Lecture 4 'Nothing New'

This lecture was an introduction to the concept of intertextuality which is the idea that nothing is truly original, everything is influenced by the past. This suggests that, as a model designer, i will never be able to come up with a new/original idea because i will always be influenced by things i have seen or learned about by way of unconscious intertextuality; this means it is not it my control, it will happen without my knowledge.

The other kind of intertextuality is self conscious intertextuality, this when things are referenced on purpose. This is most familiar to us in films and on TV. Shows like 'Family Guy' are full of references to films, TV and aspects of American culture. This kind of intertextuality only works if the knowledge is shared and the sign can be interpreted by the viewer. This is sometimes a problem with shows like 'Family Guy' which rely on these references (signs) for a large part of the humour and having not lived in America and watched American TV i do not 'get' all of the jokes.



Still form family guy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Family-Guy-4ACX29-Evil-Tree.png

This still from family guy id referencing the scene in 'Lord of the Rings - Fellowship of the Ring' where Gandalf is fighting the monster in the Mines of Moria. This i understood and found funny because i had seen the movie.

Still from family guy, http://www.flixster.com/poll/fav-person-on-family-guy

This still is referencing the character in the advert for Kool Aid which we do not have in this country and i had never seen before. This example of intertextuality didn't work on me because i did not have the knowledge to understand the sign.



Intertextuality is not just imposed by the author/designer/film maker it is laid on by the viewer. I may see references in things which aren't intentionally or otherwise there. For example in the lecture Ivan showed us an picture he'd taken of a landfill site which reminded him of the Pyramid of Giza.



Landfill site                                            Pyramids of Giza

This is a reference which Ivan has imposed onto the view, the men working at the site did not intend on creating an impression of the Pyramids and the Pyramids were not designed to look like a land fill site 5000 years in the future. The control has shifted from the creator to the viewer, the artist cannot control how his work will be interpreted no matter how much he tries to push the viewer in the right direction.

Lecture 3 'Reading The Signs'

This lecture and following seminar was an introduction to Semiotics which turned out to be far more complicated than i thought. I went away from the lecture thinking 'yer I've got this' but after the seminar i was totally confused again but whatever. I looked at it again and its a bit clearer now.

For this entry i thought I'd have a go at analysing an model/character because this is what i have to do if i choose semiotics as my essay subject. I have chosen Gollum from' Lord of the Rings'.


Gollum, 'Lord of the Rings', http://www.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/movies/the-lord-of-the-rings_gollum_1024x768_11512.htm

 Denotation - What is it?
Humanoid male
Distorted facial and body proportions - large eyes and ears, small stature, hunched back
Thin
Semi-naked
Dirty

Connotation - What it suggests
He's wild, lives outdoors
Not part of society
Evil or mad
Malnourished
Good hunter - large eyes and ears

Myth - Its ideological/political meaning
A feral creature that would do anything to survive, more animal that human: it would act on instinct and would not understand human emotion or be able to empathise with people.
An outcast from society.
Appears to have once been human but has adapted to its new situation and so its body has changed/evolved to be more suited to a more animal-like lifestyle.


This whole thing is slightly skewed because i have seen the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy and know what Gollum is like. I find it hard to distinguish between connotation and myth because one leads to another. I think for the myth you look at all of the connotations you have drawn and deduce the myth from them as a whole.

Once i got my head around the concept of semiotics i started seeing signs in everything, down how people dress and how they walk. they want to send you a message using their clothes and body language which may be subconscious or purposeful. There are signs in what people choose to express and what they want to hide. For example someone might where a t-shirt with the name of a band they like on it, they where it to show other people that they like this band, because they think that band is good. Other people see the t-shirt and draw connotation from this; they deduce their musical preferences and start to deduce their personality.

 For model making semiotics becomes slightly more complex as there are two sets of paradigms; one for the model itself and one for what the model is of. E.g. the materials and workmanship of a model building and the style and design of the building that is being modelled.



Scale model of 'The St Francis Towers', http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=323215

E.g. A model of 'The St Francis Towers'

Model Paradigm                                                            'Real' Paradigm

Accurate proportions                                                     Modern building style

Well made                                                                     Skyscraper

Good use of materials                                                   An office/place of work not

Realistic render and finish                                             a residential building

Lecture 2 'Can You Tell What It Is Yet?'

This lecture was about realism and how it has evolved as technology has improved; from artists impressions of the world, to photography and now to computer graphics and robots.

Over the weekend i watched 'Avatar' which made me think about the idea of realism and whether i thought Avatar was realistic. I know that there is no planet called Pandora and no Na'vi people and because i know that its a fictional story and know that it was created on a computer i can see that it is not real and i notice the CGI effects. But i thought if a complete outsider watched Avatar, who didn't know what CGI looked like and didn't know that it was a fictional story, would they believe that it was real, would they be fooled by the hyper-realistic graphics.



Neytiri, Avatar screenshot, http://www.fanpop.com/spots/james-camerons-avatar/images/9473020/title/neytiri-photo

Because you have to admit it pretty damn realistic, especially in a still from the film like the one shown above. The shadows on her skin and the wispy bits of hair escaping from her braids are just right, and when you watch the film the movement of the characters is perfect, at no point is the illusion broken by jerky or unnatural movement.

I also watched the film 'Coraline' which creates the illusion of realism in a completely different way. Instead of aiming to create a replica of the real world as in Avatar, Coraline's world is obviously an invention.



Coraline screenshot, http://www.andywhiteley.com/blog/category/styles/stop-motion/

It is purposely made to look unreal; the proportions of the characters are wrong and they're movement is unnatural. The plot of the film is also fanciful; Coraline travels to this other world through a portal in her house into this alternate universe where nightmarish events occur, this is again opposite to Avatar where the story (although perhaps a bit extreme) is believable.

And this made me think that if Coraline had been done in the style of Avatar, hyper-realistic characters and setting but kept the same bizarre plot line, how this would change the effect of the film on the viewer. The film is meant for children so nothing that nasty happens or at least the scenes are not made to be frightening. But if it was made to look like reality, i think the whole genre of the film would change from being a quirky kids film to something verging on horror.



Coraline screenshot, http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/screenshots/coraline?movieid=8685



Model of 'Other Mother' final form, http://paulpapedesigns.typepad.com/nougat/2009/03/other-mother-final-form.html

 The 'Other Mother' shown above is a demon who abducts children, cuts out their eyes and locks them away to die. Her final form has a cracked skeletal face, her body is high up and bulbous like a spiders abdomen and her hands are enlarged and made from lots of sewing needles. The 'Other Father' also shown above, is a creation by the demon and there is a point in the film where it looks as if he is partly melted (its hard to explain, i'm annoyed i couldn't find a better picture) and becomes a zombie character that wants to capture Coraline. Its sounds a bit silly, you kinda have to see the film but i think that this is a fairly terrifying concept and if it were made into a film as realistic and believable as Avatar i think i would have problems watching it.

I find the most realistic horror films the scariest, 'The Ring' for example; a lot of people i've talked to did not find 'The Ring' at all scary because you don't see a lot of the monster. To me this film is really disturbing because it isn't silly monsters under the bed it's everyday life and everyday objects which you can't just tell yourself aren't real. I now have issues with TV's and static which i'm not sure will ever go away, i'm really glad video is dead.

Lecture 1 'This Rough Magic'

This lecture was an introduction to the module and mostly talked about what we are going to learn about. Ivan showed us a few short films of early examples of special effects which where interesting and pretty funny, they looked quite good to me but this could just be because the quality of film was so poor compared to what we are used to today. This got me thinking about how good special effects have to be these days with the kind of technology that is available to film makers.



Children of Men, explosion with Clive Owen,  http://www.dvdactive.com/reviews/dvd/children-of-men-special-edition.html





Ivan mentioned how in the film 'Children of Men' there is a scene where Clive Owen is on the street and there is an explosion behind him (shown in above image). He said that he'd noticed that the traffic on the road was CGI and that the fact that he'd recognised this meant that the illusion was broken. This meant that all the work by special effects team had been almost pointless, because the moment you recognise that something is special effects and stop believing its real means they've failed in their aim.



Screen shot: Fantastic Mr Fox, http://ramascreen.com/fantastic-mr-fox-2nd-trailer/



This made me realise how realistic my models have to be in order to fool people into thinking they are real or at least suspend they're view of reality, as i did watching the film fantastic my fox. Everybody knows that the film is not the real world but after a few minutes you forget that you know that foxes can't talk and they don't have jobs and go to school. You allow yourself to be fooled and temporarily accept the film as reality.