Daily Archives: April 21, 2016
PB3 Reflection
I definitely tried to be a bit more risky with this project brief; playing with audio and new equipment. I was never clear about exactly what I wanted this film to look like in the end, as it was more of a work in progress type task for me. A surprising amount of it was improvised; but of course that just made it more fun. For example with the interviewing I had a set list of questions in mind until our conversation directed me into a different idea where I’d focus more on my subject’s rebellious side.
The idea of calling the the interview “Ambiguous” came from the ‘one word’ exercise I thought of to get warm up for the actual interview. I randomly said a few words, then Charlotte would respond with a single word that she thought of first. I think this exercise revealed a lot about her without having too say much; which ties in nicely with the theme of ambiguity. I had so much fun with her during the one word interrogation that I decided to keep the recordings and use it as a way to casually introduce her to viewers; just like I had been introduced to her.
It’s also a great (sort of planned) coincidence that aspects of her room reveal so much about her. Such as the bursts of orange, the rainbow flags. guitars and action hero figurines.
I feel like I could have made a 10 minute video about Charlotte from all the interesting things. The time limit forced me to select the most significant things that from her responses and cut them together like they were one question. I learned a lot about cutting to the point.
Playing with found footage was a new challenge. I found that I could link some of it with what Charlotte was saying for example when she spoke about her fears I showed a snake even though she was talking about being scared of vulnerability.
PB3 Narrative
- What is the ‘controlling idea’ (Robert McKee) of your portrait? In other words, what is the most interesting thing about your participant/interviewee that you want to communicate?
Charlotte has always been quite the outspoken character, I met her in highschool. She was the one always speaking over teachers, putting up posters and treading on the line of uniform rules. Not only is she good on camera but she’s always had a clear message in everything she says and does. Charlotte lives by the idea of being able to express yourself beyond the limits of those who judge you. In this case, I wanted to focus specifically on gender roles and how her endeavors in blurring historically distinct line between male and female.
- How is your portrait film structured? (Remember there might be multiple forms of structure employed) E.g. Discussion and depiction of an event or process? A Journey? Use of voiceover narration? Other?
The narration will mainly be from Charlotte’s own voice and I will play little part in voicing questions. The structure is more of a recap of her journey so far with anecdotes. A lot of her answers come with a story so it is more of a retelling of her journey up until the present.
- What do you want your audience to make of your interviewee? (e.g. What are you saying through them and/or human nature, human folly, or noble human inspiration?)
I’d like to portray Charlotte as vibrant yet chill with use of colour and sound. She appears to be a very easy going person but she has had her fair share of conflicts. Her most distinct traits would be resilient, eccentric and bold.By emphasising her lack of conformity to social norms I’d like to use her as a pioneer in the journey for allowing oneself to not be defined by gender roles, but instead what makes you happy.
- How is your portrait being narrated? Why? How does it affect the structure?
The portrait is being mainly narrated by Charlotte as she answers the questions. Her answers will include an implied question so it will still feel like a question and answer video.
- What role will the ‘found footage’ play in your portrait? For example, reinforcement? Ironic counterpoint? Contrast? Comparison? Other?
Found footage from creative commons online and her own childhood videos are used in my film to show what we are familiar with in terms of people’s aesthetics, then contrast it to what she says.
- Does your portrait have a dramatic turning point?
There is no dramatic turning point, instead it’s more about how she has become who she is today.
- When does this turning point in your portrait and why? At the beginning? At the end? Two-thirds through?
The turning point is towards the end where Charlotte makes a statement about how she has become comfortable with herself.
- How does your portrait gather and maintain momentum?
It maintains momentum with voice layering. The music is a big part of creating mood and allowing viewers to be smoothly carried to the next answer to a question.
- Where will your portrait’s dramatic tension come from? The gradual exposition of an overall situation? A volcanic, climactic moment? An impending change or crisis? The contrast between what the interviewee talks about and the found footage?
The beginning is meant to seem conversational and friendly to allow viewers to warm up to her. Then it quickly delves into an emotive montage of the issues of gender and sexuality.
- Does the portrait have a climax and/or resolution? Outline them.
The resolution is that she has found what she is comfortable with but willing to continue changing as ‘constantly changing’ is a part of who she is.
wk 5 Reading
McKee, Alan (2001) A beginner’s guide to textual analysis. Metro Magazine, pp. 138-149.
There is no such thing as a single, ‘correct’ interpretation of any text. There are large numbers of possible interpretations, some of which will be more likely than others in particular circumstances.
In the case of Lance Armstrong, perhaps there is no “correct” way to interpret his media ventures and steady decline. There are definitely many ways to interpret his journey through the many texts about his struggles and it all depends on point of view. He has featured in many ads that portray him as a hardworking underdog, completely avoiding the issue of doping.
Years ago he gave up the battle of stopping drug charges against him as he didn’t want to turn up to fight against them. Many people say that this was a sign of guilt, some say it was being smart. It was quite a shock at the time, especially since it went against his legacy of never quitting. He certainly kept the public guessing the intent behind his actions and he sowed the seed of doubt in our minds.
Either way he was a genius at avoiding answering questions.
“People ask me what I’m on…what am I on? I’m on my bike busting my ass 6 hours a day. What are you on”
Reputation is vital and reputation depends on interpretation. In many people’s eyes he remains a hero, as a pioneer in cancer fundraising. This is due to the new direction he took in selling his image to the public, and regaining his credibility. Behold the power of emphasis.
He was diagnosed with brain,lung and testicular cancer at the same time, but then proceeded to win the Tour de France 5 times in a row, hard to overlook. And so began his self branding of the idea of hope and survival.
Whether or you agree that he did the right thing or is inherently a good person there’s no doubt that the opinions of these issue range from seeing him as a fraud or a hero.
The case of Armstrong demonstrates that repositioning an argument can change the interpretation as we went from saying “I don’t do drugs” to “I’m a cancer survivor.” So as as the reading states, there is no correct way to interpret this, there is simply different points of views. The majority seems to be disappointed in him despite his incredible contribution to the fight against cancer.