11/18 documentary analysis

the doc i watched was "flock of dodos". its primary purpose is an analysis of the intelligent design v. evolution argument and a charting of its genesis as creationism into a weapon of "scientific theory". within this is a singular argument, followed by a few sub-arguments. the argument: intelligent design is nothing more than an idea. it is not science, it is purely faith and is being posited as science in order for a few ultra-conservative/religious members of some school boards to avoid teaching scientific method. it further posits that evolution is under this kind of attack due to failures of communication among biologists. rather than speak as human beings, they speak in scientific jargon and it becomes difficult to follow the sheer amount of data proving evolution.

HOWEVER: the film does not demonize proponents of intelligent design. it meets with several school board members pro-intelligent design (or more accurately, against evolution) as well as some of the major national figures in the pro-intelligent design community. the filmmaker, former marine/molecular biologist-turned-filmmaker randy olson, goes to great pains in order to explicitly state that these people are not bad people, many of them are in fact great people who are merely uneducated and the onus is on the scientific community to change their discourse in order to accurately convey the truth of the theory in evolution. he furthermore states, through wonderful graphic representations, the importance of education in "filling the gaps of knowledge" in order to know the universe.

Olson's primary technique is humour: the title "flock of dodos" is a self-deprecating statement which can refer to his own scientific school (destined for extinction) or later in the film to the failures of intelligent design (famously defeated in 2004). he employs very few talking head-style interviews, instead focusing on human interviews with experts, lay-people, and his own mother's perspective. this is interspersed with humorous animations and historical footage on the subject.

it succeeds in its endeavours through that humor. it doesn't aim to preach to the intelligent-design masses, merely to point out that they can't participate in scientific discourse as-is simply because their "theory" is not a theory by the rules they claim to play by...it is instead a mere idea, untested and untestable other than by fallacy. the film also places a lot of blame on the over-intellecualization of evolutionary theorists, people who truly know what they're doing but are unable/unwilling to speak to the "common" man.

based on this film is the student activity of examination of argument. documentaries tend to have an interesting perspective because they often seek what is seen as a "wrong" and make an argument as to why it ought to be otherwise. errol morris' "thin blue line" or joe berlinger's "paradise lost" do this famously: they spot what they see as a social injustice (the wrongly-convicted) and make an argument in favor of release. my activity, therefore, is simple:

find an argument. in a documentary of the student's choice (or depending on context, among a list designated by the teacher) and state what the argument is, and how it follows the basic principles of communication. this activity would be prefaced on the basics of argumentation as a communication tool and the students would be provided with the characteristics of an argument. the student would then be required to go down this list of characteristics:

1. an inferential leap
2. a perceived rationale for the leap
3. a choice among competing claims
4. willingness to confront
5. an optimally shared frame of reference

within the film chosen, the student will be asked to go through these characteristics and show where/if these characteristics are present. from here, in groups of three, the students share their results: what are the common arguments they see? what characteristics seem to be shown? is the argument one of persuasion?

news broadcast dissection

broadcast watched: KARE 11, 6pm broadcast on 11/22/2010.

I started watching five minutes early, catching the end of the 5.30 national broadcast. this was the day after the large storm front of freezing rain/snow, and the pre-news promo was a blurb about the storm and a man talking about covering a 24-hour shift throughout the holidays to keep up. this was interspersed with pre-morning footage of snowplows and trucks driving down clogged city streets. this went for 30 seconds. it was followed immediately by news that Brad Childress, head coach for the MN vikings, had been fired that morning. A brief excerpt of an interview with the vikings owner was shown, and this lasted another 15 seconds to introduce the show.

the ACTUAL show opened with sports, and Childress being fired. Gotta be honest, it took Jim Hatten and Jack Nilles TELLING me who brad childress was for me to figure this one out. It went directly to the sportscaster offering his opinion on what is apparently the biggest news affecting Minnesotans...he dissected the owner's press conference as well as the players' reactions, in addition to the packers loss that resulted in the firing. then they went to the interim head coach talking about what he'll do to make a difference. this was two minutes.

second was a human interest blurb...on Brad Childress and an interview w/him and his wife. this lasted 45 seconds with one quote from Mrs. Childress, and then went into a whoring for the KARE 11 website, and how we can see the entire interview there as well as a sneak-peek at some grandiose holiday-themed series of interviews the co-anchor is doing.

total time for sports - 2 min 45 seconds.

then weather! it went to weather after a cutesy blurb from the anchors. it was all about fear of reaching holiday destinations and how MNDOT was unprepared for the weekend freeze. a brief statement about the weekend accidents existed, then a further blurb from the MNDOT rep of the promo talking about how they'll keep going.
--- and of course airports and ice, with a brief blurb from a MSP rep about how snow isn't an issue and won't stop them.
--- this was one min 30 sec, and then went to Belinda Jensen, the pretty apple-faced meteorologist dressed immaculately yet cutely in a faux-deerstalker get-up. she went into the fears for the next few days and how it will warm up briefly, for the snow to royally screw us. This went another 1 minute 40 seconds, including a cg map of the state and weather fronts, and pretty belinda's assurances that she'll work hard to find concrete answers to what weather the state will face over the weekend.

Tally, just covering Vikings and weather (are these really the biggest stories, you dunces?), nearly five minutes...

back to the anchors, a MN man who went to jail for pointing a gun at another driver during "road rage gone wrong" in St. Cloud. The anchor made a point of saying the victim had his wife and young children in the car. this went 30 seconds and went to a teaser for the commercial about the gubernatorial recount, and more about heavy snow incoming...

back in - MN supreme court ruling which OK's the recount for the election. this story, which included how ballots are counted and how that plays into the decision for the recount. 1 min 40 seconds.

state canvassing board and recounts, as well as dayton's current lead, 10 sec

twins mgr won an award for manager of the year and a contract extension, this went into "appreciation days" for the manager. 20 sec.

it segued, before i even realized what had happened, into "snowplow driver appreciation day" in WI, 15 sec.

then another commercial and another promo for weather/sports...again upcoming. and a promo for tech gadgets and holiday shopping. "what's new and what you need to know, monday night at 10." - 15 sec.

commercials on how KARE 11 is "walking to end hunger at the MOA nov 25th"

the news is back on - ND and MN and snowfall, low temp, and how the storm system also caused tornadoes in WI. 30 sec.

back to Belinda and weather - and her supposed "expertise" on weather, more about how weather incoming (completely rehashed from a whopping five minutes ago). current weather, road conditions, weather for tomorrow through thursday. more pretty maps. 3 min 50 sec.

back to randy shaver and sports - vikings and no playoff chance, childress fired and the players hated him. another blurb with the vikings coach and the appointment of the interim head coach. some lip service on some player named brett farve being an opening qb and more from the int head coach. 3 min on just pro football...high school football in the state came up next. college ball next. total time on sports, 3 min 55 sec and then more teasers for post-commercial. then commercials, starting with one for the NBC nightly news.

back to the news. anchor intros a story on christmas - the delivery of a 30-ft-tall spruce to the governor's mansion. where it came from, how much it weighs, how pretty it apparently is, and jokes about placing such a large tree. it closes on this. apparently i'm supposed to like them. this final piece, including pedantic joking, 50 sec.

it led into entertainment tonight, where apparently sarah palin's daughter is something worth talking about.

ugh. see my previous post on a news assignment for students.

news activity.

There will be an analysis of a news broadcast in the next few weeks, whenever I get to a television...

This activity is meant to be done over 2-3 days in small pieces. To be honest, I feel it's a good "pre-reading" activity in order to start an entire unit on media bias/marketing, and as such kept that in mind as a larger focus when writing this.


If it bleeds, it leads

Start with an introductory poll, either informally through class discussion, or in a written form (recommended) via entrance ticket - do you watch the news? Why or why not? If you do watch a news broadcast, do you choose a specific one regularly and is it for the news broadcast itself? If you don't, what is your reasoning?

From here, break the students into groups of 3-4 with an even mix of yes/no's between each group. Ask them to discuss/argue their reasoning on either side.
--- Example: Jeff watches the 10pm news on NBC solely because it's a lead-in to a show he does like. Amy watches the same NBC broadcast every night because she feels the show possesses a lack of bias and turns the tv off right after. By contrast, Jennifer doesn't watch anything because they don't spend enough time on what she's interested in. She instead looks at a few websites every day or so.

Assign each group two networks. Each group will view and make notes on the two broadcasts, comparing the two to see what each network does: do they devote similar times to the same issues? does one network broadcast seem to report a candidate (if applicable) that the other does not? The groups will pay particular attention to the lead-in hype (can be commercials pre-show or the first few sentences of the broadcast). What do these networks report on first?

Compare these two broadcasts deepy: do they follow a similar format/time structure? What is that leading story? Students will often find that the lead story is one of two or three things: corruption in police, local violent crime, or local dangerous weather patterns.

Pulling back into a large group, students will then all compare notes to develop a consensus between all networks: what does it mean when they open, and spend most of their time on, stories designed to scare?

Hrm...

apparently no news broadcast does torrents or online streaming. this is complicating things for someone with no tv...

sci-fi

my absolute FAVOURITE cinema genre is the sci-fi area.  This isn't because there are very many good examples, but purely because it's the area with the most promise.  It's an area that divorces itself from films roots in drama and literature, becoming a purely cinematic style.  Films such as "Metropolis", "2001", or "Dark City" truly show just how far film as its own unique form can go in terms of creative expression.

Unfortunately, it's also incredibly easy to make a cheap, bad sci-fi movie.  In the earlier days of cinema, this was easy to spot: something like "This Island Earth" or the slew of pulp monster movies were based on the principle of "man-in-suit terrorizes bad actors". More recently, it's become a source of knowing humor. Make the worst science fiction movie you can, and it moves away from bad into funny:




With the advent of CG imagery, it's become more dicey.  It's hard to tell if it's good or bad based solely on (for example) a trailer, requiring you to actually see the movie to figure it out.  Dips into sci-fi horror with movies such as "Underworld" fit this to a tee.

Conventions of character don't exist as a whole, but in the more by-the-numbers example, you'll often have the intrepid space-farer, hard-bitten cop looking for that something weird, etc.  This protagonist often has a flimsy background in which he is the best at whatever he does, but lost someone as a result of his job.  combined to this is often the damsel in distress who outwardly SEEMS as powerful as the protagonist, but quickly falls into the one who must be saved when actual trouble comes up.

See "Event Horizon" for the epitome of this.  Horrid movie.

No matter how you look at it, science fiction depends on one element: the "other".  For the purposes of cinema criticism, the term becomes more of a jungian catch-all for aspects of self (or, sometimes, other characters) which are unknown and therefore terrifying.  The best science fiction embraces it in a way only the Western has been able to do.  "Metropolis" had the mysterious people living in the city, those who seemed nefarious and proved to be mechanical in origin.  Their enslavement of humans to keep the world running was the critical point to the film.  "Dark City" inverted this: humans lived in a seemingly normal world, but there were strange oddities about, which proved to be the product of a strange and mysterious group living underneath, powering the city as a part of a grand social experiment.

Setting: the most common setting is ELSEWHERE.  Space has become the most common area to set science fiction in the last fifty years, due solely to the fact that it is considered the "last frontier".  I mentioned above that the genre embraces "the Other" as a point of conflict and only the Western did the same.  The key similarity here is that both the Western and Science Fiction work because of the frontier mentality.  The other exists on the fringe or outside of society.  It is that which is unknown that we are wary of.  The western's death, it can be argued, is due to the settlement of the west by what we call civilization, leaving little else to the imagination.  It's hard to imagine the Indian as "Other" when we've cut away propaganda and have learned that the Indian is merely us.

Space is the most common, but far from the only area.  Our own world, while commonly considered "known", is in fact still filled with mystery.  Films such as "The Abyss" capitalizes on the fact that we know less about our ocean floor than we do about the moon.  It hypothesizes intelligent life far beyond our own capabilities living on the bottom of the sea, and the threats it can pose us.

Quite often, technology advancement is the key point behind science fiction...but not always!  Areas such as the post-apocalyptic film "The Road" can be argued as science fiction, and engage themselves solely based on the LACK of technology.  That which is different from our own familiarity becomes science fiction.  It can be more accurately stated that "technology differences" from our own norm is the commonality.  Even sci-fi dealing with supernatural elements (think "Underworld") deal with technological innovation to solve the key problems.  While the movie was certainly god-awful, you can't argue that they deal with classical horror conventions (vampires and werewolves) and embed a strong science-fiction principle in their fantastical weaponry used to fight them.

The basic features of the story:

The characters may be flawed or classical, but the common link between them all is resolve to deal with the problem at-hand.  While they are well-versed in the advantages of the technological marvels around them, it is their strength of character that defines them as unique: Captain Kirk isn't just the best with the technology around him...he's a stunning judge of character with a brilliant mind, and this is how he wins.

Problems almost always deal with death: either unknown forces outside of the frontier attack us as a species, or the frontier itself proves to be an adversary (2001 makes famous use of this).

The two basic assumptions going in: first, the world is more than what we can see, more than what we know.  What is outside our comprehension can kill us, or aid us.  Only understanding creates benefit.  second, our technology is the key aspect to our world.  Taking it away will devolve us into monsters, adding more will aid us, and the "Other" will always be able to overcome it.

Its goals: its primary goal is often in allegory.  The films will argue one of two things: either our path of technological innovation will save us, or it will damn us.  More recently, the latter view has fallen away, and the commonality in much of modern science fiction is that our technology, and our resolution/ability to use it wisely, is what will save us as a species.  More classically, it's been far more cautionary.  Science fiction can trace roots all the way back to early mythology.  The most famous example is that of Prometheus, he who gave fire (technology) to man was punished for allowing us to use that which should only belong to the gods.  This was continued not only in stories but in popular feeling til the modern day, seen most powerfully in "Frankenstein": here, man LITERALLY plays god with his use of technological innovation, and it kills him for having the nerve to play in a god's domain.  Within this, of course, is Dr. Frankenstein's struggles.  Note that he looked upon his creation with horror.  When faced with the sheer power of what he'd done, he couldn't act and use his creation responsibly.

Lesson Plan/Activity:

A history of the genre!

First, in groups of three, the class will brainstorm 3 ways which technology helps them, and 3 ways it hurts them.  These instructions should be kept this vague in order to allow the student to see it as he/she sees fit...anything from "my cell phone lets me talk to friends more" to "automobiles kill more people than the bubonic plague" become acceptable.

Second, in a large group, we discuss.  Each group lays out their three of each category, and they're listed on the board.  A "master list" is created.  The top three from each side.  Then they're examined: imagine the flip side to each one.  Example: the cell phone lets you talk to friends more, but does it invade into time you could/would be spending in more productive, happier ways?

Third, we move into the aims of science fiction.  Can we take them "literally"?  If not, what purpose do these stories serve?  What do they tell us about our own society?

Choose three science fiction movies and examine: what do they enlighten to us about our own world.  This enlightenment can be based upon society or purely technological innovation.

Examples:

Metropolis
Dark City
2001
Star Wars

What does this "other" mean?  Who do they REALLY represent?  Authority?  Chaos?

haven't forgotten...

i'll be posting something in-depth on fantasy/sci-fi/horror in cinema.  probably tomorrow or thursday morning, whenever time allows.  from there i'll build a powerpoint with google docs...i'm so excited?  I've never used web-based presentation stuff successfully before, but google doc seems a lot more stable than the norm, so it shouldn't be aggravating or anything.  I'll post a link to it through here as well as through the wiki.