Analysis/Reflection 4: Question 8

https://vimeo.com/92111688

The greatest challenge in filming the Lenny was the time constraint. Despite the scarce 20 minutes of shooting time, we still managed to complete the shoot – kudos to the good team effort and cooperation of the actors. I think that this is a good exercise for us as a newly formed production team, as well as for us as individuals to get to know each other’s flaws and strengths. The end result of our Lenny has provided us with some good insight into our implementations for the upcoming short film.

Analysis/Reflection 4: Question 7

In the lighting lecture, I learnt that electrical power and output are very important factors for lighting. As lighting plays a major role in films, it is crucial that suitable lights are used for optimal filming ambience. However, different lights have different power requirements and it is important that we bear in mind that our set can accommodate them.

I was fairly fascinated with how lighting opens up so many aesthetic prospects of a subject. With the quality of equipment that we are provided with, it can provide a great boost to the visual element of our film. What excites me more is that how easily this can be achieved!

 

Week 7: “Fan Fiction”

Use an example to explain Jenkins’ claim that fans are ‘poachers’.

Fans are claimed to be ‘poachers’ because they attempt to integrate representations within their own social experience. A good example to Jenkins’ claim would be the advent of fan fiction. I was left quite disgruntled and dissatisfied when the American sitcom ‘How I Met Your Mother‘ did not end the way I wanted it to. As such, quite a handful of people who shared my views instead developed an alternate ending to the series, an ending which provides ‘proper’ or ‘satisfying’ closure, or in De Certeau‘s words, “reappropriating it”.

Jenkins, H 2006, ‘Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching’, in Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture, New York UP, New York & London, pp. 37-60

Analysis/Reflection 3: Question 3

From the week 4 lecture describe at least two reasons why we ‘shoot to edit’?

First off, the ‘shoot to edit’ process is imperative in providing the editor maximum control during postproduction.

Although the types of shots may be imposed during preproduction, filming similar shots with different angles during the shoot may provide producers with more flexibility in the ways the want the film to be presented. Some of these shots may have better frame, angle, action, or even dialogue.

Week 6: “VCR”

What do we mean by the term video? Is the word video used in a  number of different ways? Do you use video in your everyday life? If so, how do you use it? What is meant by time-shifting? Do you think time-shifting has helped to create a new kind of active audience and, if so, why?

Video, in contrast to traditional media use (i.e. cinema and film), is retrievable, recordable, and replayable. Video is deemed to have brought about a “revolutionary” change to the traditions of motion picture spectatorship. I personally prefer video because it allows me a greater sense of control over what I’m viewing. Just like time-shifting, I value personal freedom and prefer being in control of what I view, when I want to view it – or more commonly known as zipping. In addition to providing an extra sense of authority, time-shifting, has contributed to the creation of a new kind of active audience, because it encourages active participation, choice behaviour, and involvement.

Rubin, AM & Eyal, K 2002, ‘The Videocassette Recorder in the Home Media Environment’ in Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses, eds. Lin, CA& Atkin DJ, Hampton, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 329-336. https://equella.rmit.edu.au/rmit/file/c633a660-dc02-4887-b58e-1030e115073d/1/130305_3_021.pdf

Benson-Allott, C 2013, Killer Tapes and Shattered Screens: Video Spectatorship from VHS to File Sharing, University of California Press, Berkley, pp. 1-7. http://www.rmit.eblib.com.au.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1157661 

Week 5: “Active Audiences”

On what basis that audiences are active creators of meaning?

Barker proposed that audiences are not aggregated, but individualistic. Audiences do not simply uncritically accept textual meanings, but instead they are their own producers of meaning, based on the premise of their own cultural competency which is formed through language and social relationships. Even with the assumption that the nature of an active audience is to resist ideology, the ‘assumed’ level of sophistication and literacy in television  does not prevent audiences from fabricating their own ideologies, therefore undermining the premise and proving that audiences are active creators of meaning.

Barker, C 2003, ‘Active Audiences’, in Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, Sage, London pp. 325-329

Week 4: “Habermas’ heritage: The future of the public sphere in the network today”

Is Boeder right when he argues that ‘the conventional notion of a single, unified public sphere is likely to disappear in favour of a more segmented, pluralist model’? Demonstrate using a contemporary example of mediated public discourse.

First off, it is notable that Boeder affirms the exaggeration on how commodification has posed a serious ‘threat’ to freedom of speech on the Internet. It is undeniable that Habermas’ coffeehouse discourse has opened up ample amount of possibilities towards the enhancement of digital networks and social structures. News is no longer transmitted traditionally, but instead is ‘filtered’ in a way that it is shaped in accordance to an audience’s preference. Boeder’s affirmation is simply a manifestation of an increasingly polyvocal public.

Boeder, P 2005, ‘Habermas’ heritage: the future of the public sphere in the network society’, First Monday, vol 10, no. 9

Sketch Essay – Dreamcatcher

“We no longer watch watch films or TV; we watch databases…” (Lovink, 2008) As Geert Lovink has written, I find this quote very relatable to Korsakow, a program that creates interactive, non-linear, database-driven narratives. As I have only been recently introduced to this new format of web-based media, my grasp of its framework is still fairly ambiguous. Nevertheless, as a student of media and communications, it is my duty to assimilate with new forms of media as use of web-based media is substantial and is expanding. (Hart, 2012)

 

The Korsakow film, or more commonly known as K-film, that I have chosen, is ‘Dreamcatcher’, produced by Jess Hallay, Michael Serratore, and Damien Gould in 2011. After numerous attempts, I realized that this K-film explores the different perspectives of dreams and the states that encompass the full process of a dream, from being wide awake to deep sleep. I, as the user, start off with people talking about their dreams, and as time progresses, I would “fall asleep”, experience an ample amount of dreamscapes and eventually, end up being awake again. I particularly enjoyed the different types of narratives and its approaches, which from what I understand what a K-film is supposed to propose and incorporate.

 

As opposed to the confines of media with fixed chain of events and sequence, the composition of narratives in K-films are not just determined by the developer, but also by the user. (Sawhney et. al. 1996, p.5) I often have similar dreams, or ‘repetitive’ dreams, but they all are all ‘different’ in a way. Much like how dreams work, Dreamcatcher’s framework implements repetition and familiarity. Once I have visited a ‘dream’ enough times, I find myself making more conscious decisions, clicking only the thumbnails that I have not watched yet and progressively work my way towards the end. I find this pattern interesting as it potentially opens up more options and allows me to discover more alternative options.  As Marsha Kinder says, ‘through a mix of design, choice and chance (Kinder 2009: 60), narratives are open to creative interpretations by contributors as diverse as media artists, cultural historians or lay persons intent on crafting their story from the archive resources provided. (Hart, 2012)

 

Hart proposes that it is through a juxtaposition of shots that sequences are built. This applies well to the interface of Dreamcatcher because of the variable nature of dreams, as well as Korsakow. The interface depicts a main screen with 3 accompanying thumbnails, which I think is the optimal set-up for every K-film. The interface allows me to enter a series of color-coded dreamscapes, to which I assume signifies different states of dreaming. The abstraction of each clip was well balanced and pivotal in adding a sense of both surrealism and reality. The catch here is the objectivity, and like all dreams, its subtext is entirely dependent on the perception of the user. Even through repetition, the constant shift in dynamics in each consecutive clip provided me an understanding of the bizarreness of dreams and how temperamental they can be.

 

The very nature of Korsakow as an irregular medium of expression is just like how dreams function – inconstant and erratic. I think that the interface of Dreamcatcher fits well in accordance to the different stages of dreaming. Although the interface offers you a seemingly limited number of choices of prospect, it is in fact a generous amount to avoid confusion and to further amplify the presence of its content. Overall, the work offers sufficient and imperative amount of control over a topic that speaks a language that is very subjective. From what I understand, this is much like what Korsakow is supposed to be.

 

References

  • Hart, C 2012, ‘Database Documentary: From Authorship to Authoring in Remediated/Remixed Documentary’, Culture Unbound, vol. 4, pp 328-46
  • Kinder, Marsha (2008), “The Conceptual Power of On-Line Video: Five Easy Pieces”, Geert Lovink & Sadine Niederer (eds): Video Vortex Reader: Responses to Youtube, Amsterdam: INC. 53-62
  • Miles, Adrian, (2008): “Programmatic Statements for a Facetted Videography”, Geert Lovink & Sabine Niederer (eds): Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube, Amsterdam: INC. 223- 230
  • Sawhney, N, Balcom, D & Smith, I 1996, ‘HyperCafe: Narrative and Aesthetic Properties of Hypervideo’, in Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Hypertext, Hypertext ’96 (New York, NY, USA: ACM), pp. 1-10