Orlan also did a really cool (non-plastic-surgery-related) project where essentially inverted the filmmaking process. Instead of first making a movie, Orlan first made movie posters. She put them around Paris and people became confused when they couldn’t find a theater where the supposed film was playing. She made a soundtrack from the (non-existent) movie, a DVD for movie, and even held a forum where famous actors, directors, and critics met and discussed the film! When I heard her talk about this project she hadn’t yet actually gotten to the part where she makes the film because apparently she needs to find a producer, but maybe by now production is underway. I actually think it would be kind of neat if she just never makes the film and uses the project as a sort of critique of movie posters, DVDs, soundtracks and movie screenings. When are any of these things ever given a second thought?

I came across an interesting article today that brought me back to our discussions on Authorship and Film. The Onion AV Club had an article called “Do Screenwriters Really Matter?” in which two columnists debate about the role of screenwriter vs. the role of directors in film authorship. The piece uses a recent writer/director conflict as a jumping off point. Recently, director Alejandro González Iñárritu and screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga (who have collaborated on three films, Amores Perros, 21 Grams and now Babel) decided to part ways, largely due to conflicts over authorship of their films. Arriaga has been quoted as saying, "When they say it's an auteur film, I say auteurs film. I have always been against the 'film by' credit on a movie. It's a collaborative process and it deserves several authors." However, since mainstream conceptions of film authorship center around the director, its easy to see how Arriaga’s view might have put him into conflict with Iñárritu.

So of course, after posting about "Generation Y", I had to go look it up on wikipedia... On the site they have a list of "major cultural events" that are associated with Generation Y, and I just thought I'd post it so that you guys can see if it seems accurate / enjoy it:

Popularity of The Transformers
The Cabbage Patch Kids and Care Bear crazes of the early 1980s.
The New Kids on the Block, Guns N' Roses, Vanilla Ice, and MC Hammer crazes of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The popularity of the Disney Afternoon shows in the early and mid 1990s.
The popularity of the Ghostbusters media and merchandise in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Just thought I'd start this before running off to dinner... I was in class today and the professor asked us if we were Generation Rx, a question that sparked basically the largest digression from discussion in the history of that class, and launched us into repeating every label our generation's encountered so far. These included:

Generation Rx, apparently
Generation Y, or "why?"
Generation Me
iGeneration
MTV Generation
Generation 9/11
Echo Boomers

This is interesting to me for a couple reasons. One, when do we become generationally situated? Or how much time has to pass for one of these generational namesakes to stick? We have Generation X before us, and the Baby Boomers before them-- those are pretty solidified.

I was perusing the internet looking for things to blog about when I came across this weird article on cnn.com. Apparently, a man from a small town in Wisconsin was running for Sheriff and losing horribly. So rather than accept defeat, he legally changed his name to Andy Griffith. He claims it has nothing to do with the actor Andy Griffith or wanting to capitalize on the name to gain more votes for himself. Sorry guy, I’m not buying that. So now, the real Andy Griffith is suing the guy for violation of trademark and copyright laws. I feel bad for the guy, I mean, he lost went through the trouble of changing his name, but still lost the election and is now being sued. Sucks to be him, but this story does raise some interesting questions. With the increase in file sharing, copyrights are becoming a bigger and bigger issue. It’s interesting to see this copyright paranoia carry over into something like a person’s name. When does a name become more than just a name? When does it cross over into the realm of commodity?

Today I (somehow) dragged myself out of bed at 7:30am to go to “Models of Pride,” which is an annual LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) youth conference held at Occidental College. A lot of the workshops were media-related, so I thought I’d just blog about my experience at the conference and some of the things I noticed.

Part One, or omg I’m old:
First of all, the description of the event says it’s a youth conference geared towards queer youth between the ages of 14 and 23. However, when I got there, I definitely felt that it was geared more towards high school students. When we were in small groups for an “icebreaker,” my group of 12 had about 3 people over 18. But everyone was really nice. But I still felt really old basically the whole time I was there.

So, this class has me constantly thinking about authorship in many aspects of my life, and in particular my use of the internet recently. The reading for this week and last week have made me really look at the internet more critically and think about websites that I frequently visit. One site that I enjoy that relates really well to authorship is www.postsecret.com . It is a site where people send in anonymous postcards that have their inner-most secrets written on them. I think this is important in relation to authorship specifically because of the anonymous element the internet provides. Like blogging, which can be anonymous, the internet provides people a space to voice their opinions and feelings without having to do it in awkward social settings or in a place where they feel they could be scrutinized or openly judged. What I like about postsecret.com is that people can let out these secrets that they have bottled up inside and it allows them to have the emotional release of telling someone, without actually having to tell someone. The site also does a lot to help people who have various issues from eating disorders to depression. It is like an anonymous support group at times, where people can share and others are there for them and can respond to their postcards. People all over the world can connect with these people's secrets, realize that they are not the only ones with problems and realize that everyone has secrets they wish they could let out.

On page 38 of Hamlet on the Holodeck, Murray states that, “to be alive in the twentieth century is to be aware of the alternative possible selves, of alternative possible worlds, and of the limitless intersecting stories of the actual world.”

This quote reminded me of an improv show I went to on Sunday night. Three of the skits/games in particular stood out. The first one was a game in which there are two different two-person scenes going on, one being frozen while the other is in action. After awhile, the active scene stops and the frozen scene starts up again, using the last line from the formerly active scene (did that make sense?). Although that line remains the same in both scenes, both scenes were entirely different and used it in different ways. Game two was called “new choice” in which two people act out a scene, while the host periodically says “new choice”, forcing them to go back and change the line they just said. This in effect changes the course of the scene, leaving the audience to follow the new direction while still wondering how the scene would have played out if the original line had been kept. The third game was one in which two people are acting out a scene until they are forced to freeze. While they’re frozen, another person must step in and replace one of the actors in the scene, putting their body into the same position as the person they replaced. It was interesting to see how much the addition of this new person could change the scene. Although the actors were positioned in the same way, the meaning of that positioning totally shifted. Though Hamlet on the Holodeck discusses this kind of narrative in new media forms, it was interesting to me to see them played out in a theater format.

So, I don’t like talking in class. But, I have something I wanted to say about Thomas Kinkade…

I think it’s safe to say we came to a general consensus that we would all burn his paintings if given the chance, because they’re ugly, or cheesy, or boring, whatever. Sure, I would never want one hanging on my wall, country just isn’t my style- but the guy has talent, regardless of what he uses it for. I can’t help but feel that part of the reason people look down on his paintings (factory aspect aside) is because they’re all over the place; you can buy Thomas Kinkade anything (I know, my grandma has quite a collection) and at quite a range of prices, from affordable to why-the-hell-are-you-spending-that-much-on-a-painting-of-a-snowy-cottage. But I couldn’t help feeling that the discussion got a bit “uppity” -for lack of a better word. Do we look down on his paintings because anyone can have one? Because of what he chooses to paint? Because he turned his paintings/style into a business and is making a killing doing it? Because they aren’t rare, they aren’t in a museum?

So, as I recently had a meeting with my "career counselor", I have been thinking a lot about post graduation and what I should do with my life. I know that I'm not going to grad school next year, but I was just wondering if anyone knows what they will be doing/what they want to be doing. Our major is so broad that I know there are a lot of different fields that people could be entering so I am just curious as to what others are doing with the media studies major.