American History X

I've seen the movie before, I even remembered most of the action, I even remembered it when we were discussing the "white supremacy" in the Media Theory class, but what I did not remember is the way images work together in creating a story. The extreme close-ups in slow motion seem to express more that any lines could. Although the story is very powerful, this time, I tried to focus more on the details, the camera angles, the point of view and all the things that really made this movie powerful. The extreme close-ups on the eyes let you see inside the soul of the character, let you decipher if he is "good" or "bad" deep down. It doesn't matter that his head is shaved or that he has a swastika tattooed on his chest, because when you see his eyes you realize that his not a villain.

Since the movie goes back and forth in time, it's very easy for the viewer to distinguish between those two realms: the past (the memory) is always in black and white, while the present is always in color.

You don't sense the music throughout the story, sometimes you don't even realize it's there. That is until you know what's going to happen next, just because of the music. It's this imperceptible presence - like the warmth of a summer wind that bring about salty air from the ocean. Most of the times, you don't even feel it, you don't know that the air you're breathing is salty, until it changes, until it disappears.

There are very few wide shots. It's like it doesn't even matter what's around the characters. Even when you have wide shots, the character stands out, like a pillar, dragging your attention towards him, not letting you focus on anything else, not even for a minute. The camera always tells you where to look and most importantly what to see. Nothing is left to chance.

In the end, when Danny died, I almost started crying. I had seen the movie before, I knew he died in the end, so why did I feel this way? Then I remembered the difference between E.T. and Citizen Kane. We did talk about it a lot and I even started analyzing all the movies I see according to the shots that are used. I guess the close shots that gave me the chance of a glimpse behind the cold shell of the character, broke me down.

Even more, just towards the end, Danny becomes the narrator. And he continues narrating while lying dead on the bathroom floor, as if he were still alive. It's strange, how the camera and the storytelling can make you believe what your heart wants you to believe. I found myself wishing that he was not dead (therefore he is still the storyteller) and that the next scene would be with him lying on a hospital bed...badly injured, but still alive. I knew that was not the case, I knew the movie did not end like that, but I still hoped...as if somebody could feel my prayers and change the ending. I had become so close to the character, because of the closeness between him and the camera. I was never part of that story, but being so close, made me feel like there was no distance between my world and that world. I was no longer the outsider, I was there in the midst of things, seeing, living, feeling everything they felt, I was in each one of the characters, finding myself there and living the story along with them, every step of the way.

ce-i asa special la scoala americana?

Cei care nu stiu, ar putea spune nimic, scoala e la fel peste tot; nu conteaza profesorul, conteaza sa vrei sa inveti. Eu vin sa contrazic asta. Menirea profesorului nu e sa-ti bage pe gat informatie pe care tu sa o inveti avid pentru examen si apoi sa o uiti la fel de repede cum ai invatat-o (adica intr-o noapte). In plus, proful trebuie sa te ajute sa inveti, nu doar sa-ti serveasca pe tava niste cursuri copiate din carti, pe care sa ti le dicteze la curs, iar tu sa le scrii la examen. In sistemul american trebuie sa intelegi ce ti-a explicat (nu dictat) proful si apoi sa fii capabil sa reproduci ideea, nu exact cuvintele pe care le-a folosit proful. La cursuri proful nu citeste din nimic. Are doar niste notite cu punctele pe care trebuie sa le atinga la curs. Nu are carti sau foi de pe care citeste, iar studentul asculta tamp. Chiar si orele de teorie sunte interactive si dupa ce este expusa o teorie este explicata si discutata. Iar tu, ca student, stii dinainte ce teorii se vor discuta la curs, astfel incat daca e ceva ce n-ai inteles din ce ai avut de citit pentru cursul respectiv, sa poti intreba in clasa.

Aici ai practic un examen in fiecare saptamana si tot in fiecare saptamana ai de citit cateva zeci, uneori chiar sute de pagini. Ok, examenul nu e literalmente examen, dar in fiecare saptamana ai de predat o lucrare sau un proiect care valoreaza x % din nota finala. Nu l-ai predat, primesti 0 (zero). Daca nu reusesti sa-l faci la timp, e ok, vorbesti cu proful si iti mai acorda cateva zile perioada de gratie, dar chestia asta nu poti s-o faci mereu din 2 motive:
1. profu te intelege cand chiar ai o problema, nu cand se repeta chestia asta in fiecare saptamana
2. se aduna prea multe lucrari si apoi chiar nu mai ai timp sa le faci.

Ce se intampla daca iei o nota proasta la unul dintre aceste proiecte? Pai, in nici un caz nu cade cerul pe tine si cu siguranta asta nu va conta vizavi de proiectele viitoare. Pe ei nu-i intereseaza ca tu in mod normal iei A, daca acum ai o lucrare proasta, vei lua nota pe care o meriti. Lucrarile au mereu adnotari pe ele, astfel incat stii foarte clar de ce ai luat nota pe care ai luat-o si mai ales ce poti sa faci ca sa-ti imbunatatesti urmatoarele lucrari. De asemenea, daca ai luat o nota care nu iti convine sau care ti se pare ca nu te reprezinta, ai sansa de a reface lucrarea. Daca refaci lucrarea foarte bine, luand in considerare toate adnotarile date de prof, atunci ai sanse sa ti se schimbe nota.

Notiunea de plagiat e sfanta aici. In Romania, era ceva normal sa iei paragrafe intregi dintr-o carte, fara sa spui de unde sunt sau fara macar sa mentionezi ca nu e ideea ta. Ca sa nu mai vorbim de lucrarile de licenta cu care se face trafic deja. Profii se prind si in Romania cand copiezi, dar ori nu le pasa atat de mult, ori li se pare un efort prea mare sa te reclame sau sa te traga la raspundere in vreun fel. Aici daca ai copiat si cea mai mica idee si n-ai creditat sursa de unde ai acea idee, situatia devine trista. Evident, in eventualitatea in care esti prins. Nu stiu exact cat de usor te prind daca ai copiat, dar avand in vedere ca majoritatea profilor au ceva experienta in spate, cred ca nu-i atat de greu sa te prinda. Daca esti prins ca ai plagiat pe cineva, atunci nu numai ca pici acel curs, dar ti se face raport si esti dat afara din universitate. De principiu, chiar daca o iei de la capat si dai examen din nou, nu prea mai ai sanse sa intri in aceeasi universitate.

Esti invatat pas cu pas cum sa abordezi o anumita tema sau un anumit tip de lucrare. Cred ca daca as fi stiut tot ce stiu aici dupa numai jumatate de semestru, atunci cand mi-am facut lucrarea de licenta sau lucrarea de disertatie pentru masterul din Romania, i-as fi blocat pe cei din comisie cu acuratetea lucrarii si cu felul in care imi expuneam tema.

Aici e ok ca la inceput sa nu stii. Nimeni nu se asteapta de la tine sa stii totul si nimeni nu pretinde ca stie totul. E ok ca la inceput de semestru sa nu stii exact cu ce se mananca materia respectiva, mai trist e daca nici la sfarsit nu stii - asta de obicei inseamna ca abia ai trecut cursul sau chiar l-ai picat. Din nou, nu exista notiunea de a termina facultatea cu 5 sau 6 (adica E sau D). Daca ai la 3 cursuri notele astea atunci intri in Academic Probation, adica o perioada in care ti se da sansa sa iti revii. Daca nu iti revii, atunci pleci din facultate. Nu exista negocieri de genul: dar, va rog frumos, dar poate totusi se poate...sau alte chestii de genul asta.

Nu inveti toate aberatiile posibile care nu au nici o legatura cu tema ta. Ai mai putine cursuri si de principiu iti alegi singur directia pe care vrei sa o urmezi. De exemplu, eu pot sa-mi aleg sa fac masterul in principal pe productie video sau productie audio sau pot sa aleg partea de sociologie si teorie media. Evident exista si niste cursuri obligatorii pe care trebuie sa le ia toata lumea, dar de obicei sunt cursuri pe care e bine sa le faci indiferent ce directie urmezi.

Poate si pentru ca e scoala de arte, ai voie sa fii cat de creativ vrei tu. De exemplu la cursul de Research Methods in Media Studies pe langa lucrarile pe care le predai in fiecare saptamana trebuie sa faci si o lucrare mare de research care reprezinta examenul tau final. Tema poate sa fie orice, atata timp cat are legatura cu media. Temele alese de colegii mei sunt care mai de care mai variate. De exemplu: Cum a influentat media perceptia pe care o avem despre serpii cu clopotei? (se pare ca acesti serpi de fel nu sunt foarte periculosi, dar media a creat ideea cum ca ar fi); distributia barbatilor negri in roluri de femei in filmele de la inceputul secolului trecut; cum a influentat media trasformarea hip-hop-ului dintr-o muzica de strada in muzica comerciala. Practic atata timp cat are legatura cu media si cu teoriile legate de media, atunci ai voie sa faci orice.

Sunt convinsa ca raspunsul multora la acest post va fi: "bine ca esti tu desteapta!", insa mi-ar placea sa cred ca unii dintre cei care il citesc ii vor intelege validitatea si se vor gandi de 2 ori inainte sa spuna ca scoala e la fel peste tot.

The judge that tried Saddam

Indeed I had the rare opportunity to meet one of the judges that tried Saddam - Saeed al Hammash held a conference at my school. I was expecting a very tough and harsh man, because I was thinking that you would have to be like that in order to sentence a man to death. I'm not saying that Saddam did not deserve the capital punishment, I'm just saying that if it were up to me to make that decision I don't know if I could have made it. Last year when they decided that Saddam would be executed, there was a question that kept crawling in my mind: how do you put your human side apart and just make the decision based only on the facts? and afterwards how do you live with the thought that you put a man to death? So I finally got a chance to ask that. I hoped I wouldn't get an answer like: "we had to do what was right for the people of Iraq" and I didn't. He sighed and he told me that it was a very hard decision. Both because as he said "nobody has the right to take the life of another person, only God has that right", but also because they knew the humane side of Saddam. They knew him both as a great leader that made Iraq one of the richest countries in Middle East and they knew him as a vicious murderer that was now on trial for genocide. What they did though, was put aside their feelings and made the decision based on the evidence. Although it was incredibly hard, they tried to make an objective decision. He made a very clear distinction between what he would have made as a human being and what he did as a judge, stressing on the fact that judges are not superior to the rest of the humans, but they have a bigger responsibility for the people.

The second thing I could not understand was why they released the execution to the media. Well they didn't! (or at least that is what he says). It seems that the footage with Saddam's execution was released because of some mistake that the authorities made. Now I'm not sure if that is true, but he pointed out that it was something that should have never been done and with that I agree.
He also explained in detail that he was forced to resign from his position and was accused of having been part of Saddam's political party, all of which proved not to be true and he was acquitted by the authorities. He believes that this was only a strategic political move because he insisted that Saddam would receive a fair trial according to the international laws.
It seems to me that the political pressure was immense, not only from the Iraqi, but also from the US and, more than that, there was also a matter of security as he feared for his life and for his family.

All in all, it was a chance in a lifetime to see, meet and talk to a man that helped write history.

A Day at the MET

You'd think it's just a museum...Ok, so it's called The Metropolitan Museum of Art, so the building looks really big and impressive, but when you go inside, you feel as if you've entered a labyrinth of history where you can just cruise through time. I didn't get a change to see all the collections as the museum is not open 24 hours, but I got to see the Egyptian Art & Medieval History, the Arms and Armors collection and The Age of Rembrandt.

I saw a mummy for the first time and what I found amazing was that it was so easy to not think about the person that was in there when you had no representation of that person. But some o them had their face painted over the wrappings and suddenly it was not so easy to view the mummy as a piece of history; I realized that somehow I was in a graveyard where the bodies were not buried, but displayed for everybody to see.

The arms and armors seemed huge, especially the ones that were used in the 15th or 16th century. Horses and men dresses in steel with huge guns or swords. It seemed that they were able to carry more than their bodyweight and still fight. And the armor seemed so stiff and tight - I guess they didn't suffer from claustrophobia :).

The Age of Rembrandt was the part I liked most. Maybe because I love Rembrandt or maybe because it was so incredible. There were paintings by Rembrandt, but also by his apprentices and by other painters that were inspired by him. It's impossible not to love his portraits and self portraits. I had the feeling that some of them were not even painted, but that he somehow photographed the persons and than he painted over the photographs. Details, that you could barely acknowledge were spread across huge canvas, were drawing you closer to the subject as you could ever be. I remembered something I read for the Media Theory class about the "aura" that art has and how that "aura" is disappearing more and more in new art. The "aura" was still there in Rembrandt's paintings and it took over your feelings the moment you started looking at the canvas. You were transported in a new dimension, a dimension of color, shades, darkness and light where all the characters are still but talk to you in different languages, where the lines all converge in your life-line, and where the "aura" still exists.