Category / My Take

by harrietread

MOI Wk 7

This week in class we are looking at Virtual or Augmented reality and 4D cinema.

I think that for VR, in the context of storytelling and not medicine or anything else, I think that there is potential for it to become a platform for great visual narrative like cinema has. But I don’t think it’s going to happen too quickly. Cinema at the moment is based on a single plot or story, constructed as the director or studio chooses, but we follow the motivations of the protagonist(s). VR and embodied storytelling would demand so much suspense of disbelief in the audience, trying to put them into a context or a world and that might not work too well.

I just don’t think it will be that easy to get a sense of empathy out of these stories until their content is well constructed. I like the idea of challenging audiences through VR, but I believe using its full potential as an empathetic medium is going to be a very tricky thing to accomplish.

For 4D cinema, detached observation demands that an audience be held back a distance in order to actually appreciate a text. From this, we can assume that 4D cinema is breaking this idea. I think that 4D cinema is a pretty full on idea because watching a film can be a nice escape, but what if it gets too much for a viewer? If you think of Saving Private Ryan, many WW2 veterans in the audiences of the film had to leave their screenings to avoid PTSD flares. That’s not to say that 4D will give people PTSD, but considering a 2d film is emotionally powerful enough to trigger people, what if there are emotional or physical side effects to 4D storytelling. I probably sound like a soccer mum crying AntiVax, but I know when I want to be immersed in a film I still want to be present physically in the real world. I don’t want to be stuck on Sauron’s turf in Mordor and get mauled by a bunch of Uruk-hai.

by harrietread

Week 12

Finishing up my photo compendium this week, I made a couple of changes to the final construction of my photobook. Firstly, I chose not to print a book out. The final day that I had to shoot, at the Dutton Garage in Richmond, was yesterday. That gave me one day to shoot, pick and edit the photos that I would need for my photo, and I also knew I would be taking a lot of photos that I would need to choose from.

I also chose not to have interviews for my compendium. The main reason that I chose to do this was firstly because the salespeople at Dutton Garage told me that they would be too busy to be interviewed on the showroom floor. Secondly, I chose not to have interviews because the process of approaching strangers, especially at the Benalla Historic Car Races, would be confronting and challenging for both me and the interviewee.

To compensate, I have chosen photos from my collection that link people and cars together. I had a fair few shots of both people and cars in frame. I was concerned about privacy and consent, but the figures in the photos are unidentifiable so it’s appropriate to use them. I also tried to focus on making connections between cars and people over a period of time. There are a couple of photos of older people admiring cars at the car show, and at the Dutton Garage there was a display up on the wall of young people admiring them as well.

The most difficult part of my experience was working out where to go to take photos. There are not many car meet-ups happening locally at this time of the year, and most car shows that are on are in other states or simply to far away. Fortunately, I was able to make it to Benalla and I managed to gather strong material at the Dutton Garage. I also had help from the official photographer there who toured me around the showrooms and gave me help and advice on technical and aesthetic concerns when photographing vehicles.

by harrietread

Week 11

This week has been about thinking more closely about our photobooks. What I have been considering and planning has primarily been what kind of story I want to tell about cars through photography, and also how I will improve my technical and aesthetic practice when photographing cars.

So in my consult with Brian last week I was thinking about presenting my photobook like Brandon Stanton’s Humans of New York, in the sense that I wanted to go up to strangers with their cars and have a quick 2 min interview with them about why they like cars etc. What I want to get out of this approach is a humanising perspective of car culture.

In terms of my technical skills, this week I began doing some practice photography of cars. I practiced light painting, which i mainly done at night and involves having a really long shutter speed and then literally painting the car with light from a torch. My practice has proven effective so far. Now I need to practice composition and framing.

by harrietread

My Take on why Good Horror is Scary

What’s the scariest film you’ve ever watched?

If you try to think about any scary movie or story or whatever, what tends to be the scariest thing is the unknown.

Take, for instance, this short film that goes for only 2 and a half minutes. Watch before continuing.

So, what’s the deal with it? It’s creepy. Really creepy. But what’s mostly creepy is that we don’t know what is going on. Not to mention, the director Kris Straub’s use of old news weather report conventions make this eerily realistic as though this is a real thing that happened.

The interpretations you could go on with this little short film are endless. What is going on, What is happening outside, Why are messages being misconstrued and contradicted from the weather channel?

The long and short part that I want to get to about this is that the most terrifying things are the things that we don’t know much about. For example, the iconic Blair Witch Project is a greatly turned to horror film and yet we never see the Blair Witch itself. There is only uncertainty, conflict, paranoia and confusion.

That is what makes the Blair Witch Project so scary: we fear the unknown. The same can be said of Paranormal Activity, which terrified me for so long because you never saw the entity but it was always there. Not seeing, not knowing, being unable to decipher or understand things is the scariest thing and horror film makers, writers and storytellers have been exploiting this whole idea since forever.

by harrietread

My Take on Apple’s IOS Update

Anyone who has updated their Apple product (iPod, iPad or iPhone) can tell you straight up that there’s a few issues. So far, there have been complaints of

  • Straight up crashes
  • Bricking
  • Unresponsive touchscreen
  • Bluetooth issues
  • Wiping out of graphics

Firstly, let’s just say that these kind of issues aren’t received well on a stressful morning for anyone.

Secondly, the release of the IOS 9.3.2 update has given me a taste of [oh, horror of horrors!] a world without my smartphone.

God forbid, I cannot text anyone? I have to use [*gasp*] a landline if I want to get someone’s attention??

It seems unbelievable that bugs like these would even be able to pass tests run by Apple; I’m avoiding using my phone altogether currently. [Why else do you think I’m making a post about this?] But in all seriousness, how could something so incredibly glitchy, buggy and inefficient pass a test run.

Now I won’t lie, I considered throwing my phone at a brick wall and getting a fresh one; maybe that’s their ploy? Probably far-fetched, but I can’t see how anyone at Apple could possibly have thought releasing this update was a good idea nor how it could have possibly masqueraded itself as functioning software.

Tl:Dr:  Apple mucked up its software update release, but let’s be real: we’re all gonna keep getting Apple products anyway

by harrietread

Donald Trump Isn’t So Bad

So today, I got into an internet fight on the social media platform Yik Yak.

I love Yik Yak because its like Twitter except way more anonymous, and anonymity allows users to share some of their nuttiest, most controversial or spur-of-the-moment thoughts. I decided to post the other morning about a silly little dream I’d had the night before:

‘i dreamed donald trump coached footy and Richmond beat his team, and then all the other coaches told him to get (*censored*) and everyone laughed at his stupid hair’

I was bored, felt like posting a bit of inane silliness, so I did. The thing about Yik Yak is that it only shows posts within your area, and considering I was in a sheltered, very left-wing part of Hawthorn when I posted it, I figured hey, people might get a laugh out of it.

Then along comes a user that we will call Acorn, in consideration of the icon that they were using at the time.

Acorn criticised my post, saying I was only ‘bagging trump because it’s the “cool thing” to do’ and that I essentially ‘wouldn’t know (*expletive*) about American politics except for that Trump is running.’

I was also encouraged to ‘take a look at his policies, the western world genuinely needs some extreme reforms, whether you are willing to accept it or not.’

So I did.

I went onto donaldjtrump.com and had a look at the things that he is advocating for, and despite what I knew of him previously, I was impressed. The website revealed Trump’s plans for affordable healthcare, tax reform that would help fix the wealth distribution in America and better care for war veterans both physically, socially and economically.

These are just a few things that, frankly, could be good things. If I didn’t know anything about Trump, and I say this lightly, I probably would say that I support him except for that thing about the wall: he wasn’t kidding about that.

So I’d like to thank Acorn personally for encouraging me to go and do my research. I learned a valuable lesson from him: an internet fight that winds up in something that’s akin to two people yelling at eachother with their hands covering their ears is not something productive in this world. I was criticised on social media, and instead of screaming bloody murder at my accuser I decided why not get the front foot on this argument and learned far more than I anticipated.

Tl;Dr

Internet fights are good for you and Donald Trump does say he has some good ideas

by harrietread

My Take on Tina Fey

At the encouragement of my sister and parents, I started the Netflix series Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt the other day, and I adore it. To me, it is first and foremost great comedy and writing. Secondly, I think it has a great standing amidst fears of being politically correct humans.

The premise of the series is that Kimmy was one of four women kept locked in a bunker by a religious fanatic for 15 years; she comes into the present day of 2015-16 with absolutely no knowledge of how to be an adult in contemporary America.

One of the things that I love about the series is the writer: Tina Fey. She is possible one of my favourite public figures, comedians and women in the world, partly because her style of comedy is unadulterated and challenging.

She doesn’t shy away from ideas that are challenging in society, writing freely and provocatively about topics including sex and race in a way that makes me laugh at this inherent paranoia of being politically correct. For instance, in the first episode, Kimmy meets her roommate Titus after the landlady, Lillian’s, nonchalant introduction of him as ‘single, but very gay’ and ‘very black.’ Her matter-of-fact delivery is subtly jarring despite its humour.

I think something that draws me to this type of comedy is that it highlights the fact that in reality, being politically correct is something we overthink. Titus’ introduction is a good example of this, because in a formal essay or article he would be described as a ‘homosexual African-American,’ and while there is nothing wrong with this kind of description, it is overcomplicated and borderline pretentious.

If you were to watch another production by Tina Fey, such as Mean Girls or 30 Rock, you’d probably get what I’m trying to say. In Mean Girls, the first time Cady is introduced to her class as an exchange student from Africa, the teacher (played appropriately by Fey) is quick to assume that a black student ‘from Michigan’ is said exchange student. And in 30 Rock, there is an entire episode in which white businessman Jack Donaghy (played by Alec Baldwin) gets black actor and comedian Tracy Jordan (played by Tracy Morgan) to film a Republican campaign video to encourage black Americans to vote Republican; ultimately, Donaghy simply gets Tracy to say ‘Black people, don’t vote!’

My ultimate thoughts on Tina Fey is that in a time where censorship and political correctness is a hotbed of paranoia and anxiety, her humour is relaxed yet provocative. I am always going to have a biased view of her work since I adore her, but frankly I think that there needs to be more appreciation for this woman and the lens she offers us through which we can simply have a chuckle about how unusual, unfair or uptight the world can be sometimes.

by harrietread

My Take on the Panama Papers, Taxes and the 2016-17 Budget

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) recently leaked 11.5 million files, exposing politicians, public officials and international leaders across the globe as using offshore tax havens, from Mossack Fonseca, one of the globe’s biggest offshore law firms.

This controversy of wealthy tax evaders, and the release of the national 2016-17 budget barely 10 days ago, have been trending topics of discussion across journalism and social media, and I sought to understand what all of it meant.

I did a little research, and learnt that companies and private bodies such as public figures, officials and politicians have been using tax havens for around 40 years in Panama. According to ICIJ (through Mossack Fonseca’s database) up to 210,000 companies have used Panama as a base over the last 40 years, and include politicians, public figures and private owners from all across the globe.

Offshore tax havens are essentially shop fronts, or ‘shell companies’ as described by ICIJ, set up offshore of a company or private owner’s actual home country where taxes are cheaper.

This offshore site is legally set up in writing as their legally official base, and so this base in Panama pays marginally cheaper taxes while their actual set-up back home doesn’t have to pay more expensive taxes intended for healthcare, education, security and protection institutions, etc.

As a result, the economy of these countries have been immensely harmed by losing millions of dollars in taxes that haven’t been paid, as a result of offshore tax havens.

I think that the 2016-17 national Budget’s release is relevant and additionally important to discuss alongside the Panama Papers. To put it into terms that my mind gets, the budget aims to give tax cuts to high income earners; this is going to greatly affect low income earners in Australia over the next 3-4 years. I find it to be a cruel irony and tragedy of human nature to see that not only have wealthy politicians and figures been immorally avoiding taxes and thus gaining wealth while others have been making up for it, but the new budget favours the position of high income earners even further. It is as if human society has not changed in the last few thousand years.

Just think of the French Revolution; the nobility and clergy were grossly exempt from paying taxes and the rest of society bore the brunt of having to make up for them by giving away all that they had. It’s all too similar to the current situation in the US where 0.01% of the population owns as much wealth as 90% of the country. Essentially, what I am noticing in the current state of affairs concerning the Budget and the Panama Papers is that human society, ruled primarily by the rich, has catered for the rich.

As seen in the Q+A episode the other night, featuring Liberal Party members being faced with Duncan Storrar, those is power until the upcoming election are the Liberals dominated by a privileged, wealthy demographic that has absolutely positively no idea what it is like to live in a below average, let alone a low-income household. They see an opportunity to fill their purses some more, and have never even considered the idea that there are people who struggle just to make ends meet every day. What I see in the Panama Papers, the Budget and the recent Q+A episode are examples and evidences of the unending selfishness that is human nature. In this case, in a capitalist society, in reference to the lectorial on institutions, Power is power. Knowledge has yet to give way to a change in behaviour in society.

SOURCES:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/anu-modelling-shows-how-the-2016-budget-really-affects-your-hip-pocket-20160511-gosewj.html

https://panamapapers.icij.org/

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90

by harrietread

My Take on Timothy Treadwell

In Cinema, we watched Grizzly Man, a documentary about a man named Timothy Treadwell who was obsessed with bears and nature. Watching excerpts from his own videos through the documentary, I (and I believe many other members of the audience) was struck by his peculiar nature and deep obsession with the wilderness, particularly his apparent nonchalance when faced with enormous, unpredictable and powerful adult grizzly bears. For the most part, I think that Treadwell was a nutter, and kept thinking to myself, ‘he’s insane, he’s mad, maybe he is simply not well,’ and my mind was drawn back to yesterday’s lectorial on media institutions and Michel Foucault’s studies of how abnormal behaviour is perceived and treated in society.

Firstly, what made Timothy Treadwell ‘abnormal?’ I would say, from watching Grizzly Man, that it would be his unusual accent and mannerisms. At a first glance, he seemed effeminate which made his character distinctive and out of the ordinary, particularly in the wilds of Alaska.

Secondly, his unusualness came from his deep passionate confessions of love and admiration for bears. In a social context, most people may say they respect bears when brought up in conversation; but he publicly preached about them. Furthermore, his character implied that his love for the beasts made him naïve to their wild, powerful and deadly nature. He said so himself, without much concern, that he was at risk of bodily or fatal harm, and yet he persevered and stayed within the vicinity of bears. Why would a sane person risk their lives and safety for the sake of studying and ‘protecting’ such dangerous creatures? This, I believe, is what would help classify Treadwell in society as a ‘weirdo,’ a ‘nut,’ ‘delusional’ or ‘crazy.’

Treadwell was a fascinating character and is fascinating to observe, because he is a brilliant example of someone in contemporary society who is, in his own way, mentally unwell. He has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and voluntarily stopped taking antidepressants without the clearance of a doctor and I believe these are grounds for someone who is troubled; not necessarily mentally ill, but confused and unwell. If we were to examine him through the lens of Foucault’s Madness and Civilisation, we would engage in a sociological study of the relationship between Treadwell as an individual and society on a larger scale. In the documentary itself, his friends and acquaintances recounted him as unusual, troubled and, to some degree, worrying or even frightening in his obsession. Even Treadwell’s relationship with the audience while watching the documentary would be an interesting one to study. For one thing, how would we, as an audience of this somewhat biased a perception of a documentary, express our opinions of Treadwell in a social situation with friends or in a discussion in Cinema? That’s something that intrigues me, because I definitely have opinions of Treadwell that I want to clarify for myself.