Last Blog Prompt (EXTRA CREDIT)-Goodbye Blogosphere!

Had you ever used a blog before attending RTF 305? IF SO, WHAT WAS ITS FOCUS?

I had used a blog before for my senior-year English class. It was more debate-centered since we each had to post a response to a teacher’s prompt and then respond to at least 2 other students’ blog responses. This got a discussion going on in class, which I really enjoyed.  Its focus was anything we were reading at the moment. What I liked about it was that we got a chance to voice our own uncensored ideas, and debate with our classmates. It was always interesting to see what my classmates thought about a novel, the characters, the conflicts the book posed, etc.

What were the positive aspects of using the blogs in the course?

One positive aspect of it was that it helped me review some of the key concepts of the lectures. It was good that the blog prompts were centered on the more complicated terms learned in class, that way the blog made us review and understand the terms by ourselves. Also, I didn’t have any other classes with writing components in them, so writing a blog allowed me to practice my writing. Finally, the blog made me connect the material learned in class to real-life examples, which, I think, is the most effective way to truly understand a concept.

What difficulties did you encounter in using the blogs? (both technical and conceptual)

I didn’t really have any problems. The only thing I had doubts about was how “casual” our language and form could be with the writing. Since blogs are usually used to strongly (and usually in a casual way) express personal ideas, I didn’t know if I would get points deducted for writing in a very personal, expressive, and casual way.

If you had difficulties in using the blog, how were you able to overcome the difficulties you encountered?

I didn’t have any difficulties but I know I would have been able to approach my TA about it. Also, having Jeremiah’s blog as a reference helped enormously. He really took the time to break assignments down for us.

What types of blog prompts were more or less interesting or difficult? (provide an example and rationale)

The most interesting to me personally were the ones directly film-related. My favorite one was the one where we had to use a movie scene to exemplify the types of shots. It’s always fun to get the chance to rant about your favorite movie scenes.

The more difficult prompts for me where the ones that dealt with media in a broader sense. Since I came to college with a strict focus on film, I wasn’t that knowledgeable in the rest of general media. What was hard for me then was to find relevant example to use in my blog responses. It was worth it though because really trying to find good examples and them explain how they were relevant to the topics we were discussing helped me understand the lectures better.

Would you recommend using a blog in future course, either in RTF 305 and other undergraduate courses at UT-Austin? (explain why..)

Yes, I would. It helps you understand concepts better. And honestly, it forces you to keep up in class and to actually take a minute to understand the topics discussed in the lecture.

What would you suggest to change or improve the blogging experience in the future?

I wouldn’t suggest any changes. I think the assignments were reasonable and helpful. It was nice that we had until Sunday night to turn them in and they are very easy to use. It’s nice to have a class where writing can be more relaxed than having to write strict-form essays.

OH, and, "Yes, you can use my blog in a paper or report". 

GLOBALIZED MACHETE--A look at Hybridization in globalized Media

The various nations of the world are no longer separate entities. Cultures, languages, and traditions have fused over time and have created a new kind of culture, a hybrid one. We now live in an age where technology enables us to "know what's on the other side" and as our knowledge of other parts of the world has increased, so has our assimilation of its various cultures. This interconnectedness can be easily explained through the concept of GLOBALIZATION: The increase of convergence between the people, cultures, and places of the world throughout a period of time as facilitated by the development of factors such as technology.

Globalization plays a vital role in HYBRIDIZATION: The product of combining the elements of of different cultures. An example of hybridization is the combination between the Mexican and American culture so evident throughout the US, especially Texas. This combination is evident practically everywhere. Examples of this hybridization are the following:

• CULINARY: A mixture between Mexican and American recipes in restaurants such as Chuy's, Taco Cabana, Taco Bell, Güeros, Chipotle etc. Also know as TexMex food. 
• URBAN: Streets around the US such as (Austin examples) Guadalupe, San Jacinto, etc. 
• MEDIA: Movies such as The Mexican, Once Upon a  Time in Mexico, Nacho Libre, etc. 
• CLOTHING: Brands such as Hollister and Abercrombie and Fitch are manufactured in Mexico. 
• CULTURE: Americans celebrate Mexican holidays such as Cinco de Mayo just like Mexicans celebrate American holidays like Halloween

The example that I am going to focus on is on the hybridization on Mexican-American media as exemplified by Robert Rodriguez's movie, "Machete". Take a look:

The plot revolves around Machete, a former Mexican Federal who is double crossed by his own chief. Machete immigrates illegally to Texas where he gets caught in the middle of an immigration scandal. The public is lead to believe (by the Texan Senate) that Machete is an enraged illegal immigrant out to kill a Texas senator, thus strengthening the senator's position that illegal immigrants should be sent back to Mexico for good. After some very Robert Rodriguez-esque action sequences, the truth is revealed, and Machete triumphs as he is offered legal papers to live in the United States. 

The movie does a fantastic job at exemplifying Hybridization because:

• 1)Made by a Mexican-American director, 

• 2)Shot in the United States and Mexico, 

• 3) Employed Mexican, American, and Mexican-American actors and crew, 

• 4)Deals with issues such as illegal immigration in the US. 

The movie portrays the hybridization fn the Mexican and American cultures through the combination of language, traditions, culture, people and places. There are the hybrid instances exemplified in the trailer:

• CULTURAL ISSUES: 
• Arizona Immigrant Law: Machete is clearly meant to be a crusader for Mexican immigrants' rights.
• Mexican immigrants being forced out of the United States by the American government (as exemplified by Senator De Niro)
• Mexicans (specifically Machete) viewed as violent, likely to have committed murder at some point in their lives
• Mexicans portrayed as overtly religious
• HYBRID LANGUAGE:
• "There's nothing  I'd like more than to see that Mexican dance the bolero at the end of the rope"
• "Well this cucaracha has AK-47s and he's laying waste to everything that gets in his f***ing path"
• The title istelf "Machete" is understood both in English and Spanish.

• PEOPLE:
• Hybrid cast as exemplified by Danny Trejo (Machete, Mexican-American), Robert DeNiro (Senator, American of Italian descent), Jessica Alba (Immigration officer, American, Mexican-American parent), etc. 

• PLACES:
• The movie was shot both in Mexico and Texas.

Essentially, Machete combines the American and Mexican cultures while criticizing some people's attempt to prevent such hybridization. The end product is a movie portraying the Tex-Mex culture now so prominent throughout the United States, thus exemplifying Globalization. The media, in this case the movie industry, is the medium through which cultures converge and through which these hybridized cultures are made visible to the rest of the world. 

Image from Google Images
Video from Youtube

"Nuno Knows Novelty"-Use of Novelty in LG's commercial "Momentos"

Please take the time to watch this commercial, I assure you, you won't regret it:

"MOMENTOS" BY NUNO ROCHA
The latest advertisement that I've seen had me in tears by the end of it; it was the most beautiful 7:21 minutes I have watched in a long time. Now, before I start sounding completely delusional, let me clarify the following: Most ads nowadays are those "aggressive" ones that shamelessly try to sell you their products while screaming at you through the TV with what's supposed to be an extremely convincing voice. Not this one. This ad is called "Momentos" (an LG television commercial) written and directed by Nuno Rocha, and it is one of those very few "feel good" commercials circling the networks. And boy, did it make me feel good.

This "feel good" vibe that the commercial has ties in beautifully with LG's motto, which happens to be: "Life is Good". The commercial revolves around a homeless man sleeping on the street against a store's display window. He is woken up by two men bringing in and setting up 3 LG televisions inside the display facing the homeless man. Once the set-up men leave, the man sits there in front of the working televisions, staring at them in awe. There is a fabulous contrast, interestingly ironic, between the disheveled homeless man and the neat and elegant televisions. The man continues to watch the televisions, which show clips of random shows and advertisements, and even shoos a couple of other homeless men that want to take part in the TV-watching experience with him.
Suddenly, the televisions switch channels, and the man's face appears on the 3 TVs. Who's taping him? What is going on? Next, the channel switches again, and the televisions start to show home-made movies of the man and his family back when he was not homeless. The man is absolutely moved by what he is watching, letting the audience know just how much he misses his daughter.
Lastly, the van that dropped the LG televisions screeches to a halt behind him once more, and takes off quickly again. We then see two nicely-dressed women left on the street, facing the man. The youngest one of them starts to approach the homeless man slowly; she is his daughter. After building a great deal of suspense as father and daughter face each other, they suddenly hug one another and enjoy being reunited.
I felt like the commercial was saying, "families will always love one another, no matter what", and therefore, life is indeed very good. This commercial moved me because it was so beautifully done, and I also appreciate it very much because of its subtlety. I liked the fact that LG TVs were presented as technology that can bring families together. It was a breath of fresh air to see a commercial which kindly communicated to me the importance of its product, rather than attacking me with loud music, flashy colors, and an aggressive salesman, like most other commercials do.

THE USE OF NOVELTY
This commercial's most powerful appeal is its use of novelty; which means showing something that hasn't been seen before, or that is not seen quite as often.

• This translates into novel formats, artistical approaches, content, novel advertisement tactics, etc. Usually, commercials employ novelty to catch the attention of the viewers. 
• This tactic works very well because audiences tend to pay more attention to new material, or at least generic material done in a "new" way, than the rest of the typical commercials. 
• The most successful commercials rely on novelty to bring in new audience members and to expand their viewer base. For example, if a commercial uses novelty like the latest technology, it will probably draw in 1) people from a younger age group who are attracted by new and developing technologies, and 2) people from other age groups because of the technology's "wow effect". 
• The use of novelty also serves as an antidote for today's Tivo happy audiences. One ususally fast-forwards through commercials if possible, but if there is an advertising done in a different, engaging way; it is bound to stop the fast forwarding and to catch people's attentions.
• Basically, novelty emphasizes how different is good, and how different will guarantee audiences' attention. 

NOVELTY IN "MOMENTOS"

• "Momentos" uses novelty because it advertises televisions in an unconventional way. Usually, TV commercials only speak of the supreme quality of its product, casually throwing around facts about high definition, sound quality, stylish look, etc. "Momentos", however, barely even acknowledges the LG TV. Naturally, it does place the product in the middle of the story, but the commercial itself revolves around the homeless man and the importance of family closeness. That's novelty use at its best. 
• The advertisement also used novelty because is was done as a short film. This meant that its quality and the artistic approach was drastically better than most 30-second commercials. 
• "Momentos" was successfully novel in that it attached sentimental meaning to LG televisions. This commercial presents LG TVs as instruments of family bonding. According to this 7:21 minute-long spot, an LG TV can, quite literally, bring your family together once again. This raises LG TVs from being just another piece of home entertainment equipment to valuable family bonding instrument. 
• Another use of novelty, was the commercial's combination of slow pace and beautiful instrumental music. Most commercials are usually delivered quickly and often times aggressively. This advertisement actually took the time to tell a heart-warming story, allowing the audience to connect with the commercial and the product. 
• Lastly, the commercial was novel in that it had no promotional narration. The advertisement fully relied of the power of the story to carry out enough advertisement for its slyly placed product.

In my opinion, "Momentos" is one of the best advertisements that I have seen. Not only did it catch my attention, but it also moved me, made me cry, made me laugh, and made me look at the LG corporation and its products in a different light. Most importantly, the commercial's use of novelty made me want to watch it again and again, which is saying much, much more that any of the other commercials I have ever watched.

Image: Google Images
Video: Written and directed by Nuno Rocha for LG.
http://designlenta.com/

Who Knew Pirates Could Follow Structure?---The 3 Act Structure In The Curse of the Black Pearl

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is one of my favorite movies of all time. I love this movie for several reasons, one of them being Johnny Depp's outstanding performance as Captain Jack Sparrow. However, it is not only Johnny's good looks and mad acting skills that make this movie so appealing to me; it is also the use of the "3 Act Structure" which makes the plot all the more interesting to watch. With the use of the 3 Act Structure, the movie is sprinkled with plot points throughout various stages of the film, leaving the audience wondering, "What's coming next?!"


The 3 Act Structure consist of Introduction, Complication, and Resolution. At the end of each segment, there is a Plot Point designed to carry the story over into the next section. These Plot Points are complications within the story meant to intrigue the audience and to make them want to know what happens next in the film. Also, the 3 Act Structure usually utilizes a climax near the ending of the film, with its resolution being a positive outcome.


Now, let's look at the 3 Act Structure in The Curse of the Black Pearl:

 1) INTRODUCTION (1/4 of Movie)

• The opening scene introduces Elizabeth Swann, William Turner (among other characters), and the notion of Piracy. 
• Glimpse of the pirate ship, The Black Pearl.
• Emphasis placed on a golden Pirate medallion hanging around Will's neck (which Elizabeth takes from him)
• The story moves forward a few years, and Elizabeth and Will's characters are developed further, suggesting a romantic interest between the two.
• Elizabeth's character pretends to be demure on the outside, but inwardly she desires a life of adventure and she is fascinated by pirates. She is attracted to Will but realizes she cannot be with him because of his low social status.
• Will's character is the portrait of hard work and honesty. He is a blacksmith and is very much attracted to Elizabeth. However, because he is so proper, he prevents himself from letting Elizabeth know how much he likes her.
• Setting is established: Port Royal, an anti-piracy port rules by Commodore Norrington and Governor Swann.

• The pirate Jack Sparrow is introduced as he tries to steal a ship from the port, and he is consequently arrested and imprisoned.
• Elizabeth falls into the ocean with the Pirate medallion around her neck. The latter sends a wave across the ocean. 
• As a result, the Black Pearl, whose crew has been in search for the medallion for years, attacks Port Royal and kidnaps Elizabeth with the medallion. 
• The crew of the Black Pearl is introduced. Most prominent: Captain Barbossa.
• INTRODUCTION PEAK: The Introduction peaks when Elizabeth is kidnapped and when the audience finds out that Jack Sparrow has somehow been involved with the Black Pearl in the past. The plot point is the scene where Elizabeth taken away on the Black Pearl along with the medallion.  This is the Plot point because it leaves the audience with the following questions: 

•  What's going to happen to Elizabeth?
• Why do the pirates need the medallion so badly?
• Will William try to rescue Elizabeth?
• Why does Jack Sparrow know the Black Pearl and its crew?
• What is Sparrow's history, and how will he be involved with the rest of the characters in the film?
• What is that curse which makes the Black Pearl crew turn to skeletons when the moonlight hits them?!

2) COMPLICATION (2-3/4  of Movie):

• Jack Sparrow agrees to help Will rescue Elizabeth in exchange for his freedom. 
• Stakes are raised as Will breaks the law to spring Sparrow out of jail. 
• The two, after shaking off the Port Royal Navy, embark in a voyage to catch up with the Pearl.
• Will finds out that his father was pirate, something he is repulsed by, and that he also used to be friends with Sparrow.
• We find out that the Pirates are cursed (thus the turning-into-skeletons part), and the only way to break the curse is to return the medallion to its original chest and shed the blood of the one carrying it. Audience is led to believe that Elizabeth will be killed. 
• The plot thickens when Elizabeth's blood does not lift the curse, and we find out that it is actually Will's blood that will lift the curse!
• Audience finds out that Jack Sparrow used to be the Pearl's captain until Barbossa led a mutiny against him. 
• Jack is trying to regain the Pearl.
• There is an array of maritime confrontations between the Pirates and the Jack & Will crew. In the end, Will is captured, and Jack and Elizabeth are left to die on a deserted island.
• COMPLICATION PEAK: The Complication peaks as Will is captured, and Jack and Elizabeth are deserted on an island in the middle of the ocean. This stage is the Plot Point because it leads the audience to believe that there is no hope left because all the main characters find themselves in unfavorable situations. This Plot Point leaves the audience asking themselves the following questions: 

•  Will Elizabeth and Jack be able to escape? And if so, how?
• Is Jack Sparrow really as legendary as he is supposed to be?
• Is Will going to die?
• How will the movie continue if all the characters are doomed?
• Does this mean that the "evil guys" win?
• How could any of the characters turn the situation around?
• Will William's blood lift the curse?
• Why is Will's blood so important? 

3) RESOLUTION (4th/4 of the Movie)

•  Jack and Elizabeth are rescued by the Port Royal Navy. Elizabeth agrees to marry Commodore Norrington in exchange for the Navy to go save Will. The Commodore accepts and agrees to have Jack Sparrow's help.
• Sparrow leads the Navy to the cave where the Black Pearl crew is hiding, just second away from killing Will and spilling his blood all over the contents of the Aztec Gold Medallion chest. 
• Jack Sparrow goes into the cave in an attempt to save Will. As part of his plan, Jack pretends not to care whether Will is killed or not as he warn Barbossa that the entire Port Royal fleet is just outside the cave, waiting to capture them all. 
• The audience is led to suspect that Sparrow might have a secret plan up his sleeve. 
• Barbossa agrees not to kill Will yet, and makes Sparrow captain of the Pearl. (Because Jack suggests that he should take the English fleet's ships)
• The plan goes wrong as the skeleton pirates go after the Norrignton's crew. A brutal battle ensues. The chances of Norrington's victory seem dim, as the pirates are skeletons and are not affected by swords or gunshots. 
• Inside the cave, Jack finally reveals that he is indeed trying to rescue Will, and he starts a sword fight with Barbossa. 
• Meanwhile, Elizabeth makes her way to the cave in an attempt to rescue Will by herself. 
• After a long sword fight, Barbossa stabs Jack Sparrow in the stomach. The audience is left to believe he will die, until he steps back into the moonlight and reveals that HE IS ALSO A SKELETON!

• Sparrow reveals that he lifted the medallion from the chest in order to become "undead", and thus be safe in his fight with Barbossa. 
• The Norrington crew keeps fighting the pirates.
• RESOLUTION PEAK: The Peak in the Resolution is the CLIMAX when the following ensues: Jack, in the middle of his intense sword fight with Barbossa, throws Will the medallion. Will spills a little of his blood over the medallion. There is a gunshot. Will returns the blood-covered medallion to the chest. The audience is unsure of who shot whom. Then, we find out that Sparrow shot Barbossa, who finally dies because Will's blood lifted the curse, and he is thus mortal once more. The rest of the skeleton pirates are made mortal as well, and they end up surrendering to Norrington. basically, the "bad pirate" Barbossa is dead along with half his crew. Jack Sparrow is Captain of the Black Pearl once more.
• The third act's resolution ends in Jack Sparrow escaping the Port Royal gallows with Will's help, who finally comes to term with being a pirate. Jack escapes and keeps the Black Pearl. Will declares his love for Elizabeth, as she does towards him. Elizabeth's engagement to Norrington is cancelled, and Will and Elizabeth are last seen sharing a kiss overlooking the beautiful Caribbean. 

SUMMARY:

1st Act: Introduction of characters.
Peak: Elizabeth is captured.

2nd Act: Jack and Will try to save Elizabeth and recover Black Pearl
Peak: Will captured. Jack & Elizabeth deserted

3rd Act: Battle to end curse and rescue Will.
Peak: Climax, curse is lifted. Good guys win. Jack gets to live and captain the Pearl. Will and Elizabeth get together.
*Images from Google Images.

"Rachel, we know you still have feelings for Ross"--The 4th Wall in Sitcoms

One characteristic of TV sitcoms: The Fourth Wall.
One of the most evident characteristics of the TV sitcom is its use of the fourth wall. The fourth wall refers to a invisible wall between the character world and the audience world, which separates the two, leaving the characters "unaware" of the peeping Tom audience. In production terms, there is no tangible fourth wall as it is in this opening where the cameras and crew are set up, pointing towards the action contained within the other material 3 walls. The fourth wall allows the sitcom to create a world of its own, paralleling our own world. In other words, since the sitcoms ignore the audience, it is as if it actually exists and we just happen to be looking in to their window. The fourth wall is used across the board for TV sitcoms with the exception of "Mockumentary" shows like the office. In shows such as this, the characters actually speak out to the audience and reveal their feelings to its faithful viewers. This is called breaking the fourth wall.

 See? There's nothing unusual about Dwight addressing us.

How does the fourth wall function within the sitcom?
The fourth wall functions in the following ways:

• It separates the characters from the audience. This gives the sitcom a sense of realism, and tricks the audience into believe the lives of the characters within the show.
• It contains the emotion of the characters. Since the characters do no speak out to the audience, the latter doesn't exactly know what the character is always thinking or feeling, unlike the characters in the office. Since the characters do not speak to us directly about their emotions, we are kept guessing as to "what's coming next?". 
• The fourth wall allows the TV world to be integrated into contemporary society, in a way. For example, shows like Friends or Gossip girl employ the forth wall. Since their characters seem to carry on normally, it is not hard to imagine that Rachel, Ross, Serena, and Blair actually do live in New York and have established lives there. 
• The fourth wall also gives the audience a broad look at the show. It allows us to always be looking into their lives. This serves as a form of dramatic irony, since we the audience can see what's going on with each character simultaneously, while the characters themselves do not always know what their fellow characters are doing, feeling, etc. 
• Having a fourth wall does bring the audience closer ( since we're practically spying the characters) but at the same time, it pushes the audience away. There are times where the audience might know the solution to a certain character's problem but is unable to communicate it to the character itself (obviously) and the character is unable to "emotionally unload" while addressing the audience (like it happens in shows like the Office). 
• The fourth wall can also increase the level of connection between the audience and the characters. Because the audience is looking in to every aspect of the character's lives, we feel like we truly know these characters. Therefore, since we "know everything about them", it is easy to connect to certain characters and to know what's right and what's wrong for them. 
• Essentially, the fourth wall brings the show to life because it makes it possible for the sitcom to mimic reality. 

Example of the Fourth Wall in a sitcom:
One of the few TV shows I used to watch is Friends. This sitcom is the perfect example of the use of the fourth wall in the following ways (corresponding to my previous list):

• NY, especially the apartment where the friends gather uses the fourth wall. The characters never address or acknowledge the audience, thus making the show believable. It is easy to imagine that apartment and those friends actually living in NYC.
• It contains certain emotions of certain characters, as seen with Rachel. Since she doesn't speak her mind to the audience, the latter is left wondering, "Does she love Ross? Are they ever going to get back together? Does she regret breaking up with him?" 
• The show uses a believable, realistic setting: an apartment in NYC, which immediately allows the audience to believe that they actually live there. 
• There is ton of dramatic irony as we know every detail of the characters' lives and shenanigans. For example, we the audience know that Chandler and Monica are dating. For many episodes, none of the other friends know about their relationship, and the episodes themselves revolve around them trying to hide their relationship from them...but we know.
•  The fourth wall does put up a wall between the characters and the audience. Rachel does not look directly at the screen and talk about her feeling for Ross. She just copes with it by herself, and we are unable to help her just as she is unaware that we would like to help her.
• We are brought in closer through the fourth wall because we know the characters so well. When Rachel doesn't get together with Ross, we just want to shake her and say "Get back together with him. He loves you. Trust me, its what's best for you". We also feel like encouraging Ross every time Rachel turns him down. 
• Lastly, the events that these friends go through are realistic enough for us to mistake it as reality. The show's long run allowed people across the globe to identify and grow to love all the characters in Friends. Each person has his or her favorite, and we all feel (those who watch Friends) like we know them down to their very core. The fourth wall allows such intense realism, that fans wouldn't be surprised if they ever bumped into Ross, Phoebe, Rachel, Joey or Monica at the coffee shop at NYC.

Pictures from Google images.
Video from Youtube.

A Close up Look on the Bear Jew---Tarantino's Use of Shots

One of my recently favorite movies is “Inglourious Basterds” by Quentin Tarantino. There are two major components of the film that immediately stand out to me: 1) Tarantino’s genius manipulation of black comedy. I specifically recall people bursting out laughing in the movie theater in sespecially brutal scenes. There’s nothing funny about a person getting beat up with a baseball bat, yet Tarantino somehow makes people giggle at the first sign of violence. 2) Tarantino’s continuous use of meaningful camera angles and shots. Because he uses a myriad of shots and angles, the audience immediately is brought into the story. Tarantino makes good use of long, medium, close-up, low angle, and high angle shots, like the ones Professor Ramirez Berg talked about in his lecture. Each scene of “Inglourious Basterds” is encoded with subliminal significance through Tranatino’s meaningful use of shots, as it is evident in the following scene:

“Bear Jew” Scene from “Inglourious Basterds”

The scene I will dissect today is the famous “Bear Jew” scene. Eli Roth, playing the afore-mentioned Bear, comes out to kill a German Nazi officer with a baseball bat because the latter refuses to collaborate with the Basterds. Take a look:

LONG SHOT: (Min. 0:1:08-0:1:10)

This very brief long shot shows the place where the Basterds are “negotiating” with the German Nazi officer.  It is a crane shot where the setting is visible, in this case the woods, but the people themselves are not discernible from one another.

Possible meanings:

• The long shot is used as an establishing shot to show where the characters are located. This shot identifies the setting in its most basic sense: A secluded portion of the woods. It also shows how the characters are positioned in relation to one another

• The shot also implies complete isolation. This shot is especially relevant to the Nazi officer because it shows just how hopeless a situation he finds himself in. The long shot signifies how “far away from home” the Nazi officer is. There seems to be no one around to help him, and no civilization within reach to hear his cries of help and desperation (if he ever dared to cry out in the first place). He is isolated within a group of enemies and encompassing woods.

• The long shot also implies “spectacle”. The long shot allows the audience to see everything that’s going on as if in an omniscient point of view. It gives the shot a sort of “Roman Coliseum” look where the action is in the center of the frame, and the audience is all looking in. This shot is possibly Tarantino’s way of saying, “Look at what’s going on. Take it all in, and enjoy the show”. We get to view the scene from above momentarily, and thus we do not miss any details within it. This long shot relates to the Basterds within the scene as well, because the “Bear Jew’s” baseball bat-beat up is indeed a spectacle, a form of entertainment for the characters.

• The shot also possibly symbolizes emotional detachment within the Basterds, especially with the Bear Jew. As is evident in the scene, Donny feels no remorse at killing the Nazi officer. On the contrary, he enjoys it very much. The same goes for the rest of the Basterds; as it is evident from their cheering, laughing, and clapping, the rest of the Basterds feel nothing other than sheer joy at the sight of Donny’s performance.

• Lastly, the shot also serves as a sort of warning for the audience, one that encourages them to be emotionally detached as well. Since the whole film features black comedy, in which murders are supposed to be awkwardly hilarious, this long shot distances the audience from the violence just before it takes place. It is possible Tarantino’s way of saying, “Ok, detach yourself NOW because what’s coming is pretty gruesome”.

MEDIUM SHOT: (0:1:24-0:1:29)

My favorite medium shot within this scene is the one depicting the German officer’s upper body before the as he hears the Bear Jew approaching him. It is beautifully done since the character is positioned in the center, an artistically successful alteration of the rule of thirds, and the audience can identify the character being affected by the action, and his response to it.

Possible meanings:

• This medium shot points out which character is going to be directly affected by the action in the following frames. It shows the German officer by himself, squarely in the center of the shot.

• This shot also allows the audience to focus their attention on that specific character, since there aren’t any other people besides the officer in the frame. This is important because the Nazi officer is extremely important in this scene, as he is the vehicle to introduce the Bear Jew. Therefore, the audience must focus their attention to him and to what is going to happen to him

• This medium shot serves its “Information” purpose as it informs that the importance as of the scene has shifted from Brad Pitt (Aldo Raine) to the Nazi Officer.

• Also, while this shot does not contain any emotional context, it does include an impeding sense of doom. Since medium shots are usually followed by close-up shots (which do convey emotion), the audiences get a feeling of impatience and suspense as the medium shot lingers on the officer, taunting the audience by not shifting to a close-up right away

CLOSE-UP SHOT: (0:2:30-0:2:33)

This shot finally shows The Bear Jew after he’s come out of the tunnel. He confronts the Nazi officer, and a close-up is shown of both their faces.

Possible meanings:

• This close-up shot serves to communicate the most important part of the scene. It allows the audience to be brought “face to face” with the Bear Jew. It frames Donny, giving him a sense of omnipotence, glorifying him enough to be excused from the moral consequences of his actions.

• This close-up also frames the importance of the dialogue by closing in to Donny’s face. In the close-up he says, “Did you get that for killing Jews?” this is a very important piece of dialogue since it embodies what the Basterds are fighting for. They are avenging all the people, especially Jews, who were killed unfairly by the Nazis

• This shot also puts the audience in the perspective of the Nazi officer. We see the Bear Jew just as close as the officer does. The shot communicates a sense of confrontation to the audience. 
•  
• Like I mentioned before, this shot communicates emotion as it is evident in Donny's line. Since Donny himself is  a Jew, he delivers his line to the Jew-murdering Nazi with emotion. 

Professor Ramirez Berg also talked about high angle and low angle shots. Both of these can be seen in the close-up shots in the scene:

• HIGH ANGLE: The close up shot of the Nazi officer (hoplessness)
• LOW ANGLE: Close-up on Donny the Bear Jew (empowerment)

-Images from Google images.

MGM: "We love you, Clark Gable!"--Explaining Hollywood's "Star System"

In order to better explain Classical Hollywood movie studios' "Star System", I am going to start off this blog by exemplifying the term with a contemporary example. 

Take into account the following two actors: Johnny Depp and Angelina  Jolie. Characteristically, these two actors are typecast as the following:

JOLIE:

• Physically attractive
• Seductive, mysterious, intelligent
• Strong, independent

DEPP:

• Physically attractive
• Complex
• Versatile

Usually, fans go see THEM in movies, rather than the whole movie itself. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Salt” had been major “flops” had their lead actor/actress been some nobody without the appeal that these two have accumulated. The effect of Jolie and Depp’s popularity on the success of the movies they are representing is an example of the “Star System”.

Now, please take a few minutes to look at the following clip: Watch from 2:00 mins. onward.

The “Star System” was introduced in the Hollywood Classical Era, which spanned from the 1920’s to the 1940’s. This system was used by major movie studios in order to attract attention to their films and subsequently have them become successful. In my words, here’s the way the Star System works:

•  Famous movie stars attract an abundance of fans.
•  An abundance of fans equals increased movie attendance (to the films the stars are attached to)
• Increased movie attendance equals large sums of money
• Large sums of money equals tangible “Success”
• Tangible success means more money for new movies
• New movies mean more money
• And so on...

THUS, movie studios took advantage of movie stars’ popularity to promote and profit from their own movies.

Effect of the "Star System" on movies:

The effect that the "Star System" had on movies was that often the movies would revolve around the stars themselves. Naturally, attention was paid to the plot, set design, secondary characters, etc. However, the biggest effect of the system was that the success of the movie depended on the "bankability" of  the star. Because of this dependency, the films had to portray the stars in a heightened way in order to increase their "starness", if you know what I mean. Consequently the films did spend an awful lot of time glorifying the actors that were going to fund the studio's next assembly-line project.

Another effect of the Star System on movies was that studios realized the attraction potential that big names had. Consequently, studios paired up two movie stars to double the effect of their advertising. As a result, we have movies such as "Casablanca", in which Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman portray once-lovers. This pairing, because of the grandeur of the two stars together, has become an iconic couple. 

Also an effect of the "Star System" on movies was that each movie star's name served as a stamp, as a label of what to expect. For example, if Clark Gable's name was on the marquee, audiences would know that the movie was going to be like: Probably one that revolves around a villain (usually Gable) who feigns extreme masculinity in order to hide his weaknesses. 

Example of "Star System":

An example of the "Star System" is Clark Gable because of his continuous appearance in MGM films. An article about the actor's life written in the NY Times states, "By 1932, he was a star at MGM where, except for being loaned out on occasion, he'd remain for the next 22 years." (http://movies.nytimes.com/person/10097/Clark-Gable/biography). During those 22 years, Gable served as bait, if you will, to attract millions of moviegoers to MGM films. Some of his numerous films include: The Painted Desert, Dance, Fools, Dance, A Free Soul, Possessed, etc. His name, his distinctive voice, and his trademark moustache were a sure bet: As long as he was in a film, fans would faithfully watch the movie, regardless of plot or quality. The New York Times also states, "Gable enjoyed a he-man image created by the MGM publicity department, and perpetuated it on his own" (http://movies.nytimes.com/person/10097/Clark-Gable/biography). It was this image, the image of the reluctantly charming macho and leading man, that kept audiences faithfully at his side, allowing MGM to grow richer while Gable fans swooned over the "King of Hollywood". 

Images from Google Images

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXGfDsENVCE

When Archie Met Peter---"All in the Family" vs. "Family Guy"

“All in the Family” and “Family Guy” are situation comedies that follow the lives of the Bunker and Griffin families, respectively.  “All in the Family” aired in the 70’s, while “Family Guy” has been airing since the late 90’s. These two sitcoms prove to be interestingly comparable, since they tend to address similar, often controversial, issues while using widely different formats. Naturally, there are some differences between the two TV shows but these help illustrate cultural and social issues being dealt with at their respective time periods.

Take a moment to look at the following clips:
*NOTE: SOME OF THE MATERIAL MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE

 

 

-Clip 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkjnKTEffbQ

-Clip 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGA000ozeMc

 Keeping in mind last screening's "All in the Family" episode; I am going to compare the two TV shows according to the following 3 categories:

1. How are they different?

• "All in the Family" deals with the theme of accepting homosexuality through Archie Bunker's character. Archie is portrayed as disliking, making fun of, and being repelled by homosexuals. Contrastingly, the characters in "Family Guy" seem to accept homosexuality, as seen with Stewie's (baby) character.
• "All in the family" presents a homosexual character as physically strong, well-built, athletic, serious ex-football player.  In other words, homosexuality is not represented in a stereotypical way.  Contrastingly, in the first "Family Guy" clip, Peter portrays homosexuality a slightly more stereotypical way. 
• "All in the Family" uses derogatory language (in this case, when referring to homosexuals), while "Family Guy" tries to be more politically correct
• "All in the Family" addressed Homosexuality by having Archie confront one of his friends in a serious manner. "Family Guy" addresses Homosexuality acceptance by making fun of stereotypes (such as the one seen in the first video) thus pointing out how absurd stereotypes are. In other words, "Family Guy"'s comedy style  is much more openly ironic

2. How are they the same?

• In "All in the Family" and "Family Guy", the family dynamics are similar. The father is the main figure, and each episode's story usually revolves around what he does/says. The mother is there as support to her husband but doesn't get as much attention as he does. The children are a form of "reaction" to their father's character and actions but they don't get as much importance as the father figure either. 
• Both shows usually employ the main character (in this case, the father figures Archie and Peter) to address the main issues of each episode. For example, Archie is the one that learns how to deal with homosexuals. Similarly, Peter is the one that has to learn to accept other people and whatever unconventional situations they might represent.
• Both shows deal with controversial issues. "All in the Family" is trying to show that homosexuals are just as much a part of society as anybody else (among other social and cultural issues), and that people should learn how to accept and respect that. "Family Guy" usually addresses similarly controversial issues such as homosexuality, immigration, racism, etc., and also encourages acceptance and respect. Basically, both shows intend to impart a morale by the end of each episode. 
• Both shows provoke and challenge the status quo, by addressing said controversial issues in such an open manner.
• Both shows use comedy as a tool to help normalize concepts that would be usually unacceptable in society. 
• Both shows portray the main characters as intolerant. At first, Archie does not accept or respect his daughter's friend because he suspects he is a homosexual. Peter also dislikes and/or makes fun of homosexuals, physically impaired people, lesbians, etc., and gives off the impression of being a "macho". Both character seem to represent intolerance at the beginning of the show but by the end, they realize their faults and try to impart some valuable lesson on their respective families and, indirectly, on the audience as well.

3.What kinds of issues did “All in the Family” deal with that "Family Guy" doesn’t, and vice versa?

•  "Family Guy" deals with most of the issues dealt with in "All in the Family" because it was created in a much later time period. "Family Guy" started out in the late 90's where controversial issues were already being dealt with in the Media. In other words, "Family Guy" is controversial because of the way it addresses said issues, not because what issues are addressed. 
• Of course, "All in the Family" was controversial back then because it was one of the first shows that dared to speak of social and cultural issues in such an open way. 
• Having said so, "Family Guy" deals with much more explicit content than what would have been acceptable in the 70's such as sex and drug abuse. 
• Also, "Family Guy" addresses immigration issues because they are of extreme relevance today. Naturally, "All in the Family" didn't address such issues because they were not yet as present as they are today. 
• "Family Guy" also tends to make fun of politicians and celebrities, often belittling and humiliating them. "All in the Family" didn't mock politicians or celebrities in such a cynical manner. Perhaps TV in the 70's had more self-imparted censorship than it does today. 
• "Family Guy" revolves around inside jokes of the news/celebrity world, often portraying real-life characters to be made fun of. "All in the Family" was a show with fictional characters and situations. 

Despite their differences, both sitcoms are an important part of Televised society because they hold a mirror up to us in the hope of encouraging acceptance and respect. Whether it be Archie, Peter, or any of the other characters, sitcom characters continue to voice society's concerns and reactions. It it through these characters that society as a whole has become more open and more willing to question the hegemonic ideals that surround us today.

*"All in the Family" image from google.com

***CORRECTION*** (last sentence of introductory paragraph)
"In other words,  radio tells people exactly what they want to hear".

We the Audience Command the Radio!--Explaining Audience Demand

floridacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com

Ever since the navy handed the radio over for public use after the war, it (radio) has been in constant flux. The radio went from being a naval communications system, to a news broadcaster, to advertising mogul, to what it is today: a medley of music, advertisement, news, and talk shows. So, why the change? Why did radio go from war communicator to colorful, boisterous entertainer?--Because audiences demanded it. In my opinion, audience demand is the leading force that shaped, and continues to shape, public radio and its content ever since its inception in 1920 because listeners become faithful audiences only when radio broadcasts content which is relevant or of interest to listeners' lives. In other words, tells people exactly what they want to hear.

Audience Demand is what people expect from, in this case, a media outlet of their choice. It reflects society's ever-changing interests and needs, and how they expect those to be met. For example, Austinites, in general, have a reputation for liking non-commercial music. As a consequence, local radio stations play music from different genres found outside the "mainstream". As a result, a large majority of Austinites are content with local radio stations because A) they play music that the Austin underground music scene demands/needs, and B) because the radio stations reflect Austin's indie/underground music community. Contrastingly, if Austin radio stations played ONLY mainstream pop music 24/7, the radio here would probably A) have significantly less listeners, less identification with the radio, and less audience loyalty, and B) there would be a large discrepancy between the radio content being played, and actual indie Austinite culture. In short, audience demand speaks of how media content is shaped by audience needs and interests, and how a media medium's success depends on whether and how well the media meets listeners' expectations.

amoeba.com

The book (Media Now. Straubhaar, LaRose, Davenport) mentions the development of radio and its impact on the 1920's. Surely, we've all heard of the "Roaring Twenties" but what made them so, well, roaring? According to www.1920-30.com, the 20's was "a boisterous period characterized by rapidly changing lifestyles, financial excess, and the fast pace of technological process". Precisely. Changing lifestyles, financial excess, and technological process are what determined the radio and its development in the following ways (examples based on Media Now book):




1. Rapidly Changing Lifestyles:

•  People were starting to grow more aware of worldly news through newspapers and such. Radio provided them with a better, faster, more direct way to attain information.
• The loss and devastation of WWI strengthened family bonding. Radio presented them with a recreational activity perfect for the whole family.
• Also in response to the war's sorrow, people turned to radio for escapism and all sorts of entertainment. 

2. Financial Excess:

• Financial excess meant that audiences could actually afford to spend money on the products advertised on radio. As people had more money, the radio provided and increasing amount of products for sale for every need.
• Financial excess also meant that people could afford to buy their own radios. That meant that the radio industry saw a significant increase in radio sales, thus and increase in audience loyalty.
• Financial excess allowed stores to buy more advertising time, thus creating a larger consumer audience and more income. 

3.  Fast Pace of Technological Process:

• The advancement of technology allowed radio to be transmitted directly to listeners' homes through consoles.
• After a few years, music could be recorded and thus played repeatedly on the radio, creating more musical "hits"
• Radio clarity increased with the introduction of FM radio.

There are a variety of other examples pertaining to each of these groups, other than those mentioned above. Through these examples we see how audiences in the 1920's shaped both the radio industry and its content. This Audience Demand influence continues today as times and cultures change. With these cultural and social changes come changes in interests and needs as well. In the 1920's there was a demand for Big Band music; today there is demand for Hip-Hop. The radio will continue to change as its content continues to adjust to address each time's specific expectations.

Not All Mexicans Sit Under a Cactus and Drink Tequila---Explaining "Stereotyping"

Are All Mexicans Really Like That?

I was born in Mexico, and I have lived there all my life. When I travel to the States or abroad, I am confronted with the most surprising questions. One of the most memorable was, "Do you have cars in Mexico?" Sometimes I still can't believe that so many people have such a distorted view of Mexico. The concept of stereotyping, like in the movie “Nacho Libre”, helps explain why a large portion of the population has a distorted impression of Mexico and its inhabitants.


Stereotyping is the creating of an over-simplified image depicting a specific group of people. This image is often created by “outsiders”, people who are not part of the group being generalized; people who are not well-informed as to what those in the group are actually like. Stereotypes are mostly derived out of lack of information, since the stereotyping of a person or group of people consists in pointing out what seems to be the most obvious/recurrent characteristic of said person or group. The term refers to generalizing, to sorting out people according to labels which have been determined by another, misinformed, group of people that make up the largest part or general consensus. I will be further explaining “Stereotyping” by addressing the movie “Nacho Libre”, and how it distorts the image of Mexico and its inhabitants.

…”You mean not all Mexicans are poor and overtly religious?"---Exactly.


Before diving into my explication, take a minute to look at the following movie trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uTN8hPpP0&feature=related


This movie perfectly exemplifies stereotyping in the following ways:

1. It is an oversimplified, uninformed depiction of Mexicans in that:

• Nacho is slightly overweight, has dark hair, dark eyes, and a mustache
• Nacho’s best friend, Esqueleto (Skeleton), is portrayed dark-skinned, dirty, animalistic, and starved.
• The setting is a run-down, poverty-stricken church/orphanage
• The town where Nacho does his shopping is portrayed as a brown, dusty, dirty place with no roads, and crumbling structures
• Mexicans are portrayed as overtly religious and, consequently, poor
• Mexican every-day life is portrayed as revolving around scarce food, and the occasional Lucha Libre match, otherwise uneventful.

2. This depiction of Mexico was created by "outsiders":

• It was directed by Jared Hess
• It starred Jack Black (and others)
• It was produced by Nickelodeon Movies
• Basically, this image was created by a predominantly American group of people who only focused on certain aspects of Mexican culture and society. 

3. The movie focuses ONLY on one side of Mexico:

• The film depicts Mexico as very rural and underdeveloped. 
• The film revolves around the extreme religiousness of certain Mexicans and how that affects their every day life
• The movie ONLY portrays the kind of life that can be found in modern-day Mexican pueblos, not everywhere else in Mexico.

THE RESULT is that people who watch "Nacho Libre", and otherwise lack sufficient information on Mexico,  will accept the image that the Media is providing as reality. Because the movie reached and will continue to reach a very broad audience, that large portion of the population will view Mexicans in a certain way (a way which was influenced by the movie). As a consequence of stereotypes, people have come up to me and asked, "Do you have McDonald's in Mexico?", "Do you ride a donkey to school?", "Are there roads in your city?". I've also met some people who don't believe me when I tell them I'm Mexican, they say"But you're white...and you speak English well...". Because so many types of media only focus on similar aspects of Mexico such as the one I mentioned above, Mexico has become, to the eyes ans ears of the audience, a place like the one you saw on the movie trailer.

I am Mexican, and I am here to say that not all Mexicans are like those portrayed in the movie, and that not all of Mexico is dusty and underdeveloped. Mexico is a place where technology and architecture are thriving. It is a place where traditions meet innovations. Yes, we have McDonald's. No, I do not ride a donkey to school. There are thousands of roads in my city and they are overflowing with cars of all shapes, colors, and sizes.
So, stereotypes shine a specific light on a certain group of people, but lets not forget that all groups of people are multi-layered, and hard to be labeled as just one kind of thing.

"Committed Relationships With Cell Phones"- Explaining Technological Determinism

**The cartoon belongs to Liza Donelly, and it helps to illustrate my point.**

The concept of Technological Determinism helps me understand why most people are afraid to look up from their phones while waiting at the bust stop in the following ways: The development of technology has caused us to be dependent on cell phones, because they connect us to something/someone thus creating a society dependent on cell phones for comfort and safety.

The concept of Technological Determinism explains that technology directly influences society therefore determining, to some extent, its culture and the changes within it. This term refers to how technology is the working force that propels cultural and social change, thus opposing Cultural Determinism. Technological Determinism, in other words, proposes that the media controls the people through the power of the “medium” (Cell phones, Internet, etc) and people’s dependency on it (cell phone usage comes to mind, and I will expand on that in the following section). Not only do societies become dependent on the medium, but their lives are further determined by the messages expressed through it. This dependency on mediums and people’s susceptibility to them and their content, shape the way people think, feel, act, grow, interact with each other, etc. Essentially, Technological Determinism, put simply, is the chess player, and we the people are the chess pieces.

In my case, I will explain Technological Determinism in terms of how technology, specifically cell phone usage, has promoted a culture in which person-to person interactions are hard to come by.

Applying the term to an example:

To further explain Technological Determinism, I’m going to turn my attention to an every-day phenomenon: The Bus Stop.

The Example:
I’ve been at UT for 3 weeks now, and since the campus is so big, I’ve been taking the Forty Acres bus to get to my classes. As I’ve waited at the bus stop for the FA to come, I have come to realize that the people also waiting for the bus almost always have their eyes glued on their cell phone screens.

Each new person that walks towards the bus stop, as soon as he/she gets there, pulls out his/her cell phone immediately and tunes out the rest of the world… What are they afraid of?
It is as if people no longer know how to deal with themselves or with other people when there’s nothing to do for a few minutes. The idea of just waiting, just taking a deep breath and looking at one’s surroundings, just isn’t valid anymore.

So, why do we do this? Why can’t we simply look up and breathe in the sunshine? Why don’t we dare to look around us comfortably and admire the landscape? Why is it so hard to be comfortable without a cell phone in front of our faces? …Because, we’re not used to it.

Because we’ve been the subject of Technological Determinism since at least our adolescence.

Here is how our lives became technologically Determined:

• Cell phone technology developed, eventually enabling us to make calls, text, and access the web.
• Cell phones became most desirable objects since they presented us with a way to be connected to everyone and everything, all day any day.
• Younger and younger kids started getting cell phones, thus setting a trend for even younger generations to follow.
• All these kids then grew up surrounded by cell phones, enjoying the communicative commodities they offer.
• Using a cell phone became natural, part of our every-day routine.
• We immersed ourselves in the advantages cell phones offered (communication made easy, etc)
• Our “immersion” in cell phones slowly became an “obsession” as our use of it became arbitrary (usage of cell phone no longer out of necessity)
• Usage of cell phone started to replace real life interactions and entertainment
• THE RESULT: A society where people have become dependent on their cell phones to the point of being frightened by genuine social interaction. A technology-driven culture where people develop parallel lives and languages. A society where having a cell phone means feeling safe and comfortable.

Connecting the example and how we became technologically determined:

Cell phones nowadays provide us with instant access to the web, giving us the opportunity to instantly plug ourselves into our virtual lives. We tweet, we post on walls, we comment, we “LOL”, we text, etc. The cell phone is no longer an accessory; it is a necessary limb. People often feel naked and vulnerable without its bright screen light shining comfortingly on their faces.

Were it not for the advancement of technology (in this case, cell phones), today’s societies would probably be more social, and more aware of their environment. Back when there weren’t any cell phones, social interaction was what was “natural” in situations such as waiting at a bus stop. Person-to person relationships were the norm.

Now, the norm seems to be the person-to cell phone relationship, and why? Because technology today has offered us something more, something that has become much too popular to be ignored. The risk is that, should we decide to ignore it, we’d be outcasts left behind in our technologically deprived solitude. The advancement of technology is necessary and, scarily, it does indeed DETERMINE the our every-day lives.

Why am I in this class?

DSC_0032.JPG
Ah, our first assignment…and so the race begins.
Why am I in R-T-F 305, you ask? Because I need this class in order to become a successful filmmaker. My being a part of R-T-F 305 actually has very little to do with UT-inforced prerequisite policies. As an aspirant film director, an introduction to media studies is necessary. It is absolutely vital because being media-ignorant/complacent would be the equivalent of being thrust into the Film industry with a blindfold over one’s eyes and ears. Understanding and knowing the various forms of Media is the foundation of a future filmmaking concentration. I don’t know about you, but I see no point in walking around blindfolded, and so; it is time to dive into Professor Straubhaar’s Introduction to Media Studies.

To concretize my previous rant, I’ve divided my reasons of why I’m part of this class into two separate groups: My Present, and Future.
-I am part of R-T-F 305 because…
PRESENT:
1. I believe it is a necessary foundation for later filmmaking education. How can I make compelling movies without first understanding what modern-day society is feeding the Media, and how the Media is spitting it back out? This society-Media digestion is the key into anthropologically insightful films…which are the ones I’m interested in making.

2. I admit it, more often than not, I feel like the world should revolve around films alone. That’s why I’m in this class to broaden my understanding of other types of media, and the reciprocal impact they have on each other and the rest of the world.

3. Honestly, I want to learn how to handle myself, my attention span, and my academic resourcefulness in a class of 500+ people, and be able to meet the standards of college-level academia. This “enormous college format” is entirely new to me.

FUTURE:
1. I want to be able to master ( and by master I mean completely understand and be able to manage) all types of media that are out there, in order to become as well-rounded as possible. I want to be a director, and that is not easy, therefore, I need to have “the whole package”. Being a decent storyteller won’t cut it anymore…

2. I want to stop being complacent about the society I’m living in today. I want to understand the full power of the various Media in order to find a way to “redirect” society through films. After all, the Media has been like a “Big Brother” for years now: Observing, controlling… Well, if we understand Media, can we control it back?

Apart from achieving these personal goals, what I hope to learn from this class is, “What makes Media tick?’”. By this I mean, Is it society that feeds it? Or does the Media feed society? What elements are essential to the Media, and who’s behind it all? Where did media originate and where is it going? ,etc.

As for the multimedia aspect of my blog, I'm adding this link to USC's lecture series on filmmaking. It is in NO WAY a comparison between USC and UT; I just like listening to what the speakers have to say. (I don't have a favorite blog...)

http://itunes.usc.edu/

So, at the risk of boring anyone who’s reading this, to death, I shall conclude swiftly.

Hem, hem…In conclusion, I am part of this class because I want to be, not because I have to be. I believe it will provide me with the knowledge I lack and need. And, lastly, my true hope is to be able to demystify the Media in order to fully understand it, something that will surely help me through the filmmaking craze I have ahead of me.

This is Andrea Macias, the 19 year-old Mexican and film directing hopeful, signing off.