Future Machina: Deep Fakes, Synthetic Media & The Uncanny Valley

For Week 2 of the studio, we were finally on campus! I was very happy to find that we were going to be doing practical exercises, since last year really limited us when it came do using equipment such as the greenscreens and also the audio recording mics we used this week as well. Content wise, we rehashed what we were talking about in Week 1, with deep fakes and the creation of synthetic humans being the main focal point and how much these synthetic humans would be likely to replace us in the future. The thought of everything being more fake than it already is now is very alarming, as anything could be manipulated in the future and may cause the public to have false beliefs, “causing distrust in things we once thought credible” such as videos, news broadcasts and various images (Westling, 2019).

On the topic of A.I “taking over” and taking jobs away from us, the reading by Neufeind allowed me to see it in a different perspective, especially when they talked about how “horse-related” jobs were in decline after automotive manufacturing, which then lead to a plethora of jobs and career opportunities (Neufeind, 2018). I think that the main aspect of robots taking over our jobs is the fact that we have no idea what the new jobs of the future may be, and since human nature is being comfortable and safe, the thought of anything new scares most people, thus they reject and rebel against the idea.

To round out this week’s blog post, I have inserted a screenshot of the Tutorial exercise, where we had to play around with Green Screen and Premiere Pro.

References:

Neufeind, Max & O’Reilly, Jacqueline & Ranft, Florian. (2018). Work in the digital age: challenges of the fourth industrial revolution Identifying the challenges for work in the digital age.

Westling, Jeffrey, Are Deep Fakes a Shallow Concern? A Critical Analysis of the Likely Societal Reaction to Deep Fakes (July 24, 2019). TPRC47: The 47th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy 2019.

Writing, Filming and Editing a monologue during this stage 4 restrictions proved quite a challenge, but I learnt a lot in doing so. My short monologue focuses on the character of Derek, unveiling an awkward dinner encounter with his mother that turns into Derek lashing out, revealing information about his mother to the audience.

I wanted to characterise Derek as well off, making him wear expensive clothing and eating a fancy dinner. I attempted to go for a refined and wealthy look using the clothing and mise en scene of the monologue. His speech pattern evolves from shy and vague to quite angry and demanding by raising the tone and clarity of his voice from when the monologue starts to when it ends.

Derek’s “character revelation” is stripped away as he mentions to his mother what he overheard the night before, as the story escalates and the viewer is fed more information, his true intentions are revealed. “A hidden nature waits concealed behind a facade of traits” (McKee, 1999) This McKee quote is relevant due to Derek’s shyness and awkwardness in the beginning, clearly masking what he wants to say and his true intentions to bring up his mother’s wrongdoings.

I also attempted in portraying Derek as the Hero, not only because he is the only active speaking character in the monologue, but also because his choice in bringing up his mother’s faults was the “decisive action” of the story that ultimately allowed it to unfold in the first place (Vogler, 2007). Not only that, but I wanted to give him traits such as disappointment, anger, despair and his hesitation of allowing these emotions through but ultimately choosing to do so in order to drive the narrative as the main Hero.

Where I could use improvement on is maybe creating the monologue as a dialogue with his mother actually replying and reacting within the conversation, it would make for a far more dramatic and engaging narrative, but restrictions did not allow another character to participate. I also believe that I could have written some more backstory such as what happened to that Dad, what the mother did to the Dad, etc. to give the argument more impact. “Sometimes you need to go back and ask questions, or ask different questions.” (Batty, 2012) This quote is definitely relevant in order to try altering the narrative to make space for more subtle and natural expositions, and I will explore this in my future monologues.

I definitely struggle with access to complete freedom, as I get creativity blocks with writing a particularly innovative and creative narrative, but all in all, I am satisfied with the learning I have achieved by completing this task, even if my final product is not as innovative or creative as I hoped for.

REFERENCES

Batty, G 2012, Screenplays How to Write and Sell Them, Oldcastle Books, Harpenden, UK.

McKee, R 1999, Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting, Methuen Publishing Ltd, London, UK.

Vogler, C 2007, The Writer’s Journey, Michael Wiese Productions, San Francisco, USA.

Assignment 1 Submission Post

Prompt 1 – Language:

GETTING INTO CHARACTER: Assignment 1 Prompt 1

Prompt 2 – Archetype:

GETTING INTO CHARACTER: Assignment 1 Prompt 2

Prompt 3 – Characterisation:

GETTING INTO CHARACTER: Assignment 1 Prompt 3

References

Call Me By Your Name. 2017. [film] Directed by L. Guadagnino. Lombardy, Northern Italy: Frenesy Film Company, RT Features.

McKee, R, 1999 Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting.

Vogler, C 1998. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Studio City, CA: M. Wiese Productions,

Character Analysis: Prompt 3

Character: Samuel Perlman

Samuel’s characterization is one of a typical, middle aged father/professor. He wear’s a lot of polo shirts with pants, wears glasses and has a beard. In the setting of Northern Italy, he presents himself to blend in with the rest of Italian’s in the hot summer of the 80’s. Those are his “observable qualities of a human being.” (McKee, 1999). What truly allows us to see Samuel’s character however, is the way he speaks to Elio and how he navigates through the situation of his son’s relationship with the student he hired to help him with.

McKee states that “character and structure are interlocked” and that the “event structure of a story is created out of the choices that characters make under pressure.” Samuel’s character is a prime example of the film’s structure. His decision to bring Oliver to his house, his decision to bring Elio with him to the archaeology dig, and his decision to allow Elio and Oliver to go on a 3 day trip alone are very key decisions that affect the entire story and relationship between the two protagonists. We can observe that these decisions are made with Elio in mind, putting his son and his son’s freedom and romantic expression in consideration when making these key choices.

Once again, the dialogue scene between Elio and Samuel when Oliver leaves shows Samuel’s true character and insight to why he is saying these things and why he let Elio and Oliver grow fond of each other. “How you live is your business” Samuel explains to Elio, accentuating his role as a ‘passive’ parent who allows his child to explore his identity, sexuality, ideologies and values without any forceful direction or guidance from a parental figure. He knows that Elio is capable of making his own decisions, and that he is always there for his son if he actually needs any guidance or sympathy when it comes to it.

The ending to this scene is extremely important, as Samuel explains to Elio that “I may have come close but I never had what you two had.” This allows the viewer to see exactly why Samuel is so supportive towards his son. He has experienced this same situation in the past himself, and wants to do anything in his power for Elio to have something better. He doesn’t want Elio to have something that “held me back or stood in the way” just like he did. This completely highlights his strong parental and paternal instinct and supportive relationship that he has strived so hard to show throughout the film. Lastly, when Elio asks if his mother knows about this past relationship, Samuel responds with “I don’t think she does,” further showing the trust and bond that they have by sharing a secret that genuinely nobody else knows about.

All in all, Samuel Perlman in ‘Call Me by your Name’ is a good father at heart, and his actions and decisions established within the film confirm how much he deeply cares about his son and wants him to have individual freedom as a teenager exploring his identity.

REFERENCES:

Call Me By Your Name. 2017. [film] Directed by L. Guadagnino. Lombardy, Northern Italy: Frenesy Film Company, RT Features.

McKee, R, 1999 Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting.

Character Analysis: Prompt 2

Character: Samuel Perlman

Samuel, being Elio’s father, very much fits the archetype of the ‘Mentor’ but also with the ‘Ally’. He is used as a guiding force to not only allow situations where Elio and Oliver can bond with each other, but to also teach Elio life lessons on his emotions, how to deal with loss and heartbreak, and promising that he will always be there for him as his father and a part of his family.

As a ‘Mentor’, Samuel helps Elio by motivating and reassuring him, and arranges multiple occasions for Elio to “motivate him to take action and commit to the adventure.” (Vogler, 1998). The notion of Samuel choosing and bringing Oliver to Italy in the first place is the whole reason this film even occurs, meaning that Elio’s actions are a consequence derived directly from Samuel, and that Samuel’s decisions are the prime catalyst of the film’s events. You could even argue that Samuel is used as a tool to “plant” ideas of Elio to Oliver and vice versa, subconsciously allowing them to think about each other.

In a scene where Samuel and Oliver are looking at stills of male Greek statues, Samuel marvels at “their ageless ambiguity. As if they are daring you to desire them.” The way Samuel words this, is inadvertently enticing Oliver’s feelings for Elio, likening the statue to Elio seeking Oliver’s desire. This then leads to an important sequence of Samuel bringing Elio and Oliver to Sirmione for a research dig, allowing the boys to spend quality time together once more – due to Samuel.

In the very important dialogue between Elio and Samuel (after Oliver leaves and Elio is heartbroken), the characteristics of the Mentor and Ally shine through in this conversation. Samuel is Elio’s father, meaning that naturally, Elio will look up to him as a mentor and absorb any life advice that he gives him. As an ‘Ally’, Samuel also aids in spiritual and emotional matters for Elio’s sake. “The Ally function can easily overlap with that of the Mentor,  as allies occasionally step up to the higher function of guiding the hero.” (Vogler, 1998). Samuel has the primary role of a mentor, but the emotional frame of an ally, showing that he approaches Elio’s situation with carefulness and empathy compared to giving Elio hard decisions to battle with, being more passive and more of a shoulder to cry on when times get tough. “You’re both lucky to have found each other,” Samuel tells Elio, reinforcing that he should not be upset at the fact that Oliver is gone, but he should be glad that it happened.

“You’re too smart not to know how rare, how special what you two had was.”

REFERENCES:

Call Me By Your Name. 2017. [film] Directed by L. Guadagnino. Lombardy, Northern Italy: Frenesy Film Company, RT Features.

Vogler, C 1998. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Studio City, CA: M. Wiese Productions,

For week 2, the class watched ‘Film Spa’, which is a 2015 documentary film on the Karlovy Vary Film Festival (KVFF) – a historical festival held in the Czech Republic within the spa town of Karlovy Vary. Watching this documentary was very interesting because I’ve never seen a documentary on a festival, as they are scarce in the industry. Compared to week 1’s insights on Richard Sowada’s experiences, we go way way further back on the history and insight to Czech Republic’s involvement in World War II and the communist party lead by Stalin. I thought it was quite interesting to see this perspective of War from the “enemy”, and how they celebrated and progressed through time with creating a film festival. I enjoyed watching the documentary, especially its inclusions of how the festival itself and the buildings were built and constructed, the kinds of people who went to the festival and the diverse range of films that were shown from its beginning til this very day, and how much it has evolved. At the start of the KVFF, it was interesting to see how much war films and propaganda films dominated its scene, as cinema was “a vehicle for peace in the era of extreme ideologies and growing nationalisms.” (Ostrowska, 2016). It was interesting to me to see it grow into what A-List celebrities visit now, and how the war shaped its ideas, its stance and its values as a festival and what it aims to share with others.

I used this film to understand that film festivals all have core values and ideas that it wants to show to the world, no matter how large or small, no matter how prestigious or unknown it is. I used this new perspective to have a deeper understanding and insight to what we, as a cohort, could possibly create – especially in this new generation filled with endless technological possibilities – and what our values as a class are to be able to create and construct a space where films could be shown that reflect who we are, and who we are as a society. It is exciting to think that we could (possibly) create a shared experience with others that connects us all together, just like the KVFF did.

References:

Dorota Ostrowska, “Making film history at the Cannes film festival (Links to an external site.)” in Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist (eds), Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, Routledge, New York, 2016, pp. 18-33.