Film Studies Project #1

It is now November, 2010. I am in a new block at Quest University. Last block was neuroscience - which blew my mind (in the best way possible)! This block is Film: theory and practice. Which means we read philosophical/academic articles, debate them, decode them, and generally try to understand what they are saying exactly. The other aspect is directing, and editing film projects based on prompts given to us by our teacher Fei. This part is right up my alley. I love creating stories, telling stories - and doing it in a creative way. I gained a tremendous amount of practical experience this summer creating movies for the "Life at Quest" website. It has been fun putting my new found skills into action - further developing them along the way.

I am thoroughly enjoying myself, even thought I could do without some of the philosophical film debates. But there are worse things in life. Also the avant guard french films aren't really "my thing". Why is it so hard to read the subtitles! It makes taking in the visual aesthetics an extra challenge. But again, there are worse things in life. Perhaps they will grow on me :)

Here is the comment I received from my Film Professor about my movie, "60 Seconds of J'aime":

Joyful, affective, and spirited. All the true wonderful qualities of being an artist. In her artwork, the young filmmaker Jaime explores so many different precious aspects of one’s life: friend, family, hobby, personality…. How many chances does a viewer have in a lifetime to be invited to a sincere space of girl’s room? It is “A Room of One’s Own”, as Virginia Woolf eloquently puts it. It is a room of heart and soul, and most importantly sincere expressions of artistry. In this collection of film works, Jaime is also the only film artist who pays detailed attention to production design, especially in her smart usage of wardrobe. The viewers are obliged and privileged to this invitation to this precious space of art and life. Now the biggest challenge for this young artist is to explore more in-depth the complicated self. What constitutes us internally as opposed to what we have around us? What are the different layers of the self? The true challenges are both the technical variety and depth as well as emotional variety and depth.

Below is a link to the first project. "60 seconds of yourself." Which is actually harder than it sounds! How do you convey all that you are in 6o seconds!?!

60 Seconds of J'aime

Well I hope you Enjoy it.

Ps - second project coming soon! I am very proud of this one!

Sweet Words From a Loveable Bear

Winnie-the-pooh is quite possibly one of the most iconic children's story. As loveable as he is, he is also quite profound. While stumbling around the internet I found a few adorable quotes from the "silly old bear all stuffed with fluff". Enjoy!

• When late morning rolls around and you're feeling a bit out of sorts, don't worry; you're probably just a little eleven o'clockish.


• It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like "What about lunch?"


• A little consideration, a little thought for others, makes all the difference.


• If the person you are talking to doesn't appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear.


• Just because an animal is large, it doesn't mean he doesn't want kindness; however big Tigger seems to be, remember that he wants as much kindness as Roo.


• Don't underestimate the value of doing nothing, of just going along, listeningto all the things you can't hear, and not bothering.


• If ever there is tomorrow when we're not together. There is something you must always remember. You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think. But the most important thing is, even if we're apart... I'll always be with you.
 (This quote is so beautiful, and I hope someone says this to me someday!)

• If there ever comes a day when we can't be together keep me in your heart, I'll stay there forever
.

• If you live to be 100, I hope I live to be 100 minus 1 day, so I never have to live without you.


Discussion Question #5

(On Ronald Trosper's Lecture - Resilience and Sustainability of the Northwest Coast Indigenous Institutions)

Ronald Trosper’s idea of communal sharing of resources painted a pretty picture of how communities should operate, although impractical in today’s global society. I agree that everyone prospers when a group works together. Our last few days of team building are perfect examples of this.

No doubt pooling resources mitigates individual desires to exploit shared resources. Exploiting any resource when you are not the sole proprietor just doesn’t make sense, period. Actually, exploiting your resources never makes sense, period. Long-term sustainability, anyone? More to my point, why would someone work above and beyond his or her communal responsibility when there is no personal gain? Human nature works like this: I’ll help you- so you can help me. When someone has a vested interest in another’s success, of course they want him or her to prosper, because that means you also prosper. There is always a transfer of “payment” no matter how good the intentions of the seller are, even if payment is “this will make me feel good about myself”.

Additionally, how do you keep freeloaders from exploiting the system? Trosper’s suggestion of public ridicule may work on a small-scale community, when one’s reputation is all he has to live by. But how can we use this model to solve modern day problems? Fox News, SNL and the Colbert Report are trying their best, but are the leaders really listening? Maybe if globally people started implementing this mentality locally Trosper’s idea of communal sharing could succeed. Still, what is the most effective way to send this message to the global community?

An interesting take away message from tonight’s lectures is the idea of publically disclosed wealth. The North-West Coast native communities found increased accountability with increased transparency. Even though completely unrealistic, I am curious to know how this would change the accountability of corporate America? If multi-million, and even multi-billionaire CEO’s, in their race for supremacy had to justify their accumulated wealth, would they choose differently? Would they be more generous with their ludicrous salaries?

Discussion Question #4

(On Jean Jaques Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality)

Rousseau claims that the creation of society is the root of inequality. Not inequality in the sense of physical inequality, which is present throughout nature and something we cannot control. But rather, it is the moral or social inequality that has created a massive separation among humans. Through the introduction of civilization ‘savage man’s’ desire for self-preservation has morphed into an obsessive need for self-perfection. It is true that humanities constant need for self-perfection has brought the ‘savage man’ out of the forest and into our “cushy” modern day society. Yet, has humanity’s progress actually created a better society? Is de-evolution realistically possible? But, more importantly is equality an achievable goal? For, I am not prepared to go back to the forest, and run around naked; I like my life. Even though I consider myself a good person, I must accept that in our modern civilization some inequalities are unavoidable. What would Rousseau have to say to me?

Discussion Question #3

(On Daniel Quinn’s Novel Ishmael – I highly recommend this book!)

Daniel Quinn brings to light many interesting concepts in his novel Ishmael. His highly amusing character selection of a wise gorilla as the “teacher” and a human as his “pupil” is also highly ironic; due to the fact humans are to have evolved from primates. We usually consider ourselves above our primitive cousins, and have nothing to learn from them. Yet, here is a wise gorilla teaching humankind how to save the world by living in harmony with natural law. Yet, the God-like complex of the “taker” civilization has humanity believing the world is ours to conquer. Why are we so afraid of natural law? Why MUST we conquer and control everything? AND, here’s the kicker – we cannot survive without nature. We may be powerful but we are not immortal. We have consciousness – but we are not above nature.

Is the “taker” civilization destructive enough to stop evolution in its tracks, or will equilibrium eventually be achieved with or without our support? If humans are just a blip in the evolutionary process what will our successors evolve into? What human traits are worth keeping?

Discussion Question #2

(On Genesis - Christianity's Creation Myth)

Because life on earth can be confusing place at the best of times humankind attempts to make sense of this world in different ways. One way that humanity has made sense of life is through the art of storytelling. In Genesis 1-11 Yaweh, the God of all creation gave humans the ability to achieve whatever they plan (11-6). Next, Yaweh decided to scatter his people all over the world, and give them different languages so they could not understand each other. Could it be that Yaweh intended his/her creations to achieve their goals independent of one another as different civilizations? Or is it possible that Yaweh, similar to the Raven in Native American legends, is a curious trickster interested in testing the abilities of his creation?

I find creation myths, like Genesis and The Raven and the First men intriguing. I am amazed by the imagination of the authors. More often than not these legends seem far-fetched, and unlikely, however creative they are. That being said, they do serve the purpose of preserving culture, while creatively imparting life lessons. However, in our modern world is the message from Genesis effective? In the future will there still be a place for organized religion? Will there ever be a time on earth with one united global civilization?

Discussion Question #1

As a collective, the human race likes to separate our unique species from the rest of the natural world. Most of “us” turn our noses up to animalistic behavior, as we are far too civilized to engage in such crude behavior. Why is it that we see ourselves as separate, or above nature? If you think about it, we the “highly evolved” human race are in fact animals. We pride ourselves on being the top of the food chain, yet we are not particularly well equipped physically for such an accomplishment.

When you think about it, we are actually quite vulnerable. Although we may be physically unequipped animals, there is one thing that sets us apart from the rest of the natural world. It has nothing to do with our physical capabilities, but rather our mental capacities. Research has shown that the human race possesses a high degree of intellect – comparatively – although at times one could argue against this point. We possess self-awareness and rationality. We have capacity for language and ability to make decisions based on personal experiences and imparted knowledge. However, does this make the human race superior? Are we really separate from nature? What would the world look like if we were all to embrace our natural roots – even just a little bit? I am not talking about going back to live in caves – but is it really necessarily for us to have multiple cars, pave the entire planet, and fill every free space with retail opportunities?

Why are we as a collective more interested in possession, rather than experiences? What needs to happen for humankind to put aside their egos, drop out of the bigger, better, fancier, more expensive competition and figure out what is best for the collective rather than the individual? We see ourselves as separate from nature, yet the ironic twist of fate is we cannot survive without water, air, food – we cannot survive without what we are trying so hard to get rid of in our pursuit of pleasure.