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?

Group movie

Riordan Henry
11/06/2008
INFO 390
Group Movie Project

For this project our group decided to focus on the threatening note left in the bathroom of the Undergraduate Library concerning a shooting on Halloween night on Green street. We decided initially that we wanted to make a spoof movie of a horror movie, however our plans changed when we wanted the movie to focus mainly around interviews. So in essence we did not choose a genre, but rather we chose what elements we wanted and the genre followed. What ended up was something in between a spoof horror movie and a “mocumentary”. The process changed yet again as we began to film.

We began filming interviews within minutes of acquiring a camera, mostly of randomly asking people along Green Street if they were the “Green Street Killer”. We mostly ambushed random passers-by and threw the accusation in their faces. This was mostly a complete failure of a strategy because the “interviewees” had the opportunity to ignore us and simply walk by. We decided then that our next strategy would consist of asking people that were already seated, allowing them no opportunity to ignore us; they literally had to acknowledge our presence.

At this point we realized that we needed a plot, plain and simple. Our first attempt was to spoof the CBS show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. We filmed a few short clips of ourselves acting as detectives. This idea, upon further review was also a failure because it did not make any sense: we interview and pretend to be undercover? So we decided to act as journalists (very poor ones) and to interview some people on the streets. From there we took their answers, coupled with our own prejudiced interviews and spliced the responses into a montage of questions and answers. This is where I personally realized how flawed any filmed documentary is. Editing can take all context away from interviews leaving only an irrelevant skeleton that shows only the editor’s perspective. Many of the responses added into the montage are out of context and are actually answers to different questions altogether.

From the beginning we desired to make this movie a comedy and when we realized we posessed the power to manipulate answers we decided that was from where we should draw our comedy. From the answers we drew from the street, we realized we needed a bit more of the outlandish/offensive style; this is when we decided to interview our group members, keeping in mind we needed answers that gave us a comedic cushion.

With all the film we had, the editing process appeared daunting. Reducing 26 minutes of raw footage into 5 minutes of edited footage was difficult, but the immediate results were enough encouragement to make the process fun. Once I became more acquainted with the software, the process sped up a bit, but still seemed to be rather tedious and I gained respect for the industry as a whole.

CBC Radio Broadcast

Riordan Henry

10/16/2008

INFO 390
Radio Broadcast

For this project I initially was completely lost. I had no idea what I wanted to do my project on, so instead of wasting time I decided to start looking at articles on Google about the most successful type of broadcasting. This eventually led to a lot of articles that suggested how to best perform a broadcast as well as articles on the most successful genre. The former was somewhat useful; however amongst all this I continually saw articles on something called the CBC. When I looked that up I found out there was a major scandal surrounding Canada’s largest broadcasting system about funding and the deletion of programming. I researched it a bit and found that I was actually interested in it.

What I was really trying for with this presentation is the fast-talking, no silence, ranting style of a character like Dennis Miller. I strayed away from his particular format, which uses too many politically and academically charged words that evoke a bit too much emotion from every side of the argument. Instead I chose only the parts of that style I wished to keep: namely the long-winded, blatant sarcasm. I also mixed this with a few stereotypical sounds, generally found on wacky morning shows that overuse their stock sounds due to their button-happy attitudes toward their soundboards. I add a few of these stock sounds to keep the mood light, as the speech does seem to drag on a bit at times and may appear slightly hostile at points. I did not use all the sound bites I would have liked to, especially due to one particular instance that would have caused an intensely awkward and unfortunate juxtaposition. (I use the words “god awful” and I originally had the sound of a toilet to show how crappy something was).

Also, I began the presentation as something that sounded as though it would be informative, which I believe it truly was. However, I feel that this was not simply informative, I think the sarcasm adds quite a different edge to it, rather than my voice just empirically mouthing off facts, percentages and specifications, which is exactly how the beginning appears as though it will be. To bolster this, as I lay further and further into the supporters of classical music, I satirically have Beethoven’s Ode to Joy playing in the background, which gradually gets louder, culminating in its loudest point at the end of my speech, which happens to coincide with my rudest comments toward the supporters and likewise most supportive of the CBC. This ever-increasing melody, coupled with the increasing intensity of the speech works fairly well, although it is a bit cliché. It brings to mind the stock imagery of General Patton striding across stage in front of an enormous American flag while the chanting becomes louder and trumpets blare even louder. I feel my layering of the sound works similarly, but to a different end with irony and satire as the selling points of this presentation.

Certain sound elements were purposely left out. Namely the element of silence was completely ignored because I felt that with the ranting and ever-increasing sound layer that it would work totally against what my goal was. This needed to seem like someone was legitimately upset about how this was working, as a supporter of classical music would, and even angered by their own rant of it, getting worked up. Generally speaking people filling with anger over a subject tend not to keep their voices to themselves or allow anything to overcome their words. This was my goal.

Reading Questions for 9/30 & 10/2

3 Questions on McKee Reading

1. Heidi McKee’s essay on sound applies quite specifically to sound in internet multimedia projects, as it states in the title. Would the same apply to an internet sound clip without visual integration or ability to pause the sound? What if the clip was 1 minute long and gave the listener no chance to alter its volume or stop or start it? Wouldn’t sounds work together as effectively?
2. McKee mentions that sound and visual elements of web presentations are taken simultaneously by the viewer, but are treated separately by the computer. This is very noticeable with a poor connection: the sound plays flawlessly while the images are lagged and often pause. What does this say about programming? Why is sound given the priority? Is it easier to follow the meaning with clear sound and garbled images or vice versa?
3. McKee also mentions silence and it appears to be one of her bigger issues. But she clearly doesn’t mean silence in the sense of no sound at all. She means silence as the absence of previously heard (sometimes unconsciously) sounds. Does this mean the introduction of the absence of a previously heard sound is as noticeable as the introduction of a previously unheard sound/noise? Should it be as important?

Readings for 9/23 & 9/25

Readings for 9/23 & 9/25

1. By observing in Elkins’ essay “How to Look at a Postage Stamp” the detail in which he describes the stamps themselves, it is clear that the author intends his readers to view other objects this way, potentially everything. How can this case be made if every detail of daily life should be given this much attention? Aren’t some details mundane? Some details supposed to be looked over? (e.g. the counterfeiting deterrents)
2. If the same argument is applied again, wouldn’t that much attention to detail bog down daily life into a lack of forward progress? If someone were to reach the stage of admiring all details, wouldn’t that inherently prevent him/her from seeing other details? Perhaps missing the other 99% of everything…
3. It is clear that James Elkins finds the detail in stamps fascinating, both in their own artistic right and their commonly overlooked status. As he uses these as an example, does it seem somewhat counteractive to his intention? So much time spent on stamps makes it seem like he’s writing an essay completely about stamps and not about How to Use Your Eyes.

Sequential Art

Riordan Henry

10/02/2008

INFO 390

Sequential Art

This image is a depiction of the creative process that I undergo when writing a paper for school, specifically. This does not reflect my process when writing recreationally. Specifically, the recreationally written items are not forced, thus the beginning differs as there is no procrastination.

This is a flow chart of sorts that does not follow any specific linear direction. It is obvious there are potentially different outcomes, as shown at the corners. The bottom right corner is the paper that comes from diligent work and time budgeted efficiently. The Top right corner shows what happens when I take too long of a break from my work and the train of thought is utterly lost. Generally this can be rectified with more time spent and often a complete renovation of my idea, starting over. The bottom left corner, unfortunately shows what happens when I waste my time and ignore the assignment at hand and just enjoy a bit of gaming. The angry teacher wielding a failure of a paper speaks iconically of my failure there as a student. Each direction can possibly go awry, though, as shown in the multiple possibilities leading away from the trash can, which shows a complete renovation of the paper, or at the very least a cancellation of my previous work. Clearly, if I decide to ignore my work and join friends out for a night of partying as opposed to reworking my assignment, the same outcome will occur as if I had initially wasted my time. The path that generally leads to the most efficient outcome is the path cutting straight from the top left to the bottom right; once the project is started, I find it most beneficial to write as much as possible, then rework whatever parts need alterations. Overall, this type of process is the quickest for me and usually it is the only way I like to write my papers. The generally accepted mode of project generation for an academic setting is writing and revising, whereas my process involves mostly barreling through the project, completing it as quickly as possible and revising little, aside from spell changes and punctuation errors.

The images used here are all taken from Google image searches. All these images were chosen on the basis of amusement and my ability to relate to them. This speaks to McCloud’s essay of iconic art. Since all these images are relatable to most views, or at least presumably so, I feel that the piece as a whole is quite understandable. The example here is the snack pack with cheese and crackers that most people of my age ate at a younger age. It is also a type of food that is likely a college staple. The foods we ate as children are once again acceptable and widely enjoyed in our college days strangely enough. Had I used personal images that only meant something to me personally, it would likely appear to be a garbled array of strange images. For instance if I used my tattoo designs as a symbol of my distractions, no viewer would likely be able to discern their meaning as it relates to the picture. The most specific image that appears here is the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare game cover. This was actually chosen as a personal relation to me as the creator because it specifically is a major source of distraction from my work, whereas most other video games attract little of my interest, time or effort. This could potentially be a confusing image to viewers that do not play video games or are not familiar with this one in particular. I feel, though, that this game is widely known enough to create the desired effect of frivolous distraction from the assignment.

Sequential Art

This is how I work...sometimes