Monday, May 18, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
I'm not big on blogging. I should be, but I'm not.
Lemme drop a few facts on you: I'm a writer. Not only that, I'm a journalist. I'm a journalist who works for a quasi-top tier video game website. I own two blogs, this being one of them. I should be a blogging maniac, right?
Wrong.
It's a conundrum. Back when I was in Los Angeles for E3, my (now former) editor in chief and I were talking while dining on some sushi. We got on the subject of writing, and there was a clear difference between the two of us - he writes for fun, writes to excel, writes just for the hell of it. Me? I write when I need to. Write a news post, write an essay, write an article. I just can't see myself writing solid chunks of text unless it's to satisfy some requirement or deadline. That's just how I function. But as I contrasted our two writing methodologies, it got me thinking: am I a bad writer? Am I even a writer? Am I doomed to dissatisfaction if I continue down this path? Yeesh. Inner dilemmas ahoy.
I mean, don't get me wrong - I do enjoy the act of writing. Or, I'm good at it (to some extent), at the least. But then again, writing doesn't take any effort for me - it's just like pulling thoughts straight out of my head and slapping them onto paper (or, in this case, a monitor). I just can't help but feel like I don't have the time to sit down and write blog posts. Either that or I feel like there are better ways to spend my time. Super Smash Bros. Brawl, anyone?
Maybe it's true that we're all starting to lose our attention spans for reading/writing long strings of text and I'm just falling in line. I mean, I do still write, it's just on more rapid means. And social means. You know, like Twitter. I guess writing articles for The Foghorn counts as writing for fun, but even then I only manage to gain up the motivation to write the articles out of the desire to meet a deadline.
I guess it all just comes down to my lifelong lack of motivation. But I think that's a story for another time. Bottom line: blogging just isn't for me. I'll blog sometimes if I feel like, I'll blog if I have to for an assignment (hey, like this one!), but when it comes down to it, I just don't have the motivation to become a frequent blogger.
Wrong.
It's a conundrum. Back when I was in Los Angeles for E3, my (now former) editor in chief and I were talking while dining on some sushi. We got on the subject of writing, and there was a clear difference between the two of us - he writes for fun, writes to excel, writes just for the hell of it. Me? I write when I need to. Write a news post, write an essay, write an article. I just can't see myself writing solid chunks of text unless it's to satisfy some requirement or deadline. That's just how I function. But as I contrasted our two writing methodologies, it got me thinking: am I a bad writer? Am I even a writer? Am I doomed to dissatisfaction if I continue down this path? Yeesh. Inner dilemmas ahoy.
I mean, don't get me wrong - I do enjoy the act of writing. Or, I'm good at it (to some extent), at the least. But then again, writing doesn't take any effort for me - it's just like pulling thoughts straight out of my head and slapping them onto paper (or, in this case, a monitor). I just can't help but feel like I don't have the time to sit down and write blog posts. Either that or I feel like there are better ways to spend my time. Super Smash Bros. Brawl, anyone?
Maybe it's true that we're all starting to lose our attention spans for reading/writing long strings of text and I'm just falling in line. I mean, I do still write, it's just on more rapid means. And social means. You know, like Twitter. I guess writing articles for The Foghorn counts as writing for fun, but even then I only manage to gain up the motivation to write the articles out of the desire to meet a deadline.
I guess it all just comes down to my lifelong lack of motivation. But I think that's a story for another time. Bottom line: blogging just isn't for me. I'll blog sometimes if I feel like, I'll blog if I have to for an assignment (hey, like this one!), but when it comes down to it, I just don't have the motivation to become a frequent blogger.
Friday, February 27, 2009
USF Human Rights Film Festival 2009: Taxi to the Dark Side
After attending the student film section of the festival, I decided to head to the cafeteria to curb my hunger pangs, making sure to get back to the theater in time for the screening of Alex Gibney's 2008 Oscar winning film for "Best Documentary Feature," Taxi to the Dark Side.
When I think about that movie, I don't even know where to start... probably because it was so long and there was so much information crammed into it. But the main focus of the movie was the story of Dilawar, an Afghani taxi driver who was wrongfully captured by the US military as a terrorist and eventually killed during his detainment. This story served as a frame to discuss the various US detainment camps, the torture methods used within them, and the political aspect to it all.
Truth be told, it was a gripping documentary. Audience reactions were heard left and right, from gasps in disgust at the gruesome imagery of the Abu Ghraib scandal to the rare laugh when a political figure's stupid decision or dialogue was mocked. The documentary lived up to its award-winning acclaim, though I must admit that it was a tad too long. Yes, there was so much information on the subject to convey, but you can only hold an audience's attention for so long. Perhaps it was my lack of sleep from the night before, but I found myself dozing in and out of sleep at around the hour and a half mark. Other than that, the film was a highly interesting watch that exposes a great atrocity in how the US military goes about its business "protecting America".
A candid picture of the director himself, Alex Gibney (on right):
And here's a link to the main page of the Human Rights Film Festival:
http://www.usfca.edu/mediastudies/hrw/films.html
More information on Taxi to the Dark Side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_dark_side
When I think about that movie, I don't even know where to start... probably because it was so long and there was so much information crammed into it. But the main focus of the movie was the story of Dilawar, an Afghani taxi driver who was wrongfully captured by the US military as a terrorist and eventually killed during his detainment. This story served as a frame to discuss the various US detainment camps, the torture methods used within them, and the political aspect to it all.
Truth be told, it was a gripping documentary. Audience reactions were heard left and right, from gasps in disgust at the gruesome imagery of the Abu Ghraib scandal to the rare laugh when a political figure's stupid decision or dialogue was mocked. The documentary lived up to its award-winning acclaim, though I must admit that it was a tad too long. Yes, there was so much information on the subject to convey, but you can only hold an audience's attention for so long. Perhaps it was my lack of sleep from the night before, but I found myself dozing in and out of sleep at around the hour and a half mark. Other than that, the film was a highly interesting watch that exposes a great atrocity in how the US military goes about its business "protecting America".
A candid picture of the director himself, Alex Gibney (on right):
And here's a link to the main page of the Human Rights Film Festival:
http://www.usfca.edu/mediastudies/hrw/films.html
More information on Taxi to the Dark Side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_dark_side
USF Human Rights Film Festival 2009: Student Films
Ouch. The only thing worse than a tough crowd is no crowd whatsoever.
Okay, so people didn't exactly flock to the student film portion of USF's Human Rights Film Festival - there was an audience of less than twenty. But I like to think of it as intimate. You know, an intimate group of people willing to devote their time to learn more about the various violations of human rights that plague our world today... and then there was me, a journalist in a Digital Media Production class who was only there because it was part of an assignment. But that's not to say I didn't enjoy myself and learn quite a bit. You know, because I did.
First up on the block was a film made by Kate Elston called "Presente". It was a short, focused piece that revolved around one particular part of the protests held at the School of the Americas - a person calls out the name and age of a person killed by soldiers trained at the School of the Americas and the crowd (which lies in the thousands) responds together with "presente," or "present" in Spanish. I was surprised by how short the film was and, to be honest, I kind of expected more information to be given on the situation, though I can understand that it would have ruined the focus of the film. Nevertheless, "Presente" fulfilled its role well as both an artistic and informative piece.
Next up was a film created by Alexandra Platt & crew called "Soy Niente," or "I Am Nothing". It documented the growing problem of gypsies in Italy not being recognized as Italian citizens or having the ability to obtain work permits in order to assimilate into Italian society, thus being perpetually pushed to the outskirts of Italy, diminishing in status even as their numbers grow. This film was definitely longer than the first one and had more of a traditional documentary feel to it. It left me interested in the situation even after the film was over, and I could tell the audience felt the same with the questions that were raised after the screening. Platt noted that the film is somewhat outdated as the situation has grown larger recently, so I would love to see a follow-up on it.
After that was... nothing? That's it? No more student films? Lame. I expected something like 4 or 5 quick-fire short films. Oh well.
You can check out the main page for the film festival here:
http://www.usfca.edu/mediastudies/hrw/films.html
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
I'm pooped. I think I'll go to bed.
After that little splurge of posting, I think it's time to call it a day. I wonder how I'll be able to run on about 5 hours of sleep. I mean, I've been productive on much less.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Journalism 3 TV Review
Mmmm. The Office. I gotta admit, I'm actually not very proud of this one, but it's alright. They can't all be gems, right? ...Right? Ah well. Another one bites the dust:
Let’s face it – when you’re a college student, sometimes you just don’t have the schedule to commit a half hour to sitting down and watching television at the exact same time on the same day every week. But on the other hand, sometimes you need to make time to just lay back and enjoy some no-strings-attached quality television. That’s why The Office, currently airing on NBC, is one of the best shows to watch even when your life schedule isn’t as consistent as you’d like.
The Office is a sitcom that’s an American adaptation of the BBC series of the same name. It’s shot as a mockumentary, which means that the characters in the show are aware of the cameras that follow them around, often looking at them and having one-on-one conversations to them. The series follows the somewhat miserable employees of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, which is lead by the eccentric and sometimes inept regional manager, Michael Scott. Other notable characters include coworker lovebirds Jim Halpert and Pam Beesly, who share a common interest in pulling pranks on the even more eccentric Dwight Schrute.
The Office loves to utilize awkward dialogue and interactions as the driving force to its humor. The fact that the show doesn’t even have a laugh track brings the awkwardness to an even higher level by including the viewer, who is often forced to question whether they should be laughing or cringing at the embarrassment of the situations presented before them. Such comedy can much of the time come off as ‘dry’, however, and that may turn off potential viewers. But to those who aren’t turned off, The Office provides solid entertainment for a half hour, and the best part is that you don’t need to follow it religiously.
Like most shows, viewers of The Office are benefitted greatly when watching the episodes in its intended order and without skipping over any of them. What makes The Office so great, though, is that it isn’t completely necessary to do so. Because continuity takes a backseat in the series, you can get virtually the same enjoyment out of watching an episode without seeing any recent ones as if you had seen all the episodes preceding it. True, there is an overarching plot of some sort, but its bearing on individual episodes is minimal to the point that you don’t even have to worry about it. Add this to the fact that most major plot points are at least slightly explained when such information is crucial to the episode, and The Office makes for a great on-and-off series to watch when you’ve got the time.
So if your schedule is too demanding to follow the going-ons of television, The Office delivers a brand of comedy and entertainment that you can pick up and leave off from at your own leisure – because we can all use Casual Friday.
Score: 8/10
Let’s face it – when you’re a college student, sometimes you just don’t have the schedule to commit a half hour to sitting down and watching television at the exact same time on the same day every week. But on the other hand, sometimes you need to make time to just lay back and enjoy some no-strings-attached quality television. That’s why The Office, currently airing on NBC, is one of the best shows to watch even when your life schedule isn’t as consistent as you’d like.
The Office is a sitcom that’s an American adaptation of the BBC series of the same name. It’s shot as a mockumentary, which means that the characters in the show are aware of the cameras that follow them around, often looking at them and having one-on-one conversations to them. The series follows the somewhat miserable employees of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, which is lead by the eccentric and sometimes inept regional manager, Michael Scott. Other notable characters include coworker lovebirds Jim Halpert and Pam Beesly, who share a common interest in pulling pranks on the even more eccentric Dwight Schrute.
The Office loves to utilize awkward dialogue and interactions as the driving force to its humor. The fact that the show doesn’t even have a laugh track brings the awkwardness to an even higher level by including the viewer, who is often forced to question whether they should be laughing or cringing at the embarrassment of the situations presented before them. Such comedy can much of the time come off as ‘dry’, however, and that may turn off potential viewers. But to those who aren’t turned off, The Office provides solid entertainment for a half hour, and the best part is that you don’t need to follow it religiously.
Like most shows, viewers of The Office are benefitted greatly when watching the episodes in its intended order and without skipping over any of them. What makes The Office so great, though, is that it isn’t completely necessary to do so. Because continuity takes a backseat in the series, you can get virtually the same enjoyment out of watching an episode without seeing any recent ones as if you had seen all the episodes preceding it. True, there is an overarching plot of some sort, but its bearing on individual episodes is minimal to the point that you don’t even have to worry about it. Add this to the fact that most major plot points are at least slightly explained when such information is crucial to the episode, and The Office makes for a great on-and-off series to watch when you’ve got the time.
So if your schedule is too demanding to follow the going-ons of television, The Office delivers a brand of comedy and entertainment that you can pick up and leave off from at your own leisure – because we can all use Casual Friday.
Score: 8/10
Journalism 3 Movie Review
Next up is my review for Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Woody Allen is damn lucky he was able to cast so many hot people. Here we go:
Vicky Cristina Barcelona: three proper nouns that, without any given context, are tough to string together. In this case, Woody Allen provides the backdrop of two young adults, Vicky and Cristina, and their eventful trip to the beautiful Barcelona, Spain. The movie’s premise is one that showed promise, but ultimately, the execution in dialogue and mediocre acting performances bring down Vicky Cristina Barcelona’s identity as a romantic blockbuster that explores ideas like the uncertainty of love and polygamy’s role in a world so focused on single-spouse relationships.
Deciding to visit Barcelona for the summer, Vicky (played by Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (played by Scarlett Johansson) take notice of an eccentric painter at a local art gallery opening. The painter, known as Juan Antonio (played by Javier Bardem), goes on to force the two girls to question their ideas of love throughout their multiple encounters. Vicky, a prim-and-proper girl who was recently engaged, especially deals with her own inner struggle as she must call into question if what she had wanted in the past was what she had wanted at that present moment. The situation gets even more complicated when Maria Elena (played by Penelope Cruz), Juan Antonio’s ex-wife, makes a return.
I wasn’t really sure how to feel about this movie when I first saw it. As I went through it from beginning to end, I could see many things wrong with the movie and, at the same time, many things right. I suppose that’s why I consider Vicky Cristina Barcelona to be a fairly average movie in that its positive aspects strike an almost equal balance with its negative aspects. For starters, let’s take a look at the choice of actors and actresses. On the plus side, Penelope Cruz’s performance as Maria Elena is absolutely stunning. The wide range of emotions she was able to naturally and masterfully display throughout the film cemented her position as a perfect fit for the role. Additionally, Javier Bardem’s performance as Juan Antonio was above average. He was handsome, charming, and his line delivery felt perfectly natural. Truly, Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem were the stars of this show, so much so that they both nabbed quite a few nominations for their performances, with Cruz winning two or three.
Scarlett Johansson’s performance was neither grand nor disappointing – she played her role well and, if I may add, served to be great eye candy. Actually, let’s be honest here: pretty much everyone in this movie is beautiful… even Javier Bardem. That’s right, I said it. But much in the same way that Cruz and Bardem’s performances uplift the movie’s status, Rebecca Hall’s performance brings it down. At least in the first half of the movie or so, Hall’s line delivery is almost painful. Each line felt so unnatural, as if it was just being read plainly off the script. Perhaps it was Allen’s intention to make Vicky’s character this one-dimensional, uptight girl who spoke in an almost monotonous voice, we may never know. But one thing remains: the role of Vicky could have definitely been made better.
It wouldn’t be nice to put all the blame on Hall, though. While her line delivery did feel unnatural and stale, I think part of that could be attributed to the dialogue itself. At times, I couldn’t help but ask myself “is this how real people are supposed to talk?” While the story itself was enchanting and the ideas conveyed within the movie were appropriate for our current society’s beliefs on love, the dialogue itself is another down point for the movie.
One last thing that must be mentioned is the music. Most of the movie’s music is a beautiful blend of percussion instruments and acoustic guitars with a healthy dose of Latin flavor, the movie’s main theme is unbearable solely due to the main vocals. I don’t know why, but I found the vocals to be absolutely annoying, and I dreaded each subsequent time the theme played more than the last.
Despite its glaring problems, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is an enchanting tale of love that will at least hold your attention for the entire hour and a half. When its positive points are placed side by side with its negative points, it is apparent that the movie just barely hovers above the average line.
Score: 6/10
Vicky Cristina Barcelona: three proper nouns that, without any given context, are tough to string together. In this case, Woody Allen provides the backdrop of two young adults, Vicky and Cristina, and their eventful trip to the beautiful Barcelona, Spain. The movie’s premise is one that showed promise, but ultimately, the execution in dialogue and mediocre acting performances bring down Vicky Cristina Barcelona’s identity as a romantic blockbuster that explores ideas like the uncertainty of love and polygamy’s role in a world so focused on single-spouse relationships.
Deciding to visit Barcelona for the summer, Vicky (played by Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (played by Scarlett Johansson) take notice of an eccentric painter at a local art gallery opening. The painter, known as Juan Antonio (played by Javier Bardem), goes on to force the two girls to question their ideas of love throughout their multiple encounters. Vicky, a prim-and-proper girl who was recently engaged, especially deals with her own inner struggle as she must call into question if what she had wanted in the past was what she had wanted at that present moment. The situation gets even more complicated when Maria Elena (played by Penelope Cruz), Juan Antonio’s ex-wife, makes a return.
I wasn’t really sure how to feel about this movie when I first saw it. As I went through it from beginning to end, I could see many things wrong with the movie and, at the same time, many things right. I suppose that’s why I consider Vicky Cristina Barcelona to be a fairly average movie in that its positive aspects strike an almost equal balance with its negative aspects. For starters, let’s take a look at the choice of actors and actresses. On the plus side, Penelope Cruz’s performance as Maria Elena is absolutely stunning. The wide range of emotions she was able to naturally and masterfully display throughout the film cemented her position as a perfect fit for the role. Additionally, Javier Bardem’s performance as Juan Antonio was above average. He was handsome, charming, and his line delivery felt perfectly natural. Truly, Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem were the stars of this show, so much so that they both nabbed quite a few nominations for their performances, with Cruz winning two or three.
Scarlett Johansson’s performance was neither grand nor disappointing – she played her role well and, if I may add, served to be great eye candy. Actually, let’s be honest here: pretty much everyone in this movie is beautiful… even Javier Bardem. That’s right, I said it. But much in the same way that Cruz and Bardem’s performances uplift the movie’s status, Rebecca Hall’s performance brings it down. At least in the first half of the movie or so, Hall’s line delivery is almost painful. Each line felt so unnatural, as if it was just being read plainly off the script. Perhaps it was Allen’s intention to make Vicky’s character this one-dimensional, uptight girl who spoke in an almost monotonous voice, we may never know. But one thing remains: the role of Vicky could have definitely been made better.
It wouldn’t be nice to put all the blame on Hall, though. While her line delivery did feel unnatural and stale, I think part of that could be attributed to the dialogue itself. At times, I couldn’t help but ask myself “is this how real people are supposed to talk?” While the story itself was enchanting and the ideas conveyed within the movie were appropriate for our current society’s beliefs on love, the dialogue itself is another down point for the movie.
One last thing that must be mentioned is the music. Most of the movie’s music is a beautiful blend of percussion instruments and acoustic guitars with a healthy dose of Latin flavor, the movie’s main theme is unbearable solely due to the main vocals. I don’t know why, but I found the vocals to be absolutely annoying, and I dreaded each subsequent time the theme played more than the last.
Despite its glaring problems, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is an enchanting tale of love that will at least hold your attention for the entire hour and a half. When its positive points are placed side by side with its negative points, it is apparent that the movie just barely hovers above the average line.
Score: 6/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Ouch. The only thing worse than a tough crowd is no crowd whatsoever. Okay, so people didn't exactly flock to the student film portion o...
-
After attending the student film section of the festival, I decided to head to the cafeteria to curb my hunger pangs, making sure to get bac...
-
Oh man, has this day really come? Am I really graduating? Yes, it’s true – my time as a USF student is nearly over, and with that comes the ...
