Picture This!’s amalgamation of reflective writing and story writing has exposed the similarities and dependence of each text types with one another. Although different in their applied method, both texts travel forwards toward an ending point and/or realisation. Thus, teaching me in this studio that my previous experience with screenwriting did not acknowledge the interconnectedness between fictional narratives and it my own writing’s cathartic realism. Consequently, placing an onus on reflective writing, such as this, as it helps facilitate my imaginary’s journey into the depths of story telling.

This inter-relativeness is not coincidental however, with equilibriums becoming a seemingly apparent theme in this course so far. As class unfolds at the hands of Stayci’s extra-fictional rubric, I’ve debated the role of screenplay as an ‘enabling document’ (Prince, 2010) and/or intrinsic to a ‘developmental process’. Deciphering through a new found array of terminologies such as Big Print, Master Scene Technique, Delineation, and Exposition the good and bad characteristics of writing. But more importantly, the impact these idiosyncrasies seem to have on each other once in the text type of a script.

‘It is worth noting that you will learn not only from the ‘in the head’ reflection but also from the process of representing the reflection itself’ (Moon, p187) symbolises these comparing connections. As Moon suspends internal and external whilst guiding the audience, whether this be just the writer themselves or not, to a place similar to McKee’s subversive ‘vivid action of now’. Further, as screen writing’s objective is to communicate the potential of a film, and films purpose being to ‘yield an emotional experience (Bordwell, p31 of Ingelstrom) a further paradoxical metaphor between sender and receiver appears. Only to be similarly played out once again between the fictional narrator and fictional narratee. Thus, contrary to McKee’s simplification of film momentary vividness, the construction of story telling itself exposes similarly to the travel of reflective writing. As  patterns and constructions of a reality are unbeknownst to the speaker until it is received.

This semester has been nothing but reflective. Reflecting on texts, then reflecting upon my reflection of those texts, then reflecting upon my reflection’s reflection of those texts, and so on. Continuously questioning, what is my opinion, why, and more importantly, how it matters? As I struggled for validation, I was provoked by one of the first questions posed in class, ‘what makes a critic, a critic?’. Aware that a level of education and insight is necessary, as most successful opinions surpass superficial, 2-dimensional understandings of the text, and instead use the subject as an instrument reflective of their environment. A good review delves deep into the psyche of not so much the creator but the substance itself, disrupting my previous understandings as credentials moved away from traditionalist thinking and towards the comprehension of culture itself.

One of the first reviews I completed was instigated by the anniversary of Ted Hughes passing, leading me to consider his criticism and contribution to the art world. Hughes became infamous due to his traditionalist opinion that debated the authenticity and contribution of modern art. Cementing his legitimacy as a critic through his understanding of art history, he cut through the frenzied nature of what constituted modern art and formulated its hysteria into a succinct comment on the 21^st century psyche. However, I couldn’t help but recognize that Hughes’ rebuttal of modern art’s transition was more reflective of his taste than the work. Although always warranted and exceptional, his traditional background encapsulated the prominent characteristics of criticism’s contradicting climate. Contemporary art’s shedding of the old worked as a catalyst for traditionalists such as Hughes, who delved into hysteria of judgment. He deplored new concepts as shallow, unreliable and not genuine, mostly because of their lack of historical validity. Thus inducing me to reflect upon my own tastes, as I previously had depended on traditionalism as a counterpoint for ‘better’.

Thus, I explored things I presumed I hated. Delving mostly into commercial TV, I watched The Kardashians, The Bachelorette, and anything else I previously would have deciphered as ‘trash’. Realizing quickly that most of these texts were feminine based, I attempted to reform my perception of commercial figures, hoping to find a hidden truth, possibly feminist and progressive in theory. Although not always entirely successful, the experience tested my pre-conceptions, making me question where I had obtained my opinions and why.

Around the time of mid semester, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas came to class and gave a talk about criticism itself as a form of privilege. Presumably, if one has time to critique another’s work, they usually have enough time to create their own. Exploring the nature of taste and how one obtains it, Alexandra illuminated some ideas already forming in my head regarding the construction of taste and it’s hierarchal nature. My study and passion for film has already exposed me to a certain type of judgment that deciphers ‘quality’ consequent to the visibility of a text. This visibility usually needs to be limited, as the hidden nature of a text and its trouble to be found, translates as a credential to the person who’s bothered to find it. Alexandra disputed this idea due to the privilege of privilege. Asking how one could expect a single mother with two jobs, to find enough time to research cinema and find Tommy Wiseau’s The Room, and then critique it? This confirmed my journey trying to determine the ethics behind criticism. With the role of the critic seeming to become more and more infiltrated with their responsibility and dedication to finding niche culture.

Thus, my interpretation of the role of the critic shifted. Initially, I skeptical of websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, with their investigation of texts as succinct as one line. My opinion of the role of the critic this semester has changed just as much as the critic themselves in the last five years. Realizing that, like the concept of art, criticism doesn’t have a singular viewer. Instead, it’s a source of information, of what you want it to be. Originally my understanding of the critic was that they held an onus of responsibility, a responsibility that was constructed and validated through education and understanding. Although this thought has not wavered significantly, my perception of an educational format has. Delving into critiques during class, we mostly agreed that a good review encompassed a passionate and original perspective about a text. However, these opinions were consequent to an education that enabled us to understand what we were reading, along with coming from a place of privilege enough to discuss their successes and shortcomings. Concluding in my perception that a critic is someone that provokes people like us (the class). Who attempts to disrupt the foundations we rely on and re-delegate our deciphering of credentials. Thereby creating their own credentials in an attempt to shape the world, like the artist before them, like no one else has seen it.

This week in classes we discussed curatorship, and applied our new found understanding of it both physically and literally. In Monday’s class we investigated the role of the curator and how not only what we see, but how it is positioned, can determine our interpretation of text(s). As media changes the world, so does our interpretation of what we think constitutes curatorship. Previous to Monday’s class, I thought of curating as demonstrations of art, something pieced together by an individual with high credentials and an understanding for space. However, on reflection, curatorship is all around us, and is present in an private instagram’s construction and commercial advertisements placement.

In Wednesday’s class, we discussed sentence structure. Determining the difference between a passive and active sentence, and the importance of their difference. In the same way art curatorship communicates to the audience meanings and messages, the way in which a sentence is constructed determines how it is communicated. Identifying fundamental factors such as object, verb, and subject, we gave examples of incorrectly structured sentences in efforts to reform them correctly. This identification has now become a paramount, as I realised whilst doing this task that my whole language structure, particularly in essays, is passive. Perhaps this is consequential to millennial cultures online forum, where informal language has been misinterpreted as personal as oppose to incorrect. Either way, I am glad that this problem has been noticed (a little late in the game!) and that I can now change it.

In a film about time travel, spontaneous surprises seem inevitable, yet, I’m you, dickhead became foreseeable. Juxtaposing Blaise Pascal’s comment ‘man’s greatness lies in his power with thought’ with a Jeff Goldblum quote from Jurassic Park about ethics, the film debated ethics with modern humour, allowing the audience a portal to laught at one self through the mode of travel depicted on screen. Anthony Gooley’s character of a simplistic male, whose desire to travel back in time is guided by sex desire and reform, misses the mark and leaves the narrative with an empty space filled with the timewarp’s ‘double’ repetition. Th

the film provoked a modern intepretation about time travel, demonstrating

the film incorporated modern humour and truths in

quote vs. stupidity…. modern idea of self allows us to laugh at oneself BECAUSE we oppose institutions

• In a narrative about time travel, spontaneous surprises seem the most foreseeable variable. However, this script wasn’t surprising or challenging in its execution
• All elements surrounding the narrative are of high quality, including the actors, mis-en-scene and supporting actors, however the narrative itself is derived from originality
• The simplicity of the protagonist attempts to create a modern interpretation of time travel, and demonstrate aspects of modern society that play out within our reality. Such as our desire and lack of romance regarding sex, and overly realistic reaction to our under hyped futures. However, by portraying such simplicity within the male narrative, the film under sells itself through its attempted simplicity.
• ‘This isn’t about music Richard, its about tits’ – ‘jesus christ, mums a babe’ – please no
• Humour was lost on m
• Film elements were impressive

I woke up late this morning – as usual. I had no clean clothes and the fridge was next to bare. Traffic heaved unbearably through the city scape, achieving fleeting moments of exuberant movement before collapsing once again onto itself like an insufferable dying bug. At work I went to my desk and there was a note to go and see the boss. I waited outsider her offie for a while before she called me in. I couldn’t figure out why she wanted to see me. I went inside and sat down.

She handed me an envelope with manicured claws. The artificial pink tips of her fingers laughing mockingly at the exposed rawness of my own. Whilst telling me that my services were longer needed, I imagined her in her turbulent teen years, understanding that her current conviction was at fault to an education who encouraged her to talk as oppose to listen. In her conclusion, she stated that I was then ‘free’ to go, in an attempt to deceive my recent unemployment as liberation rather then defeat.

I got my belongings from my desk and left. The drive home was quick. I am now unemployed.