That's Only Half The Story

Q : I would like something retrospective. Looking back over this semester's class, what were for you memorable moments or events? You might look back and select a favorite blog post, a favorite assignment, a moment which stands out in the course discussion. Or it might be something that didn't work for you. Perhaps analyzing images doesn't have enough to do with the rhetoric that you are expected to use in your writing. Perhaps on-line discourse isn't your cup of tea. Whatever the topic, take a look back and write a bit in the blog about it.

A: Professor Thompson wants the students to write about something memorable or events in class, or things that did not work for the students in class. For the most part, I seriously enjoy the class very much because the professor is always questioning the materials that he and the students presented. I like this, even though this is not a 400 level English class. I realized that the upper level a class is, the professor requires the students to ask less questions. For instance, if I ask how come abc is like this. My professor in my upper level classes will reply saying that, "Oh, research says this and this. We got to believe in research!!!" I am certainly not happy with those answers. Research is good. But only reporting what people have found and not  coming up with solutions to the reported problems are BAD. It makes people passive. It makes people stupid. Believe me, if we all believe in research and do not question any materials, cockroaches will rule the world tomorrow, if not the next day. Like my friend, Alec Bourne says, "It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated."

Secondly, I like the class a lot because Professor Thompson has control of the class. He will require students to keep quiet and stop typing to listen to him and others who are speaking. I wish other professors would mimic his actions. I have classes where Professors will just allow students to be rude, loud, and ill-mannered. If, education is about learning how to rude, loud, and ill-mannered, then I will tell you those Professors are indeed 5 stars professors. But, education is not. Professor Thompson gets 5 moons for having control in the class. Please do not let the students to be rude, and ill-mannered in your class, Professor Thompson.

I also like how he had incorporated technology into the class materials. I learn how to blog "intellectually" (even though my blog might look childish to others). Having my own blog, also made me curious and encourage me to check out other "intellectual" and "political" blogs and also educate people around me to check out these blogs. If, I did not take this class, I would not have a blog which I enjoy writing so much.

Thank you, Professor Thompson.

Sincerely,
Lim the pig

    I have chosen the film V for Vendetta for assignment six. I am interested in this film because of its premise: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. Besides that, I also realize the importance of changing some content from the original source to suit the current time period. For instance, the director had stated that they had made Evey, Vendetta’s love, a stronger and more mature character in the movie, unlike the comic book. There are several issues which the film has discussed. Three issues caught my attention: (1) constructed fear by the government (2) whether rebelling against the government is a morally praiseworthy or merely an act of personal vengeance (3) violent content.

    Fear: an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight). In V for Vendetta, rather than dealing with more pragmatic and urgent social issues such as poverty, unemployment, crime, pollution, and social security, the government has distorted the public discourse into the culture of fear. The government had carefully selected and omitted news to brainwash the citizens. The government also possesses the LOVE to stigmatize minorities or “abnormal” people such as homosexuals, Muslims, and illegal immigrants. ALERT: This form of mass-media related phenomenon is harmful to your heart, mind, and soul. Film Convention: Dialogue/ Text Analysis

    Hero or Zero: Hero is defined as a man with exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. Zero: an insignificant person or thing. In V for Vendetta, the hero acts can be rated from the continuum of kindness to mass killings, or vice versa, depending on how you view it, and also on your political ideologies and also religious beliefs. Several characters such as V, Evey, and L (L for Lim) wrestle with the question of vengeance, justice, and ideas. Ultimately, the film leaves the audience to ponder the ancient rhetorical question. ALERT: We are ALL our own revolutionist in our own little ways, whether we admit it or not. Convention: Dialogue/ Camera Shots/ Editing

 

-tobecontinued-

 

    Professor had asked us to blog this question, "How analytical a viewer of moving visual media are you?" and "What have you gained from analysis?" Briefly, "moving visual media" usually means movies, either in cinema or television (Correct me, if I am wrong). When I was a kid, I used to watch a lot of superman series. Who wouldn't like what superman is doing? Remember, I was a kid. superman has super-powers and by large and extraordinary magnifications of ordinary human abilities. Something which I did not have, and will never have. He gets to fly around the sky. Jumps from tall building and lands on the ground safely, and essentially, he is a good person (Maybe, I get to have the last trait, I have a good pig personality)

    After watching too many series of superman, and trying to climb up tables, I thought what we watched could actually come true - That was when I was a 5-year old kid. One fine day, I climbed up my relative's table and for some "unknown" reason, I thought I could fly and Guess what??? I ended up with a broken arm and fractured leg. I even received a consolation prize from my parents - a long long lecture about what the heck I thought I am doing?????

    I have been distrustful about "moving visual" in media, since then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fast-forward 15years later, I occasionally struggle with how analytical I am going to be when watching a movie. Analytical means a lot of things. Besides that, sometimes I caught myself asking the question, "What is the whole point of being too analytical when the purpose is to sit down and enjoy the movie?" In other words, being an analytical audience is a rhetorical question.

    Here is Lim's well-respected abbreviated version of rhetoric :  (1) It depends on who you are with when watching the movie (2) What genre of movie you are watching (3) What mood you are in (hormone fluctuates) (4) How much did you pay to watch that movie, for instance.
   
    To me, genre plays the most important factor in influencing how analytical I am going to be when viewing a "moving image". Film genres are various forms of classifications that are recurring and have similar, familiar or instantly-recognizable patterns, syntax, filmic techniques or conventions - that include one or more of the following : (1) setting (and props) (2) content and subject matter (3) themes (4) mood (5) period (6) plot (7) central narrative events (8) recurring icons (e.g.  guns in Westerns). I know that the list of what genres means, is longer than our shopping list. Let's look at two examples to understand it better. Note: Many films have several genres in a film.

    I would be more critical with action movies than animation ones, just because I am aware that "moving images" in animations are unreal. Action movies have conventions which enable the "moving images" to be realistically seen. Take a look at the superman movie and the cartoon. YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE FLYING ABILITIES in the movie, but it is acceptable and believable when superman have flying skills in cartoons or even comic books (setting and props). Get the idea? I would be less analytical when watching a comedy than watching a rated film (content and subject matter). Why? Because, actors or animals in rated films, sometimes, experience realistic violence during the making of the film. 
    Now, after all these mumbo jumbo, what do we gain from being analytical especially when one we watch "moving images"? Well, you will not be like me, for sure. You won't end up with a broken arm and leg. You will be saving yourself from physical harms. You will avoid falling under the catefory of  "groupthink". You will not simply accept the decisions made in the film but challenge it. You will be wary that the narratives in the films are just fictions and would not buy into those craps they say, such as "doing drugs could get you rich". They surely forgot to tell you that doing drugs could also get you into trouble and will hurt you.
   
    This is my stand in answering professor's questions. It is easy to say it in a few words about what being analytical means. And it demands a lot from one's senses to be aware of those "moving images". I end with the statement, "Welcome to the Curse of Visual Culture"