Random Blogs

In the spirit of procrastination, I hit the “random” button on the top right hand corner of my blog (you have to be ‘logged in’ to a wordpress account to see the arrow). All I have to say is, there is alot of very random (and weird) stuff out there! If you have an afternoon to waste and perhaps a bottle of wine to drink, try it, its quite entertaining!

In Response (Beyond Filmic Analysis)

To my previous post, I brought up the challenges I was facing with a colleague, and then, in class, with my professor – it reminded me why I should always speak up in times of confusion. In the end, she explained that she has been trying to work her way away from (strict) filmic analysis – the films she has been showing were never intended to follow the “look, see” formula that I have ruthlessly attached to a particular method of film studies. Essentially, the films are shown to give us an idea of how the figural is represented in film. There is no hard and fast analysis, no direct link between A and B. And much to my happiness, she explained that the readings were there not to force me (or the other students) into a box, but rather, to take out of it what we can and address our own work. For this I am grateful, and it definitly lifts off a bit of weight heading into my turn to present the reading discussion next week.

Intellectual Conditioning

I have been in ‘Film Studies’ now for a year and a half. I have taken three Phd classes and two undergraduate classes (a condition of heading into a Film Studies Phd with a Sociology background), one Phd and one Ugrad in progress this semester). Yet I stll struggle with translating theory into applied filmmaking. I am currently reading Deleuze’s Time-Image (among many other articles and excerpts surrounding the idea of the figure in film), and on a theoretical level, I completely understand what he is talking about. On an abstract level I can imagine my own examples when I have been discussing his work in recent conversations. When he gives examples – written examples about a film – I get it. However, I have a really hard time watching a movie and going – oh – this is an example of what Deleuze meant.

When I was in my first year of my Sociology MA, we had a few exercises where we had to read random articles and then determine which theoretical area they fell under – was it a Marxist article, was it rooted in Weberian tradition, was it post-modern, symbolic interactionism, etc etc. Then we had to iterate why we chose our particular answer. This process was started in my bachelor’s degree, since we had to do similar exercises in our upper level honour’s classes (but the professor guided us through the readings so that we could see why an article was from a particular perspective). In the end, I have been trained to be able to extrapolate from examples. As a sociologist who has done mostly ethnographic work, I have also been trained to take theory and apply it to social situations as they occured.

So why can I not grasp the filmic example? I really want to see it – I really try to see it -but more often then not, I just go back to the text and then think again about the film and THEN I can see what he was talking about – but I can’t just watch and see it unfold.

Perhaps, as my good friend pointed out to me this weekend, that it is that I have been trained … conditioned.. to think sociologically and not cinematically (is that the film studies equivalent?). I really enjoy film studies with my sociological lens, and I can even step out of the whole ‘film as social construction’ much more now – a year and a half later – than I could when I started. But how long until I can adequately use a film clip to demonstrate a theory instead of writing out four extra papers or talking for 10 extra minutes contextualizing what I am trying to say. Of course, one would tell me – but Kelly – you use games as examples all the time – shouldn’t it as least be related? And I would answer that I tend to use screen shots (the “still” being the filmic equivalent). Working theoretically from a still – in my opinion (or at least experience) is much easier, and what I think of as a visual “quote”. It is not a moving image, a fluid sequence that gives a different ‘feeling’ (for the lack of a better word at the moment) than what a ‘still’ conveys. When working with a still, I can stick to discussing what is in that particular frame without having to worry much about temporality. I have read Laurent Jullier’s text on Filmic Analysis, as well as Le Texte Introuvable (Bellour) and I am faced with the same struggle – when I read their words, I get it – when I go to put in action, I struggle with connecting the nodes between theory and applied practice.

I guess it all comes down to intellectual conditioning. During one of these conversations this weekend, my friend, who is ta’ing and leading discussion groups for an intro to Sociology course was telling me how some of the students could not grasp the concept of functional structuralism (a theory that I recoil in admitting is close to my heard). As she was telling me this, I kept saying “I don’t get it – how could they NOT get structural functionalism!!” I guess this is how my film studies colleagues see me sometimes heh. In the end, I have to remember that I have been ‘conditioned’, ‘schooled’, in a particular discipline – it does not make you master of all disciplines, and with a lot of reading, some good discussions and a bit of luck, I will ‘get it’.

The Figur(ative) in Video Games … a beginning

As I have mentioned here before, I am taking my last PhD class (/cheer) entitled “The Figure in Film”. So far, it has been an interesting excursion into some very classic works from the ’20’s on – spanning avant-garde, experimental and Russian film (so far..). We have been looking at the role of metaphor, metonomy the figurative as visual representation (carrying over, appropriating and recontextualizing literary definitions). As a final project (and in class presentation) I have to  ” develop a discussion of the figure in relation to a film, a filmic corpus, audio-visual form or style or a theoretical approach to films, using the readings and discussions considered during the seminar”. While this is a pretty standard ‘demonstrate what you’ve learned in class’ paper, I am tempted to take it in the direction of my work – mainly video games. 

The project I have outlined would essentially be a comparative study – much like the beginning of the course in that it started out with understanding the figurative from a historical perspective and how it has been appropriated – theoretically – into film studies (and production). My question would be to ask what cinematic elements of figuration are carried over into v. games? What (if any) elements are purely ‘gamic’? And perhaps – does the figurative serve the same purpose in games as it does in film? I know these are pretty vague questions – but they are simply a point of departure so that I can start amassing some literature on anything related. And so – as always – if anyone has any literature to point me towards or suggestions / directions, it is always more than welcome.

Public Transportation

I am a strong advocate of public transportation – after 13 years of living in the ‘big’ city – I have had no use for my driver’s permit. There are many bonuses to taking public transit – no traffic jams (that you have to contend with); the ability to watch out the window while the bus whizzes by in the reserved lane while cars sit idle. The ability to read and / or listen to your walkman (…hmm … ipod…) without risk of getting in an accident. Not to mention the environmental benefits. And although it can get crowded during peak hours – I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Only one thing that really gets to me … who in their right mind thinks its ok to whistle while on a bus!!!! 35 minutes of painstaking, ear-torturing whistling … why !??

Working out the Title

I have to ‘register my subject’ for my doctoral work. This should by done no later than your third semester in the program (I’ve just past the border of late). The idea is that you file an official document so that the department is able to keep track of the works that have been done, and current works in progress.  Theoretically, a good thing, however – I have to submit my project’s title. There are simple guidelines on the form:  (translated loosely) the title must be concise and give an exact idea of the research. Hmmmm so simple yet so hard! I have been playing with a few key words that my advisor and I agreed had to be in the title, but I am struggling with finding that balance between pure (informative) function and sassy wit. … I’ll let you know how it goes!

Ramblings on the Cinematic “Close-Up”

I am reading about the cinematic “close-up” for this week’s class on the figure in film, and it got me thinking about the role the ‘close-up’ plays in telling a story, the subtleties is invites, and what it does (instigates) in terms of the spectator’s relationship with the film/character, and what – if anything – carries over (or not) into the player/avatar relationship I’ve been yammering on about for the last 3 years.

The idea that the close-up expresses something that cannot be fully ‘acted’ by an actor – that muscle movement and other physical elements that are just outside the actor’s control give something extra – something internal – to the scene. Essentially, this is the key of ‘photogeneity’ – that it only exists within movement which is (technically) only capturable by the cinematic process, which therefore differentiates the cinema from the other arts. The argument is that while a photograph can “capture” reality, it does not demonstrate it in its fullness. That a smile is not really a smile in a photograph, because a smile is an continuous act (… but I am getting off track). Even though the cinema ‘films’ reality, by using such techniques as the close-up, it is drawing the spectator into an interaction that is beyond or outside the scope of  ‘real’. The close-up does not exist in every day life, so – I would argue – the emotions it instills in the spectator are heightened emotions that are not typically found (to that extent or in that manner) in their daily lives. Nonetheless, it creates an intimacy between the spectator and the acted character on the screen that is essential (i would argue again) for purposes of spectatorial identification. 

In Jacques Aumont’s text “The Face in Close-up” (in The Visual Turn: Classical Film Theory and Art History), he talks about the use of the close-up as both a ‘tool’ and a ‘symbol’ (p. 141). I like this idea – especially when I try to think about the game avatar and its dual role as tool / representation (don’t get me started here – this is completely inarticulated at the moment .. but I am trying to work towards moving away from the game avatar as pure representation – and away from simply a navigational tool – but it’s a quest I may fail in the long run – but until then …). So – thinking that the close-up can function as both a tool and symbol, where does that leave the avatar? And in what particular states of the game (or play?). One of the downfalls of computer animation, is the lack of (realistic – and I use that term loosely) facial expressions. When the player is confronted with a gamic close-up, they are faced with a dead, empty gaze.  Does this necesseraily mean that the player is less invested in the emotional relationship with their avatar? I know that this is quite a jump from the few sentences above – but perhaps this is something to think through to see if I can make point A connect with point B.

This (haphazzardly) brings me to questioning what visual elements are borrowed from cinema that enables (or enhances) the player / avatar relationship, what cinematic elements don’t work and what elements are unique to game design to draw in the player (to draw the player into the relationship or the narrative – I haven’t thought that through too much yet). At this point, it’s simply something to think about as I work through the semester’s readings, while thinking of ways of fitting my work into it all.

Change of Season

Ahh, the glorious autumn – most often touted as my favorite season (having my birthday in there might influence the matter) – however, I am not much of a fan of the warm days cold nights. While perfectly well for living, it is bad for one’s immune system! Let’s see what new products are on the market for this year’s ‘cold’ season shall we =)