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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)