I can understand why people love horrors and thrillers and movies that make you jump out of your seat. It’s a weirdly satisfying feeling being scared to a point where your heart feels like it’s going to pop out of it’s chest. But can anyone tell me what is so appealing about watching someone suffer from having their rib cage torn open like a pair of butterfly wings, watching blood seep out of them as they scream from the torment? Why would anyone waste $13.50 to watch people getting dismembered and tortured and sliced and I’m really going to throw up thinking about it. Gore is probably one of the most disgusting and offensive movie genres I’ve ever had my displeasure of witnessing with my own eyes. The “Saw” movie series is a light example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. These movies are just the epitome of stupid, disgusting and just I don’t even have words for it like why do people even WATCH this? What is so great about watching people being held captive and tortured and having their guts spill out and being forced into situations where they make themselves suffer?!? Why? There’s even discussions about them on the internet about which method of torture is better. Like what the heck goes on in people’s minds? There’s a list of The Top 10 Best Traps from the Saw Series. This legitimately scares me. There are people out there who enjoy this and probably are crazy enough to make these twisted and sickening fictional movie ideas a reality.
‘Saw’ isn’t even the worst of it’s kind. There are way more gore-y films out there that shouldn’t have had the right to see daylight. Like “Tokyo Gore Police” about a police force that has authority to brutally mutilate people on the streets. Things like penises getting chopped off and faces being ripped straight apart a person’s head with a wine bottle like is this serious? Do people enjoy this? I lost my appetite writing this post. That’s how bad it is. You have to be a severe nut case to enjoy a movie like this, let alone create one. I am also very afraid of even posting this because of my fear that I will offend someone who absolutely loves this and will kidnap me and do all this crazy stuff that I don’t even want to think about now.
-Sapere Aude is a Latin Phrase meaning “dare to be wise/ dare to know”.
One has to obtain information and experience so that conjured thoughts may be as enlightened as possible.
… and by Cerebral World Cinema I mean films that are thought provoking and produced in non-English speaking countries (usually not in English). It is safe to assume that this genre of film will have more artistic quality as well as depth than the commercialized “blockbuster/ Hollywood” style. This is not to discredit those that do come from English speaking countries, as I feel cerebral movies in general are amazing.
These movies are harder to produce and generally don’t render high dividends but they do provoke emotional responses from viewers, even though they require an intellectual understanding first and foremost. This type of film is heavy and therefore tends to turn many people off as the topics are real, strange, graphic, and have a tendency to grab social issues by the throat. The work can be humorous or dark, but regardless, requires attention to detail.
Subtitles and tendency toward dense subject matter causes difficulty in distribution, as many people, after a long week of work and such, enjoy being audience to more simple cinematic styles. I particularly enjoy this type of film because it is visually stimulating and the subject matter is forceful and inspiring. This is not American Pie. As a writer I have found, many times, that the films open me up and get my creativity flowing, translating into many poems and memoirs over the years. Another reason why I like them is because the topics have range and can be unrelated to me, allowing for an open eye, whether of positive or negative opinion, on the subject. It opens a window of experience and learning without always having to encompass personal relevance.
Here are some examples: Some films that have found acclaim, popularity and financial success are:
I present successful films first, specifically to open the door for you and let you choose where to go from there. Two, less “successful”, options are:
Won Bin in The Man From Nowhere Source:http://www.imfdb.org/images/c/c4/TMFNWGlock17.jpg
“I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/quotes)
These are the famous words of Bryan Mills, an ex-CIA operative who mercilessly rips through kidnappers and human traffickers to save his daughter, in the action film, Taken. This type of film is one of the many reasons my favorite movie genre is action.
There is something so cold and deadly about a man with a gun and revenge on his mind and I am such a sucker for father/daughter relationships. I especially love how Bryan (Liam Neeson), in the movie Taken, put on his cape of ruthlessness like I would imagine the Cape Crusader puts on his cape to fight injustice in the dark of night: Effortlessly. Yet, what makes Bryan so amazing in this particular action film is that he is able to be a desperate father as well as an ice cold machine that could torture a human being and leave it for dead. This dynamic is unique, I feel, to action films and this is why it is my favorite genre of film. It is interesting that a desperate human being could put that desperation and pain aside and focus on the goal in order to take care of a situation. It is fascinating that out of pain can come anger and such targeted ice cold hatred.
Action films also depict what a human being is capable of when cornered. When a human being is cornered, it usually fights until it dies. It becomes a ferocious animal who has nothing to lose. And a man who has nothing to lose can cause untold chaos. This is the type of man seen in the Korean film, The Man from Nowhere.In the film, an ex-Black ops officer, Cha Tae-Sik, turns into a depressed hermit after his wife and unborn child are crushed by a truck driven by one of his enemies. He is only able to watch as this tragic event happens and it is befitting that as he watches he gets shot twice in the chest.
It is a credit to actor Won Bin (Cha Tae-Sik) that he was able to, in that moment in the film, portray utter devastation after realizing and accepting what had just happened. With only his eyes he was able to portray how dead inside he instantly became after witnessing the death of his beautiful, pregnant wife. For the rest of the film, his eyes were so unfeeling that one could feel through the screen that a part of him had been ripped out forever.
After a few years of solitude, Tae-Sik comes alive for a little girl, So-mi(Kim Sae Ron). Her mother is a cocaine addict and a prostitute. So-mi takes comfort from Tae-Sik who reluctantly but lovingly makes her food after school. So-mi is then kidnapped by the drug dealers who provided the cocaine for her mother. After she is kidnapped right in front of Tae-Sik, he goes through a transformation. He cuts his hair, dusts off his gun and he goes after So-mi.
Tae-Sik becomes an animal with dead eyes who just kills with cold precision. The moment when he turns into a ferocious animal is when he is led to believe that So-mi is dead after the head honcho throws her eyeballs at him. In that moment he does not allow himself to break down. Using a gun and a small knife to defend himself, he easily discards the minions and fights his last opponent, who just happens to be the only challenge he encounters in the film. In the battle, Tae-Sik is cold and precise. Yet, as he stabs, claws and bites down on his opponent he looks as fierce as a lion with a gazelle in his mouth. And he never stops, not until his enemy’s eyes finally glaze over with death.
The final moment that made this the most amazing action film is when Tae-Sik realizes he killed everyone but realizes it does not matter as he once again failed to protect his loved one. He then gets down on his knees and puts the gun to his head ready to kill himself. But then he hears So-mi’s voice. He turns around and there she is safe and sound and he cries in relief. No scene in a movie, not even Rocky reaching the top of the stairs, has ever produced such a passionate jubilation in me.
These types of feelings are rare. I find I can only experience this type of emotion from action films. In these particular films the transformation from a loving, protective father to a cold vindictive killer was very fast and seamless. I like this exploration of what a cornered, desperate human being is fully capable of. The motivation for the actions of Bryan and Tae-Sik in their respective action film is very noble but it is how easily they can flip the switch and suddenly become a ruthless monster that really sets these films apart for me.
I cannot think of any other genre of film that delivers edge-of-your-seat excitement while at the same time providing an insightful look at the human psyche. Can you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9xT73R0bL8
Image found on imfdb.org. No copyright infringement is intended.
I have a love-hate relationship with romantic comedies. Some films in this genre take the fairy tale fascination the world has to a totally unrealistic place. Yet it’s also great to find a good Rom-Com withcharacters that make you feel and laugh!
My (newest) personal favorite isFriends With Benefits. This was the first time I saw Mila Kunis outside of her 70s show persona and she was spectacular! She impersonated the perfect Rom-Com heroine: gutsy, hilarious, and vulnerable all in the span of 90 plus minutes. Her character paired with Justin Timberlake’s, who had relatable human faults, was perfect.
One of the many reasons I am a fan of this and other romantic comedies is that in the midst of the typical love storyline there are many real human elements. For instance in Friends with Benefits the movie includes a father-son relationship whose issues stem from Alzheimer. The fact that Justin’s character has trouble connecting the person his father was with the person without memories he is now is heartbreaking and inspiring all in one. The connection is eventually made but not without its own trying journey.
Romantic comedies also provide an incredible amount of laughs and insight. For instance, anything Jennifer Aniston is usually a rom-com and is usually funny and endearing. He’s Just Not That Into You was a great film because it played on women’s expectations of dating and how out of touch those expectations can be. It also bridged the gap between what is a fairytale nurtured expectation and what you really want out of a relationship, i.e. Jen Aniston’s desire to get engaged in the movie.
From the first page of the blog, it showed supporters of general democratic ideals weathering out the rain. Cardboard signs were protected by plastic bags and umbrellas as these die-hards showed off their zeal.
Of course your crazies with crosses were present, but for the most part, those who appeared, were there to show their support or disdain for the democratic party.
The photographer, Doug Mills, took an approach where the snapped photos were taken from peculiar angles. One that stuck with me was where a reporter’s legs can be seen through the bow-legged stance that the cameraman has taken. It reminded me of all the work that goes into making events such as this readily available for all who have a connection to some sort of media outlet.
Another shot focusing upon legs is one where a woman is having her snapshot taken in a photo booth.
All-in-all, the lens blog of the democratic convention’s first day seemed to revolve around various players getting ready and it ended with a powerful picture of Michelle Obama, standing tall after her speech as the crowd gives her a standing ovation.
The first photo of the second day of the convention is one that is particularly striking. It shows a young black woman with a sign that displays “yes we can, again.” and next to her is a young man in an Abe Lincoln suit whose sign proclaims “Republicans for Obama.” To see such a cast of characters come together around Obama is astounding. One may usually think that democrats and republicans are beasts who are constantly at war, but one can see that bi-partisan politics does not mean that republicans fully subscribe to Romney and vise versa.
Another photo that struck me was one of technicians cleaning up the stage in preparation for Bill Clinton’s speech. I found their attire to be quite amusing. They themselves looked like speech givers from the angle of the photo taken, but closer inspection reveals that they are cleaning the teleprompter, not reading from it.
Another photo that reached out to me was one of a Michelle Obama Barbie doll. It made me wonder what kind of games one would play with that kind of a doll. Perhaps a mock-up white house with a plastic Will Smith figurine (yes, they exist!!) as Barack.
After a few of these candid shots of people from the convention, the photographer then gets serious, posting a slew of photos from various speeches and of course, Slick Willy’s speech.
The third and final day of the convention blog begins with Obama accepting his nomination as the Democratic party’s representative for the 2012 election. Like Michelle’s photo, this one is taken from behind and above him, which gives a scope to just how many delegates were there supporting the O-man. After that photo, the others reverted back to the “people on the street” mentality.
A man was shown carrying a bundle of commemorative tee-shirts that laud Obama’s nomination. I wonder what would happen to those shirts if another democrat had gotten the nomination out of left field.
Someone would have lost a lot of money and I bet that they would be shipped off to some third world nation where the message of shirt is lost, but the warmth and comfort of clothing is not.
Multimedia Round-Up:
I have never covered an election. I followed the McCain Obama race back in 2008, but I never followed it via the internet. It was interesting to see the various articles and interactive features from the NYTimes coverage of the DNC. While tuning into a televised program may give a viewer their own perspective on what was said, the Multimedia Roundup done by the NYTimes delves much deeper than your ordinary analysis.
One tool created was the “At the National Conventions, the Words they Used.” This device measured what words were most prevalent in every 25,000 words spoken. In simple terms, it means that they tracked issues and recorded how many times either times the republicans or democrats stated it. Jobs was almost an even subject, with democrats speaking about it eight more times than republicans. Another popular phrase was “Obama,” which had been stated over 175 times by democrats and 66 times by republicans. Then of course it is funny to see that words like “faith,” “fail,” “spending,” and several other terms with negative connotations rested on the republican side.
My personal favorite piece was the analysis of Obama’s speech-he references to the fact that the republicans listed all the problems of this nation (as seen in the interactive word search).The journalists who covered the speech did a word-for-word transcription of Obama’s speech and then analyzed it and gave comments on the side while a video would play an actual recording from the day.
Overall, I felt that the coverage of each convention was done very well, so long as one is savvy with the internet. When I had asked my grandfather to take a look at the work of the NYTimes from my laptop, he felt that the clutter was too much for him to even look at. So while we may have ultimate coverage, perhaps it may be better suited for some to just tune in.
As I was looking for a story to focus my blog I became overwhelmed, there was just so much coverage. The Times alone had dozens of slideshows, videos and blogs. Its great publications are taking advantage of the technology available and I think reading a newspaper online is more entertaining than watching TV.
My favorite part of the multimedia coverage was the photo slide shows. Photos capture the moment. They have that iconic quality where one photo can really tell the story.
The slideshows I liked best were from the Republican convention. I thought the RNC slideshows really captured who they are. I also loved the Backstage at the Democratic Convention slide show. The black and white photos were beautiful and presidential. There was one photo of President Obama backstage during Mrs. Obama’s speech that I thought was interesting since I was wondering where he was at the exact moment that photo was taken. Now I know.
I don’t believe it’s possible to have too much coverage of politics. It is important to document events like this and for people to have a choice of how they view news but I think the media should be doing more fact checking and bringing complex issues to the public’s attention. Smaller publications like Pro-Publica and RealClear Politics often offer more in depth reporting.
To me, the most important coverage and my favorite part of reading an interactive newspaper are the readers’ comments. In The New York Times readers can vote for their favorite comments, the best comments rise to the top of the list, and you can read peoples opinion on a story from across the globe.
No matter what type of coverage makes The New York Times, I wonder if it a necessary or important. Hasn’t everybody already made up their mind who they are voting for?
The New York Times’ social media is doing a wonderful job on covering the National Democratic Convention. Facebook has been a great social network for them to present about the Democratic Convention and perceives people’s reaction on it.
In last week, The New York Times mostly posts on facebook about Democratic National Convention in Charlotte and Bill Clinton, Obama and Mitt Romney’s convention speeches. I think, The New York Times has been successfully using facebook to engage people and to continue breed the social network by people’s participation. And People are responding regularly and enthusiastically on Times’ facebook site, giving their comments on the convention, and most importantly, leaving their opinion in positive and negative both way.
Multimedia “round-up”
I have been always impressed by The New York Times’ multimedia coverage. I feel that they like to provide effective pictures, slideshows and videos to not only in their news paper and online news paper, also in blogs, twitter and facebook. As a consumer, their multimedia coverage is able to tell a story to me by itself. Although most of their multimedia cover on Obama and Democratic Convention, they also provide some coverage on Romney.
The Caucus Blog is all about the latest politics and government news. Every day, bloggers post, update, and inform their readers. As a blog, it is not necessary for the text to be just fact and news. At times, bloggers would voice their own opinions and perspective on these events in their post, and it is very clear that the bloggers are mostly pro-Obama.
Last week, the Caucus Blog was consumed with posts about the events from the Democratic National Convention. Bloggers discussed about the convention speakers’ speeches (e.g- Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama), the issues Obama would address if he became president, the issues Romney would address, the candidate who would receive the Latino’s vote, the relocation of Obama’s convention speech and other election matters.
As a news consumer, I found the blog to be interesting and informative, however very one-sided. I would preferred it if the New York Times would do a little more coverage on Romney. Browsing through the blog posts, I noticed that there was an vast amount of posts about Obama. They provided so much information and background on Obama that I think the same courtesy should be extended to Romney as well.
MULTIMEDIA COVERAGE
Politics and I have a rocky relationship. I prefer to work “hands-on” rather than reading, writing, and listening. When it comes to politics, I have yet to find a way to motivate myself to understand politics “hands-on”. However with the multimedia round-up, there is still hope.
The New York Times did a phenomenal job in creating a more efficient and lively way to read and follow the news. What interested me the most was how they deconstructed the candidates’ speeches at the DNC allowing the readers to follow and comprehend them at their own pace. The deconstruction went as far as to showing the candidates’ speech via text and topic order. The New York Times even incorporated tools such as slideshows, videos, and social networks to make the experience more enjoyable. Connecting with social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, gives readers the chance to comment and voice their opinions and views. But my favorite tool of them all, the solution to my “hands-on” politics problem are the interactive features. I find them easy to use, fun to play with, and very helpful.
It seems the election’s heat spilled onto the realm of social media–especially evidently observed in twitter.
I was awed by the technology at first, about the way New York Times organized the multimedia and social media, everything blending well with one another. As soon as you click the button of -The Time’s Political Unit on Social Media, upper right hand corner from the politics section on its site, you will see the opinions of journalists about the currently ongoing election.
Twitter has been amazing in that it allows people to casually bring out and express their opinions on the election and the candidates. The social media has broken down the barrier between election issues and young people, because it is easy to “follow” the election phases, which can make the convention more engaging. I, myself, am honestly not familiar with the social media system. Also, I do not see me as a person who would follow the news on the election. But, mainly due to the convenience and the accessibility, I began to read and follow the comments made by the journalists–all thanks to the social media.
The New York Times reporters were so active posting about Democratic National Convention. From September 4th through September 6th, many NY Times reporters seem busy writing posts about democratic candidate’s activities. Due to styles of Twitter, the reporters tend to write short catchy sentences to grab reader’s attention.
Especially, Jodikantor’s writing style caught my eyes. Her writing style demolished the young people’s prejudice of election.
Many young people tend to avoid the election issue but her twitter really entertains the young people within just one sentence. She did not fully explained about the activities but we could just get ideas that she was trying to tell us. It was short but has everything that we needed to know.
The reporters seem to know what they are writing about and the comments are well-written with humor and it has touched me to have more interests in the issues. These reporters would influence reader because we can anticipate that the reporters have more information than we do, and because their comments could influence our thoughts and behaviors. Each one of follower is a voter and we could follow who you want to choose.
OK, I’m not a professional photographer or anything but I know good pictures when I see them and the ones in the photo slide show were subpar at best. I feel the pictures were supposed to be from the viewpoint of those in attendance at the Democratic National Convention. The New York Times wanted you to see the DNC from their eyes and if that’s the case the DNC looked boring as hell. Now don’t get me wrong, some photos were very powerful but some were poorly taken and made me feel like I was with some of the attendees bored as hell in Charlotte waiting for something fun to happen. I looked through the photos slideshow for each of the days of the DNC and decided to let you know about one Hit which was a memorable photo and one miss which was a memorable photo because it sucked. DNC Day #1: Hit of the day is picture #23 showing Michelle Obama being greeted by a cheering crowd at the convention. The MISS of the day in that slide show was picture#4 which was a very amateur picture of a reporter’s legs with the caption “A television reporter broadcast from a spot on the convention floor”. The pic really looks like a 2 year old took it, and who knows, maybe one really did. DNC Day #2: HIT of the day was a very provocative picture, it was picture #3 and let’s just say that there is a shadow that resembles a part of the males anatomy that rhymes with Venus (don’t believe me go check for yourself and post a comment and tell me if I’m right or wrong). The MISS of that slide show is the picture of Nancy Pelosi standing at the podium. Now the reason that it’s a MISS is because you don’t even know its Nancy Pelosi because all you see is her shadow and the bottom of her pants (real nice photography work). DNC Day #3: The pics were pretty good, but of course there has to be a MISS (no slide show is perfect, except maybe mine but that’s another story). The hit for this one would have to be picture #27 which shows President Obama, the first lady and their two daughters. It’s a very beautiful picture that shows family unity and gives you such a warm tingly feeling. Now the MISS of this slide show is #17 which is a pic of Scarlett Johansson, now you may be asking yourself “how the heck can a pic of Sco-Jo be a MISS, everyone loves Sco-Jo”, well the pic only shows the back of her head and I’m not such a fan of hers that I can tell what the back of her head looks like but I’ll take their word that is was her(some of you Johansson fans could probably recognize her bun from anywhere but not me).
The most flawless slide show would have to be the one that showed BEHIND THESCENES OF THE DNC. Now those pictures were definitely professional and what made them stand out was the fact that they were in black and white which gave it a very historic feel. I truly wish whoever took those pics would have taken the pics of the rest of the DNC instead of letting a group of grade-schoolers run wild with their cameras which is what the majority of the pics in the slide show looked like. All in the all the photo slideshow wasn’t impressive and I expected a lot more from a respectable publication like the New York Times. Guess they need to hire some more interns; hope to see the announcement at the Starr Center in Baruch.
MULTIMEDIA ROUNDUP
Well, I will be honest and say that I did not hear any of the speeches of the DNC. Ok, ok, I’m going to be even more honest and say that I didn’t even watch the convention so this Media round up of all the speeches was perfect for a guy like me that wanted to hear what everyone was talking about. It allowed me to select sections of the speeches that I wanted to hear so that I could act as if I heard the whole speech and really I just heard the juicy parts. Out of all the social media the times tried to employ during the convention, this was by far the most useful. I would like the thank the times for allowing a person that chose to watch Netflix on the night of the DNC the opportunity to act as if he watched every speech. it made me proud to be an American(Insert salute here).
