It's looking like 'no.'
MIFF - My picks. Where I snob-out.
The Melbourne International Film Festival is almost upon us. Last year, I didn't see Inglourious Basterds and regretted it, because it turned out to be the best movie of the year. Yes. I mean that.
So I'm making a concerted effort to get involved this time, and that includes making a shortlist of movies I want to see. Monetary and time constraints will probably mean I wont get to see them all, but at least I have a goal!
There are of course other movies on the program that I would like to see that I haven't included here, but I've left them out because they're high-profile (read: American) enough to probably get a mainstream release later (at least on DVD). I'm talking about ones like The Kids Are All Right, Chloe, The Ghost Writer (well, actually I don't watch Polanski any more, but it'll get a wider release), The Killer Inside Me, The Messenger, Please Give, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Welcome To The Rileys, and Australia's The Wedding Party etc...Of course there are a couple of US entries that I can't wait for, and they're included.
You'll also notice there aren't any from particular programs, like the Neighborhood Watch series, or the Night Shift, Animation or States of Dissent series. It's a taste thing. I'm a little heavier on the Docs - I love documentaries. Anyway here's my basic list, some of these I've heard great things about already, some of them just caught my eye and seem super interesting. Have I missed anything?What would you recommend?
Heard great things, it won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. Some have called it an anti-war film, and while I'm not sure if I believe they exist, it feels like we might be in a different movement of war films.
This was originally made by HBO to be a TV movie, but recently HBO announced it would release it as a cinema feature. It is a sequel of sorts to Stephen Frears's The Queen (2006), but this time it's directed by Richard Loncraine. I'll be seeing it for Michael Sheen's wonderfully subtle portrayal of Tony Blair.
What is happening with this movie?! It has been speculated that its cinema release in the US keeps getting pushed back due to graphic gay sex scenes. But I've heard great things, and I'm a big fan of 'Dramatic Jim Carrey.'
I'm a sucker for music documentaries, and there is a great lot of them at this year's MIFF (Backbeat), but when that music is the blues, well, wild horses couldn't drag me away.
If there's one thing True Blood has taught us, apart from proving it's impossible to have too many hot guys in one cast and there is no sex scene too absurd for TV, it's that Vinnie from Home and Away can not only act but can pull off complex and compelling characters. Good on ya Vinnie! I like the visual look of this film, debut filmmaker Patrick Hughes is clearly inspired by Tarantino and Ozpolitation movies, and that's fine by me.
One I came across in my browsing, this sort of doco is right up my ally. It's a personal journey, about social networking, and apparently has a shocking twist. Yes please.
La Danse: The Paris Opera Ballet
My movie tastes might not be particularly girlie, but I turn into a complete giggly girlie puddle when I see anything ballet. Tutus! Tragedy! Hair nets! Anorexia! Ahem.
Danish gay neo-Nazis? I'm SO THERE.
MIFF is doing a Joe Dante retrospective, and that's a genius move. While The 'Burbs and Gremlins 1 & 2 are great too, I just can't go past childhood favorite Innerspace, where Dennis Quaid is shrunk and injected into the ass of Martin Short. MARTIN SHORT! **
In what is perhaps the most obvious title in the whole festival, this is about an academic prodigy who turns out to be a pedo. Again: SO THERE.
Forget the other US indies at MIFF, this is the movie I'm hearing the most amazing things about. The lead performance by young Jennifer Lawrence is apparently revolutionary.
It's about contemporary Russia. 'Nuff said.
Petropolis: Aerial Perspectives on the Alberta Tar Sands
An aerial look at the second biggest oil reserve in the world, in northern Canada. Fascinating.
* Oh noes, I can't make the screening of Innerspace (I'll be in Perth that weekend), so I'll probably see The 'Burbs instead.
** Trust me, click that link.
It is so about Twitter
There's really not much to the Catherine Deveny 'issue' left to be said... except the most interesting thing. In case you've been living on the sun, Deveny is a writer/comedian/professional annoyer who was basically employed by Melbourne's broadsheet (supposedly that's supposed to mean something) The Age to be their answer to tabloid Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt - Inflammatory, extreme, single-minded, harsh, unyielding. Deveny has, like most opinionated people, a Twitter account. And this year, Deveny tweeted during the Logies, the night we look back at the year in Australian TV and say: "Huh....yeah." She made a couple of tweets that touched nerves (you see, 'decent Australians' have quite a few nerves - ANZACs, sick kids, our borders, cricketers' WAGs), specifically:
Yeah - they're BIG nerves. Everyone: Don't make fun of our weird fatherless child-personalities, and don't make fun of breast cancer. There was outrage, fuelled by the Herald Sun and commercial talkback radio. The Age sacked her. Like I said, pretty much everything has already been said about this online. In summation, they all go something like this: "Even if you're not a fan of Deveny's opinions, The Age shouldn't have sacked her because of pressure from other media after a couple of tweets!”
Let’s not get distracted by the fun talk of whether Deveny is funny or offensive. For me, the most interesting thing about this is Twitter. Deveny herself wrote in an over-emotional response manifesto for ABC's The Drum: "This is so not about Twitter” – Except it is. It is about gender and mainstream double-standards and class, but it is also about the panic surrounding a platform that lets you broadcast (or narrowcast, if you’re a small fish like me) your views for free. When you are paid to broadcast your views in a publication people pay for, and you also Tweet your views freely to your followers, eventually there’s going to be some convergence between the two, for better or worse. To not expect it is to be naive and frankly ignorant of the implications of technology. This is something The Age and Deveny are guilty of, but also perhaps the wider range of commentators who have contributed to this debate.
There are really only three commentators who have attempted to tackle the wider issue of web-publishing in this context – Jonathan Holmes of Media Watch, Crikey’s Margaret Simons, and SMH’s Miranda Devine. I’ll refrain from reviewing them, you can all read. I’ll also refrain from explicitly addressing the subsequent “Twitter-scandal” involving Divine, the irony of which I’m sure is apparent to all.
Devine, and Holmes and Simons, all address, in some form or another, questions about content ownership and social media use. Deveny’s tweets are authored by her and are perhaps one of the only ways we can hear Deveny’s voice 'unfiltered’ by another editorial voice. The extraordinary thing about new media platforms like Twitter is that they are just that: platforms. They are comparatively free of editorial control, and allow those who use them to produce constant unfiltered content. Really the only meaningful restriction on Twitter content is the amount of space given for each individual message. Twitter is a forum that is designed to be invisible; its purpose is to provide easy-to-access data, in the form you want it, whether through a browser, RSS feed, desktop client or mobile application. This is unlike, say, Deveny being hired by a TV show like Q&A to give her opinion. Q&A is run by the ABC, and the ABC ‘brand’ (to echo Devine’s approach) frames the discussions on that program. When we watch Deveny on Q&A and read her in The Age, we are receiving her filtered through the brand of her editors. Even when we go to see Deveny in a live show, we see her through the frame of comedy conventions. Knowing we are seeing ‘comedy’ contextualises our understanding of what to expect. Twitter intentionally gives you no context.
What Deveny doesn’t seem to realise, is that she herself is a brand. She has an image. A ‘brand voice.’ And when other brands want to use that voice, they pay her; there is a trade-off. One brand, let’s say The Age, asks the other, Deveny, to add value (content) to their product, and in return Deveny receives additional exposure. Now, if Deveny chooses to present her brand unfiltered, for free, without context, outside of the control of paying editors, she must accept that her exposure as a brand has implications across all mediums. Her columns for The Age do not exist in a vacuum, nor do her Tweets, appearances on TV, books, live shows, or other columns. Her brand profile remains constant across all frames. She may argue her brand is framed by conventions of all of these settings, and she would be correct, except for Twitter: The platform with no conventions except a character limit.
It is about Twitter. Social media platforms are not designed to have their own voice. They are made of algorithm, code, and protocol, not editorial policy. If they do have a voice, it consists of many voices speaking at once, creating patterns. You cannot rely on it to give you context. If you are going out to swim in open ocean, understand you may drown if you’re not careful. There is no net.
Oscars Live Blog 2010 - Stef goes to Hollywood *CEREMONY*
And now, lets hope Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin bring the funny. It can't be worse than Hugh Jackman last year. Sound levels for NPH opening is a bit off.
Martin's joke about Waltz hitting the motherload of Jews was pretty great.
Yes - Waltz won! I liked the extended clips.
So far the awards have been as predicted, Best Supporting Actor (Waltz), Best Song (Crazy Heart, T-Bone), Best Animated Feature (Up). Bring on more hosts!
First upset of the night is The Hurt Locker guy winning Original Screenplay over QT for Inglourious Basterds. This means The Hurt Locker will win best picture. This is good because Avatar won't win.
One of the biggest EPIC montages for John Hughes I've ever seen. So many 80s stars!!! LOVE.
YES - There was a train wreck moment - Some crazy woman crashed the stage during Best Documentary Short.
Precious winning best Adapted Screenplay over Up In The Air is also a bit of an upset. So, so far, the writing categories have been telling.
Mo'Nique winning - Yet another given. I'm glad she didn't go on.
Best dressed goes to the Costume Designer for the Young Victoria. Wow.
Hurt Locker is winning the Sound Awards - IT WILL WIN BEST PICTURE.
James Taylor dong the Memorial. BORING. Poor James, it's his only gig these days. He's pitchy too. /Idol.
It wouldn't be an Oscars night without an interprative dance montage. YAWN.
Tonight is kinda boring.
The two married editors for The Hurt Locker are ADORABLE!!!! They've been let out of their box for a bit and they're loving it!
It is pretty awful when they play people off and then let Jeff Bridges go on and on and on and on...
Also, WTF is with the former co-stars playing tribute??? It is weird and awkward.
Bullock - Huh. Pish.
Bigelow wins for director and The Hurt Locker wins best picture. All in all, I think Inglourious Basterds was a better film, but I'm happy for Bigelow (International Woman's Day!) and AVATAR DIDN'T WIN!
Also, Renner, Mackie and Geraghty humping in the background - Nice touch!
Oscars Live Blog 2010 - Stef goes to Hollywood *RED CARPET*
Hi everyone! *cricket riding a tumbleweed* I'm watching this at Livestream, the AP coverage.
It's alive! I have resurrected the blog so you can hear the ramblings of me - someone who has an unhealthy obsession with celebrity and meaningless awards, you can thank me later.
I have opinions that are both shallow and snobby, so hopefully there will be a nice balance between dress-snarkiness and actual film knowledge.
I hope you enjoy.
My times will be in Australian EDT because I'm not so good at maths, working down the page.
*RED CARPET*
9.50 - Chef Wolfgang Puck is talking about all the Austrians nominated. He's talking about THE man of the night - Christoph Waltz, who is the biggest lock I've seen in ages: Best Supporting Actor for playing Hans Landa in Ingourious Basterds (My favourite of the year)
9.53 - Why is the redhead vamp from True Blood here? (I think her name is Deborah Ann Woll)
9.56 - For a stylist, Sam Worthington's gf is surprisingly off-trend, those hip-accentuated dresses are a bit 9 months ago. And her hair is bad.
9.57 - EFRON ALERT!!! He has spiked his hair. Aw.
9.59 - Virginia Masden? Huh, I was just thinking last night about her, and how her supposed 'comeback' after Sideways...wasn't.
10.07 - The AP Fashion lady is so annoying, And SURPRISE SURPRISE Pat Field is giving special comments. I want my money back! (What? Oh yeah I've paid naught) ...They are talking. I'm getting a coffee.
10.19 - Less talky, more dresses AP!!! Ha! The reporter just called Worthington 'Sam Washington' Oh he's wearing Payless Shoes. "I'm presentin' with J'Lo" - It's hard to hate him.
10.29 - Anna Kendrick - Is wearing the colour of the season - Peach. Ugh. - It's Saab.
Confession - Anna Kendrick's hairline sorta weirds me out. AND STOP THE PRESS: The small town girl from Maine "can't believe she's here."
10.31 - The Tuohy's (whom the film The Blind Side is based on) just said they prepare for the Oscars by taking Tylanol. My kind of people.
10.35 - CHRIST does Maggie Gyllenhaal ever dress like she's not at the beach? She needs to move away from print.
10.40 - JEREMY RENNER!!!! He's amazing. Jeremy! Make out with me!!! NO! Make out with Eli Roth!
10.44 - Tina Fey looks pretty good, but I'm not digging the big hair.
10.45 - Mo'Nique - CLASS. She looks amazing. Doesn't shave her legs. LOVE THE FLOWER IN HER HAIR. (It is a Gardenia, the same as Hattie McDaniel) Like Waltz, she is a lock.
10.48 - AND THERE'S ELI ROTH. Oh Diane Kruger. You so crazy.
10.50 - Oh WOW - Sandra Bullock looks pretty amazing.
10.52 - But in other news - I HATE THIS (Zoe Saldana).
No, seriously MAKE OUT NOW!!!
11.00 - Oh my, Anthony Mackie of the Hurt Locker is quite charming. He is rockin' Burberry. I remember when Adrien Brody won and he was wearing Zegna. Introduced me to that label.
11.16 - Um, the lady from AP just said Jeremy was wearing Payless Shoes. That would be Sam Worthington. Peter Sarsgaard goes 'Oh really!?!' - He knows that ain't right, Renner ain't no cheapo.
11.20 - I don't hate Carey Mulligan's dress. What a relief.
11.22 - James Cameron is sorta coming across as a nice guy. WHAT IS GOING ON!??
11.26 - This AP chick is GOLD - Clooney is, apparently, 'the spokesperson for Hollywood.'
11.28 - Eli says QT was DJing their pre-party. Quentin sounds ROUGH. He has been doing a lot of coke.
AP Idiot just got Worthington and Renner mixed up AGAIN! Bish, please.
Charlize's dress looks weird. Boob covers WTF?
11.44 - Oh Jesus Miley Cyrus is awful. She opens her mouth and just...ick.
11.50 - WOAH. Winslet diamond alert. Now THAT'S a necklace.
OK. The AP's Red Carpet Coverage was shite. Ugh. I think I'll start a new post for the Ceremony, because this is getting too long. Thanks for reading.
Brief thoughts on The Wire: Season 1
So I've finally watched the first season of the critically acclaimed, proudly low-key HBO crime drama The Wire, which ran from 2002-2008. It is an excellent show, very well made, very compelling and, yes, very deep. I enjoyed it. I especially appreciated that the creators of the show seem to understand that narrative strength lies in characters.
However, it is a crime drama, and its unavoidable adherence to genre conventions meant it didn't quite reach the depths of other standout dramas of the past decade (The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, Big Love*). I understand what creator David Simon is doing - presenting a rich depiction of contemporary life via a crime drama. However, when the strongest aspects of a program are the characters, narrative arc and wider subtext of certain concepts, it's a shame we have to be presented with the requisite genre devices - the piece by piece puzzle-solving played out from various angles, the lawyer-talk, the flak-jackets. Indeed, all of these are done well, most of the time do not feel gratuitous, and all serve a greater purpose than JUST to show us the procedure. For instance, character development plays out in these scenes (one that comes to mind is the darkly hilarious scene in episode 4, when the detectives Moreland and McNulty, above, recreate a murder scene saying only the word 'fuck' or a colorful variant). It's just... the writing and acting are so good, I wished it moved a little further away from convention, presented less of the "CSI" stuff and more of the "this is what it's like in Baltimore, and these are the people who live there" stuff. Because that was the really genre-breaking stuff.
You could say the criticism is a little unfair. I'm having a go at a show precisely because it is too good for its genre. Maybe a better angle to take is this: "Hey! You! Yes, I'm talking to YOU, Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, and all of your many spin-offs. Yeah, WTF? The Wire just pwned all of your asses!" Yes, The Wire really does set a new standard for crime drama, and that is no mean feat.
I will check out season 2, maybe it will lessen its reliance on convention and really soar as pure, solid Drama, capitalisation intended.
* I realise an argument could be made that some of those programs are in specific genres - Mad Men and Deadwood are period-pieces, The Sopranos is a gangster show, and the other three are essentially family-dramas - but those shows all try, quite explicitly, to move away from conventions of genre, it is what has made them so critically acclaimed. When I think of those shows, I think of just pure 'Drama.' I really struggle to put them in a genre because, really, none of them are faithful to the usual narratives or devices.
UPDATE (12 May 2010): I attempted season 2 of The Wire, but for whatever reason didn't get past the first episode. This show expects a lot from it's viewers, and I suspect I was not in the right frame of mind for a slow-burn opening episode. I will attempt again, when I'm feeling curious. Perhaps once Breaking Bad season 3 ends.
Watch this space...
Well I've been too too slack here at Mediation Like A Fox the past few months, but that's about to change! I've finished my coursework now, so I'll have a lot more time to focus on this blog. I have a few new media opportunities popping up in the coming weeks/months, so hopefully I'll be inspired by some of the social media happenings I see around.
I've recently written an essay for uni about Mad Men, and also one about Google. If you haven't heard of Mad Men, how's life under the rock? If you haven't heard of Google, how are you reading this?
Over the next few days I'll be posting some of my musings on Mad Men's third season, inspired by my essay. The Google one I also hope to adapt to a blog post, but I have to check out some things with it first, so that might take a bit longer.
I hope to get a few more readers, I'll be posting a lot more and be promoting the blog on Twitter and Facebook and things.
Bring on the summer!
No wonder Google produced Chrome...
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ&feature=player_embedded] Source: Inquisitr
...Cos everyone seems to think Google's a browser anyway. I agree with Hodson at the Inquisir: this video's not surprising. But it's fun.
I'm still waiting for Google Chrome for Mac. :(
If you're on a PC I recommend it whole-heartedly.
Steve Jobs: Man of mystery
It has been reported that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has had a liver transplant. Source: Tech Crunch. The interesting background to this story is that for the last year or 18 months there has been much speculation about the state of Jobs's health. After a series of health-related issues in the past, without explanation Jobs pulled out of the Macworld Conference early this year, and it was later uncovered this was for undisclosed health reasons. Jobs then took a 6-month leave of absence, citing the increased speculation on his health was becoming a distraction for the company, and that his health issues were 'more complex' than first thought. Apple COO Tim Cook was left in charge of daily operations, but Jobs said he would still be involved in executive decisions.
While I'm not suggesting that Jobs is at all obligated to disclose his personal matters to anyone - although the argument has been made that Jobs does in fact have an obligation to Apple shareholders to be open and transparent about the state of his health, given the unusually close correlation between his celebrity and Apple's business image - I find it especially interesting that Jobs takes the secretive 'closed shop' approach that Apple the company has exemplified for many years to his personal issues.
I disclosed ages ago that I've started using a new generation iMac. I do like the way I don't have to think about computing when using it. At this stage of my life, I'm all about creating content, not learning how to operate, and that's why Apple products are good for me at this time. With an iPhone, iPod, or Mac computer, you don't have to configure or set up functionality, not nearly as much as you would with a iRiver, Blackberry, PC or open source OS like Linux. Apple's systems are Apple's systems: You use it their way. And it works.
The same philosophy can be seen at Apple's corporate level. They are the antithesis of open-source, even more so than Windows, which seems to be coming round the idea, albeit slowly, if they want to survive against Apple on one side and Google on the other. Apple's new product launches are renowned for being shrouded in secrecy. I remember waiting to get my new iMac, it was just before semester started. I wanted to get the new upgraded model, and there were rumours aplenty at MacRumors on when it would be released, but nothing in stone so I really didn't know whether to hold off or just buy because I was getting really close to needing a new computer. It was annoying and it smacks of arrogance - Apple does this because it can. It has fostered a cult around its objects - fetishises them, if you will - to the point that it just plays with its loyal customers. Yes, the products are good (except for iPods being notoriously cheap and short-lived), so I guess Apple customers don't care that they are at the mercy of the company.
Another funny story: This week I went to the new Apple Store in Doncaster Shopping Town with my friend to help him buy a new MacBook Pro. My friend's not so scruffy with computers, and wanted some extra RAM built in. He was tossing up whether to get them to add it in in-store, or whether he should buy some cheaper RAM separately and install it himself. He asked the Apple guy where Apple gets it RAM from, because obviously Apple doesn't make its own RAM, and the guy point blank wouldn't tell him. He basically said that if it has the Apple sticker on it, its Apple. Sure, dude. My friend ended up getting the RAM in-store, to save him the hassle. That's what Apple does, it saves you the hassle. But at what cost?
If Steve Jobs doesn't want to talk about his health, that's fine, I guess. But he should at lease recognise that when your customers are tech-savvy, they're going to want to know what's going on, eventually. And what happens when Apple hits a rough-patch, which all businesses go through? Perhaps we will start seeing a different, open, more talkative Apple.
New look
I've had a makeover! And by me I mean this blog. What used to be 'Publishing Like a Fox' is now 'Mediation Like a Fox' and the blog is up and running. Woo hoo! Basically I've wanted to get a blog about media and pop culture up and running for a long time, so I will use the blog already started to get going on some new, fresh content. Its going to be less about web publishing (although I may still have stuff to say about that) and more about new media and culture.
I'll write about issues in media like digital media, journalism, politics, tech news, new online social movements, film, TV, music, fandom, websites and online media, memes, subculture, audiences, publishing, copyright, ecommerce, current affairs...really anything that takes my fancy. All of these issues interest me, and all of them can be connected and fall under the wide banner of media and culture (which are almost the same thing, some might suggest). Who knows, I may even dabble in some review writing if I feel so inclined.
I feel the most important thing about this blog is that I find a voice and carve out a position for myself on the interwebs. I feel I have things to say, and I want to say them. It is too early to really know the true direction or form this blog will take. The important thing is that I want write something that is interesting, relevant and above all enjoyable.
So I hope readers enjoy this. I'm really looking forward to getting right into it, I plan on making time to post on average once a day about something, even if it's a small post.
So...
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypVcv77WBU&feature=related]
Wow, Obama chooses judge who knows stuff
This Wired article about new Spreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor is interesting, as it runs through her experience with cyberlaw. Looks like she knows more than this judge.
Our website, MelbinNoir, is coming along. I figured out how to utilise the Headline and Feature section, and the category browsing, so that's good. I'm a bit nervous about the pitch this afternoon, but it should be ok I suppose.
Looking at the other groups' sites, Chocrocks and UpUrAlley, and I'm pretty impressed. Its looking really good. I like the Chocrock graphic, and how the site seems to be all things chocolate, not just a directory. And I like how UpUrAlley have the 'new to the site' thing, which we've not figured out yet. I'm looking at some 'login-log out' plugins at the moment for Noir.
I was talking to my friend who is a jazz muso, and he didn't like the name of our site, he didn't get the MelbIN thing. I'm worried this might be a problem. Still getting the hang of the categories too, at this stage the front page menu is not discrete enough yet, there needs to be a better way of filtering the categories.
Social networks changed my life! And you can too...
***Note: I wrote this ages ago and forgot about it, so I'm posting it now*** These days it seems everyone's on a type social network site (SNS) described by boyd and Ellison (2007) in this week's readings. Even the most cynical of us have a Facebook page, or some even Twitter accounts - the latest craze, which seems to take social networking and blogging to its most basic level, which appeals to those who are just wanting to express themselves in a few sentences.
Of corse, there's a backlash to any new practice, and SNSs certainly have their enemies. I have a few friends who are not on FB, mostly men (but also a few females, who seem to be more weary-of than anti-FB), who seem to be very cynical about the power of SNSs, and quite judgemental of the users.
Indeed, there does seem to still be, in some parts of the community, a real anti-tech mentality. Perhaps it is a throwback to old ideas of cool and geekiness. Perhaps people see the reliance on computers as a sign of the apocalypse. There's no doubt, I believe, there is still a fear of technology out there, the idea that computers are taking over, humans are losing their autonomy and uniqueness, that the computer will one day enslave us all and rob us of that thing we like to call humanity - yeah, because humans are so pure and innocent without computers. Sci-fi and movies like Blade Runner, The Matrix and Terminator have a lot to answer for.
Personally, I find people who can work with computers are generally quite 'cool,' and SNSs are used by many people to connect and reconnect with friends - quite the opposite to the stereotypical isolated socially awkward computer user of the 1980s-90s.
I'm always a little disappointed when someone says they are not on FB - how can I keep in touch with them?! Phone?! Please, I hate talking on the phone and messaging is wearing thin. There is really, for me, a shift towards Facebook becoming my primary source of communication with people. And I love it, it has changed my life. I'm now in direct contact with one of my best friends who lives in Geelong and I rarely get so see.
Of course, I'm a Facebook girl, I don't get Twitter. I suppose its good for those people who want a blog but dont actually want a blog. I have a Twitter account, as you can see on the right, but I rarey use it. I love the status update function on FB as it lets me see how my friends are going, but using the status as a broadcast tool is, for me, a little strange. If I have something to say to the world, I want to say it through a blog, where I am less resticted than 140 characters. But that's just me, clearly people love it.
Well, not all people. Here's a link to the story I talked about in class, where the internet film fan community got all huffy about Twitter use in the cinema. They were annoyed as it threatened the romamce and sanctity of the movie-experience. And if its one thing I learned from my thesis, its that you don't mess with the 'aura' of the film experience for a cinephile. Tweet responsibly people!
Random musings over now.
wordpress templates
Here are some wp template directories I found handy: Free wp themes
And a CSS one: Free CSS templates
Although, editing the CSS of the one our group chose is getting tricky - I'm struggling to link to the front page and finding where the blog actually is...sigh.
Linky goodness
I quite liked this article at the Inquisitr responding to Nick Cohen saying the BBC is more trustworthy than bloggers. Haha, good one Cohen. And one I should probably use: Wired's Eliot Van Buskirk reported on a new Mac OS App called 'SelfControl' that blocks your access to "time wasing" computer activities like checking emails, Twitter and Facebook. There's probably a whole post in there somewhere about snobbery and social networking, what constitutes 'real' behaviour and what is just 'silly online stuff', but I'm sure you've heard enough out of me.
Design, web narrative, and a little bit 'o post-structuralism
I quite enjoyed this week's readings, and especially found myself nodding along with Mark Bernstein's A List Apart article. I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his argument that narrative was an important ingredient in creating a working, interesting, engaging website. In a practical sense I really feel he has a point, although he did remind me of some of the theories of Roland Barthes, like the 'death of the author' and non-linear texts. Barthes' very influential post-structuralist ideas were expanded upon and applied to hypertext theory by George Landlow. He used them to describe how to read digital online, hyperlinked texts, arguing that it was a realisation of Barthes theories. The argument is that when a user browses the web, there is no set linear narrative, they can click on which ever link they like, a 'choose your own adventure' thing where there are many different outcomes. While this, in theory, seems to ring true about the Internet, I think Bernstein's article shows that there is a clear intention of web intent makers to give websites a 'story' - a beginning, middle and end. In most cases the story is used as a selling tool, in the realm of websites being marketplaces. Which we of course know they are. Like many Utopian visions of the Internet, the idea of free hypertextuality - where readers can roam freely without the constraint of traditional conventions - is a myth. Designers play with our eyes, enticing us to certain parts of the page, making some links easier to find or more attractive than others. I often find that with some websites I have trouble seeing where to 'log in' - its often hidden in a corner or perhaps on another page like through the 'are you interested.' It sometimes make me wonder of the creators really want participants to the site. Like active users would just create more work so they discourage it. But that could be me and my conspiracy theories again.
I wonder if this debate is really real, or just in my head. Is the Internet really a free network of links where we as users are free to roam where-ever our little hearts desire? Or are we subconsciously funneled onto certain parts so we can 'read the narrative' of a website and use its services or products the way the designer wants us to. Is Foucault's biopolitcal theory of mass-management based on probable statistics at work on the Internet, the seemingly last bastion of the free? Have I lost the plot? Where did I put my shoes?
How *not* to argue for the Internet
This week's topic for class was a lot more up my ally; talking about users of media, audiences and the way media actually works in the world. Being re-acquainted with the old Chris Anderson Long Tail article was good. Anderson presents a compelling and solid argument, saying that the future of the market will be less focused on mass assumptions of popular tastes and more on niche markets. He says this is mostly due to the emergence of the Internet and the world Wide Web as a highly dispersed, fragmented and collaborative marketplace. Henry (yes I'm going to bring him up every post, deal with it) Jenkins has drawn on Anderson's ideas in his book Convergence Culture to extrapolate on his arguments about consumers becoming more active: "The Long Tail model assumes an increasingly savvy media consumer..." While one could argue that there has still been a push but media producers to sell big, mass-focused, one-size-fits all brands (I'm thinking Apple, Harry Potter, Marvel) I think even conceding this one would have to agree that niche marketing is used to sell even these products. Apple likes to promote there being a version of its brand for everyone, and you can enjoy Harry Potter as a book, movie, audio-book, video game, website, lunch-box, etc. The other reading I was struck by (unfortunately not as positively) was the excerpt from The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. Where do I start? I have to say I noticed a similarity between Friedman and Richard Dawkins: in that they both have arguments I agree with in general, but I wince when confronted with the ideas because they sound like one of those crazy people with placards on the corner of Bourke Street. Coincidentally: Happy Birthday Mr Dawkins for yesterday. Anyway. Basically, Friedman loves the Internet. He wrote a love letter to it and its many founding fathers from about page 59 onwards in his book. That's great, I love the Internet too, and I believe (perhaps too ideally) that it has great democratising power. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Internet is a predominately Western, developed-world phenomenon, and that perhaps the idea of it bringing EVERYONE IN THE WORLD together might be a bit unrealistic. I mean, when you think about world poverty statistics, it puts things into perspective. So Friedman is not only a little off the mark when talking about a world shift in economics due to the Internet connecting us all, but its also a little bit offensively insular. Pankaj Ghemawat also wrote much more succinctly and intelligently than me about how Friedman is overstating the transformation occurring, pointing out: "just a fraction of what we consider globalization actually exists."
I would argue that there are many new media scholars (off the top of my head, looking to my bookshelf) like Jenkins, Lev Manovich, and Terry Flew, who all acknowledge the enormous cultural, political and economic power the Internet has as well as recognising the facts of an inequality to Internet access.
I'd be really interested in your ideas on this topic.
PS. I love Last.fm
Blogwatch - Go Fug Yourself
Today's edition of Blogwatch will be a simple one - I'm going to talk about one of my all-time favorite blogs from the US: Go Fug Yourself. For a little bit of background, here's the Wikipedia entry. You can buy their book spin-off (hello, horizontal marketing) here.
The 'Fug Girls,' Heather and Jessica, have found success, I think for two reasons. One is that they filled a niche. There are many celebrity gossip bloggers out there (most famously, Perez Hilton) but none who blog so consistently about one specific aspect of celebrity news, in this case fashion. The second reason is that they are hilarious and are providing a great online experience. In essence: the content is strong. The blog is simple and straight-forward - everything is where you'd expect it to be.
I think Go Fug Yourself is a perfect example to argue that online publications are really just like other traditional publications. Their success is based mostly on whether the product offers consumers anything different to what they already get, or just crap we're conditioned to believe we need, if you ask Chomsky.
Anyway, off to practice writing HTML, and work on the website idea (critique of FasterLouder.com.au, a competitor, coming soon)
Links - RedBubble
You find out about the Internet not just on the Internet but in 'real life' too. On Saturday I was at the pub having drinks with a friend for her birthday, and I started talking to one of her friends about what I did and what she did. Turns out she's a graphic designer, working on colour and materials at a major car company, but also produces her own art. When she found out I was into the Internet, she started talking about RedBubble - an online space designed as a community for artist and a wider galley space and business. Often it is the case that ebusinesses are able to promote products that perhaps are aimed outside the traditional typical consumer groups. The products sold can often be described as 'niche' pr perhaps even 'alternative.' Sites like Etsy.com for handmade crafts and Threadless.com (as mentioned in class) for custom t-shirts are good examples of this. RedBubble has that same idea of promoting emerging artists who perhaps have not yet broken into the more typical areas of exposure.
Taking a look at RedBubble and it becomes clear that its business is focused on a sense of community of both artists and art appreciators or customers. This is another big feature of many online retail stores, perhaps the most famous examples is the user reviews at Amazon.com or the buyer/seller peer reviews on eBay.com. I guess customers feel a bigger sense of autonomy and power as compared to a traditional store where interacting with like-minded customers is more difficult.
RedBubble was started in my home town, Melbourne, and now it has offices in San Fransisco and I think also now London. Perhaps its key to success is its focus on community, and also the fairly unique pitch of being an 'online gallery' where art lovers can browse and perhaps the works of artists from their homes. Social photo sites such as Flickr.com already serves the same sort of purpose, but RedBubble has the hook of having 'real artists' (whatever that means in this world of participatory media) uploading their work.
The day before tomorrow
Tomorrow I'm bringing home my first ever Apple product (apart from downloading iTunes) - a 24" 2.66Ghz 4GB 640GB iMac! (Yes, I waited for the upgrade) To be honest, I've never really been a big fan of Macs, they never seemed so much better than a PC to warrant the price difference. To me they didn't seem to work 'better', just 'differently.' I also resent the way Apple has turned electronics and computers into fetish items. But I digress.
I'm getting an iMac for really one reason - to learn a new skill. I'm pretty comfortable navigating the Windows OS by now and I figure if I'm going to be taken seriously as someone who can work a computer slightly better than your average Josephine, I'm going to need to work a Mac. Not that anyone really works a Mac, the Mac works them and lets them think they're working it. But I digress again, as you can see I've got some Mac issues I'm going to have to work on if I'm going to avoid tears.
It should be interesting to see the way my blog changes when I get a Mac, whether I find it easier or harder. I might even buy a domain name and download WordPress, so I can have greater control over the aesthetics of it. Macs are good at aesthetics, right? That's what Justin Long told me anyway.
I'll keep you posted on how I travel along the road to coolness.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLbJ8YPHwXM]
Kids these days.
It begins...
Hi there, So this is my new blog for the Advanced Editing for Digital Media class for my Masters in Global Media Communications at Melbourne Uni (semester 1).
I've never used WordPress before, so bear with me, gentle readers, as I navigate and edit my way through this new platform. I had a Blogger blog a few years ago, filled it with content on boys and...other stuff I can't remember. But I got bored of it. I also decided to start a blog about online film fans called Fandomonia, but that never got off the ground.
I always felt that I was held back by my lack of HTML skills to really get my blog to be what I wanted it to be. Hopefully this semester I'll learn some more and be able to edit it much more freely.
Anyway, thanks for reading. I promise (sorta) that further writings will be a little more interesting.