I recorded my 2.1 to use as an artifact in my portfolio (I’m not entirely sure I got the podcast upload figured out, but I’m giving it a shot!)

Ains

 

 Ainsley's Response 2.1: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

1. The portfolio addresses course outcomes by being extremely specific; each outcome is a tag which she addresses specifically in each response. The outcomes are spelled out from the course syllabus, and she responds to each, explaining how she fulfilled them. We don’t find this to be particularly creative- it is very straight forward. The outcomes are told to the audience first, and then shown how they are fulfilled.

2. The portfolio provides evidence from her writing and Jentery’s feedback.  She quotes  lines directly, and often provides examples of her writing before and after revision. Her responses are also available as artifacts on the portfolio.

3. The rhetorical strategies which were most effective included her writing style (her writing and organization was extremely meticulous and uniformly laid out), her use of examples in her writing and the easy to read format of her portfolio.

4. 1. Her theme could have been more tangible (we didn’t really see one). It would have made reading it more interesting.

2.  Her writing style could have been more creative or light hearted. Right now the portfolio is extremely plain and down to business, there was nothing which drew the audience in and made us want to keep reading.

3…

5. We learned about the importance of theme and creativity. It makes for a much more enjoyable read. Good organization also appears to be essential for a portfolio. Sarah’s was extremely easy to follow, even if it wasn’t the most exciting read.

6. 3.2; it covers all the bases, but isn’t super creative.

Purpose of Sound Script

The new sound script I will write for minutes 3:00 – 6:30 of Moulin Rouge will be written such that it accents the strong emotions and signals produced by the non-auditory signals within the clip. I plan on investigating how emotions and depth and things are portrayed silently by filmmakers, and writing a narration which doesn’t crowd out these signals. The audience of my new sound-script will be the same as for the original script, though hopefully my script will prompt them to look at the movie more intellectually and such. I think the narrator of my sound-script will be a detached female voice, instead of that of the protagonist. Instead of carrying emotion and other implications, my sound-script will lay out only the barebones of what is physically taking place within the film, leaving depth to be inferred from the visual signals.

Research Question:

How does the movie Moulin Rouge portray emotion and dimension to its audience within the first scenes of the movie without the use of sound?

Main Claim and Why it’s Neat

In my major paper I will claim that emotions portrayed by images can carry extremely complex implications, and that visuals are powerful tools that need to be analyzed. In my paper, I’ll attempt to downplay the importance of voice over narration (somehow, I feel like I’ll end up arguing that voice over is a cop-out, but I’m not sure that’s what I want to do). My claim is risky because it does just that; my claim minimizes the significance of voice over narration, and might try to prove that voice over can eclipse what is being portrayed visually.

Stakes

My claim is important because it is broad and risky. The stakes are hight because I’m attempting to say something big: essentially that images are powerful to stand almost alone. My sound-script will embody that claim by removing from the voice over most it’s affect and implications.

How New Sound-Script will augment/critique/complicate the Moulin Rouge Clip

The visual signals within the clip from Moulin Rouge that I’m analyzing are extremely strong, and are used to convey feelings and depth (through the use of blue tinting, short spastic clips, etc.). I feel that these clips don’t really need a narration which adds a whole extra layer of dimension (thereby suppressing some of what the images are conveying). My sound-script, instead, will force the audience to focus more attention and emotion on the visual aspect of the film.

Artifact in Support of Sound-Script

I’m not entirely sure how it’ll work out, but I think it would be neat if I incorporated a bit from Illich’s “To Hell With Good Intentions.” It might be a bit of a stretch, but seeing as my new narrator will not be a character within the film, she will be speaking for the others in the film. Which is risky, and therefore is better off minimal – which is what I’m going to try and write my script to be?

Questions

It’s safe to say that I have a large number of apprehensions about attacking this paper (not the least of which being that a friend is coming from across the state to visit the weekend before it’s due). I’m not entirely sure what I’m getting myself into with this claim, touting the importance of visuals over a narration. It seems like I’m attacking a fairly big claim.

Well, I thought Alcoff’s article was fairly fantastic. My pdf has about as much text highlighted on it as it has unlighted. And I think I can forgive her for making me use my dictionary widget.

In regards to our blog prompt, it seems to me Alcoff laid out her points extremely well (she rarely threw a curve ball- her case was laid out fairly systematically). Sure, she didn’t bash us over the head with a “right” answer to issues which arise from speaking for other people, but she provided me a lot of food for thought. I found the begining of her conclusion a little sketchy though- I’m not sure where I missed the link between the content of the body of the paper and her claims authorship, but I must have.

The paper was extremely dense, and there’s no way I’m going to be able to reiterate in a blog post everything I took from it. From what I gather, the trials and tribulations of speaking for someone are one and the same as those that come with “service”. Firstly (though I think it was her second point), there is this huge complexity. Our world is not a department store with a shelve for each person, place and event. Everything is intertwined, misconstrued and fuzzy. From the reading, I gathered that people speak for other people because, on some level, they feel they are providing them with some great service. They are giving the oppressed a voice. And by doing so, they are cementing their own superiority. Just as I, right now, by writing about (and almost for) those people, I’m placing myself above them, with my supposed superior knowledge on the subject. How is that for a conundrum.

I think Alcoff’s article was infinitely useful. If nothing else, I discovered how conducive the chairs in the HUB are to napping. It’s also prompted me to think, which I feel is the hallmark of a good piece. It is my predisposition (maybe it’s the predisposition of the entire human race like Alcoff suggested, I don’t know) to talk for other people, and it’s been known to get me in trouble. As a stranger to the Boys and Girls club, I don’t have the authority to be a voice for Nevan, who turned 7 last week, or Amber, who copes with disability.  Additionally, though I don’t think Alcoff expressly mentioned it, words have a tremendous power, and that concept lies beneath the entirety her paper. When you decide to use your words to accomplish something, you are attempting to wield an extremely powerful weapon. Though she doesn’t tell us exactly what we should do in regards to speaking for other people, she insists that we think before we wield our voice, because words have unintended consequences.

Anyhow, I think it was a tremendous piece of writing (even if I’ve already forgotten half of it).

“Ideally these people define their roles as service. Actually, they frequently wind up alleviating the damages done by money and weapons, or ‘”seducing” the “underdeveloped” to the benefits of the world of affluence and achievement.”

This quote appears on the third page of Ivan Illich’s “To Hell With Good Intentions” (P316). The quote is referring to the numerous do-gooders and idealists America exports to supposed third world countries. The use of the word “seducing” implies the sexual connotations of the fourth definition of the word service, as well as the balance of power within that definition. The definition, “also of a man, to have sexual intercourse with (a woman)”, places the seducer (which I feel could be either the man or the woman in the relationship- gender being particularly irrelevant in this context) in a position of power. In this case, the American idealist is placed in a position of power over the residents of “underdeveloped” nations, seducing them with the promises of her money, power and prosperity.