This course is an introduction to the history and theory of participatory media production. Motivations toward greater participation in media arts have three core agendas: 1) empowerment of people traditionally seen more as "subjects" than active producers of culture; 2) challenging the idea of the artist as solitary genius working outside of society; and 3) the use of media art to build and sustain community.
1) A training video feeling, issue: sexual harassment on campus. A narrator signals this is a spoof (“four and half” people!). “Formally” composed shot.
2) Reenactment of Nordia’s story. Shot from wide to medium, “objective” POV. You can see the harasser touch her breast on her way to the chips.
3) Back to narrator: let’s do an instant replay.
4) Instant replay reenactment: closer up on the breast touching. But she doesn’t touch the breast (right??!).
5) Narrator: let’s see Nordia’s POV.
6) Nordia’s POV is shot from the same angle as the original “objective” reenactment but the action is waaaay different (more clearly “harassment” and also clearly “not really what happened”). It’s also very funny and a lot creepy!
7) Narrator: now Crystal’s POV.
8) Shot from the actual POV of the “perpetrator” (Crystal). Also clearly not the same thing we saw in the “objective” shot and much more innocent.
9) Narrator: there are two sides to every story. Ends with another signal that this a spoof (Crystal’s sniffing and giggling).
Okay! So there’s the formal breakdown that I see in front of me. What is great about this video is that you applied the participatory element of it to a real life scenario (however reduced to silliness!) where the differences in how people “see” a procession of events can be dramatic. So this was a wise and clever choice of subject matter.
Where I think you lose a little focus is Scene 6 (above): the literal “POV” of the shot is too similar to the original “objective” POV. This confuses the viewer b/c it would then seem that you want us to see Nordia’s POV as the more legit one; but the action is more like a nightmare version than a POV. Then again, Scene 8 has different kinds of truth claims attached to it: it’s from a non-objective, personal POV… hmm.
Pacing and editing: tight. Acting: surprisingly good. And I love your cameo!
Overall this is well-planned and executed, funny, and original. The above comments are only to show you where it is less effective than it could have been.
1/ Opening of narrator, spoof of instructional film introduction. Shots of reenactment from each participant's point of view, cuts back to the narrator. Shots of the narrator are yellow saturated.
The cuts to the narrator and back to the scene have continuity; each time with the narrator preparing the scene . Repetition is used as a sort of plot device. Humorous reference is used as a device.
The repetition seems to underline the differences between each participant's experience, exposing their differing takes of the same situation. The use of POV is also used toward the same goal, as each participant's shot varies greatly, particularly with respect to content.
The aim of the piece seems well served by the technical and plot devices utilized. Repetition with such variation enhances the humorous conceit, and the POV clearly delineates the experiencer in each sequence. The deadpan of the narrator is also effective.
Note: Sarah Silverman once said "Deconstruction is a comedy killer."
The topic of the film was excellent and the different POV really helped explain the situation. The different between Nordia and Chrystal's point of views. I wish I could also see Tony's POV, though. Would he see it more objectively? Would he have really noticed without Nordia making a face?
In the beginning of the film, it seems to be headed toward a more serious and educational angle with a host narrating the situation, but the acting, the blackout segments with evil laughter and the closing scene with Chrystal's re-appearance made the film really humerus and definitely gets the point across still.
This was a very interesting take on the project, much different from some of the other abstract films - but I liked that! It was interesting how the participatory nature of the project was used to bring people together for a common purpose, rather than to solely exemplify the individuality/emotions of each participant.
At first, I didn't quite understand if the film was supposed to be humorous or serious, but evil laughter and exaggerated scenes definitely led me in the right direction!
An original take on the subject! The video becomes funnier and funnier with each successive scene, which makes it very enjoyable to watch. This project was by far one of the most well planned out of the group.
The sound quality in some of the wider shots makes the dialog difficult to hear, perhaps you could have had hidden microphones on the narrator/during your cameo?
I think the criticism about Nordia's perspective is an especially salient one and was a challenge for all four of us. We wanted to examine this issue from three different perspectives - a general one embodied by my presence, Nordia's, and then Krystal's. Ideally we would have shot Nordia's piece from a 1st person POV but the logistics proved difficult given the size of the camera and the demands of the shot. As I look at your comments and review my video there are a couple of approaches I think we could have taken to remedy this problem.
I also think the comments about sound are really useful, because I wasn't quite sure how to work with this issue. I had an exterior mic which we used sometimes, but perhaps we should have used it more often.
Anyhow, I look forward to class where we can all discuss our processes and motivations.
Again, a well planned/shot project. Why did Crystal's POV seem so innocent, though? It also appears that Nordia heard what was coming before Crystal stepped into the scene...was this a message being put across of what may happen in reality? It is a little difficult to make out what cameo person says. A very funny video.
Haha, great video. I feel like everything I would has already been said!!
To sum up:
-Could use boompole and shotgun mic for sound. -Nordia's POV shot did confuse me, but now I understand. -Great Acting -Overall hilarious and very different from the other projects (which I think is a good thing!)
8 comments:
Tony:
Let’s start with a breakdown of what I see:
1) A training video feeling, issue: sexual harassment on campus. A narrator signals this is a spoof (“four and half” people!). “Formally” composed shot.
2) Reenactment of Nordia’s story. Shot from wide to medium, “objective” POV. You can see the harasser touch her breast on her way to the chips.
3) Back to narrator: let’s do an instant replay.
4) Instant replay reenactment: closer up on the breast touching. But she doesn’t touch the breast (right??!).
5) Narrator: let’s see Nordia’s POV.
6) Nordia’s POV is shot from the same angle as the original “objective” reenactment but the action is waaaay different (more clearly “harassment” and also clearly “not really what happened”). It’s also very funny and a lot creepy!
7) Narrator: now Crystal’s POV.
8) Shot from the actual POV of the “perpetrator” (Crystal). Also clearly not the same thing we saw in the “objective” shot and much more innocent.
9) Narrator: there are two sides to every story. Ends with another signal that this a spoof (Crystal’s sniffing and giggling).
Okay! So there’s the formal breakdown that I see in front of me. What is great about this video is that you applied the participatory element of it to a real life scenario (however reduced to silliness!) where the differences in how people “see” a procession of events can be dramatic. So this was a wise and clever choice of subject matter.
Where I think you lose a little focus is Scene 6 (above): the literal “POV” of the shot is too similar to the original “objective” POV. This confuses the viewer b/c it would then seem that you want us to see Nordia’s POV as the more legit one; but the action is more like a nightmare version than a POV. Then again, Scene 8 has different kinds of truth claims attached to it: it’s from a non-objective, personal POV… hmm.
Pacing and editing: tight. Acting: surprisingly good. And I love your cameo!
Overall this is well-planned and executed, funny, and original. The above comments are only to show you where it is less effective than it could have been.
Tell us about your process. How, who, when, why?
1/ Opening of narrator, spoof of instructional film introduction. Shots of reenactment from each participant's point of view, cuts back to the narrator. Shots of the narrator are yellow saturated.
The cuts to the narrator and back to the scene have continuity; each time with the narrator preparing the scene . Repetition is used as a sort of plot device. Humorous reference is used as a device.
The repetition seems to underline the differences between each participant's experience, exposing their differing takes of the same situation. The use of POV is also used toward the same goal, as each participant's shot varies greatly, particularly with respect to content.
The aim of the piece seems well served by the technical and plot devices utilized. Repetition with such variation enhances the humorous conceit, and the POV clearly delineates the experiencer in each sequence. The deadpan of the narrator is also effective.
Note: Sarah Silverman once said "Deconstruction is a comedy killer."
The topic of the film was excellent and the different POV really helped explain the situation. The different between Nordia and Chrystal's point of views. I wish I could also see Tony's POV, though. Would he see it more objectively? Would he have really noticed without Nordia making a face?
In the beginning of the film, it seems to be headed toward a more serious and educational angle with a host narrating the situation, but the acting, the blackout segments with evil laughter and the closing scene with Chrystal's re-appearance made the film really humerus and definitely gets the point across still.
The acting was great.
This was a very interesting take on the project, much different from some of the other abstract films - but I liked that! It was interesting how the participatory nature of the project was used to bring people together for a common purpose, rather than to solely exemplify the individuality/emotions of each participant.
At first, I didn't quite understand if the film was supposed to be humorous or serious, but evil laughter and exaggerated scenes definitely led me in the right direction!
An original take on the subject! The video becomes funnier and funnier with each successive scene, which makes it very enjoyable to watch. This project was by far one of the most well planned out of the group.
The sound quality in some of the wider shots makes the dialog difficult to hear, perhaps you could have had hidden microphones on the narrator/during your cameo?
Thanks all for your comments.
I think the criticism about Nordia's perspective is an especially salient one and was a challenge for all four of us. We wanted to examine this issue from three different perspectives - a general one embodied by my presence, Nordia's, and then Krystal's. Ideally we would have shot Nordia's piece from a 1st person POV but the logistics proved difficult given the size of the camera and the demands of the shot. As I look at your comments and review my video there are a couple of approaches I think we could have taken to remedy this problem.
I also think the comments about sound are really useful, because I wasn't quite sure how to work with this issue. I had an exterior mic which we used sometimes, but perhaps we should have used it more often.
Anyhow, I look forward to class where we can all discuss our processes and motivations.
Again, a well planned/shot project. Why did Crystal's POV seem so innocent, though? It also appears that Nordia heard what was coming before Crystal stepped into the scene...was this a message being put across of what may happen in reality? It is a little difficult to make out what cameo person says. A very funny video.
Haha, great video. I feel like everything I would has already been said!!
To sum up:
-Could use boompole and shotgun mic for sound.
-Nordia's POV shot did confuse me, but now I understand.
-Great Acting
-Overall hilarious and very different from the other projects (which I think is a good thing!)
Post a Comment