Realism?

How much is real?, how much do we need?, how much can we take? The subject in which i could talk about for hours.

Being a 3D student i could imagine (if i do get employed) i would be working on projects that people love to hate or generally enjoy watching. With the advancement on technology in the film industry we are seeing more mind blowing effects in our films and TV programs. Yet there is always the argument of going to far with realism. How far will people go to make something look as real as it would appear to us in life by the use of CGI.

In a previous post i displayed an image of Grendel's Mother from Beowulf, despite the creature meant to look more like a urm creature? monster something less perfect than Angelina Jolie anyway, they practically just replicated her face in CGI to look like her. We already have an Angelina Jolie so why not use the real her instead.? 

Yet even with such advancement our minds and eyes can always give off alert signals, telling us, "theres something quite not right about this, it looks real but its not", this which can relate to the uncanny valley, a term to describe something that it stuck right between looking realistic and trying to trick our brains into thinking it is, but at the same time looks completely off. Some my say they attempt to look realistic for the sake of looking real, because the technology is there, kinda like how many films released all feel the need to have a 3D version, though normally turning quite pointless ad in my cases more difficult to actually watch and enjoy the film

 

During our lectures and seminars, even with friends afterwards there were debates on old and modern films. For example King Kong was used. I under stand the idea of the puppet, which to us kids in modern society, find comical, of King Kong to look more realistic than the 2010 CGI version, because of its mannerisms and fur texture. yet to me i feel they are equally realistic, i also feel that the CGI version doesn't have to be convincing, especially when we know giant gorillas don't exist. So how can they make something look realistic if it isnt even real, they are indeed trying to convince us with technology that it is real, yet unless we see it before our very eyes away from the big screen, our minds will always allow us to know its fake anyway.

Does it have to look realistic to be and feel real, or does the way the gorilla move and act have to be realistic and match to movements made by real gorilla to be that way. I felt that in both films the artists captured the characteristics and they were both believable.

On the other hand, staying on a similar subject, i would like to discuss the Planet of the Apes series.
mainly the Tim Burton one and the current 2011 release.

To me the costumes used in Burton's film felt more real and convincing than Rupert Wyatt's Rise of the planet of the Apes, even though in his film the detail of the apes were top notch, as soon as they became more human like, to me it dropped straight into the uncanny valley, there was something not quite right about it. Where as in Burton's film despite looking more human, eg clothes, and talking like them, there was a constant flow of characteristics that apes would show being conveyed from the actors, making it more convincing than the CGI release.

For something to be real we tend to look at the story and personality of what we are looking at. For example in District 9  aliens arrive on earth, not in America thank goodness, in Africa, the theme of overpopulated city and crime fitted the city it was located in, the plot line thus fitted in well because of the location, and the overall filming and effects made the story more believable, than say a bunch of aliens stuck in new your city.

Now the actual aliens themselves can become more believable and realistic because of the story line. The image below as an example, is nothing I've ever seen in real life before, and i would probably be terrified if i did. i know it doesn't exist, its definitely not real. Yet he seems realistic, the movements and his story relate to the audience, we sympathise with him as he is just trying to return home and look after his son, yes in an exaggerated way, maybe this is what it takes to be realistic, just the feelings and personality.

(Just look at the sorrow in those eyes, just makes you want to give him a cuddle....no just me okay.)






Anyhow in my opinion, despite what many film companies, directors and media feel, we don't necessarily need something to be realistic in the terms of what we see in everyday life. i mean we have too look at human beings everyday, so why do we need to recreate them and best as possible in films, where we would expect to see some for originality and imagination, maybe even where things don't even make sense, CGI, costumes or puppetry, its the story and the why the characters are portrayed which really make a great film.

The Wonderful World Of Narratives

Behold the longest Post on here
What is narrative?

Its the way and how the story and journey is told, with its simple construction of Beginning, Middle and End. But of course there are the may narrative theories to get us thinking differently.

Be warned of the long examples ahead.

Lets start with Todorov, Tzvetan Todorov. A man who proposed a most basic structure for all narratives, which we are able to see in all TV programs and films. 

And what better example than the Simpsons, episode being 'Flaming Moe's'

A State of Equilibrium


All is well in Springfield

A Disruption of Equilibrium

Homer is in the bar and gives Moe a new drink recipe.
this becomes popular which leads Moe in taking all the credit, and the money made from the beverage.

A Recognition of Said Disruption

Homer goes a tad mad in realising that, what Moe has done is wrong, and goes to set things straight.

An Attempt to Repair Disruption

Homer arrives at the bar and reveals the secret recipe to the addictive drink, causing Flaming Moe's to be less popular.

A Reinstatement of Equilibrium

Moe's bar goes back to serving its normal customers, Moe and Homer are now friends again and Springfield ends up going back to how it was at the start, minus the fact the fictional drinks recipe is widely available 

This form of narrative is most useful to these type of shows as it ensures no major changes to place and characters will happen that will effect later episodes. It's all good. Something happens....but in the end its allll alright.

Another theorist you say! Well next i have Vladimir Propp, who's theory was formed within the early 20th century. He founded it upon his studies on Russian fairy tales discovering 8 reoccurring character types/roles in every tale.

Credit goes to this website http://www.adamranson.plus.com/Propp.htm,(check it all out) for helping me understand the roles and going into a little more depth on the theory than i could ever imagine i could on this blog, without bundles of worlds and images mixing it all up that is.

Character types

• The Hero – a character that seeks something
• The Villain – who opposes or actively blocks the hero’s quest
• The Donor – who provides an object with magical properties
• The Dispatcher – who sends the hero on his/her quest via a message
• The False Hero – who disrupts the hero’s success by making false claims
• The Helper – who aids the hero
• The Princess – acts as the reward for the hero and the object of the villain’s plots
•  Her Father – who acts to reward the hero for his effort

 The great thing about this, (that I've only just come to know) that the characters can and may have multiple types, (there goes many an hour on trying to determine if Han Solo was a False Hero or a Helper). It is also easy to understand, once you know the type, what that character will do within the film.
 Lets illustrate with good old Star Wars

  The Narrative then complies to this list

• Preparation - Luke buys C3P0 and R2D2
• Complication - Luke's Aunt and Uncle are killed by Darth Vader's Orders, message from captured princess is revealed about plans for the Rebellion, Luke leaves with Obi-Wan to ensure plans are received, rescue princess and take vengeance on dead relatives.
• Transference- Obi-Wan gives Luke Light sabre to become a Jedi, Hire Han Solo for aid, planet is destroyed, ship captured.
• Struggle - Fight with Darth Vader, Obi-Wan is killed, Luke saves Princess
• Return - Escapes and goes to Rebel Base, New ask is set out to destroy the Death Star, Luke achieves this.
• Recognition- returns to princess and receives reward.

And my last narrative theorist for today, is Gustav Freytag, one completely new to me.
First off there may be alot of triangles in the next part, of which i hope i can correctly explain which an image from the generous google images.

Freytag's triangle, or Dramatic Structure, is divided into five parts seen on the triangle, the length of an edge is determined by whatever edge of the triangle has a greater impact in the story, this normally being the rising action. The theory is similar to Todorov's yet can be seen as both more simple or more complex, for we have
the introduction- to the story
Rising Action- conflict, obstacles, and the hero attempting to achieve task.
Climax- changes for better or worse, normally the most dramatic and shortest part.

Falling Action- climax has ended, resolution is being found.

Sometimes when we watch a film we can realise that it may seem short or for example the boss battle in an action film or game is ended rather quickly, and it is the journey that leads up to the boss that has all the adventure and screen time.   introduction                                                                                                       


For example in Dream Works The Road to El Dorado, We have the character introductions and introduction to the map.






                           Rising Action

Characters Travelling to the island






Rising Action

Travelling to the city






Rising Action

Other Character introduction, Feast, Party, Plans on pretending to be Gods and taking the Gold back to Spain.

Rising Action
Ball Game, and character conflicts

Climax- 
The the climax which is defeating the high priest, which takes up about 1/4 of the film. it then goes onto its falling down and final suspense then ending. There is alot more happening before the boss battle, we see adventure and character developments and relationships and conflicts, which in turn develop the story itself.





Back to what i was saying earlier about Freytags triangle being complex, if your still with me after my ramblings, is that we can have one triangle for the main story line, but then there are sub story plots and narratives which link of to, and in some cases its possible to go on forever making triangles, or Dramatic Structures, for each plot line.

For example if i was to choose a Role Playing Game like Oblivion, and illustrate the different stories made and side quests, there would probably be this many triangles, portraying the many stories you can follow. and that would be cruel.

Instead here's an example from my seminar class on, once again the Simpsons. Where they go to London. Basically the main plot line is going to London, where homer upsets the queen but all is okay by the end. (Following the above structure.) However there are sub plot lines, such as Bart creating a museum, Grandpa finding a lover from his past and Bart and Lisa running off, each of these technically have a beginning, a middle and an end.

And that's about as much as i can say about these theories, though i must say i quite like the idea of going a bit mad and using Freytags structure, ad exploring all the side stories and their own structures.

Intertextuality

Probably so far my favourite lecture for media histories and cultures, something that i’ll now probably keep referring to over and over again in my life outside of university, (and hopefully not annoy to many people)

Julia Kristeva’s  refers to intertextuality as a  “transposition of one (or several) sign systems into another.” [i] And another good quote which can sum up the idea of intertextuality from Graham Allen denotes “ no text much as it might appear so, is original and unique in itself, ..... and to an extent unwitting,  references to and quotations from other texts.” . [ii]

Originally relating to literacy texts of poetry and novels for example, the concept as been applied to practically everything in our cultures, like Fashion to design, even art and of course what i will be referring to, films.

And in films, TV, animations there is much intertextuality to discover, i believe i spent the whole lecture going, “Oh yeah” and  “i see now”. 

There are two wonderful forms of Intertextuality, we have-

Unconscious, where it is true intertextuality, it is beyond the authors control that the audience make this connection. An example of mine is the APU desings in the Matrix and Avatar, (although its possible because the of the type of structure), as i was watching Avatar i did think it looked smiliar to the ones in the Matrix revolutions. 

Other examples of unconscious intertextuality of what i found is in animated films in of disney and dreamworks, intended or not, i found some characters were kind of similar or certain scenes. for example i choose Hercules (Disney) Pain and Panic, and The Prince of Egypt (Dreamworks) Hotep and Huy. Even though they're mannerisms or character personality are not alike, to me it was the pairing of characters, one short and fat, the other tall and thin with a pointed noise that reminded me of Pain and Panic.

We then have Conscious or Self-Conscious, pretty much done intending to be recognised by the audience, that they have in fact referenced from something else, normally we find these in Spoofs and Parodies. Great examples of this are Family Guy, The Simpsons, and what i think is the king of intertextuality of these is Robot Chicken.

 

Above we have Family Guy's Spoof on the Neverending Story, which takes a small clip to parody, and below we have Robot Chicken which makes parodies of nearly everything.

If there is  one video i have to post here its from Assassins Creed, Brotherhood and the reference to the Mario games and show. When intertextuality was first explained a number my friends and i mimicked this with much enthusiasm.

---

[i] juliakristeva

[ii] GrahamAllen

Reading the signs….All the Signs!

I found this week’s lecture to be very interesting, yet feel like it could take me many a year to actually explain it as clear as possible, without rambling on too much that is.

Signification!

Here’s a kind equation, the Signifier (physical form) + Signified (concept it represents) = Signs

Okay so for example we are given the image of a tree and we know that it is a tree; if we are given the word tree we would have the idea that it would be a tall rectangle shaped thing with green around it.

However the problem with this, is that not everything is universal

Romanian pisica, Mayan miss, Indonesian kucing. What are the words highlighted? Are they the same thing? Would everyone know them? These all mean Cat, but still, would everyone know what that is?

When we see the image above we instantly link that to being a cat, pisica or kucing, it’s not real, but it’s an image that is highly used to portray one.

The image below is one I discovered in a cafe, and found to be quite amusing for an example of a sign used for toilets to distinguish between the two genders. 

So anyway, this brings us to some more terms (yay). Let’s illustrate these using 'human' characters as examples.

We start of with Arbitary (symbolic) this being less constrained by reality. Here we have Joe from Viewtiful Joe. 

 He's supposedly a young man, but from what we see he's completely out of proportion from what a man would look like, over sized head small legs and feet, especially because its a flat 2d image, but its style that can represent one. We recognise that its male and human from his features such as clothing eyes and mouth, even the posture can make our brains say "yep, its not realistic but its meant to be a guy."

Then we have a character from Unreal Tournament 1 game.

Compared to Joe his body proportions are more accurate and has a 3d form, making it look more human, though in the sense of being realistic the level of detail appears flat and the character himself consists of sharp blocks and edges. (baring in mind the game was made about a decade ago)

Coming up to the term Iconic (in the sense of being realistic that is) i chose Grendel's mother in the fillm Beowulf, probably because of all that work that went into Angelina Jolies' character to look like...well Angelina Jolie. 

The level of detail can be quite convincing and, well okay Grendal's mother isnt exactly a human, but compared to the other two images it reaches the highest bar mark for being realistic, this goes for shadow and lighting, facial features and colour which all makes the character here resemble a real human being.

 

Models of Communication

Shannon and Weavers process model of communication had an aim to maximise the efficiency of communication using different media and channels, producing the process.

There being the information source that’s transmitted to the receiver, the signal of how it’s transmitted, and the noise surrounding it. Referring to any disruption or distortion to the signal as it is being transmitted to its destination. Terms such as redundancy and entropy can also refer to the type of information being sent, redundant information establishing forms of familiarity and entropic being unpredictable, yet possibly allowing us to new and useful information conveyed in unexpected ways. Where in my seminar, I found useful to separate the animations we watched, and reflecting on this, previous films and books I have seen, into what I found to be conventional and mainstream to experimental and unusual. We watched two short animations with solid differences in storytelling.

Pixars ‘For the Birds’, displaying a gathering birds on a telephone wire, conventional and something, us the audience understands to be normal, of course there being forms of entropy such as visual design of the birds, we understand the story, how it was told and the message being successfully received by us.

 In comparison to us the short ‘Yankee Gal’ proved to confuse us but also allowed us to discuss our various views and what we believed the film to be about, some receiving different visual information to help understand the short better than others. For example subtle shapes, symbols and hidden meanings behind the female character, allowed the class to have more opinions than when we watched the first clip. Using the film as an example we can say, because rather that straight storytelling and answers, the audience had more questions and confusion, its unpredictability caused the feedback from the receiver to be distorted and not well received. 

There is also the fact that entropic information can eventually become redundant, for me watching ‘Yankee Gal’ seemed familiar in its style and narrative, as I am used to, and enjoy, watching films that are experimental, and therefore predicted the ending where as others in my class claimed it to be unexpected. Though it doesn’t mean that I understood all its meanings at the first viewing, I can still say it’s entropic as there is still much more information to be discovered and to be received by me, as not all the information was successfully transmitted in one goes, whether or not if that was the director’s intention.

http://vimeo.com/3173246
http://www.pixar.com/shorts/ftb/index.html