On Saturday March 8th I went to the American Sabor Exhibit at the EMP.  I spent most of my time there dancing to music in the listening booths with my friend and watching the music videos.  I discovered a new genre of music that I really like.  It is called Reggaeton.  Reggaeton originated in urban areas of Latin American and Carribbean countries such as the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico.  Reggaeton blends Jamaican music influences of reggae and dancehall with those of Latin America, such as batchata, bomba, plena, and merengue well as hip hop and Electronica.   I love this style of music because of its beats by a drum machine.  Before I knew what the genre was called, I knew that it would be perfect for the merengue.  The artists rap in Spanish, with some English.

My favorite artists that could be considered Reggaeton are Daddy Yankee (Puerto Rico), Pitbull (Cuban American from Miami), Kat DeLuna (Dominican Republic), and Sean Paul (Jamaica).  On Saturday I was very happy to find out the artist and name of the song Gasolina by Daddy Yankee.  I think it’s very interesting to find out what countries the different artists are from and think about all the different musical influences coming from African rhythms, indigenous styles, and modern culture and technology.

Sound-script explanation
My new sound-script would use a young woman’s voice, instead of an older man’s.  The narrator would use most of the original scripts, but change the French names of the places where Amelie’s parents work to common American names or an English translation of the French words.  The narrator would speak in American English, instead of French.

My Research Question
How does the nationality or language spoken, gender, and    age of the narrator affect the delivery of character introductions and how audiences of different nationalities, genders, and ages perceive these characters?

My Claim
All people are conscious of nationality or race, gender, and age, no matter how “color-blind” or unprejudiced we would like to idealize ourselves to be.  This consciousness is an anthropological trait belonging to all human beings.  A narrator’s power to sway or influence an audience in different directions comes from the degree an audience member can connect with them.  When the language/nationality, gender, and age of the narrator is changed, the cultural feel of a film and the audience’s perception of the character’s introduced will be altered.  This claim is reasonable because I think the film Amelie contains many elements that give the film a French or Parisian feel, beginning with first voice in the film, that of the narrator.  When the narrator is Americanized, that feeling could vanish.  The claim is risky because some people could argue that the nationality, gender, and age of the narrator is irrelevant because there is universality in the message of Amelie.

The Stakes
The stakes are mainly cultural or national.  Is is possible to change an audience’s opinion of characters by merely using a different language?  Do people subconsciously stereotypes of different cultures or nationalities?  The stakes are high because I think many people don’t want to be associated with any cultural bias that could change our interpretation of characters, but my claim and sound-scripts could give evidence that it can.

The new sound script vs the multimedia composition
My new sound-script will augment my clip and strip it of it’s “French feel” and fatherly tone by Americanizing the language and changing the narrator’s sex.  I think that many Americans believe that the French language is beautiful and charming.  When Americans watch this film in its original state, they might romanticize the film further because of the language.  When the narration is delivered in English, will Amelie lose it’s magic?  A young female narrator could have less credibility as a storyteller compared to a wise old man because she could lack crucial life experience.

Artifact
I think I would use Kozloff’s Introduction because she writes that most of her research has been on American and British narrative feature films.  She commented that French filmmakers often use narration to comment upon or subvert Hollywood patterns.  I think her writing could help me in my analysis of this French film, and my attempt to change its culture.  I am also considering finding books from the library about how French cinema reflects French culture.

Questions
My question is to figure out whether my research question really contains a general subject, time span, place, a body, and a social issue.  Also I’d like an opinion on if keeping the original script, but changing the language, sex, and age of the narrator is enough change to have a significant effect.

My quote comes from page 316 of the Cruz reading.

“I would argue that the possibility of mutuality of interests and needs implied in the concept of reciprocal learning could be more easily realized if it were not tied to any notion of service.”

The author would argue that volunteers and the people in need of help would both be more satisfied and get what they wanted if the volunteers were not focused on serving the people. Cruz believes in reciprocal learning. Both the volunteers and the people “in need” should be sharing a positive experience in which both sides truly understand each other and what each side wants and needs.

Our definition of service is: “also of a man, to have sexual intercourse with (a woman).” This could also apply to same-sex couples. This definition is functioning in the Cruz quote because when two people are having sex, it would be ideal for the two people to have mutual feelings about pleasing each other and how they want to be pleased. They should want to have fun exploring, instead of feeling that there must be a specific outcome of the sexual experience. They shouldn’t feel like they have to be having sex with their partner or “serving” their partners sexual needs. They should be doing it because they want to and need to. This definition of “service” implies mutual understanding and giving.

    People such as Robert McKee bash voice-over narration by saying that, “Any idiot can write a voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character.”  He objected to the use of voice-over narration because he believed that film is a special medium of art because it has the capacity to convey information nonverbally.  According to Kozloff, “…some saw in speech the death of film art.”  Some people think of film as strictly a visual art, in which speech and dialog should be kept to a minimum.  They believe film should be expression without explanation.  It should “show” you, not “tell” you what’s going on in the story.  Kozloff wrote that, “…because of association with authoritative, voice of god narrators, voice-over has been charged with enforcing ideological biases, restricting the viewers’ ability to interpret onscreen events freely for themselves.”

I think Kozloff feels the need to defend voice-over narration because good narration is art.  She believes the cinema is an audio and video experience.  She defends voice-over by tracing it’s history.  At the turn of the century films were watched while a lecturer narrated.  She goes on to describe many films throughout history in which voice-over narration was in vogue and highly influential.  She uses contemporary literary theorists Jeffrey Youdelman and Bill Nichols to make the point that, “in many circumstances narration is a more forthright, honest approach to the subject matter than pretending that the represented scenes speak for themselves or that editing is noncoercive.”  She also quoted literary theorist Wayne Booth, who wrote, “‘showing’ is just as manipulative as ‘telling’.”  Voice-over narration needs to be defended because using it implies an implicit recognition of the spectator.

I am not too familiar with voice-over narration, because as Kozloff explained, it often passes the average moviegoer unnoticed.  After reading the article though, I remember hearing voice-over narration in “It’s A Wonderful Life,” “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” “A Clockwork Orange,” and “Fight Club.”  I remember that in “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” the narrator was an unknown voice that introduced the characters.  In “A Clockwork Orange,” the main character was narrating his own experience of a different place and time.  I have only seen three of the countless films she mentioned in her writing, so her writing does not intersect very well with my familiarity.  However, I am now inspired to see some of the films she mentioned.

I’m not quite sure what film I am considering for analysis.  I am searching for a film with voice-over narration that had a influence on my life.  I have never seen the film Amelie, but I am in love with its soundtrack music, so I think I will watch that one as soon as possible.

In Erik Davis’ article I was introduced to a completely new concept: acoustic space. I had never thought of sound as a dimension, but now I think it is quite fascinating. I learned that hearing and seeing are two conditions for experiencing information. The rise of acoustic media, especially from the internet, is giving people the chance to experience the world in more variety.

The first question I have about this article is about the meaning of subjectivity. The author uses this word countless times, I had to to find out what it meant. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “subjectivity” is the noun derivative of the adjective “subjective.” This means, “1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2 dependent on the mind for existence.” So subjectivity would mean the personal feelings, tastes, or opinions that are influenced.

This is the quote I chose from Erik Davis: “I’m really talking about different dimensions of the kind of subjectivity that we produce in networked environments.” When I read this I think it sounds very abstract, there is no solidity. I can’t make a picture of the meaning in my mind. The sentence sounds complicated because there are many polysyllabic words. I like the repetition of the “d” sound in “different dimensions.” I really have trouble understanding what this phrase means.

My favorite idea in the article was that when sound surrounds you, you become immersed in it and it can be stronger than a visual experience. Sound can be all around you, but in a visual experience, you can be distanced by not being able to touch it. I agree with his statement that sound produces atmosphere and carries vectors of mood that can change the qualitative organization of space. Sounds and music can change anything that you are looking at.

Part 2: Megan Nordstom

I thought it was great to listen to her 3 podcasts about before going to the boys and girls club and during here experience there. It was powerful to hear her voice telling me about her experiences. Putting her human voice with the words made me connect to it more and sense a person, rather than if I was reading her paper.

In the podcast, she talked about the kids using the volunteer tutors to do their homework for them. That sounds like the tutors did not understand how, or were not patient enough to teach the children how to do it themselves. I hope that I be different. She also said that there wasn’t that much to do and she felt bored. This made me make a goal that I never want to be bored there. My goal is to always be engaged and interacting with the children.

One of my favorite parts of her portfolio was her third podcast. She talked about a girl teaching her to knit. I think there is a lot children can teach us.

The quote I picked came from her response paper 1.2: “When viewing the movie a second time, with no sound, the movie almost seemed pointless to me.” The word “pointless” really sticks out in the quote because it has such a negative connotation.  Therefore, I think of the quote as having an unsatisfied tone because the viewer feels empty watching the film clip without sound.  This quote relates directly to Erik Davis’ article. I think they go well together.

Myself and about 15 other sophomores, juniors, or senior from the Seattle area were Cabin Leaders at Waskowitz Outdoor School. It was for one week during March of 2007. Fifth and sixth graders from many different schools come with their teachers to spend the week in the forest of North Bend, Washington on the Snoqualmie River.

Our job as cabin leaders was to get our cabin groups excited about being at camp and help them bond with the other kids. We had to help them learn teamwork, how to respect nature, and help them get over homesickness.

It was a very positive experience and very productive. Our cabin won the Smokey Bear award for cabin cleanliness and spirit. The girls all became friends and I made a new friend with my co-cabin leader.

My Camp Waskowitz experience will help me with service learning at the Boys and Girls Club because I was working with children there. It was interesting to see how much they want to be like you, so I had to be a good example.