My Final Project: Ideas and Influences November 22, 2009
I began playing the viola in the fifth grade and have been playing in orchestras both in school and in my community since that time. It is amazing to me to think about everything that goes into preparing for a concert. Without even considering the hours of personal practice and rehearsal involved prior to the actual event, it is still a lot of work. Instruments have to be prepared, the stage set up, everyone gathered and in position to play. Many people have been to an orchestra concert and witnessed the final performance, but few have an opportunity to see the entire process, from when performers arrive to them getting onto the stage. For my final project, I would like to capture this story.
When I wrote my proposal, I was thinking that I would structure this project as a photography story about preparing an instrument for performance. However, after reviewing some different projects on the websites of Time and The Washington Post, I think I would like to take my project more in a photojournalistic direction. There are so many details about musical instruments and performing that I (as a performer) notice that other people probably never even think about. As I have begun taking photos, I have realized that it is sometimes difficult to get a good shot, particularly while people are playing. I have had particular trouble getting the bow to stay in focus, since it is constantly moving back and forth across the strings. In looking through some of the different Time photo essays, I realized that this blurred movement could actually be a positive thing and show the active side of playing. I noticed this particularly in the photo essay “A Green Alternative to Dry Cleaning” by Albert Vecerka (see link below). Though parts of a few of the shots are somewhat blurry (like the worker in photo six), it adds to the overall productive feeling of the company rather than creating bad photos that hurt the audience’s perception. I also like this photo essay because it incorporates some of the comparisons of macro and micro with the establishing shot of the storefront compared to the more close-up of the hanger boxes and dryer bags. I would like to move my project from micro to macro by beginning with a focus on a particular instrument and then transitioning into wider on stage shots.
I also enjoyed reading the captions of the photo essays on the Time website. While each caption is related to the photo, it is not merely information about the content of the photo. Instead, as one looks through the entire photo collection, the captions tell a sort of story. The photos and brief writing combine to create a more powerful method to convey the project’s message. I noticed this particularly in “Garbage is Good: Recycling in America.” While the caption under each picture explains what is happening visually, it also gives background information about the particular aspect of recycling being portrayed. I think this leaves the viewer with a better understanding of the subject by giving him or her solid visuals and contextual information to tie it all together. I think this combination of writing and photography could make a great project for my final. Viewers do not need to be told exactly what a picture shows; that can get boring. Instead, captions can be used to enhance the viewers experience beyond what is shown in the visuals.
Wedding Crashers Trailer November 8, 2009
Since my last post was about a different movie, I thought I’d include the trailer in case anyone hadn’t seen Wedding Crashers.
Wedding Crashers November 8, 2009
My earlier blog post focused on Good Will Hunting, but I had trouble finding reviews about it through the library database. Instead, I decided to write about my favorite comedy of all time, Wedding Crashers. Most of the articles I found were pretty short, but after some searching online, I found a longer article by well known critic Roger Ebert that offered a contrasting review of the movie.
The first review was written by Ali Jaafar in Sight and Sound, a monthly British film magazine. Jaafar mentions that Vince Vaughn’s performance as Jeremy is a definite highlight of the movie, and I completely agree. My friend and I love watching and quoting Wedding Crashers, and Vince Vaughn never fails to make us laugh. Another entertaining character is the grandmother, who Jaafar writes is “the finest example of film’s blend of breezy vulgarity and cultural sophistication.” I think Jaafar makes a good point in mentioning the movie’s blend of vulgarity and sophistication. Elsewhere in the article, he comments on the movie’s avoidance of excessive “gross-out humor” that was prevalent in so many comedies released at that time (and in movies released now). Movies that rely solely on crude humor or stupid humor to generate laughs irritate me. Though Wedding Crashers certainly uses both of these comedic tactics at times, it has an abundance of legitimately funny lines and interactions between characters. This more witty, quotable humor is, in my opinion, what makes it such a fun and enjoyable movie.
Roger Ebert’s more extensive review offered a very different opinion of the movie. While Jaafar praised the grandmother’s character, Ebert disliked her humor and questioned the why anyone thought she would make a good character. He focused on her vulgar humor, particularly the derogatory comments she makes about Eleanor Roosevelt. I completely disagree with Ebert’s opinion of this character and think that she ads great hilarity to the movie, particularly in the family dinner scene. Though many of the family members only have small roles, they combine to create an absurd family that is entertaining and hilarious to watch. Ebert commented multiple times on his disappointment in Christopher Walken’s character and his desire for Walken to have had a larger role in the movie. I think Ebert focused too much on this and missed the comedy created by other characters, primarily Vince Vaughn. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson are the stars of this movie, not Christopher Walken, and the two have some fantastic (and hilarious) comedic exchanges. Ebert also missed the humor of the touch football scene (and complained again about Walken not having a large enough role), remarking, “There are a lot of ways to make touch football funny, and Wedding Crashers misses all of them” (Roper). I don’t understand this statement at all, because I bend over laughing every time I watch the football scene: Vince Vaughn sailing through their air after being hit by Sack, Owen Wilson’s oblivion to everything except making an impression on Claire, Todd (the brother) painting on the sidelines; it makes me smile just to think about it. This scene also includes great interactions between Vaughn and Wilson, whose relationship is the primary comedic source in the movie.
In the later part of the movie, Will Ferrell has a small, absurd role as a former wedding crasher who now spends his days crashing funerals. Ebert claimed that the movie made Ferrell look like “an afterthought,” but I think he once again focused on the wrong comedian. Ferrell, like Walken, is not supposed to be the star of the movie. Perhaps if Ebert hadn’t been distracted by these comedians, he could have appreciated the fantastic duo of Vaughn and Wilson.
It was interesting to read these very different reviews about one of my favorite movies. I personally think Ebert needs to watch he movie again so that he can realize how funny it actually is instead of being distracted by characters and plotlines he expected to be important that actually had no real place in the movie. Wedding Crashers is a clever, quotable, entertaining movie and my favorite comedy. At one point in the movie, Owen Wilson says to Jeremy, “We’ve been to a million weddings; and guess what? We’ve rocked them all” (Wedding Crashers). Of the million scenes in the movie, Wilson and Vaughn rock them all.
Ebert, Roger. “Wedding Crashers.” Rev. of Wedding Crashers, dir David Dobkin. rogerebert.com 15 July 2005. 6 Nov. 2009. < http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050714/REVIEWS/50708002/1023>.
Jaafar, Ali. “Wedding Crashers.” Sight & Sound 15.8 (2005): 80-82. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 5 Nov. 2009.
Wedding Crashers. Dir. David Dobkin. Perf. Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Cristopher Walken. New Line Home Entertainment, 2005.
October 26: Response to Alex Garcia’s Presentation October 23, 2009
It really enjoyed listening to Alex Garcia’s talk last Monday. Her work sounds really interesting, and her presentation offered a nice change to normal class structure. I enjoyed all of the videos she showed us, but I probably liked the one about the health care in Virginia the best. I’ve seen documentaries and short segments on television, but I never really thought about the process of making one. I am very impressed that Alex does all aspects of her documentaries, from filming, to commentary, to editing. The short turn-around times are also sort of mind-boggling. It sounds like she has become quicker as she has done more and more projects, but a couple days turnaround seems almost absurdly fast when I think about what goes into making that sort of movie. One of her tips that particularly stuck in my memory was to go out to film with the story in your head. She then said that what you actually get will inevitably be different than what you originally expect, but it’s good to have an idea and sort of focus anyway. I found this especially helpful when my group began filming for our scavenger hunt today. Because we had planned and storyboarded, we were able to more quickly begin filming the shots. The environment and different conditions caused many of our shots to change, and some we rewrote entirely, but it helped us greatly to have a direction of focus so that we weren’t lost trying to begin.
I liked the health care video for a variety of reasons, and I thought it really enhanced the video to hear Alex talk about her experience making it. I think the focus on dental care made it more unique and interesting. Dental care is not as widely publicized as other aspects of health care, but the health of one’s teeth can make a huge difference in life. The child who had to have all of his upper teeth removed was a particularly moving character. His presence in the movie was enhanced by the doctor talking about possible repercussions if the infections were not treated (infections traveling to the brain, etc.). I was also really glad that Alex talked about the man who served as the sort of narrator in the story. It’s true that she didn’t have any footage of him actually undergoing medical treatment, but I think that worked well. It let him tell the story without overwhelming the video. Alex mentioned that when she showed the video to people after the first editing, they told her it was too long. In this sort of documentary, it is easy to overexpose the hardships, which can bore the reader and reduce the power of each story. I think this final product achieved a good balance of illuminating the situation while holding the viewer’s interest and keeping the message clear and concise. I tried to find the video on the Washington Post Online website, but I was unsuccessful. I would have liked to watch it again, now that I’ve heard her talk more about her experience making and editing the video.
I think Alex’s talk was a really good addition to our visual literacy class. It was really interesting and allowed me to see examples of what we’re learning in class. This was helpful to me especially since I’m a math major and don’t really have any experience with or greater knowledge of the things we read about and discuss. Alex has an obvious passion for her work. This, combined with her friendly personality, made her a great guest presenter.
October 19: Visual Elements in a Short Documentary October 18, 2009
I chose the short documentary “‘Guernica’ in the Kitchen” because I like food and cooking and it seemed interesting. The video was filmed by Jennifer Carpenter, but I couldn’t find information regarding whether or not the editing was done by her or by someone else. The documentary was about a restaurant, minibar, in DC that serves very unique food. The Washington Post’s chief art critic went to the restaurant to explore the idea of whether certain types of food can fall into the category of modern art. This aspect of the documentary also seemed fitting for this class based on our readings about modern art and its widely varying forms.
The video begins with a close-up of art critic Blake Gopnik talking about the restaurant and his reason for being there. This offers a nice introduction by connecting the viewer with one of the major characters in the video and introducing the major ideas. The film then switches to a split screen, first showing the minibar restaurant sign on the right and a master shot of the restaurant interior on the left. This gives the viewer a clear setting and an overall sense of the restaurant. Following these opening shots, the screen splits many times, becoming a collection of different boxed shots placed strategically over a black background. The early shots are close-ups or extreme close-ups of the food by itself. Later, the screen shifts to include a medium shot of Blake as he poses the question about whether food of this type can be considered modern art. This shot focuses the viewer’s attention on Blake to convey the central question and purpose of the documentary. As the video progresses, the split screen continues showing close shots of food being prepared, food being served, and food being eaten, leaving no possible way for the viewer to miss the central importance of food in this documentary. The shots of food are juxtaposed with mid-shots of the conversation between Blake and chef Jose Andres. The effect is that the viewer’s attention is constantly focused on all the unique and interesting food, but Chef Andres still has a part of the attention and so is able to relate to the viewer his opinions about his food and how it relates to modern art. At select moments, the split screen is replaced by a single shot of the conversation between the chef and critic. This emphasizes important points of the conversation and effectively directs the viewer’s attention to these key segments. The multi-split screen is the most powerful visual editing tool in this documentary. I think the editor may have chosen this to create a more modern feel that reflects modern art and so fits with the primary theme of the documentary. The many shots of food give the viewer many views of the restaurant and provide a very effective way to hold the viewer’s attention. The segments of conversation between Blake and Jose Andres and integrate well with the presentations of the food, and the conversation provides audio continuity liking the multitude of different shots. This documentary style was very different than what I would traditionally expect, but I think it worked very well with the context of the subject.
The video can be found following the link below.
Good Will Hunting October 10, 2009
It’s hard for me to pick my one favorite movie, but Good Will Hunting is definitely in the top five. The movie came out in 1997 and featured the work of director Gus Van Sant (who more recently directed Milk) and cinematographer Jean Yves Escoffier. Matt Damon stars as the title character, Will Hunting, a brilliant but troubled young man. Will has led a hard life without any real opportunities, educational or otherwise. He works as a janitor at MIT, where his genius is discovered by Professor Gerald Lambeau after Will solves a nearly impossible math proof without any difficulty. When Will is arrested in a street fight, Professor Lambeau convinces the police to release Will to his care so that they can work together on math, provided that Will also attends weekly therapy sessions. These therapy sessions provide much of the framework for the movie and lead to some intense and riveting scenes. As the movie unfolds, the audience also witnesses the relationships between Will and his closest friends, as well as a developing romance between Will and Skylar, a pre-med student at Harvard, played by Minnie Driver.
Neither the movie trailer nor any summary that I can provide does justice to this awesome movie. I saw it for the first time last year. Matt Damon is one of my favorite actors (I love the Bourne movies too!), and, as a math major, I’m really interesting in the mathematics and problem solving components of the movie. The acting is incredible, particularly Robin Williams’ portrayal of Will’s therapist Sean Maguire (a role for which he was awarded the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor). The movie has a romantic component without being too girly or turning into a chick-flick, and I enjoy watching the friendship between Will and his best friend Chuckie, played by Ben Affleck. The movie is humorous at times, serious at others. It’s fun to watch yet also stimulating. After I saw it for the first time, I couldn’t understand how I hadn’t seen it before. Matt Damon and math: it’s the perfect movie recipe for me. I don’t want to give too much away, but I also like uplifting movies that have a definite, conclusive ending. I would definitely recommend this movie to most anybody.
Good Will Hunting was filmed in Boston in 1996. It was released in theatres on a limited scale in December 1997 and was widely released in January 1998. Another amazing part about this movie is that, in addition to acting in leading roles, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck wrote the script.
Business Card October 4, 2009
The mood of my picture CD was “vibrant” and there were many more “vibrant” pictures on the CD that I could have used instead of this picture of my viola. However, I thought that for my business card, it was more important to have something with meaning for me. Music in general and the viola in particular take up a large part of my life. I am in orchestra, take lessons, practice every day, and am going to minor or possibly double major in music. Though a viola may not mean much to most people, I think that the viola is very vibrant. The sound alone can make me cheery. Though the colors of this picture (even after some manipulation) are not as striking as some of my other pictures, I really felt that this was the best graphic to include on my card and I didn’t want to manipulate to the point where the viola was difficult to identify. I attempted to use a more striking color for the background, but it was difficult to find something that made the viola picture look like it was supposed to go there and wasn’t just haphazardly placed. I don’t have any real title or even a declared major yet, so I decided to instead include the quote “Smiles are contagious; infect the world” which is a fun little saying that I adopted a few years ago. The slogan is in the shape of a smile, which I think helps reinforce the message. This is a very cheery quote, and I think it adds to making the business card more vibrant. I wanted to keep this simple, yet fun. I think that the business card I designed is the best for me and can be considered very vibrant with the right associations.
The Newseum’s Ethics Workstation September 27, 2009
I love interactive stations in museums, so I enjoyed going through the ethics workstation. I voted on all the ethical questions and listened to different responses. It was interesting to see how different people voted (even though I don’t think these ballots probably have any real statistical relevance). For instance, one of the questions was whether it was all right to change a photo. I voted no, along with the majority of both journalists and civilians. From the journalist perspective, photographers are supposed to tell the truth and are charged to present the world through their photos. I agree with this statement. I was shocked to read about the photographer who synthesized two of his pictures to create a new picture and then presented it as a newsworthy photograph. I could elaborate more on this, but it is also the topic of my group’s presentation, so I’ll leave my thoughts for a few weeks from now.
On that issue, high percents of both journalists and civilians voted no. In the question of whether or not it was acceptable to get involved in a story, there was much greater disparity in the numbers. The question was something to the effect of, “If you see someone in need that poses a fantastic picture, do you take the picture and not help the person or help the person and not take the picture?” I didn’t like this question to begin with, because I don’t understand why taking the picture and then helping the person isn’t an option. That aside, the poll showed 72% of the public would help the person rather than take the picture, compared to 72% of journalists who voted to take the picture rather than help the person. I was amazed by the disparity in these numbers, which was much larger than for any of the other issues. This poll was made even more serious to me because of what I had read about the photographer who took the picture in question. He took a picture of a starving child that later won him a Pullitzer. However, he did not do anything to help the child because of the numerous warnings he had received about different diseases and the importance of avoiding contact with people. In not acting to help the child, the photographer was simply following the directions he had been given. However, his decision and the controversy that resulted over his actions drove him to suicide. The great disparity in polling leads me to believe that the issue for journalists is much more complex than the public thinks. One of the men interviewed for this question mentioned that, as a father, he would have to help the child. I think the public reacts on this level of human connection, which is a personal level. For photographers and journalists, however, the decision is made in an occupational context. Journalists have an obligation to report the truth. If all journalists became involved in the causes they wrote about, there would be no one to report information to the general public. I’m not sure what I would have done in the photographer’s place, and I hope that I never have to be in that situation caught between fear, rationality, compassion, and obligation.
