Peer Perve Week 5

Going through my peers blogs, I found several video uploads on the perspective of a plant which I thought were worth mentioning.

The first was in Gina’s blog. What I liked so much about this video was the sound and audio combined. The screen was completely absorbed by the idea of water, and you couldn’t really make out exactly what you were looking at. The camera moved in random angles which created a sense of urgency, as if you as the viewer (the plant) really loved and needed this water. The sounds accompanying the audio were gushing, slurping sounds, which further created the idea that we were a plant soaking up as much of this water as we could. As if it was the only thing that mattered and the only thing we could see.

The second sketch task response I really liked was Bec’s. She did the perspective of a goldfish in an outside fish pond. There was a central object in the fish pond, which looked like some sort of lamp shade, which Bec focused on through several different angles. It created the feeling of being stuck in a small fish pond, as the things we saw were generally within a tiny distance from eachother and were quite repetitive. We really did feel like we were swimming around in circles. The ending shot of being underwater worked really well at emphasising the animal as a goldfish. Still don’t know how she got that shot!

 

Korsakow interface editor notes

Notes on 3.0 Interface Editor (referenced from the Korsakow manual which can be found here)

  • What is a Korsakow Interface? Korsakow interfaces are the layouts the viewer sees when a Korsakow film plays in the web browser. These essentially comprise of a SNU and Preview widgets.
  • The Default Interface: three small Preview widgets evenly spaced under one large SNU widget. This doesn’t necessarily have to be changed, but can be if the filmmaker wants to achieve visual variety, or to make the appearance of their Korsakow films an integral part of their storytelling.

How to access the Interface Editor:

  • either double-click on an existing Interface in the Korsakow application main window (this is good for editing an existing interface);
  • or, click on the ‘New Interface’ icon in the bottom righthand corner of the Korsakow application main window.

new interface

  • A Korsakow film can have as many interfaces as there are SNUs.
  • These are designed in the Interface Editor and then assigned while SNUifying: simply select the appropriate interface using the pulldown menu in the SNU Editor.

drop down interface menu

  • Remember that interfaces can be shared with other Korsakow users via File > Import > Shared Interface and File > Export > Shared Interface.
  • In the interface editor, the stage is an adjustable grid, and a righthand column has two tabs: Tools and Settings. This stage simulates a browser window.
  • Items that appear on the stage are called Widgets.
  • Widgets can be dragged onto the stage from the Widgets palette in the Tools tab.
  • Unwanted Widgets can be highlighted with a single click and then deleted using the Delete key on the keyboard, or the red Delete button in the Tools tab.
  • Widgets can be moved around by clicking and dragging anywhere inside them. These will snap to the grid.
  • Snapping can be temporarily suspended by holding the ‘ALT’ key (Windows) or Option key (Mac) while dragging.
  • Widgets can be resized by clicking and dragging their corners. These will snap to the grid. Snapping can be temporarily suspended by holding the ‘ALT’ key (Windows) or Option key (Mac) while resizing.
  • By default, resizing enforces the aspect ratio the widget had before you started resizing. This can also be suspended while resizing by holding the SHIFT key (Mac and Windows).
  • All the widgets on the stage can be selected together by using CTRL+A (Windows) or Command+A (Mac).
  • Widgets can be made to overlap one another, either partially or completely. The order of the layers can be controlled using the Arrange options in the Tools tab.

Interface grid:

Trial Interface Designing

Final k film outcome:

Trail Interface Outcome

The videos and thumbnails are aligned to the far left of each widget, hence why the main SNU doesn’t appear to be in the centre. Therefore, ratios are very important in achieving certain designs.

K Films and the Essay Film

The Essay Film – described as a ‘hybrid form that crosses boundaries and rests somewhere in in-between fiction and nonfiction cinema. Essentially, an essay film classifies the new type of documentaries which utilise the filmmakers own personal reflections and experiences. Before continuing, I think that these would make for interesting documentaries, however, I get the feeling that there are generally some problems with this type of film.

So essentially, the essay film is not bound by the constraints of formal cinema, but rather, allows the filmmaker to employ avant-garde and their own artistic flare. “The essay film…is transgressive both structurally and conceptually, it is self-reflective and self-reflexive.”

So it seems as if the essay film is a bit of a headache for filmmakers who like to stick to the rules and do everything by the book. If you were a bad filmmaker and accidentally repeated sections, had fragmentation, digression and dispersion, you could get away with your documentary being classified as an essay film. If we  struggle to classify a film at the present time, it eventually gets lumped into the category of essay film; this is not a good thing, because it eventually means that works which are simply too hard to place in a genre will all just be classified as essay films and there will be no clear distinctions.

The essay film relieves the filmmaker of the responsibilities of sticking to the rules and parametres of traditional documentary practise (such as chronological sequencing). It allows the filmmaker to run free with their imagination and artistic potential.

Is that not the idea of korsakow films in a nutshell? K films are not always chronological, they don’t aways make sense, their material is fragmented and doesn’t have to link and it times, it can contradict itself.

I think that it is fascinating how the idea of emotion being introduced within a documentary can destroy its professional position. Yes, I’ll admit that before I came to university and learnt the many different avenues of what a documentary could be, I did simply just associate the word ‘documentary’ with David Attenborough’s voice. His films would be honest, all claims backed up by evidence. With the essay film, the filmmaker may introduce their own emotions and background, and so, how can we really say that everything we are watching is fact or an accurate representation of everything which is supposed to occur.

The pathway for the essay film has been nurtured by the developments in distribution. To view entertaining media, we no longer have to go to just a cinema, but we can now access media through our televisions, mobile phones and laptops. This means that material doesn’t need to strictly suit a mainstream audience.

The scriptwriter needs to merge with the filmmaker in order for essay films to work. The pen needs to meet the image. Phillip Lopate claims that “an essay film must have words, in the form of a text, either spoken, subtitled, or intertitled…[which must] represent a single voice… it must have a strong personal point of view.” This idea from Lopate comes from mimicking the essay itself.

Timmothy Corrigan’s list of dominant characteristics of an essay film:

  • generally a short documentary subject
  • the lack of a dominant narrative organisation
  • the interaction of a personal voice or vision

Integrated Media Korsakow Film Essay

The film which I drew my attention (mainly through its title) was Dreamcatcher. Immediately, I envisioned ideas in my mind about how the creators (Jess Hallay, Michael Serratore and Damien Gould) could have made a Korsakow film based on the complex and multilayered ideas that are dreams. Dreamcatcher is part of the 2011 student made films collection, and can be found here.

Immediately I was drawn in by how aesthetically pleasing Dreamcatcher was presented (see Fig. 1). The interface design chosen by the filmmakers was the main screen to the left in 4:3 ratio, then three thumbnails to the right, each with the same height as the main SNU, but thin in length. All videos appear to be in high quality. The back image is an out of focus image, one which varies in colour yet is subtle enough to easily compliment the tones of the videos. The idea of the background image being undistinguishable in subject further works to compliment the idea of dreams and their immeasurable nature.

 

Figure 1

Figure 1

The thumbnails to the right do not move when the cursor is hovered above them, nor do they make sounds. This prevents the viewer from being distracted from the main video on the left. To distinguish that they are pathways to the next video, the three thumbnails are less-contrasted, still frames taken from their linking video. This idea of thin, small thumbnails runs parallel to the idea of minor fragments within a dream. It was clever of the filmmakers to employ the use of simple, less contrasted thumbnails as opposed to all thumbnails being greyscaled, as we eventually learn that the greyscaled thumbnails are distinguished, as they open different pathways. There is no overriding soundtrack which plays over the videos, thus reinforcing the segmented nature of dreaming.

The viewer learns that by clicking on certain thumbnails, we are able to progress to the next stage. But it is all random and completely non-linear. I found myself watching this K Film several times just to understand it. At face value, it is easy to identify which SNU’s can be linked together based on 4 different ideas: people talking about dreaming, videos representative of the dream state, videos of delusion and videos of daydreaming. However, we can only access these sections through a gateway SNU. For the opening section, by clicking the greyscaled video, we are given the option to see the thumbnail of the closed eye (a thumbnail which would otherwise be unavailable to us without clicking on the linking greyscaled thumbnail). See Fig 2 and Fig 3.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 3

These clips of eyes, therefore, signal a different stage (reinforced by the movement of the eye i.e. closed, opening, slowly closing etc). The difference between the opening section and the other sections of the K film, is that the SNU’s in the opening (just before the ‘Falling Asleep’ stage) only have 1 life. This means, as a viewer, we will inevitably be guided to the next phase. For the rest of the K Film, the pathway is less discernible. The videos we end up watching are completely determined by which thumbnail we choose, which could lead us to different sections determined by different constraints (i.e. certain environments, patterns, colours). Some of these clips had a higher SNU-rating than the others, and sometimes, certain clips would consistently reappear on the right even after they had been clicked 3-4 times.

The first time I played this K Film, I found myself in a continuous loop. The film just kept on going and going, and I felt as if I was watching and replaying the same clips over and over again. This was the biggest flaw I found with the K film, as I was almost going to give up on it because I was getting extremely frustrated and bored. But, I did eventually reach the end, signified by the final clip of the eye opening (i.e. end of dreaming). It was by chance that I had clicked the discreet exit thumbnail, and upon navigating my way through the K Film several times more, I realized this thumbnail was made available to me at frequent times. It is all up to the viewer to identify a pattern in what they are seeing. Eventually, after seeing the same clips over and over, they may search for the new one they have not yet seen in an attempt to move somewhere else. In order to end the film, the viewer must be able to determine which thumbnail they believe has not appeared before. After identifying these patterns I realized that as viewer, I could potentially skip certain stages (such as the ‘daydreaming’ stage) or even cut down on the number of times I entered the ‘falling asleep’ loop. This is a key element of the film which the filmmakers have deliberately employed. Majority of audiences will be first time viewers, and so they will leave their experience of the film up to chance and randomness as opposed to careful planning determined through identifying repetitive patterns.

A reoccurring pattern which the audience will determine is that by clicking on a thumbnail of a person, a short, person statement by that person will ensue. By clicking on eyes, a certain action by an eye will follow, whether it be the eye closing, opening, remaining shut of blinking. Furthermore, by clicking on a video with a mouth, the mouth will verbally signify which dream state the viewer is entering. These dream states include ‘daydreaming, ‘falling asleep’ and ‘fast asleep’, sections of which present the audience will videos that are somewhat warped in an effort to mimic a convoluted and disoriented segment of a dream. This dream state is further enforced through patterns of eerie soundtracks playing over certain clips, clips being played backwards, and awkward camera angles which serve to perplex the viewer on what they are seeing.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 5

A consistent pattern of colours tends to remerge (as seen in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), where majority of the clip is in black and white, and only certain sections will be in colour. As a viewer, we understand that this is not how real life appears, and so we then can conclude that we are supposed to be in a trippy dream state. The main colours that emerge are yellows, reds, blues and filters of purple. Through this technique, the documentary proves to be more in the form of associational as opposed to abstract (Bordwell & Thompson 356).

The content of this film, which has generally been previously discussed throughout this blog, contains clips relating to people talking about dreams, videos mimicking the dream state, and videos of delusion and daydreaming. There are no main characters who we follow, but rather, separate individuals retelling their ideas on dreaming. Some characters are re-occurring, but only once or twice. Instead of solely having the K film revolve around sections of the dream state, the inclusion of individuals discussing their take on dreams breaks away from the complexity of the ‘dreaming’ videos. The audience is able to relate to other people through their recounts, and as these commentaries are at the beginning of the K film, they almost serve as an introduction. The audience is not simply thrown into a dream, but rather, eased into one.

I really admire the cinematic efforts of the filmmakers in creating the short clips to represent dreams. Without the use of extreme special effects to create worlds that only exist in our minds, they did an excellent job of taking reality and real places and altering them in an effort to create the crazy workings of our minds when we are dreaming. We all know that during a dream we don’t question what is happening, but take it as reality. Throughout Dreamcatcher, we learn not to question why things are being played backwards, or there are eerie sounds playing when looking at a tree – we simply accept (due to personal knowledge) that we are dreaming and that what we are seeing could very well be a create of our minds.

I was very impressed by this K Film after watching it several times and understanding how it all worked together. The use of the Korsakow program fitted the theme brilliantly, as its capability of many narratives and multilinear progressions is quite parallel to the idea of dreaming. The content of warped, confusing and misrepresented videos combined with the unclear patterns of progression simulate the feeling of dreaming, and absorb the viewer in a world which is finally made tangible. A viewers pathway through the film could either be a random mess of confusing nonsense which may not seem to make sense, or it could be smooth and quick (if by chance they find a direct pathway to the ending). For any pathway, however, it is evident that the viewer has been taken on a journey.

Just as dreams are individual and unique to the person, the filmmakers have aspired to make Dreamcatcher just that through the use of Korsakow itself. Because of the loops, patterns and certain spheres within the film, it is highly unlikely that any user will experience it in the same way, just as we won’t all have the same experiences when we dream.

References: Bordwell, D & Thompson, K 2013, Film Art: An Introduction, McGraw Hill, New York. Pg. 350 – 358

Korsakow Issues

After SNUifiying my media files (the ones from Adrian’s online media library), and creating keywords for Ins and Outs, making sure I had at least 5 for each one, I then was excited to see what I produced. But nothing.

Then I looked over at Anita who was changing file names and not exporting to a specific folder called ‘export’ and she was coming up with all these errors… then she fixed it, and it all amazingly worked. How come I’m not that lucky and I’m doing everything by the book!

I’ve downloaded Adobe Flash player, changed my safari preferences and even tried it in google chrome, but the web browser still stays black… This is the most frustrating issue ever and I need to find a way to fix it soon..

Korsakow Black ScreenIn the mean time, please enjoy this screen grab of what my Safari is presenting to me.

Also I have a couple questions about what can work with the in and out keywords. In our last class on Monday (24/3), Seth ran us through a video which explained how to create a basic K video. And from that video, I gathered that there were just two simple In and Out words: female and male. What happens if we want to create more? for instance, some of the files in the ‘Square Media’ folder relate to planes, skies, land and transport. I only had two In and Out Keywords to begin with: land and transport, but then I began to notice that some overlapped. E.g. a video of the outside of a train. The outside was land terrain, but it was taken on a train. Therefore, can there be two in and out keywords? What will happen? I can’t exactly experiment with this at the moment, because as stated, my exported website files are not working…

Symposium Week 4

Questions from Symposium 03

1. Whey has reality TV become so popular? Why is it that we are so interested in seeing ‘real’ lives on TB as well as stories?

  • we are voyeuristic
  • we like to witness a struggle
  • media has become so hybridized that we are going to do our heads in if we think it is going to stay the same
  • Big Brother – combination of all different types of media: SMS texting, websites, television etc
  • Reality TV is a hybrid… computer games meet television. Most reality TV shows are a quest.
  • We live and die by our constraints

2. Have we lost Habermas’ notion of the ‘public sphere’ with the widespread use of mobile technologies?

  • Conversations on trains aren’t private
  • Authenticity
  • The desire to see always trumps the technical quality. If we want the content, we want to see it.
  • We move through public spaces listening to our own individual soundtracks
  • The use of ‘i’ in Apple is individualized. It has changed the idea of the public space
  • Amateur aesthetic… out of focus shots… skewered angles = has shaped some sort of cinema in a way (mock-umentary).

3. Is there a chance that the accessibility of media nowadays ruins film making instead of liberating it from the old?

  • If you know how to film and you know good composition, it shouldn’t matter if you’re filming on your phone or the best camera ever, you should still be able to create a good shot. It shouldn’t ruin film making.

DIDN’T GET TO THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS BUT WE MIGHT GET HIT BY A BUS TONIGHT AND DIE.

4. Most of the content uploaded online is never, or rarely, viewed, and receives little recognition. How effective are online sharing sites such as YouTube as a distribution network?

5. What does Sorenssen mean by the ‘democratic potential of these media? How can media be democratised?

6. What is the key factor for emerging media to become as monetised or popular in that it will become the norm for all society? What is its appeal?

7. Why does the corporate dollar constantly contribute to the swaying of new media towards the ‘elite’?

8. Why does Astruc matter to interactive documentary?

9. What does Sorenssen mean by partial public spheres? How does the public sphere fall victim to a dominating media structure?

Integrated Week 3 Reading Thoughts

Bordwell, David and Tompson are two extremely familiar names. As I am a student in majoring in cinema, they were the co-writers of the text for my first semester. Therefore, the content of this reading was extremely familiar.

Cause and effect – drives the narrative. Characters are persons. They have traits. They have needs and desires. Therefore they have cause to act a certain way and this creates an effect to the narrative. Sometimes, cause and effect may not even relate to character, but may be more due to the circumstances (natural occurrences, natural disasters).

Time – We construct time. When we read a book, and there is a lengthy description, we understand that time pauses within the novel. Things are not happening while the situation is explained to the reader.

  • Temporal Order: events presented out of chronological order.
  • Temporal Frequency: mostly, a story event is presented only once, however, it may be hashed up again. This may allow the audience to absorb more of what is happening or pick up more detail. This could include flash backs

Space – in film narrative, however, space is usually an important factor. Events occur in well defined and established areas.

Experimental Film – made to explore certain type of film making