From an Outsider

   I don't know if any of you are reading these posts anymore, or just writing them, but there is one last thing I wanted to address; adulation.
   Over and over in class Prof. Leeper would bring up a person or style or company and a group would cheer. I am concerned with your level of infatuation. When someone mentions "Pixar" and the animators rejoice, it could be fine. It could just be that you trust them and like the work in general they produce. When you begin using them as the scale, though, it does not seem right. Pixar is not, must not be, the be-all-end-all of animation. From the perspective of an outsider, your adoration honestly looks like idolatry at some points.

   Of course, this is not just a problem with animators. The live-action folks have their pressure points, too. When you hear "Robert Duvall" or "Speilberg" or "Serkis" (or "Star Wars," for that matter) do your ears prick up? Are there not companies you dream to work like or for or with? When you hold a camera, are you thinking about how one of these directors or DPs you have respected for years would shoot the next scene?
   I first became aware of this problem with myself in September. The movie "Dead Poet Society" was mentioned by Prof. Leeper. I had just seen the movie (twice) and really, really enjoyed it. I realized after class that maybe I had put too much on that film. If I was that thrilled when someone liked it, would I be mad when someone did not?
   That happened later that week. I forget what class, but someone talked about how ridiculous that movie was. And I was mad. I didn't understand why they didn't see how great it was.

   My point is, it is all well and good to respect and look to other people, but watch how far you are going. Like I said earlier, these are the views of, basically, an outsider. But, isn't it the outsider you are trying to reach?

Allow Me to Introduce...

   Music videos are a great way for bands to introduce themselves to the public. Thanks to the internet, this is relatively easy. It also makes it easier to share with friends. It's less awkward to sit and watch a video together than listen to a song. You don't know where to look. (Isn't that what digital media is all about? Telling you where to look?)



  Years ago I saw the video above. That video introduced myself and my family to The Piano Guys. We shared the video with family and friends and have made dozens of fans. Now they have a website and pages of videos. Yes, the videos are of them playing the instruments, but they are amazing anyway. I have watched their budget and technology increase until they are able to do things like this:

   As we saw today, though, sometimes all you need are a few people, ingenuity and a camera or two to make an entertaining and clever music video (it gets better):

Brief Thoughts about Today's Videos

Let Forever Be
A bad dream about the dreaded repetition of life. You know that state where you know something so well you can't explain it? This lady has reached that point. She is trying to explain her life to herself, but the dance is too complicated and there are too many voices floating around. The noise, too, grown unbearable.




Sugar Water
Wow. The timing. Beyond the stunning visuals, though...
This was the calmest video we watched, and by calm I mean least emotional. The girls had confidence and worked together. Even the "accident" was a team effort. There was little confusion, little interaction with other people. It was very focused.

Clint Eastwood
This one held a lot of pain and confusion, hopelessness and loss. Eyeless, larger-than-life, animated, the little peppy member, the crowd cheering them on, the Satanic symbolism, the one kid's tongue; the band definitely held a creep factor. It was beautiful, though. I could empathize with the "characters." Who hasn't felt useless? Who hasn't felt the future must hold something better, because nothing could be worse? (Click here for another, 2-D version.)

Hurt
This is a song of painful, forced surrender. He is literally pouring his cup, his life, out before us, or God, or whomever you take the recipient of the song to be. Coming from a respected man, the message is jarring. You begin to ask yourself the questions he is asking. The variance of images added to the credibility of his wisdom in making this choice of surrender because you can see that he has truly lived.

Glosoli
Why did the kids follow? What was the army for? Was he leading them to dream, home, or simply to faith? They were from all over: good and bad, homeless and educated, friendly and lonely. The boy is a good leader. The followers are confident. There is joy, love and peace.

Hoppipola
First, there is humor. Humor yields hope. Joys of youth can be revisited. As a student trying to become a respectable adult, this was a message I needed to hear. I also felt disgusted. Roucous people with white hair seem worse than those still ruddy because we automatically have more respect for the elderly. The inset frame was cool, making it look old, like the people. Maybe it was a story the old people were telling their grandchildren, and this is how the young imagined it: their grandparents actually doing the youthful things instead of younger versions of themselves.

Revisiting Children's Media

    My youngest sister drew this for me when I went home last week. (The caption reads, "Violins & graphite images on children's TV,"  if you can't read it.) It reminded me of why I have such respect for children's media. Like this picture, it is able to address important issues without being overly offensive or revolting, or long. It should also include pictures. Children's media artists must be clever and creative, but forthright and honest. These are good qualities. To quote Einstein, “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

The Left

   One of my favorite Lewis quotes comes from his book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Peter and Susan are talking to the old professor about what to do with Edmund and Lucy and the business of Narnia. "Logic!" he says. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"

   The logic of the professor and the logic taught to students are, I argue, two different sorts. The professor uses circumstantial logic, flexible logic, the sort of logic that allows one to gather evidence and act upon it.If A=B and B=C, then A=C. Taught logic is I-said-so rationality. If A=B and B=C, then A=C, and so on so that A must also equal D. The professor would at this point ask, "Now, have you known A to be equal to D before?"

   "No, sir," you answer. "A has always been comparable to B and thus to C, but never D."

   "Well, then. Let's take a closer look."

   "But my teacher tells me A must be equal to D to follow the pattern."

   "Have any other teachers told you this? No? Has he said anything else you have never heard before? Really? My dear child, just because someone has a degree does not mean they know everything." He has you sit at his desk and pulls out a pipe. "You see, if something has proven itself it can be trusted more than what has not. Use you mind. You don't have to think what you have been told."

   "What am I to think, then?"

   "It is not 'what' but 'how.'"
   "I don't want an F."

   I honestly think we have been trained to think in a rather bullying system. How often do you want to say something that you believe makes sense, or ask a question about something that doesn't, but you don't say anything. You are always mentally grading your character. You see life as a test, and so does everyone else. You need to pass this test.

"Is this a test?"

   So what does this have to do with the left? It's the left side of your brain. Over and over in my notes I have "Get. Out. Of. The. Left."-like messages to myself. Beware rationality, beware trying to get the correct answer, be wary of claiming you have the answer (and I told myself I wouldn't bring this up, but you people blogging about sex and acting like you have the answer that will solve all problems is getting on my nerves) and actually see what you are looking at for what it is. This is what the left side wants. Try being right for once.

Essay, Quiz 2 - Artist

   We watched Artist in class on October 8th. The reading was "Children's Media II: Politics of Media." In Artist we have a girl of about twelve, her brother, and the father. If each character is assigned a role, there is a decent allegory of the political battle in children's media. The girl is the media artist. She sees and hears the world in a different and exciting way and wants to share it using the most basic of tools. Her brother is the child. He can almost see, but is afraid to because of the father. He would represent "most TV reform groups" (Changing Television: Why the Right Does It Wrong). She persists, however, and eventually her brother is bold enough to take the father outside and show what a beautiful thing her music really is. That is when the father stops hearing just noise. I chose this film mostly because it reminded me of my youngest sister, who always hears the music and rarely the politics. Attaching politics to children's media is just as treacherous as keeping it out. Telling kids there is no music is just as risky as telling them it's everywhere.

The ______ Who Was a ______ Inside

   Below are thoughts on "The Dog Who Was a Cat Inside." I use "Dog" and "Cat" but know they could be replaced easily with "He/The Male" and "She/The Female," or different personalities, or maybe something else.

   Dog begins in a tree, letting Cat act but hiding at the same time. The constant struggle between Dog and Cat meant neither gained much ground. Neither could ever totally ignore the other one, although sometimes Cat would turn off and let Dog do Dog's thing. But when Dog turned off Cat was left to ponder life.

   Don't think Cat wasn't confused, too. Would it be better to stand up and make Catself known, or let Dog do what Dog wanted since Dog was bigger and more noticeable by outsiders? And better for who?Once Cat is recognized by a cat, which is bliss, but Dog wants to dominate and scares the other cat off.

   Even if not all of us have personally encountered a struggle so violent as Dog and Cat, rejection is something we all relate to. Letting Cat show was inevitable; so was the rejection.

   The mouse is the unattainable goal. Cat longs for it but cannot have it because Dog is not built for hunting. Even if Dog wanted to give Cat the mouse, Dog could not. The mouse is left to follow and taunt.

    Now, you would think Dog and Cat would be happiest when they found another Dog and Cat. Surprise! Opposites attract. Cat finds Dog2, who knows what it's like to be on the inside, and Dog finds Cat2 who understands what it is to carry two personalities. If you put two Dog and Cats together the Dog and Cats will just complain to each other how terrible life is living like this, and encourage fighting and/or letting loose. When you put a Dog and Cat with a Cat and Dog they are able to relate, building empathy and love for each other and their entire selves. Two Dog and Cats would focus on commiseration and become a bigger mess.

   Notice Dog and Cat did not morph, did not turn into CatDog and flaunt the conflicting nature, but just needed someone who understood. And Dog and Cat had to wait for it.

   The wait is the worst part because until it's over you are so very alone.

First Impressions

   Did you know "Sand" came out five years before "The Sand Castle"? Who inspired who?

  

  "Sand" was my first exposure to the apparently well-known story "Peter and the Wolf." I thought it was a good story. Yes, it was dark, but I like tragedy and black so it worked for me on a personal level. On a professional level, the execution was great and the story startling when paired with the "music."

   This, paired with all y'all's blog posts, brought up a conversation in my head about the importance of first impressions. If you understood the Disney version as the "right" story, the "original," it is your standard and I am sure this "version" was less appealing to you. This conversation really started a while ago. Remember "Circuit Marine" and how surprised we were at the content of this children's short? If we were Spartans we probably would have laughed at the weakness of the captain, and if we were pacifists we would have been appalled at the weapons being used so brazenly, or if we were animal rights activists we would have been upset simply by the act of fishing without a license. My point is culture has a lot to do with what we see.

   Cultural views were brought up in "The Owl Who Married a Goose." Some of us laughed and some of us were saddened at his untimely but obvious demise. It also comes up any time a book is made into a movie, or a movie is remade, or a movie is written as a book. This issue of first impressions arises any time we look at media. When I was young I thought animated stuff was for us kids and live action was for the adults, or at least those over four feet tall. Even today I struggle with those preset ideas. Some of you have mentioned you are possibly too used to Disney to really appreciate some of the films in class. This is the danger of relying on first impressions.

Sharing is Caring

   At home this weekend, I had the opportunity to share some of the videos from class with my family. I explained some of the discussion we'd had and then talked about it with them. Now, they are not nearly as interested in media as I am. We were still able to have a good conversation. Also, it was fun to hear my younger siblings quoting lines from Hedgehog in the Fog, especially "I'm totally soaked. I'll drown soon."

   It has also been a practical application of our discussions about children's media. The kids are 11, 15 and 17, and they all liked the "children's films" I showed them. They, too, were a bit taken aback by Circuit Marine. My brother really liked The Sand Castle's opening, where the spiral forms in the sand. He requested to watch it again the next day. As you might have noticed, Hedgehog in the Fog was a hit. I think we watched that one three times. They have also been randomly whispering "Happy Pagwa."

   While maybe not the ages targeted by the children's media people, my siblings enjoyed, engaged and appreciated the short films. They don't care about the symbolism or allegory or message. (That's not entirely true: my brother was pointing out characters' similarities between films, comparing sand creations to the other shorts.) That doesn't mean they aren't going to remember it, or use those images to make better sense of something down the road. It just means they don't need to study it to use it.
   No, I did not share Fridge.

It All Ties into Creation

   The thing that stuck out to me most in Hoedeman's short films was each character having its own sound. In Tchou Tchou, these combine to make sounds of life. Bizarre life, but life. We connect with these blocks on an interesting level. I mean, who wasn't rooting for that ladybug when he got stuck on the ramp? We all wanted him to make it up. The Sand Castle gives each a more musical character. They come together, make music and dance.

   Using music to advance the story is something still used frequently. What is different is it is eclipsed with words. These animated films, with fantastical characters and no spoken dialogue, represent a grand form of storytelling. Age and gender barriers dissipate, and music is a language we all speak. Now, with a little effort you can come up with some nasty things to say about them. We live in a broken world, and nothing can be perfectly clean or innocent.

   By telling stories in such a universal manner, we are looking at a time gone by (and coming again) when there were no barriers. In a time where everything is good and innocent, all media will be children's media because there will be nothing to hide from them.Even the violence and evil of history will become like the soft, remembered pang of death in the film with Ludovic. It will be worth remembering, but not worth devoting an entire work to. 

   Much as I enjoyed Co Hoedeman's short films in class, I wish we could have seen some of Frederic Back's work. In particular I would like to watch Tout Rien and discuss that, along with the quote from his interview: "The problem today is that there are no more artists and thinkers at the head of organizations, only bureaucrats. . . . They have no ideas to offer. They don't take risks--and artistic creation is always taking a risk; you can't guarantee how it will come out, there's no safety in art." I think Tout Rien is full of risk, but most of it is not recognized until suddenly it has all gone south and it's too late.... or is it? Spoilers!

Duel, Duel, Purple, "Duel"

   Two things I wish to say, there are. The first is an agreement and response to some of the blogs below. The second is a pondering from Duel.

 The point has been made that children don't always understand what they are seeing. The question is whether this should be taken into consideration. My brother saw Star Wars before I did because I was eight and he was only a few months old. Does he remember this? He might tell you he does, but he doesn't.  Did it affect him in any way? Nope. Very young children, if they are conscious of the screen, may begin to develop a certain feeling toward an image or a sound, be it fear or joy. I would argue they are generally immune.
   When old enough to see upright and actually pay attention, things change a little. When I was about six, we were watching The Princess Bride, which contains the greatest sword-fight in cinema. I liked it. My mother did not. She turned it off. Why? There was a bad word in it. Where? What was this word? She didn't say. I watched that movie three or four times before she pointed it out. I had never noticed.

   Without getting into too deep a story about my childhood, it has been my experience that young children do not notice something until it is pointed out to them. When it is, tone makes all the difference. Kids, including myself, had no inkling anything was "wrong" with Tinky Winky. I saw "him" as a sexless being, a thing in the television with no notable life or agenda. Just a cool slide. Imagine trying to explain homosexuality and sanctity of sex and sin and God and innuendo to a two-year-old without totally freaking her out about the color purple for the rest of her life.
   I am not saying none of this matters, or that it isn't in media. I am just wondering if we should tone down our responses a bit.

*   *   *   *   *

   (This will be shorter, I promise.) I noticed in Duel one book that the kid read of his own choice was a Jules Verne novel (I didn't catch which one). Why was it destroyed? What about Verne was not appreciated by the education committee? Those books are full of science, adventure, wonder and joy of life. Was it simply because it was fiction? Was there something wrong with the content? Are novels no longer appreciated in school? Is there something about Verne I don't know? If anyone has an answer, please tell me. I am terribly curious.

Also from experience; kids don't need to be taught to
point bright things in their faces. That's natural.

Just Talking to Myself

   Long after literature for adults has gone to pieces, 

books for children will constitute the last vestige of storytelling, logic, faith in the family, 

in God, and in real humanism    -  I. B. Singer

   Is this true?

   See, I'm struggling here.

This was my favorite part

   Most of the kids' books I walk by in the library I don't bother to pick up. When I do, I remember why I stopped. There is rarely something I read and think, "Wow. Someone cared enough to write this book." No. Most of them look like stuff I could write in ten minutes, or something a single only child wrote after attending a seminar. Childish drawings, short (and often repeated) words, "popular issues" and crude humor litter the pages. Books have turned into awareness campaigns for animal cruelty and bullying and racism.

   Are these books for children, or are they so someone can feel they earned a few yard-high members for their cause? Are they so preschoolers can stop global warming with your book as their campaign poster?

   I have decided I agree with Singer. The catch is this; the books have to be written for children. Not for children to, or for children with, or for children so that, but for children. Written in the manner discussed in class, where it is a person speaking directly to a child.

An example of solid illustrating

   One apparent flaw in this method might be, "Well, if it's for this one kid, how are other kids supposed to relate? You need a conflict that is understood by all kids." Yeah. Sure. Because all kids can relate to a hobbit or a mouse or a kingdom. Maybe not, but they know what it's like to have strange people barge into your home and how it feels to be lost. They know how hard it is to be small and the youngest. They know what authority is and how it can be used. Believe it or not, they even appreciate good artwork. Kids know the tone of familiarity that lies in a story told direct from the source.

Do you recognize this one?

   Or, look at it this way. When you have a great experience at camp or on a mission trip, you don't hide it. You tell the story, even though others don't have the same background. If you are any good at telling stories and/or have good friends, they will listen.

   The only reason you tell someone a story is because you care. As long as people love children, really care and not just have general awareness and concern about their survival, we have hope for humanity. Once that love is lost or otherwise outlawed, we are done. Humanity is done. The end. Kaput.

   I'm glad I had this talk with myself.

Animation is Fairytale

   

   I mean, think about it. Fairytale, we have decided, is what you get when you transform the ordinary into something extraordinary. It's when what's wooden holds a forest, the rabbit hole a croquet game. Fantastic happens when you realize it's bigger on the inside. Impossible is reality the moment Elfland comes into view. Now, none of these are concrete reality, so none of them can be recorded by conventional means. We rely on the animators to drill down and tell us these stories.

   









   Photographs and live action can only document what is there. They are the experts at showing the inevitable and the surprise, the tragic and comedic. What they cannot do justice is the abstract. (Anybody who is in DM155 may understand what I mean.) We look to the animators for that.

    If you ask a painter, a videographer, an animator and a photographer to give you an image of a leaf or a rock or another concrete noun, who do you think will give you the more clear image? What about joy or grief or the Holy Spirit?

    It is in the abstract the animator is most treasured. They possess the uncanny ability to take from their mind and translate it into something we can all see and understand without really knowing what it is we are seeing. By "knowing" I mean how we are able to know a rock. It's pretty obvious and you can study it. With the fantastic, brilliant realm of all things unfathomable before you, there are a lot of options and few limits.

   This ability in itself is like a fairytale. Your mind is an object known to science. The magic it makes will never be. You rock, dudes!



(This post began as a comment on Isaac's blog; go check it out if you haven't read it yet. Lo and behold I felt loquacious and wanted to add pictures, so here we are.)

Lost First, Found Later

   When your upsides go downside your insides come outside.

   I heard that line in church last Sunday, and I think it relates extremely well to one of our sub-discussions today; the matter of finding and losing oneself in art. Art, good art, confronts and challenges. It may not confront everyone, and not every piece will challenge you. Sooner or later you should find one that does. (If not, reassess your reading habits.) What happens in the process of disorientation and relocating direction? Let's break it down.

   Other than the art and your eyes, you need to begin with a basic understanding of what direction you are facing. You are sure of where and how you stand, and this is important. These are your upsides, and they determine how you see what is before you.

   Next, the art challenges you. You begin to ask questions. When you ask questions, it is because you don't know the answer. You are questioning your stance. If the piece is particularly baffling, you may even look for a compass. Your upside has now changed direction. This is the downside.

   Your insides are your character; convictions, history, emotional status, thought pattern. These get tossed about a bit and may fall out. This can be painful. You now have three options. One: leave it on the floor and walk away. This is going to leave you without some essentials and you won't live much longer. Two: pick it up and stuff it in and hope nobody saw you falter. This leaves a tangled mess that you can learn to cope with, but consider choice three before you decide to endure it. Choice three is this: look at what you are picking up. Do some science. Figure out where it came from, why it's there, if you need it, if it needs mending, or if it was in the wrong place to begin with. Asking these questions is the process that leads you back to yourself.

   "Pain is weakness leaving the body," a camp counselor told me once. Ironically, I broke my arm a few minutes later. Instead of trying to act like it was all good, I panicked. It hurt and I was scared. I asked God to show me how I was to grow from it, and He delivered. I didn't look for that pain, but I am so glad it happened.

   How do you handle confrontation? Do you see it as an opportunity to understand better who you are and why you are this way? Or do you try to stay cool even though you know you need some reorganization but are afraid of the pain? It is the lost who have hope. Those who know where they are have no use for it. You have to be lost before you can be found.

Invisible Ink and a Squeegee

   Imagine a window. The stunning country view is framed perfectly, and you really want to share it's wonder with some friends. Facebook happens to be up, so you send a group message, and soon you have a half a dozen people or so in your home. They take turns looking out.

This isn't stunning, but that's why you have an imagination

   The first friend admires for a second, then starts pointing at the flaws. That plant is dead, that cloud is too small, that propane tank is ugly, whatever. As he does so his clean hands manage to smudge up the window a bit. You shoo him off and let the next one have a turn.

   "I admit it's lovely," he says, "but the glass isn't smooth enough. It's too old. You need a new window." He runs his dusty hand along the ripples in the old pane.

   Friend three uses his grimy finger to draw a face over the barn, not bothering to take a good look, and walks away.

   The fourth fellow decides the window is to smeared for him to look correctly, and goes home.

   Your fifth friend lives in the middle of Chicago and has rarely seen farmland. "I'm sorry the window has gotten so dirty. I don't suppose you want to look out any more."

   He smiles and says, "That's ok. I'll just step outside."

   I stand with my notion that most people have over-legalized Christianity in films. Truth is a wonderful thing, and needs to be shared. The audience has to be willing.

   Some viewers say Christian media must be perfect in order to properly represent the Perfect One, or the viewer has to be perfect. This is boring and distorts reality more than our eyes alone. Reality isn't perfect. By presenting a perfect world or expecting a perfect audience you only distance the viewer from the story.

   Some flat out don't care. They hear "Christian", or not, and do what they want. These people cannot be helped until they want to be, so ignore them. They are "bad readers" and not worth your time.

   Others have heard so much negativity about Christian media they aren't even willing to give it a chance. I find myself slipping into this prejudice often. Unfortunately, there is a base for these accusations.

   Every once in a while you have an audience member who wants to see truth, and is willing to go a little further to find it. They can move around the mess others have made and see it for what it is. This is the sort of audience we are to be.

This is a dangerous job

   Please, criticize what you see. Analyze it and think about it. Don't swallow it without reading the label and risk poison. But when you write your report, understand that others are watching, and how you talk about something matters. Jesus came to "testify to the truth" (John 18:37) and we are called to the same end. Go ahead and find the truth, but pick your pen carefully when you write "Christian"; not because it isn't, but because we aren't here to label. We are the window washers.

Stained glass is beautiful, but difficult to see through