly voice but stop there. I wanted to end with, as Chris walks out of that big-box store, the part at the very end of the song with the ethereal choral part. I eventually settled on the part with the trumpets. Let's just say Sufjan makes me feel the (Illi)noise, I'm that big of a fan. I laid it out in the obvious order and with the visual details that I want people to catch. It's probably the singlemost sequence I spent the most thought on. It's pretty much how I feel about consumer capitalism. It's like a journey and in the end, you walk off into the sunset with wonderful music in the background.
This was an obvious transition between Tom Abram talking and us building the robot, but specifically it moves from him saying that a costume would suffice, rather than actually building a robot. I laid down the interview bits in order to expose exactly what FARM BOT is, what he represents, Tom's thoughts on the Chief with respect to FARM BOT, his uniting power, and how he would be implemented. I figured it was a good bit of exposition and argumentation wrapped into one. I inter-spliced whatever talking head-slash-cut scene footage I could and left the rest of the longer bits for later. I did the intro. It took about four or five times to get Chief Questionmark right in Photoshop. I originally had a blank-faced Chief and added a questionmark with iMovie's very limited titling utility. It didn't fly. I had to use the music, it was a song my brother's former powerviolence band did, it depicts the bad-assery and the hardcore-ness of the Chief, or at least the anticipation of such a bad-ass or hardcore mascot. And then the talking heads.
Next, I combed through my iTunes and made a play list of "songs that a robot would listen to or be built to." I already had one in mind, but compiled one so I could have something to jam out to when building my piece. In the end, it was "Glass Danse" by the Faint that you hear. There's something about the synth part that screams mechanical. I laid that out like I usually do, sequentially and semi-randomly. Whatever looks good and has a variety of action I say. At that point in editing, I switched over to the external hard-drive and imported into it the hour or so footage I had of FARM BOT wreaking havoc or giving hugs or whatever. It would end up being something like 23 gigs of space and would have crushed my drive like FARM BOT crushes his enemies.
I decided the Flaming Lips were an obvious choice for a robot that is warm and alone in the world as he walks into campus. I chose a lot of footage that suggested that no one paid attention to him as he walks down Wright Street. I almost showed the girl in crutches walking off the bus instead of waving half-heartedly, I felt that bad for the FARM BOT. There was a girl who walked onto the bus who did a great double-take, but it wouldn't have fit. The next song I laid down was too ironic a track to pass up. I think the title, "Warm Panda Cola" says enough about the song itself. It was either that or an Iron and Wine song. What mindset I was in when I put those onto my robot playlist, I don't know. But I used a really bubbly and happy song and I'm sticking to the decision to accentuate the fact that FARM BOT is as Tom put it, "as soft as metal gets."
And then somewhere in there, my hard drive got unplugged and then it ruined my project file for iMovie forever. Luckily inside the iMovie package file there's a constructed quicktime movie that you can view, so I had to piece it back together from that, which took a bit, and then haul over the clips I wanted to conclude the movie with and sprinkle in between Tom's talking head bits. The crisis was averted.
I ended up with arguments against the other mascots and some underhanded visual trickery against the Illini Dinosaurs because dinosaurs do not represent our great state so much as as a dancing robot. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's very true. Because the dancing robot shoots corn, which is the point I got across hopefully. That and I added the scholarly bits that took research. Those are actual unofficial mascots at other school. For brevity's sake and because iMovie handles long centered titles badly, I used short inter-titles. Before that, I ended with Tom telling the audience what to do about FARM BOT (and the obligatory facebook inclusion). I figured putting that over what he says is okay because what he says is rather ridiculous (holding a candlelight vigil to show to people how we would feel if there wasn't a FARM BOT). And then I really end it with my friend Justin with "Let's Cornhole 'Em" which seems to be the adopted rallying cry of our movement.
I thank Tom that he sent me those drawings that Eric Uskali made for his design project. His heart was in the right place when he drafted it two years ago. We'll just say his presentation mentioned "central american military juntas" as a potential customer for the corn cannon besides FARM BOT. I finished up by trolling through google images for pictures that would make sense to cut into his talking head. And the credits. because I really like... this class. It won't make any sense when I post it to youtube, but they're just going to have to deal with it.
This was an obvious transition between Tom Abram talking and us building the robot, but specifically it moves from him saying that a costume would suffice, rather than actually building a robot. I laid down the interview bits in order to expose exactly what FARM BOT is, what he represents, Tom's thoughts on the Chief with respect to FARM BOT, his uniting power, and how he would be implemented. I figured it was a good bit of exposition and argumentation wrapped into one. I inter-spliced whatever talking head-slash-cut scene footage I could and left the rest of the longer bits for later. I did the intro. It took about four or five times to get Chief Questionmark right in Photoshop. I originally had a blank-faced Chief and added a questionmark with iMovie's very limited titling utility. It didn't fly. I had to use the music, it was a song my brother's former powerviolence band did, it depicts the bad-assery and the hardcore-ness of the Chief, or at least the anticipation of such a bad-ass or hardcore mascot. And then the talking heads.
Next, I combed through my iTunes and made a play list of "songs that a robot would listen to or be built to." I already had one in mind, but compiled one so I could have something to jam out to when building my piece. In the end, it was "Glass Danse" by the Faint that you hear. There's something about the synth part that screams mechanical. I laid that out like I usually do, sequentially and semi-randomly. Whatever looks good and has a variety of action I say. At that point in editing, I switched over to the external hard-drive and imported into it the hour or so footage I had of FARM BOT wreaking havoc or giving hugs or whatever. It would end up being something like 23 gigs of space and would have crushed my drive like FARM BOT crushes his enemies.
I decided the Flaming Lips were an obvious choice for a robot that is warm and alone in the world as he walks into campus. I chose a lot of footage that suggested that no one paid attention to him as he walks down Wright Street. I almost showed the girl in crutches walking off the bus instead of waving half-heartedly, I felt that bad for the FARM BOT. There was a girl who walked onto the bus who did a great double-take, but it wouldn't have fit. The next song I laid down was too ironic a track to pass up. I think the title, "Warm Panda Cola" says enough about the song itself. It was either that or an Iron and Wine song. What mindset I was in when I put those onto my robot playlist, I don't know. But I used a really bubbly and happy song and I'm sticking to the decision to accentuate the fact that FARM BOT is as Tom put it, "as soft as metal gets."
And then somewhere in there, my hard drive got unplugged and then it ruined my project file for iMovie forever. Luckily inside the iMovie package file there's a constructed quicktime movie that you can view, so I had to piece it back together from that, which took a bit, and then haul over the clips I wanted to conclude the movie with and sprinkle in between Tom's talking head bits. The crisis was averted.
I ended up with arguments against the other mascots and some underhanded visual trickery against the Illini Dinosaurs because dinosaurs do not represent our great state so much as as a dancing robot. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's very true. Because the dancing robot shoots corn, which is the point I got across hopefully. That and I added the scholarly bits that took research. Those are actual unofficial mascots at other school. For brevity's sake and because iMovie handles long centered titles badly, I used short inter-titles. Before that, I ended with Tom telling the audience what to do about FARM BOT (and the obligatory facebook inclusion). I figured putting that over what he says is okay because what he says is rather ridiculous (holding a candlelight vigil to show to people how we would feel if there wasn't a FARM BOT). And then I really end it with my friend Justin with "Let's Cornhole 'Em" which seems to be the adopted rallying cry of our movement.
I thank Tom that he sent me those drawings that Eric Uskali made for his design project. His heart was in the right place when he drafted it two years ago. We'll just say his presentation mentioned "central american military juntas" as a potential customer for the corn cannon besides FARM BOT. I finished up by trolling through google images for pictures that would make sense to cut into his talking head. And the credits. because I really like... this class. It won't make any sense when I post it to youtube, but they're just going to have to deal with it.
Argument production notes
I'm just going to consolidate all my notes into one buffer rather than in multiple notes. So it goes...
Last Wednesday, it all started. I got Tom Abram on film and didn't get nearly as much speaking time with him as with Paul Schmitt, but that's all the better, no two hours of footage to comb through. Also, the issue is not nearly as controversial, so I guess there's less to talk about. I ended up interviewing him inside the John Deere pavillion inside the Mech.E. Lab building. It was open and a large rooom. It had an earthy feel to it, a lot of brown tones to it, that and he wore a Brown blazer and matching shirt under it. I guess that goes along with the whole getting-back-to-the-earth-with-an-agricultural-mascot thing I'm working on. Just something I noticed.
Saturday I started working on the robot prototype. I decided it should be a human exoskeleton (read: costume), so that took a little messing with. I had to dumpster-dive at a local cycle shop to get large sheets of cardboard. There's actually a few of these caches in town, cardboard-only dumpters, so if you ever want to do paper sculpture, I would suggest finding one. I had to purchase my duct-tape and spray paint, but not before trying to hit people up for donations. I documented a lot things, the purchasing, the taping, the painting, the fitting, but it all really added up to about 20 minutes on the first day of construction. That and talking heads of people who walked by who I knew. I went for a variety of people, but it seems the people I know who were willing are of ... variety. I had really thought there would be an exclusively male support for the FARM BOT, but I actually have more female talking heads.
I had to go to a second day to get the larger things done, like the legs and putting together the torso. By the end of Sunday we had everything together except the head. I suited myself up and was impressed, albeit disappointed about the FARM BOT's inability to move gracefully. The walk is very short and stifled and you pretty much can't bend your knees inside the thing. But otherwise, I was glad to have it done.
Tuesday I went around takiing photos of iconic campus agriculural and engineering buildings. And the Morrow Plots. I didn't notice my camera was on manual focus or didn't have steady-shot mode on, so the photogs will end up looking interesting. But this is all B-roll anyways, so I figured it was usable. Side note, my friend was manning the table in front of a demonstration against the war, he helped plant hundreds of little white flags that represented 650 thousand or so Iraqi dead and six American flags to represent the 3 thousand or so of our soldiers who have died. It was poignant, and I captured the message.
Wednesday Tom and I finished the head and secured the other bits of the exoskeleton that weren't fully secured onto the body. I didn't have a camera and was kinda disappointed that the Art+D window didn't have cameras on hand. I secured a reservation for Thursday morning but instead borrowed my friend's. That all said, I suited up my friend who volunteered to be FARM BOT Thursday morning and we headed off into the world to wreak havoc. I first had to duct tape on the head, it took a lot. It didn't turn out that he destroyed and pillaged, rather showed his soft side and was extremely friendly. A lot of people gave him hugs or took him up on his offer. Frankly, a robot should be terrifying, but his facial features suggested otherwise anyways. So I'm going to go off on that angle, the friendly robot, the people's mascot. The destruction will be saved for the basketball court or the football field. We couldn't get the fireworks unit to work properly, but the corn cannon worked beautifully. We got a lot of positive reactions and even a mention on WPGU when we paraded in front of the Illini Media building. I managed not to get that on video, but the audio is terrible on green street and the DJ on duty came out on her break to speak to us and basically gush about the FARM BOT. Overall, it was a succesful venture and if we don't go out again in the exoskeleton, then I'm done with principal photography.
Friday I found out there was a robot party somewhere in town, but by the time I found out where it was (second and Armory, far far away) it was two in the morning and I had a bike ride six hours later, which I was still dead for. It would have been cool, but I'm not sure how I would have incorporated it, maybe FARM BOT could have beat the crap out of the other robots to show his dominance, but as we discovered thursday, FARM BOT is a friendly robot.
Last Wednesday, it all started. I got Tom Abram on film and didn't get nearly as much speaking time with him as with Paul Schmitt, but that's all the better, no two hours of footage to comb through. Also, the issue is not nearly as controversial, so I guess there's less to talk about. I ended up interviewing him inside the John Deere pavillion inside the Mech.E. Lab building. It was open and a large rooom. It had an earthy feel to it, a lot of brown tones to it, that and he wore a Brown blazer and matching shirt under it. I guess that goes along with the whole getting-back-to-the-earth-with-an-agricultural-mascot thing I'm working on. Just something I noticed.
Saturday I started working on the robot prototype. I decided it should be a human exoskeleton (read: costume), so that took a little messing with. I had to dumpster-dive at a local cycle shop to get large sheets of cardboard. There's actually a few of these caches in town, cardboard-only dumpters, so if you ever want to do paper sculpture, I would suggest finding one. I had to purchase my duct-tape and spray paint, but not before trying to hit people up for donations. I documented a lot things, the purchasing, the taping, the painting, the fitting, but it all really added up to about 20 minutes on the first day of construction. That and talking heads of people who walked by who I knew. I went for a variety of people, but it seems the people I know who were willing are of ... variety. I had really thought there would be an exclusively male support for the FARM BOT, but I actually have more female talking heads.
I had to go to a second day to get the larger things done, like the legs and putting together the torso. By the end of Sunday we had everything together except the head. I suited myself up and was impressed, albeit disappointed about the FARM BOT's inability to move gracefully. The walk is very short and stifled and you pretty much can't bend your knees inside the thing. But otherwise, I was glad to have it done.
Tuesday I went around takiing photos of iconic campus agriculural and engineering buildings. And the Morrow Plots. I didn't notice my camera was on manual focus or didn't have steady-shot mode on, so the photogs will end up looking interesting. But this is all B-roll anyways, so I figured it was usable. Side note, my friend was manning the table in front of a demonstration against the war, he helped plant hundreds of little white flags that represented 650 thousand or so Iraqi dead and six American flags to represent the 3 thousand or so of our soldiers who have died. It was poignant, and I captured the message.
Wednesday Tom and I finished the head and secured the other bits of the exoskeleton that weren't fully secured onto the body. I didn't have a camera and was kinda disappointed that the Art+D window didn't have cameras on hand. I secured a reservation for Thursday morning but instead borrowed my friend's. That all said, I suited up my friend who volunteered to be FARM BOT Thursday morning and we headed off into the world to wreak havoc. I first had to duct tape on the head, it took a lot. It didn't turn out that he destroyed and pillaged, rather showed his soft side and was extremely friendly. A lot of people gave him hugs or took him up on his offer. Frankly, a robot should be terrifying, but his facial features suggested otherwise anyways. So I'm going to go off on that angle, the friendly robot, the people's mascot. The destruction will be saved for the basketball court or the football field. We couldn't get the fireworks unit to work properly, but the corn cannon worked beautifully. We got a lot of positive reactions and even a mention on WPGU when we paraded in front of the Illini Media building. I managed not to get that on video, but the audio is terrible on green street and the DJ on duty came out on her break to speak to us and basically gush about the FARM BOT. Overall, it was a succesful venture and if we don't go out again in the exoskeleton, then I'm done with principal photography.
Friday I found out there was a robot party somewhere in town, but by the time I found out where it was (second and Armory, far far away) it was two in the morning and I had a bike ride six hours later, which I was still dead for. It would have been cool, but I'm not sure how I would have incorporated it, maybe FARM BOT could have beat the crap out of the other robots to show his dominance, but as we discovered thursday, FARM BOT is a friendly robot.
Argument bibliography and other scholarly components
This is a list of the scholarly stuff that is relevant to my project:
(also, It's all online, but some originally came from various news sources)
IN WHOSE HONOR? - mascot changes by date
This is a collection of dates of changes from Indian mascots to others. It's not chock full of information, other than the dates and institutions and some of their changes.
Maquette University | Athletics Nickname decision
This is Marquette University's official timeline of how things were changed regarding their mascot, which was once Indian, to a less popular one, the golden eagles, to an even less popular one, the gold. This situation parallels ours, in that they once had a native mascot and retired it. The parallel ends their, however, in that they actually deliberated on a name and then deliberated on a name again to end up with an unpopular one. It is imperative that the U of I avoids this kind of situation and renders a quick and timely decision, as well as chooses a mascot that everyone will back wholeheartedly.
The "Big Green" Nickname
This is much like Marquette, In that they changed their Indian mascot to the name of a color, rather than an animal or object. They cite not enough broad-based support for an actual mascot, although students particularly enjoy "Keggy The Keg", which a wikipedia article explains is an anthropomorphic beer keg which serves as an unofficial mascot. Perhaps this is the route that FARM BOT could go through, however, we will not rest until the administration recognizes an actual mascot. We would not want to become the "Orange and Blue" by any means!
Calling for a new Stanford mascot.
This Stanford Daily student newspaper has suggested that the new mascot of Stanford be "The Robber Barons" with a nod to the founder of their university, railroad tycoon Leland Stanford. The current name for their sports program, however, is the "cardinal," after their school colors. In actuality, the name Robber Barons had recieved a plurality of support when the issue was up for vote among the student body, but the school did not act on that vote.
The Stanford Review
The Stanford Review, the conservative alternative daily, documents the history of Stanford having an Indian mascot and the multiple attempts to reinstate an Indian mascot. The article paints a picture that the Indian mascot has a semblance of a following and much like the percieved unilateral decision making made here, was made unfairly and for reasons of political pressure and had support among the native population. It is important that we move away from such movements here, lest they disturb the chance for FARM BOT to rise to the occassion.
Stanford University Cardinal
This is Stanford University's offical take on the issue, documenting the change from Indian to nothing to "cardinal" referring to the color, rather than the bird. It also mentions the Stanford Tree, an official member of the university marching band, and like Dartmouth's Keggy the Keg, serves as a student-backed unoffical mascot.
Before the tree...
This is the history of Stanford's mascot from a Native persepctive, otherwise serving as a counterpoint to the Stanford Review's take on the issue, in that the mascot is inherently racist and was culturally insensitive. (Sound familiar? It should, but unlike the U of I, they got rid of their mascot back in the 70's) It also cites and recognizes the omnipresent movement to reinstate the mascot, but that the administration will refuse to bring the issue to vote.
(also, It's all online, but some originally came from various news sources)
IN WHOSE HONOR? - mascot changes by date
This is a collection of dates of changes from Indian mascots to others. It's not chock full of information, other than the dates and institutions and some of their changes.
Maquette University | Athletics Nickname decision
This is Marquette University's official timeline of how things were changed regarding their mascot, which was once Indian, to a less popular one, the golden eagles, to an even less popular one, the gold. This situation parallels ours, in that they once had a native mascot and retired it. The parallel ends their, however, in that they actually deliberated on a name and then deliberated on a name again to end up with an unpopular one. It is imperative that the U of I avoids this kind of situation and renders a quick and timely decision, as well as chooses a mascot that everyone will back wholeheartedly.
The "Big Green" Nickname
This is much like Marquette, In that they changed their Indian mascot to the name of a color, rather than an animal or object. They cite not enough broad-based support for an actual mascot, although students particularly enjoy "Keggy The Keg", which a wikipedia article explains is an anthropomorphic beer keg which serves as an unofficial mascot. Perhaps this is the route that FARM BOT could go through, however, we will not rest until the administration recognizes an actual mascot. We would not want to become the "Orange and Blue" by any means!
Calling for a new Stanford mascot.
This Stanford Daily student newspaper has suggested that the new mascot of Stanford be "The Robber Barons" with a nod to the founder of their university, railroad tycoon Leland Stanford. The current name for their sports program, however, is the "cardinal," after their school colors. In actuality, the name Robber Barons had recieved a plurality of support when the issue was up for vote among the student body, but the school did not act on that vote.
The Stanford Review
The Stanford Review, the conservative alternative daily, documents the history of Stanford having an Indian mascot and the multiple attempts to reinstate an Indian mascot. The article paints a picture that the Indian mascot has a semblance of a following and much like the percieved unilateral decision making made here, was made unfairly and for reasons of political pressure and had support among the native population. It is important that we move away from such movements here, lest they disturb the chance for FARM BOT to rise to the occassion.
Stanford University Cardinal
This is Stanford University's offical take on the issue, documenting the change from Indian to nothing to "cardinal" referring to the color, rather than the bird. It also mentions the Stanford Tree, an official member of the university marching band, and like Dartmouth's Keggy the Keg, serves as a student-backed unoffical mascot.
Before the tree...
This is the history of Stanford's mascot from a Native persepctive, otherwise serving as a counterpoint to the Stanford Review's take on the issue, in that the mascot is inherently racist and was culturally insensitive. (Sound familiar? It should, but unlike the U of I, they got rid of their mascot back in the 70's) It also cites and recognizes the omnipresent movement to reinstate the mascot, but that the administration will refuse to bring the issue to vote.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Argument Planning and Treatment documentation
FARM BOT FOR MASCOT, FARM BOT ÜBER ALLES (a working title)
This project is essentially an encapsulation of why FARM BOT should be our next mascot at the University of Illinois. As a counterpart to the last project, wherein I took an objective stance on an issue, this is highly subjective. I believe this is the case, and the rhetorical exigency lies in convincing others to think the same. Ultimately I would want the audience to believe that it is important to have a mascot that reflects our agricultural and engineering heritage, as well as a mascot that is fucking cool and crushes its enemies.
The essential topic becomes a discussion about FARM BOT. The assumption is that people don’t have an understanding of who FARM BOT is, and it becomes necessary to introduce the robot itself. When framed in the context of recent events, the FARM BOT fills a vacuum that people feel is necessary and right, that there should be some representative symbol of our University.
A large deal of the action in this piece involves the construction of a FARM BOT proto-type and human-operable superstructure (read: costume). It is meant to show that people have the desire enough to come together to bring the FARM BOT to life. It is worth mentioning that I planned a good deal of the construction, brought people together, bought the necessary materials, and dumpster-dived for a lot of cardboard. True, it was not a spontaneous thing, but it shows that people actually showed up and it wasn’t just myself constructing a giant robot for this project. The sequence is meant to be shown chronologically and either woven into the piece and discussive interviews about FARM BOT or shown as a separate sequence of events. Without this sequence, the piece becomes dry and visually humorless, the construction sequence is like an oasis in a sea of talking heads and extrinsically boring answers to the questions listed well below.
Another large piece of action involves the takeover of the quad by the FARM BOT, wherein he comes out and smashes cardboard cutouts of his enemies, the other mascots that have been suggested in the wake of the former mascot’s retirement. Again, this is logically placed after the construction sequence. It is meant to show the dominating power of the FARM BOT and how he will crushingly defeat his enemies on the field of play and off.
The main characters in this piece are of course, the FARM BOT, who is brought to life much like the Maria in Lang’s Metropolis, a horrible yet wonderful reminder of human ingenuity gone amok. A documentary about FARM BOT without the eponymous character is… nothing? There’s a certain necessity in including the robot itself.
Another main character is Tom Abram, the self-described “discoverer” of FARM BOT. He is the subject of one of my extensive interviews and one of the constructors of the FARM BOT. He is also an expert in FARM BOT history and lore.
Another potential main character is a professor of General Engineering whose field of interest is in robotics and control systems, subjects that are very relevant to the FARM BOT and his development.
There are other minor speaking characters who will either support or detract from the FARM BOT. I should also include myself as a character, but as in my other pieces, I am a minor, non-speaking, and non-appearing figure.
The conflict that is built up in the piece is the fact that we are fighting an uphill battle to get the FARM BOT instated as mascot and that there are many enemies of FARM BOT who present a challenge to his power. They are eventually crushed, however, giving closure that narrative arc in the story. Most of this is observed through the lens of an “objective” camera, no POV shots, a lot of wider framings, and hand-held third person perspectives. Other than that, it seems to me that the piece is a little too subjective and provides too little exterior perspective, but such is the nature of my subjective work.
My primary audience is my peers in ART 250. They are, as I assume, unaware of the FARM BOT, and need the necessary background thereof. I also assume that some will have their own biases and need to be convinced otherwise that their suggested mascots will not withstand the might and power of FARM BOT. My secondary audience is the people who already support the FARM BOT. The piece is meant to appeal to their senses and support their viewpoint, as well as provide a piece around which they will rally and use to evangelize for their cause. My tertiary audience is everyone who has a vested interest or desires to have a new mascot. Again, much like my ART 250 peers, they will not have the necessary background regarding the FARM BOT and require the same introductions and indoctrinations. Also, some will still harbor an attachment to Chief Illiniwek and would need to be convinced otherwise.
I conducted a few impromptu interviews with people during the construction process, such as, what are you doing (to explain the component of FARM BOT that they were building) and their views. I also interviewed random people in order to document their views on the FARM BOT. The actual, formal, on-camera interviews are as follows:
For Tom Abram, one of the main characters listed above, I asked the following questions. I considered him an expert on the subject given his passion for the FARM BOT and his involvement in its discovery:
1. Introduce yourself, name, college, profession
2. What is the Farm Bot?
3. What does the Farm Bot symbolize or represent?
4. Why should we have a symbol that represents these values or institutions?
5. Why do you support the Farm Bot
6. Where does the Farm Bot come from?
7. Make a comment on Chief Illiniwek. What was done wrong with the Chief and how does the Farm Bot address those issues.?
8. Why should Farm Bot be our new symbol/mascot?
9. Would this necessitate a name change (from Fighting Illini to… something else?)
10. Make a comment on the alternatives: Illini Dinosaurs, Fighting Abe Lincolns, Quad Squirrels, Prairie Wind / Prairie Fire, Fighting Fratboys?
11. What is Farm Bot’s uniting power?
12. What should students do to instate Farm Bot as our symbol/mascot?
13. How do you envision Farm Bot being implemented? Actual Robot or Robot Costume? Haltime performance or sideline mascot? Great Mascot or greatest mascot?
These questions were modeled after the questions I asked Paul Schmitt in my last piece, but I know I forgot to ask some of the harder questions or elicit a stronger response from Tom. These questions seek to reveal much about FARM BOT in an expository manner.
My other potential interviewee is Prof. Spong of General Engineering. I would interview him in order to create an appeal to his expertise and authority on the subject of robots. I would ask the following:
1. Introduce yourself, name, profession, field of interest.
2. Describe your work and current research.
3. How prominent is the U of I in the field of robotics and robotic control systems?
4. Why is it important to have a mascot that highlights our highly-rated engineering and agricultural studies?
5. Would you endorse the FARM BOT?
Structurally, the project should be chronological in its approach to action sequences and logical with respect to how it treats the exposition surrounding FARM BOT. The audience should get to know FARM BOT before hearing why it should be our mascot. I would hope for some sort of well-crafted opening in that witty introductory paragraph way of writing things, except for video. The ending should be the same, lyrical and stunning. I could possibly end with the FARM BOT crushing it’s last enemy and yelling to it’s wonderful delight, “Let’s Cornhole ‘em!”
I do not imagine I’ll need to mention especially different formal and stylistic elements. Just imagine something else I’ve done, and that’s how the documentary will look like. Visually stunning, quick, astute, etc. Special effects will not be implemented because the FARM BOT can accomplish those already. I imagine I’ll need to use text to explain things, like exactly what this documentary is or the scholarly bits of this piece that are obligatory to this project.
For this project, I’ve already spent something like 20 dollars on duct tape and spray paint, but those are just what is needed to produce the FARM BOT, rather than actual production costs. Again, cardboard was cheap and free. I’ll need a good deal of DV tapes, as well as manpower in order to execute my massive action sequences. They will not be compensated properly as their participation is both voluntary and reflects their desire to see the FARM BOT come to life.
SCHEDULE:
• APRIL 18: Interview Tom Abram
• APRIL 20: Plan for construction of FARM BOT, steal cardboard from bike store dumpster
• APRIL 21: Begin constructing the FARM BOT. Document the process.
• APRIL 22: Continue construction, documentation
• APRIL 23: Continue if necessary the above. Have rough-cut done before class time, or else spent class time on rough cuts.
• APRIL 24-27: Stage wreaking of havoc on the quad wherein the FARM BOT destroys his enemy, document the process, document the faces of shocked individuals. Also interview Prof. Spong sometime in there
• APRIL 25: Have rough cut done before class time
• APRIL 27: With hopefully all the principal photography done, edit the results to a polished product.
• APRIL 30: Bring to class, sigh of relief.’
Obviously, this is still a work in progress and will be until the week ends.
TREATMENT:
It should begin with the ever famous and now retired Chief symbol, except its face is blanked out, suggesting that what is next is yet to be known or determined. Over it, the infamous Marching Illini music that I guess is supposed to sound like a war march for the plains Indians, or however people back in the 1920s thought it should sound like. From there, I suggest that this project will be suggesting a new mascot. No, not suggesting. Insisting. I make it clear that the U of I will need a new mascot and that mascot is FARM BOT. Perhaps I can begin with FARM BOT smashing on a cardboard cut-out of our Chief Questionmark when he stomps on the faces of his enemies on the quad. Except that would be slightly offensive to people who might think I’m suggesting it’s Chief Illiniwek. Clearly, however, it’s Chief Questionmark, not Illiniwek. From there I explain how other schools have gotten out of their native mascot quagmires (except for Stanford, which still doesn’t have an official mascot) and how they might relate to our situation. My focus here is not on whether or not people will still give the university money, but rather whether or not people will get behind a mascot like FARM BOT. They clearly will. And must. The time for controversy is over, the time for our robot overlord to crush the enemies of the Fighting Illini has come. People are talking, some like the idea of a robot; others think that it’s a more viable alternative than a dinosaur or a squirrel. We see the faces of these supporters, we hear their words. The people are clearly talking. But what is FARM BOT? Tom Abram explains the subject and the necessary background to the situation. FARM BOT is the Fucking Awesome Robot Mascot. He speaks at length about his jet-pack, his corn cannon, and his stove-pipe hat wherefrom he shoots fireworks to entertain and excite the legions of fans who have come out to support the Fighting Illini. He speaks more about the technological advances made in the past that have made FARM BOT possible, and that most of them had been developed by students here at the university. He talks about its power to unite and bring the people together, past, present, and especially future. People have failed to think about the future and this is exactly what the Pro-FARM BOT movement has had in mind all along. If we are going to have a mascot, it is going to be the greatest mascot in the history of college sports. We see a montage of construction and people buckling down to bring FARM BOT to life. We see the warm Saturday night spent on the porch of Allen Hall constructing a robot superstructure, we see the arm holes being cut, the head hole, the “Block I” decal that goes on the front, the massive amount of newspaper spread on the concrete slabs as a drop cloth for the factory of silver spray-painting. All the intricate details and massive structural pieces come together in synchronicity, as one brave soul gets suited up inside and walks around, slowly, albeit with the intent to crush and destroy. Crush and destroy it will, as we see it on the quad one day, wreaking havoc and observing the shocked faces of passer-bys who have not seen anything nearly as beautiful or wonderful as the FARM BOT. The FARM BOT proceeds to crush its enemies by stepping on them. We see its final triumph as it destroys its last enemy and raises its corn cannon to the sun amid cries of “Let’s CORNHOLE ‘EM!”
This project is essentially an encapsulation of why FARM BOT should be our next mascot at the University of Illinois. As a counterpart to the last project, wherein I took an objective stance on an issue, this is highly subjective. I believe this is the case, and the rhetorical exigency lies in convincing others to think the same. Ultimately I would want the audience to believe that it is important to have a mascot that reflects our agricultural and engineering heritage, as well as a mascot that is fucking cool and crushes its enemies.
The essential topic becomes a discussion about FARM BOT. The assumption is that people don’t have an understanding of who FARM BOT is, and it becomes necessary to introduce the robot itself. When framed in the context of recent events, the FARM BOT fills a vacuum that people feel is necessary and right, that there should be some representative symbol of our University.
A large deal of the action in this piece involves the construction of a FARM BOT proto-type and human-operable superstructure (read: costume). It is meant to show that people have the desire enough to come together to bring the FARM BOT to life. It is worth mentioning that I planned a good deal of the construction, brought people together, bought the necessary materials, and dumpster-dived for a lot of cardboard. True, it was not a spontaneous thing, but it shows that people actually showed up and it wasn’t just myself constructing a giant robot for this project. The sequence is meant to be shown chronologically and either woven into the piece and discussive interviews about FARM BOT or shown as a separate sequence of events. Without this sequence, the piece becomes dry and visually humorless, the construction sequence is like an oasis in a sea of talking heads and extrinsically boring answers to the questions listed well below.
Another large piece of action involves the takeover of the quad by the FARM BOT, wherein he comes out and smashes cardboard cutouts of his enemies, the other mascots that have been suggested in the wake of the former mascot’s retirement. Again, this is logically placed after the construction sequence. It is meant to show the dominating power of the FARM BOT and how he will crushingly defeat his enemies on the field of play and off.
The main characters in this piece are of course, the FARM BOT, who is brought to life much like the Maria in Lang’s Metropolis, a horrible yet wonderful reminder of human ingenuity gone amok. A documentary about FARM BOT without the eponymous character is… nothing? There’s a certain necessity in including the robot itself.
Another main character is Tom Abram, the self-described “discoverer” of FARM BOT. He is the subject of one of my extensive interviews and one of the constructors of the FARM BOT. He is also an expert in FARM BOT history and lore.
Another potential main character is a professor of General Engineering whose field of interest is in robotics and control systems, subjects that are very relevant to the FARM BOT and his development.
There are other minor speaking characters who will either support or detract from the FARM BOT. I should also include myself as a character, but as in my other pieces, I am a minor, non-speaking, and non-appearing figure.
The conflict that is built up in the piece is the fact that we are fighting an uphill battle to get the FARM BOT instated as mascot and that there are many enemies of FARM BOT who present a challenge to his power. They are eventually crushed, however, giving closure that narrative arc in the story. Most of this is observed through the lens of an “objective” camera, no POV shots, a lot of wider framings, and hand-held third person perspectives. Other than that, it seems to me that the piece is a little too subjective and provides too little exterior perspective, but such is the nature of my subjective work.
My primary audience is my peers in ART 250. They are, as I assume, unaware of the FARM BOT, and need the necessary background thereof. I also assume that some will have their own biases and need to be convinced otherwise that their suggested mascots will not withstand the might and power of FARM BOT. My secondary audience is the people who already support the FARM BOT. The piece is meant to appeal to their senses and support their viewpoint, as well as provide a piece around which they will rally and use to evangelize for their cause. My tertiary audience is everyone who has a vested interest or desires to have a new mascot. Again, much like my ART 250 peers, they will not have the necessary background regarding the FARM BOT and require the same introductions and indoctrinations. Also, some will still harbor an attachment to Chief Illiniwek and would need to be convinced otherwise.
I conducted a few impromptu interviews with people during the construction process, such as, what are you doing (to explain the component of FARM BOT that they were building) and their views. I also interviewed random people in order to document their views on the FARM BOT. The actual, formal, on-camera interviews are as follows:
For Tom Abram, one of the main characters listed above, I asked the following questions. I considered him an expert on the subject given his passion for the FARM BOT and his involvement in its discovery:
1. Introduce yourself, name, college, profession
2. What is the Farm Bot?
3. What does the Farm Bot symbolize or represent?
4. Why should we have a symbol that represents these values or institutions?
5. Why do you support the Farm Bot
6. Where does the Farm Bot come from?
7. Make a comment on Chief Illiniwek. What was done wrong with the Chief and how does the Farm Bot address those issues.?
8. Why should Farm Bot be our new symbol/mascot?
9. Would this necessitate a name change (from Fighting Illini to… something else?)
10. Make a comment on the alternatives: Illini Dinosaurs, Fighting Abe Lincolns, Quad Squirrels, Prairie Wind / Prairie Fire, Fighting Fratboys?
11. What is Farm Bot’s uniting power?
12. What should students do to instate Farm Bot as our symbol/mascot?
13. How do you envision Farm Bot being implemented? Actual Robot or Robot Costume? Haltime performance or sideline mascot? Great Mascot or greatest mascot?
These questions were modeled after the questions I asked Paul Schmitt in my last piece, but I know I forgot to ask some of the harder questions or elicit a stronger response from Tom. These questions seek to reveal much about FARM BOT in an expository manner.
My other potential interviewee is Prof. Spong of General Engineering. I would interview him in order to create an appeal to his expertise and authority on the subject of robots. I would ask the following:
1. Introduce yourself, name, profession, field of interest.
2. Describe your work and current research.
3. How prominent is the U of I in the field of robotics and robotic control systems?
4. Why is it important to have a mascot that highlights our highly-rated engineering and agricultural studies?
5. Would you endorse the FARM BOT?
Structurally, the project should be chronological in its approach to action sequences and logical with respect to how it treats the exposition surrounding FARM BOT. The audience should get to know FARM BOT before hearing why it should be our mascot. I would hope for some sort of well-crafted opening in that witty introductory paragraph way of writing things, except for video. The ending should be the same, lyrical and stunning. I could possibly end with the FARM BOT crushing it’s last enemy and yelling to it’s wonderful delight, “Let’s Cornhole ‘em!”
I do not imagine I’ll need to mention especially different formal and stylistic elements. Just imagine something else I’ve done, and that’s how the documentary will look like. Visually stunning, quick, astute, etc. Special effects will not be implemented because the FARM BOT can accomplish those already. I imagine I’ll need to use text to explain things, like exactly what this documentary is or the scholarly bits of this piece that are obligatory to this project.
For this project, I’ve already spent something like 20 dollars on duct tape and spray paint, but those are just what is needed to produce the FARM BOT, rather than actual production costs. Again, cardboard was cheap and free. I’ll need a good deal of DV tapes, as well as manpower in order to execute my massive action sequences. They will not be compensated properly as their participation is both voluntary and reflects their desire to see the FARM BOT come to life.
SCHEDULE:
• APRIL 18: Interview Tom Abram
• APRIL 20: Plan for construction of FARM BOT, steal cardboard from bike store dumpster
• APRIL 21: Begin constructing the FARM BOT. Document the process.
• APRIL 22: Continue construction, documentation
• APRIL 23: Continue if necessary the above. Have rough-cut done before class time, or else spent class time on rough cuts.
• APRIL 24-27: Stage wreaking of havoc on the quad wherein the FARM BOT destroys his enemy, document the process, document the faces of shocked individuals. Also interview Prof. Spong sometime in there
• APRIL 25: Have rough cut done before class time
• APRIL 27: With hopefully all the principal photography done, edit the results to a polished product.
• APRIL 30: Bring to class, sigh of relief.’
Obviously, this is still a work in progress and will be until the week ends.
TREATMENT:
It should begin with the ever famous and now retired Chief symbol, except its face is blanked out, suggesting that what is next is yet to be known or determined. Over it, the infamous Marching Illini music that I guess is supposed to sound like a war march for the plains Indians, or however people back in the 1920s thought it should sound like. From there, I suggest that this project will be suggesting a new mascot. No, not suggesting. Insisting. I make it clear that the U of I will need a new mascot and that mascot is FARM BOT. Perhaps I can begin with FARM BOT smashing on a cardboard cut-out of our Chief Questionmark when he stomps on the faces of his enemies on the quad. Except that would be slightly offensive to people who might think I’m suggesting it’s Chief Illiniwek. Clearly, however, it’s Chief Questionmark, not Illiniwek. From there I explain how other schools have gotten out of their native mascot quagmires (except for Stanford, which still doesn’t have an official mascot) and how they might relate to our situation. My focus here is not on whether or not people will still give the university money, but rather whether or not people will get behind a mascot like FARM BOT. They clearly will. And must. The time for controversy is over, the time for our robot overlord to crush the enemies of the Fighting Illini has come. People are talking, some like the idea of a robot; others think that it’s a more viable alternative than a dinosaur or a squirrel. We see the faces of these supporters, we hear their words. The people are clearly talking. But what is FARM BOT? Tom Abram explains the subject and the necessary background to the situation. FARM BOT is the Fucking Awesome Robot Mascot. He speaks at length about his jet-pack, his corn cannon, and his stove-pipe hat wherefrom he shoots fireworks to entertain and excite the legions of fans who have come out to support the Fighting Illini. He speaks more about the technological advances made in the past that have made FARM BOT possible, and that most of them had been developed by students here at the university. He talks about its power to unite and bring the people together, past, present, and especially future. People have failed to think about the future and this is exactly what the Pro-FARM BOT movement has had in mind all along. If we are going to have a mascot, it is going to be the greatest mascot in the history of college sports. We see a montage of construction and people buckling down to bring FARM BOT to life. We see the warm Saturday night spent on the porch of Allen Hall constructing a robot superstructure, we see the arm holes being cut, the head hole, the “Block I” decal that goes on the front, the massive amount of newspaper spread on the concrete slabs as a drop cloth for the factory of silver spray-painting. All the intricate details and massive structural pieces come together in synchronicity, as one brave soul gets suited up inside and walks around, slowly, albeit with the intent to crush and destroy. Crush and destroy it will, as we see it on the quad one day, wreaking havoc and observing the shocked faces of passer-bys who have not seen anything nearly as beautiful or wonderful as the FARM BOT. The FARM BOT proceeds to crush its enemies by stepping on them. We see its final triumph as it destroys its last enemy and raises its corn cannon to the sun amid cries of “Let’s CORNHOLE ‘EM!”
Monday, April 9, 2007
Response to Fast Food Nation
True Story: I read the book of the same name junior year of high school, so like, three years ago. Really, it wasn't all that long ago that everything Eric Schlosser wrote kinda crept back on me, except just the parts about meat-packing and how generally awful an industry it is. Don't get me wrong, the whole of industry involved with making fast food is terrible, but it seems that meat is the biggest one that the writers of this film had a beef with. (yes, pun very much intended). Dialogue aside, there were lots of times during the movie when it seemed unrealistic, like the rendezvous at the "mart" whose name was obviously blanked out, or Luis Guzman as an alien transporter, or the vapid discussion the college students have. I don't sound like that. I don't know anyone who sounds like that. And I learned that Avril Lavigne was one of them. Ugh, that part killed me. What is real, however, is the footage of the killing floor. You couldn't have ended the film in a more powerful way, just showing the brutal and sickening methods these people use to tear apart cows for human consumption. I would rail against the fact that the movie tried too hard to be serious, and the method of framing things in a narrative way only works towards a comedic effect (see Thank You For Smoking). However, that last bit, of her crying while having to de-kidney the guts is the literary nadir of the movie. It ends on that down of a note.
To do a documentary of a book that could possibly be a documentary would be foolhardy, but to make it a narrative tends to ruin things, like the extraneously long and poor conversation between Greg Kinnear and Bruce Willis' characters, or the over-long and too-much-detail inclusion of Ethan Hawke's character, or the fact that Kinnear's character just kind of disappears from the film after he checks out from the hotel except for the brief bit at the end where you see he has begrudgingly sold his soul, shame on him.
I suppose we watched this because it shows us what not to do for the next assignment. Particularly, it should be rooted wholly in reality, and not dip out into it at times for matters of convenience, and it should be real, not contrived in any way, and it should be biased, like the entire message of this film. Fast food is evil. And fast food is delicious too, but the evil part is more essential to the film. There are essential topics and there are non-essential topics. We should be focusing on the essential ones, i.e. the ones we agree on and want to expose. Looking at the film this way, it was effective, albeit poorly executed in some respects.
To do a documentary of a book that could possibly be a documentary would be foolhardy, but to make it a narrative tends to ruin things, like the extraneously long and poor conversation between Greg Kinnear and Bruce Willis' characters, or the over-long and too-much-detail inclusion of Ethan Hawke's character, or the fact that Kinnear's character just kind of disappears from the film after he checks out from the hotel except for the brief bit at the end where you see he has begrudgingly sold his soul, shame on him.
I suppose we watched this because it shows us what not to do for the next assignment. Particularly, it should be rooted wholly in reality, and not dip out into it at times for matters of convenience, and it should be real, not contrived in any way, and it should be biased, like the entire message of this film. Fast food is evil. And fast food is delicious too, but the evil part is more essential to the film. There are essential topics and there are non-essential topics. We should be focusing on the essential ones, i.e. the ones we agree on and want to expose. Looking at the film this way, it was effective, albeit poorly executed in some respects.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Representing Peer Critiques
Meghan - Women's Rugby team
Like I said in critique, I wish I had seen footage of someone get seriously injured, and that's just the overtly masculine desire to see missfortune like that come upon someone. It's schadenfreude, yes, but everyone has a little bit. Still, what drives this piece is the constant action of the piece, there is not a single shot that does not include the players scrimmaging or about to spring into action, and that really captures the audience's fascination. So bodily violence aside, it's still action-packed and wonderful in its appeal to that sense. Some had said something to the effect that they had wanted to maybe put a face to a voice and include at least some images of your coach speaking, but I think your emphasis is clear by focusing mainly on the team and in specific, the game you play. I'm sure there are other aspects to the team that would make for an interesting documentary, but this wasn't Hoosiers or Rudy, it was a only the game, like you said, where you crushed your opponents. I thought the shooting was crisp, steady, and well-composed. I don't think you could have gotten better footage other than bringing the camera on field for a tighter framing of individual players or their point of view and perhaps landing you with a 600 dollar fee when it broke. Also I'm pretty sure that would also defeat the rules of the game. That aside, I think framing it around the Queen track gives it a playful sense and injects your sense of humor into the narrative. As a representation overall, it is effective in portraying what the team actually does, rugby, and explains in details its rules that are obscure to most Yankees or non-Anglicized individuals like myself. You removed yourself well from the piece and we couldn't have figured you were on the team if you didn't explicitly mention it. We could fault you for this, but I think the images and overall composition of your piece was great.
Heather - Ron Kovatch
The strong point of your piece is how well it represents your subject in the context of what he does, that is, art. Although I disagreed with some of the nuanced parts of his discussion, I thought that he presented himself in a clear manner and expressed his ideas articulately, and I think that reflects the quality of questions you asked of him. I know some of our classmates would have wanted some more background on the man himself, but I think the specificity with which you approached Ron lends a lot to the piece. You punctuated his discussion with stills of his artwork, which was a positive point, and I know you felt the Ken Burns effect detracted from it, but I would disagree. I love the effect. I would use it all the time if it didn't become repetitive over the course of an hour, but a few examples over five minutes is absolutely great. For future reference, there is an option to turn it off or to control the extent and speed of the zoom you use. I thought the titles you used were effective and a good device to remove yourself from the composition, but especially over the artworks, I thought they could have lingered a little longer. As for the framing of your subject, I thought it was a little distracting to remain static enough to notice the background objects, but there is a silver lining in that it places him in his creative space and is relevant to the man himself. I noticed his eyes were downward facing for a particularly long time and felt this made him seem unengaged or aloof. As I see it however, the camera was at eye-level and you couldn't have moved it in any way to get around this. Regardless, your subject was interesting and I enjoyed his discussions.
Like I said in critique, I wish I had seen footage of someone get seriously injured, and that's just the overtly masculine desire to see missfortune like that come upon someone. It's schadenfreude, yes, but everyone has a little bit. Still, what drives this piece is the constant action of the piece, there is not a single shot that does not include the players scrimmaging or about to spring into action, and that really captures the audience's fascination. So bodily violence aside, it's still action-packed and wonderful in its appeal to that sense. Some had said something to the effect that they had wanted to maybe put a face to a voice and include at least some images of your coach speaking, but I think your emphasis is clear by focusing mainly on the team and in specific, the game you play. I'm sure there are other aspects to the team that would make for an interesting documentary, but this wasn't Hoosiers or Rudy, it was a only the game, like you said, where you crushed your opponents. I thought the shooting was crisp, steady, and well-composed. I don't think you could have gotten better footage other than bringing the camera on field for a tighter framing of individual players or their point of view and perhaps landing you with a 600 dollar fee when it broke. Also I'm pretty sure that would also defeat the rules of the game. That aside, I think framing it around the Queen track gives it a playful sense and injects your sense of humor into the narrative. As a representation overall, it is effective in portraying what the team actually does, rugby, and explains in details its rules that are obscure to most Yankees or non-Anglicized individuals like myself. You removed yourself well from the piece and we couldn't have figured you were on the team if you didn't explicitly mention it. We could fault you for this, but I think the images and overall composition of your piece was great.
Heather - Ron Kovatch
The strong point of your piece is how well it represents your subject in the context of what he does, that is, art. Although I disagreed with some of the nuanced parts of his discussion, I thought that he presented himself in a clear manner and expressed his ideas articulately, and I think that reflects the quality of questions you asked of him. I know some of our classmates would have wanted some more background on the man himself, but I think the specificity with which you approached Ron lends a lot to the piece. You punctuated his discussion with stills of his artwork, which was a positive point, and I know you felt the Ken Burns effect detracted from it, but I would disagree. I love the effect. I would use it all the time if it didn't become repetitive over the course of an hour, but a few examples over five minutes is absolutely great. For future reference, there is an option to turn it off or to control the extent and speed of the zoom you use. I thought the titles you used were effective and a good device to remove yourself from the composition, but especially over the artworks, I thought they could have lingered a little longer. As for the framing of your subject, I thought it was a little distracting to remain static enough to notice the background objects, but there is a silver lining in that it places him in his creative space and is relevant to the man himself. I noticed his eyes were downward facing for a particularly long time and felt this made him seem unengaged or aloof. As I see it however, the camera was at eye-level and you couldn't have moved it in any way to get around this. Regardless, your subject was interesting and I enjoyed his discussions.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Representing Distribution, Reception, and Critique notes
Unfortunately Danielle went home for Passover, she was one of the subject of my piece and she lives down the hall, so there's little excuse for her not to see it any time soon. I guess how she reacts to her inclusion and her statements is the true reception of my project, so that'll have to wait.
Otherwise, my peers recieved it well and particularly thought I represented the pro-chief movement's reaction after the announcement in as unbiased a way as possible, although I couldn't look past how their expectations might have affected their viewing of the piece. Some said that it might have ended up with a comedic effect with the juxtaposition of some images, like a Monty Python arc, but that was completely not what I was going for. Even though I really couldn't contain my laughter when showcasing it. Yeah. Seeing the subjects on the screen really made me realize how ridiculous they are, and stepping back for a second and watching it with my opinions and biases made me think that way. Others liked how it flowed, in a seamless fashion almost, although there are some points there were it could serve me best to correct sound discontinuities. One liked how I transitioned from one speaker to another but kept the image on screen, and recognized how I was going for a documentary feeling.
A particular critique was how I still had Paul talking but pasted over his image some scrolling text to wrap things up. Honestly, I didn't want to extend it longer than it should have been, and was making an decision of temporal economy, and like all economic decisions, there are tradeoff disadvantages, and in particular, that was the potential distracting-ness of that choice. I can say that if I didn't feel constrained in terms of time, this could have been a short documentary of sorts. Like 40 minutes long. But yeah, I think I could have dealt with the extra twenty seconds, I was already at 6:45, why not make it 7 in that case?
Anyways, I still don't think objectivity exists, but I think an interest topic to brush up on is how the audience's expectations may change their perception of the piece. If I were to include a disclaimer stating my position on the Chief before distributing it on a wide scale (which I will do on iTunes for the benefit of those who didn't come to today's critique), will people see this as courageous and honest? If I didn't include a disclaimer and targeted distribution to people who don't know me, would they think I'm pro-Chief? In some ways, I did break neutrality at points and provided a potentially sympathetic point with the bus anecdote and a somewhat negative point with how badly some percieved Danielle's ability to interview.
This is all a very interesting topic and I wish I remember better how people recieved this, especially the constructive criticism I expected. This is also where Danielle's reception to the project goes, or Paul's if I were to show it to him:
yeah, so Danielle Perlin and her friend (who I also featured in the piece - she was the friend who painted her's and danielle's faces like the Chief) both liked it and thought it was balanced. Other than that, their criticisms weren't nearly as directed as the class comments. In the final analysis, it was a generally positive response and one that indicated a good job in hiding my biases well.
Otherwise, my peers recieved it well and particularly thought I represented the pro-chief movement's reaction after the announcement in as unbiased a way as possible, although I couldn't look past how their expectations might have affected their viewing of the piece. Some said that it might have ended up with a comedic effect with the juxtaposition of some images, like a Monty Python arc, but that was completely not what I was going for. Even though I really couldn't contain my laughter when showcasing it. Yeah. Seeing the subjects on the screen really made me realize how ridiculous they are, and stepping back for a second and watching it with my opinions and biases made me think that way. Others liked how it flowed, in a seamless fashion almost, although there are some points there were it could serve me best to correct sound discontinuities. One liked how I transitioned from one speaker to another but kept the image on screen, and recognized how I was going for a documentary feeling.
A particular critique was how I still had Paul talking but pasted over his image some scrolling text to wrap things up. Honestly, I didn't want to extend it longer than it should have been, and was making an decision of temporal economy, and like all economic decisions, there are tradeoff disadvantages, and in particular, that was the potential distracting-ness of that choice. I can say that if I didn't feel constrained in terms of time, this could have been a short documentary of sorts. Like 40 minutes long. But yeah, I think I could have dealt with the extra twenty seconds, I was already at 6:45, why not make it 7 in that case?
Anyways, I still don't think objectivity exists, but I think an interest topic to brush up on is how the audience's expectations may change their perception of the piece. If I were to include a disclaimer stating my position on the Chief before distributing it on a wide scale (which I will do on iTunes for the benefit of those who didn't come to today's critique), will people see this as courageous and honest? If I didn't include a disclaimer and targeted distribution to people who don't know me, would they think I'm pro-Chief? In some ways, I did break neutrality at points and provided a potentially sympathetic point with the bus anecdote and a somewhat negative point with how badly some percieved Danielle's ability to interview.
This is all a very interesting topic and I wish I remember better how people recieved this, especially the constructive criticism I expected. This is also where Danielle's reception to the project goes, or Paul's if I were to show it to him:
yeah, so Danielle Perlin and her friend (who I also featured in the piece - she was the friend who painted her's and danielle's faces like the Chief) both liked it and thought it was balanced. Other than that, their criticisms weren't nearly as directed as the class comments. In the final analysis, it was a generally positive response and one that indicated a good job in hiding my biases well.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Representing Post-production notes
I thought the tough part was over, but I was wrong. It took me about two hours to figure out what to import and ended up with a bloated gallery of footage, something like 90 minutes on my increasingly tightening powerbook hard drive. I ended up working out of my borrowed Art+D external drive for good measure. That and I had about a gig of external media, like all the pictures I ended up from Danielle. I looked back at my treatment and started from there. I started with the first bit of footage I ever took dealing with this issue, the Chief rally held the first monday after the February 16 announcement. It ended up being a pastiche, a lot of related clips to just set the mood, a pastiche that would set the tone for the pastiche that became the rest of my piece.
I consciously went into this without wanting to do titles to avoid injecting any bit of my commentary, but titles don't necessarily imply any bit of bias. Mainly the titles were used to demarcate the chronological ordering of events and to introduce my two subjects. In this regard, they worked well because they avoided having to expose those facts through lenghty video explanations, which, given the time constraints would have bloated the piece even more than it ended up. I think I represented well how the event was attended, and the activity that went on. I took a lot of footage of how the media covered it, there were a lot of local network cameras and photographers, as well as the obligatory DI photographers I recognized. I included the short bit of Dan Maloney talking to the cameras for good measure, he doesn't say much to add to the piece however. I kind of mixed up the order of things for aesthetic effect, I don't think it changes the meaning too much, and it created a good transition to Paul's initial bit of his interview. Specifically, I made it seem that the chanting of "save the Chief" was spontaneous when it was really followed after a rousing rendition of the Alma Mater. I didn't include footage of the speeches which I suppose was the whole point of the rally. I didn't capture the sound too well. That or the hordes of students buying T-shirts from the Students for Chief Illiniwek representitives.
I started off with Paul talking about the uniting power of the Chief and followed it with Danielle reinforcing that idea but from the perspective of viewing the student body as diverse and needing a uniting symbol, rather than an appeal to tradition and a more longitudnal attitude towards the Chief's bonding power. As I would see in the footage, Danielle would end up being a more common voice than Paul Schmitt, who was incredibly well-spoken on the issue. I wanted to make it clear she was a sports fan in particular, so I mentioned that she was an Orange Krush member through text. After that I tried to steer the discussion towards one particular topic, and that at the time was the racial sensitivity issues surrounding the Chief, but it ended up being a slower process than just that. Paul said something quite post-modern about the issue, being that a symbol such as the Chief is whatever you make of it and reveals what you may think or feel. I wanted this to be a piece about semiotics or objectivity itself, I had Danielle talking about effective argumentation, that is, how she goes about trying to understand the other side of the issue in order to better understand her stances. In that regard, both my subjects were thankfully thoughtful and did recognize the merit of both sides of the issue.
I managed to include the footage of the Chief's last dance and surrounded it by my subject's responses to the question regarding how we are educated about Native history and culture, in what I hope should be the more thoughtful parts of the dialogue. They both recognized that we don't learn much about Native history and culture, and I even have Paul Schmitt admitting that the Chief is not meant to be accurate. I in turn recognized that Paul was genuine in his belief that Chief Illiniwek could have and should have served the interests in teaching the public and raising awareness about Native issues and saved that for a finale. It really is their saving grace in my mind, that they feel that the Chief is a misrepresentation.
I included a lot of my external media in the form of pictures into which we zoom in. Let's just say I went a little crazy with the Ken Burns effect. I think it works for the best, it not only accentuates the subject's speech but provides a visual break. I seriously don't want to look at a talking head for more than 30 seconds, and I made sure you and I don't have to. I also realized from the start that I would be framing the expository parts around the events of "Chief Week" and beyond and ended up including the February 26 candlelight vigil before Paul really addresses the racial issues. As for the rest, they're just nails in the coffin of the Chief. To add a topical element, I included the recent news surrounding the University's decision to retain rights of the Chief's image and logo and effectively end the manufacture of related merchandise in the coming months. Which is dandy in my mind, but I didn't add that feeling, merely presented the facts of the matter.
After 5 minutes of an actual piece, I was at a loss of how to continue without going over excessively, but the way the piece flows, it doesn't seem at all like 5 minutes. So I tacked on another minute and half and accentuated the point about how there was disrespect towards to the pro-chief movement in the final days of his existence. And after that, the topical elements and other historical framings of what went on.
I can honestly say that this may not be my strongest work. For one thing, I'm portraying neutrally or even somewhat positively a viewpoint I don't agree with. For another, it doesn't end with the grace that I had envisioned. It ends with what I thought would be a good thing, a final thought that would provoke the audience to think or at least challenge their beliefs. It may or may not do that, but the intention is there. Also, I could have ended on a light-hearted yet nostalgic note with a montage of every bit of the Alma mater being sung, at the first rally, at the basketball game, at the candlelight vigil, etc. But it would have ended up just as I described: light-hearted and nostalgic, or in other words, depressing and inappropriate. The inclusion of music in this piece would have disturbed the effect, I think the feelings and thoughts of the subjects and the other media speak enough for themselves without the need to be sung.
And that's that. I head off to critiques.... now.
Seeya soon!
I consciously went into this without wanting to do titles to avoid injecting any bit of my commentary, but titles don't necessarily imply any bit of bias. Mainly the titles were used to demarcate the chronological ordering of events and to introduce my two subjects. In this regard, they worked well because they avoided having to expose those facts through lenghty video explanations, which, given the time constraints would have bloated the piece even more than it ended up. I think I represented well how the event was attended, and the activity that went on. I took a lot of footage of how the media covered it, there were a lot of local network cameras and photographers, as well as the obligatory DI photographers I recognized. I included the short bit of Dan Maloney talking to the cameras for good measure, he doesn't say much to add to the piece however. I kind of mixed up the order of things for aesthetic effect, I don't think it changes the meaning too much, and it created a good transition to Paul's initial bit of his interview. Specifically, I made it seem that the chanting of "save the Chief" was spontaneous when it was really followed after a rousing rendition of the Alma Mater. I didn't include footage of the speeches which I suppose was the whole point of the rally. I didn't capture the sound too well. That or the hordes of students buying T-shirts from the Students for Chief Illiniwek representitives.
I started off with Paul talking about the uniting power of the Chief and followed it with Danielle reinforcing that idea but from the perspective of viewing the student body as diverse and needing a uniting symbol, rather than an appeal to tradition and a more longitudnal attitude towards the Chief's bonding power. As I would see in the footage, Danielle would end up being a more common voice than Paul Schmitt, who was incredibly well-spoken on the issue. I wanted to make it clear she was a sports fan in particular, so I mentioned that she was an Orange Krush member through text. After that I tried to steer the discussion towards one particular topic, and that at the time was the racial sensitivity issues surrounding the Chief, but it ended up being a slower process than just that. Paul said something quite post-modern about the issue, being that a symbol such as the Chief is whatever you make of it and reveals what you may think or feel. I wanted this to be a piece about semiotics or objectivity itself, I had Danielle talking about effective argumentation, that is, how she goes about trying to understand the other side of the issue in order to better understand her stances. In that regard, both my subjects were thankfully thoughtful and did recognize the merit of both sides of the issue.
I managed to include the footage of the Chief's last dance and surrounded it by my subject's responses to the question regarding how we are educated about Native history and culture, in what I hope should be the more thoughtful parts of the dialogue. They both recognized that we don't learn much about Native history and culture, and I even have Paul Schmitt admitting that the Chief is not meant to be accurate. I in turn recognized that Paul was genuine in his belief that Chief Illiniwek could have and should have served the interests in teaching the public and raising awareness about Native issues and saved that for a finale. It really is their saving grace in my mind, that they feel that the Chief is a misrepresentation.
I included a lot of my external media in the form of pictures into which we zoom in. Let's just say I went a little crazy with the Ken Burns effect. I think it works for the best, it not only accentuates the subject's speech but provides a visual break. I seriously don't want to look at a talking head for more than 30 seconds, and I made sure you and I don't have to. I also realized from the start that I would be framing the expository parts around the events of "Chief Week" and beyond and ended up including the February 26 candlelight vigil before Paul really addresses the racial issues. As for the rest, they're just nails in the coffin of the Chief. To add a topical element, I included the recent news surrounding the University's decision to retain rights of the Chief's image and logo and effectively end the manufacture of related merchandise in the coming months. Which is dandy in my mind, but I didn't add that feeling, merely presented the facts of the matter.
After 5 minutes of an actual piece, I was at a loss of how to continue without going over excessively, but the way the piece flows, it doesn't seem at all like 5 minutes. So I tacked on another minute and half and accentuated the point about how there was disrespect towards to the pro-chief movement in the final days of his existence. And after that, the topical elements and other historical framings of what went on.
I can honestly say that this may not be my strongest work. For one thing, I'm portraying neutrally or even somewhat positively a viewpoint I don't agree with. For another, it doesn't end with the grace that I had envisioned. It ends with what I thought would be a good thing, a final thought that would provoke the audience to think or at least challenge their beliefs. It may or may not do that, but the intention is there. Also, I could have ended on a light-hearted yet nostalgic note with a montage of every bit of the Alma mater being sung, at the first rally, at the basketball game, at the candlelight vigil, etc. But it would have ended up just as I described: light-hearted and nostalgic, or in other words, depressing and inappropriate. The inclusion of music in this piece would have disturbed the effect, I think the feelings and thoughts of the subjects and the other media speak enough for themselves without the need to be sung.
And that's that. I head off to critiques.... now.
Seeya soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)