Blogging- A Retrospective

Writing 140 has come to a close, and now it is time for a look back on the semester.

There was a lot to be learned in this course, and it feels difficult to condense into one short blog post. I will do my best.

Academic inquiry requires an intense amount of pre-writing, thoughtful planning, hard work, and research. There is a certain necessity to make sure that you've covered all possible angles in your inquiry, meaning one must be keen to explore possible counterarguments and flesh out presented facts with reasonable and credible evidence. Evidence leads us to the next big point here: research.

Research is key, crucial, the crux of an academic paper. Without research, a paper is just a collection of ideas and thoughts. It is necessary to back up your opinion with others in order to strengthen the argument and find a way for the audience to place your paper in an established school of thought or niche. On top of that, research allows for knowledge of what has been said before so you know that you are not treading on already-worn ground, but carving a new path. What's more, reading the opinions and thoughts of others informs and can help spawn ideas of your own (as long as proper citation is given, of course).

The process of collaboration is one that I believe in immensely given my background in filmmaking. Making a good film is a process that requires the input of many individuals, and that, I have learned, is true of papers as well. I believe this to be the single greatest lesson I learned from this course: allow others to help, as they will see things and suggest routes that you could never have thought of.

I will take what I've learned in this class and apply it to all future classes in some way. Academically, the value of research has been instilled in me. Filmmaking wise, the lesson of collaboration is key; that it can be useful across academia only strengthens it as an institution for me.

This class has been extremely beneficial, and one that I will carry for the rest of my USC career.

Fifth Assignment- Post #2

The audience plays a huge, and arguably most important, role in the ethics of a rhetorical situation. By engaging in public discourse, politicians, newspeople, or other public figures are inviting discourse from the public as well; a back-and-forth between the professionals and the non-professionals is a part of the bargain. Unfortunately, in its current state, audiences tend to be more destructive than constructive. Most of the (attempted) ethical rhetoric is done online in articles or videos posted to YouTube or Yahoo, and in the comments section the users have full anonymity and free reign to speak on whatever they'd wish with no consequence. A part of this means that attacks are common and people use their faceless avatar to say exactly what they think without working towards a common goal, rendering the institution of ethical rhetoric non-existent. This was described as well in my previous post.

Fifth Assignment- Post #1

Our current model of public discourse is unfavorable, as it does reward bad faith argumentation. Instead of listening, assessing, and most of all working toward a solution, the media strives to make its case and give credence to nobody else's. Even if they were to say that they valued all opinions, an audience wouldn't know it; there is screaming, wrong information, and sentences cut off before they are finished which can only mean the person arguing it didn't hear the whole thing and thus isn't quite sure what it is they are arguing.

Another place where these things occur, albeit in a slightly different way, is on online forums. Even if someone gives a reasonable and well-thought out argument in the 'comments' section of a political news video, the only thing that people can do in response is 'like' the post, 'dislike' the post, comment agreeing with the post, or comment shredding that original poster to shreds (and that, unfortunately, makes up a majority of the content). This is not actually accomplishing anything; instead, it acts as a facade for the anonymous and nameless to voice their opinions without any real chance at legitimate discourse or or at working towards any kind of remedy for the issue at hand. For a wonderfully irritating example of this roundabout gibberish, take a look at the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/affordable-care-act-only-chips-away-core-goal-175534209.html

^Be warned when you click, as there are over 1,500 comments at the moment.

This kind of unethical discourse is encouraged, unfortunately, because nobody wants to put a stop to it. Arguments make good promo spots, which increase ratings. In terms of 'comments' strands: why show restraint when you are protected by a screen and remain anonymous? Say what you want to say and don't hold back, right? The damage that these things do is real, as people are actually hurt and spend hours upon hours rebutting in an argument that can only lead one place: nowhere. I believe that perhaps our greatest privilege in this country is free speech, but I can't help wishing that we used it to a more satisfying end.

Fourth Assignment: Blog #2

A film that dabbles in Noir conventions as well as uproots them is Devil in a Blue Dress. Femme fatale, political corruption, murder, betrayal, big reveals...this film has them all including the cliched voiceover from out protagonist. The difference in this film is that the protagonist is black, a minority that is itself or similarly exploited or made to embody villainy in previous Noir films. By placing Denzel at the forefront, it makes a huge statement about Noir films: they can be multiethnic, and the stories can apply to others. The issues or race and class brought about in AMST 274 are certainly brought up here; Denzel's character makes a big sea out of his home being his home, and his car being his car. The pride of his class standing is a major part of his character, as is his inability to secure a job which leads him down the rabbit hole of the plot. In closing, the film is certainly a Noir film in its conventions but uses race to differentiate itself.

Fourth Assignment: Blog #1

Paul Schrader, a noted filmmaker, has penned a far-reaching and time-spanning article titled simply, "Notes on Film Noir." More like an expansive exhaustion of the genre than a simple listing of "notes" as the title suggests, Schrader tackles several of the elements film noir has come to represent including 'War and Post-War Disillusionments,' 'Post-War Realism,' 'The German Influence,' The Hard-Boiled Tradition,' 'Stylistics,' and 'Themes.' Each of these dives deep into the influence it had on the genre as a whole, which he notes as one of "the best known and least known" periods in Hollywood film. This dichotomy, along with that list of topics that Schrader tackles, makes this an indispensable resource. One thing I learned that I didn't know comes from 'The German Influence' section, where Schrader notes famed cinematographer of Hungarian descent named John Alton who helped "adapt old expressionist techniques to the new desire for realism..." That kind of adaptation is an interesting one to explore not only in relation to John Alton but in relation to any noir film.

Third Essay- Entry #1

I am writing about Blood Diamond (2006), a film where Leonardo DiCaprio plays the white savior role of Danny Archer who, at the end of the film and after a spiritual transformation realizing that selfishness is not the solution to living a meaningful life, gives his life to save a black man (Dijmon Hounsou playing Solomon Vandy) and help him rescue his kidnapped son. This act fulfills the role of white savior; he must die (and chooses to) in order to save a black man who desperately needs his help. The character is the lead of the film, the star, the crux, and is entirely necessary; in a way, the film is based around the idea of this individual being a white savior choosing to reveal it only at the end.

Second Essay- Entry #2

It is not possible to be completely un-identified because even a favorable opinion of something ties you to it in a way. To be completely un-identified is to say that the identities available do not apply or interest you; a member of one race or ethnicity can identify with another based on morals, values, ethics, etcetera. The possible benefits to this state would be that some of the harsh inter-ethnic feuds or long-standing grudges would have no bearing on you; while some are understandable and justified, to avoid them altogether would be ideal. The drawbacks would be similar to the aforementioned benefit: having a group of people to relate to where stereotypes are nonexistent because they are formed by absent outer parties can be an incredible rich and rewarding experience. It is important for people to associate, bond, and relate with one another and through identification this happens on an inherent and subconscious level. It may be impossible to completely un-identify, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.