[FOOT] Film Festival Experience

Having spent some time at music festivals, I was interested to see how a film one would go. Seeing as films are presented a bit differently than films are, I was expecting it to be a lot different but still under the same "festival" ethos in its presentation. I was mainly correct, and I really enjoyed the experience.

Paying $12 for a ticket to a movie sucks real hard, but at least it was a good movie and the atmosphere was solid. I actually didn't order my ticket online like most of my classmates did, but I also wasn't super picky with what I wanted to go see. It's always nice to be downtown. As much as people rag on Cleveland, it could be worse -- we could be Detroit. I found the only thing that bothered me was that they didn't seat movies until 15 minutes before. It does make sense, though, because there are so many movies being shown and only so much room to play them all.

Will I go back? Probably not. I'm not really a film person. I like books and music, but I am just not a visually stimulated individual, so most movies bore me and I see no artistic or intelligent value in them. Maybe if a friend of mine drags me to one, but other than that, this was more than enough film festival experience for me. Good times, for sure.

[FOOT] Film Festival: The Children of Chabannes Review

Personal Issues: I'm a sucker for documentaries. I don't care much for regular films, but I really like documentaries because they're factual. I often find a lot of the more modern ones (think Michael Moore) to be a bit scare-tactic oriented if focused on political issues, but in general, I just love watching documentaries. I can't say I'm particularly interested in World War II, but I am always interested in a good story, and The Children of Chabannes was great. It was a very heartfelt and it bled with authenticity. I couldn't help but feel for those involved and how touching it was. It was a very realistic view of what was going on in that town.

Technique: The film was mainly comprised of interviews with different people -- very common for a documentary. It's not actors reading from a script, rather human beings telling their story. It wasn't filled with fancy CGI and Michael Bay-like explosions. It spent its time really telling a story about a real world event.

Acting: Because this is a documentary, the people in the film were not "actors" because they weren't acting anything out. They said what they felt and shared their knowledge on the situation at hand.

Plot: "A tale of courage, resilience and love set during WWII, The Children of Chabannes tells the story of how the people of Chabannes, a tiny village in unoccupied France, chose action over indifference and saved the lives of 400 Jewish refugee children. Filmmaker Lisa Gossels returns to Chabannes with her father and uncle, two of the 400 children who were saved. Through intimate interviews with her father and the other "children" of Chabannes, the filmmakers recreate the joys and fears of daily life in that village. We see how this oasis of hope is shattered in August of 1942, when the war reaches the doorsteps of the chateau where the children lived. Through accounts by the extraordinary teachers who taught and loved these children, this lyrical and moving film shows the remarkable efforts made by the citizens of Chabannes, who risked their lives and livelihoods to protect these children, simply because they felt it was the right thing to do." -www.childrenofchabannes.org.

Themes: Beyond the plot theme of saving Jews from Nazi Germany, The Children of Chabbanes really focuses on acceptance and harmony. It's a testament that people can have different views and lifestyles and be together and work together without need for violence. The man who saved all 400 of those Jewish children, Felix Chevrier, was the beacon of that lighthouse and really shows the compassion a human really can have. It was nothing less than touching and reenforces the ideals of solidarity.

Genre: Historial documentary/Jewish Film.

Representation: The film represents as factual of an account of an event as possible. By using interviews, it doesn't allow for a creator bias and isn't a work of fiction.

Ideology: I think this basically ties to the themes of the film. Because it's a documentary. It focuses on Jewish culture, so those ideologies are brought forth, along with the theme of solidarity and caring for your fellow human in times of war.

[FOOT] Quick Response to other articles

(You said you only wanted 2 posts on the articles, but here's my initial response to the two articles i didn't include in my other posts)

Video Games: Mildly absurd, but the heart is in the right place. Even if you just read the first page, having students direct a teacher in a video game doesn't actually teach them anything they can't learn in a gym class with coordination or on their own free time playing the video games themselves. There was no intellectual stimulation to win, it was just watching and going. Made me sad. I'm sure there is some worthwhileness to it that will be implemented in the future, but the current state of video games just doesn't allow for it.

Publish or Perish: Digital books are and will take over. Only time will prove this, but I agree with it. Because I'm a music nerd, I make this analogy: Vinyl culture is recently experiencing a large increase in sales. MP3s are still taking over, but there is now a niche culture for physical music. This same concept will apply to physical books in the future. The main sales will come from digital retailers while physical books become a niche market for those who love to hold onto books. Do you see major vinyl retailers? No, it's all small shops independtly owned. I see this same concept happening to physical books. At least fiction. Obviously textbooks will stick around for a lot longer until there is a way to subsidize it federally for the government to have all textbooks available on a Kindle or something similar.

[FOOT] I'm So Totally, Digitally Close To You/You're Leaving a Digital Trail

The first page of this article immediately struck a chord with me. It discussed the change from the very primitive Facebook layout, to the first one that included a News Feed, which is now a very accepted feature. Heck, the news feed is one of, if not the, most important features of what defines Facebook.

"What particularly enraged Parr was that there wasn’t any way to opt out of News Feed, to “go private” and have all your information kept quiet."

"Within days, the tide reversed. Students began e-mailing Zuckerberg to say that via News Feed they’d learned things they would never have otherwise discovered through random surfing around Facebook"

As a Facebook user for several years now, these two quotes correlate to every single time Facebook makes a change to its layout or privacy settings. There is an outburst for a few days or a few weeks, but eventually everyone shuts up. This is EVERY SINGLE TIME. No matter the situation, people don't pay enough attention and Facebook gets their way. Over the past several years, Facebook has continued to change their privacy settings to allow more of your information out, and people constantly ignore the changes and give their information away. This isn't new, and people don't seem to care.

Later on in the piece, it discusses a concept labeled as "ambient intimacy." It's a lingering, long lasting mark on the world that we can all view, all the time. We may not always be aware of it. The piece talks about how each little piece of information comes together over time to create a picture of who we are, yet we continue to let it be drawn for everyone to see. This is how we are judged now -- but the little snippets we leave behind. And we just continue to leave these bread crumbs behind us that people can openly follow. This leads to the next article/my next point.

-----------

People. Don't. Care. This entire article proves it. The very first paragraphs are about kids completely willing to give up their privacy for a smart phone. Our own financial/materialistic desires are causing us to give up basic human rights and a better way of living.

I was actually quite depressed by how much this article focused on the positives. Yes, Google is doing great things and are worthy of praise. And data collection can do great things. But all of this data collection is done by private companies that, in reality, can do whatever they want with it. They say they don't/won't sell your data, but you would most likely not know if they did anyways, because they'll be doing business with someone else who doesn't want you to know they have your data. This is a political issue that needs to be addressed.

We are ignoring the fact that we don't have any privacy anymore because it's for our own societal gain and nothing else.

But, then I am posed with this question: Even if we "protect" the data, is it really all that safe? Ever? Even 5 years ago, data was being collected on us, and it's just becoming more widespread and open. So, no matter how we go about this, are we screwed anyways? Will we ever really have privacy ever again if we continue to have to have an ip address, a cell phone with gps in it, etc. etc.? I don't think so. But maybe I'm just a skeptic.

[FOOT] I (heart) Novels

I love technology. I really do. And while I love this article, and I think it's great people are writing, this is not literature. In any form. This is whiny a group of people with self-esteem issues writing their diaries in public and getting paid for it. Yes, it's real in every way, but people are also aware of that now, so they'll fluff up their own stories.

Sure, the first girls story is cool, Mone. It had a sense of authenticity to it. And it was admitted to be this stream of consciousness diary. Which it is. And that's it.

I understand the times are changing and writing will be done in different ways, but there is a difference between spilling your guts on your phone and writing a piece of literature. It's different mental processes. The former allows lax writing abilities to pass as worthwhile, when all it does is hinder language from its most complex intricacies that make literature so worthwhile in the first place. The latter forces the creative insides come out and to use language in a way that is interesting and forces people to view things differently.

Leave diaries in 13 year old's closets.

Cool Education Reform Video

Definitely worth your 11 minutes of time. Focuses on the problem of our factory-like education system and how it's outdated in its approach and the problems within the way we standardize and don't focus on application enough.

[Foot] Great Films Post: Film Theory and Censorship

With so much in 129 pages, I chose two different sections of interest to focus on: The first is a brief overview of Film Theory and the second being Censorship.

(A brief history of Film Censorship. View a larger version here.)

Having seen several of the films listed during the first paragraph of movies that were censored in schools during the first wave of censorship, I honestly wasn't that surprised. Two of the films that I had seen that were listed were The Lottery and Bonnie and Clyde. The first of these I can definitely see being censored in a school. The film is based off the short story by Shirley Jackson and is, to be frank, quite gruesome. Being a short story, it doesn't offer much insight into the actual thematic details that a longer novella or novel could offer on the consequences and intricacies of the The Lottery. Instead, in its short length, it is just a haunting piece of shocking literature with little appetite for more depth. While an interesting discussion, it's basically the story of stoning someone to death for tradition's sake, so banning the film version of this does not surprise me. The second film, Bonnie and Clyde, is the story of the famous crime duo. While most of the film is just about that, the last scene of the movie is overbearingly bloody. This scene alone I could see being reason for it being banned in schools.

The section goes on to talk about the history of censorship and the basic fights for and against it, but not in too much detail, and were fairly obvious. Those for were parents who felt they should have a say, those against fought using the first amendment. Nothing was a surprise in either of these statements. But, this did get me thinking about my own view on censorship in the classroom for film and literature.

During our discussions on censorship in all of my education classes, I have staunchly fought against almost every single case of censoring a book citing the educational process in some way or that it isn't really all that touchy of a subject or something of that nature. The point being, I have always been very against censoring a teacher's choices in literature. But I'm now contradicting that ideal I've had by agreeing with these censorships. I definitely think both those films are rightfully censored. They're gruesome and serve no educational purpose from them. But does this mean that my viewpoint is skewed when it comes to literature? Or is there truly a distinct difference between the films and the literature I support?

I don't actually have the answers to these questions, but I'm definitely contemplating them these days. If I see the legitimacy in film censorship, what differentiates it from literature censorship?

Currently, my main argument rests on the difference between visual stimulation and written word. The way a film portrays something visually has a defined and concrete image to it, forcing it to be offensive if it hits the right emotive spots. Language, on the other hand, is a bit more amorphous than that. But then what about something like the Huck Finn censorship?

Is the word nigger automatically offense like a bloddy scene at the end of Bonnie and Clyde? I currently don't think so, but I definitely need to reevaluate that.

---------

In the section on Film Theory, I was most drawn to Marixsm, which focused on film in an idealogical manner and believed that it was an "instrument for social change" (pg. 66, Costanzo) Because of my main focus on literature, I most relate to this because it is how I view literature. By viewing film in this way, it shows how the writers, producers, and everyone else in the film reflect a current state of social norms or a revolt against them. Even in fictionally based films, they reflect their time period and are used to help perpetuate or change society itself.

I find this to be a very applicable and relatable angle to view film because it's also an important aspect of literature. By using images, film can give a more vivid view of life and really strike an audience member in a different, and perhaps stronger, manner than words can. These can help move the wheels of social change or help keep them stagnant. The marxist focus on how images evoke emotions plays well into affecting social roles and norms because it will help motivate people to think in a certain way because it is focused on exactly that.

What I am not sure of is how a marxist point of view would see documentaries, since they are directly meant to influence social change. Are they just the ultimate purpose of a marxist film critic, perhaps? I guess I'd have to study more film from critical view points to have a better understanding of this.

Several of the other theories interested me, such as Realism/Antirealism and semiotics, but didn't seem to delve too deep into them. In fact, most of the chapter felt very uninspired to me. Having read entire books on critical literary theory, I really wanted more information on each theory and how it works and famous criticizers of each theory, etc. Some of the more popular ones like Feminist, Psychoanalytic, and Cultural Studies got a full page or so, but it didn't even delve into the intricacies enough.

I think that all of this information can be applied in the classroom, though. Just like literary theory, film theory is putting on a particular lens and looking at a piece of work through it and then analyzing it using that perspective. Perhaps this "light" version of each lens is enough information to use directly with a high school student to get them thinking in different ways about films. I'll definitely be holding onto this book and have a sticky note on this section for future use in the classroom if/when I show a film and to hopefully help stimulate student thought in different manners.

[PYTASH] Chapter 5

Using song lyrics as poetry is one of the simplest concepts that seems to be overlooked by teachers. Not that the top 40 has the greatest lyrics going on right now, but that could also be something worthwhile to study -- the downfall of poetic justice popular culture gives to a listener.

The positive attitude she goes into it all with is also a key point I think is overlooked by a lot of teachers. I think a lot of teachers think to themselves "oh, the students are going to hate this, but I have to do it" and that ruins the unit for the students because the teacher isn't rubbing off their passion for the content onto the students. While a small part of the chapter, I think it's important to take note of her positive attitude.

The way she read the poems was: Poem->background information. Whereas with literature, it is often the background first. This is actually a solid idea. I can read about a poet and poem's background all I want, but if I don't know what it's about or understand the literary techniques employed, then it will go in one ear and out the other. By giving me the content first, I'll be able to interpret the poem and understand it and then get some background on it to reenforce or reshape my view on its meaning.