rmit

I struggled to set myself the guidelines within which I would begin to develop my media for this first exercise.
However, faced with the prospect of having to focus in and notice things around me sparked an existing interest in light, shadows, movement, stillness and reflection.
Creating boundaries was and is still difficult for me but I  decided to set alarms on my phone to remind myself to notice.
Already quite an observant person, I found that the act of actively noticing was something that I had to adjust to, as most things tend to go ‘unnoticed’ in that I don’t document all my findings by taking a photo or recording them.

10am:
I found myself on my way to work as my first buzzer went off, cutting through to the park near my house to avoid the icy wind. I saw a puddle of water on the cobble below and noticed that by looking down how I could delve deeper into my environment and take in more of my surrounds.
It was a glimmer of light that first caught my eye as soon as the alarm went off.
I used my dslr to frame different shots, noticing angles of the houses around me that took on a new perspective now that I was focusing.
The light breeze created ripples that looked to charge the reflection with a surge of power, creating new dimensions and perspectives – it was just so simple and captivating.
The process of elimination is another element of noticing that interests me. What is it that we deem interesting, worth noticing and worthy of accumulating or sharing?
I feel noticing is an intrinsically personal a thing. Why did I notice this puddle and opt to ignore something else?

I’m also drawn to shadows and lights that take their narrative and cast it onto a new surface to create an entirely new one.
Take a tree on Cardigan street, the wind rustling through its branches. I can see the textures of the wood clearly, the grain and the coarseness of its branches, their wirey tendrils reach out across the road, making pathways for the birds that perch themselves high up there. Their plumage is clearly visible from where I stand, I can take in the textures, sounds, movements and the infinite three-dimensional details of the scene.

When you add sunlight to the equation, it trickles through the branches and casts a silhuouette onto the wall opposite, painted soft pink, the branches are simplified to a soft grey shadow – the entire scene is now a two-dimensional, un-choreographed shadow puppet show.
By no means reduced in that it is lesser than 3D, just simplified, opening up a new avenue for exploration.
The branches dance across the wall, now appearing a soft custard yellow, bathed in sunlight, the colours and story begins to evolve, adapt and change.
It becomes a poetic display of nature, without texture or detail, it’s now a rhythm and dance of the branches and birds. The lights and shadows perform a ritual of day to day – therein lies my interest in the intricacies of simplicity.

I was really lucky to have been placed in a hard-working and cohesive group at random.
We began a little shaky, not knowing where we wanted to take the topic of attention and eventually settled on Game of Thrones, as we felt it would be a great idea to choose something that we had all seen but wasn’t too simple in subject matter.

We evolved our original ideas in the second week, opting to incorporate HBO as a conglomerate; discussing its decisions to take on GoT and similar shows that captivated our attention, but didn’t end up using a lot about what we found in research, as GoT served as an in-depth topic as it was. Gender alone gave us a lot to talk about, so we began to finalise and refine all our information.

We worked really well as a group, discussing and sharing articles and information on our facebook chat group, then meeting weekly in building 10 and in class. As the weeks progressed and we were shown examples of stylised and dramatic podcasts, we began to feel there was a lot more legroom for the podcast but grew uncertain as to how we’d relay the information as a narrative, feeling inspired by the examples in class.

In week 12, we presented a rough cut; an intro that encompassed the overall feel we were wanting to evoke throughout.
As we hadn’t reached a conclusion as a group as to how we wanted to creatively describe the findings, we settled on using Ben’s dramatic voice.
He began by opening the cut by posing a question to the audience as to why they watched game of thrones, thus opening a discussion about attention and it’s relevance, based on our information.
It was simple and effective; cutting the fat, much like the tv show itself.
Catherine was a little unimpressed with the lack of ‘meat’/content that was present, but in the end we all agreed that the themes worked and so we began filling it with content.

Taking on board the critique from Catherine, we settled on holding a casual discussion about the research and our personal vibes on the show as viewers ourselves, we thought this was help personify the overall feel.
We found a time in week 13 to get together and hold a panel discussion.
Unaware, or at least just exhausted from all our other group assignments for other topics, we may have missed the fact that there had been an allocated room for us to work in, so I booked an on air studio which suited us a lot better, and we looked really super professional too.
I borrowed a zoom recorder for us to use but because we had the option of using the studio, we set up the mics and began.
We ran a few test recordings and found that there was a low buzzing noise in the background. We hunted for it, screwing in cords tighter in case it was a technical issue.
We asked for the AV guys at the desk to come and take a look but we were told that this was ‘just the way the room was’ and that we would have to ‘deal with it’ because all the other students do apparently.
Studio’s are supposed to be completely silent, right?
We were running short of time, so we persevered.
This was the most difficult aspect of the project for me; coordinating written topics to spoken word amongst four people. Additionally,  we attempted to make it easier in the editing process, by rounding our words off. Avoiding bringing our voices up at the end of our sentences.

As Ben had the most experience with Adobe Audition, he offered to take the cuts and begin editing them before we met again on the Thursday before submission to finalise the edits as a group.
We got together and listened to the grabs he had chosen before incorporating the youtube clips that we had all chosen to further embellish topics discussed throughout.
Ben mentioned that there were very few issues that he encountered with the clips, it was just that he found it a little difficult to tie things off seamlessly.
Additionally, the YouTube clips that we had chosen to back-up our arguments, found in articles, weren’t always cleanly done, so tying those off seamlessly was a little difficult.
Another issue we found that because we had already established the voices of the podcast, only to embedded another entirely different American man, we opted for humour and included an intro to the chosen clips.

Overall, our group was a pleasure to work and collaborate with.
We never encountered any issues and each member held up their part of the agreement of showing up when they could and doing their share of the work.

I think the most recent podcast that I had listened to was The Ricky Gervais Show with Karl Pilkington.
I remember my ex boyfriend would play it in the car on long drives. Romantic.
Karl would be the butt of every joke and I’d just love the real laughter that Ricky would bust out at the sheer disbelief of the density of his co-host/martyr.

I don’t think I’ve listened to many other podcasts, to tell you the truth.
The sheer thought of making one has confused me a little.

I’ve forced myself to listen to one now on the BBC.
I love the English. I just feel they do comedy so well because they’re often so warped, similar to Australians but then completely different, if that makes sense. Probably not.
Anyway, it’s called The Listening Project and there’s a little girl interviewing her father. She sounds about 8 years old (specific) and she just asked him if he likes mummy better than any of his ex-girlfriends.
Kids are brilliant.

Podcasts have this incredible creative freedom to launch and translate information accumulated in any direction.
The issue I think lies in the information found, the creative efforts of your group and the shared direction – let’s also not forget that there are a tonne of other deadlines that we all respectively have to get done, amidst the podcast flurry.
We opted for a simplistic format to kick things off.

I think now that the podcast has been done (yes, I was late with my blog posts), I liked constructing it all and watching it come to fruition.
Grasping each member of the groups strengths and weaknesses helps to gauage what they can tackle as their parts and then bring it all together and make a podcast pasta.
I think we did a fairly good job for our first try, to be honest.
We had a good laugh too.

I had the most fun tackling the first recording exercise ‘do I have your attention’, forming a narrative, which I believe may have actually been the idea that Ben, one of group members, was hoping the podcast, was hoping our podcast would have become.
In hindsight, could’ve been pretty great but it’s a learning curve that’s only just begun.

We presented our rough cut to Catherine on Thursday – link here.

I really liked the sound clip that Ben prepared.
Having not been able to come up with an idea as a group, Ben took the inititave and threw a recording together, akin to what he had been trying to describe to us a week prior.
We felt that it worked in jest, as those of us in the group weren’t keen on being too serious throughout – Ben had accomplished a happy medium.

Our rough-cut was very rough but it gave the overall idea for how we wanted to present our findings.
It began with Ben, narrating and setting the tone with a little sarcasm, which was later described as arrogance by Catherine.
She suggested that we use it as a means of further developing characters throughout the podcast.
Considering our limited time frame, we found the concept of creating characters for four people to be an additional weight that we didn’t wish to carry. We were aiming for simplicity.
Catherine mentioned that she had not watched the show we were discussing, Game of Thrones.
Having only watched one episode and seeing the stereotypical female roles as mother and exotic female, she was unimpressed and didn’t give the show a second glance.
Which was what a lot of my findings were telling me too – articles in abundance convincing the public that women do in fact like GoT.
Catherine’s reaction to it as being ‘sexist’ was something that we took on board, myself especially as gender was my primary focus on the project.

She went on to say that she liked the overall tone of the clip but she didn’t think that we should poke fun at the audience, as was lightly done in the recording – so we scrapped that but kept the overall theme set by Ben in the beginning; music intro, then narrator, then launch straight into the topics broached.

Overall, the feedback was helpful and allowed us to gain a firmer grip on what we didn’t want, which eventually paved the way for what we should do.

Thanks!

This week, we got into groups to lay some tracks for the foundations of a composed recording.
Focusing on attention, we were to create a narrative compiling various sounds on the zoom recorders that Brian provided in class.

I thought about myself as a means of figuring out a possible story.
I know that when I wake up, the first thing I do is convince myself that I’m only checking my phone just to check the time.
Lies!
I’ve got an alarm, I know I haven’t missed a beat if I’ve risen prematurely.
Instead, I try not to think about the notifications, which inevitably leads to my innards twisting and knotting around each other, until I’ve given myself a stroke.
I’m convinced a past episode of ignoring notifications is the sole reason for one of my eyes being slightly smaller than the other.

Anyway, our lives are unfortunately structured around our phones and what notifications and recognition we’re receiving from others – it’s sad but it’s a fact.
We made a recording about the rituals of the everyday girl on her way to her Media 1 class.
This is my version of the compiled sounds.

Please, give it your fullest attention.

I can’t say that I was shocked to learnt that there were 6 devices per household.
6.4, to be exact – I’m not sure what the .4 would encompass but it’s shocking that it’s not shocking news, y’know?

Guest lecturer, Dr Ramon Lobato came in to talk to us as a group today about Netflix and media streaming.
In his book, Shadow Economies of Cinema, Lobato argues that ‘the pirate networks should be viewed as part of an informal, rather than criminal, economy.’

As someone who doesn’t have pay tv, nor watch much for that matter, I’ve not really experienced recommended viewing, other than by friends, who know me.
Netflix, as I understand it, uses algorithmic means of deduction based on your viewing habits; no wonder 25% of Australian subscribe to it.
I’ve only really experienced music stations recommending me music; Pandora, Soundcloud and whatever that other station is – something else music related. Spotify!

With Netflix, it does the same, which is great – it helps guide people to shows or movies that they may have otherwise not have been aware of.
It helps generate an interest and I hear that you can share Netflix accounts too?
All I know is that a friend of mine offered to share his with me but I’ve no idea how it works but I’m pretty excited and also terrified that I may never be seen in the public sphere again.
Pray for me.

“Some claim that users are now in charge and celebrate their newfound ability to control the media environment. They see the death of hit-driven culture and the birth of a cultural democracy that is no longer dominated by commercial interests… [Others] fear that digital media are eroding the common cultural forum of mass media and promoting social polarization.”- James G Webster

An article on public broadcasting, with a particular interest in the ABC, states that while public broadcasting, namely the ABC some 20 odd year ago had a larger budget of 20m, it produced only a fraction of the content of today.
The ABC doesn’t have any where near as many employees, a much smaller budget, yet it spans across a much larger spectrum.
Some 40 years ago, Senator Jim Callelland, as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on broadcasting once referred to the ABC as “a dithering, timid, old fuddy duddy”.
‘Today’s ABC consists of four television networks, five radio networks and more on digital. A host of online services and sites including ABC iview.’
Shifting to digital has been a costly necessity, ABC News 24, iview having come into being without a cent spent by the taxpayer.
It’s a very costly and cumbersome aspect of broadcasting, keeping up with the shifts and changes like additional stations and offerings such as Netflix.
We’re not exactly suffering over here as a result of pay TV though – we’re embracing it while still enjoying public broadcasting, otherwise we wouldn’t have so many more channels, would we?

So, in regards to piracy, will it effect quality of media produced?
Jonathan Rose (IP litigator) says that “piracy in TV and film is not new and many producers expect to experience shrinkage due to the practice. “So salaries may already be lower than they would be but for pirating, and the workforce in certain industry segments may be smaller than it would be but for pirating.”

At most, I like a little streaming here and there to keep me going on a cold night or while I’m painting my nails, or procrastinating when I should be working or finishing projects.
We’re all guilty of it one way or another and in any case, it creates a level of competition, thus the rise of more pay TV stations that have much more engaging and obscure content.

Happy watching!

What’s the deal with piracy though?
Piracy is essentially the backlash against pricing of content that doesn’t match up to average societal wages, thus forcing it underground. For a lot of people, it’s just another way to make a living.
I myself have never bought a pirated dvd but I’m still a pirate as I navigate my way through the seas of online content and stream Seinfeld online. It’s my go to.

Can I just ask though, why is that YouTube link not piracy? Is it because it hasn’t showed you the full progression of the show? Why should that matter?
It’s still someone else’s IP, the jokes, the acting, the content as a whole?

I’m not sure where I’m going with this because I like being a pirate – I think there’s also something very devious about it too. I think that and the monetary aspect is another reason people continue to do it.
The cost of living grows too high for us all to keep up with, so we love to kick back at the end of the day with a little something for US – if that means we’re streaming something illegally, so be it. Pour me another glass of red.

However, if I turn the argument around and seat myself on the opposing end, I’m now impacted as a ‘media maker’ or an artist who has created something and I’m no longer receiving any remuneration for my efforts, arduous or not.

For some reason I was just reminded of an episode in Seinfeld wherein Jerry is robbed.
Just before the police officer leaves his house, he asks him if the cops have ever found any stolen goods, to which the officer replies, no.
They cut to his stand-up where he talks about how easy Batman had it – all the characters go to the effort of having costumes, while looking wretchedly evil.
I think that if you’re going to be a pirate, at least dress the part and be open about the fact that you’re doing something wrong to make things a little more interesting.

I may start wearing an eye-patch from now on.
Who needs depth perception anyway.

Google defines perspective as:
‘the art of representing three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other.’

While, Rory Sutherland describes perspective as ‘re-branding’, which I find interesting.

Using the analogy of ‘someone who stands looking outside a window at a drinks party, is thought of as antisocial. Whereas, someone starting outside a window at a drinks party with a cigarette is a fucking philisopher.’ – could not be truer.
Why though?
I’m of course taking this in its most literal sense, interested in perspective, rather than the sonic references in the reading this week.

We all have a varying perspective on topics, life, meaning etc.. that’s why we interview people, right? We want to get their perspective because it may aid others in their own perspective and respective lives.

I thought it might be nice to finish on this last video as it ties in nicely a single shot sequence that was referenced in a class earlier in the semester. Apple, of course, executes it seamlessly and the sound isn’t too bad either.

..Continuing on from the one shot takes reflection post previously, I wanted to talk about one shot movies.

Most recently, Russian Ark was a 90 minute film that adopts the single shot technique.
2,000 actors were filmed in 33 rooms with 3 live orchestras in the Hermitage Museum.

Rope, by Alfred Hitchcock is a notable mention. Although it wasn’t entirely filmed in one shot because the cameras could only run for 10 minutes at a time, it does appear to have been shot as such.
I really enjoyed this movie, it built on tension really well, as is the mastery of Hitchcock but it was oddly the least favorite of his movies.

Birdman, also shot to appear as though it was filmed over the course of a single day, received an academy aware for its efforts.

I really don’t have an qualms with whether a movie was genuinely filmed as a single shot, or if it was able to mimic the technique through editing – both are really masterful in their own right in keeping with continuity.

Do you think it matters?

My brother provided the basis of the story for our one shot filming exercise for the week 6 workshop.
We had a really great group, we all gelled and brought some of our own spice to the mix.

Our story was prompted by the theme ‘misunderstandings’, using inspiration from my brother who that morning used a play on words with me, replacing ‘can’t’ to mean something uncouth.

The story played out with a couple of friends talking in the corridoors discussing work they had to finish and one of them mishearing what the other said.
That friend then proceeds to continue about her day, encountering friends along the way, telling them what her friend called her – a trail of gossip.

We filmed the shot next to the old Melbourne jail, behind building 9, wanting to be indoors for the most important verbal cue and then heading outside.
Ideas kept coming to us as we worked through our movements, trying to coordinate one meeting of friends to the other.
Lines were missed, laughs were had and we eventually finished the take and went upstairs to edit.

We hurriedly added bleep noises and some fades to neaten the video up and presented.
We enjoyed the process a lot and I think we were all a little excited to see the end result.

It was unfortunate that we didn’t have the best sound quality because of microphone positioning but it was a great first effort and we can take that knowledge into a next project; learning from mistakes made.

Overall, it was interesting to observe who took on which roles; Jemma managed and coordinated things quite well, which was great because that’s always a running issue among group work, and I know it to be a weakness of mine.

Find the link attached here