Author Archive

Comments Comments Off on FINAL PORTFOLIO!

Sorry about the voice, was waiting till I got better to do the voice over but that ended up not happening.


Comments 13 Comments »

Comments Comments Off on Observational Doc.

In Shermans Projecting the Self, clearly we can see that he abides by Gordon Harvey’s “Elements of the Academic Essay”. As I began to first read through it I did not look for any elements, instead i tried to understand what was written. As I read I found that each paragraph seemed to flow seamlessly into the next. Clearly whilst writting this thought went into how she wanted this post to come across. Sharon R. Sherman had clearly linked her work in a decipherable order, one which had allowed the reader to follow her point and to see it proven true/false in her eyes.

As i re-read this article i also noticed that when I was reading each argument had been supported with evidence. Such as when Sherman restates “One of the crucial differences between dramatic and documentary films is that in dramatic films you know it’s a lie, whereas in documentary films you are made to believe its the truth, when in fact, it’s as much a lie as the other stuff”. Early on she stakes a claim and begins to mill through it with true facts and evidence to support her claim. Even citing documentaries which had been edited to simply explain a point that no matter which type of film there is, it can never truly be the truth.

Throughout the essay she seamlessly provides us with her stance, evidence, sources and analyzes each to make it each incase you couldn’t read in between the lines. Sherman takes her literary work to new heights, following the elements of an academic essay set forth by Gordon Harvey. I further deduced Sherman had chosen to use loggos. She chose to use logic to clear her point through her writing. Combined with the way she had went through the elements led Sherman’s “Projecting the Self” to be enriched with content while maintaining a point and getting it across.

Comments Comments Off on

Comments Comments Off on

As I began to read this article I noticed that Grierson had a heavy undertone. His tone was to suggest in my interpretation the decline of modern art forms which are include films and writing. Throwing puff pieces towards the written media, claiming that they avoid solid consideration of any material and avoid sold material all together. He goes on to say that studios produce films which do not compare to real actions being filmed in real surrounding in real time. The idea that real events that happen are far more likely to blossom in your mind than a generated script.

Flaherty is brought up as a documentary director, how a great addition to studio had been dismissed after realizing that it was in fact the actual footage of real people in real surroundings which would have led to success. After making multiple films he was to his dismay, associated with failure. Though one of his documentaries, ‘White Shadows of the South Seas’ did become a success it had been overshadowed by his two other failures Moana and Tabu. He did not intend to meddle with the raw footage but was pressed by the cynicism of the pressures of hollywood.

In conclusion I picked out something which had really struck me, ‘one has to see that we do not mixup fullfillment of primitive desires and vain dignities which attach to that fullfillment, with the dignities which attach to a man as an imaginative being’. This really struck me, how such a profound thought could be summed up so easily. We must realize that though we read novels, watch movies among others we must always realize what is real and fake. How real life impacts the very basis of our knowledge base, how we interpret every day life is far more interesting than how we interpret a work of fiction.

Comments 2 Comments »

As I was unable to attend class on Monday i decided to go through posts made. From this I’ve concluded that we’re re-imagining our filmed interviews. Instead of the simple interviews which we had begun with we’ve been entrusted to make an explosion of conflict and montage in the prospectus of Eisenhower. Many students have decided to use imaginative plots, props and effects to make their video pop as well as including a hint of comedy and drama in their pieces.

Aside from that, Professor Ferguson has also reminded us that he may not be in attendance the following week. If we could take a trip back to the very beginning of our classes we can recollect that our dear Professor is nearing the due date of the birth of a child with his wife. CONGRATULATIONS!

P.S: To clarify, the comments we need to make which if you glance at your syllabus that are due on Saturdays are to be commented on reflections.

Comments Comments Off on Class of 9/27

The reading of the Romans in Films by Roland Barthes and translated by Annette Lavers was interesting to say the least. In this article Director Mankiewicz’s Julius Cesar is picked apart. Throughout this piece of writing Barthes elaborates on major aspects on the film. He goes from mens hair draped neatly on their foreheads to women with curled hair to the most extreme of men sweating. He signifies each characteristic as an attribute to the deeper feeling of this ancient time and how in a way the western worlds perspective and acting is a poor representation of the time. Barthes does not believe that an actor such as Marlon Brando with a native root can portray a character such as Julius Cesar because of how he has been depicted in countless movies and shorts before. What Barthes has tried to explain throughout his essay is that there is no common ground for actors to fully drift into the role they wish to portray without understanding the significance of every single piece of make up, hairstyle or added effect.

During film it is important for the audience to be immersed in what they view. The very idea of the film is to captivate the audience in a new world especially with a portrayal based on historical context. In order for this to happen the mindset and the very structure of the story itself must be understood by the actors otherwise we view a film that is two- dimensional and does not speak to the audience and make them think of a deeper meaning to each action. What Barthes has done is quite unique, though others have picked apart film none have done so eloquently in my readings. He intrigues you to look at a film with eyes of observance, to catch the smallest of details such as vaselined sweat. The simple fact that a person sweats could mean more than they are just hot; it could mean they are contemplating their own next move or they are worried of an unknown.

From reading Barthes article, The Romans in Films I now analyze films with a deeper understanding. After reading this i cannot help but agree with his every statement and that in fact each action has a three dimensional meaning. Viewing films in such a light helps understand what is really trying to be said, the subliminal topic which is masked through pretty faces and strung words.

Comments 1 Comment »

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar