Film and digital has been dichotomized by filmmakers and photographers alike in different ways for the past decade. Film, as what the first filmmakers say, is an irrevocable art that can never be replaced. Digital loyalists on the other hand treat their field as if it’s a new religion and those who have not seen the light are completely missing out. The thing is, both may look like they have the same output and both may have comparable results but the entire process of creating these films are different in every aspect. From the budget, convenience of equipments, planning, and editing, both have their pros and cons (though digital would have of course more pros for us poor budget-less filmmakers). The final output for the audiences to see, however, varies in ways. Digital filmmaking could be classified as a strategy to keep up with our world’s unending commercialization and the market’s receding attention span.
It is extremely ironic how filmmaking before is much more expensive as compared to the present, in the same way that ticket prices now are much more expensive. The assumption here is that since you get ‘better quality’ films, you’d have to pay more. As one of the myths in the digital age, audiences believe that digital filmmaking is so much better than traditional filmmaking since the colors are bolder and shinier, as compared to film that has inconsistent, milkier colors, and grain and dirt spread all throughout the film. Audiences also feel that film limits creative techniques for cinematographers and editors alike (because of its expensiveness and its constraining processes before they get to see their shots). Digital films now have more special effects that do not even look like special effects to the ‘bakya’ eye because of its smoothness and its organic feel to the audience.
Film reflects human nature’s evolution. The fast-paced processing, planning, and editing are only one of the few ways to catch up to what will entertain and enthrall the audience and keep them buying tickets. The colors, intensities, and absurdities are examples of what keeps the audiences going. Films restored from way before such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari to relatively recent films such as Himala are big conveniences and have become a way to entice the younger range of film viewers. There are still, however, purists who believe that film shows more sincerity in terms of art and story-telling. They believe that digital filmmaking is overrated and misperceived by the public eye. The legit viewing experience for purists is now almost extinct because of torrents and downloading. The digital age seems to be insincere for them. There are different views on these two opposing sides but one thing’s for sure, not one is better than the other. Both are different and it all depends on the viewers’ taste on what he or she prefers. Films must be judged not necessarily all based on the technicalities but rather on the effectiveness of what it is trying to portray.
If you played a couple of first person shooter games in your local computer shop, you might have commented on the artificial intelligence in the game. My guess is that you won’t call them “smart” or “awesome”. Maybe they’re on your team, rushing on the enemy without common sense, or if they’re on the enemy side, they may appear as plodding sheep ready to be suppressed. They are rarely lauded amazing except by marketers, and there’s a reason for that.
For example, in FPS games there are often cliffs to traverse and areas to avoid. Some entryways are traps where 300 enemies lie waiting for the unfortunate player to arrive. Most human players would search for another way around that enemy fire, but to game AI there is no difference among doors and gateways. They will always pick the shortest path according to their pathfinding algorithm, even if that path is swarming with enemies, or in the case of this image, it is a high ledge.
“Wag kang tatakbo pag kakatapos mo lamang kumain” is a saying that one would often hear parents say when you’ve just finished eating. Scientifically this saying is right but unfortunately unlike the previous statement there exists many Filipino sayings that don’t make any sense at all. The elderly has many sayings for every occurrence that happens around us like when it rains while the sun is shining you will hear your grandma tell you that a ‘tikbalang’ is being wed. This same logic applies to food taboos that our country has. As a nutrition student I’ll debunk some for you.
“Wag kang uminom o kumain ng malamig pag bagong gising” is a popular saying that parents often tell their children to keep them from eating ice creams and drinking cold drinks early in the morning. This saying is false. Eating cold food or drinking cold beverages in the morning won’t affect your digestive system at all. By the time the cold food reaches your esophagus your body has already altered its temperature to 27°C. This process requires a lot of energy that results to fat burning. Same logic applies to cold drinks and fatty dishes.
Another belief is that you shouldn’t take ice creams with beer. This is also a fallacy. Organic molecules of sugar, fat, protein, alcohol and amino acids compose ice creams and beers. When the ice cream and the beer reach the stomach it turns into this small molecules that work together in maintaining the body’s balance. They are no longer ice cream and beer, thus there is no cause to avoid taking them together. In fact in the Guineas’ Book of World Records there is a recipe for beer ice cream. The only ill effect of taking them together is it causes a drastic increase in your blood sugar due to glucose, the basic sugar molecule while alcohol disrupts oxygen absorption in the blood causing the brain to slow down.
Another taboo is the reliance on energy drinks. This is also a misconception. “Energy Drinks” don’t really provide energy it provides a concentrated form of caffeine and sugar. Caffeine makes your neurons excited making you feel more alive while sugar serves as a ‘booster’ to use your energy reserve. In short they only make your body believe that it’s being filled with energy but in actuality it drains your body’s energy reserve. This results to extreme exhaustion afterwards. Continuous drinking of this has not been proven harmful but if taken in succession it might drain your body with energy and might cause fainting or worse.
There are many other food taboos that we believe in, unfortunately the only good that they do is maintain our Filipino heritage. Remember, the weirder the food combinations; the better it is for our digestion. This helps the digestive system to exercise its ability to specialize digestion and to keep our digestive muscles in shape. So the next time you eat don’t be afraid to explore food overwhelm your taste buds and enjoy.
There have been considerable studies about gene determined behavior in the animal kingdom. Because of natural selection, genes that make animals behave in ways that allow them to survive and reproduce better are passed on from one generation to the next. As a form of adaptation, one should expect gene determined behaviors in animal populations. Humans are no exception but how far can we go attributing our behavior to genes? The god gene (VMAT2) was discovered to influence religious experience. The warrior gene (MAOA) was found to increase aggression in people under provocation. Other genes are associated with homosexuality and high risk sports. If genes determine both my physical make up and everything that I do, can I say that I am my genes?
The Sandy Hook tragedy has put this gene-behavior issue in court as scientists look for genes that might have caused Adam Lanza’s killing spree. Looking for genes as an explanation for human behavior is very problematic. It’s too simplistic and humans are very complex creatures. The reason for our behavioral complexity and why genes should be the least blamed for our behavior can be found in our evolutionary history.
Genes are very slow. They contain instructions but in order for these to be expressed, a chain of chemical reactions must first take place. Blind natural selection was so clever that it made genes code for a brain to take the gene’s place for immediate decision making. A brain is faster and is capable of learning either in the form of trial and error or culture. Genes can still affect behavior via brain by influencing structure and hormone release but much of behavior is still learned if not caused by brain damage. Trial and error is done by many animals but humans have evolved to have an increased cognitive capacity for cultural learning. Instead of just trial and error, humans are capable of extensive learning from other humans, a learning that is considered cultural. Learning then takes place beyond the physical environment and onto the social realm, adding to behavioral complexity. Ultimately, what we do is a result of an interaction between genes, the brain, environment and culture and even in taking into account all of these, there’s still room for unpredictability.
The problem is that some people confuse “influence” with “determine.” Genes do not determine behavior, it merely influences it. We have the tendency to blame solely the genes for our behavior but as I explained, genes is only one factor and therefore it doesn’t determine human behavior. Also, the other factors are more immediate in affecting behavior. Another problem is our tendency to “essentialize.” Those people containing genes known to influence behavior are expected to behave according to what their genes dictate. In effect, some of these people may face social stigma even if the behavior is not being expressed.
So in light of the Sandy Hook case, genes could be a factor, but they must pay more attention to brain disorder, social environment and family history because these factors are more immediate to causing human behavior. We are not our genes. Genes do not provide us our past experiences, goals, and desires. There is no gene for the human spirit.
I don’t see myself as a backstabber. I’m just a brutally honest person – a true self spoken bitch. I actually don’t find anything wrong about saying things that are true, or at least I think are true. But maybe I’m one of those people who don’t notice that I’m already destroying someone else’s name. I even called my close friends stupid for giving a lot of fuck and still manage to fail on everything else.
Getting away from the consequences of backstabbing is easy, well most of the time. There are some sneaky steps to escape, but they’re hard to execute. Base everything to your personality or how people see you. Like for an example, if you’re a frank person and you’re caught smearing, then you can actually make it look like you are actually front-stabbing and people will think that it’s just the way you are. The key is adaption. Not all tricks will work all the time.
When our professor asked our class who can remember how many shots comprise the scene in Les Miserables where Anne Hathaway sings I Dreamed a Dream, nobody could answer. Apparently, only a few people can still recall the shifting from shot to shot in the movie they have just watched. Nevertheless, it doesn’t make the process of coordinating these shots—film editing—any less important than other aspects of filmmaking. It is actually quite in the contrary, for film editing allows the filmmaker to manipulate the shots either in a way that can trick or show an illusion to the viewer subconsciously, or in a way that is obvious enough to astound the viewers.
To illustrate these tricks we can use one of the scenes in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Below are screenshots from the scene of the birds’ final attack to the main character Melanie.
In these two shots the first one shows Melanie staring somewhere, juxtaposed with a shot showing a staircase. What does that suggests to you? Instantly, the viewer infers that Melanie is staring at the staircase. Yet, we didn’t actually see any shot showing that Melanie and the staircase are in the same place. The camera simply moves closer to the stairs as Melanie also walks towards it, as if showing us Melanie’s point-of-view, which further justifies our assumption that there is a spatial coexistence. This trick is called the Kuleshov effect, where in a series of shots the viewer infers a spatial whole on the basis of seeing only portions of the space.
Here Melanie climbs the stairs shown earlier. The duration of Melanie climbing the stair is equal to the screen duration, but Hitchcock could have chosen to shorten the duration by showing only the parts when Melanie is starting at the bottom and then already reaching the top. He could have done it by dissolving—when the beginning of the next shot is superimposed on the ending of the preceding shot. This way of decreasing the screen time is called elliptical editing. Yet, Hitchcock didn’t choose to do so, because prolonging the scene also intensifies the suspense among the viewers.
Now in these shots we see Melanie entering a room, which is, according to the second shot, a bedroom filled with birds and having a huge hole through the ceiling. Again, by means of the Kuleshov effect we can infer that Melanie comes from the staircase and then enters the room within the time implied by the scene, although it might be also true that the stairs and the bedroom belong to two different houses, or that this scene could have been taken days after shooting the one on the stairs.
These are only some of the common tricks that can be conjured by film editing. So, next time you watch another movie, try to discern these or even more tricks that you can spot among the scenes for a better appreciation of film editing—and a better visual experience, too.
We’ve created the ADD generation — they have such fractured attention spans. ~Karen Howe, Due North Communications
We live in a world of microinformation, the world of Attention Deficit Disorder, wherein lengthy activities are no longer acceptable. In fact, it has affected the 12-minute attention span of 2000, moving to a 5 to 8 second margin for the current year. Now before you say that this is lunacy, take this time to remember when you last looked at the second-page of your search engine results.
With the internet spoiling us with its instant gratification on information and consuming most of our time, our brains may have warped to the ADD form of living. And if you take a look at it, it’s not exactly brilliant.
Here’s a food for thought: Which is more important, art or science?
Some would readily say that the sciences are more important. After all, it is fields in science, technology, engineering, and math that are coveted in our technologically advancing world. Compared with other disciplines, the sciences promise higher wages and (very likely) more stable jobs. With the firm belief that science and technology are the primary drivers of our world’s economy, the arts have grudgingly taken a back seat, and a bigger rift stands between the two contrasting disciplines. But the reality is that the greatest innovations are inspired from the arts, and the greatest artworks have gleaned inspiration from the sciences.
Citizen journalism is one of the things that greatly improved when the Internet age was ushered in. It’s easier for us to share, tweet, post, comment, and like information that we deem important and relevant to the situation. We can upload a video of a local protest and have it go around the Internet twice if we wanted to. We can live Tweet an incident of police brutality and call the attention of the proper authorities. Ordinary people can now make a relevant contribution to informing the masses. Despite all of this, the question remains: How credible is this information?
Lepht Anonym takes her scalpel and positions the blade over an ink-drawn line on her flesh. She cuts her flesh for the first, and certainly not the last, time in her life. She then inserts an RFID chip, electronics used for identification similar to a barcode, in her flesh. This, in itself, is not novel; scientists have been inserting RFID chips inside their bodies since the ‘90s. But Lepht is the first to do it by herself, without anesthesia or the benefit of trained medical technicians to support her experiments. Lepht’s nerve gave birth to the obscure underground phenomenon of basement biohacking.
When Words Wake 