Space Odssey

Probably one of the most complex films I have ever watched, with messages and ideas embedded in every scene, making it hard to watch it for entertainment value, instead I found myself analyzing it constantly. Two scenes in particular left a rather strong impression upon me. The first being the scene where Dave is disengaging H-A-L who has betrayed them by murdering Frank and boycotting the mission, this leads Dave to shut H-A-L down and in the process he is shown to be dismantling human logic, by destroying the computer built by man comprised of human knowledge. Now this struck me as mirroring the first scene, as man is having to start from the beginning and develop alone without the aid of technology, is this commenting on technologies overwhelming grip over the human race? Or is the film saying that we don't need technology in order to advance? Either way I couldn't help but feel that this film was slightly opposed to technology, because it eventually showed it betraying man, also by featuring food in paste form, new age toilets etc it conveyed technology as being responsible for creating a bland and sterile existence.

The second scene is the apes discovery of the bone as a weapon; which results in their progression and the act of war. This I thought was a very truthful representation of how we as humans have progressed, which is what I feel the film was trying to show, in particular how we use acts of war to get what we want and define our progression, for example the Iraq war which in my opinion was a war created to obtain their oil, and enable the continuation of our own progression .The use of an obelisk I found also to be very interesting as the obelisk symbolizes in Egypt the beginning, where the first rays of light shone on the earth, this is significant as its appearance at the beginning and later on in the film poses the question: are we really advancing? Or are we just constantly rebuilding after failed attempts to progress?

The compatibility of art and science

A brilliant opening debate for the first lecture and something which I have often thought about myself, however I would say that the lecture has caused my view to change and consider that there can in fact be no unity between science and art. To simplify, based on the notes I have reviewed this incompatibility seems to me to be present because science sticks rigidly to rules and principles, which outlines its theories, whereas art is about breaking boundaries in order to explore new possibilities of beauty. In addition the artists themselves often pursue lives that satisfy every spontaneous whim often breaking rules which people are bound by. Just a few examples of how I came to this conclusion include: Kant's idea that the common people should be bound by morality, except artists, leaders and creative people who should make their own rules. Also the mention of religion and beliefs causing tension between the two spheres further shows the incompatibility between the two, as the artists with their Buddhist or like Schopenhauer Hinduism beliefs, are looked down upon by the traditional christian scientists.

I would just like to comment on Kant's view of equality before I conclude, the view that artists are not bound by morality is something which I strongly disagree with as I understand that it is necessary to explore new domains to create and understand beauty, but I don't see how ones profession raises them to the status of a god, as that it can be inferred one becomes if they are not bound by the laws and conscious ties of most people, like all things there should be boundaries which should not be crossed by anyone. For example the poem 'The Laboratory' by Robert Browning is about murder out of revenge, does this mean that artists should embrace murder to better understand it?

Written video blog

For an advert not to be considered Orwellian these days seems to be suggesting a laughable concept. By this I mean they all impose an image upon the consumer seeing it by controlling their desire and how they think. All adverts employ short euphemisms called newspeak in order to brain wash, by telling the consumer that the product is what they are telling them they need to have, whether that is due to the products efficiency or essentialism; thus eliminating any negative connotations or words associated with the product to project this positive image. A particular advert that illustrates this point is the advertisement surrounding Dasani water which was produced by the Coca Cola company, which slogans included: 'Dasani water. Can't live without it'. This creates the image that you desperately need it, this means that the Coca Cola company is telling you what you need because they know what's best for you, another of their tag lines which is Orwellian in its controlling voice is: 'Dasani. Treat yourself well. Everyday'. This means the company is having an input in your everyday life style by telling you what to drink, furthermore by using a healthy, smiling, young person in its advertisement it reinforces the message that the product is good and beneficial to your health. By using Dasani in the slogans it emphasizes its importance to you the consumer almost as a figure of authority, which can also be deemed as part of an Orwellian advertisement tool because it makes it into an icon for the consumer to listen to, much like the Coca Cola company itself.

The scandal that surrounds the product which resulted in the recall of 500,000 bottles and the abandonment of the launch. Due to traces of bromate chemicals in the water caused by adding calcium to Dasani; which with long term consumption can cause cancer, the recovery from this scandal also shows the effectiveness of the Orwellian newspeak in the advert as the notoriety of the scandal doesn't match the debacle itself, this is due to the efficiency of the Orwellian advert as all the negative connotations surrounding the scandal has been pretty much dispelled. However it could be argued that its continued launch and sale in Europe also helped its recovery as the advertisements continued to circulate spreading the positive image intended.

1984 screening

What a brilliant film! Everything about the film helped to reinforce the topic of the lecture which I found helped me to memorize the terms by seeing them, for example Chris talked about filtering language to cut out forms of resistance by abolishing certain words; which means if there is no word for the emotion or idea it cannot be expressed. This was shown through Winston's job in which he looked through newspaper articles and reported anything that could be construed as resistance. In addition the final part of the film part of the film where Winston is asked during his reprogramming how many fingers he is holding up and Winston replies the correct answer but the questioner wants him to admit that it is 5 by replacing the word five with four. This reinforces the principal that if you control words and language you can control what people think and say.

At the end I was left questioning what had happened because I felt it was a bit obscure, which was created by the scene where Winston writes the sum two plus two but leaves the answer blank. This I believe does indicate that Winston is eventually brain washed as he hesitates to put the answer, indicating that his mind set has changed as before he would have put four without hesitating.

Another thing that could be inferred is that this film bears a strong resemblance to Lang's 'Metroplis' which shows the robotic conditioned workers in uniforms drifting along to work. This was also Hitler's favourite film and it is easy to see that he based some of his ideals of a perfect Germany on the film, therefore the programming of people it seems has actually been translated from screen to real life. An issue I think Orwell foresaw happening in the modern age.

1984

This lecture I found to be incredibly interesting from an English students perspective, because although books produce emotion within readers through emotive language I never considered it a form of manipulation before; which programmes the reader to feel a certain way or be persuaded to see something from the writers point of view.

I also felt this connected well to the lecture on Freudian philosophy for example writers manipulate language to express their views and insecurities, which shows some evidence according to Freud of people dealing with core issues through language, as that is what makes up their thought processes and shapes their ideologies. Projection is the term I would associate with this form of manipulation, just a reminder for those who have forgotten, projection is a way of dealing with a core issue a sort of defense mechanism which causes the subject to push their issues onto others in order to deal with it themselves and make others feel equally bad. This is the term I would use because the reader is having to endure the projection of ideas by reading a text which results in manipulation, as their perspective may be changed after reading that text.

In addition I felt this novel connected really well with Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' as the reference of using language to programme and control people's behaviour is a prominent theme in Huxley's novel. For example by playing certain things to children in their sleep and banning literature and art, anything which would encourage people to think for themselves and manipulate them to think differently which in the novel was considered dangerous. It also has communist undertones as well which is shown through the worker's alienation towards the products they have forged. Therefore these two novels share certain parallels which I would recommend other people take a look at.

The Grapes of Wrath

I found the viewing of the Grapes of the Wrath to be the most the useful in understanding the novel read before it, however in the lecture it was suggested that the story is written in a newspaper form but I disagree with this as it seems to me it is written in the poetic narrative of most novels. "To the red country and part of the grey country of Oklahoma the last rains came gently, and they did not cut the scarred earth". I would argue that it is does state the stages of development and situations mixed with poetic descriptions giving the novel more of a diary feel, as the news is reported free of poetic description completely.

In addition I was shocked at the portrayal of the ranch work camps in the film as they closely resembled concentration camps, for example the barbed wire fences and the guards patrolling the fences at night. I am not positive why the camps were portrayed this way but I can only guess, I'm not sure whether it was meant to contribute to the aim of creating a distasteful image of the government to audiences, in order to further impress upon them the wrong doings of the government, which is already shown at the beginning of the film when the government takes the farmer's land which does the belong to them.

Also some of the images of poverty were disturbing but extremely effect at conveying the destitution of the people, which I feel strays from usual depictions and establishes new, bold and hard hitting images that have a greater impact on the audience, I am of course referring to a starving man being breast fed to cure him of his starvation. This depiction is so effective because it is so savage and shows the possible extremes those people endured in order to survive.

"Rosebud"

What a stark contrast the representation of Lord Northcliffe is in 'Citizen Kane' compared to 'The Real Lord Northcliffe'. Northcliffe in 'Citizen Kane' is violent, cold (at times) and obsessed with his work, which presents a more realistic character that has good and bad aspects within his personality; which is a huge contrast to Owen's glowing account that shows a two dimensional character that only works and travels.

The main allure of the film for me however was the mystery surrounding the name "Rosebud" which is shown at the beginning of the film as Lord Northcliffe's dying words, the meaning of these last words is searched and debated throughout the film. I think that the significance of this word is that it demonstrates his mourning for his childhood bliss, and the sled"Rosebud" represents the last regret that passes his lips; that he could not remain stranded in those days. Another indication is the snow dome he drops, which resembles his snow covered childhood home. Another interpretation could be that his method of producing the news which can be best shown in this quote ""You provide the pictures, we'll provide the war". This could indicate that the interweaving layers of a rose represent the intricate lies or believed truths that were created to match a picture in order to create a story. Martin Baggs agrees that "rosebud" does represent everything that Kane lost, which was replaced with money.
If anyone else has anymore information on the mystery of the "rosebud" please let me know.