Documentary Entry 5

"Think of it as a mask you wear to overcome life's hardships".

I've always been keen on Carl Jung and his works in psychology. As a former student and friend of Freud himself he actually disagreed with his masters theory that the subconsciousness was just a bin for all our negative thoughts. Jung argued that while that was true he felt that the mind held more than that too.

One of Jung's most popular theories was the idea of the "Persona" Jung believed that a Persona was akin to a mask we wore to hide our flaws and insecurities. The quote above is an excellent way of summarising it.

He believed everybody had a Persona that served as a compromise towards the individual and what society expects of a person. However on the other side of the coin was the Shadow.
The Shadow is that which we don't want others to see. The faults and flaws we have that no one else should see. Jung believed that unless we overcame our Shadow we would he consumed by it.

Bit more complicated than "men wish to kill their fathers and sleep with their mothers" ain't it?

To make a long story short, I realised that people who partake in being a drag queen are said to be donning a Persona, this lead me to raise the question( or in this case several):

Are we seeing the true self of the queen? Or a secondary Persona? Perhaps even their Shadow if this is something they partake in a way from the eyes of those who know them? To be honest I don't know the answer it just seemed to be an interesting topic/point to bring up.

Jung wasn't known for associating with homosexuals so I can't say what his opinion was on the matter but from what I can tell he had no problem with and actually believed there's no such thing as a 100% straight individual especially if the bibles story of Adam and Eve is considered. Though a popular theory about why Freud and Jung fell out was because the younger Jung feared that the older Freud would come onto him(something I can't buy to be honest, Freud was too busy painting humanity in the worst possible light for intimacy).

Still as I said before but it's worth saying again, it is a bit more complicated than father killing and mother boinking isn't it?

Documentary Entry 4

Glen or Glenda?: An Assessment

Glen or Glenda? Is a film that's either so bad it's good or just flat out bad. There's no middle ground. At least in theory, the fact is having watched I can say a lot of things about it.
It's poorly written, poorly paced, can't make it's mind up over the message it wants to deliver which isn't good when discussing an issue like transvestism, it's poorly acted which makes the dialogue even worse and Bela "I was Dracula for crying out loud" Lugosi contributes nothing relevant to the plot.

And yet for all that I can't say it's truly horrible. From a film standpoint at least, for all the mass amounts of mess throughout the film manages to keep my interest, I can't say why or how but it does. It might be because Lugosi reappearing and doing something completely irrelevant is far too tempting.

And even without discussing its gender issues (though one could argue for a fifties film it's actually progressive) it's an absolute mess of a film made by a man who was making films to pay off debts from making films.

The movie raises the theory that because Glenn's mother used to favour his sister Sheila over him, the psychiatrist believes that Glenn started wearing Sheila's dresses to attract the attention and affection of his mother.

It also mentions at the end of the film that transvestism is something that can be cured (which seems very backwards as Ed Wood was known to dabble in transvestism even fighting in the Second World War during its bloodiest battles in bra and panties).

I know it might be contradictory to say this considering the above but outside of that scene at the very end the film handles the rather sensitive subject rather well. Well for the time it was made at least, the film uses the justification that a transvestite is not a homosexual as if to say being homosexual is worse than being a transvestite.
 It's not great justification by today's standards but the fact is it was the best Wood can manage without earning the scorn of every moral guardian everywhere.

"Glen is not a homosexual. Glen is a transvestite, but he is not a homosexual." So not only is it offensive it's also redundant dialogue too.

To add another layer to its offensiveness the film actually includes a scene where a male character undergoes a sex change to become a female and it's shown that he has to "learn" how to be female and also has to "unlearn" being male. The implication being that a woman once a man is unable to do the things he was capable of doing once before. Then again the 50s so it's probably a case of values dissonance or similar justification like the above.

In the end Glen or Glenda is poorly written, badly directed, visually unpleasing, horribly acted, has a message that's all over the place at best and downright bipolar at worst and offensive in at least 3 different ways. Still despite all that it's at the very least fascinating and probably only offensive because of the way the world has changed since.

Whatever message the film has gets lost in the shuffle of mediocrity. And yet it's still very fascinating. For all that can be said about Ed Wood you can safely say while he never made a good one he did make fascinating ones. And maybe that's a good thing all of itself?

Documentary Entry 3

Below I have two interviews featuring drag queens that discuss the issue in different ways. It's just to help me specifically as a cameraman but can benefit both an interviewer and director as well.

Example 1:

This one is very basic but it does what it sets out to do: give an interview. A few things do bug me, the interviewee, Starry Nadeshko never talks to the interviewer directly and is always addressing the camera. The image below is something that the viewer sees a lot of.

The second gripe I have is the interviewer who focuses mainly on his notes and this is especially prevalent near the end, a good interviewer should make eye contact with his interviewee. As a result the cameraman has very little to work with and the audience loses interest, it isn't as bad since the video itself is short but it needs to be called out on.

That aside it's a good interview and for just over 5 minutes covers a lot of ground about drag queen life. It covers it's topics well and for what seems to be a very small time product at the very least

 

knows what it's doing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sNSl2SCMvQ8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsNSl2SCMvQ8

Example 2
This second one is actually played for laughs but it looks a lot better than the first one and a lot more happens. There's action for starters. Opening with a performance by our drag queen shows what we're in for. The interview itself is staged whilst the drag queen is a proper persona.



Props to the host Kate who plays the ditsy blonde perfectly and her reactions are priceless. When compared to the first interview it's less insightful but more interesting simply because stuff is happening.

Since it is for comedy rather than for seriousness it isn't the best video for insight but it's actual style is what I personally would look for in an interview. It actually has a few of the things mentioned in the previous entry.

Overall both interviews work well and do what they were supposed to but the second one seems better from a visual standpoint making it the one I'd draw from. The first one looks dull but it's strengths come from the interview itself so it might be best to use it for interview inspiration.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AXn9TFRs-9w&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAXn9TFRs-9w

Overall both interviews work well and do what they were supposed to but the second one seems better from a visual standpoint making it the one I'd draw from. The first one looks dull but it's strengths come from the interview itself so it might be best to use it for interview inspiration.

Documentary Experience Entry 2

Documentary Experience Entry 2

Another week another update. Well my teeth are no longer causing me trouble so nows as good a time as any to start doing things.

The main discussion topic in my case was how to film it. We have a 7 part layout of how we want it to be shown and the structure of the interview has been settled.
It starts off with our interviewee going about his normal life getting ready for his job etc. Then it goes to him getting ready to perform.

We then cut to him talking about his civilian life and then his drag life. He speaks about his dislike of his normal life. Next is his performance and it finally ends with a bit on the future.
We will have two perspectives first the normal life and then the drag queen life or as Anya referred to it as, the Man and the Queen respectively. I have to admit I quite like it as it gets the point across and won't confuse the audience.

Since it was finally decided that the video will focus on the double life aspect of being a drag queen. In preparation for this I've decided to look into real life events where the two lives clash like in the article below:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/30/brighton-drag-queen-betty-swollocks-convicted-of-benefit-fraud/

On a side note I was disappointed my teammates didn't get the joke in the name there and I had to explain it to them. I must admit the names are pretty clever at least.

It was previously suggested that family members or friends be featured in the film but two points where raised, firstly they might not want to and secondly the film would be a bit overcrowded for 5 minutes if we tried to cover all the topics. In that sense it's for the best especially if it's a secret hobby unknown to the family, I may only speak for myself on here but something (intuition I reckon) tells me that opening that can of worms is something we really shouldn't/don't want to do.
As preparation for the interview being filmed it's decided that group meet up at some point during the week we are off so we know more about where we should be at.

Since I consider myself at my best when I follow orders I know this training will go down well. I'm excited even if things have been a wee bit rocky at first. Still failure breeds success ( not that this is a failure by any stretch) and there's always something to learn regardless of how good you think you are.

Documentary experience entry 1

DocumentaryExperience

I've decided it would be more efficient to use this blog for preserving details about my documentary as it means I won't have to keep track of another batch of passwords. I've been assigned the role of cameraman for our protect about drag queens with a theme on hands. I have to admit I don't know much about drag queens but since my teammates suggested and agreed with it I reckon it's safe to say they know what they're doing.

That's not to say  I'm not gonna pull my weight around no the opposite in fact I'm a cameraman and a professional ( in a work ethic sense I mean) so I know I'll be ready to do my part when said part needs done.

I'll have to admit I haven't updated this in two weeks but with good reason. I had a meeting with a dental surgeon one Thursday and then I was getting my braces removed the Thursday after that. Makes me regret missing that appointment back in august.
The point is I'm aware I might have missed something during the last two weeks but I'm fully prepared to pick up whatever slack I missed. I can only hope the others have some good news to tell me. Especially considering were working on a project where the main subject is kind of a mystery.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A review.

Fear and loathing in Las Vegas

Introduction

I'd like to take a look at the cult classic Fear and loathing in Las Vegas. When it was originally released it was panned by critics at the time who declared it nothing more than a really trippy movie. Of course like a lot of movies out at the time that weren't well received this has been vindicated by history, so much so that most people don't know it's based on a novel of questionable fact/fiction status. 

Plot

Fear and Loathing has a type of plot that makes zero sense on a first viewing and somehow even less on a second viewing. Hindsight does not help make this easy to understand. 

Then again this is intentional considering other than a few changes in pacing everything you see happened in real life according to the book of the same name this film is based on by Hunter S Thompson. And if what we see onscreen is true then it's a wonderful case of reality is unrealistic.

Both main characters are destructive drug abusers who openly admit that what they do is wrong but do it anyway. As the film itself puts it: "the tendency is to push it as far as you can". 

And boy do these two push it.  This is especially true of Dr. Gonzo who rampages through everything and everyone they meet. This starts off funny but by the final twenty minutes that humour becomes horror and Duke does nothing to stop him and that's probably for the best. Again this was based on a real person.

The film is a journey for both characters, a very destructive journey that shows the changing times from the free loving 60s to the Nixon run 70s and a world were neither Gonzo or Duke  fit in.  

Misc

One of the best things about this film is the random cameos by actors who you're gonna remember from other movies. Like Toby McGuire playing a blonde haired hippy who appears at the start of the film and runs off in fear. Hindsight makes this movie a lot of fun. Your'e also going to spot Christina Ricci playing a potentially insane artist obsessed with Barbara Streisand(again potentially real person).

Benicio Del Toro gained 40 pounds to play a proper film version of Dr.Gonzo and also burned himself with a cigarette in multiple places developing blood poisoning just to be an accurate portrayal.

As for Johnny Depp, he was good friends with Hunter S Thompson the man that Raoul Duke is based on. Being friends with Hunter he was able to style himself to look like him. In fact Thompson himself shaved Depp's head with a straight razor whilst wearing a miners helmet. I don't know what was going through his head but I'd love to find out.

Conclusion

I love this film. Pure and simple I adore everything about this film. The way it looks, the cast, the bizarre imagery throughout, the sheer quotability of every word out of Raoul Duke's mouth. An absolute treasure of a film that I recommend every single person see as long as your mind can handle it.

This is a movie that must be seen at least twice, since the first time you watch it, you will not understand what kind of movie you just watched. Was it a comedy? Was it a political movie? Was it meant to be serious? Was it meant to just make you laugh? What the hell happened in the last third of the movie? These are all perfectly valid questions..... I don't have any answers.

The year so far Part 1

The year so far

It's been a pretty good start to my first year. It had more ups and downs for the most parts. Getting up at half 6 3 times a week has been a pain but I've gotten used to it and it is worth it in the long run.

I can safely say which classes I'm making the most out of already and want to do next year. I can say goodbye to Lighting and Camera techniques and Set Design without hesitation. 

Whilst neither class is particularly awful neither class is relevant to my interests. Especially not Set Design.

As for the classes I enjoy, Interview skills is an entertaining class. Ann Marie is an entertaining teacher and the class is interesting especially the interviews. That being said the paperwork is a massive pain but as I've said before "take the rough before the smooth". I admit my first interviews weren't stellar, I was nervous, tired, and was one of the first interviews done. I'd like to think this has improved with time but right now I'm not gonna say anything.

Script Writing is something I enjoyed before coming to BMC. Admittedly the class takes a different approach to my other college when it comes to script writing but it makes things more challenging. Previously I used to write scripts that were 100% fiction but now I'm expected to mix real life and imagination so it makes things more interesting. 

Film studies is probably my favourite class or at least the one I do my best in.  The class involves a lot of thinking in film analysis and that's something I enjoy going. I admit sometimes I think we're looking into the formula of Austin Powers a bit too much but it's a fun class and I'd definitely keep at it in second year. 

I admit I'm still nervous about my progress on this course. I'm on my toes in case I'm falling behind and I'm worried that I'm not working hard enough. I'm going to work even harder in the new year because I managed to worm my way onto this course at the last minute possible and I have no intention to throw it away. That and ill be able to remove the classes I dislike from my schedule  so I can enjoy the classes I enjoy because I enjoy them.