Even though by nature Coventry Conversations are more or less focussed on journalism topics, it is inevitable that they explore the issue of media in its many forms and contexts. That is what Pete Clifton touched upon, when giving a talk for Coventry Uni students on ‘the future of multimedia journalism at the BBC’, offering insights into the direction media is evolving.

The overall conversation was on the subject of changes and evolution of the BBC websites, which included a fair amount of technical information. Nevertheless, I found the technical bits relevant to social aspects, as the two concepts are virtually inseparable from one another.

The BBC websites seem to be an interconnecting web that puts together an immense amount of information in the most various ways. 1997 was a first step for BBC with the introduction of videos on the website but it seems like a very long time ago as the low-quality videos and the endless buffering times have been taken over by innumerable applications, videos and podcasts that load in just seconds, interactive media, mobile applications and so on.

Judging by what Pete Clifton says, journalism, as much as every use of media, is heading towards interactivity and a stronger focus on the user rather than the content. The mobile phone applications and the mobile content, as well as the portals BBC is intending to launch are strong evidence that media is going to be tailored more and more according to the wants and needs of the public, even giving them a certain amount of autonomy.

Another issue that was also covered was the attitude and behaviour of the public towards the BBC website and its content. A thing that I found particularly interesting was how, even though pictures are almost as popular as the news, word-based content is still the most viewed on the website. It is actually surprising to find out that people will take their time to read news instead of looking at self-explanatory pictures.  The average number of stories read by viewers is, however, allusive to the fact that we are really in a hurry as an audience, reading around 4 stories a visit, out of a network of websites that store huge amounts of information.

First term: over. Still to come: 8 more

Looking back at it, I admit it was a bit scary, but I got out of it alive. Was it what I had expected? Did I learn new things? Did I grow at least a little bit?

I don’t even remember what I had expected when I first came here, but I learned quickly enough that preconceptions are of no value and no use. I was also amazed at the relativity of things: what can be important somewhere can mean nothing somewhere else, so I guess I’ve learned to look at things from another perspective and build my values more independently of circumstances.

I couldn’t talk about the big picture without remembering the little things that make up the experience. The modules themselves were interesting, useful and challenging. I had to get used to working in groups (I’m an international student and where I come from, that rarely happens), to researching on my own and to have a relatively high level of autonomy in my work.

• 141MC was the most adsy module. I liked it and although I knew some of the things we’ve been taught, I still enjoyed it and I can’t deny I’ve learned new things. The most useful asset of this module was that it put together research and creative work, two notions that had been relatively separate in my mind. I liked the fact that I was able to design an ad based on real-life findings.
• 100MC was more on the theoretical side and, hadn’t it been for the early lectures, I would have really enjoyed it. If I come to think of it, I enjoyed it anyway. I liked how this module links a cultural background to the media and I think it’s really useful to look at our civilisation this way. It makes things more clear.
• 163MKT was the businessy module and even though it’s not really my type, I guess it wasn’t bad either. This took advertising down to its basic pieces, allowing us to understand how it works in a much larger picture of the global market. It’s a mixture of practicality and creativity which I believe is useful for anyone who’s looking into advertising.

There were also some other things that started in the first term that I really enjoyed. One of them was CUEAFS – the film society that I’ve grown really fond of. Loving Asian cinema beforehand, this was a really pleasant surprise. I think the screenings and the events were top-notch and I watched it grow in time. I’m looking forward to this term’s activities.

Leaving academic-related reflections aside, I think that during the first term I’ve grown as a person. It took some effort to leave the comfort of my shell and really communicate with other people, but it was totally worth it. I’ve met people I’m not going to forget easily, I’ve learned how to express myself better, I’ve learned how to have fun the English way and I’ve made strong connections. Still more of this to come, Uni has just started.

All in all, I think the first term was a positive experience. I’m waiting for more.

Breathless is Yang-Ik June’s first full-length picture in which he plays not only the role of lead actor, but also director, writer and producer. And it’s visible that he hasn’t only put his head in this film, but his heart’s there too. I find it hard to sum up the theme of this movie: it’s about violence – domestic and not only – as a trade currency for self-expression, love, growing up, needing, etc. It’s about violence that stands for parents and siblings, that stands for money, food and drink, for hello and good bye; it’s about violence as a way of staying afloat. To my mind, this movie is more human that we’d care to admit.

Technically, it’s not brilliant but then again it’s not technique that it boasts. The extreme human emotion that it sends out makes up for its length, for the unnecessarily complicated narrative and for the lack of stylized filming and post-production .

In contrast, the movie is shockingly sincere and violent and the characters very well built (in my opinion, some of them were too well built, and there was too much focus on each and every one of them, which complicates things a little, but this is probably just a lack of refinement that will be surpassed with exercise – and who am I to judge anyway?).

Sang-Hoon is a ruthless gangster that doesn’t flinch at hitting anyone – not even girls. In fact, violence is his only way of self expression and he uses his fists and palms to express attachment (in the relationship with his nephew) along with a foul mouth that has a vocabulary limited to swear words for anything from hello and good bye to I love you, I need to be loved, etc. His behaviour can be explained by the rough childhood he had, growing up around domestic violence. Paradoxically, out the extreme hatred he develops for his father’s violence, he ends up adopting it as a way of life, lacking any other alternative or role-model. This affects his relationships of any kind: he fails to show friendship, love, need, loneliness in other way that violently. Deep inside, however, he still longs for soothing, he is still trying to cope with and eventually overcome the scars that haunt him.

Things change when he meets Yeon-Hue, a high school girl who can stand up to him, being herself too familiar with violence and threats. He finds in her a valve through which he can slowly let things out. In turns, she can see his softer side tacitly, and finds in him a retreat from her dysfunctional family.

However, the film manages to kill almost every flicker of hope that anyone growing up with Hollywood movies would expect. Still, I believe there is strong reason behind that: the movie is a lesson, it is a depiction of a painful and haunting reality for those who have experienced even ten percent of what goes on in the story, or a reminder to cherish peace for those who are lucky to have it.

I think this movie talks about family better than any ‘happy family’ film. Things are extreme but, on one level or another, we might find our own family problems in there. Learning to grow up in the shadow of big and painful events, learning to know and accept your parents for real people with qualities and faults, learning to show love, learning to express needs are all themes that this movie explores – and in my opinion it does it very well.

Another thing that it shows is how patterns perpetuate from generation to generation – and how difficult it actually is to break them. Violence spreads for all the wrong reasons and families are one environment in which they can do so fast. And the most amazing thing of all is that the film as a warning sign is the outcome of Yang-Ik June breaking his own violence vicious circle. The story is, from what I hear, half true and it’s and admirable thing that he managed to use it the way he did. It must have hurt.

All in all, I won’t say it was the most enjoyable couple of hours I’ve had watching Breathless – but the effects it had on me were those of a clash with larger-than-life reality. Good, honest, shocking and brutal movie.

This week’s assignment involves Tzvetan Todorov’s  structuralist theory and Vladimir Propp’s formalist theory. Their claim is that the events and characters in a story follow a pattern. They’re useful to better understand genre and narrative and to show how media texts are structured.

The print-based text is Marvel’s Guardians, issue nr 1.

If we look at the comic from Todorov’s point of view, we will find a reinterpretation of his structural theory: the overall stages exist, but are somewhat altered.

The equilibrium stage is not depicted in the actual text as much as it is implied.  Disruption occurs in the form of the parent’s argument and, although the landing of the UFO could be regarded as disruption, it is merely the unusual, possibly ‘magical’ arrival of the donor. Another disruption, on a bigger level, is the effect of the alien encounter on Vince’s life. Years later, he is ostracised by society and his family and put in a mental institution. The recognition takes place but only partly and together with the attempt – when his family and friends are trying to make up for the situation with little surprises, excuses or explanations. The enhances equilibrium, I believe, is reserved for the end of the comic, as this is only a micro-structure inside the whole story.

Looking at the structure from Propp’s point of view, we will find Vince as the hero, his brother as a sort of villain, Jimmy as a helper, Charlie as the princess, Dra’kk as a donor, etc…

Film: Harry Potter series

Harry Potter’s series are very close to a folk tale structure and that is why the two theories can be very well applied on them.

Structurally, they begin with the stage of equilibrium, in which things work according to rules, everything is in place and everyone is generally happy. Disruption kicks in when Harry finds out about an imminent bad thing on its way, about an evil character that needs to be defeated, etc. At first, the disruption isn’t recognised by everyone, sometimes not until the last minute, but it generally occurs at some point. The attempt to right the wrong is Harry’s and it always takes place in a form of a sort of good-evil battle. When Harry eventually defeats the evil force, the enhanced equilibrium is instilled and it usually lasts a limited time – disruptions are recurrent.

As for the characters, Harry is the hero, Voldemort is the villain, Dumbledore is the donor and Hagrid is a helper. The princess is Hermione and Dumbledore acts as the father-figure.

Sitting here staring at the Wordpress Add New Post page for 7 minutes with a blank mind, I think I should start by saying Kakera was probably the best movie screened so far.

First time director Momoko Ando tells the story of lost Haru – just starting university, engaged in a problematic relationship with a boyfriend who doesn’t feel remorse at using her. She crosses paths with Riko – a slightly older and apparently more confident medical prosthetic artist. The two get involved in an odd but very beautiful and touching love story.

There are several things that make me very fond of this movie an one of them is the delicate and yet powerful expression of emotion. Through aesthetics, sound, symbols, symmetry and acting, the film manages to convey both explosion and calm, managing to find a very natural ballance of feeling that follows the flow of the story. It truly succeeds to be a piece of life, without seeming to force anything on the viewers.

What also adds to the natural feel of the movie is the storyline. I liked the fact that it wasn’t predictable, it wasn’t a Hollywood boom of joy and happiness nor was it dark, grim and depressing. It is something that I could relate to, that seemed touching but still normal. A piece of our intertwined lives.

The characters were very well constructed in my opinion and I loved the acting! I think Haru impersonates the essence of the confused and lost girl very well and her character is comparable to Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Amelie (Le fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain) or Woody Allen’s Cristina (Vicky Cristina Barcelona). I also loved how she evolves all the way through the movie, embracing herself and giving herself the chance to go deeper and explore (the scene of jumping in the pool is very expressive of this, in my opinion).

Riko, on the other hand, seems more sure of herself at the beginning, shocking Haru (and probably the viewers) in the coffee shop scene. However, throughout the movie, she reveals her uncertainties and the unfilled holes inside her. The desperation with which she longs for Haru’s love, the deep hate for her boyfriend, the possessiveness that characterises their relationship are all indicators of this. She fills holes in other people’s body perhaps because she can’t fill the holes in her soul. The scene in which she shouts at an already departed Haru and the scene in which she turns up at a student party to name but a few express this very well. She seems to hate men, but she turns into one herself.

What I also think is impressive is how the story is more observed than told. It’s a very detached view on things, that leaves the conclusion to the viewers. The very few comments inside the movie were made in an extremely subtle way, through the use of symbols. The presence of doves, I think, is one of them: to me, they signify Haru’s freedom and inner peace. They appear at different stages of her evolution: firstly, in the ‘morning after’ where the slob boyfriend shoots them, then at the beginning of the relationship with Riko, when they make a miraculous appearance and finally, at the end, when Haru takes the time to look at them in the sky.

The pace of the events is very well enhanced by music (great soundtrack!), memorable pieces of dialogue and memorable scenes that seemed to get stuck in my head. Funny, witty, mean, soft, all of these in a wonderful combination.

But leaving technicalities aside and talking about it more personally, I loved the film for its voyeuristic feel – it didn’t give me the impression I was watching a movie, it felt like peeping through the keyhole into a piece of their lives. And that for me, is a great achievement.

I loved every minute of it!

PS: I think it’s also a great thing, what Adam Torel has done for the society and if he sees this, he should know I’m grateful for it.

Genre:90’s sitcoms
Objects: Seinfeld, Friends, Mad About you

What elements of each object seem to be the same?
They are all sitcoms, hence the comedy comes from day to day life situations.
They are all based indoors, but have outdoor scenes.
They are all based on a core of family or friends.
The characters occasionally have clashes with the other characters – conflict.
They are all funny.
They all operate on stereotyped visions of society.
They present a life-like reality that we can relate to.
They all have at least one neurotic character.
The characters are all types.
They are all urban.
The small things make the big impression.

What elements mark each object out as being different from the rest that you have chosen?
Seinfeld: It’s a show about nothing – it is made around the little insignificant things of daily life.
It has a rather misogynistic view on women.
It mostly uses male humour.
It is a mix of fiction and autobiography.
It contains scenes of stand-up comedy.
It contains Kramer.

Friends: It mixes comedy and romance.
Replaces the family core with the circle of friends.
It has a slightly larger number of characters, each of them having one exaggerated feature.
The characters fall in love with each other, exchange partners, marry and divorce each other (kind of like in a soap opera).
Every character’s use of language is interesting.

Mad about you: It’s based around the life of a married couple.
Has slightly less characters than Friends and Seinfeld.
It is inclined towards romance.
The characters are a bit older and more mature.

How might the audience understand the object?
All of the objects could be understood, looking at them through a basic perspective, as mere superficial comedies. However, they could be understood as an analysis, a statement or a comment upon daily life, contemporary society, etc.

What kind of pleasure might the audience get from each object?
I think anyone could relax watching an episode of these sitcoms. However, those who are willing to see them as more than ‘just comedies’ can enjoy the perspective they take on society, on different human aspects, on inter-human relationships, etc. The most important advantage, however, is the laughter a good line can provoke.

Person a. loves smart sitcoms primarily because they are funny without being dumb. They like to observe the deep or shallow construction of characters, the conflicts and the resolutions and the humour that is born in the clashes. What they also appreciate is the fact that they are not pretentious and they are pieces of media they can relate to.

Person b. hates sitcoms because they think they are awfully repetitive and stereotypical, that they bring nothing new and that they are just pointless jokes.They admit some of the jokes are hilarious, but on the whole, they see sitcoms as a terrible waste of time.

A tale of the 72 hour film challenge

Once upon a time, in a kingdom far far away, just opposite Neverland, there was a University which held some media-related courses.

On a Monday morning, during a painfully early lecture, the wizards of the courses thought about a way to entertain themselves – and they came up with a challenge for the young and eager uni knights. They were to make a media object in only 72 hours which they would then show to everybody else during some kind of joust. Their media objects were to reflect everything the knights had learned and more than that – everything they aspired to.

And so activity week began.

Day 1 – Planning

We met with the group just after the lecture to try and figure what we wanted to. After what it looked like a session of therapy or an exorcism of our wants, needs, dreams, hopes and insecurities, ideas started to appear. We thought of a pigeon comedy, a condom advert, fear of rejection and paranoia, radio porn [i admit, that was my idea], hopes, dreams and daydreams – but how could we combine these?

It took a few good hours to sift through the ideas, some jokes and ridiculous suggestions that we took seriously and boom! – the plot was born. Combining insecurities, fears, paranoia and dreams, we came up with the idea to do an ad against drugs using masks. Namely Jason masks. Nic took some pretty good photos of his face, we wrote down the story line and went home.

Day 2

We dedicated day 2 to filming what we had come up with during day 1. A university location was transformed into a medical surgery waiting room with health posters, a fews newspapers and magazines and a few changes in terms of furniture. Nothing fancy though. The filming, I think, went quite smoothly. That must be partly because I was only an actor and it wasn’t my job to shoot

However, I think Laura and Nic did quite a good job with that.

After shooting our scenes, we went down to the editing room to see our material. We thought of how we wanted to shape it up and struggled with Avid for some time, then went home.

Day 3

The last day was for finishing touches. Tim and Laura did a good job again – and we were just as good in watching and disagreeing with what they had done. Well, not exactly.

My conclusions are that we’re pretty lucky as a group to get along so well (we even had official an group outing but I couldn’t be there unfortunately), to be able to work together so well and exchange ideas.  I think the experience drew us more closely together, we formed bonds that I think will strengthen in the future. I like my group, and I’m proud of the we’ve done. I think we had good ideas and we touched essential points in the subject we were talking about through our video. Of course the technologically savvy ones always win, but then again they only won a bag of chocolates that I would gladly buy for my group instead.

As for the piece of media itself – namely the movie – I think it pretty much does the job we designed it to do. Yes, of course it could be better, but we weren’t (and I don’t think anybody was) expecting to make a masterpiece in 3 days. I think it is something we can start building on. And I see bright things coming up in the future.

Our video was made as an advertisement for a helpline against drugs. I think it does act like an ad because it is fast-paced, it is to the point, it expresses feelings that people can relate to (even the ones not struggling with drugs) and does deliver the message we wanted it to. However, it doesn’t do that very clearly – from the feedback I got, people didn’t actually see and anti-drug advertisement, but an ad that speaks to them on many levels: about their fears, insecurities, about their angst and uncertainty, about moral dilemmas that actually include drugs. Yes, we could have made it more to the point regarding drug issues, but I personally think we unintentionally came up with a good advertisement for a generic problem helpline.