The purpose of my sound script in this case is to alter the viewers perception of the clip using oposite techniques as the original director. The audience here is my english 121 class and teacher, a diverse and intelligent group of people. I want to explore how we are “pre-programmed” to believe in certain stereo-types. In this clip, it is easy to judge based off of the Latino culture. As a viewer I an guilty of such premonitions. I saw the images of a young girl in a poverty stricken environment, and when combined with the voice of herself in the future as a sophisticated english speaking woman applying to Princeton University I was completely thrown off. I immediately judged that this girl must have made a dramatic transition because typically you do not see poor mexican immigrants applying to an ivy leauge university. This has caused me to wonder, does this innitial perception of the girl cause the viewer to believe that her future is doomed or going no where? If it were not for this voice-over narration to show us how she has grown, would we assume her fate be different than her life turned out to be? How do we make these automatic assumpstions? This goes back to being “pre-programmed” by society to believe certain things. In addition, there are others out there that may have gone through similar events as the narrator and can sympathize with her. It is vital to consider the social context from which the audience is viewing the film. Leaving certain things up to our immagination (which the director does in this clip) causes different reatcions and responses to the clip.

I would like to ultimately claim that in this clip from the film Spanglish, voice-over narration is used to suppress the physical location of Mexico and rather to express the idea or way of life that Mexico embodies to its audience. I wonder why this technique of addressing the Dean of Admissions at Princeton University in an essay is used at the beginning of the film? How would things have been different if this was not included, becuase it verifies to the audience that she is a very intelligent and most likely successful girl because Princeton is an amazing university with high standards of education. With that, I would like to do a sound script in the voice of a young Latino girl (representing the narrator at a young age) to compare how the viewer would perceive her “Mexico” at this age in her life as compared to her matured and developed state of mind in the future. How does the director be sure that even when the narrators voice seems “americanized” that the narrator and audience are still emmersed in all things that are “Mexico”. I believe that if there were a young Latino girl narrating, we would have a completely different and dramatic interpretation of her life. I also thought about having the mother narrate the new sound script. I would like to do this because I feel like she is always portrayed as the less intelligent one, even though she is older and should supposedly be wiser. The fact that her daughter can adapt to America better than she makes the mother appear vulnerable and inadequate. Though, despite this, she still always seems to demonstrate impecable morals throughout the clip and film. She has honor, something that can relate to the idea of “Mexico” rather than the location of it. I think it would be interesting to see it from her perspective. And i’ll just be honest, it would also be easier to speak in a mothers voice rather than a young Lation girls.

There are obviously high stakes to my claim and new soundscript…minor changes can completely destroy or alter this clip dramatically. I think that my claim is both bold and risky because it deals with stereo-types and prejudice which is a very debatable issue. I’m saying that this “americanized” voice is supressing the physical location of Mexico, almost making it seem inadequate and making America out to be the land of opportunity and perfection. I think this is important for the viewer to realize, because instead of just watching it and assuming things they should wonder why they are assuming them. The new sound script will be less obvious. The original is very “black and white”. We have a girl emmersed in Mexico who does not even speak english combined with a very intelligent and well versed American sounding woman. How will the pride of their culture still be demonstrated with this new sound script. In the original, I almost feel as if the audience is obligated to understand just because the narrator is presenting it in such a way our culture can relate to. Without this supressive and dominating American voice, how will the clip be percieved? This we will have to find out…

I don’t know what text to use for this to back up my paper, which is something I would be grateful and completely open to suggestions about 🙂 thanks!

I was absolutely overwhelmed with this article, as I’m sure many of my 121 peers were as well.  After reading it, everything seemed like a blur.  I did manage to pull out many quotes from it though that I found highly significant and relevant to the topic of service as well as the curriculum of our class.  The following are some quotes I took from the reading and some notes to go along with them:

“In anthropology there is similar discussion about whether it is possible to speak for others either adequately or justifiably.” I believe this is a topic that raises great questions.  It is not only the basis of Alcoff’s debate, but it relates with what we are doing in our service learning duties as well as discussions within the classroom.  I think this is a debate that could go on forever, and although I may have my own opinion of it, there may never really be one universal answer to this dilema.    

Intertextualizing

“The recognition that there is a problem in speaking for others has followed from the widespread acceptance of two claims.”  Although this quote may not have the depth and meaningful insight as others, I picked it out of the article simply due to the world “claims.”  I feel as if this is an important skill that we must learn and that is crucial to presenting a well-thought and intelligent argument.

“And the effect of the practice of speaking for others is often, though not always, erasure and a reinscription of sexual, national, and other kinds of hierarchies” This quote has special significance to our class simply from the word “sexual,” as strange as that may sound.  I say this only because my groups connotation of the word “service” was in a sexual manner.  I found it interesting that Alcoff brought up this point, in that service can relate to pushing things on to other people, even in a sexual manner as we discussed in class.

 

Build on definition of service

I found all of the following quotes to have significance on building our definitions of service and raising questions and concerns about its intentions:

“In other words, a speaker’s location (which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity) has an epistemically significant impact on that speaker’s claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-authorize one’s speech.” “The second claim holds that not only is location epistemically salient, but certain privileged locations are discursively dangerous.⁵ In particular, the practice of privileged persons speaking for or on behalf of less privileged persons has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing or reenforcing the oppression of the group spoken for.” “Systematic divergences in social location between speakers and those spoken for will have a significant effect on the content of what is said.” “If one’s immediate impulse is to teach rather than listen to a less-privileged speaker, one should resist that impulse long enough to interrogate it carefully. Some of us have been taught that by right of having the dominant gender, class, race, letters after our name, or some other criterion, we are more likely to have the truth. Others have been taught the opposite and will speak haltingly, with apologies, if they speak at all.” 

“Speaking should always carry with it an accountability and responsibility for what one says”

(I especially like this one…It’s short, to the point, and powerful all at the same time) “In order to evaluate attempts to speak for others in particular instances, we need to analyze the probable or actual effects of the words on the discursive and material context. One cannot simply look at the location of the speaker or her credentials to speak; nor can one look merely at the propositional content of the speech; one must also look at where the speech goes and what it does there.” 

“I would stress that the practice of speaking for others is often born of a desire for mastery, to privilege oneself as the one who more correctly understands the truth about another’s situation or as one who can champion a just cause and thus achieve glory and praise.”

All of these are interesting and important ideas that I plan to refer back to as I continue my service learning and participation in class.  I think that they are great tools that anyone should use to raise debate or as direction towards claims that we as a class can make about service.  After just one day spent at the boys and girls club, I can allready see how some of these issues and concepts brought up in Alcoff’s article are relevant to what we are doing as service learning students.  The kids at the club are so diverse that it will be hard to properly speak for them without altering their voice.  Reading this article has helped me to see this, and also caused me to ponder how I will deal with this issue.  At this point, my only solution is to get to know them as well as possible so that what I am saying is reflective of them.  Hopefully as I continue I will gain more and more insight and develop even more thourough techniques to deal with this dilema. 

The following quote is from a speach by Ivan Illich titled “To Hell With Good Intentions”:

“There exists the argument that some returned volunteers have gained insight into the damage they have done to others–and thus become more mature people…Perhaps there is also something to the argument that young men should be promiscuous for awhile in order to find out that sexual love is most beautiful in a monogamous relationship.”

This quote is one of the few times when Illich proposes a positive side to service, and it occurs towards the end of the article.  Although he fires back with reasons why he disagrees with the principal in this quote, he still offers the reader another side to ponder for themselves which I believe is a very important piece in this speech.  It relates to my definition, (Serve- also of a man-to have sexual intercourse with a [woman]) in respects of the association with man having to be with several partners before they realize what is good for them.  This is a metaphor to describe how service in this article is being used.  He is saying that some people go into service with the wrong intentions, simply do ‘sacrafice’ their time to make themselves feel better about the world.  Then, when its all said and done they realize that what they have done is nothing compared to how they have affected the people they are servicing.  The overall picture shows them the beauty or the disaster of it…it could go either way. 

• Voice: This narrator should be a man with a powerful and charismatic voice.  His voice should sound confident and convincing to the audience.  These homeless people do not speak very proper english, therefore we believe this narrator should speak clearly and el0quently. We picture this narrator as an african-american man, who is in his 40’s.  I guess you could call him a “Dr. King figure.” This just seems like a person that would be influential…
• This narrator would be speaking during the time frame of this documentary.  He is speaking from a position of agreement and concern for these homeless citizens.  His voice will hopefully affect and sway the audience in his favor.  He will be speaking from a moving train, on the very day of the filming.
• Some sample content would be the following:

“The governemt and amtrack have no consideration of how these homeless citizens are feeling.  Although it may be a burden on Amtracks business, they need to help these people get on their feet rather than throw them on the street.  This is their home, it is all they have known for almost 20 years in some cases. ”

• This narrator could possibly affect the audiences views on service.  By seeing this, they may be motivated to go out and help those in need…homeless people in particular.

When reading these two texts by Kozloff, I can say that I learned a lot about the concept of Voice-over Narration. Of course, I have seen films that use this technique, but I have never really thought that deeply about the artistic side of it, and how it could essencially ‘make or break’ a movie. Here are some notes I took as a general overview of what I found important in the texts:

• “Adding voice-over narration to a film creates a fascinating dance between pose and actuality, words and image, narration and drama, voice and ‘voice’” <<This quote gives the concept quite a dramatic twist, something good to think about.

• “By applying ‘literary’ narrative theory to film, I hope both to further our understanding of cinematic narrative’s specific characteristics and to test the universality of several key types of contermporary critical lore”<< I think that this demonstrates Kozloff’s position on the idea of voice-over. She wants for us to not only understand it, but also embrace it.
• Definition of Voice Over Narration: (Gives me a deeper understanding of what it really means!!)

  Voice– the medium, we must hear someone speaking

  Over- pertains to the relationship between the source of the sound and the images on the screen. The voice comes from another time and space

  Narration- Relates to the content of the speech: someone is in the act of communicating a narrative—that is, recounting a series of events to an audience

• “Verb tense provides crucial clues as to the difference between a narration or simply thinking out loud (these are two different things)”<<I think this is a very valid point. Simply thinking out loud shows a less artistic side in my opinion. With a narration there should be a purpose or motive behind the words, not simply to fill time or awkward transitions.

• Complete Narratives break down to six elements: (This once again helps me to understand the concept in a more organized way)

  1. The abstract- a short summary of the story that is about to be provided
  2. The orientation- identification of time, place, characters, and activities
  3. The complicating action- the unfolding of the story’s events
  4. The Resolution- the climax
  5. The evaluation- commentary of the point of the story
  6. The Coda- and epilogue, often bridging the gap between story time and the time of narration

• Argues that voice over can convey important information or creates a special, intimate relationship with the viewer.<<This is a great argument by Kozloff. I agree that it is easy to have a more intimant relation to the character if we are hearing what is “inside their head”. This is a great way for a film-maker to draw an audience in and really get them submerssed in the film in my opinion.

• “The technique would not have been used so often and would not be so worthy of our attention if it never soared”<<Once again great point. I have seen many successfully made movies that I enjoyed involving the voice-over technique. Why then do so many people argue it? I dont understand this. Like my last comment, I believe it is a great way to connect an audience to a character when done correctly. It has had success, so therefore it can’t be all that bad can it?

• “A fallback charge against voice-over narration is that using it is insulting to the audience. Voice-over narration is suspect because it is a means of “telling” rather than “showing.” “Telling” is judged as a mark of laziness and/or condescension.”<< This is a contrasting point that I can also agree with to some reasoning. All through school so far, all of my english teachers have stressed the point that when expressing our ideas we should show and not tell. On the other hand, in a film, we have the visuals to go along with what is being said, which I think could be enough to get the point accross. This is a point I would be interested to hear others opinons on.

After taking all of these notes and analyzing the reading, I have to say I found this concept of voice-over narration to be quite interesting. At first I could not think of specific movies that fit the criteria, but after reading there are a few that jumped out at me. Clueless is a movie I have always loved, and so I think it would be interesting to work with. Although the main character Cher is a prissy valley girl (a stereo type many are disgusted by) I think this is what makes the movie interesting. Her mindset is completely different than most, and it would be fun to uncover more behind this movie. A couple others I am considering are American Beauty and About a Boy, two other great movies in my opinion.

I actually enjoyed reading this piece, because of a class I took last quarter (Digital Arts and New Media 200).  I learned about similar philosophies but on a deeper level, which I think helped me to grasp what Davis was talking about.  In my eyes, what Davis wants us to realize is that times are changing and with this comes advances in our culture.  He wants us to take hold of it and embrace it, as well as contribute and help develop it.  Sound is a unique and powerful way to view the world, and with it we can influence the lives of others–good or bad.  “Acoustic space is the space we hear rather than the space we see” (Davis).  I can easily agree with this quote, because sometimes I think that the sounds we hear are more powerful than the things we see.  This acoustic space can be used an infinite number of ways, all unique and expressive of an individuals desire. 

As far as comparing these two texts, they are dramatically different.  I think that Megan (although she seems to be a very intelligent person) is trying less to please or convince her audience, and more so just writing for the purpose of the class. Davis obviously is trying to sway his audience through out the paper, and is much more blunt and upfront about his opinions.