"How to Read a Movie"

CC: Flickr user Dave & Bry

When filming a movie, there are obviously many things that directors, cinematographers, camera men etc. need to take into account - but never had I heard about how the placement of certain things in a film frame can say so much about a moment in the movie. Of course, there's the law of thirds - but there is a whole dynamic of placement that goes far beyond that, and that can mean so many different things. 

The most interesting example I came across was the "tilting"of a screen in order to signify something going on with characters in a shot. I loved the idea that "Tilt shots of course put everything on a diagonal, implying the world is out of balance. I have the impression that more tilts are down to the right than to the left, perhaps suggesting the characters are sliding perilously into their futures." ("How to read a movie", Ebert). I think there is something really beautiful in tilting the camera so that characters are seen as "sliding" into their futures, and that there is so much more going on in a movie than just the characters on a screen! 

I loved the idea of going through a movie and stopping at certain frames like Ebert did with his class. I found it so interesting that at any moment in a film there can be material to analyze, that there will always be something to investigate and look more into - just by looking at the way the characters are placed. Certain lighting can emphasize different parts of the frame, which can send a completely different message depending on who/what the light is cast onto (or not cast onto). I can surely say that I will now look at cinematography in a completely different light!

R E A L I T Y H U N G E R : a manifesto

Let me begin by saying that I loved and hated this essay. I mostly hated it because of all the references...I'm glad you're well-read and all, but I'm afraid I haven't read half of the things this man is talking about (maybe that's just me).

I mostly just loved the topic of this essay, which is very well portrayed in the first lines: "The world exists. Why recreate it?" The author does a great job of explaining his views "against" fiction writing - why should we have to make up completely new worlds, stories, and ideas if there's already so much in the world that we already have, and that we haven't discovered yet? While this is a rather limiting thought that I'm not sure I believe in, I think it's a very noble idea to promote and pursue. Sure, there's a lot to be created from what you already have, which is done on a daily basis all around the world. But where's the appeal? Why should we limit ourselves to the things that are inside our realm? Why not go out and invent something completely new from scratch as an escape from the real world? 

This is where I disagree with the writer. Sure, it's fine to make beauty, art, and express yourself from the things you already have, but what about expressing those things through something you don't have, and finding a way to manifest your thoughts and send a message through something you invented? In my opinion, that is one major component of creativity - inventing something that no one else has thought of. Of course, this can be done with the same materials as everyone else, but what about making something different with the same things as everyone else makes it so...well, different? I hope you can follow my train of thought. It's not always easy to, and it's especially hard in writing. 

Something else I noticed in the essay was a sort of stylistic device the author uses to prove his point, and I hope I'm not the only one that picked up on this: in constantly citing things form other authors, the writer uses this essay as a prime example that something completely new can be made out of things that already have been made. Creativity comes from already-established entities that can be recycled into something completely new. When I realized this about the essay, I got pretty excited.  Maybe I'm way off, but I'm still proud of my findings. Good move, David Shields.

Branding in the Digital Age

If you have a product you love, why would you switch to something else? This state of mind has been prevalent in human nature ever since the beginning of mass production, and in this day and age has been taken to to an entirely new level.

This article discussed how consumer/producer relationship has changed to a completely new system in the Digital Age. This "Consumer Decision Journey" (CDJ) has changed from being a journey filled with narrowing down many options, to being attracted to a specific set of advertisements for a product. Now, one would think that we have more choices today and have more narrowing down to do - which is true - but, being constantly "assaulted by media and awash in choices" (Edelman, "Branding in the Digital Age..."), we tend to stick to the things we see more often advertised; therefore already narrowing down the available options that we know about.

One of the most interesting parts, however, is after we have bought a product. If we really enjoy it, we'll advocate it, blog; Tweet; post a picture; Facebook about it because, quite honestly, that's all some people have to do these days (which isn't necessarily a bad thing - although I do tend to see some of the most pointless posts nowadays). This sharing is in itself advertising for the brand we just bought, which then again is exposed to others around you that you share with, who will see the brand and consider it when buying a product...it's all just a big circle.

I really enjoyed this article, it did a really good job of analyzing the new relationship that we have with buying products - which may seem trivial, but in fact completely influences our decisions and outlooks on the things around us. 

Tell me what you think!

You can find a link to the article here.

CC: Flickr user ImageNationPhotography