Thursday, August 4, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Dialogue
Let's talk talk.
When watching a movie or TV show, or even reading a book, dialogue is as important to the story as action. It is through the characters speaking that we learn about them, and how they think, speak, and act. Actions can only tell us so much. It is through speech that we connect with one another and exchange information.
In the first episode of the sitcom "Head Of The Class", teacher Charlie Moore enters the classroom, writes his name on the board and says "My name is Mister Moore. But you can call me by first name; 'Mister'." In this single line, we are given insight into his character and teaching style.
But perhaps more challenging is conversations. The audience must be made to believe that they are watching a genuine conversation. In Iron Man, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts have realistic conversations in which they talk at the same time, interrupt, change topics and give the viewer the impression that these are two people who have known each other for a long time. Their dialogue is dynamic, paced, energetic and engaging. Many other films and shows have the actors taking turns, each one delivering their line and using inflection and tone to give credibility to what is being said.
The problem with the second method is that no matter how well you film it or how well written the script, the delivery does not feel natural and throws the audience out of the suspension of disbelief required. Once this happens, the audience will have trouble reconnecting with the characters and their enjoyment is lessened, or even ruined.
However, having said all that, dialogue does not always come in the spoken form. There is a play and unfortunutly, I can't remember the name, but the entire show is a man sitting in a chair listening as an unseen woman berates him. He speaks not a word, but only reacts to what the voice says. His dialogue is in his face. A twitch of the mouth, a scowl, a sad smile. Although only the woman speaks, they are still having a conversation. As the play unfolds, we learn about the man, his life, and his mistakes and regrets. As surely as though he is speaking, he tells us what he is thinking. All without uttering a single word, yet saying volumes.
There is a power in the spoken word. A power as formidable as any method of war you would care to name. History has been shaped by words as much as it has been shaped by war. It was with words that John F. Kennedy started the Space Race, challenging America to put a man on the moon and bring him home. A hundred years before that, Abraham Lincoln issued the Gettysburg address, setting the United States firmly on the road to the American Civil War. Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" is written as a conversation in which Socrates convinces Glaucon of his philosophy that society is chained, imprisoned in a cave gazing at shadows, convinced that they are real. No writer, no historian, can ignore the power of the word, spoken or written. No matter the venue or medium, words remain the fundamental basis for exchanging ideas and information.
Otherwise, we'd have nothing to talk about.
When watching a movie or TV show, or even reading a book, dialogue is as important to the story as action. It is through the characters speaking that we learn about them, and how they think, speak, and act. Actions can only tell us so much. It is through speech that we connect with one another and exchange information.
In the first episode of the sitcom "Head Of The Class", teacher Charlie Moore enters the classroom, writes his name on the board and says "My name is Mister Moore. But you can call me by first name; 'Mister'." In this single line, we are given insight into his character and teaching style.
But perhaps more challenging is conversations. The audience must be made to believe that they are watching a genuine conversation. In Iron Man, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts have realistic conversations in which they talk at the same time, interrupt, change topics and give the viewer the impression that these are two people who have known each other for a long time. Their dialogue is dynamic, paced, energetic and engaging. Many other films and shows have the actors taking turns, each one delivering their line and using inflection and tone to give credibility to what is being said.
The problem with the second method is that no matter how well you film it or how well written the script, the delivery does not feel natural and throws the audience out of the suspension of disbelief required. Once this happens, the audience will have trouble reconnecting with the characters and their enjoyment is lessened, or even ruined.
However, having said all that, dialogue does not always come in the spoken form. There is a play and unfortunutly, I can't remember the name, but the entire show is a man sitting in a chair listening as an unseen woman berates him. He speaks not a word, but only reacts to what the voice says. His dialogue is in his face. A twitch of the mouth, a scowl, a sad smile. Although only the woman speaks, they are still having a conversation. As the play unfolds, we learn about the man, his life, and his mistakes and regrets. As surely as though he is speaking, he tells us what he is thinking. All without uttering a single word, yet saying volumes.
There is a power in the spoken word. A power as formidable as any method of war you would care to name. History has been shaped by words as much as it has been shaped by war. It was with words that John F. Kennedy started the Space Race, challenging America to put a man on the moon and bring him home. A hundred years before that, Abraham Lincoln issued the Gettysburg address, setting the United States firmly on the road to the American Civil War. Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" is written as a conversation in which Socrates convinces Glaucon of his philosophy that society is chained, imprisoned in a cave gazing at shadows, convinced that they are real. No writer, no historian, can ignore the power of the word, spoken or written. No matter the venue or medium, words remain the fundamental basis for exchanging ideas and information.
Otherwise, we'd have nothing to talk about.
Brain Spew: The Rise of Social Networking
I find myself curious as to the origins of the phenomenon of social networking. Because, no matter how you want to look at it, it is a phenomenon and could not have come about without the internet. The very nature of it, the sacrifice of privacy, should clash with the basic human nature for self-protection. But as we are seeing more and more, it's not. If anything, people seem almost eager to sacrifice their privacy or worse, invade that of others convinced of their own immunity to repercussions.
When I was a child, I read Ray Bradbury's The Murderer. This short story was about a psychiatrist and his paitent, who had been arrested for silencing machines. The future world presented in the short story is frightfully like our own, though with wrist mounted two way radios instead of cell phones. The paitent's criminal act was driven by the need for silence, and he rejoiced that in his act, he'd forced the people around him to converse with each other. But, in the eyes of those same people, he was considered a villain.
Later, in high school, I encountered a book called Kill Your Television. The author's stance was that all forms of communication evolved out of the need to distribute information. Speech, writing, radio, the telephone and of course, television. Each one began life as a way to move information quicker and quicker and was then ultimately ursurped as a device of leisure and pleasure. TV had run its course and the author's opinion was that the time had come to destroy it.
The internet, on the surface, is no different. What began as a military communications network has become the heir to TV as a realm of pop culture, and commitee manufactured content. But it is not time for it to die, for the internet is also the heir to CB and Ham radio. Anyone with the proper equipment can enter the fray and be heard. Whether or not they're worth hearing is another matter.
This, then, is the cornerstone of the social networking phenomenon. The internet is the first truly level playing field for not only fun, but the exchange of information. No company may do something and then not hear about it immediately should people approve or disapprove. Amazon's recent mishap with its labeling system removing the rankings of Gay, Lesbian, and Transexual authors and items was a flashpoint as hundreds of bloggers, twitter users and plain old citizens came together and took the company to task for it. Ten years ago, a mere decade, such a phenomenon would have been almost impossible to imagine.
But there is a dark side. In using the digital age to cross borders that were once impossible, we as a race are becoming more isolated from one another. Bradbury's story foretold a world where it is almost impossible to get away from the din and noise of people talking to each other. Where wanting a bit of silence and/or face to face communication is all but unheard of. Perhaps worse though, is the ability to attack.
Michigan U recently elected Chris Armstrong, an openly gay man to the position of Student Body president. It was the first time the university had ever had an openly gay student body president. However, alumnus Andrew Shirvell disagreed with this turn of events. Convinced that Armstrong's election was a conspiracy and based on a campaign of misinformation, Shirvell launched a watch site devoted entirely to exposing Armstrong's misdeeds and machinations. Despite recriminations and calls to stop, Shirvell refused, citing that he was doing nothing illegal and is doing this on his own time and with publicly available information. Well, he would know. Shirvell is an assistant attorney general for the state. But as we worry about the ability to attack and vilify, there is also the ability to defend and uphold. Even as Shirvell continues his campaign, Armstrong's supporters rally, spreading the story to news media and websites in a campaign of their own.
So where is social networking going from here? The answer is, I don't know. Ragged Trouser Philosopher published an interesting fictional work called Conversation With God about an Atheist who encounters a being who claims to be God. This being is not a supernatural entity, but the result of evolution and wanted to foster life on other planets in order to have some company. In the course of their conversation, "God" explains where humans need to go if they hope to hit the next level of evolution and how we'll be pretty much there within a generation or two.
I disagree because I don't think that's where we're headed. Are we evolving? Yes. But into digital beings? I'm not sure. Regardless, social networking is a first, tenative step towards a unified society of some kind. More and more, we are pouring our lives and ourselves into the internet and the electronic realm. Within the next fifty years, we may see the first true virtual civilization where people are actually plugged into the network, where the cycle of life becomes less biological and more technological. Or, this may truly be some kind of fad and the sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter will fade away.
We must keep in mind that technology itself is evolving exponentially and in directions no one can predict. In fact, trying to predict and direct it is an exercise in futility and is ultimately pointless. What we must do instead is learn to ride it, be braced for the bumps and twists along the way and take the surprises with a certain amount of skepticisim. Master that skill and not get too absorbed, and we should be fine.
At least, until the next time.
When I was a child, I read Ray Bradbury's The Murderer. This short story was about a psychiatrist and his paitent, who had been arrested for silencing machines. The future world presented in the short story is frightfully like our own, though with wrist mounted two way radios instead of cell phones. The paitent's criminal act was driven by the need for silence, and he rejoiced that in his act, he'd forced the people around him to converse with each other. But, in the eyes of those same people, he was considered a villain.
Later, in high school, I encountered a book called Kill Your Television. The author's stance was that all forms of communication evolved out of the need to distribute information. Speech, writing, radio, the telephone and of course, television. Each one began life as a way to move information quicker and quicker and was then ultimately ursurped as a device of leisure and pleasure. TV had run its course and the author's opinion was that the time had come to destroy it.
The internet, on the surface, is no different. What began as a military communications network has become the heir to TV as a realm of pop culture, and commitee manufactured content. But it is not time for it to die, for the internet is also the heir to CB and Ham radio. Anyone with the proper equipment can enter the fray and be heard. Whether or not they're worth hearing is another matter.
This, then, is the cornerstone of the social networking phenomenon. The internet is the first truly level playing field for not only fun, but the exchange of information. No company may do something and then not hear about it immediately should people approve or disapprove. Amazon's recent mishap with its labeling system removing the rankings of Gay, Lesbian, and Transexual authors and items was a flashpoint as hundreds of bloggers, twitter users and plain old citizens came together and took the company to task for it. Ten years ago, a mere decade, such a phenomenon would have been almost impossible to imagine.
But there is a dark side. In using the digital age to cross borders that were once impossible, we as a race are becoming more isolated from one another. Bradbury's story foretold a world where it is almost impossible to get away from the din and noise of people talking to each other. Where wanting a bit of silence and/or face to face communication is all but unheard of. Perhaps worse though, is the ability to attack.
Michigan U recently elected Chris Armstrong, an openly gay man to the position of Student Body president. It was the first time the university had ever had an openly gay student body president. However, alumnus Andrew Shirvell disagreed with this turn of events. Convinced that Armstrong's election was a conspiracy and based on a campaign of misinformation, Shirvell launched a watch site devoted entirely to exposing Armstrong's misdeeds and machinations. Despite recriminations and calls to stop, Shirvell refused, citing that he was doing nothing illegal and is doing this on his own time and with publicly available information. Well, he would know. Shirvell is an assistant attorney general for the state. But as we worry about the ability to attack and vilify, there is also the ability to defend and uphold. Even as Shirvell continues his campaign, Armstrong's supporters rally, spreading the story to news media and websites in a campaign of their own.
So where is social networking going from here? The answer is, I don't know. Ragged Trouser Philosopher published an interesting fictional work called Conversation With God about an Atheist who encounters a being who claims to be God. This being is not a supernatural entity, but the result of evolution and wanted to foster life on other planets in order to have some company. In the course of their conversation, "God" explains where humans need to go if they hope to hit the next level of evolution and how we'll be pretty much there within a generation or two.
I disagree because I don't think that's where we're headed. Are we evolving? Yes. But into digital beings? I'm not sure. Regardless, social networking is a first, tenative step towards a unified society of some kind. More and more, we are pouring our lives and ourselves into the internet and the electronic realm. Within the next fifty years, we may see the first true virtual civilization where people are actually plugged into the network, where the cycle of life becomes less biological and more technological. Or, this may truly be some kind of fad and the sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter will fade away.
We must keep in mind that technology itself is evolving exponentially and in directions no one can predict. In fact, trying to predict and direct it is an exercise in futility and is ultimately pointless. What we must do instead is learn to ride it, be braced for the bumps and twists along the way and take the surprises with a certain amount of skepticisim. Master that skill and not get too absorbed, and we should be fine.
At least, until the next time.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)