Final Project Movie

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhenry2/shared/INFO%20390%20Final.m4v

Movie Project

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhenry2/shared/Nightmare%20on%20Green%20St.m4v

Sorry this took so long I’m still working on uploading everything

CBC Radio Broadcast…Finally

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhenry2/shared/CBC%20Broadcast.mp3

Final Project

Riordan Henry
INFO 390
Final Project
For this project, Paul, Amanda, and I made a short movie dealing with Harris Breslow’s book Civil Society, Political Economy, and the Internet. We decided the aspect of the book we were to focus on dealt with the invention of the internet and its impact on civil society. We found this topic to be specifically interesting with regards to one aspect of society: pornography. After discussing other parts of society such as security and general personal freedoms, we realized that the best way to depict the general public’s anonymity and the inherent freedom that comes with home access to the internet was through the specific topic of pornography. Not only does this topic allow for showing every element the internet has changed, it proved a fairly controversial topic, making the video more interesting.
We started off creating a very rough idea of what we wanted to do with the movie, which was basically scenes of us acting as different schools of thought in regards to a completely free medium; these were the political, the academic, and the obscene. The concept of the obscene played a major role in determining our subject matter as well. We also realized that having only three group members lent itself perfectly to these three camps. After deciding that, progress was rather slow. We recorded voiceovers and put together images for the two montage scenes of the video and procrastinated a while on filming. During filming we encountered very few problems, surprisingly, aside from our camera battery’s inability to hold a charge, limiting us to a radius from any wall outlet as long as the camera’s charger. However, we were able to shoot almost every angle we needed and even found perfect locations for our scenes. During a few of our shots we even realized that character placement could serve as a reminder for each person’s role. Each shot involving the entire group is an example of this. The prudish Political side occupies one side, while the Academic voice of reason resides in the middle, while the Obscene is polar opposite in the shot to the Political. Even during the movie theater shot we decided to illuminate the Political side the most, showing it as the “morally acceptable” and thus brightly colored viewpoint of civil society. The only scenes that did not incorporate this were the scenes involving our characters’ inner monologues, which only show one character at a time. This was actually a point at which the group realized our first major filming roadblock in not having a fourth member to accommodate filming while the rest of the group acted. This put together a situation in which only one group member could be shown, since at least one other had to be off camera, controlling the lights and the camera. The scene would have been more effective were it possible to include all three actors, however this proved ultimately too difficult. Also, we decided to add a scene at the end where all three characters engaged in a dialogue that explained our perspectives, in a sort of semi-conclusive manner. We decided well before beginning the project that our movie’s conclusion was to have no final resolution, that there was to be no solid answer in the question of the internet’s impact on society’s morality.
We assigned parts: Amanda taking on the political, I took the Academic, and Paul took the Obscene. We realized that associating the Obscene with pornography could allow for a decent amount of comedy throughout the video, which our overall aim was initially. We decided that we could easily make a movie that literally explained the book verbatim and could possibly take on more than the explanations of just the three with which civil society has sided, however this would not allow for an entertaining movie and would end up devastatingly boring. Furthermore, after making our first short film and having great luck in the editing process that led to comedy we decided to build upon what we had already learned and mastered so as to improve on our methods and hopefully generate an overall better project.
We realized at the onset of filming that our roles were more abstract that we originally conceptualized. It became evident that we needed a better understanding of our characteristics than just hating the internet, loving the internet, and being neutral. We resolved this barrier by literally discussing how we viewed each portion of society in relation to the book’s explanation. Unfortunately much of this time is actually visible on the raw footage due to our absent mindedness in stopping the camera from recording. This came as sort of a blessing in disguise during the editing process because it allowed for a review, showing which angles and which responses fit best to our characters’ perspectives. Though the editing process began with a basic understanding of how the conversations were to be portrayed, they changed rapidly, when it became obvious that multiple takes were done and some not only served their purpose more concisely, but also that it changed the direction of the conversation in such a manner to maintain focus more accurately. We also decided that not forming a script before filming would serve to portray the characters more realistically. We wrote short scripts and trashed the idea soon after when we realized the fundamental problem of showing characters too far to each end of the spectrum, which showed more of a cheesy depiction than we wanted. We decided it was more realistic that the characters came across as people that could actually function in normal society without being shunned for being extremists. This was part of our concept of civil society. Though there are different sides of society, any individual that can be accepted as belonging to that society, must at least have the superficial appearance of slight neutrality. Any straying too far to either side of the continuum would result in their dismissal from the population as a whole. However, we also wanted to show that the Obscene exists under this blanket, though our intention was not to make Paul’s character appear as someone who hides under the blanket of a performative member of society, while at home becomes a sexual deviant. We did, however, want to show that this societal role has been present throughout society and that the phenomenon of the internet did not create it, but rather allowed individuals to occupy the role more easily; therein lies the conflict – since the internet did not create intense sexual desires, but allows easier access without shame, is it still inherently problematic? Or is the entire concept of these sexual desires problematic at all? There is obviously some basic coding within people to create these mindsets and since they have been present throughout history, is the internet’s provision of access anything other than just a final statement of freedom? Does a barrier between desire and action need to exist? We decided these questions needed to be left open ended without any attempt from our side to answer them, because they have not been answered yet, and may not need to be answered overall. It is clear that online actions have very distinct consequences and the freedoms are not always for the better, but it has shown itself to be something very positive alongside the negative. Thus, is it a questionable evil that must exist to allow the agreeably positive?