Our audio essay is completed! I’m so proud of our group getting it done so efficiently.

We had arranged our final group PB4 meeting to be scheduled on Monday at 1pm in one of the editing suits in building 9. Here we would do the final editing together, listen to the audio essay and watch the video essay and see if there are any final suggestions. I had previously arranged a meeting with my cinema studies group at 11am on that day to practice for our 40-minute presentation at 2.30pm. The assignment went well, however by the time questions were asked and the de-brief from our assessor was complete after our presentation, we didn’t finish until 3.30pm.

As soon as we were dismissed I went down into the editing suits to find my PB4 group. After looking in every room, I couldn’t find them, and it wasn’t until I Facebook messaged them I found out the meeting was over. I felt bad missing the meeting as I had also missed the one prior due to other commitments, however that’s when our group Facebook page comes in handy. Ryan was able to let me know what I had to do in order to finish our assignment.

These are the three introductions I wrote on the train on the way home from uni to send to Lydia as soon as I got home:

 

1. Stars James Franco and Seth Rogan discuss in various interviews how both the Korean culture and American culture are victimised in the film, and that it’s not meant to be targeting anyone or any culture in particular, purely created for as a humorous piece of work.

 

2. In 2014 following the release of The Interview, North Koreans threatened a 9/11-like terrorist attack on those who premiered the screening of the film, specifically in New York City. The Sony hackers, who were allegedly North Korean, claimed “those who seek fun in terror should be doomed” and after it “all the world will denounce the Sony”. Columbian Pictures and Sony were eventually allowed to release the film, as long the death scene of Kim Jong-Un wasn’t to much of a celebration.

 

3. In order to gain a cinematic and academic perspective on ‘The Interview’, we interviewed Australian film producer Mark Patterson on whether the stylistic approaches override the ideology of the film. Even though he had not seen the film, he was able to provide a basic overview on films, especially comedies, that have the capability of meaning different things to different cultures.

There was an article on the news last about a 4 year old boy who fell into a gorilla enclosure in America. The gorilla took the boy into it’s care, holding him under his tummy as if he was protecting him. Witnesses cried from the view areas, including the boy’s mother, repeatedly shouting ‘i love you’ to him as the 4 year old tried to remain calm and strong. I’m not sure how long the boy was in the enclosure for, but the keepers thought it was the best decision to shoot Harambe in order to safe the boys life, even though the gorilla wasn’t necessarily doing anything to harm the child.

So awful. What an awful situation.

So silly though I don’t think they should have shot Harambe. I definitely understand why they had to somehow get him away from the child in a way that wouldn’t hurt the child. and I understand how even though Harambe wasn’t evidently hurting the child, you never know because he is an animal – and the zoo’s priority is too keep their customers and the public safe. But I don’t understand why they didn’t shoot him with a dart to knock him out instead of shooting him with a bullet? They said that shooting him was the safest way because there was a huge risk of the 200 kg animal falling onto the boy and killing him, but what difference would it make shooting him with a dart and a gun? So silly.

It also shows how the media manipulates certain material. In this case the footage from a witness recorded on their phone was edited so specific sections weren’t shown. This material apparently included the gorilla dragging the boy through the water, which could have definitely affected and concerned various audience’s.

That was in America. For our PB4 audio essay, our group focussed on the concept of trigger warnings in the United States, and this is definitely an excellent example. The first news footage of this incident was from America, and they cancelled out the footage of dragging the boy through the water. However, on the project tonight they spoke about the incident and they actually showed this footage not only the full version including dragging through the water, but in higher definition quality so it was much more clearer.

It’s just so interesting to see how the exact same story with the same footage used is shown in different countries. Americans tend to be more conservative when it comes to the footage they see especially on social media but also definitely the news.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3614480/Small-child-falls-gorilla-enclosure-zoo.html

I was scrolling through Facebook the other day and came across a post from a girl I went to school with last year. She is a hard core vegan for all the reasons including animal cruelty and ethical living.

Below are screenshots of the situation, which I found utterly entertaining but at the same time extremely frustrating.

Sure, this girl is entitled to her own opinion and it’s her choice what to believe, but I don’t think it’s necessary for her to post all over social media. These believes don’t need to be publically shared, she should keep it to herself in my opinion.

 

This girl who commented’s family run a working farm near the Snowy River (to provide some context)

The girl who’s post it was then replied with this:

 

I’d just like to ask her where does this occur in Australia? This rarely happens in Australia the footage in the video she shared is most likely to come from overseas, and if you buy meat locally, it shouldn’t be a problem

 

Last week, we all sent our footage of interviews and recordings to Lydia because she had a specific vision on how it would be put together. Over the weekend she was going to do her final ‘rough cut’ of editing and then bring what she had done to class on Wednesday for us all to watch and edit finally as a group. Unfortunately, Lydia was sick today so couldn’t come to class. This meant we couldn’t do anymore editing as a group to the video, as it was on Lydia’s computer.

She uploaded the video onto our google drive for us to have a look at and it was fantastic! It was edited really well especially for a rough cut, and the footage she used was so incredibly relevant to the narration/ dialogue presented in the interviews etc. We are now planning a day next week (at the moment it is Monday) for us to get together and edit the final piece as a group. Go team!!!!!

Masterchef is great. I hate cooking, but watching what these contestants come up with is incredible! I also watch it because a girl who went to my school, who was in year 12 when I was in year 11 is on it (Nicolette), so it’s fun watching someone I know.

But it really got me thinking about editing.

When the judges lift up the lids to specific ingredients such as chocolate, berries or meat, they take about 10 seconds explaining the rules of the challenge before yelling ‘your time starts now!’.

They literally have 20 seconds to find out the main ingredient, how much time they have, the overall basic constrains and work out their dish.

I know these chefs are all absolutely amazing, but it got me thinking if they actually had 20 seconds, or if editing is a major factor within this? Is it possible they actually had 2 minutes to decide what to make before running into the pantry to collect their ingredients? Maybe they have 10 minutes? 30 minutes? You never know! Never, in all this time watching the show, have I seen a contestant unsure of what to make after the judge’s yell ‘your time starts now’. So they all thought of a meal in 20 seconds and know exactly what they need from the pantry? I don’t know. The power the media has on audiences is amazing, television programs can be so deceiving!

 

Today in tutorial we went around the room and talked about the types and content of media we had consumed in the past week, and to chose one that stood out.

One person in the class spoke about the program ‘The Voice’ and how it’s completely staged and rigged, and you don’t get on the show unless you have a story. I am guilty of watching this program only because I love singing and watching people sing and perform, but I as a viewer have definitely realised that the show is a scam and people don’t get on unless they have a story.

His friend auditioned as a great singer, and when they asked her ‘what is your story?’, she had nothing major to report, only that she was a happy and healthy girl, and she didn’t get on the show.

I was listening to 774 the other morning on the way to work and a similar issue arose about The Voice television show. They were talking about how not only everyone has a story, but the whole program is actually about the judges. It’s a way for them to make a comeback into the industry and gain more publicity. The contestants are just a small fraction of the show, it’s all about the judges. I totally see this now! I didn’t really so much before, but after watching Sunday night’s episode I couldn’t stop thinking about it and realising it!

The most cringe parts of the show are when the judges talk about what it’s like to be in the industry, or talk about the strengths of the other judges. It’s so lame and scripted I can’t even watch it. They try to make it so intense and dramatic when it’s just not at all, it’s just pathetic I think! I like the judges don’t get me wrong and as I said before I’m a fan of the show, but these parts I just can’t watch.

 

A bit about my interviewee….

 

Mark is my dad’s sisters husband, so my uncle, who as mentioned previously is a film producer. He and his wife and two children live in Adelaide, where he has his studio.

In 2000, Mark was the producer of Paul Cox’s “Innocence”, which he won many awards for including Best Film, If Awards 2000, Australia. In 2005, he teamed up with Paul Cox again and produced ‘Human Touch’. In 2012, he produced a television short series called ‘Race to London’, which followed the journey of aspiring Australians determined to qualify for that years Olympics in London.

In 2015, Mark’s film ‘Force of Destiny’ opened the Melbourne International Film Festival in June. I was lucky enough to attend this amazing event as one of his guests, meaning that I got to walk the red carpet, get photos taken, get front row screening of the film, meet the stars and director of the film (Paul Cox) and just basically get VIP treatment (and refreshments!). The film itself was amazing.

I chose to interview Mark because he has so much incredible knowledge with films. The way he interprets them and understands them is of a completely different level to anyone I know, so I thought it would be so interesting to get his opinions on the film ‘The Interview’. Even though he hadn’t seen the film, he was easily able to answer the questions just on a more basic level, and still justify his believes, providing many great examples and evidence through his knowledge in historic cinema

 

.

Dear future self….

By the completion of my degree, I want to be able to do/be better at / know/ achieve:

1. Excellent skills in editing using premiere
2. Using sound effects, creating best quality sound
3. Better at co-operative skills
4. I want to have done an overseas exchange
5. I want to have met people in the industry already, gained connections
6. I want to have done some acting
7. Become super tech-savy
8. Some experience in radio

For the video essay, I interviewed my uncle Mark – a film producer based in Adelaide. He has always been one of my inspirations with regard to the work he does. Initially I wanted to do the interview over skype, and set up a camera just left of the computer and film the interview to get both visual and audio for the video essay, however he was very busy so only had time for a phone call. I was a bit rushed myself so only had time to film the actual phone whilst it was on speaker. This method still worked well, and the sound was clear enough to hear exactly what he was saying.

Essentially these were the questions I asked Mark in relation to The Interview film.

• From a cinematic and academic perspective what are your thoughts on this movie?
• Do you think the style/stylistic approaches override the overall ideology of the film and if so do you think this is problematic?

Unfortunately, he hadn’t actually seen the film. I originally thought this was problematic at the beginning of the interview however once he began talking and was on a role, it really didn’t matter, because he still managed to answer the questions just not in relation to the interview, more so in these types of films in general and cultural differences/interpretations in films.

I was overall happy with Mark’s interview, he answered the questions really well (as expected) and definitely footage we will use for our video essay.

About two hours into today’s class, we previewed our rough audio essay cut to Louise. Into the first 5 seconds, Louise immediately commented on the pace of speaking in the monologue. Ryan had stylistically chosen this as a technique he aimed to achieve inspired by podcasts he listens to himself.

We included this skit: (Link) As a comedic asset to our audio. However, although it was completely in the context of trigger warnings, the specific place where it is located in the rough cut (directly following the monologue) was quiet out of context. It’s confusing as to who is talking and Louise couldn’t tell it was a skit, she was confused. She suggested that we have a mini intro to the skit, with something along the lines of ‘there has even been parodies of the ridiculousness of trigger warnings…’ then have the skit. This makes it clearer. Louise also suggested breaking up the monologue throughout the entire essay, rather than all at the start – which I believe it a great idea. It would keep the essay flowing better.