Media, Coffee, and Education

Argument Clinic

2007-11-14T17:44:00.000-08:00

Integrating Media Studies into the Language Arts Curriculum

2006-12-07T12:28:00.000-08:00

If I were a teacher, I would make use of all the versions of “Hamlet” that are out there in the world. We’ve got versions with each of the following actors starring in the title role: Ethan Hawke, Mel Gibson, Kenneth Branagh, and Laurence Olivier (I suspect that there are still others. What’s interesting to me about having so many interpretations of the same text available, is that juxtaposing them really brings out the degree to which directors are interpreting the text through the use of setting, camera work, music, lighting, etc. I would present some basic film analysis lessons, and allow students to watch the same scene from “Hamlet” as portrayed in each of the film versions. They could be watch with the sound turned off, and write about the image work being done by each film maker: what kinds of shots are being used? What images are being juxtaposed? What time period is the film taking place in? What’s the cumulative visual effect/feel? Students could also listen to the music used by different directors for the same scene—I have soundtracks from the Branagh version and the Ethan Hawke version on CD. Students could talk about what kind of mood the music creates. They could then watch the different versions of the scene in their entirety. Maybe the final step in the process would be to integrate their “visual notes” and their “sound notes” into a larger piece of writing in which they describe how the meaning of a scene is changed by its filmic elements. We could also discuss the larger issue of how even though all of us are looking at the same text, we construct different meanings from it.

It might even be interesting to have students then film their own version of the same scene from Hamlet in their own unique way—maybe by this time they will have had too much of this scene and they’ll need to choose a different scene to film. By filming their own versions, they would be exercising the interpretive license that they had observed in the clips from the movies. Students could work in groups with each student playing a particular role on the “film team.” Casting director, sound person, costumer, camera person, director, editor.

We could also take the opportunity to read reviews of the different film versions of Hamlet from the newspapers (I can gather these of the net or at the library) and students could use them as models to write film reviews of their classmates’ films. The student authored film reviews (and the films themselves, via YouTube) could be posted in blogs so that students could comment on each other’s reviews. This might mean learning how to disagree with each other in a diplomatic way, and would surely mean students learning how to establish their opinion through careful argument—after all, their peers are going to read this.

I think a larger activity like this could in smaller pieces throughout a unit on “Hamlet,” or it could be used for another text that has been represented at least twice on film. It might also be interesting to add a radio drama version of the scene into the mix and talk about how radio directors use sound to shape meaning.

Ideally, the unit would end by going to a theater and viewing a version of “Hamlet” and examining the difference between the theater experience and the movie experience. It can never hurt to look at yet another interpretation of the same text and reinforce again the large degree of interpretation involved in re-presenting a written text.

From our exploration of media use to portray a “Classic,” we can then move to explorations of more contemporary texts: commercials, music, web content, games, comics…

Why do I like the Beatles? Why "Let it Be"?

2006-11-28T18:03:00.000-08:00

I really like to listen to classic rock 'n roll: Eric Clapton, the Beatles, some Dylan. Actually, I don't listen to a whole lot of "band music" even in this genre. I don't listen to much anymore except National Public Radio, but in high school I put in a good many hours learning the Beatles catalogue in minute detail. I knew their music down to it's bass lines, drum licks, guitar solos, and harmonies.

My reasons for liking the Beatles? If someone were to ask me this outright, I would guess that they "just don't understand," maybe that's the way most people feel when asked to justify their music preference. But, let me try to justify my preference for the Beatles.

It's about the quality of the songwriting, the words, the way these four guys fit their instrumentation together, the George Martin orchestrations, the harmony, tensions between individual Beatles, the willingness to play many different styles and moods, the creativity, the reckless waste (witness "Revolution Number 9" from the White Album, "Hey Bulldog" from the Yellow Submarine--I have to throw up my hands and say, "They could do whatever they wanted, they didn't care what anybody thought, they just did whatever came into their minds and shared it with everyone.) I'm going to have to pull some of that out of parenthesis and examine it.

Maybe it was about the polished work of "Let it Be" (the song/not the album) as much as it was about their willingness to show the creative missteps. Listening to the Beatles is like listening to the whole creative process--it seems like the remaining Beatles have become more aware of this aspect of their appeal over time, what with the release of their Anthology which includes many raw recordings of songs they later polished.

There's a moment in the recording of "Let it Be" included in the Anthology that draws out this tension between what I might call the raw and the polished in the work of the Beatles. The story of the Let it Be album is that the Beatles set out to record a live album--no manipulation of the sound, no after the fact mixing. The version of "Let it Be" in the Anthology is the first time that John Lennon hears the song. After the final chord, Lennon laughs and shouts to Paul, "You cheat! You scoundrel!... Let's track it." Apparently, this songs too good to leave as is, to leave raw.

I still seem to be a bit too close to the subject on this. I think I'll just let it be.

The Gods Must be Crazy: Use of Documentary Style

2006-11-15T08:13:00.000-08:00

Some people believe that the following clip represents the reality of life for bushmen in the Kalahari--trouble is that it doesn't. The documentary style--even when used in a film that is clearly fictional--still makes people believe that it represents reality.

Documentary Film: Zapruder and Interpretation

2006-11-15T07:41:00.000-08:00

Above you will find a copy of the film Abraham Zapruder took of the assassination of JFK.

This can be used as a case study of the limits and possibilities of documentary film. Many people are convinced that somehow the "Truth" of the Kennedy assassination are somewhere in this footage.

What does this film show us? We could state this in detail: "First, we see a street lined on both sides with people (a single line on both sides of the street); a motor cycle carrying a police officer drives down the side of the street... a man is shot." My play-by-play is pretty elementary, but I hope it serves to show how much of the meaning of what happened is dependent on the context an interpretation. These images alone explain neither what happened, nor the meaning of the event. For that we would need to understand something of political reality, the motives and identities of any assassin(s), what the perspective was from the other side of the street, etc. Documentary film makers can begin to connect those dots into a coherent story, but their story is never complete.

How a Bill Becomes a Law: My Pitch for a Documentary

2006-11-14T17:31:00.000-08:00

How many of you have seen the School House Rock version of "How a Bill Becomes a Law"?

I would like to create a documentary that follows a bill from its inception to the day it becomes a law (or the day that it dies). Maybe we would start by following a group of people who sit down with their congress person and really come up with a good idea for creating national health care (or some such thing).

In the documentary we would capture what happens on the floors of both houses and in the committees, the arguments, the dull procedure. This would be filled in with interviews of congresspeople who support and oppose the law. We will explore all of the amendments that get added to the bill as it goes along... you get the idea. I've often complained in the last couple of months as campaign ads have consumed the airwaves, that they make people so ignorant about how laws get made in this country, about how complicated the process really is.

I would want my audience to learn just how complicated the whole process is, and how convoluted. I want them to see that all kinds of sub-bills that are unrelated to the spirit of the original bill get attached to it. I want people to see that its often these attachments that lead to a bill's death, and not the original good idea. I want people to see the lobbyists going to work on the bill.

In interviewing members of congress, I would ask them to comment on the bill that the film is focusing on: their opinion of it, whether or not the original idea of it is a good one (and why), how it would have to change for them to vote for it, what would have to be added to it for them to vote for it.

Then I would ask them to tell me about the craziest attachment to a bill that they've ever heard of. Responses might be something like, "We were supposed to be working on a bill to pay for food for the military... an amendment was added that would have required all the packets of food to be labeled with the words, Brought to you by the Republican Majority. Well I just couldn't vote for that." Any good responses to this question could be used as vignettes throughout the documentary and could end with the line, "I'm just a bill, waiting here on capital hill" from "School House Rock."

I think what would be most difficult about making this documentary would be that congresspeople and lobbyists alike will probably not provide access--there isn't a whole lot of incentive to showing how a bill really becomes a law. If we knew "the truth" (or at least tasted the complexity), how would they run those commercials saying, "He voted against body armor for our troops"? They wouldn't be able to, because people would know that he really voted against something unreasonable that had been attached as an amendment...

For a spoof of the classic "School House Rock" see the "Simpson's" clip below--this one's about amendments to the constitution.

Looking at WCCO 6:00 News on the Day after the Election

2006-11-08T16:52:00.000-08:00

Here's a break down of the Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:00 news on Channel 4 WCCO TV. I've kept a record of the content & type of each story, and the amount of time allowed for each story.

Introduction and preview of night's stories: Humble Mike Hatch after losing the race for governor of Minnesota; Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar's phone call from a former president; Walz wins congressional seat in the 1st district (32 seconds).

News: A review of the numbers from yesterday's gubernatorial election (32 seconds).

News: Reporter Pat Kessler reviews Gov. Pawlenty's acceptance speech and Mike Hatch's concession speech along with a speech given today by the new democratic leader of the Minnesota House (1:31).

News/Personal interest: Outgoing Speaker of the Minnesota House, Steve Svigum (R), shown choked up when talking about the end of his leadership (36 seconds).

News: Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnston lost yesterday (10 seconds).

News: Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense. People are angry about how the Iraq war has been handled. Sen. Norm Coleman talks about how the resignation is a good thing. Robert Gates has been nominated for the position (44 seconds).

News/Personal Profile: Amy Klobuchar is Minnesota's senator-elect. She is a "superstar." She promised to visit all Minnesota counties every year in her acceptance speech. Discussion about her daughter Abigail and where the Senator-elect and family will live. Where will Abigail go to school? Klobuchar says that being chosen senator is a "humbling experience." A University of Minnesota Poli-sci professor talks about what it means to have the first woman senator from Minnesota. Footage of Klobuchar greeting well-wishers in downtown Minneapolis. It is noted that Klobuchar's senior prom date called to wish her well as well as President Clinton. A WCCO reporter (?) asks Klobuchar who she will have on her staff (2: 40).

News: Keith Elison won the congressional seat from Minneapolis' 5th district. Footage of Elison thanking supporters. Question of what it means for Elison to be the first Muslim elected to the House (5o seconds).

Weather--it's 70 degrees right now! (40 seconds)

Segue to commercial/preview of upcoming stories:
Gopher basketball
State Epidemiologist Resigning
Walz wins in 1st District (21 seconds)

commercials (2:30)

Ads: Preview of CBS Primetime shows & 10:00 news (20 seconds)

Ads: Because of today's G.W. Bush press conference, "The Bold and the Beautiful" will be shown at 3:07 am tomorrow morning (10 seconds).

News: A "gang member" who killed a young boy as he walked home from a basketball game will get a lesser sentence (31 seconds).

News: Harry Hall, state epidemiologist is resigning to do work in international healthcare (31 seconds).

News/Human Interest: Walz beat 6 term incumbent in the 1st district. He's a social-studies teacher from Mankato West H.S. and a football coach that led his team to 2 state championships. His student helped him get elected--footage of him in a conference room thanking his students for their help (2:00).

Weather: Snow predicted by tomorrow night, 5 day forecast, radar... (3:21).

Segue to commercials/preview:
Vikings
Gopher basketball
"This portion of the broadcast brought to you by Treasure Island Resort and Casino" (30 seconds).

commercials (2:30)

Sports: In basketball, Gophers vs. Winona State--best division 2 team in the nation; two high school students have signed on to play for the Gophers next year (2:00).

Sports: Vikings vs. Green Bay on Sunday (1:15).

Sports: Twins' pitcher Johann Santana gets "Players' Choice" award (20 seconds).

Ad: Preview of stories for 10:00 news (40 seconds).

Weather/final anchor jabbering (45 seconds)

Ad: "This portion of the broadcast brought to you by Partners for Affordable Energy" (10 seconds).

The End.

A Few Comments

Why did WCCO show lame-duck speaker Svigum of the Minnesota House choked-up about not keeping his position? This was not news as much as it was about injecting some emotion into a tv program (this program just happened to be called "the news").

In the story about Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman was given a significant amount of time to explain to us why the resignation is a good thing. In some way, by airing this clip, WCCO tv is supporting Coleman's idea that the resignation is a good thing. We don't know that. Who is the new secretary of defense going to be? What do we know about him? What do people who like him say about him? What do people who don't like him say about him? What does someone who can speak with authority and yet is unbiased say about him? Is there anything wrong with having Rumsfeld resign?

In the story about Klobuchar, it seems to me that too much was made of Klobuchar being a woman and a mother. Discussions were had about where her daughter will go to school, and the fact that she's the first female elected to the Senate from Minnesota. These issues are interesting, but I want to know more about what she plans to do next--this was purely human interest.

Much was made of Elison being the first Muslim elected to congress--pictures were shown of Arab newspapers featuring stories about him today. Again, this is a human interest story and not really news. At the very least, we should hear what his next steps are. Elison, when asked about being a Muslim, redirects the reporter to his focus on serving the interests of his constituents.

Interesting for me to realize how much time is spent delivering the weather--about 5 minutes. Also interesting to note that the news is directly "sponsored" by particular organizations including Treasure Island Casino and "Partners for Affordable Energy" (by the looks of the ad that followed this 'official endorsement' this group is a front for coal-burning power companies...). I wonder how this effects the news that they put out?

Ad Spoof

2006-11-02T15:33:00.000-08:00

On November 7th, vote Bob Smith.
Not a politician.
A hardworking guy down the street.
A guy you'd have a beer with.

"Cheap Gas, cheap guns, cheap government."
I'm Bob Smith and I'm too busy working hard to approve this message.

This guy endorsed by

Back to the Future: DeLorean Ad Analysis

2006-11-02T13:00:00.000-08:00

It's hard to read the text on the right side of the page, so I'll give it to you here:

"John DeLorean was on the way to the presidency of General Motors when he quit to build his own car company. In his 17 years with GM he helped quadruple Pontiac sales, build Chevrolet into a 3-million seller and was awarded 44 automotive patents. While his bosses railed at him for wearing his hair too long.

Now his stainless steel DeLorean Sports Car is here. Designed to last rust-free for 20 years. And the first year's production is sold out.

John Delorean anticipates the needs and wants of car buyers. He does no less for the scotch-drinkers he invites home. That's why he selects and serves the impeccably smooth Cutty Sark."

Add this text to the banner at the top: "One out of every 100 new businesses succeeds. Here's to those who take the odds." And along the bottom edge of the frame the Cutty Sark logo, and the words, "The Scotch with a following of leaders."

Granted, I was mainly attracted to this ad because of the use of a DeLorean in the "Back to the Future" movies (shows what product placement can do). Cutty Sark are using an innovator, a risk-taking business man to sell their product. The appeal is being made to others working possibly for corporate America (others being hassled for wearing their hair "too long"), who want to strike out on their own. DeLorean's image stands for risk--this is emphasized by the banner at the top of the add. The ad isn't really selling the scotch at all, it's selling this image of risk that leads to success.

It strikes me that this ad is very much like the current series of beer commercial that ends with the line, "We salute you _____ man." Here the toast is made to those who will risk it all for success, complete with a raised glass of scotch in the bottom middle of the frame. The difference between this ad from 1981, and the contemporary version is that this ad is intended to be taken seriously, and the contemporary version is a joke.

In order to take this analysis further, I would have to see the types of publications that it appeared in. It strikes me that this is a lot text--current advertisements wouldn't run so many words. Although, I guess I have seen advertisements for investment or insurance companies that run this long.

I think the big lesson learned for me, is to begin to think more intentionally about what it is that an advertisement is really selling--risk/adventure, versus what it appears to be selling--scotch.

70's Sitcoms

2006-10-24T07:16:00.000-07:00

My blog partner and I have been looking at 70's sitcoms as a genere. I was struck by the fact that in family dramas, white families live in houses with lawns, and african-american families live in apartments in the city. This was made really clear to me as I was looking at "The Brady Bunch," and "The Jeffersons." These representations are important because they are part of what creates individual views of a particular group. It's seems easier to see how particular representations have operated to create stereotypes when I'm looking at a 70's sitcom from my perspective here in 2006; but it's that much more difficult to get a handle on how the present representations of particular groups by the media are shaping the next
thirty years of stereotypes.

A Media Ethnography of My Dear Mother-in-Law

2006-10-15T11:59:00.000-07:00

I interviewed Pat, my mother-in-law, about her television watching habits. The assignment suggested watching a person watch a program or otherwise consuming media, but that kind of voyeurism didn't sit well with me, so an interview it is.

We discussed how watching a program alone is different than watching a program with her husband. Pat says that she really likes to talk about what she's watching as it goes forward--from my experience, she doesn't wait for the commercials before beginning the conversation. Pat almost always sits down to watch TV while doing some other task with her hands--crocheting, knitting, etc. When she looks away from the screen for a moment to attend to her knitting, she sometimes misses key information and is unable to follow the plot line. Her husband, Dave, is very patient about answering her questions and filling in the gaps. Her questions (and constant getting lost) create social opennings.

Pat particularly enjoys watching the prime time crime dramas because they "open up dialogues" with Dave. These dialogues are often tangential. For example, a recent episode of CSI that included a character who was a single-mother led to a conversation about what it might be like to be a single-mother and what challenges a single-mother must face. Pat also feels that television programs offer good examples to be used in later conversations about a variety of topics.

She hasn't been watching as many crime dramas of late because "the weird story lines turn me off. With each show the crime has to be more outlandish than before because people are becoming so desensitized."

When I asked what she does during commercials, Pat said that she often reads a short article from a magazine or the paper. If these are not available, she closes her eyes and "ponders life." Dave, her husband, on the other hand, gets a kick out of seeing the new products and constantly asks her after impressive commercials, "Did you see that?"

Pat uses television to create conversation, and not as a substitute for 'having to engage' with others. She does her best to ignore commercials. She enjoys prime-time dramas mainly because they include "serious" content that can be used as fodder in later conversations. Watching is more of a shared activity than it is watching for its own sake or for pure entertainment.

Media Representations of Asian-Americans

2006-10-14T12:19:00.000-07:00

Let's take a look at some images that reveal something about how Asian-Americans are depicted in the Media.

In this first picture we see what I think are the post typical images of Asian-Americans. We have images of highly sexualized Asian females--they are being portrayed as exotic. We also have the image of Bruce Lee--Asians as martial artists.

In the "Secret Asian Man" comic strip, we see the 'Asian as martial arts' motif yet again, although in this case it is being resisted. Added to this a revelation that others see so little of what it means to be 'Asian' in the media that they may think that what they do see--Anime, Yu-Gi-OH--is characteristic of all people who have "your eyes."

Here's our hero again dealing with the "realities" of being Asian in America. In the first frame, the first thing that comes to my mind is the orientalist conception of Asian females as submissive and accommodating. The white man is motivated to ask her out probably by a mix of thinking she's exotic and the belief that she will accommodate him. Her silence, how can I explain that? Embarrassment? Discomfort? Not wanting to make a bad situation worse? She clearly looks uncomfortable, but she doesn't actively resist. Maybe she's practicing what I've heard called "infrapolitics," in which case her resistance is fashioned out of what looks like compliance?

In the second frame, we are confronted with the Asian-as-martial artist motif yet again. And, in the third frame we get the motif of the "Asian Professional," also known as the "all Asians are good at business" motif. Our hero S.A.M. is uncomfortable when placed in contact with all of these situations which involve stereotyping of Asians as submissive, exotic, and all the same.

Audience Analysis of FLAME advertisement

2006-10-02T13:12:00.000-07:00

In this post, I look at the same advertisement that I examined in the previous post (Semiotic Analysis of FLAME Advertisements) but through the lens of audience or Rhetorical Analysis. You can view the advertisement in question at http://www.factsandlogic.org/pdf/ad_101.pdf.

Richard Beach has defined audience analysis as the examination of "how media texts use language, signs, and images to position audiences to adopt certain desired responses, beliefs, or practices" (teachingmedialiteracy.com, 34). Beach identifies the following essential questions:

Who is this text being written for?
How am I being positioned by this text?
What beliefs or attitudes is this text asking me to accept?

Let's look at the advertisement.

The advertisement is written for someone who believes the following three things:

Israel occupies the West Bank and other Palestinian territories.
This occupation causes violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
If Israel withdraws, life will improve for Palestinians.

These are all things that I tend to believe. They sound reasonable. To my mind, they accurately describe what understand to be the current state of affairs, and the best possible future. This ad was meant for me.

How am I being positioned? What am I being asked to believe? The advertisers take each of the three statements above and go about trying to debunk them. The ad asks why Israelis are considered occupiers when others in similar situation are not. They then go on to claim that Israel isn't occupying because they are the winners, "The oldest rule of warfare is that to the vitor belong the spoils."

In the next section ("Israel's 'occupation' of those territories is a myth") the ad makes the claim that all Israeli soldiers have been withdrawn from Gaza and Lebanon, and that this withdrawal only led to more violence directed at Israel from Palestinians/Lebanese sources. Since the violence continues after the withdrawal--so goes their argument--the occupation can't be the cause of the violence. This line of argument doesn't work for me, because Israel sits on land that once belonged to the people around them--their whole country can be considered (from some perspectives) to 'occupied,' just as all the land in the US can be thought of as having been stolen from native peoples.

Finally, in regards to more withdrawal leading to a better life for Palestinians, the author claims that in the areas from which Israel has already withdrawn, Palestinians have destroyed the infrastructure. Made more explicit, they are claiming that Palestinians can't take care of themselves, when Israel withdrew they damaged themselves.

Ultimately, I find the argument made in the ad unconvincing. I think it fails because it doesn't admit that there is an equally valid opposite side. They would win my support by showing a bit more empathy for the Palestinians, and acknowledging that Israelis and Palestinians have valid conflicting needs, wants, desires. They position me--or try to position me-in a way that intentionally hides other points of view, which makes me feel like they are trying to put one over on me.

Semiotic Analysis of FLAME Advertisement

2006-10-02T08:07:00.000-07:00

An advertisement created by the pro-Israel organization, Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME) appeared in the September 4, 2006 edition of U.S. News and World Report. See the advertisement at http://www.factsandlogic.org/pdf/ad_101.pdf.

Semiotic analyses focus on the meaning of signs and codes. When you look at this 'advertisement,' you may not immediately recognize it as an ad. In fact, this ad looks like an article. The font color, size, and style match those used by US News for a real article on the opposite page. The advertisement page includes a bolded headline centered at the top, two colums of text, and a quote box in the upper middle of the page between the colums. These are devices used by publications that are reporting news. FLAME is an organization with a particular interest in the Middle-East, and they are presenting their point of view as news. US News deadens the effect a bit by placing the title "Advertisement" in the upper right hand corner of the page--the magazine editors want us to know what it is we're reading.

observations

Although the way this text is presented initially says to me, "This is news," with a bit more thought, I realize that these visual/presentation formulae don't necessarily signify "news/fact" as much as they signify that a text is to be thought of as an "article" that an authority (the magazine, newspaper, journal) saw fit to print. The editors of the magazine realize this and therefore clearly label it "advertisement" so as not to confuse people, and in order to avoid having the opinions/views expressed attached to the magazine.

I have to admit that I resist this kind of double-packaging. I get annoyed that the advertisement poses as an article and, in general, refuse to read it. I feel like someone is trying to trick me.

And yet, I'm also reminded that I'm willing to read opinion articles that are officially sanctioned and published by established publications. Why the double standard? Maybe this is a group that has a valid opinion that they can't get media to sanction?

Analysis of Editing Techniques in "The Fog of War" (2004)

2006-09-23T17:31:00.000-07:00

This documentary is an extended interview with Robert S. McNamara--secretary of Defense to Kennedy and Johnson. Really a startling film, well done, horrifying at times, but I'll leave that to your viewing. I'm primarily concerned here with how the film-makers have used editing techniques to shape the meaning and theme of the film.

scene 2
In the second scene we are first introduced to McNamara. He's sitting on the right side of the frame and shown from the waist up. The question of editing is taken on directly. McNamara's first words in the film are spoken to someone on the other side of the camera, "Now I remember exactly the sentence that I left off on, I remember how it started and it was cut off in the middle"--and the frame goes black for a split second, the frame returns to McNamara--"but you can fix it up somehow later. I don't want to go back and introduce the sentence, 'cause I know exactly what I wanted to say." At this point someone shouts from behind the camera, "Go ahead!" To which McNamara responds, "Okay."

The film makers want the audience to know when the interview is being edited--they clue the audience in by showing a black frame when they cut and splice. They give the audience this first scene in order to make it clear that McNamara also wants the film-makers to "fix it up somehow later." This is all about establishing credibility with the audience, it is meant to create a sort of editorial transparency that will gain the trust of the audience. We are meant to believe that nothing is being put over on us.

Just a note: even though the film-makers are marking for us the points at which they have edited the interview, they are not telling us what they edited out. Again, that first scene with McNamara is meant to suggest they they are cutting and splicing only for reasons of clarity. I can only wonder at what the raw footage contains.

scene 3: play by play and analysis
Let's move now to scene three, which is meant to give the audience a historical sense of who McNamara was as a public figure. It all starts with a close up of a black & white photo (or detailed sketch?) of a much younger McNamara. Cut to a close up of the banner "Newsweek" with a headline: "Kennedy's Great Task: Picking the Very Best!" Cut to the whole cover of the same edition of Newsweek centered in the frame with the same picture of McNamara under the above headline.

Now a series of color photographs of the young McNamara in rapid succession including one under the banner "The power in the Pentagon." Now close ups of newspaper headlines, and super close ups of individual words embedded in articles that stretch beyond the frame, again in rapid succession: "The McNamara Monarchy," "whiz kid," "self-made," "the best man," "brainy," "The Revolution in the Pentagon," "McNamara's Way," "egotistical," a photo of McNamara in black & white shaking hands with a smiling J.F.K., McNamara's face alone on the cover of Time, a second Time cover featuring McNamara's face in the foreground and in the background a missile and Rodin's "Thinker."

News type again: "Kid McNamara," "computer-like," "cold logic," "precise, studious," "unshakable," "order from chaos," "Effective & Efficient." Cut to black & white film of McNamara walking from a circa 1960 Ford, past the flashes of photographers, and into an office building (the Pentagon? the White House?).

Cut to a color--clearly 'now'--shot of a silver calendar of October 1962 set on a wood base. The camera zooms into the calendar. The voice over is of an old (one can only assume) circa 1960s television interview. The interviewer notes that he has seen silver calendars on several cabinet secretaries' desks--the frame stays with the color/'now' image of the calendar. Cut to archival footage in black & white of McNamara holding the silver calendar and explaining that he received the calendar from J.F.K. as a reminder of the stand-off with Cuba. The frame goes black.

Now that you have the play-by-play of scene three, what does it all add up to? This is montage. Everything is editing. Everything that the audience sees is intentionally chosen by the film-makers. There intent here is to give their audience as detailed a sketch of McNamara as they can as quickly as possible in order to set up the interview--McNamara's status is established through the magazine covers, the photos with Kennedy, the rock star like entrance into the office. The close ups of the individual words from the press are used to paint a picture of how McNamara was viewed by the larger public--as brilliant, calculating, young, egotistical. And the calendar? It puts him in the close company of Kennedy at one of the defining moments of his presidency--this is made somehow more vivid by the shots of the calendar as it looks now.

Having read through the longhand description of scene three, it might interest you to know that the whole thing takes only one minute and ten seconds of screen time.

In closing, I just want to call attention to how this documentary doesn't hide its editing. The film makers allow the audience to see how the pieces are being stitched together, in hopes of gaining the audience's trust. Funny thing to me about the idea that being transparent about when you are cutting images/parts out or privileging one image over another (just by choosing to show it), is that somehow it works--even though the audience doesn't know what it is that the film-makers are choosing not to show them.

Analysis of a Scene from "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (1999)

2006-09-20T04:57:00.000-07:00

In scene 12 of "Midsummer Night's Dream" we see villagers walk in to a clearing in a lush green forest to practice their play within a play--their version of Pyramus and Thisbe. In this scene they resolve two problems, (1) how they will bring moonlight into the great hall where they will eventually perform, and (2) how they will create the wall that divides the lovers one from the other and through which they talk.

Our focus will be on how the visual images are used by the director, and what messages they communicate.

The first shot is a 'body shot' of the fairy queen (Michelle Pfeiffer) asleep in a bed of flowers. The camera then pans down and away from her 'bed' revealing that she is sleeping in what appears to be a box suspended above the forest floor. An establishing shot shows the bed in the upper left corner of the frame as the villagers come towards the viewer from the middle right of the frame--they are moving into view through the foliage and their voices can be heard singing. The story of this play takes place in at least two worlds: that of the fairies, and that of human beings. Putting the queen's bed above the villagers creates a visual for the separation of these two worlds--creates different space for each of these worlds within the frame.

As the villagers come to the center of the frame, the camera moves to the right passing behind a bush/tree that hides the villagers completely from view for a moment. The camera continues to track until we come clear of the trees and can see the villagers again. Cut to a high angle shot of a dog biting Billy Bottom's (Kevin Kline) shirt sleeve playfully and being lifted off the ground as Bottom tries to get his shirt loose. The way the camera calls attention to the forest by putting it in between the audience and the actors serves to call extra attention to the forest as a kind of 'silent player.' The forest is important because it is the place in which the play/movie will bring the world of the fairies and the world of human beings together. Putting the forest between the audience and the actors also creates a sense that the actors are enclosed, maybe even swallowed up a bit by the forest. And the dog? I don't know, a change of focus for a moment, a bit of character development. These guys are funny, playful, average, and here's their pet dog to prove it.

Throughout the scene, we hear crickets in the background. The scene takes place at night, but I am unsure how they are creating the effect of night. I can't speak very well as to lighting effects. The scene appears dark and there aren't the long shadows of a direct light so the director must be filling in the shadows with a complementary light source.

Cut to a wide angle shot with the face of "the villager leader" close up and in the center of the frame. Bottom is over his right shoulder in the mid/background also with his face toward the camera. Leader is trying to stick the pole of a lantern into the ground and the lantern itself (with candle lit) is in the bottom right corner of the frame casting light up on Leader's face. The leader secures the lantern and turns away from the audience and toward Bottom so that the audience is looking over his shoulder. This is the first sequence in what becomes a pattern in this scene. The audience is shown Bottom set apart from the other player--in the background, over their shoulder. Then he is shown in the frame with them, then again alone in the frame. This begins to set up bottoms role in the larger play. He is transformed into a donkey just after this scene and sleeps with the Fairy queen. The shot choices here begin to suggest that "otherness of Bottom." They also make the fact that he is often somewhere outside of the frame when the others are in the frame into something that the audience will expect. This sets up the surprise when we go away from Bottom for a moment (in the next scene) and come back to him as he is being transformed into a donkey. We have come to expect that we can go away from him and come back to find him unchanged.

Cut to a mid shot of the other four villagers standing together. Cut back to a close up of Bottom, as he comes forward the camera settles into a position that peers just over "Thisbe's" left shoulder--this shot starts with Bottom alone and then moves to introduce his spatial relationship to"Thisbe". Cut to a head shot of the Leader raising his eyebrows and looking doubtful--the idea "Bottom is a bit of a fool" comes out loud and clear. The close up on the Leader is standard for showing internal feelings that other characters may not be aware of. In other words, the audience gets to know what the Leader is thinking, but Bottom doesn't.

Cut back to a head shot of Bottom that pulls back into a wide-angle shot with the lantern in the foreground, Bottom walking toward the camera/lantern from the middle ground, and the rest of the villagers in the background. Camera zooms into Bottom--a midshot--as he passes the lantern and walks to the right to where, as it happens, the Leader is standing. Now the camera is peering over the Leader's right shoulder which is in the bottom left corner of the frame and the midshot of Bottom is preserved. Camera tracks with Bottom and Leader as they walk a few steps--now we can see Bottom and the Leader in the foreground and the rest of the villagers in the background. Two other villagers join them in the frame then all four turn to walk away from the audience, and the camera pans down and to stage left focusing a mid shot on the villager in the black hat who is reading a small book. He stands and shouts to the others who we can see in the background as the camera pans upward. His left hand with the book juts out from the right side of the frame, Bottom's head is in the center of the frame as the whole group of them turn and come back toward Black Hat. Bottom takes the center position, and the rest of the villagers form a half circle around him--filling the frame. Bottom leaves the group, the camera stays where it is--focused on the other villagers. Cut to mid shot of Bottom. Cut back to the rest of the villagers. Cut to midshot of Bottom. This whole sequence reinterates that pattern of Bottom as separate, as Bottom set apart--and yet it's also clear that he's the audience focal point. The camera continues to go away from his face, but always return a few moments later. There's a also a sense created by all of the shots looking over someone's shoulder at Bottom, that the villagers are also an audience for Bottom--he is performing for them and not just for the external audience. This creates a set of layers: Bottom, the other villagers watching Bottom, the forest, the fairy queen over head, and the external audience.

Cut to Puck (Stanley Tucci) on a bicycle riding through the forest. A view is shown of the play practice viewed through the trees--apparently through Puck's eyes. We started the scene with a clear separation of the fairies and humans--represented by the bed in the treetops. Now we have a fairy on the ground using a human made machine. This is the beginning of the sequence in which Bottom is transformed into a donkey and has liaison with the fairy queen.

So goes the scene...

Why we should study media literacy

2006-09-13T07:28:00.000-07:00

The current English curriculum in the St. Paul Schools focuses predominantly on traditional literacies: reading, writing--and to a lesser degree--speaking and listening. We're talking about classes in which students read the "classic" American novels, discuss them in class, and pen essays about them. This approach has become traditional because it has been largely successful in preparing generations of students for life in a world full of print media.

The print media are still with us, but--and I know you're aware of this--we have more and more digital media. Up to this point, we've treated the digital media much as we have traditionally treated print media--as static information published by someone else, an expert along with a team of editors, type setters, millions of pages of paper, and a large press--but that is changing. A wide audience is availible to all of us now. Given an internet connection, anyone can comment on anything and reach millions of computer users all across the globe. We don't have to be just consumers of information anymore, we can contribute directly.

This is the new democratic movement--blogs, wikis, podcasts, chat. In seventh century Athens, every citizen could vote on every city government decision. Discussions about city politics took place in the agora, or marketplace and had real effect because, again, everyone had a vote. The Athenians focused their education on what has come to be known as the trivium: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. These are the disciplines that teach how language works on it's most basic level (the sentence), how to effectively use language in debate or discussion, and how to evaluate and create persuasive messages.

The curriculum at Concord focused on five essential questions: Who is sending this message and what is the author’s purpose? What techniques are used to attract and hold attention? What lifestyles, values, and points of view are represented in this message? How might different people interpret this message differently? What is omitted from this message? The above essential questions were brought to bear on the following key areas of study: All included the formal study: (a) advertising, persuasion, andpropaganda; (b) the analysis and construction of news and nonfiction; (c) approaches to storytelling in dramatic fiction; and (d) the representation of gender, race, and ideology in media messages.

And here is the abstract showing a summary of the results:
Students who participated in a required yearlong Grade 11 English media/communication course that incorporated extensive critical media analysis of print, audio, and visual texts were compared with students from a demographically matched group who received no instruction in critically analyzing media messages. A nonequivalent group’s design examined students’ reading comprehension, writing skills, critical reading, critical listening, and critical viewing skills for nonfiction informational messages. Results suggest that media literacy instruction improves
students’ ability to identify main ideas in written, audio, and visual media. Statistically significant differences were also found for writing quantity and quality. Specific text analysis skills also improved, including the ability to identify the purpose, target audience, point of view, construction techniques used in media messages, and the ability to identify omitted information from a news media broadcast in written, audio, or visual formats (see the quantitative results in the chart provided at Hobbs & Frost 2003 above).

Students who studied media improved more than students who did not--they improved in the target areas of traditional English curricula and were able to apply their skills of analysis to a wider variety of texts.

Isn't this what we want for our students? That they they will be able to communicate effectively and more deeply understand the messages of others? Let's give them practice with the literacies that they will need to participate in the worldwide agora as full citizens with effective voices.