Violence

There was a complaint about violent and gruesome footage shown in class. And it looked like the lecturers prepared a whole new lecture to spite the person complaining. Just joking. I am sure the lesson was planned before, as it should be. Violence is a big part of  the entertainment industry today. Touching back on the subject of realism, we like to watch violence.

Sometimes it is so obviously fake that it is funny.


And sometimes, especially with what appears to be home footage, we wish it is fake.
The interesting thing is the myth of Snuff films. Supposedly these clips of real murder and rape are sold for huge sums on the black market. But nowadays you can find such clips online. Most people claim that they are fake and still watch it. The question is why? I think video games are not to blame as some anti game groups would make you believe. People have been blood thirsty from th very beginning. Throughout history people killed not just in war, but also for fun. Or they just watched other people get slaughtered. You see where this is going. Yes, GLADIATORS.

Here is a little treat from our very own course!

SCIENCE FICTION (and genre)

The lecture about the genre of science fiction was fun. I mean what would be a better topic for a room full of animators an FX people? Maybe some science fiction with more bare skin?

The thing with science fiction is that it can encompass all other genres. Depending on the film it can be anything.

Film Noir

Comedy

Romance

et cetera...

Looking at the history of Sci-Fi it is clear that a lot of the material has a deep philosophical theme. The most popular subject is of the fight between man and machine. It is always popular as our lives are getting more and more dependable on technology. Bill mentioned the case of Luke being able to destroy the Death Star only by rejecting technology and relying on his instincts and the Force, which is mother nature herself. He also mentioned Luke having an orgasm at the time, which in retrospective i can almost agree with and laugh out loud (no i did not say LOL).

BINARY OPPOSITES

Ivan was talking about structuralism in the last lecture. More specifically he focused on binary opposites.

YOU: "WTF are binary opposites? Sounds like computer math to me. Nobody likes math! I'm not reading this!"

ME: "No, it's more like how we define a lot of things by knowing their opposites."

YOU: "Sounds like philosophy. Nobody likes philosophy! I'm not reading this!"

ME: "No it's like good vs evil. Superman : Lex Luthor, X-Men : Brotherhood of evil mutants, that sort of stuff."

YOU: "Why didn't you say so in the first place?"


X-MEN















BROTHERHOOD OF EVIL MUTANTS




















So yeah, it is pretty straight forward. Or is it? Let us say something is good because it is not bad. That sounds quite extreme to me. As someone in class said: "What about the grey area?"

The straight forward way of thinking is the original structuralist view. It is more ideological?

The post-sturcturalism (yes it is both post and -ism) puts everything on a sliding scale with the opposites at the extremes (animation reference, or should is say intertextuality(oooo, I just can't stop intertexting(i like this word even if it is not real))), and a grey area in between. I am not going to do any more parenthesis do not worry. It is intentional to confuse you dear reader, so you do not notice my weak blogging skills.

So why write it if I can just google it and link an image. There you go:

And yes, Structuralism favors another -ism that starts with SEX. I hope google picks that one up and i get some random readers. Not that I really want them... No, I mean, I want YOU but not them. I like you! :D

INTERTEXTUALITY

Hi everybody! I do not know if I have spelled the title correctly. Please excuse me for bad spelling but english is not my first language. I noticed that it is even underlined as misspelling in Ivan's word doc. That being said, let us get down to business.

Intertextuality is a very fun subject to me. It is everywhere nowadays. I guess originality is a thing of the past.
We are bombarded with media every second of our life. Even original ideas are mostly inspired by something we have seen, read or heard.

It is always fun to recognize bits of intertextuality in films, animations, books...
The more subtle the reference the prouder I am for finding it.
I think intertextuality can be an enhancement to any creation, as long as it is clear what you are trying to say. The line between hommage and plagiarism can be very thin indeed.

With the rise of hip hop music and sampling, there have been many lawsuits and debates about how much you can sample from a song and claim it as your own. My favourite example is Vanilla Ice's Ice Ice Baby, where he sampled the most recognisable riff from Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie. In his album leaflet Vanilla thanked many artists for inspiration but never mentioned Queen or David Bowie.
The song was an international success.

VANILLA ICE - ICE ICE BABY

QUEEN & DAVID BOWIE - UNDER PRESSURE

Sometimes large animation studios recycle their old animations in order to save time and money.
I guess it is okay legally, as they own all the rights. But is it fair to us the viewers? I never noticed, but when I saw this video I felt a bit let down by one of my favourite animation studios. But I did also feel amused by the fact that they got away with it. At least with me.

DISNEY RECYCLED ANIMATION





Another thing I like that falls in the intertextuality category are parodies. If made well they can be rally funny.
But lately I have seen a lot of films with only bad spoofs, that count on making money just on the account of heavily referencing a hundred movies in an hour and a half.

Here is a clip from one of my favourite parodies, Mel Brook's Men in tights.
You can also hear the Can Can melody, another example of intertextuality. Mel Brooks even intertexts (is that a word?) his older films in this film.