We feel that our narrator should be a woman, probably and educated activist lending her voice to help the residents of the tunnel. She’s probably young- and has a lot of energy and sympathy to devote to the cause. Her character isn’t prominent the film- she’s facilitating the conversation. She’s also probably on location, immersing herself in the conversation, directly involving herself and the audience in the situation. The narration is set in the same time frame as the conflict; it’s as if she’s trying to take immediate action and remedy the situation.

In the chapter about the tunnel she might say something like:

 “This is so-and-so, whose called the tunnel home for over 10 years. Should he be evicted from the tunnel, he’d probably live on the streets, instead of losing his pride and dignity by moving into a shelter.”

In the chapter which takes place in the Amtrak office, she might talk about the insincerity of the Amtrak administration.

“This is Mr. Highandmighty, who makes over a zillion dollars a year, and lives in a mansion. A corporate puppet, he has very little insight into the actual living conditions of the residents of the tunnel.”

Our narrator is definitely speaking for the “victims” of Amtrak’s eviction- the residents of the tunnel. Because she is the voice of a group of undereducated and underprivileged people, she’s essentially giving them an opportunity to defend themselves and their home. Our narrator is sticking it to the man- she’s biased against big corporations who are demonstrating corporate greed. She doesn’t feel that Amtrak is acting in the interest of the residents of the tunnel- they’re being in genuine when the speak on behalf of the tunnel resident’s health,  and are taking advantage of the defenseless homeless people.

    The first sound bite we listened to appeared to be a movie trailer. The keynote sounds begun with the background sounds of a busy work environment, transitioned to slow, sensitive music, and finished with an upbeat happy track. The signal sounds included initially the voice of the narrator, followed by the voices of each of the main characters. The trailer began with soundmarks that indicated a writer’s office and finished with soundmarks that suggested a neighborhood family.  These sounds implicated that the movie was a family comedy, which might include some drama. The progression of sounds within the trailer indicated emotional change, especially hope. The sounds also indicated that the main characters might originally have been at odds with each other, but transition, through possibly funny situations, into a caring family.

The second sound bite also appears to introduce a movie, but unlike the first track, didn’t include any speaking. The track began with buzzing, a keynote sound. A different, signal sound, was layered on top of the buzzing, eventually meshing into one sound. A string instrument was added, as well as honking. The sounds grew in intensity (pitch and dynamic level), implicating an ominous setting. Something scary’s coming. This set of sounds implied a horror film.

Sarah Kozloff pretty well persuaded me about the overall neatness of “voice over narration”, but I’m starting pretty well from square one as far as this sort of thing goes.. so I’m susceptible to bias. I’m also hopelessly uncultured and oblivious to the finer details of filmography, so thinking about it this intensely is new to me. (Ironically, when I first began pondering along these lines, “The Triplets of Belville” came to mind, which is actually a movie that doesn’t include any words, instead relying on images to convey the message- pretty much the opposite of a movie the utilizes voice over narration). Anyhow, I was never a fan of the Christmas Story and I accidently fell asleep before the end of “Stranger than Fiction” so I will need to expand my cinematic horizons and check some of these type of films soon.

I can see how voice over narration isn’t “noble” enough for some people.. it seems showing something without words is inherently harder than just spitting it out, but that’s no reason to completely discount it. (It’s almost like taking the elevator v. the stairs- just because I take the elevator to floor 7 instead of huffing and puffing up the stairs, doesn’t mean I’m a lesser person than the overachiever across the hall who does. And least I hope not.) From the sounds of it, voice over narration is typically overgeneralized as spoon feeding the viewer.

Anyhow, Kozloff writes like she knows what she’s talking about. So I’ll stop babbling a pick out a couple of her points I annotated.

“Regardless of how much the narrator speaks, and regardless of whether he or she ever actually recounts the action of the story, we are so familiar with the structure of the narratives that the speech act as a whole is implied by the presence of any one of the six elements.”

This quote, from the intro we read, pretty will describes my experience with voice over narration- it’s so normal, I just don’t notice it. And I think voice over narration deserves a little more respect than that.

“Probably because of its 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. Thus, during the apogee of “direct cinema,” influential documentary theorists and filmmakers threw off voice-over as inherently patriarchal, monolithic, and coercive.”

I think I picked this quote out because it’s such an ambitious claim. It’s also an ambitious claim that I’d really like to believe. The two articles we read detail pretty throughly how voice over narration has been historically slighted pretty harshly- at least there was a good reason behind it.

“Voice-over narration is no more or less inherently valuable or cinematic then any other element of film. And when this device is well-executed, it opens up inimitable avenues for filmmakers.Voice-over is notoriously useful for efficiently conveying expositional or historical information, for instance.”

I like that this quote so closely followed the one comparing voice over narrations to the voice of god (who is forever Alan Rickman in my mind). It leads me to think, for all the other claims she’s made, the author is a pretty sensible person, and I trust what’s she’s told me in her articles. Kozloff defends voice over narration, but doesn’t raise it up on a pedestal, which gives her arguments a certain amount of legitimacy.

Erik Davis’s “Acoustic Cyberspace” is one doozy of an article. And for, all it’s jargon and lofty concepts, it was an article I thoroughly enjoyed. This concept of sound as an amazing “place” is crazy interesting to me, which means I was willing to slow down, google words as I needed to, and try and straighten out exactly what it was Davis was trying to get across to the reader.

Firstly, I was taken aback by Davis’s dismissal of visual representation. For as long as I can remember, I’ve been taught to express myself through crayola crayons and word documents. But the longer I dwelt on this concept, the more the inadequacies of visual representational stood out to me. Anyhow, once I understood what Davis was getting at there and how profound that concept was, I was very willing to accept the arguments Davis made regarding acoustic cyberspace.

My “favorite” quote from the paper might be a little silly, but to me, it embodied a lot of what the tone and the structure of what the article was attempting to convey.

“What made early radio so exciting, in terms of
the technical, the social, and the imaginative, was its openness:
it was a space that wasn’t entirely defined, wasn’t totally
mapped.”

Essentially, I feel that once you clear out the mumbo jumbo, and get to the underlying point, the author is trying to tell you how exciting sound is. How neat it is that there is this space yet to be explored, that allows for almost unbounded self expression and exploration. And how savage it is that technology is a tool paving the way to an epic cyberspace of sound (even if that cyberspace has its own set of shortcomings). Davis is ecstatic about this new technology.. just like people were about early radio (which is why I chose this particular quote). The word choice within the paper was geared to a more educated audience than the residents of 121 B, and I feel that this quote is a boiled down version of what the paper was saying in technical terms.

Megan Nordstrom’s portfolio is stylistically the opposite of Davis’s article. Her portfolio is written in a dialect that us 121B n00bs can understand. Her writing also contains an obvious them, “Beware matey, there is no parlay on this island if you don’t fulfill the course outcomes!” Personally I found the over exaggerated use of a pirate theme to be more annoying than enjoyable, but it was none the less affective. Her word choice evoked obvious sounds and connotations, which would have been lost on the reader without the use of corny pirate metaphors. Additionally, Megan eased us into the world of acoustics nicely, taking comfortable baby steps, unlike Davis who chucked us bodily into a sea of sound.

I’m also enjoying the Marshall McLuhan recording.. “Writing was an embalmic process that froze us” is a pretty epic claim.

I’m not going to lie- my biggest effort on the service learning front was done in blatant self-interest. I didn’t get hired to work at the Kennewick Parks and Rec Summer Fun Day Camp, so I volunteered (with the hopes of someday being paid).

It all worked out- by mid summer when parents were sick of their kids, and kids were sick of their parents, and the camp was over-kidded and under-staffed, I got paid at least a few days a week. And the last two months of the summer, when the craft lady had enough and called it quits, I was hired full time.

Until those momentous points in time though, I volunteered. 8am to 3pm out in the sun, with awesome kids. It was epic. 9-10 year olds make great friends- they thought my car was cool, and didn’t rub into too bad when they dominated me in dodge ball.

I’m pumped to get to work with kids again. I think they’re phenomenal people. A lot of the kids I worked with last summer (and will hopefully work with again next summer) we’re from underprivleleged, low-income families (the camp is run through the city, and offers a lot of scholarships). I was amazed by the way these kids dealt with split families and trials. And 9-1o year olds don’t see in terms of race, money.. it was refreshing.

Neat!

From what I’m gathering, “Sounds I Am Accustomed to Hearing” pretty well covers a typical day in the life of fall quarter. The list is organized fairly chronically, beginning with an alarm clock and good mornings, lunch hits dead center about song 12, and the playlist ends with tracks about things to come. I think a track of general laughter would fit well in the playlist (I’d pluck Lily Allen in there somewhere.. but that’s just me); she includes tracks that have a generally light hearted feel (awkward chem prof comments, morning radio, etc). My classmate didn’t include any bummer tracks, so I think she approached this assignment with a fairly optimistic mindset.. which leads me to assume things about a cheery disposition and smiles. I’d also assume she’s a freshman living on south campus, as my life shares many of the same “songs”- but that’s probably going out on a limb.