<a href=”http://www.psychologydegree.net/facts-about-sleep”><img src=”http://images.psychologydegree.net.s3.amazonaws.com/sleep.jpg” alt=”16 Things You Didn’t Know About Sleep” width=”500″ border=”0″ /></a><br />Via: <a href=”http://www.psychologydegree.net/”>Psychology Degree</a>
random funny October 26, 2011
this website is awesome.. kinda like stumble upon: http://www.macromeme.com/dog/ethnic-alcohols.html
Video and Resistance : Against Documentary
Topic: discuss the use of video as a scientific or objective academic tool. Try to find a specific example that informs the narrative in your life. Address CAE’s concerns over ideology and realism. Incorporate the techniques you used yourself in your own documentary.
Personally, I do like watching documentaries. I feel that they can be very informative and someone persuasive and can give you some new insight into a topic you may not know much about. However, I do believe that many of the documentaries out ther nowadays, besides possibly national geographic ones, are made for that specific purpose, to get you thinking in a certain way. Everyone has heard the saying that there are two sides to every story and many videos are only going to show you one, filled with facts and footage of people being interviewed saying how their point is the right one to believe. And being called a documentary makes the audience trust them and believe that what is being said is unbiased and is everything they need to know about the issue but many times that is not the case. My dad is one of these people; he is an avid watcher of Michael Moore films and believes everything he hears in them. He believes the government is robbing us and Bush is a terrorist and all that jazz but he fails to actually research the issues himself. He is basing his whole opinion on this “factual” information handed to him in an easy to comprehend DVD package. While a lot or all of the information may be factual in that, yes it did happen, the way it is portrayed and talked about is often skewed by subjectivity. Everything can be skewed these days. People once thought, as it said in the article, that pictures were 100% factual and then with time can opinion showing through and people used them as ploys to voice their political, religious, and other views to the world without them really noticing. Everything is subjective when it is recalled from memory. I remember seeing a film about bystanders and witnesses in crimes. They did a study about how factual and accurate the testimonies wer by showing them a picture and a film of an accident and seeing what they could recall. When tested right after the accident people generally did ok and could still tell the color or make of the car but when tested the next day their memories were a little off and honestly should not be able to be used in an actual case. This is partly because memories are skewed, we all see things in different ways. We read people differently and take in information differently, focusing on certain details that others may not find interesting or important. The same goes into a film. When a director is choosing what to put into a film they are only going to put in information they deem important to their cause. One must also question the motives of the filmmakers. The article talks about ” workers leaving the lumiere factory” basically just being advertisement for the company. And who knows the motives of some of these documentaries. I remember watching one about how awful the food is from McDonald’s and you never know, it could have been made by a former employee looking for revenge on the company.
The saying “history is made in Hollywood” I believe is a very true one. differents versions of the truth get layed over one another until the truth is in there somewhere but it is under so much fluff that one cannot often decipher what the true story is. The article explained it well when talking about Disney that ” representation over representation makes for unacheivable originality” . And it works because after so many revisions it can no longer be true enough that it can be original. It later goes on to state ” the documentary does not create an opportunity for free thought, the viewer must just absorb the information” being thrown at them. Today an audience can just sit back and accept what is being shown to them and by the end of the hour and a half their mind has been made up for them.
Our documentary is going to be about youth in the arts. With so many schools going through budget cuts now they are taking away the art and music programs which we feel will be detrimental to the future youth. Especially in a day in age when technology is on the rise and so many are already passing over the arts as an option. What we are trying to do in our documentary is to inform people of how the arts can help young people of today develop and grow by showing them first hand accounts of people. We intend to show them clips of people playing music and painting and how it can help as an outlet for today’s youth. While we are going to try to stay unbiased I believe our point will come through about how important the arts are.
This is the link to video I found very impressive and inspiring. When I had talked about video and how they can persuade people this is definitely one of them. It’s a little girl talking about problems in the worl. While all the information is factual and the video is original, she is very persuasive in how she talks and how she delivers the facts
Shot analysis assignment October 25, 2011
Shot Analysis Assignment
The scene starts out scanning the room with suspenseful music and all you see are people in black talking, except for the one woman in emerald green who really catches your eye right away. However her back is turned and so it adds a sense of mystery to her, making the audience yern to see who this endearing woman in green is. Then it cuts to a man in a viewpoint which one could assume would be that of the woman, he’s watching her… Glancing to possibly see her looking back… A longing kind of look is on his face. The frame changes to a man pulling out the chair for her and as she gets up it cuts back to the man looking away, afraid that the woman may see. Il like that they cut to him for this portion because when a woman stands up after sitting for a while she must often situate herself and fix herr drew, etc. and it’s appreciated that they cut to him for this portion because when they show her again she is walking towards him, respectively, polished up. However she never looks directly into the camera (seemingly at the audience and this possible new suitor ) and so it gives the audience the feeling that the man may be feeling of being ignored and passed over. It continues all the way to her profile when another man comes up behind her but it is still focused solely on her and more specifically her face. While she turns it cuts back and forth between her and the man turning simultaneously which can give the audience the feel that perhaps they will lock eyes, even though in the end they do not. As the woman leaves they cut back to the man in which he h ants his head in disappointment perhaps but the audience feels this longing with him as they never show a full on face shot but only a profile,nallowing the audience to assume what his full face is really feeling. The audience is put in a position in which they are watching this man and his slow motion heartbreak and I believe it was done very well.
So I have had a few songs stuck in my head for the past like two weeks… They are:
5 o clock in the morning
Moves like jagger
My hearts a stereo
This bitter earth
I am in the process of learning them and will post videos of them soon…. If you don’t know these you should listen because they are quite awesome 🙂