ENG 103
Prof. Vasilou
The Giuliani era in New York, marked by moves to reduce the homeless and “clean up the city”, was a response to a fear in the 1980s that the city was becoming an anarchic war zone characterized by homeless, vagrancy, gang violence and a surge of dangerous foreigners (Silverman, 2001). This system of fear, of course, was classist and racist, and according to political correspondent Michael J.W. Stickings (2009), made Giuliani into the “anti-FDR”: “He "cleaned up" New York by turning it into his own police state, he ran for the Republican nomination a year ago as a quasi-fascist authoritarian, and he has milked 9/11 to serve his own right-wing agenda (including a penchant for torture), not to mention his own personal, political, and profiteering ambitions. Instead of ‘we have nothing to fear but fear itself,’ it's ‘we have everything to fear, because there is terror everywhere, and so we should all be very afraid and vote Republican.’” Consider that the Giuliani era falls into the era the film Escape From New York takes place, 1997, the preceding quote becomes more interesting. The film shows us a NYC that is all but destroyed because of things I mentioned earlier and will continue talk about through out the paper. And it was those characteristics the made the real NYC of 1997 stranger than fiction. Yes, no bridges were blown up and it did not become a literal prison, but you do not need walls to feel imprisoned.
In addition, in the 1980s, there was still fear of a buildup to a nuclear war, a final apocalyptic conflict, World War III, as very few predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. It was this fear that acted as a dramatic backdrop for Escape from New York: The fear of the city and the fear of the world acted together to give Carpenter a plausible scenario for a potential dystopian future, cementing his protagonist Snake Plissken into the canon of classic badasses and giving his moniker to the perennial Solid Snake of Metal Gear fame.
In the 1990s, New York City experienced an unprecedented drop in crime, according to NYPD statistics (Langan, 2004). While it is possible that this was the NYPD cooking the books or altering the data, there was corroboration with the National Crime Victimation Survey and data from the medical examiner. There were many factors that caused it: Economic growth in the 1990s, the ramping down of the crack epidemic, better policing funding and strategies, demographic settling, the civil rights era advancing to the point where perceived inequality declined enough to reduce reasons for crime, etc (Karmen, 2000; Johnson et al, 2006; Brown, 2003, 153-155). Whether Giuliani actually reduced crime is up for debate, but one thing is clear: Part of the reason that crime fell so much in the 1990s is that it had so far to fall from the 1980s.
“During the mid-1980's, there were increases in murders, assaults, and motor vehicle thefts. Robberies increased in the later 1980s and burglaries declined throughout the 1980s. Arrest rates and total arrests for non-drug crimes did not decline during this period of increased drug arrests. In a multivariate analysis, we found that the three property crimes investigated - robberies, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts - increased when there were unexpected increases in drug usage. We did not find such a relationship between drug use and murders or assaults, holding constant arrest rates and police. In addition, we found evidence of police deterrence, either directly, or through arrests, of property-related and assault offenses, but not for murders” (Corman and Mocan, 1986). Though the police deterred some violence, the crack epidemic and the perception of deep racial and economic inequality in the city between black, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, immigrant and white have-nots and some of the richest haves in the world made it so that the police could do only so much.
The huge inequality in the city created a sensation of alienation from institutions and anger that led to disaffected street youth, drug use, violent crime, property crime and gang activity. “[T]he destructive impact of long-term deprivation and economic marginality on the stability and supportive capacity of institutions like families and local communities” combined with the resentment of long-term inequality and lack of opportunity is well-known to produce crime and was largely explanatory of the increase in crime in the 70s and 80s (Brown, 2003, 133-135).
In addition, the specter of nuclear war was omnipresent (Bloomfield, 1985). Other movies like War Games centered on the risk of nuclear war, and the Road Warrior / Mad Max series made the idea of a post-apocalyptic wanderer and tough guy appealing. It was during this time that the comic book Watchmen came out, with the idea that imminent nuclear war between the Soviets and the Americans was such a pressing and immediate concern that anything, even Ozymandias' slaughter of New York itself, could be justified as a necessary evil to protect humanity. The anti-proliferation movement was at its strongest in the 1970s and 1980s as well (Benford, 1984; Price, 1982; Adamson, 1995). While certainly fears of nuclear war are still quite real, and the war in Iraq was largely sold on the basis of the risk of WMDs (as are current fears of Iran and North Korea), the fall of the Soviet Union for many removed the risk of imminent, unpreventable and possibly even inevitable omnicidal conflict from the equation. Escape from New York takes place near the end of World War III, a concept which itself is increasingly departing from the global lexicon.
As one final influence for Escape from New York, one has to give the nod to cyberpunk, to the imaginations of people like Neal Stephenson and William Gibson. The bleak dystopian overtones of movies like Blade Runner and books like Neuromancer logically suggest a universe like Escape from New York. Post-apocalyptic stories in general were in vogue in the 1970s and 1980s, from the mystically infused roleplaying post-apocalyptic setting of Rifts to the implied future nuclear war of Terminator.
Oddly enough, one of Carpenter's most specific influences was the Watergate scandal (O'Ehley, 1997). While he could never articulate to any studio's satisfaction the connection, the ideas seem clear. Escape from New York centers on political, military and economic corruption leading to disastrous consequences. The idea that normative institutions might embrace disastrous outcomes seemed even more likely after Nixon, who not only engaged in Watergate but dismantled Bretton Woods and was involved in the secret bombing of Cambodia. While Nixon also went to China, it might make sense that Americans would become fatigued of nuclear gamesmanship after thirty years and worry that someone like Nixon who was incapable of telling the truth regarding a mere burglary would be completely willing to justify nuclear omnicide.
The film doesn't spend very much time depicting the working class, or indeed any class, in New York. It does, however, point to an increasing power in New York: Organized crime. While it is now recognized that La Cosa Nostra was largely ended thanks to RICO, in the 1980s and even into the 1990s not only was there an increase in lower level gang activity but a surge of potential danger from traditional organized crime. “. However, in the 1980s, when organized crime's control of large segments of the construction industry was seen as a threat to the New York City economy, the Crime Commission's then-president, Thomas A. Reppetto, was appointed to chair the Governor's Advisory Committee on construction and several commission board members served on it. The Committee functioned as liaison between the business community and state law enforcement. Many of the racketeers involved in the construction industry at that time were jailed” (Citizens Crime Commission, 2011).
Surowiecki (1998) argues that crack may have been elevated to be too central of a cause, and that the gang epidemic was actually far more complex, but certainly it was a real phenomenon if overblown. Further, now there are fears of Yakuza, Triad and Russian mob activity in New York taking the place of La Cosa Nostra. What Escape from New York did was to show that the city was indeed blacker than many might have thought, but it unfortunately also played (though for its own stylized reasons) to fears of black gangs practically running the city, i.e. “the Duke of New York”.
Escape from New York thus depicts a city that people in the 1980s could have understandably felt was emerging. It is unlike many other crime panic films or post-apocalyptic films because it seamlessly blends so many influences: Fear of attacks on the President, fear of the President's own ineptitude or corruption, fear of collapse of political institutions, fear of nuclear or conventional war, fear of gangs and of violence, fear of crime. It may not be accurate, but it made a compelling tale showing real anxieties while playing with them tongue-in-cheek.
Bibliography
Adamson, Greg. “The rise and undermining of anti-nuclear political action”. Green Left. May 19, 1999.
Benford, Robert. “The Anti-Nuclear Movement (Book Review)”. American Journal of Sociology. Volume 89 Number 6. May 1984.
Bloomfield, Lincoln P. “Nuclear crisis and human frailty”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. October 1985.
Castro, Charles. NYPD Blue Lies.
Chen, David W. “Stumping With Mayor, Giuliani Stirs Old Fears”. New York Times. October 18, 2009.
Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. “Frequently Asked Questions”. 2011.
Corman, Hope and H. Naci Mocan. “A Time-Series Analysis of Crime and Drug Use in New York City”. NBER Working Papers. 5463.
Johnson, Bruce D.; Golub, Andrew; Eloise Dunlap (2006). "The Rise and Decline of Hard Drugs, Drug Markets, and Violence in Inner-City New York". In Blumstein, Alfred; Wallman, Joel. The Crime Drop in America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521862795.
Karmen, Andrew (2000). New York Murder Mystery: The True Story Behind the Crime Crash of the 1990s. NYU Press. ISBN 0814747175.
Langan; Matthew R. Durose (2003 December 3–5). "The Remarkable Drop in Crime in New York City". 2003 International Conference on Crime. Rome, Italy. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
O'Ehley, James. “Remake Watch: Escape from New York, Part II”. Sci-Fi Movie Page. 1997.
Phantom of the Movies (2003-12-11). "Escape From New York rushes into a DVD world". Washington Weekend (Washington Times): pp. M24.
Price, Jerome. The Antinuclear movement. Boston: Twayne Publishers. 1982.
Silverman, BE. “Urban Policing and the Fear of Crime”. Volume 38: 941-957. May 2001.
Stengel, Richard. “10 Questions for Rudy Giuliani”. Time. May 20, 2011.
Stickings, Michael J.W. “Rudy Giuliani, fearmonger”. The Reaction. October 19, 2009.
Surowiecki, James. “Did Crack Cause the '80s Crime Spree?” Slate. December 28, 1998.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Blog 19
It seems strange to be talking about how I felt about the archives project so long after the fact. If you had asked me to write this the day after submission, I might have had a lot to say. But now? I can only think about it generally and, to be honest, very dryly.
Whatever passion I may have felt toward the subject, or even the project itself, has long since dissipated. Until very recently I was in a different mode, focused entirely on the new paper that required real research and real critical thought. I guess you can see how I felt about the archives project. There was no challenge to it, and hardly anything was gained.
Okay so I learned more about Roger Starr and his concepts far more than I ever did; but who did that research? Not me. All pertinent info was simply handed to me on a silver platter for me to cherry pick from, and that is not only not fun, it's not real research; something I enjoy to do. Compared to the paper that followed it, it was a joke, and made even worse the more I got into it.
I guess I'm just the kind of person who loves to do their own research and use it accordingly. The archives project in comparison just felt...cheap.
Whatever passion I may have felt toward the subject, or even the project itself, has long since dissipated. Until very recently I was in a different mode, focused entirely on the new paper that required real research and real critical thought. I guess you can see how I felt about the archives project. There was no challenge to it, and hardly anything was gained.
Okay so I learned more about Roger Starr and his concepts far more than I ever did; but who did that research? Not me. All pertinent info was simply handed to me on a silver platter for me to cherry pick from, and that is not only not fun, it's not real research; something I enjoy to do. Compared to the paper that followed it, it was a joke, and made even worse the more I got into it.
I guess I'm just the kind of person who loves to do their own research and use it accordingly. The archives project in comparison just felt...cheap.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Blog 18
That hardest part of this project was sticking to strictly New York as an object to compare and contrast the film too. While yes, Escape From New York obviously takes place within the titular city, it is apparent that many other factors play a larger role in it's development. Watergate, nuclear war fears, lack of faith in our leaders all play as big a part in the development of the world seen in this film and, I felt, were much more important.
To me the most interesting aspect of writing this was pointing out the enormous differences, yet still having a strange similarity, between the real New York of the mid 90's and the one in the film. Yes crime went down, and no birdges were blown up; but when you consider just how Giuliani "cleaned up New York" I began to see elements of a police state. It's such a subtle similarity between the two that it had me cackling with laughter.
In the end I had no problem finding what I felt I needed to find. Most times I would type a term in the article databases and would take it from there; cherry picking what I found interesting and eventually discarding what I didn't. When it comes to writing rules, I gave up on consciously following them a long time ago. I know them, I'm aware of them, obviously; but, I've never found myself looking over the written word and thinking "Have I downshifted here? Should I?" etc etc. I worry most, and perhaps too much so, about my punctuation and grammar. Those are the only things i willfully sweat while writing. Everything else just comes.
To me the most interesting aspect of writing this was pointing out the enormous differences, yet still having a strange similarity, between the real New York of the mid 90's and the one in the film. Yes crime went down, and no birdges were blown up; but when you consider just how Giuliani "cleaned up New York" I began to see elements of a police state. It's such a subtle similarity between the two that it had me cackling with laughter.
In the end I had no problem finding what I felt I needed to find. Most times I would type a term in the article databases and would take it from there; cherry picking what I found interesting and eventually discarding what I didn't. When it comes to writing rules, I gave up on consciously following them a long time ago. I know them, I'm aware of them, obviously; but, I've never found myself looking over the written word and thinking "Have I downshifted here? Should I?" etc etc. I worry most, and perhaps too much so, about my punctuation and grammar. Those are the only things i willfully sweat while writing. Everything else just comes.
Blog 17
I should say off the bat that I don't believe humans have any kind of freewill except whatever illusions we give ourselves. But by the same token I have a very specific definition of what freewill supposedly is, which is at odds with the film Minority Report and the article itself. So, going by what the two show as "freewill", then for me it's easy to say that yes, humans have freewill.
Lets look at the film: At first, the entire basis of precrime hinges on the fact that humans DO NOT have freewill. As Anderton states to the FBI man "Just because you stopped it from happening doesnt mean it wasn't going to happen." Thus the entire thing is based on the notion that freewill doesn't matter, those people were going to murder without a doubt. However once Anderton is "redballed" he sets out to prove this wrong. in fact, the entire movie sets out to prove this wrong; the fact that "Minority Reports" exist at all is proof of this.
Now look at what happens once Anderton and Crowe finally meet. Anderton seems consigned to the fact that he will murder Crowe because of what he sees when he reaches the motel room. So I guess there is no freewill after all, right? No. Because in the end, Anderton CHOOSES not to kill Crowe, he instead tries to arrest him. The fact that Crowe does end up being killed is irrelevent, especially when every thing we see is taken into account.
Anderton DID NOT kill Crowe in this movie, this is a fact. Crowe forced Anderton; in my opinion, he is the one that pulled the trigger. The gun in Andertons hand means nothing at this point because they were stuggling and his finger was not on the trigger. Thus it becomes clear that Anderton made the choice to not kill Crowe, and thus he exersized his freewill as defined by the movie.
Lets look at the film: At first, the entire basis of precrime hinges on the fact that humans DO NOT have freewill. As Anderton states to the FBI man "Just because you stopped it from happening doesnt mean it wasn't going to happen." Thus the entire thing is based on the notion that freewill doesn't matter, those people were going to murder without a doubt. However once Anderton is "redballed" he sets out to prove this wrong. in fact, the entire movie sets out to prove this wrong; the fact that "Minority Reports" exist at all is proof of this.
Now look at what happens once Anderton and Crowe finally meet. Anderton seems consigned to the fact that he will murder Crowe because of what he sees when he reaches the motel room. So I guess there is no freewill after all, right? No. Because in the end, Anderton CHOOSES not to kill Crowe, he instead tries to arrest him. The fact that Crowe does end up being killed is irrelevent, especially when every thing we see is taken into account.
Anderton DID NOT kill Crowe in this movie, this is a fact. Crowe forced Anderton; in my opinion, he is the one that pulled the trigger. The gun in Andertons hand means nothing at this point because they were stuggling and his finger was not on the trigger. Thus it becomes clear that Anderton made the choice to not kill Crowe, and thus he exersized his freewill as defined by the movie.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Blog OneSix: 1997? Really?
John Carpenter has made some great movies. Of course, he's done just as many bad movies as good ones but that doesn't change the fact that-A-he's made my favorite slasher of all time (Halloween),-B-the best remake of all time (The Thing), and-C-one of the coolest dystopian futures of all time: Escape From New York. From there born one of the greatest tough guys in all of cinema; often imitated, yet never duplicated; the one and only: Snake Plissken.
The movie tells the tale of just another adventure of the man called Snake. Set in the year 1997, when crime has become so bad in NYC that it's bridges were blown up, and the island itself was turned into a giant prison.
...wait a second, 1997? See, over time that has become one of the annoying flaws of the movie. 97 has obviously come and gone, and yet NYC still stands as a living, breathing, city. I often wonder why did he choose this year? Why not some far flung one that can't be argued? Why have a date at all, sometimes I think it's best to just say "Sometime in the future".
But I digress; it's a annoying flaw and takes you out of the film, but that's not what this is about. And if you really want to think about it, perhaps it does make sense to set it 16 years after the movie was filmed. Think about the time, 1981, and you immediately picture a city in ruins. Crack and AID's were on the rise, murders occurred every 15 minutes, money was scarce, and people were afraid. So ask yourself, do you think it would be so hard to just imagine the worst that could happen to a major city when faced with news like that? Probably not.
Again, I'm getting sidetracked. Escape From New York is everything I said about the city, but add in the President of the United States getting trapped on the island because Air Force One went down on his way to an important conference. So the government decides to send a criminal into the ultimate den of criminals. Snake Plissken is a former war hero, mercenary, and criminal. He's been captured but they are offering him a way out: get the president back. If he doesn't do it within a certain time limit, poison they inject him with will release and he will die.
Almost sounds like a modern video game doesn't it? Makes me sad there hasn't been an adaptation yet.
This New York City is unlike anything we have ever seen before. If you remember September 11th,, try to imagine the aftermath of downtown but on a grander, city wide, scale, and you'll only have a taste of the New York shown in the film. There are no pedestrians, all manner of people hide out within the decaying buildings. I often think of it as it's own little nation, outside American and not subject to it's laws. The only guards reside on the other side of the river; food gets dropped in periodically, but the people run themselves.
On one hand, it's hard to reconcile this with the NYC I know now, or even used to know. But when you think about the time this was made and most likely written, the picture becomes much clearer. Did they go over the top? Absolutely, but that's what makes the film so much fun.
The movie tells the tale of just another adventure of the man called Snake. Set in the year 1997, when crime has become so bad in NYC that it's bridges were blown up, and the island itself was turned into a giant prison.
...wait a second, 1997? See, over time that has become one of the annoying flaws of the movie. 97 has obviously come and gone, and yet NYC still stands as a living, breathing, city. I often wonder why did he choose this year? Why not some far flung one that can't be argued? Why have a date at all, sometimes I think it's best to just say "Sometime in the future".
But I digress; it's a annoying flaw and takes you out of the film, but that's not what this is about. And if you really want to think about it, perhaps it does make sense to set it 16 years after the movie was filmed. Think about the time, 1981, and you immediately picture a city in ruins. Crack and AID's were on the rise, murders occurred every 15 minutes, money was scarce, and people were afraid. So ask yourself, do you think it would be so hard to just imagine the worst that could happen to a major city when faced with news like that? Probably not.
Again, I'm getting sidetracked. Escape From New York is everything I said about the city, but add in the President of the United States getting trapped on the island because Air Force One went down on his way to an important conference. So the government decides to send a criminal into the ultimate den of criminals. Snake Plissken is a former war hero, mercenary, and criminal. He's been captured but they are offering him a way out: get the president back. If he doesn't do it within a certain time limit, poison they inject him with will release and he will die.
Almost sounds like a modern video game doesn't it? Makes me sad there hasn't been an adaptation yet.
This New York City is unlike anything we have ever seen before. If you remember September 11th,, try to imagine the aftermath of downtown but on a grander, city wide, scale, and you'll only have a taste of the New York shown in the film. There are no pedestrians, all manner of people hide out within the decaying buildings. I often think of it as it's own little nation, outside American and not subject to it's laws. The only guards reside on the other side of the river; food gets dropped in periodically, but the people run themselves.
On one hand, it's hard to reconcile this with the NYC I know now, or even used to know. But when you think about the time this was made and most likely written, the picture becomes much clearer. Did they go over the top? Absolutely, but that's what makes the film so much fun.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Blog the Fifteenth: Minority Safety
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (I looked it up)
The above quote is something I truly believe in. It's funny how easy it is to forget about the Patriot Act and how much freedom we've allowed to be taken from us because of it. And it's not just the patriot act, everyday we somehow find ourselves giving up a little freedom all in the name of security. First of all, what is security exactly? Isn't it just an abstract concept whose definition can, and should, differ from person to person? And if that is the case, doesn't it make the whole notion of creating laws in the name of security ridiculous?
Think about what we let the law makers pass under the guise of security. We recently allowed the local government to outlaw smoking in public parks, parks that are outdoors, due to health concerns I'm sure. But isn't it really just "health security" at the end of the day? So in this day and age we allow cameras every where to watch us, give the government powers to search us and monitor us without any due process because it gives us the illusion of safety.
Safety and security, in my opinion, always begins and ends with you. Up there, in the brain, with peace of mind. You can have all the guns and laws in the world, but if you live in a constant state of fear; are you really truley safe?
What I hate most are those who would say: "I don't care, I'm not doing anything wrong. So they can watch me all they want". People like this are missing the point. You can't start giving the government just a "little bit" of your freedoms, because they will never take just a "little bit". Give an inch, and they'll take a mile, ever heard that phrase? When in doubt, always apply that to your government.
Because it didn't just stop with the patriot act, and it didnt just stop with banning smoking in bars. It became cameras on street corners and smoking out doors. What's next? Retina scanners and biological microchips? Oh wait, those are already on the way.
The above quote is something I truly believe in. It's funny how easy it is to forget about the Patriot Act and how much freedom we've allowed to be taken from us because of it. And it's not just the patriot act, everyday we somehow find ourselves giving up a little freedom all in the name of security. First of all, what is security exactly? Isn't it just an abstract concept whose definition can, and should, differ from person to person? And if that is the case, doesn't it make the whole notion of creating laws in the name of security ridiculous?
Think about what we let the law makers pass under the guise of security. We recently allowed the local government to outlaw smoking in public parks, parks that are outdoors, due to health concerns I'm sure. But isn't it really just "health security" at the end of the day? So in this day and age we allow cameras every where to watch us, give the government powers to search us and monitor us without any due process because it gives us the illusion of safety.
Safety and security, in my opinion, always begins and ends with you. Up there, in the brain, with peace of mind. You can have all the guns and laws in the world, but if you live in a constant state of fear; are you really truley safe?
What I hate most are those who would say: "I don't care, I'm not doing anything wrong. So they can watch me all they want". People like this are missing the point. You can't start giving the government just a "little bit" of your freedoms, because they will never take just a "little bit". Give an inch, and they'll take a mile, ever heard that phrase? When in doubt, always apply that to your government.
Because it didn't just stop with the patriot act, and it didnt just stop with banning smoking in bars. It became cameras on street corners and smoking out doors. What's next? Retina scanners and biological microchips? Oh wait, those are already on the way.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Special Activity: MOMI
The MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE...
...is pretty rad. Especially in concept, and almost nails it in the execution. First off, let me just say that i really liked our tour guide. She was very personable which made for a lively tour; it was obvious she enjoyed her job. Sadly, and this is just my problem and is by no means a mark against her, but I felt I knew as much or at least more than her. All of a sudden I began to wonder about working their and becoming a guide myself.
However, and this is one of her positives, is that she constantly engaged us through out the tour with nice factoid and questions that always pulled me back in and made for a fun experience. First off we went to the sound booth to mess with what is called ADR (or Automated dialogue replacement). I already knew some about the process and why it is used, (it's used in animated movies, foreign films dubbed over into the home language, and re-doing lines that werent caught right the first time for whatever reason.) but the real fun was trying it out for ourselves. We did a scene from BABE (which I've never seen) and then COMING TO AMERICA; it was a great way to start the tour off.
Next we moved to sound production, using Titanic as an example. First we watched a scene with only the main characters voices being heard, then with just the sound effects, next was just background crowd noise (the screaming, etc.), and finally we heard it all put together. Again, I knew most of it and even brought up some facts of my own for the group but it was still a great back and forth between us and the guide. The real fascinating part for me wass discussing what "Foley work" was; which is basically people in a sound studio trying to find the best way to make sound effects. For example: when Rose crashes onto the deck face first, the foley artists dropped a sandbag and a chair onto a wooden floor. I did learn something new, actually: when one of the exaust tubes break apart and fall into the water, they used stock sound of an elephant call for that. I thought that was so interesting.
The rest of the tour never reached the same height of information, and cool facts (for me), but it was never boring. The only thing I wish we got to see more of was, of course, the video game exzibit. They had a Sega Genesis hooked up with Sonic The Hedgehog to play! How cool is that? Easily one of my favorite consoles ever. Easily.
So yeah, wished it were longer, but certainly not a waste of time at all.
...is pretty rad. Especially in concept, and almost nails it in the execution. First off, let me just say that i really liked our tour guide. She was very personable which made for a lively tour; it was obvious she enjoyed her job. Sadly, and this is just my problem and is by no means a mark against her, but I felt I knew as much or at least more than her. All of a sudden I began to wonder about working their and becoming a guide myself.
However, and this is one of her positives, is that she constantly engaged us through out the tour with nice factoid and questions that always pulled me back in and made for a fun experience. First off we went to the sound booth to mess with what is called ADR (or Automated dialogue replacement). I already knew some about the process and why it is used, (it's used in animated movies, foreign films dubbed over into the home language, and re-doing lines that werent caught right the first time for whatever reason.) but the real fun was trying it out for ourselves. We did a scene from BABE (which I've never seen) and then COMING TO AMERICA; it was a great way to start the tour off.
Next we moved to sound production, using Titanic as an example. First we watched a scene with only the main characters voices being heard, then with just the sound effects, next was just background crowd noise (the screaming, etc.), and finally we heard it all put together. Again, I knew most of it and even brought up some facts of my own for the group but it was still a great back and forth between us and the guide. The real fascinating part for me wass discussing what "Foley work" was; which is basically people in a sound studio trying to find the best way to make sound effects. For example: when Rose crashes onto the deck face first, the foley artists dropped a sandbag and a chair onto a wooden floor. I did learn something new, actually: when one of the exaust tubes break apart and fall into the water, they used stock sound of an elephant call for that. I thought that was so interesting.
The rest of the tour never reached the same height of information, and cool facts (for me), but it was never boring. The only thing I wish we got to see more of was, of course, the video game exzibit. They had a Sega Genesis hooked up with Sonic The Hedgehog to play! How cool is that? Easily one of my favorite consoles ever. Easily.
So yeah, wished it were longer, but certainly not a waste of time at all.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Blog 13: Draft of Archives Project Essay
When suffering a death in the family it becomes difficult to focus on important tasks. I've had to encounter this phenomenon twice first hand. Once, after the death of my older brother which, in the end, forced me to leave my first college of choice. And now, with the death of a sister in my fiancee's family, I never found the time to go into the archives and look at what I need to look at. So, no, this wont be my actual first draft. However, I will attempt to talk about what I already know about the concept of "Planned Shrinkage" and, maybe, use that as a jumping off point once I get it together and write my real paper. At least, this way, this blog wont be a sad, blank, mess.
Of course we spoke about it during the tour of the actual archives; "Planned Shrinkage" (hereafter P.S.) was a wild idea by Roger Starr. In fact, the term itself first originated in NYC, and with Mr. Starr. In the mid-70's Mr. Starr gave a speech at some sort of real estate convention that introduced his idea as a way to help the struggling NYC economy stay afloat. The best way to think about the entire "idea" is to imagine all of the services you come to expect from the city you live in suddenly being taken away from you. Try calling the Police and Fire department, but they never arrive. Look for a place to send your kid to school, only to realize all the schools are closed down. That, in a nutshell, is P.S.
So, how does this help the economy, exactly? Well, to Mr. Starr, certain people pay taxes; and it wasn't those losers in the South Bronx (probably his words, but this isn't a real paper so pardon me for not fact checking). Cutting off their services will force them out, which in turn will alow him to renovate the area in order to attract real tax payers (aka non minorities.) The saddest part of all this is that his idea caught on and was implemented in various places, most recent being Detroit (Detroit really is a shit hole though, and they should probably just level it. But what do I know?).
A key question in this, aside from the one just asked, is why the South Bronx? First of all, in the early 70's a study was conducted that stated the obvious: if police and fire services are taken away, the population will decrease. They also suggested the idea, without any proof mind you, that most fires in poor neighborhoods were because of arson. Now in the South Bronx, fire was thought to be a huge problem. In fact widespread arson was the main assumption held by the people in charge of the city at the time. This lead to the bright idea that since most of the fires were the result of arson, it made little sense in improving the Fire department to deal with the problem. Essentially, the thought was that if they're burning themselves down, then they don't want our help.
Of course, sad as it is to say, P.S. worked and then some. The Bronx practically burned to the ground; health services were cut and AID's spread like wildfire (no pun intended); and the population plummeted. However, for me to say that it "worked" is a bit of a misnomer. It "worked" in the sense that it drove people out, however it took almost two decades for the City to invest in the area again and make it somewhat livable for us normal human beings.
I'm sure there is an untold death toll that is in the millions, and it really was for nothing. Two decades is how long you expect things to be done if at first they do nothing, but after all that? P.S. in my eyes was nothing but a huge, and disgusting, failure.
Of course, this is off the top of my head, I can't wait to actually get at the archives and really take a crack at this. That being said, however, I seriously think this is a good start.
Of course we spoke about it during the tour of the actual archives; "Planned Shrinkage" (hereafter P.S.) was a wild idea by Roger Starr. In fact, the term itself first originated in NYC, and with Mr. Starr. In the mid-70's Mr. Starr gave a speech at some sort of real estate convention that introduced his idea as a way to help the struggling NYC economy stay afloat. The best way to think about the entire "idea" is to imagine all of the services you come to expect from the city you live in suddenly being taken away from you. Try calling the Police and Fire department, but they never arrive. Look for a place to send your kid to school, only to realize all the schools are closed down. That, in a nutshell, is P.S.
So, how does this help the economy, exactly? Well, to Mr. Starr, certain people pay taxes; and it wasn't those losers in the South Bronx (probably his words, but this isn't a real paper so pardon me for not fact checking). Cutting off their services will force them out, which in turn will alow him to renovate the area in order to attract real tax payers (aka non minorities.) The saddest part of all this is that his idea caught on and was implemented in various places, most recent being Detroit (Detroit really is a shit hole though, and they should probably just level it. But what do I know?).
A key question in this, aside from the one just asked, is why the South Bronx? First of all, in the early 70's a study was conducted that stated the obvious: if police and fire services are taken away, the population will decrease. They also suggested the idea, without any proof mind you, that most fires in poor neighborhoods were because of arson. Now in the South Bronx, fire was thought to be a huge problem. In fact widespread arson was the main assumption held by the people in charge of the city at the time. This lead to the bright idea that since most of the fires were the result of arson, it made little sense in improving the Fire department to deal with the problem. Essentially, the thought was that if they're burning themselves down, then they don't want our help.
Of course, sad as it is to say, P.S. worked and then some. The Bronx practically burned to the ground; health services were cut and AID's spread like wildfire (no pun intended); and the population plummeted. However, for me to say that it "worked" is a bit of a misnomer. It "worked" in the sense that it drove people out, however it took almost two decades for the City to invest in the area again and make it somewhat livable for us normal human beings.
I'm sure there is an untold death toll that is in the millions, and it really was for nothing. Two decades is how long you expect things to be done if at first they do nothing, but after all that? P.S. in my eyes was nothing but a huge, and disgusting, failure.
Of course, this is off the top of my head, I can't wait to actually get at the archives and really take a crack at this. That being said, however, I seriously think this is a good start.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Blog 12-Gattacarazay
Throughout human history, it's been in our nature to discriminate or to label a certain group of other humans as "less than". If history was a top hat, I need only to reach in blindfolded and I could pull out an example easily. From the Crusades to World War 2 and The Holocaust, human history is rife with people telling other people I'm better than you because I hate things about your life. Or the much more dignified, "This is how one should be, and if you don't want to be taught, then you must want to die".
While watching Gattaca, one can't help but be moved at how accurate they depict the actions of a society that finds itself essentially split down the middle. Essentially, in the film, people are split into two groups: In-valids and valids; people who have genetically altered since conception to be "better" and those who are "natural births", or "god child" (the films term). In Nazi Germany it was the Aryans and the Jews; in radical islam it is Muslims and the infidels; and even right here in America it's become Red vs. Blue.
All through out known history there has been cases of society after society segregating themselves, because of percieved flaws one side has over the other. Certainly, it is no surprise the author George Annas said: "...If history is a guide, either the normal humans will view the ‘better’ humans as the other and seek to control or destroy them, or vice versa” (The Man on the Moon), when theorizing on what affect the appearance of genetically altered humans would have on society.
And this is the hidden beauty of the film Gattaca. Simply browsing human history tells us that no doubt, should a world like the one depicted in the film ever become reality, what is portrayed is what would happen; George Annas would be right. And too the film historians of the Future, Gattaca changes from a mere glimpse into what could be, to a movie ahead of it's time in prediction human events.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Blog ten of the tenth to the power of ten, word.
I've always liked writing in some form since, well since I was little. I wrote short stories in a little spiral notebook, or I did crappy little comics on lined paper. This carried over into my adults years, but I can't say if the quality has improved; I'd like to think so. I take this trip down memory lane because, I welcomed the idea of blogging in lieu of paper. If there's one thing I enjoy more than anything is informal writing.
Through the years, as far as advice goes, there's always been one constant: if you want to be a writer, then write write write. So as far as I'm concerned, I find the entire concept of in-class blogging a sound one and, for the most part I look forward to just sitting by a keyboard and writing. I feel no pressure because, even if it's something I have zero idea about, it doesn't mean I can't try to write about it and--hopefully--make it interesting along the way.
I feel that's one of my strengths when it comes to informal writing, that ability to make it so undeniably me; which, in turn, I hope makes what I write about interesting. It's actually one of the main things I had trouble getting around when I first started academic writing. I always tried to make it personable, and fun, and I was told "don't do that". So thanks, teachers of my life, I've become an academic essay robot.
Anyway. Not important.
To pick what I think is my best piece of the blog is actually pretty easy. Blog 4.
It's well researched, a good length, and I had a blast writing it. Seeing it also helps me point out what I feel my biggest issue with my blog work; lack of length and content for a lot of my work. I'm just of the mind that I don't write just to write. If I have nothing interesting to say, I just...stop. I despise padding. Blog 4, in retrospect, was easy for me. Mainly because I've found that I'm fascinated by the aspect of mass illusions. In fact, it's the most interesting aspect of the course we've explored so far. All that other stuff, especially seeing philosophy and other works in The Matrix is just old hat and corny to me. I went through that phase myself when the films came out, and hearing people talk about it ten years later as if it's still relevant drives me nuts.
It's so hack. As far as I'm concerned, The Matrix is important because of the techniques it brought to film making, and for bringing Hong Kong style martial arts to the masses, not it's philosophical leanings. yes, it's nice that it tried and, yes, it's smarter than your average sci fi action flick, but it's not what made the movie a cornerstone for cinema.
Another problem I have is that I don't end my posts well; as you're about to find out.
Through the years, as far as advice goes, there's always been one constant: if you want to be a writer, then write write write. So as far as I'm concerned, I find the entire concept of in-class blogging a sound one and, for the most part I look forward to just sitting by a keyboard and writing. I feel no pressure because, even if it's something I have zero idea about, it doesn't mean I can't try to write about it and--hopefully--make it interesting along the way.
I feel that's one of my strengths when it comes to informal writing, that ability to make it so undeniably me; which, in turn, I hope makes what I write about interesting. It's actually one of the main things I had trouble getting around when I first started academic writing. I always tried to make it personable, and fun, and I was told "don't do that". So thanks, teachers of my life, I've become an academic essay robot.
Anyway. Not important.
To pick what I think is my best piece of the blog is actually pretty easy. Blog 4.
It's well researched, a good length, and I had a blast writing it. Seeing it also helps me point out what I feel my biggest issue with my blog work; lack of length and content for a lot of my work. I'm just of the mind that I don't write just to write. If I have nothing interesting to say, I just...stop. I despise padding. Blog 4, in retrospect, was easy for me. Mainly because I've found that I'm fascinated by the aspect of mass illusions. In fact, it's the most interesting aspect of the course we've explored so far. All that other stuff, especially seeing philosophy and other works in The Matrix is just old hat and corny to me. I went through that phase myself when the films came out, and hearing people talk about it ten years later as if it's still relevant drives me nuts.
It's so hack. As far as I'm concerned, The Matrix is important because of the techniques it brought to film making, and for bringing Hong Kong style martial arts to the masses, not it's philosophical leanings. yes, it's nice that it tried and, yes, it's smarter than your average sci fi action flick, but it's not what made the movie a cornerstone for cinema.
Another problem I have is that I don't end my posts well; as you're about to find out.
Blog 9 media paper draft aint happening.
Sorry but, I don't really want a peer review of my paper. Rather keep my ideas to myself. I have other reasons, reasons that I'm sure people would find mean so I'm going to keep them to myself. Or maybe not; there's people here who I can't stand and whose opinion I wouldn't respect or take seriously. It's not everyone, but I consider the odds I'd hear from one of them to be very low.
So I'd just rather not.
So I'd just rather not.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Attempting to write fiction...
Okay, so for the past year or so I've been trying to write a story, or at the very least a novel. I've had bouts of writers block here and there, and months have gone by with little activity; but I do intend to finish it one day, come hell or high water.
Anyway, I thought I'd share it for the hell of it. Just click the link at the bottom. It's a work in progress, so any feedback is always welcomed.
Acid From The Ashes
Anyway, I thought I'd share it for the hell of it. Just click the link at the bottom. It's a work in progress, so any feedback is always welcomed.
Acid From The Ashes
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Eight: The Oedipus Matrix
Here's where I fake it, because I know The Matrix like the back of my hand, but barely glanced past the "thee"s and "thou"s that populate Oedipus. Hey, unless it's Marvel Comics' Thor, i don't like that type of writing. it drives me nuts. But I tried, I swear I did.
Anyway. So I'm going to talk about how the two are similar, or different, right? Sure, Oedipus appears to try and ask the reader, "Is ignorance bliss?". And characters, although not quite actually saying it outloud (mostly), all try to live by that phrase. Weather it's the main character itself running from his foretold future, or his wife/mother killing herself rather than deal with the consequences of the truth. While The Matrix has a character, Cypher, say the phrase and believe in it; does this make them similar? I'm not so sure.
However, as I write this I find myself connecting the dots between the two thematically. The key thing that seems to run through them both is knowledge, and what it does to these characters. Cypher in the movie remarks what a "mind job" it must be to Neo to be told he is the savior of humanity. On the other side of that, the Oracle does NOT tell him he is the one, because that is not what he needed to hear. Because Cypher is right.
Similarly, what happens to all the characters in Oedipus who have incredible knowledge? Knowledge of things they shouldn't, that they may have the power to change? Tragedy. Almost nothing but. In a way it's almost like the flip side to the ideas presented in The Matrix.
Anyway. So I'm going to talk about how the two are similar, or different, right? Sure, Oedipus appears to try and ask the reader, "Is ignorance bliss?". And characters, although not quite actually saying it outloud (mostly), all try to live by that phrase. Weather it's the main character itself running from his foretold future, or his wife/mother killing herself rather than deal with the consequences of the truth. While The Matrix has a character, Cypher, say the phrase and believe in it; does this make them similar? I'm not so sure.
However, as I write this I find myself connecting the dots between the two thematically. The key thing that seems to run through them both is knowledge, and what it does to these characters. Cypher in the movie remarks what a "mind job" it must be to Neo to be told he is the savior of humanity. On the other side of that, the Oracle does NOT tell him he is the one, because that is not what he needed to hear. Because Cypher is right.
Similarly, what happens to all the characters in Oedipus who have incredible knowledge? Knowledge of things they shouldn't, that they may have the power to change? Tragedy. Almost nothing but. In a way it's almost like the flip side to the ideas presented in The Matrix.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Blog 6ix
The prison-house of language.
I'll be frank, even after all the research I've done, I still don't understand what this means. I mean, I have an idea of it's concept, but ask me to explicitly give you the terms proper definition and I would not be able to. So let me tell you what I think it means, and I go by the words itself. We are often held prisoner by the words we speak. All over the TV, and through out or lives, we are told to watch our mouths. We're told to be mindful of our tones for fear of people taking it the wrong way.
Comedians are often ostracized for their use of language. Lenny Bruce was arrested fifty years ago because of his words. Don Imus was fired because he called a bunch of basketball players, "Nappy headed hoes" in jest. Never mind that it was a terrible joke, he was vilified because of who he was (an old white guy) and because of what he said. Even I had this happen to me recently.
I claim stereotypes often come from the smallest grain of truth and immediately I was jumped on by one person who was offended by my tone. They may have claimed it was because they thought I was wrong, but they eventually made it clear they were more angry because of the language I used; because of my tone. This happens all the time to all of us. We constantly have to watch what we say and how we say it; and it's even doubly worse when you're in the public spotlight. No longer can you just speak, no longer are offhand remarks considered exactly that. They're poured over and analyzed to the point of ridiculousness.
This, in a way, makes us a prisoner. Especially of our own language, unable to speak our minds without fear of excommunication or "hurt feelings". This is what I believe the entire concept of "the prison-house of language" entails.
I'll be frank, even after all the research I've done, I still don't understand what this means. I mean, I have an idea of it's concept, but ask me to explicitly give you the terms proper definition and I would not be able to. So let me tell you what I think it means, and I go by the words itself. We are often held prisoner by the words we speak. All over the TV, and through out or lives, we are told to watch our mouths. We're told to be mindful of our tones for fear of people taking it the wrong way.
Comedians are often ostracized for their use of language. Lenny Bruce was arrested fifty years ago because of his words. Don Imus was fired because he called a bunch of basketball players, "Nappy headed hoes" in jest. Never mind that it was a terrible joke, he was vilified because of who he was (an old white guy) and because of what he said. Even I had this happen to me recently.
I claim stereotypes often come from the smallest grain of truth and immediately I was jumped on by one person who was offended by my tone. They may have claimed it was because they thought I was wrong, but they eventually made it clear they were more angry because of the language I used; because of my tone. This happens all the time to all of us. We constantly have to watch what we say and how we say it; and it's even doubly worse when you're in the public spotlight. No longer can you just speak, no longer are offhand remarks considered exactly that. They're poured over and analyzed to the point of ridiculousness.
This, in a way, makes us a prisoner. Especially of our own language, unable to speak our minds without fear of excommunication or "hurt feelings". This is what I believe the entire concept of "the prison-house of language" entails.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Got my website back
http://fadeisoutproductions.squarespace.com/
So that feels good, now all I need is to get my domain names back.
So that feels good, now all I need is to get my domain names back.
ENGLISH 101: BLOG FIVE-ELECTRIC BLOGALOO, SUMMARY EDITION
EXCERPT FROM THE REPUBLIC
By Plato, as told by ME.
Widely know as "Allegory of the Cave", this excerpt details a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, in which they discuss human nature concerning ignorance, and refusing to move past that ignorance even in the face of reality. Socrates presents this through a philosophical symbolization: The Cave. More specifically, human beings born in the darkness of a cave and living out their lives in that same cave, ignorant of the greater world.
They are bound by chains to this cave, and the most they know of the outside world exists only as shadows and outlines to them. But, what would theoretically happen should these prisoners be allowed to go free? Socrates presents this scenario to Glaucon; he explains in detail how such a person, formally chained in the darkness, would react to being shown the real world. How would this person react to the light, of which he is not accustomed? And if all the shadows he once gave names to were revealed for what they truley were, would he go mad?
These are the scenarios Socrates presents and gives answers to throughout the passage. In addition he also posits an additional sequence of events in which the former prisoner brings this new knowledge back to his former people. Their reactions and the eventual fate of the prisoner, including the reasons why, are all detailed here. And not just the fates of the specific prisoner are theorized here, but in the end, The Cave is used to parable the fates of most of those who try to bring truth to those who have their own reality are presented.
By Plato, as told by ME.
Widely know as "Allegory of the Cave", this excerpt details a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, in which they discuss human nature concerning ignorance, and refusing to move past that ignorance even in the face of reality. Socrates presents this through a philosophical symbolization: The Cave. More specifically, human beings born in the darkness of a cave and living out their lives in that same cave, ignorant of the greater world.
They are bound by chains to this cave, and the most they know of the outside world exists only as shadows and outlines to them. But, what would theoretically happen should these prisoners be allowed to go free? Socrates presents this scenario to Glaucon; he explains in detail how such a person, formally chained in the darkness, would react to being shown the real world. How would this person react to the light, of which he is not accustomed? And if all the shadows he once gave names to were revealed for what they truley were, would he go mad?
These are the scenarios Socrates presents and gives answers to throughout the passage. In addition he also posits an additional sequence of events in which the former prisoner brings this new knowledge back to his former people. Their reactions and the eventual fate of the prisoner, including the reasons why, are all detailed here. And not just the fates of the specific prisoner are theorized here, but in the end, The Cave is used to parable the fates of most of those who try to bring truth to those who have their own reality are presented.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
ENGLISH 101-Blog the Fourth-The Battle of Los Angeles
Not the movie people, although it does take inspiration from this very real "incident" that has come to be considered, over the years, as the first UFO sighting. In February 1942 tensions were understandably high. It has only been about two months since the Japanese have bombed pearl harbor and rumors were abound all over the west coast that an attack was imminent.
And with good reason: On Feb 23rd " a Japanese submarine surfaced off the coast near Santa Barbara, California, and over the course of the next thirty minutes lobbed 13 rounds of 5-1/2" shells at an oil installation." (source) It was the first attack on American soil since the War of 1812, and President Roosevelt saw fit to warn us of the dangers of "Japanese invaders" on our coasts in a radio address to the nation.
The attack came and went with little fan fare, but what happens next became ingrained in the hearts and minds of people all over the nation, and is now easily one of the greatest mysteries in the 20th century...despite nothing happening.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/aaf2.html
http://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/thebattleoflosangeles.html
It was the very next day and all seemed calm, until 6pm. Numerous reports and rumors came in that another attack was on it's way. Flares and flashing lights were spotted off the coast, which many believed could be used to signal any Japanese ships to start an attack. But nothing happened.
Until almost 2 am, when something was picked up on two different radar stations heading toward Los Angeles. No one knew what this something was, but all air-raid stations were put on green alert, which basically means they were ready to attack if they had to. At 2:30 radar claimed the object was 3 miles from LA. A blackout was ordered and all hell broke loose as anti-air cannons opened fire over the sky of the city, and spot lights scanned the sky. Here is the only known picture of the incident:
Know what's funny about that picture? NOTHINGS THERE. The problem with almost everything I wrote above is the so-called (by me, admittedly) something that was tracked by radar. It vanished from radar almost 15-minutes later. What happened afterward is what set off all the excitement. Not long after the something was "spotted" the info center was flooded with reports of enemy planes in the area. What's worse, guess what started the actual shooting? A weather balloon. One, with a red flare, was spotted near Snata monica and thats when the shells started flying.
After that, all bets are off. Most of the sightings after the shooting started would/could very well be the shells themselves exploding and flying through the air and caught by the searchlights. With all the excitement, it's not shocking to me that people began to "see" enemy planes all over the place. The proof is in the aftermath really. After all the ammo spent, these "swarms" dropped no bombs, caused no damage, and left no wreckage behind. Either they were the best pilots ever, or they didn't exist.
The day after, the military came out and said it was a false alarm. In 1986 it was revealed a lost weather Balloon and a case of "the war time jitters" led to this event. I'm inclined to believe this, considering the time I'd say "war time jotters" was an understatement. These people were a ticking time bomb ready to go off. Of course, at the time and now, people don't believe the "official story". Mostly because, like all conspiracy theories, it's hard to buy a simple explanation for something so outrageous. I think it comes from the myth of a hyper competent government. How could they make such a huge blunder, attack nothing and scare millions of people by mistake? It must be a conspiracy!
Even the Japanese came out and said it wasn't theirs. They called the raid a "myth". I suppose that has lead to people calling this a UFO sighting. Because it can't be a mistake, something must've been out there, right?
No.
Our Government is just dumb sometimes.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
English 101-Blog Trinity:Superstious
I'm a big old gullible fool. I once had a girlfriend who would joke with me and tell me something false and I'd buy it hook line and sinker. I really hated her. Anyway, I've spent my lifetime falling for things and believing in bullshit. Like most kids I believed in Santa Clause, every Christmas was spent worrying about the reactions of my family members when coal would be among my presents. Yes, I was a little asshole. In fact, I think one Christmas my brother actually placed a black rock with the presents and I cried my eyes out. Jerk.
I spent most of the 90's believing the Knicks would win the NBA championship. I know, but I was like 12. Michael Jordan lived to drag me to reality. This sort of belief manifests itself every so often; case in point this past January and the New York Jets. I also used to believe High School was going to be like Saved By the Bell; what a disappointment that turned to be. I mean, I knew I wasn't no Zack Morris (and who is?) but surely it'd still be fun? I suppose it's the first time that I realized TV was a lie. You spent most of your younger years believing in this magic box but it's all bullshit. Even when it's supposed to be "on the level", like the news, it's not and everything coming from it can no longer be taken at face value. It wasn't just the unreality of Saved by The bell that made me come to this decision, it was formed over time, but it's the most memorable.
This doesn't apply to just television, movies are equally guilty. This'll lead me to another belief but I saw JFK by Oliver Stone when I was younger and I loved it. Mostly because, at the time, I was enthralled by President Kennedy AND his death. I remember telling myself I was going to solve it while checking out books about it at the library. So yeah, I believed in a conspiracy. To me, it was obvious Oswald didn't act alone. And I don't think that movie formed that opinion, although it certainly didn't hurt, I know where it came from: my Mother. She was a young girl when he died, so she grew up during the aftermath. Is it any surprise se believed what she did? Most people did, and still do I'm sure.
So I grew up thinking that not only did I know the "truth" about the murder, but that the movie JFK was factual. Fast forward many years later, a little past the birth of the Internet and during it's continued rise, and I become exposed to other world views and "truths". The first to fall was the movie itself; it seems so obvious now, but it never occured to it was heavily fictionalized. And if it wasn't that, things were just outright made up. Then there's all the other info thats out there, the reenactments of the shot, the computer simulations showsing that it was not only possible, but also likely that Oswald could have taken the shots by himself and you have a recipe for my dwindling belief in the conspiracy.
Even now I still struggle with these facts and find myself flip-flopping between beliefs. The most important thing I get out of all that was just how much BS my mother would feed me, things I believed in that I honestly believed until exposure to other people through the 'net/ Things like cracking your knuckles leads to arthritis, wearing my hat will make me bald (okay, maybe that came true), and all the other so-called old-wives tales I'm sure we've all heard a million times.
Did that make her a bad person and a terrible Mother? No, there's plenty of other reasons for that label. Kidding, but seriously: No, of course it doesn't. She was just doing the best she can with what she had. Using knowledge she'd heard and was passing it down. It's not wrong or right, it was just the way it was.
Can't blame her for that.
I spent most of the 90's believing the Knicks would win the NBA championship. I know, but I was like 12. Michael Jordan lived to drag me to reality. This sort of belief manifests itself every so often; case in point this past January and the New York Jets. I also used to believe High School was going to be like Saved By the Bell; what a disappointment that turned to be. I mean, I knew I wasn't no Zack Morris (and who is?) but surely it'd still be fun? I suppose it's the first time that I realized TV was a lie. You spent most of your younger years believing in this magic box but it's all bullshit. Even when it's supposed to be "on the level", like the news, it's not and everything coming from it can no longer be taken at face value. It wasn't just the unreality of Saved by The bell that made me come to this decision, it was formed over time, but it's the most memorable.
This doesn't apply to just television, movies are equally guilty. This'll lead me to another belief but I saw JFK by Oliver Stone when I was younger and I loved it. Mostly because, at the time, I was enthralled by President Kennedy AND his death. I remember telling myself I was going to solve it while checking out books about it at the library. So yeah, I believed in a conspiracy. To me, it was obvious Oswald didn't act alone. And I don't think that movie formed that opinion, although it certainly didn't hurt, I know where it came from: my Mother. She was a young girl when he died, so she grew up during the aftermath. Is it any surprise se believed what she did? Most people did, and still do I'm sure.
So I grew up thinking that not only did I know the "truth" about the murder, but that the movie JFK was factual. Fast forward many years later, a little past the birth of the Internet and during it's continued rise, and I become exposed to other world views and "truths". The first to fall was the movie itself; it seems so obvious now, but it never occured to it was heavily fictionalized. And if it wasn't that, things were just outright made up. Then there's all the other info thats out there, the reenactments of the shot, the computer simulations showsing that it was not only possible, but also likely that Oswald could have taken the shots by himself and you have a recipe for my dwindling belief in the conspiracy.
Even now I still struggle with these facts and find myself flip-flopping between beliefs. The most important thing I get out of all that was just how much BS my mother would feed me, things I believed in that I honestly believed until exposure to other people through the 'net/ Things like cracking your knuckles leads to arthritis, wearing my hat will make me bald (okay, maybe that came true), and all the other so-called old-wives tales I'm sure we've all heard a million times.
Did that make her a bad person and a terrible Mother? No, there's plenty of other reasons for that label. Kidding, but seriously: No, of course it doesn't. She was just doing the best she can with what she had. Using knowledge she'd heard and was passing it down. It's not wrong or right, it was just the way it was.
Can't blame her for that.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
ENGLISH 101: BLOG 2-THE SEQUAL
So the text book came today, and thank god for that. While I remember most of what was read in class, it was nice to be able to read and digest "Allegory of the cave" on my own and in the comfort of my couch. I think it's funny that the "story" itself is in a chapter that lists "The Matrix" as one of it's examples. Immediately while reading it, I couldn't help but see what parallels that movie was trying to make with this piece of work. I know that on the DVD they talk a lot about philosophies having a huge impact upon the story they were trying to tell, but I just never realized (or, I guess, had an interest in finding out) just how much.
This line: At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him," That line describes almost perfectly Neo's first moments awake in "the real". But that's not all, the rest of the passage is also telling:
"...and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?"
The bolded parts especially sync up to those moments in the movie; Morpheus is the "instructor", walking Neo through The Matrix and pointing out the flaws, he is the one who breaks the illusion and shows him the real. I just find it amazing how much they took but without outright plagiarism or bluntness. It's all so subtle and only there as some sort of "easter egg" for those with the knowledge to know. Is it any wonder why the movie is so loved and considered so influential?
More than the cool gun play, more than the martial arts, and more than the cool slow motion "bullet time", it isn't just a movie.
It's a work of art.
This line: At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him," That line describes almost perfectly Neo's first moments awake in "the real". But that's not all, the rest of the passage is also telling:
"...and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?"
The bolded parts especially sync up to those moments in the movie; Morpheus is the "instructor", walking Neo through The Matrix and pointing out the flaws, he is the one who breaks the illusion and shows him the real. I just find it amazing how much they took but without outright plagiarism or bluntness. It's all so subtle and only there as some sort of "easter egg" for those with the knowledge to know. Is it any wonder why the movie is so loved and considered so influential?
More than the cool gun play, more than the martial arts, and more than the cool slow motion "bullet time", it isn't just a movie.
It's a work of art.
Day one
Difference between my private and public self.
Good question. I think about it all the time. My public self is often timed and shy. Quick to follow a lead rather than be a trend setter. At home, around my fiancee, I’m loud and silly, and goofy. I laugh at my own jokes, especially stupid ones. Some might find this part of me obnoxious. This is not to say that either side of my selfs are mutually exclusive. Given time, I know my so-called “real” side will come out in any given situation. It’s happened before.
I guess you could say my public self is guarded and reserved, probably out of fear. Fear of judgment the most likely culprit. I spent a good deal of my life being the quiet wallflower in the room and thinking back upon it makes me sad. I remember I once spent a "date" with a girl not saying a single word! Granted, I was 15 or something, but still! The rush of embarrassment I feel thinking back upon that day just gives me the douche chills.
Even today, the smallest inkling of those old feelings still remain. Even now, as I meet new people, I often find myself shaking with nervousness; a feeling of fear that I KNOW should not exist. I have nothing to fear from this person? Why should I be so jittery? But it happens, and I try to deal. I try to merge my two selves and live a whole life where there is no difference between my public and private selves.
It's a process. A long one. But I've taken strides since I was that 15 year old fraidy cat, but the different selves I think will always remain.
I'll write more later. Maybe.
Good question. I think about it all the time. My public self is often timed and shy. Quick to follow a lead rather than be a trend setter. At home, around my fiancee, I’m loud and silly, and goofy. I laugh at my own jokes, especially stupid ones. Some might find this part of me obnoxious. This is not to say that either side of my selfs are mutually exclusive. Given time, I know my so-called “real” side will come out in any given situation. It’s happened before.
I guess you could say my public self is guarded and reserved, probably out of fear. Fear of judgment the most likely culprit. I spent a good deal of my life being the quiet wallflower in the room and thinking back upon it makes me sad. I remember I once spent a "date" with a girl not saying a single word! Granted, I was 15 or something, but still! The rush of embarrassment I feel thinking back upon that day just gives me the douche chills.
Even today, the smallest inkling of those old feelings still remain. Even now, as I meet new people, I often find myself shaking with nervousness; a feeling of fear that I KNOW should not exist. I have nothing to fear from this person? Why should I be so jittery? But it happens, and I try to deal. I try to merge my two selves and live a whole life where there is no difference between my public and private selves.
It's a process. A long one. But I've taken strides since I was that 15 year old fraidy cat, but the different selves I think will always remain.
I'll write more later. Maybe.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)