Yes Men Extra Blog

With the end of the semester approaching, it has finally come time to do our final projects: the radio project. My new group, band 3.5, has had many great ideas on different directions we could go with the show. After submitting our proposal to Kate, we know see we have much more work cut out for us than we previously realized.

After seeing the work of the Yes Men, I have mixed feelings. I think what they are doing is very clever. Instead of violently protesting or doing something else to get the attention of the media, they are actually using the media as their way of communication. Just as the media manipulates the public opinion by only releasing information they choose, the Yes Men are manipulating the media, forcing them to cover issues that they find important. This is good in that it forces the media and the public viewers to see a side of a story that they might have not seen and not had the chance to consider.

This manipulation also has a negative side. For example, by promising compensation for the Bhopal plant victims, they are giving hope to many people. Once these people hear that the promises are false, they will now have added disappointment. These people have gone through enough, and it is unnecessary to put them through any more hurt. The point of the Yes Men's fake impersinations is to cause harm to the major companies, but the major harm is being done to the innocent bystanders.

For our radio projects, I do not think it would be a good idea to implement the same strategies that the Yes Men use in their endeavours. Though the idea behind the shows are good, the effect it has on innocent people is not worth the small harm it does to major corporations.

Shayna Tucker

Thiago blog 10

This week we had to listen in to Orson Wells’ War of the World broadcast, and what I found interesting about it was how many people were tricked into thinking that an actual alien attack was taking place. I think this is ridiculous, but I guess hindsight is 20/20, and maybe if I had listened to the live broadcast, and had also missed the disclaimer in the beginning of the show, I probably would been scared shitless too. This brings up an interesting point that we as viewers of TV news shows and listeners of radio news shows take it for granted that everything said in the news is real. That’s not to say that we are all just gullible, but rather that we expect in good faith that news programs and journalists will report the truth to the best of their knowledge. So this frees up the viewer or listener to just absorb the information without having the responsibility of verifying if it’s true or not; if info is from a reputable news station, it’s probably true. This means that media and its members have a huge responsibility to report the actual truth, since the audience will take it as such and if someone fails to uphold this responsibility, the audience will no longer trust them. For example, in 2006, Dan Rather retired from, and another producer was fired from the news program 60 minutes after a story they had reported and defended about President Bush’s military record ended up being false.

The movie Sonic Outlaws also dealt with this subject when the band Negativland was shown to have leaked a fake news story which the mainstream media got a hold of and began reporting as truth. So the reporters and journalists failed to verify the truth in this case. And if the audience isn’t expected to questions the truth, and the journalist who are expected to aren’t doing their jobs, then it’s kind of scary to think of how people can be manipulated into sharing a collective false belief, which gets into the realm of propaganda and group think—all bad things. But then again, what do I know? I get my news from the likes of the Daily Show, SNL’s Weekend update, and even UF’s Alligator.

We're back...

This was quite an interesting week. Monday we had our first lab in forever. To be honest, I was dreading having to be there until 10:10 at night, but it ended up being really interesting! Barry seemed like he really knew what he was talking about and really had a passion for it. It's rare to see someone that loves what he does, and Barry definitely seems that way.

Playing around with the audio editing software was pretty cool. We all got to take turns speaking into the microfone and then playing it back. My personal favorite was when we got to change the pitch and make ourselves sound like Mickey Mouse. I've seen engineers work on my sister's songs and I always thought it was pretty cool how they can cut and paste different parts of songs together. I'm excited to start my own project and be able to show off my "skills" when I get back to Los Angeles.

Also on Monday, our film analysis projects were due. I had a much better time completing this project than I did with my last Web site project. I felt way more comfortable working on a Web site the second time around because I felt like I had a better idea of what was expected of me. I tried to be more creative and toyed around with Web design a little more. I did my project on Mean Girls, a movie that is such a guilty pleasure to me. I love it and think it is such an accurate projection of high school girls today. I liked this assignment way more than the last one.

We had our last Barthes band presentation on Monday on the Grain of Voice. I thought the whole concept of the texture of the voice was really intriguing. I found it especially interesting becauseMe and Thiago have our presentation on Sonic Outlaws on Monday so hopefully that works out well because we have been preparing long and hard for it. Wish us luck!

Shayna Tucker

The Last Supper...aka the week before our presentation

In the beginning of the week, we discussed the book Chorus of Stones by Griffin. We spent a lot of time on this piece. There were many interesting themes throughout the book. For example, Griffin spends a lot of time on the issue of gender. She is clear in giving her opinion that masculinity is the cause of war, therefore implying that femininity would end war. One example she gives is Ghandi. She accredited his peaceful practices to being taught by women. I found this concept intriguing. When you really think about the people who are involved in war, it is usually men. Does that mean it is fair to generalize that masculinity is the cause of war, or is it that society has made it that war is designated for men? I am unsure of the right answer to this question.

Also this week, we watched the short film "Roswell". This film was very strange to me. While watching it, I was not certain how this would relate to what we were learning in class. I was eager to discuss it on Friday. Once in class, it was all pieced together. We analyzed the different aspects of mise-en-scene, cinematography, and editing used in the film. I'll admit, I definitely enjoyed waching The Shining more. I am very intrigued by the concept that there could be life outside of our planet, but this film didn't really do it for me.

Coming up on Monday, my band has our presentation on Barthes' essay on The Third Meaning. To be honest, we have had a lot of trouble fully understanding this concept. This essay is very confusing in that its hard to put into words something that Barthes himself has trouble putting into words. My group has spent much time in the library researching The Third Meaning and discussing our findings with each other. We also met with Kate before class on Tuesday to try and discuss what The Third Meaning really means. Tomorrow, we will be spending the whole day in the library. We finally decided that we are going to present just as Barthes had written: we are going to make a slideshow of images and try to put into words what the third meaning is for each one. Hopefully it all works out in the end. I am including the man that has baffled us all!

Shayna Tucker

death of the author

This week we analyzed The Shining further and it was really interesting to see how every little thing in a movie contributes to it. When I first watched The Shining… I noticed the television playing but did not really bother to pay attention to exactly what was on it. When we watched scenes again I found it very interesting to notice that while Wendy was alone in the kitchen, the T.V. was playing a news story about a wife who was murdered while she was alone in her husband. If you pay attention to that it really foreshadows the movie.

We then went over The Death of the Author… good job Band 3.. you did great! I was really interested when we were talking about the Author and his work and then relating it to a father and his child. An author creates something then once in the real world it is interpreted in many ways. It is just like with kids. A father will raise his child but when the child is set off in the real world on his own, he is off to make his own decisions and be life to his own interpretations. I also like the idea that Barthes brings about when he says we need to stop brining in authors life and background into their work and just appreciate the work for what it is. Band 3 used the example of Van Gogh’s painting and how whenever you look at his paintings its hard for people not to think about his madness. “The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it.” Instead we should just look at a work for what it is. I decided to include the painting by Van Gough and when you look at it just appreciate it for what it is and do not think about Van Gough or his life.



Amie Orner

written by: anonymous

This week we went further into The Shining. There were so many different aspects of the movie that are hard to notice when you watch it for the first time. One particular thing that was discussed in class was the television. Before the class discussion, I barely even noticed the tv in the different scenes at all. Now that I was informed to watch out for what the tv was saying, I saw how the tv was a crucial part of the scene. The tv was more than just a prop: the words on the tv were carefully constructed to accompany the storyline of the movie. Another thing that was explained in class was the scene with the man dressed in the animal costume. When I first watched the movie, I was so confused on that part. It seemed so random and just put in for no reason. In class we discussed how it was supposed to symbolize the loss of innocence and the perversion of childhood. It was an interesting scene selection and now that I know the reasoning behind it, it makes perfect sense.

This week Band 3 made their presentation on "The Death of the Author". This was definitely one of my favorite readings by Barthes so far. Like Thiago pointed out, I also believe that Barthes theory is correct for writing and text but not film. The intent of the filmmaker is generally always considered in the analyzation of a film. Barthes theory intrigues me because it goes against many things I learned in high school. Many times when we read a piece of writing, we spent time analyzing the author as well. Many teachers have expressed how important it is to read behind the lines and see what was going on in the author's own lives. They said that more times then not, this will help explain why the author wrote about the topic he or she chose. Barthes completely discredits this idea. I do not personally agree with Barthes. I do agree that when you read a work, you should focus on the story and not the author. This will better focus you on the actual story and force you to make your own interpretations. But, I do feel it is important to research the author when you want to know why the story was written in that way. This is also true of artists. A great example of this is Pablo Picasso. When one of his friends committed suicide, he began a period of art known as the blue period. His sadness in real life was displayed in his paintings. Here is an example of a painting that was created during Picasso's blue period entitled Crouching Woman.

Shayna Tucker

Thiago's Thoughts

Last week I wrote that a correct interpretation of a scene required the filmmaker's (author's) intent and that any interpretation a viewer might have that wasn't intended by the filmmaker is not significant. Now this week I had some guy named Barthes try and tell me the exact opposite. Barthe's claims that a "text's unity lies not in the origin (the author) but rather the destination" (the reader). So to Barthes, it's the reader's own interpretation that is important and that "to give a text an author is to impose a limit on the text."

To Barthes, limiting the interpretation of a text to only what the author intended is the desire of the critic (me i guess) to find a "secret" or "ultimate" meaning to the text, and to the critic "discovering the author beneath the work" is the only step in explaining the "ultimate" meaning. But Barthes believes this is impossible since "text is not a line of words releasing a single meaning (the author's) but rather it is a multi-dimensional space in which, a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash." Furthermore, Barthes beleives that in the "multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered." So to Barthes, no definite "explanation" can be obtained from analyzing just the author and is also not desirable.

So given everything I said last week, reading "Death of an Author" was difficult because I held a believe that was the complete opposite and so had a hard time understanding where he was coming from, but I guess according to Barthes I shouldn't be trying to understand where he's coming from but where I'm coming from. So here goes:

I still don't agree with Barthes' ideas in "Death of the Author" especially when it comes to film analysis. In film, Auteurism is the belief that the filmmaker is the most important creative force in the work. So i'm a big supporter of this "author theory" especially when it comes to directors who have unique, identifiable styles, such as Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, to name a few who are considered auteurs. When it comes to watching their films, obtaining meaning from the filmmaker's (author) intent is a must.

Maybe Barthes' theory only applies to writing and text and not to film. I thought about this and it did make more sense. When I read a book or novel, I hardly ever think about the author or look up their biographies to better understand the story they are telling. Even author's that I really like and have read more than one of their novels, such as Bret Easton Ellis, I never take them into consideration when it comes to interpreting the story and characters. So, I guess I agree with Barthes when it comes to writing, but not movies.




Here's Patrick Bateman (cristian bale) from the movie American Psycho based on the novel by Bret Easton Ellis. In the novel, Bateman is a psychopathic mass murderer. So does this mean that the author Ellis is a psychopath too? Probably not.