Reflection on Post-Production

This week in post-production went surprisingly smoothly. My happiness is amplified since this is the most important project in terms of our grade.

For the most part, I was able to manage my time very well in the past week. I got more done in less time than I ever had in this class, and I think the main reason for that was the fact that I was working with audio, which I find to be pretty fun. It was enlightening to listen to my past conversation and learn more about how I speak (whether good or bad). Technology was friendly to me this week, which is a major plus.

The only thing that really went wrong this week was the fact that I had to cut a significant amount of the podcast to give it a reasonable length. It was a little disheartening having to remove some components of the argument from the podcast, and it still turned out to be fairly lengthy. That being said, the most important elements of the argument remain in the final product.

Next week seems like it'll be pretty lax. This was probably my favorite project in this class for both writing and producing.

I feel good about this project, as I put a lot of effort into making it effectively convey an argument that many would label as subjective. Many good points are brought up, and I believe I accurately followed the directions and allowed for a comfortable listening experience.

Revised Post to Peer Reviewers

The post-production phase was an interesting one. Although there was a lot of work to be done, it was probably the most fun I had editing the project.

My project is a podcast on Star Wars: The Force Awakens and whether it is deserving of the praise it has garnered with such a similar story to the original movie. The audio is in the form of a round-table discussion with two of my friends who are also well-versed in the topic.

As far as weaknesses go, the main thing would definitely be the length. There was a lot of good conversation but it ultimately added up to over thirty minutes of talking. It was slightly painful to cut out some good moments, and even then I was only able to get it down to about twenty. I also hope that I did a decent enough job at editing, and that the cuts aren't extremely noticeable.

I'm proud of my work on this project because I was able to convey an argument that went over all of the required points in a mostly unscripted conversation between three people. I went over some basic ground that I wanted to cover, but ultimately we were able to bring up adequate topics on the spot.

The fine cut of my project can be found here:
https://soundcloud.com/jacob-corbin-6/project-3-public-argument-podcast

Editorial Report 1a

Content Outline

Here is the outline for my upcoming project.

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1yEUoR01u7ieP4UXgLwP26f60jYNtRyIZ_7iPs4i9kgw/edit?usp=sharing

Research Report

This Google document details ten helpful sources that I encountered during my research.

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1PhHDqxKVDyD9WbOjWjiBQSbZ8PFNEfJu3MFdJdh4RzU/edit?usp=sharing

Rhetorical Analysis of Project 3

My project is going to be a critical dissection of the film Star Wars: The Force Awakens, in which my colleagues and I will discuss whether or not the film should be considered a rehash of story elements. Considering the appealing topic, that being Star Wars, I have a generally deep knowledge of the subject material.

Here's a rhetorical breakdown of my project, starting with the author.

Rhetorical Situation: Author
I'm currently majoring in Film and Television here at the U of A. Storytelling has been a burning interest of mine since I was very young, and movies have satisfied that interest effectively. I plan to enter the industry professionally as a writer, although I am willing to accept any creative position that leads me there. I'm interested in the progression of film and how the times affect what is presented creatively as well as aesthetically. The Star Wars franchise is a good example of this change. I've been a "fan" of Star Wars since second grade. It was probably my first obsession, and I was fortunate enough to understand at an early age what made some of the movies better than others. In regards to the latest installment, I was extremely hyped since the day the sequel trilogy was announced in 2011. 2015 felt like an era of "Star Wars mania" and by the time TFA was to be released, I was fairly burnt out on all things lightsaber-y and Skywalker-y. I guess a sort of cynical hipsterism came out last year because literally everyone was a Star Wars fan, and I figured most of them didn't know their wampa from their womp rat, and that kind of ticked me off in the grumpy-old-man kind of way. I enjoyed the movie upon my first viewing, but after some thought I saw a lot of similar ground being treaded on and downright copied from the previous films. These prejudices grew from my previous lifelong experience with the franchise.

Rhetorical Situation: Audience
The ideal audience for this project would be Star Wars fans who are curious to hear a more critical analysis of the latest film. Although with a topic of this popularity, there is sure to be some intrinsic prejudice in listeners who may harbor maternal feelings towards the movie. Considering that approximately 89% of viewers enjoyed the film, it is more likely than not that the audience is on the positive side of the spectrum, and some points that emphasize the negatives of the film may be misinterpreted or even dismissed. That being said, each of the show runners of my podcast are equally immersed in Star Wars lore and history, and utilizing this knowledge will increase my credibility. A friend of mine, Andrew Winslow, who previously taught here, definitely falls under the target audience. He has a phD in rhetoric and is a tough nut to crack, but I would increase my credibility by explaining to him my history in delving into the franchise, as well as share my sources and the structure of my argument.

Rhetorical Situation: Purpose
Ideally, I would like the audience to consider what made The Force Awakens successful and whether the story was as progressive as one might expect for a story thirty years in the making. I believe that the structure of the story needs to be explained in-depth, citing the similarities between the new and original movies, and how the rich lore of the franchise takes a step back in favor of appeasing fans. Of course, it may be too early to complete this argument since the story arc has not yet completed, but there is much to argue for at this point in time.

Rhetorical Situation: Context
I will be recording a podcast for this project. Audiences of podcasts expect entertainment and generally don't stand for any dry moments, considering there is no visual aid to satisfy that sense. I have never created a podcast, but I have been a listener for a few years now and am familiar with the conventions of the genre. The most effective conventions, in my opinion, are pacing and casualness. Good pacing creates an attentive listening environment, while a good level of comfort and relatability comes from a casual tone. The movie only released about four months ago, so the idea is still generally fresh in audiences' minds, and future decisions in production have not yet been released to the public.

Here are four links to arguments for and against the familiar story arc:

J.J. Abrams - Collider Interview - The original story is derivative of earlier material
Daily Kos - Analysis - The reuse of plot points is done more effectively than most other examples
Variety - Review - Similar story elements/fan service is used
Chris Stukmann - Video Essay Analysis - Follows Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey

Editorial Report

Here is a revision of an excerpt from Project 2.

Original:

Romantic comedies aren’t written to appeal to Southern baptists, just as war dramas aren’t written for toddlers. A massive amount of statistics are in play here; films that are meant to appeal to Broadway socialites (i.e 2014’s Birdman) are written to specifically accommodate the regions of New York and Los Angeles, and as such are produced on a lower budget than, say, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which appeals to a massive market of all ages, a movie that will play in most countries. As such, the script must be formulated accordingly in order to prevent backlash that may lead to less members of a particular audience seeing said film.

Revised:

 According to a 2015 study by the Motion Picture Association of America, diversity is the main factor in the writer-audience relationship. While urban, caucasian populations tend to flock towards movies of any genre, particular races tend to stick to movies that are suited for them, whether they be historical dramas or starring a relatable actor in that racial category. Aside from demographic differences, a conflict of interest also arises when considering what audience will be interested in which genre. For example, films that are meant to appeal to Broadway socialites (i.e 2014’s Birdman) are written to specifically accommodate the regions of New York and Los Angeles, and as such are produced on a lower budget than, say, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which appeals to a massive market of all ages, a movie that will play in most countries.

I changed the beginning of the paragraph to link to an expansive MPAA report on movie audiences based on demographic. This more effectively portrays the content than the simple analogy I previously used. This also changed the form slightly, as I  went form a more creating, dialogue-driven voice to a factual, informative one.

Interview w/Bradley Schauer

https://youtu.be/Mywk9BHClNY

My Discipline

I've had a passion for storytelling for some time now, which has led me to pursue Film and Television as my college major.

Students in my field learn the history and aesthetics of motion pictures from the small to the big screen. We learn of production, distribution, exhibition, cinematography, and narrative, and discover how they fit together to make a coherent product. As students further into their college career, they learn the hands-on aspects of filmmaking, and many gain the opportunity to create their own films.

Degrees in this major cover a wide array of occupations, even with the increasing exclusivity of major film studios. Many film majors go on to work in the production aspects of film, helping to finance and support the movies their studio is working on. Others will handle the technical side, with the help of engineering degrees, and become equipment operators. Those of us with high standards may push to become involved in the filmmaking process, whether that be screenwriting, directing, or editing.

I saw a unique vision in what I could potentially bring to the film medium, which is what drew me to this major. A good number of my inspirations are still major players in film today. Disney, if you've heard of it, never seems to fail at striking gold with the family-friendly movies they produce each year. Some of the most up-and-coming directors of recent years include the storytelling genius Christopher Nolan, and the wizard behind the camera Alejandro Iñárritu. Actors such as Tom Hardy and Oscar Isaac seem to be taking over the industry with their widespread blockbuster roles.

My Interviewees On Social Media

Here is what I found on my interviewees after research/stalking.

Dr. Bradley Shauer can be found on Twitter and Facebook. His accounts are not professional or informative, but rather share his love/criticisms for movies, and I learned of some of his favorite films. This personality fits with the mildly sarcastic tone of his editorials on Antenna, in which he gives slightly cynical yet constructive criticism on certain topics.

Michael Mulcahy has a Facebook profile, but it contains almost no information, and not a single post.

My Interviewees As Professional Writers

Here is a quick rundown of the professional status of my interviewees' writing processes.

Dr. Bradley Schauer
Works: Contributed to journals, The Velvet Light Trap, The New Review of Film and Television Studies, The Quarterly Review of Film and Video. Contributor to Antenna: Responses to Media and Culture. Created original book, The Pulp Paradox: Science Fiction and the Exploitation Tradition in Hollywood, 1950-1986 (University of Wisconsin, 2010).

Schauer's work on Antenna consists of editorial posts on issues and happenings in the realm of popular media that he is actively interested in. His format is that of an internet editorial article, and is formatted similar to a quick reference guide, making use of appropriate graphics and text blocking. His articles offer constructive criticism of recent dealings in comic books, movies, and television, and all are done without fear of copyrighting or sponsorship issues.
This contrasts with his book, The Pulp Paradox, which is in a standard non-fiction book format. It is his original property and not part of a parent website, making the text completely original. It was completed in 2010 and outlines the history of science fiction during the genre's renaissance.

Michael Mulcahy
Works: Documentary, Correction. Short film, dramatic fiction, Peter Berg.

Mulcahy has worked on several short films. While I could not find any links to them, they have been in co-production with various faculty and students from the U of A. His documentary, Correction, focuses on the staff of Arizona prisons and how they deal with their jobs. His style of filming coincides with the documentary style and contains many familiar techniques. The purpose of the documentary is to highlight the often-overlooked efforts of prison guards.

My Interview Subjects

Here is a quick briefing of the subjects I'll be interviewing.

Dr. Bradley Schauer

Dr. Bradley J Schauer, Assistant Professor, School of Theatre, Film and Television, University of Arizona. Worked as professor since 2010.
Interview scheduled for March 7th, 2016 at 1:50 in Marshall 230.

Staff page



Interview questions:
-Can you describe your profession?
-In what situations do you find yourself requiring to create an informative text?
-What genres do you typically utilize in your writings?
-Can you describe your writing process?
-How does research factor into your process?
-What are your primary objectives when making a text (things to look out for)?
-You are obviously well-kempt in the subject of film history. How effectively do you feel your format conveys this information?
-Why do you prefer the Powerpoint structure over other options?
-Do you encounter any frustrations in your writing process? How do you remedy them?
-Are you satisfied with the results of your writing process?

Michael Mulcahy

Michael Mulcahy, Associate Professor, School of Theatre, Film and Television, University of Arizona. B.F.A. in General Fine Arts, University of Arizona; M.F.A. in Film and Media Arts, Temple University. Worked as professor since 1999.
Interview scheduled for March 9th, 2016 at 9:00 in Marshall 227.

Staff page




Interview questions:
-Can you describe your profession?
-In what situations do you find yourself requiring to create an informative text?
-What genres do you typically utilize in your writings?
-Can you describe your writing process?
-How does research factor into your process?
-What are your primary objectives when making a text (things to look out for)?
-You are obviously well-kempt in the aesthetics of film and media. How effectively do you feel your format conveys this information?
-You tend to employ a mixture of text-based lectures and example footage. Why do you prefer this method above other options?
-Do you encounter any frustrations in your writing process? How do you remedy them?
-Are you satisfied with the results of your writing process?

Brutally Honest Self-Assessment

Well, shit.

The project's well done for the most part. I think the video's pretty entertaining and informative. It's just that, when I think about the project I feel that gaping hole that tells me I did something horribly wrong, something I'm prone to. It's funny because I usually don't lack in quality but I rather just do something completely wrong and not have the sense to ask about it.

The video may be weak in regards to the narration, particularly in my voice's articulation. This type of analysis is a lot easier to speak in your head as you're walking on campus or in the shower, etc. I'm pretty sure everyone hates the sound of their own voice, and that's tough to accept when working on a project. And also my sources are pretty lame. That's probably what I mean with the whole "I did something stupidly wrong" part. Hope it's not too bad.

As for the good... I think it has some good production value considering it cost zero dollars to make. A good friend of mine was gracious enough to lend me his Final Cut Pro software and helped me record with his high-end microphone, and I couldn't thank him enough for that. I also think the script is decently well done. I've gotten a lot of compliments on it but we'll wait and see if that means anything.

I managed my time really well in regards to my research and actually putting the project together (recording, editing, basically everything you see). I just struggled mightily in getting all the side coursework done without procrastinating (you can tell by the time this was posted), which was something I vowed not to do this semester. I hope that isn't offensive.

Oh, and that friend of mine wouldn't let me borrow his software if I didn't include an ultra cheesy missile explodey effect, so just know that it's not my fault.

Local Revision: Variety

One of the keys to the video essay was structuring the sentences in an entertaining yet coherent way, one that meshed well with the visuals and the information given.

I found my sentences to be effective in establishing the journalistic mood, while still retaining a good relation with the audience with the use of emphatic diction. Towards the end of the essay, some of my sentences seemed to run on or contain redundancies, and I made sure to remove them before recording. Rules For Writers helped with this as I was able to replace openings and run-on sentences with things that made more sense and made the project generally more interesting as a whole.

The different sections of the essay were marked with quick fades to black, and I thought I did an effective job at making each segment stand on its own from an informative standpoint. I use some pretty high-end vocabulary here, which doesn't really evoke any problems aside from the occasional ineligible slur of dialogue that I have to rerecord.

Local Revision: Pronoun Usage

After listing every pronoun used in my script, I've actually found something peculiar about my writing and use of pronouns in general.

I didn't use a terribly huge amount of pronouns in my essay; however, I noticed that most of the pronouns I used referred to the same subject, that of the film The Interview, and it bugged the crap out of me. In order to improve upon the overuse of a pronoun, I restructured some of my sentences to eliminate them/use more effective ones, while still retaining the fluidity of the script.

As for speaking with the audience, I only make use of that once in a cute little outro segment, basically so the video wouldn't end in an awkwardly abrupt state. While I wanted to engage the viewer in the material, I wanted to stay focused and keep the video in a journalistic perspective, especially because this controversy doesn't directly affect 99% of anyone who would watch it.

My Pronouns

Here are the pronouns used in my script.

it (The Interview)
it (The Interview)
one (controversy)
this (The Interview)
who (NK government)
this (controversy)
it (controversy)
its (controversy)
this (script)
his (Kim Jong-Il)
who (reporters)
him (KJI)
this (trailer)
whose (NK government)
it (Sony)
his (Kim Jong-Un)
whom (Guardians of Peace)
their (Sony films)
who (NK government)
their (GOP)
it (Sony)
he (president)
it (The Interview)
it (The Interview)
they (Sony)
it's (The Interview)
it (The Interview)
it (The Interview)

Local Revision: Passive and Active Voice

Here are the verbs sorted by active/passive voice.

Active (Specific)
revolved
assassinating
threatened
retaliate
unfolded
understand
rewind
sprung
joked
ordered
assassinate
featured
center
journey
interview
recruited
take
landed
escalated
condemned
complained
wrote
announced
censored
removing
cutting
melts
leaked
launched
attempt
denied
threatened
screen
canceling
announced
voiced
opting
screen
releasing
grossing
recovered
concluded
pay
watch
leading
lived

Active (General)
taking
say
go
saw
led
mean
being
changed
turned
asking
hit
find
called
took
led
saying
ended
missing
took
sits
means


Passive
slated
released
directed
intended
put
finalized
completed
released
received
cancelled
considered
leak
canceled
give
scrubbed
affected
demoted
replaced

I am surprised at how specific the actions in my essay were laid out. My use of passive voice worked in the context of the script, and I couldn't find any instances where active voice would improve the grammatical quality of the sentence. At the same time, I think I should try to be more consistent with my use of active voice and try to be more vivid in the use of my verbs.

Local Revision: Tense Usage

Here are the verbs, organized by tense.

Present
is
assassinating
taking
mean
being
are
asking
removing
cutting
melts
canceling
saying
opting
releasing
grossing
missing
being
sits
means
can
having
leading

Past
was x12
slated
would
have
been
released
wasn't
resolved
directed
intended
did
threatened
saw
did
sprung
joked
ordered
featured
changed
put
turned
finalized
recruited
landed
completed
released
received
escalated
condemned
complained
wrote
cancelled
announced
censored
were
leaked
launched
denied
called
took
threatened
led
announced
cancelled
would
voiced
had
made
scrubbed
ended
affected
took
haven't
recovered
demoted
replaced
concluded
had
lived
left

Future
be x3
say
go
retaliate
understand
rewind
assassinate
center
interview
journey
take
hit
leak
attempt
find
screen
give
screen
pay
watch
do
will
happen

The past tense is most prominent in my draft. My use of these tenses allows the viewer to effectively relive the controversy and explore it from multiple perspectives. The changes in tense flow well, and I refrained from misusing them in any way. The present tense is advantageous to my essay as it engages the viewer more than a past-tense recalling of the events.

My Verbs

Here are my verbs, you crazy man.

is

was

slated

would

have

been

released

wasn't

revolved

assassinating

directed

was

intended

be

taking

say

did

go

threatened

retaliate

saw

unfolded

led

did

mean

understand

rewind

sprung

joked

being

ordered

assassinate

featured

changed

was

put

turned

be

was

finalized

center

journey

interview

recruited
are

take

landed

was

completed

was

released

was

received

escalated

condemned

complained

wrote

asking

cancelled

announced

censored

removing

cutting

melts

were

considered

were

hit

leak

leaked

launched

attempt

find

denied

called

took

threatened

screen

led

canceling

announced

cancelled

would

give

voiced

saying

had

made

was

scrubbed

wasn't

opting

screen

ended

releasing

grossing

was

was

affected

missing

took

haven't

recovered

being

demoted

replaced

concluded

was

sits

means

can

pay

watch

could

do

will

be

having

had

happen

leading

lived

left

was/wasn't/were/will: 14

be/been/being: 6

have/having/had/haven't: 5

cancelled: 3

release/released/releasing: 3

announced: 2

assassinate: 2

leak: 2

led: 2

Local Revision: Wordiness

The tail section of my video is fairly wordy, so here's an attempt to remedy that.

Here's the original version:

The backlash of this decision was heavy for Sony, many Americans furious that the company would give in to the terrorists’ demands. -- Major figures in film voiced their thoughts on the matter, -- with even the President saying that he believed Sony had made a mistake in pulling the release. -- But even though it was officially scrubbed, the cancellation wasn’t the end for The Interview, with -- select theaters opting to wilfully screen the film, and Sony ended up releasing it for paid streaming online via sites like YouTube and iTunes, grossing $40 million in sales. -- So really, in the end, Sony was the only stakeholder who was negatively affected by the controversy, missing out on major box office numbers. -- The company took a major hit with the hacking, and they haven’t fully recovered since, -- with much of the high-ranking American staff being demoted and replaced by figures from the parent company in Japan. -- The FBI concluded that North Korea was most likely responsible for the Sony hack, in retaliation for the insulting film. -- As for the film itself, it’s.... fine. -- It currently sits at 51% on the Rotten Tomatoes meter. Which pretty much means, “You can pay money to watch this movie, or you could not do that, your life will literally not be any different having done either of those things.” -- The fact that this movie had so much happen leading up to it, it’s debatable as to whether the film lived up to the massive pile of controversy that it left behind.

Here's the revised version:

Sony was heavily criticized for this decision as many saw it as giving in to the demands of terrorists. This didn't spell the end for The Interview however, as it was successfully released for streaming on multiple media outlets. In the end, Sony was heavily damaged by the hacking (the FBI confirmed it was from North Korea) but most other stakeholders were left without a scratch. The film itself received a mixed reception from audiences, and has been available for viewing ever since.

Although the revision is more concise, I feel that the fine details listed in the original script visualize the controversy in a better light than just the quick facts. The longer paragraph also makes it  easier to follow the narrator's voice.

Project 1 - Completed

Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/OXHV96qgzjQ

The Setting

The Interview unleashed a controversy that was heard around the world, most specifically between North Korea and Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Known infamously as the "hermit country," North Korea is a highly introverted state that very little information comes out of. From the footage and testimonies that are available, the country is viewed as a totalitarian state with major government control held over its people, who receive little care and necessary resources. Flashy propaganda shines on the walls of its buildings to this day, spreading anti-Western philosophies. There are numerous military officials posted in every corner of the state, envisioning the iron fist of the government. The Interview directly criticizes the deceiving way of life in North Korea, showing the oppression of the state's citizens.

Sony Pictures is the American motion picture subsidiary of Sony, one of the most recognizable electronics brand in the world. While the electronics portion of their business is primarily handled by the Japanese, Sony Pictures is entirely operated by an American staff. Its headquarters is located in Culver City, California, near the rolling hills of entertainment-capital Los Angeles. Sony Pictures distributes a number of its films through Columbia pictures, of which sprung The Interview. Columbia, who had been around since the beginning of cinema, was obtained by Sony in 1989, and the company has seen its biggest success during this time. Columbia produces a very high amount of films each year, and as a result the workplace is known to be bustling.

My Sources

These sources helped me tremendously in finding the appropriate information, quotes, and subtext in the controversy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/seth-rogen-interview-north-korea-controversy-cover-story-20141217

Where: Rolling Stone, pop culture magazine, high credibility.
Who: Josh Eells, contributing editor for multiple publications, high credibility.
When: 17 December 2014, day of film's cancellation and day after terror threats against cinemas.
What: Interview with Seth Rogen on the buildup and consequences of the controversy. Provides me with quotes and insight on the film;s development.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/seth-rogen-censoring-north-korea-in-the-interview-seemed-wrong-1201424038/

Where: Variety, film/television magazine, very high credibility.
Who: Sheli Weinstein, freelance writer at Variety. High credibility.
When: 4 February 2015, after film's digital release and controversy had died down.
What: Provides details on the crew's approach to censorship.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10914088/North-Korea-slams-US-film-The-Interview-about-Kim-Jong-un.html

Where: The Daily Telegraph, under the online designation The Telegraph, British newspaper. High credibility.
Who: Julian Ryall, Japan correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, media production. High credibility.
When: 20 June 2014, nine days after the trailer's release.
What: Provides the first response by North Korea regarding the film.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/25/north-korea-merciless-response-us-kim-jong-un-film

Where: The Guardian, British newspaper. High credibility.
Who: Justin McCurry, Japan/Korea correspondent for The Guardian and Observer. High credibility.
When: 25 June 2014, two weeks after trailer's release.
What: Details the first series of official threats made by North Korea.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/north-korea-watcher-watches-interview

Where: The New Yorker, news/culture magazine. High credibility.
Who: Barbara Demick, journalist and watcher of North Korea. High credibility.
When: 2 January 2015, a week after film's digital release.
What: Evaluates the film's credibility from a valid source.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/18/sony-hack-the-interview-timeline

Where: The Guardian.
Who: Catherine Shoard, The Guardian, film editor. High credibility.
When: 18 December 2014 updated through 31 December 2014, on the day of the film's cancellation.
What: Places the controversy's events in an organized timeline.

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2013/10/12/seth-rogen-and-evan-goldberg-come-home-to-shoot-b-c-for-korea-in-the-interview/

Where: The Province, Canadian news outlet. Good credibility.
Who: Glen Schaefer, feature writer, The Province. Good credibility.
When: 12 October 2013, principal photography begins.
What: Provides information on the beginning of production.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/12/19/sony-the-interview-hackers-gop/20635449/

Where: USA Today, new publication. Good credibility.
Who: Elizabeth Weise, Kevin Johnson, Andrea Mandell, staff writers, USA Today. Good credibility.
When: 19 December 2014, day after film's cancellation.
What: Details on President Obama's statement regarding the matter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-altering-kim-jong-assassination-725092

Where: The Hollywood Reporter, film new publication. High credibility.
Who: Tatiana Siegel, senior film writer, THR. High credibility.
When: 13 August 2014, after threats and before film's cancellation
What: Provides details on the potential censorship of the film.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/16/employees-sue-failure-guard-personal-data-leaked-hackers

Where: The Guardian.
Who: Dominic Rushe, editor, The Guardian, US business. High credibility.
When: 17 December 2014, day of GOP major threats.
What: Analysis of the major threats that led to the ultimate cancellation.

Stakeholder #2

The second stakeholder is Sony Pictures Entertainment, who distributed the film, and the individual figures (Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg) who spoke for the movie on their behalf.

Sony is a multinational corporation that is engaged with electronics, music, financial services, and motion pictures. Sony Pictures is one of the most prolific distributors of film, responsible for producing such franchises as Spider-Man, 007, and Ghostbusters. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, lifelong friends and film partners since the 90s, are major contributors to comedic film over the past decade and partnered directly with Sony for production of The Interview.

Once the Interview controversy hit its major strides, Sony stayed vocal about its dedication to the film's release, while directors Rogen and Goldberg commented on the particular North Korean figures who were lambasting the film, pointing out Kim Jong-Un's past of "killing his girlfriend and feeding his uncle to the dogs," acts justifying of criticism.

Rogen's view of the film contrasts with North Korea's view as one that stands for freedom and anti-censorship, as shown in a celebratory tweet upon the film's digital release. Comparing the leader to Hitler, Rogen saw the film as a counter to the fear that people harbor over dictatorships.

Angela George "Seth Rogen 2013" 7 March 2013 via Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution License

Stakeholder #1

The first and most divisive stakeholder in the Interview controversy is the North Korean government, whom the film is directly criticizing.

North Korea is notorious as the world's most introverted institution. Very little information on the country's culture and social stability are officially released, however it is universally accepted that the state is under a totalitarian regime, riddled with anti-Western propaganda and godlike worship of the supreme leader, Kim Jong-Un. The country has repeatedly proclaimed itself to be enemies of the United States, and have been acting aggressively in recent years, causing concern amidst the UN.

Upon release of the trailer for The Interview, North Korea made harsh remarks that coincided with the country's bigoted view of American capitalism, stating that "there is a special irony in this storyline as it shows the desperation of the US government and American society." They went further with outlandish claims, such as how the US targets its own leaders such as Kennedy, and that Obama should "be careful in case the US military wants to kill him as well." The American public obviously disagreed with these views, citing how the rampant anti-US propaganda in North Korea invalidates such claims.

Things eventually escalated when the country issues threats of retaliation against the US for releasing such a film. They called the film's marketing and release "a most wanton act of terror and act of war," which directly counters western claims of the film as an editorial, an opinion piece.

P388388 "Kim Jong-Un Photorealistic-Sketch" 9 January 2015 via Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution License

The Big Event

The Interview was notoriously mired with controversy, but the outrage didn't arrive until much later than the film's inception. The single event that caused the biggest ripples was, in reality, the release of the film's trailer in June 2014.

The idea for The Interview first sprung up in the early 2000s, when directors Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg joked about the urban legend of reporters being ordered to assassinate a major dictator. The script was rewritten numerous times until it was decided that North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-Un was the best target. Principal photography lasted until December 2013, still without major coverage about the film's sensitive nature.

This all changed, however, as the trailer was released on June 11, 2014. The public had never before seen the antics of James Franco and Seth Rogen in the satirical romp, and the trailer showed plenty of ridicule and infidelity for North Korea's beloved leader (joking about how he has manipulated his people into thinking he doesn't urinate or defecate). The North Korean government, who at first responded with vocal criticism, quickly took to threats of retaliation against the United States if the film saw a wide release.

Because Sony had not yet released footage of their new movie, The Interview's potential for controversy stayed largely unnoticed during the film's development. The trailer allowed both American and North Korean audiences to see and hear the film's plot on mass media outlets such as YouTube and Twitter. The visual and auditory stimulation that the trailer provided made the controversy much more widespread and open for criticism.

And as we all know, controversy... tastes like chicken.

Analysis of My Rhetorical Situation

My project's rhetorical situation is fairly black and white since it is about a specific subject in the specific field of film. This controversy was heavily covered by the media, and as a result it is easy to decipher the intended audience of the subject and the purpose of my analytical project.

1. My project is intended for film enthusiasts who are active on social media and keep up with current events. These are the type who keep up with Variety and The Guardian, those who frequent Twitter and stay in the know on the current developments of pop culture. Hollywood's liberal tendencies likely extend to this audience, the majority of whom reside on either coast rather than the rural areas of the midwest. These liberal consumers love to voice their opinions, and value the integrity of their entertainment; anything perceived as censorship or prejudice is met with harsh protest. They are probably less concerned with the patriotic aspects of this subject, rather focusing on the film itself.

2. As my audience is knowledgeable about film and pop culture in general, I've made a conscious effort not to talk down on their understanding of the business. I want to be thorough and informative in my analysis and speak with a college level of vocabulary, using film terms without stopping to explain them. It is important to explain the political sensitivity of the controversy and how it relates to the normal customs of warfare, and how radical this situation was in comparison to other similarly sensitive matters throughout history.

3. I followed the controversy extensively as it was happening, and the fairly recent memories combined with refreshed research make me ideal for relaying the information. More importantly, my passion for film gives me great analytical footing.

Twitter And What I Found There

Being a film major, it was easy to find deliberation about films scattered across Twitter, but tough to find a profile solely dedicated to discussion with a big enough following. I was eventually able to find some small feeds dedicated to film.

1. What kinds of things do people on Twitter seem to be talking about, debating, arguing about or otherwise engaging in meaningful exchanges of ideas about?
The majority of replies to major film accounts launched into debates on current movie trends, with each participant essentially unleashing his or her inner professional film critic. A good majority of the tweets offer constructive criticism on the state of film in general. "Major studios shouldn't intervene with the director's creative process," or "Reboots need to focus on new material."

2. In your opinion, what are the two most interesting conversations or stories you found in the Twitter feeds?
One short discussion in particular analyzed whether a film's cinematography or editing should come first in production. While the replies aren't exactly dense in terms of criticism, but people seem to be talking about how much contrast there is between the processes of editing and story writing, and debates grow about which is more important.

3. Overall, what impression do you get of your discipline based on what you saw happening on Twitter?
For the most part, I saw many scarcely placed tweets criticizing films from a subjective reviewer's standpoint, and I was expecting this. You never know what crazy characters you'll find on the internet, but the age difference amidst commenters was a large testament to the topics discussed. For every "This movie was a triumph, a great watch!!" there's always a "the academy can lick my asshole."

Cluster of Stakeholders

My cluster highlighted to main four stakeholders in the film's controversy, those being Sony Pictures, American moviegoers, and the governments of North Korea and the United States. I separated the American government from its people because, while both were very vocal about the situation, the motives behind the government's opinions were fueled by other ideals.

Here's a link to my cluster.

Considering Genre

The week of pre-production was pretty fun, gathering intel and putting my research together with my ideas. After deliberation, I've decided what my genre of choice will be.

I'll be making a video essay for Project 1. I'll be doing this mainly because I feel I can make the most coherent and informative video essay for Project 1 rather than the other ones.

My video essay will feature particular conventions of the genre in favor of others. For example, I will make good use of graphics/clips, framing (Ken Burns effect), voice over, and original images. These conventions will work out in my favor as opposed to live-action filming, since there isn't much to film in regards to my year-old subject. I'll probably take a step back in sound editing as well, since most of the sound will consist of my voice. However, I'll likely add a background track of sorts. These conventions will help me establish each facet of the controversy in an organized timeline-style manner.

I am feeling confident about the upcoming production phase. I'm excited to work with good equipment and try my best to make an appealing product. That takes time and patience, though. I'm somewhat worried that in my effort to create something extravagant, I'll end up scrapping the whole thing and end with a sloppy product. Hopefully my awareness will conquer that possibility.

Evaluation of General Sources

As my project will focus on 2014's The Interview, it is important for me to research the entire timeline of the controversy since it took place over the course of several months.

BagoGames, "Please Make It Stop | The Interview Review" 2 February 2015 via Flickr Creative Commons Attribution License

Source 1: Sony hack: the plot to kill The Interview- a timeline so far - theguardian.com

URL: The website is a ".com" which signifies its commercial intent.

Author: Catherine Shoard, film editor, Guardian News & Media.

Last Updated: 31 December 2014 06.35 EST.

Purpose: To organize the events leading up to the film's cancellation in a convenient timeline.

Graphics: Images of cast members, trailers, tweets, and central figures of the controversy.

Position On Subject: Completely unbiased recollection of events.

Links: Links to most of the individual stories are presented, each leading to another Guardian article.


Source 2: Sony Drops 'The Interview' Following Terrorist Threats  - nytimes.com

URL: .com

Authors: Brooks Barnes, Editor, The New York Times. Michael Cieply, Writer, The New York Times.

Last Updated: 17 Dec 2014.

Purpose: To inform on the recent cancellation of the film and provide a detailed analysis of the lead and aftermath.

Graphics: Movie stills, posters, and a trailer.

Position On Subject: Unbiased and informative.

Links: Links to topic pages that contain all stories involved with the subject, for example Kim Jong-Un and Regal Entertainment.

Evaluation of News Magazine Stories

My stories were featured in Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair. It was difficult to find recent controversial stories that didn't involve diversity in the Oscars, so it may be a recurring theme. The Rolling Stone story was on English actress Charlotte Rampling's comments on the divisiveness being "racist to whites," while the Vanity Fair story is about the contrast in diversity between the Oscars and the SAG Awards.

1. What is the debate, disagreement or argument in the story about?
Charlotte Rampling, who is a nominee for Best Actress in her film 45 Years, stated that the boycott against the Oscars is "racist to whites" and argues that people shouldn't be classified, and combatting racism doesn't mean there "should be lots of minorities everywhere." The other article points out the presence of more diverse actors winning awards at the SAG's after being snubbed by the Academy, including the likes of Idris Elba and Viola Davis.

2. Who is the most sympathetic character in the story?
Rampling herself deserves sympathy due to the fact that her potential achievement is being boycotted, and her comments will likely be reviled because of a few choice words. In the other story, the black actors are seen as sympathetic in the sense that they have gained recognition for their brilliant performances in a situation that some see as unfair.

3. Who is the least sympathetic character in the story?
It is hard to say for the first story, but one could argue that detractors of Rampling's comments are the least sympathetic since a counterargument to her quotes is likely to be biased or closed-minded. For the second story, the least sympathetic character is the voting team at the Academy, as the diversity at another major awards program makes them appear to be behind in that aspect.

lukeford.net "Idris Elba at a 2007 American Music Awards after-party" 19 November 2007 via Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons Attribution license

Evaluation of New York Times Stories

I've looked through the Arts and Politics sections of The New York Times and picked out two stories with interesting topics and characters. The Arts story by Marie Tae McDermott focuses on the controversial "whitewashing" of the Oscars, while the political piece by John Leland highlights the differing views between voters of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

1. Does there seem to be a "main character" or "protagonist" to the story?
The Oscars story, while not directly mentioning much of a main character, infers the Academy voters as the primary subjects of the story since they are directly responsible for the nomination process. The political story revolves around Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, but the primary characters are the voters of each candidate, since the article focuses on their motives, concerns, and ideals.

2. Where do the specific events in the story take place? Is there a specific setting?
The Oscars story takes place around the world by the controversy that encapsulates it. The political story takes place solely in America because it concentrates on American citizens as voters. Iowa is mentioned as a central location because of the upcoming caucus.

3. Is there any kind of disagreement or debate happening in the story?
The Oscars story is fueled by the disagreement of racial diversity in the prominent award ceremony. Film audiences and critics alike are either lambasting the Academy for its lack of "inclusion,"or defending their decisions and accusing detractors of raising divisiveness. The political story features the age-old Republican vs Democrat debate, but also highlights the opposing views held by two men of a similar nature in an area of similar tastes, that being the Midwest.

Course Projects

What am I most confused by or nervous about in regards to the four major projects?
I'm mostly nervous about gathering the appropriate research for each project, specifically the Controversy Post-Mortem and the Rhetorical Investigation, and whichever one I'll use for the Quick Reference Guide and Video Essay. These genres would require the most research with the least amount of BSing, since they're visual and laid out for the purpose of being informative.

What are you most interested in or excited by in regards to the four major projects?
I'm excited to stretch my writing to its informative limits and translate said writing into vocal projection in the Video Essay and Podcast. I usually don't write to inform in my free time; I'm glad that I'm given a deep and extensive opportunity to do that now, and with my choice of four interesting genres. I've been listening to podcasts and watching video reviews/editorials for some time now, and I'm excited to do something similar myself.

Soosay, Surian. "MS Paint Doodle / Kiddy Batman Slightly Confused" 9/13/2010 via Flickr.  Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Based on your understanding of the four major projects, what are the elements of this course that you have to plan ahead for? How will the coursework described in the four project assignment sheets challenge your time management skills this semester?
The Rhetorical Investigation will take a good amount of time to plan ahead, primarily because of the time it will take to set up interviews around campus. I also plan on doing the Quick Reference Guide for this project, and I don't plan on cutting any corners in regards to research. It may also be difficult to come up with an enticing and interesting topic for discussion in projects 1 and 3.

How has your past English coursework in high school or college prepared you for the challenges of this course? What skills will you take into the course with you?
I haven't taken an English course since high school, but my teacher from 11th-12th grade was extremely helpful and pivotal in the advancement of my writing. She taught me to use my own voice in my writings and use humility rather than a false sense of entitlement. I'm excited to use what I was previously taught to help me in this course, such as the use of expansive detail and forming my essays interestingly.

Do you have any questions about the four major projects that have not been answered by the assignment sheets? What do you still want to know?
No questions, thank you.

Reflection
I feel more confident after reading of the struggles of my classmates (which sounds bad, I know). Julia and Nicolas  brought up good points in regards to preparation, and it makes me happy that so many of us are excited for the work we will be doing this semester.

Investigating Genres

My investigation will be on the Quick Reference Guide. Partially because it's the option I'm least familiar with. But mostly it's because the examples have such pleasing graphics to look at and I'm scared as to how well I could emulate such fancy-looking articles.

Bowden, J. Albert II. "elements-of-design-quick-reference-sheet-print-posters" 7/8/2013 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License

1. What purpose(s) does this genre usually serve?

A QRG serves to display a wide array of information, usually on a central topic that is somewhat difficult to comprehend, on a well-organized web page. The QRG uses a combination of graphics, charts, and data to explain its topic in extensive yet coherent detail.

2. Where, how, or in what context do readers usually find this genre?

Users typically find this genre on any informative medium, such as newspapers and magazines. However, with the wide range of possibilities that computers have in regards to design and research, most QRGs today are found on news websites.

3. Who is the typical audience for this genre?

QRGs are typically intended for an audience that desires to be informed. They could be very useful for students or managers for research purposes.

4. What are some of the key features or characteristics that are unique to this genre, distinguishing it from other texts?

What makes the QRG so accessible is its use of various forms of media (photos, graphs, videos) in relation to the informative text, which contains helpful subheadings and links to follow the data presented. All of this is displayed in a manner pleasing to the eyes.

5. Based on your answers to the questions, come up with a definition in your own words.

A quick reference guide is a single-topic article that contains the relevant background, data, and graphics in a single page.

Reflection
After reading and commenting on Ellie and Tim's posts on video essays and podcasts, respectively, I'm happy to have more insight on each of the topics, since I was mostly skeptical on their execution. Ellie brought up how the video essay can be useful in assisting visual learners, while Tim detailed the informative nature of podcasting. I'll be sure to focus on these points during my projects.

My Writing Process

1. What type(s) of writer do you consider yourself to be?
My method of writing definitely falls under the "Heavy Planner" category. Which is weird, considering that I almost never did the obligatory "essay outline" from about 6th to 11th grade. But over the past couple of years I've definitely understood the importance of drafting an outline, getting your ideas on paper as a solid skeleton to go on. I've conditioned myself to generate ideas and think about my writing regardless of the time or place- which helps tremendously when you think of all the time I could be sitting at a desk counting sheep until one of those sheep veers off course and missiles into my face with a good thesis. Not saying that doesn't happen, though.

2. Does your writing process include several of the above approaches?
I think you can sprinkle a bit of "Sequential Composer" in there. I reread and reword strenuously as I write my first draft. I'm not afraid to make the process drawn out in order to ensure a finely-crafted product. That being said, I hate rewriting with a fiery passion, so almost all of my revision comes during the process, rather than after. Anything I do afterwords is related to form or word polishing.

3. Does your writing process seem to be successful? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your approach?
I thank God for my style of thinking because I enjoy it more than anything else I've seen. I'm damn proud of my writing process, and how I have the capacity to generate more ideas than the paper is ready for. I've been somewhat athletic throughout my life and I apply the same principles of planning as I do here. You need to work out, get your cardio in and study the game hard. And this gets me more than ready to write something freaking awesome. Of course there are instances when my creativity high gets to me and my work isn't really freaking awesome, so I suppose my sort of lack of proper revising can be disadvantageous at times.

4. Do you think it would be beneficial for you to try a different approach?
No. My creative process in intrinsically constructive and my memory is intrinsically anterograde, and the more time I spend on post-production the more I'll start to hate what I wrote and then I'll become a grumpy old man who thinks he wasted his time and curses the apathy that has cheated him of even a smidge of happiness. No one wants that.

WorldIslandInfo.com "Planning session" 12/9/2006 via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic- www.futuristmovies.com