#Film Techniques Meta

[deliciouswastelandgoddess]

Anatomy of a Soft Cliff-hanger - The Genius of Alchemy of Souls' Season 1 Ending

[A case study of film-making techniques]

Cliff-hangers have been a prominent plot device of all sorts story-telling medium since... well....since humans have been telling stories, Although the use of the term "cliff-hanger" has been attributed to late 19th century, the concept itself has always existed. If you have been paying attention to the how television is being produced in the last couple of decades, you will notice a rise in one particular type of cliff-hangers: the unconfirmed death. This is a subset of a larger group of cliff-hangers, that everyone likes to call - An Unanswered Question.

A popular example of this is Jon Snow's death in Game Thrones Season 5, finale. In recent years consistently this plot device been dangled in front of audiences in a way that provokes emotional investment in a particular character's (or even the actor's, which is a whole other discussion) fate rather than any investment in the entire narrative of the story.

Jon Snow's death was a hard cliff-hanger where an end of an episode or a season is always at an extreme climactic high, with a clear cut, specific question for the audiences to be emotionally invested in: Will Jon Snow live? This isn't a bad thing in and on itself, but it does get boring after a while. Alchemy of Souls, on the other hand ended its first Season on a soft cliff-hanger.

Allow me to explain.

The ending was high on emotions, actions and drastic change in character dynamics, everything you would expect from a season end cliff-hanger but if this show was directed like Game of Thrones, it would probably end on this scene:

With Jang Uk dead, Naksu/MuDeok on the run, Jin ChoYeon hunting her and all of Songrim grieving for Jang Uk's death. The showrunners would have left it at that and the major question for the audiences to ponder would have been: Will Jang Uk live? But the show decided to take a different, and in my opinion a cleverer, path. They let the narrative move beyond the absolute climactic high to a sort of an emotional plateau, from a point where it would have been a hard cliff-hanger to a soft cliff-hanger.

There is no more question of whether or not Jang Uk will live, because they already showed us that he survived. There is no question of whether Naksu will live or not because they showed us two weird women saving her from drowning as well. We know all the players in the game, we know where everyone is, emotionally and physically. We could also guess at almost everyone's motivations and goals at this point. The board is set, the story is in full motion. There are no more specific or narrow questions for the audiences to wonder about, only abstract ones, primary of which is: What happens now? Which, in case you hadn't noticed, is a much harder question to answer simply because of how broad its scope is, and therefore, also a very fun one.

A soft cliff-hanger allows the audiences to indulge in rich meta analysis and theories which are wide in variety. The anticipation is built not through shock but through indulging in genuine wonder and curiosity. A soft cliff-hanger also allows for the showrunners the opportunity to softly subvert audience expectations, again not through cheap plot twists but through intelligent and detailed plot progression.

Its not a perfect show. The world building is all over the place, the magic system makes no sense, etc. But despite all its flaws, Alchemy of Souls delivered a solidly intriguing ending with little to no gimmicks and that is its genius. I cannot wait for Season 2.

[chicademartinica]

The winner of the P’Aof doesn’t play with the framing shot for ep 06 is :

Jim between yesterday and the present.

Runner up: Red peace offerings

[broken-risk-assessment-module]

okay I cave. I thought about it too much and now it's a post. this one's for @ilovedthestars and @needlesandnilbogs

risk assessment module's tumblr url is accounting-for-competency and it reblogs parkour and martial arts videos, speed runs, no-hit/perfect boss fights, and fight scene gifsets from media.

in the tags it always manages to notice and appropriately compliment a very specific technique the person is using in order to protect themselves/be safe

occasionally it will also do deep in-depth analysis posts of the choreography of a fight scene from one of murderbot's serials. how the moves would work in reality, how the film translates a real move/technique so its more dramatic and visual appealing, and also the skillset/movie magic behind keeping stunt actors safe.

threat assessment module doesn't have a tumblr but risk assessment sends it links to posts about how to relax, detox its mind, meditate, or plane-shift.

"it's medicinal, y'know. for the stick up your ass."

education module just reblogs interesting facts, but always reblogs them with a reliable source link if the original post doesn't have one. it's favourite facts are about weird alien fauna and space station physics.

risk assessment convinced it to make it's url "pieceofcrap" because that's what Murderbot calls it. it kinda wants to change it to something more "professional" but is also weirdly attached to it, so it won't.

language module's url is too-many-human-words and most of what it reblogs is to do with translations of media. analyses of translations of poetry, books, and manga. meta posts about subtitles. those posts that are just people trying to explain words that don't have direct translations into other languages.

it also really likes those posts that are like... a bunch of curated screenshots of internet posts, famous quotes, and lines from poetry or books or shows, all put together cus they're vaguely about the same thing or attempting to describe the same feeling. it likes how humans find so many ways to say the same thing.

governor module does not have a tumblr but if it DID, it's url would be governor-931625384 or some shit like that. it's blog would be completely empty and uncustomised. the only thing it would use it for is searching for posts that violate tumblr's terms of service or community guidelines and DMing the poster directly to tell them which rules they've violated. it would get reported as a spam bot every time.

procedure module has a tumblr called apparently-a-panic-module that it uses like an actual personal blog, as in it posts it's random thoughts and stuff that it's done that day. also creates polls for the most out of left field stuff, including completely asinine decisions it has to make.

it reblogs how-to posts and recipes. it doesn't matter what they're for, just that they are a step-by-step guide on how to do something. in the tags it critiques the clarity and format.

it's by far the most active on tumblr out of all of them. it gets anon asks (mostly from the other modules) that are like "don't you have anything better to do" and it always just responds "no."

[chaos0pikachu]

I am here actually to appreciate your post. I saw a blogger’s post saying The sign would have been ‘successful’ had it got filled with fantasy and romance and limit action to 10%. I wondered why that person, who says BL is all about romance, watched a show whose genre is action. Then I saw your post about people watching many shows to stay in fandom and I agree. Also you are right about dramas with a complex story receiving heavy criticism. Everything (even lack of proper plot or conflict) is exempted in a romance drama. No wonder most BLs are confined to ‘2 boys and their jealous & crying moments, routine conflicts enhanced by Escola or leads explaining how important Nikon printer is for their relationship’

Well damn hit me in the feels with this appreciation I'ma get all shy and shit.

I always wonder if by "successful" people mean in terms of critical acclaim, story telling, or monetarily. When it comes to Thai shows - and some please correct me if I'm wrong - it's difficult to tell how "successful" they are terms of audience reach/monetarily because there's no easily verifiable information. Like, there's Youtube numbers sure, but The Sign as an example, aired on Channel 3 what were it's ratings total on that channel? Idk, does anyone know that? Sincerely asking lol

Personally the way I like to judge a piece of media is what I call the Roger Ebert method; he often judged films based not solely on whether they were "good" or "bad but by how successfully they accomplished their goals.

If you read his review of Space Jam while it's clear Ebert doesn't think the movie is high art, "You can watch the movie on the sports and cartoon levels, and also appreciate the corporate strategy that's involved. [...] It is difficult for an actor to work in movies that combine live action with animation, because much of the time he cannot see the other characters in a scene with him. But Jordan has a natural ease and humor, an unforced charisma, that makes a good fit with the cartoon universe."

Ebert praises that the film, while filled with obvious product placement and banking on both nostalgia for the toons & star power of Jordan, accomplishes it's goal of being a family for that can be enjoyed by adults and children, and also the ability to blend techniques of live action, animation and 3D rendering.

I bring this up specifically b/c when I see "reviews" of shows in BL - the most common form of meta I see in BL fandom as a whole and that's not a knock just an observation - it's usually always about the narrative. Nothing about the filmmaking. And if there is discussion about he filmmaking it's usually misinformed or worse misinforming - no that's not what aperture means, yaoi framing isn't really a thing in film, the t-shirt is really just a t-shirt, etc, etc.

And like I get why. Fandom is more about story, what the words on a page or what the characters on screen are doing and saying. It's easier to talk about the amazing communication two characters have b/c you don't really need a film knowledge to discuss that. Which is a factor in why I think shows with lower stakes, more streamlined and straightforward plots get praised at a higher, less diligent and harsh level, than shows that are a bit more daring. They're less challenging in structure, they take less risks, so there's less to critique, and there's less room for a show to disappoint.

There comfort food, rather than trying something new at the restaurant. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, again, this is just a general observation.

To me, The Sign is miles better than Cooking Crush on a simple technical level. I only watched one episode of Cooking Crush and I found it pretty mediocre at best from all technical points: acting, editing, cinematography, directing, storytelling.

This isn't to say Cooking Crush is "bad" or that even if Cooking Crush was "bad" people shouldn't like it. I don't give a fuck if people like it, good for you chase the things that spark joy! I like lots of "bad" media, have y'all ever watched Jason Takes Manhattan?

For me, The Sign, like Space Jam, accomplishes it's goals and those were ambitious goals. An action fantasy BL that actually lives up to that premise and looks good?? The fight choreography looks great considering the obviously budget??

Like one of my issues with Laws of Attraction - aside from how painfully disinterested those kisses looked - was the fight choreography was bad.

The characters very rarely land hits in a way that looks real, or even marginally real. I can only speculate they didn't hire a stunt coordinator and/or couldn't hire stunt doubles so there was a worry of injury on set (for both reasons).

This isn't a disparagement on the actor(s) either, like stunt work is difficult and it's important to have professionals on set who can walk an actor through the steps so both them and others don't get hurt. Jackie Chan is probably one of the best known actors alive for stunt work, but watch how many times he fumbles and potentially hurts himself to the point where other actors are actively worried for him:

So yeah I'm going to give The Sign it's fucking gold star stickers b/c aside from some missteps in the gun handling - to many one handed gun fights but even then it wasn't all the time and bullets ran out of ammo! Y'all don't know how exciting for me that was to see - the fight scenes look damn good.

I understand the work that went into them, I understand the pre-production time that it took for the crew and cast to learn that and filming them well is another beast too.

There's a couple scenes with shaky cam that I dislike, but god do I love that first long take in The Sign. I love how good the CGI looks overall again, considering what is probably less budget than Black Christmas (2019).

I'm admittedly, fucking picky about what I watch b/c I'm really lazy and prefer watching films in general. I don't really like TV all that much, but if I am watching a tv show I wanna be impressed with more than just the characters talking to each other. Especially if said show is 12 hours or more.

When I'm looking at a piece of media - a comic, a novel, a film, a tv show - I'm thinking about stuff like "what were it's goals, and did it accomplish them? How was the filmmaking? How was the narrative structure? What is the time/place/culture this was made in?"

I'm not sure if people are arguing if The Sign was "successful" in terms of narratively, monetarily, or critically.

In reality we can only really speculate on how successful a Thai BL is based on data that's not not entirely accurate - social media, youtube stats, awards, etc - and even then most of that is based off international audience.

I can glean that 2gether was successful for gmmtv b/c it got a second season and a film, pretty much skyrocketed Bright and Win's individual careers but again, and created a cross country alliance for activism. But even all that is still speculation not facts (except the alliance that's a real thing that happened lol).

[This is all regardless of my own feelings regarding the show which is not kind. But feelings have nothing to do with individual discussion about how monetarily successful or accomplished a show is or isn't.]

Like it might be valid speculation on both shows but it should always come with a disclaimer of - these are not facts. Also, what is "popular" or "successful" can and will be dependent on individual countries too.

Take Cutie Pie for example, I would argue that it wasn't super "successful" here with American fans, but given how overwhelmingly popular Zee and NuNew are in both Thailand and Korea, I would then argue that the show was a success in Thailand and Korea. So was Cutie Pie "successful" or not? I would say yes!

Because "success" isn't and shouldn't be measured only by how western fans receive a piece of media.

In regards to The Sign, I'd argue it appears to be very successful with only the partial data I have at hand - social media which includes places like twitter, facebook, tumblr, the success of their sold out showing for the finale, a special episode, etc. If people argue it was unsuccessful in terms of narrative, well that's debatable and I have no interest in debating why the show is good except in terms of technical filmmaking and storytelling.

And even then it's a pointless debate like or dislike whatever just don't lie or mislead people regarding film terminology and techniques or harass people because they did like A Thing or clog up the tags with annoying posts about how you didn't like said Thing.

Overall, I don't give "reviews" on things I watch either positive or negative cause, well, I'm lazy lol, I don't believe putting how much I hate a show in it's tags and a thorough rating system would be to much work. I actually like how My Drama List rating system works, I just find most reviews on it to be Annoying lmao. Like giving Kinnporsche a 5 or below is absolutely bonkers to me but whatever es lo que es. But I also don't think my thoughts and opinions on shows are that valuable in terms of discussion.

These are mostly my general thoughts on fandom at large and it's not directly at any particular people its just observations at large across various social media platforms.

I think if you like more squeecore shows that's totally gucci, I just wish didn't proposite that 1) those are the only valid shows in terms of BL/queer media and 2) didn't overhype them to such sky high levels

[johannestevans]

Also on my Patreon.

A close reading is what we call an in-depth analysis of a piece of text, which might be in the case of fiction a short story, or for novels and novellas might be a portion or an extract from the text.

A “text” can refer to virtually anything — this piece is going to focus on reading and interpreting written fiction, particularly short stories and extracts from novels, but a “text” can be anything: a photograph or a painting, an essay or an article, a television show or a film, a videogame, a news bulletin, a play, etc.

Your skills in interpreting meaning of a text will be transferable, but different forms of media might require learning different forms of language and communication — text is text in different languages, of course, but paintings and still images employ visual language; film and television will employ similar visual language, but might also rely on the movement of cameras, music, actors’ subtle choices, etc; videogames will use forms of environmental storytelling to build a larger meaning in the text, such as codices or in-game books, etc.

As a writer, these skills can be vital to building on your own skills in the craft — we often talk about how writers should read to build up their skills, but reading passively only brings you part of the way there. Reading actively and analysing the techniques used by your favourite authors and used in your favourite texts will better allow you to learn from them, and to incorporate those techniques and effects into your own work.

This guide is not about how to write an essay or how to write up and present your close reading of a given text — essays and any other form of meta-writing are a response to a text, and occur in conversation with them: the text has communicated something to you, you’ve read and considered that communication, and then you’re presenting that interpretation to be read and responded to by others. This guide is merely on how to perform your close or in-depth reading of the text, mining it for evidence to use in one of those essays or conversations later on, or simply to allow you to recognise details you wouldn’t with a more cursory reading of it.

Texts can be read and interpreted in a variety of ways, and every person’s reading and interpretation of a text will be unique to them, affected by their own background and perspective — they bring their own unique skills, their own skill sets or areas of knowledge and expertise, their own preferences, biases, even their own emotional state at the time they read the text for the first and subsequent times.

A lot of people are taught how to approach a close reading at school — this might be in Language and Literature classes, in History and Geography, in Classics or other Humanities; it might be as part of a debate module or class. With that said, because a lot of class sizes are pretty big and because a lot of classes are pretty focused on exam and test results these days, with little individual focus, I know a lot of people don’t feel they internalised skills like these as much as they wish they did, or don’t feel confident in them.

Or they feel comfortable in their skills despite what they were taught in their classes, and because they’ve learned to do this intuitively, they feel comfortable in one medium, but not applying their skills to others.

Performing a close reading, or multiple close readings, is foundational to beginning an essay or presentation on a text, sure, but your ability to explore and interpret meanings in a text is valuable in far more situations than that.

Your skills in reading a text might elevate your enjoyment of them, allowing you to see further details or implications; they might aid your ability to draw parallels between comparative texts, and see those connections.

When you see these details and become used to them, you can recognise foreshadowing when it’s first introduced, and sometimes that means you’ll see plot twists or certain beats in a character arc coming — other times, it means you’ll expect certain things to happen, but then be more surprised when those expectations or tropes are subverted.

You might also recognise certain biases or implications in the text that you weren’t cognizant of on your first or cursory readings — you might notice specific pieces of language, notice and keep track of broader patterns, see parallels, et cetera.

It’s important to note that like… Regardless of whether you follow a guide like this or some other guide, simply by existing and going through life, you will gain new skills, you will gain new experiences, you will read and be impacted by new pieces of media, and you will take those experiences with you.

A favourite bit of mine in Transylvania 6–5000 (1985) is when Jack (Jeff Goldblum) chokes out Gil (Ed Begley Jnr) in a very homoerotic fashion while they argue about whether Gil loves Jack or not —

Very gay. You don’t need a comparative to read a gay undertone in this clip, right? The physical intimacy between Goldblum and Begley Jnr, the pushing him away then pulling him close again, the (barely) plausible deniability of it, etc.

It had been years since I watched Fiddler on the Roof (1971), not since I was a kid, and I laughed my head off when I got to Tevye and Golde’s Do you love me? because I realised in retrospect that Jack was quoting it in this scene — and not just quoting the scene, but quoting and putting himself in Golde’s position, not Tevye’s!

And that’s just a silly example, but there are so many things that might wholly change your interpretation of and your perception of a text — a conversation you have in a bar, a Simpsons episode that parodies it, someone’s joke or TikTok, a personal relationship or experience you’ve had that’s similar to the text, etc.

When you read the same book at fifteen, at twenty, at thirty, it can feel like you’re reading a wholly different text, because you’ll be a very different person. You’ll see different details, notice different things, and you’ll be responding as you read not only to the text itself, but to your own recollections of and past relationships with that same text.

You might hold multiple, conflicting opinions about that text, for example — and to do that is honestly a good sign, because if you can have one dominant opinion but see the way(s) someone else might interpret that text while you read it, you’ll have a better ability to understand and respond to other people’s responses to the text in conversation, and get why their perspective is so different to yours.

A reading isn’t just something we do alone in the dark, and that’s then discussed in a lecture hall or a class room, or some other academic setting. These skills are vital for academia, yes, but apart from being useful to any author who wishes to work on and improve their own craft, they’re used in everyday situations too.

When people have arguments in pubs or on Twitter about whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie, they are arguing about their interpretations and readings of the text, and whether the text therefore meets the genre conventions of a Christmas movie.

---

Super excited about this guide! This is a 10k deep-dive into doing close readings of texts - I'm actually working on other pieces to go with this one, and the next one is going to be about doing close readings of television and film, which I know is even less covered in schools than close reading text!

Please comment and share and let me know what you think, especially if it's helpful! <3

[mattjacksonsbrain]

Jersey Boys - Jukebox Musical Roundtable

Jersey Boys, directed by Clint Eastwood, follows the story of the 1960s rock 'n roll group The Four Seasons comprised of Frankie Valli, Bob Gaudio, Tommy DeVito, and Nick Massi. The film focuses on their rise to fame and the challenges they faced along the way.

What are the social aspects within the film’s narrative that align with the film’s songs?

Jersey Boys aligns its musical selections with key social aspects of its narrative, each song underscoring elements of the personal and communal evolution of the characters. Set against a backdrop of the 1960s—a time of cultural upheaval and musical revolution—the film focuses on the personal struggles and successes of The Four Seasons. For instance, songs like "Sherry" and "Big Girls Don't Cry" resonate with the youthful exuberance and working-class ambitions of the band members, reflecting their hopes and the societal push towards a new musical era that merged pop with personal storytelling. The track "My Eyes Adored You" reflects Frankie Valli's personal losses and his perseverance amidst family tragedies, portraying a deeper social context of personal resilience and commitment, a common theme of the era's socio-cultural fabric. Thus, the film’s songs not only enrich the narrative but also mirror the complex interplay between personal identity and broader societal shifts.

Mira discusses this narrative integration as a staple of successful musicals, highlighting how songs in traditional musicals often serve to express unspoken thoughts or pivotal emotional moments. Though Mira doesn't mention this directly, I find this tactic of musicals to be extremely efficient in advancing timelines without having to explicitly inform the audience of the jump. Similarly, a musical number can encapsulate a wide variety of emotions and plot information, similar to a montage. Jersey Boys employs this technique effectively during sequences like Frankie Valli's rendition of "Can't Take My Eyes Off You," which encapsulates his feelings of triumph and personal turmoil.

How do the historiographies of previously recorded songs inform audience relationships with the musical’s narrative and performers?

The historiography of The Four Seasons' songs plays a crucial role in Jersey Boys by creating a bridge between the audience and the narrative, enhancing the authenticity and emotional engagement. Songs like "Walk Like a Man" and "December, 1963 (Oh, What a Night)" carry with them a historical weight that informs and deepens the audience's understanding of the times and trials the characters endure. These songs, embedded in the cultural memory of many viewers, evoke nostalgia and a sense of realism, making the historical context of the film more relatable and vivid. The familiarity of the music invites the audience into a shared experience, transcending the screen to tap into collective memories and emotions, thereby strengthening the connection to the film's portrayal of the characters and their journey.

Furthermore, the film's narrative structure diverges from the typical linear progression of many musicals. It employs a documentary-style format with characters breaking the fourth wall to address the audience directly which contributes to the historiography. The idea is to include the audience in the storytelling as both makers and viewers reflect on the monumental rise of a beloved American music group. This method adds a layer of meta-narrative commentary, reflecting on the construction of musical mythos itself, which Mira notes as a modernist touch in contemporary musicals.

[SEE 4TH WALL BREAK IN TRAILER ABOVE]

What musical genre/style drives the film’s score, and how does the genre/style (re)define the film as a musical?

Jersey Boys is driven predominantly by the crooner, Doo-Wop, and Rock 'n' Roll styles that characterized the 1960s music scene, particularly influencing the American pop music landscape. This genre choice not only serves to set the period context but also redefines the musical film by integrating biographical and historical realism with the traditional elements of musical theatre. The use of genuine songs from The Four Seasons' catalog, performed in contexts that closely mirror the real-life circumstances under which they were popular, adds a layer of authenticity that is sometimes absent in more stylized musical films. This approach allows Jersey Boys to maintain a foot in the conventional musical genre while also exploring more nuanced, character-driven storytelling, emphasizing the impact of time, place, and societal change on personal and professional lives.

The blend of traditional and innovative elements in Jersey Boys suggests a potential path forward for the Hollywood musical genre, one that respects its roots while evolving to meet contemporary tastes. Mira argues that for musicals to stay relevant, they must adapt by incorporating new styles and addressing modern audiences' expectations, which are more attuned to realism and complexity. I largely agree. I think there is room for the more traditional whimsy of the Hollywood musical if it is housed within more complex themes such as the possibilities we covered in class (humor, delusion, hallucination, satire, etc.).

Jersey Boys demonstrates that the musical genre can successfully incorporate realistic storytelling and complex character development without sacrificing the emotive power of musical performances. The film's ability to appeal to both fans of traditional musicals and new audiences suggests a versatile blueprint for future projects within the genre. The successful integration of music and story, along with a modern narrative approach, may well encourage more filmmakers to explore and innovate within the musical genre, ensuring its survival and relevance in the modern cinematic landscape.

This approach, rooted in the dual adherence to tradition and innovation, not only honors the genre's history but also paves the way for its continued evolution, as discussed by Mira in the broader context of Hollywood musicals adapting to cultural shifts.

[absolutebl]

Hii

Thank you so much for your lists, meta, spreadsheets and so on. I found BL relatively recently but as a queer person who used to watch any queer movie I could get my hands on, it has been amazing. And your blog has helped me to understand BL, tropes, filming techniques/styles, media analysis, recommendations and so forth. Thank you so much for your hard work.

I wanted to ask, I have a friend a recently met that is queer and thought he (is from the US) might like BL. I was thinking in recommending him The new employee or Bad buddy, but wanted to ask you what would you recommend a queer person to first start in BL.

Also, I love Moon Ji Yong and Khaotung's in-love eyes. They're superb. I was wondering if you have a top of your fav in-love eyes of BL.

Again, thank you so much, sending good vibes ✨

Thank you for the compliments! So glad to be helpful!

My favorite love eyes?

Currently? Gongchan - Unintentional Love Story:

what would you recommend a queer person to first start in BL?

I thought I had a post about this but now I can't find it so I'm going to cobble one together for you.

I did do come intro level BL question here, but none of them speak specifically to a queer viewer.

[astoundingbeyondbelief]

Kaiju Week in Review (November 20-26, 2022)

Megumi Odaka, best known as psychic Miki Saegusa from the Heisei Godzilla series, retired from acting in 2000 due to health issues and disappeared from the public eye for a decade. The narration she contributed to Godzilla vs. Gigan Rex was her first role since then, and she's finally ready to go back in front of the camera. 3Y Film (The Great Buddha Arrival, Nezura 1964) has a new kaiju movie in the works, Hoshi 35, which Odaka is set to star in. Since it's a 3Y joint, and part of a celebration of the 35 years since her acting debut, expect it to get meta. As usual, Hiroko Yokokawa is directing; another key player is Daisuke Sato (Howl from Beyond the Fog), who will serve as director of special effects, cinematographer, and suitmaker (with Tomoya Ayaki).

3Y productions are known for bringing back veteran kaiju actors, and Hoshi 35 has already cast several besides Odaka, this time focusing on the Heisei era instead of the Showa era. Jun Hashizume played MOGUERA pilot Koji Shindo in Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla and Kojiro Inaba in Ultraman Z, Daijiro Harada was Mechagodzilla captain Takuya Sasaki in Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II, and Akira Ohashi stepped inside Gamera in Gamera 2, Iris in Gamera 3, and King Ghidorah in GMK. He'll be playing another monster in this one, Hoshikuzu. Hiroshi Miyasaka and Yumiko Tanaka will appear as well.

No plot details are currently known. The film is aiming for a October 2023 release date.

Gridman Universe, the crossover film for SSSS.GRIDMAN and SSSS.DYANZENON, has a new pair of posters and a teaser trailer. It'll hit theaters in Japan on March 24 (and hopefully arrive in the West before the year is out). Excessive fanservice aside, I really enjoyed GRIDMAN, but haven't gotten around to DYNAZENON yet... it aired in Spring 2021, which was a pretty chaotic time to be a Wikizilla editor, and I think I was under the impression it was all mecha, no kaiju. Guess I have to now!

Veteran Ultra Series director Takeshi Yagi debuted a proof-of-concept short at Tokyo Comic Con called AKARI, which you can also watch online. The story is simple—a giant heroine (Akari) battles a rampaging cyborg kaiju (Pythagodon) in a futuristic, neon city—but Yagi and company have far greater ambitions for it. They created it as part of a course on tokusatsu techniques, and hope to turn it into a feature or series with the funds from that course, as well as other crowdfunding efforts. The story they've drawn up is pretty intriguing: a 2076 Japan where corporations run amok, the AI uprising is at hand, and an alien race who survived their own rogue AI empowers a woman to save the Earth.

Matt Frank designed Akari. Akihiko Iguchi (Mechagodzilla, King Caesar, Titanosaurus) came up with Pythagodon, and boy, you can tell. I hope we haven't seen the last of them.

One more kaiju short for you to watch: Ivalla the Land Mine Monster: Case of Extra. This one is in more dire need of subtitles to get the full experience, but there's still a quality rampage to witness. From the other videos on the channel, Yuki Kurosu has been working on this for 8 years—props for persevering!

Godziban squeezed another episode out of Godzilla Festival 2022, this one focusing on the puppet displays and demonstrations at the event and the upcoming Blu-ray-only episodes which will see Bagan make his debut and many others battling it out.

Kadokawa released a fine video tribute to Gamera for his 57th birthday, which naturally ends by teasing the Netflix project. Interesting that they skipped over the 2015 short though.

Your reading assignment for the week is Patrick Galvan's excellent tribute to Kazuki Omori for Toho Kingdom, a well-researched overview of his career and analysis of the two Godzilla films he directed.

[bonebrokebuddy]

You ever think about how in DC, it wouldn’t make much sense to have super developed CGI for movies and practical effects would be more widely used?

Like, most shots that would need to be done via CGI in our universe could be done practically in the dcu. Especially when we began developing early CGI it would be important because there would not have been as big a push or even as big a need to advance CGI to the point where it is today for us. Especially with the comic book tech that people can make & superpowers.

Not to mention people with specific meta abilities would be highly sought out in the film industry.

For example:

In the beginning of CGI being used for fluid dynamics, large realistic CGI water scenes took an absolute shit ton of mathematics, rendering time, and a ridiculous amount of money. They were complicated to do, took a long time and again, it was expensive. Really, really expensive. So, big shots of digital water were done only for big monumental scenes that the director wanted a big impact in or had a lot of significance. Otherwise, unless there was an absolute need for a large digital water shot and they had a massive budget, scenes like that wouldn’t even come across directors minds as at the time, it simply wasn’t feasible. 

So, what would a good solution to doing a massive water scene in, let’s say, the 70s in the DCU? The answer: Do it practically. It’d not only be cheaper but would take far less time and effort. Honestly, the hardest thing would be finding metas with the specific abilities needed.

So, for that water scene hire 50 metas (my headcannon is that most metas don’t have very strong or flashy abilities. so you’d need a Lot of people for something like this.) that together can choreograph & move the water in the way needed for the shot.

But because hiring someone to make a device or via using metas can achieve the effects wanted, the film industry would continue to rely on doing effects that would, in our world, need to be done with CGI but to them can be done with gadgets and superpowers. And while our CGI programs progressed and made breakthroughs, in DC there would be less stress on developing such tech as it wasn’t needed nearly as often. As a result, it would become semi-standard to hire metas for certain types of practical effects. Hell, it would probably become more expensive to hire metas for these effects as time went on as big blockbuster movies would go on to make these insane, before impossible to make scenes using metas’ abilities. The practice would fall in & out of use as metas would fall in and out of public opinion as politics and history continued in the DCU but it would definitely remain a cemented practice in filmmaking.

Anyways, it would mean that metas with specific abilities that favor certain practical effects would be sought after in the film industry.

For example of abilities sought and why:

- minor weather control: for… weather control. Also, who needs to spray a set full of asbestos snow when a guy can come over & make it snow over your set to have it be more natural. Or even better, just have a snow gun in the prop department you can use for winter scenes.

- telekinesis: imagine the camera techniques that would be developed due to being able to hold and move a camera via telekinesis, that’s actually sick

- element control based abilities: so much shit. Especially earth based because they would be able to rearrange a landscape. Water: who needs to cgi blood & gore when you have a meta that’s bursting blood packets with chunks of meat in them?

- guns, gadgets, and gizmos: I like to imagine that there is this almost monopoly over props and tech that have advanced tech for people to rent out for filmmaking. Like, as mentioned before, a snow gun for winter scenes. Or, an intangibility ring so an actor can get “stabbed” but not actually get hurt. Etc.

- pyrotechnics/demolition: it’s Hollywood, they love that shit. people with the ability to explode things without having to pay for explosives plus a meta with telekinesis to direct the blast of the explosion safely would be amazing. People with pyrotechnic or demolition abilities would probably need a license to practice safely.

- shapeshifting: body doubles, great for comedies, stunt acting, injury scenes (need an actor to have their hand blown off? No need for prosthetics when there’s a guy that can suddenly have no hand. They could be an extra in every scene and nobody would notice that they’re the same person. 

Also there’d probably eventually be an incident in film where a shapeshifter changed their face to look like a famous actor or a political figure or smth & thought it would be fine but it made a massive uproar and resulted in laws that shapeshifters cannot impersonate real people in media without credit to the person being imitated & their consent with a lot of paperwork necessary.

- acrobatic abilities, fighting, strength, speed: stunt actor.

- control or speak to animals or plants: would help a Lot in skipping some of the effort to train animals for a role.

I just thought it would be cool to consider that due to the metagene and comic book tech existing, certain technology, like CGI & visual effects would develop at a different rate due to most effects being able to be made practically in live-action films. 

[nellie-elizabeth]

Bob's Burgers: Fraud of the Dead: Zombie-docu-pocalypse (14x09)

Okay... this had to have been an episode planned for closer to the end of October, right? So weird how the episodes have been scheduled!

Cons:

Nothing much to complain about, this was great spooky ridiculous fun! The one thing that was a little odd was that the conceit of this scenario is that Gene and Tina don't know Louise, that they are just a documentary crew, and then there were times later in the episode where they continued to reference that they don't know each other. Like, at the end, Tina calls Bob and Linda "your parents" when talking to Louise, as if she's still being the documentary crew and not herself. That feels like a bit of a muddled premise to me, I would have loved to do a bit more with it.

Pros:

On the other hand, maybe I should eat my words and say that the muddled premise ultimately added to the comedy: I love how high-concept Louise's idea for a movie was, that it starts off as a documentary and then becomes about a zombie apocalypse, so the artifice is that it's a project that gets interrupted by something and that becomes the focus. The end scene with the family reacting was a great capstone, because suddenly when you realize that Louise actually wrote and produced this whole thing, the scope and talent on display is kind of crazy. She got her whole family and so many other people involved, and did it all with nothing other than a couple of cameras being held by her siblings, who also had acting roles in the story.

There are certain things that become more funny when you realize that this whole thing is in fact scripted, like Bob being really reluctant to disassemble the restaurant, but then caving to it because... "this is a zombie apocalypse..." or Linda telling the kids when they go upstairs on their own to keep filming the movie while they hold off the zombies downstairs, "don't go in my room".

I also loved the dedication of Andy, Ollie, Jimmy Jr., Rudy, Mort, and Teddy in their performances, it was so fun to see them all go full-tilt and support Louise in her creative endeavor. There's something honestly heartwarming about this scenario, because it's so ridiculous but we get to see how much of a community these people have built; they'll all show up for each other to help with creativity and fun.

A few stand-out jokes for me:

Rudy saying "it's okay" and "I don't want to be remembered as a complainer" as he's being eaten by zombies was so funny and so in character. It made me wonder if Louise had written that line for him because she knows Rudy so well, or if that was improv on his part.

Same with Tina talking about editing techniques and her "vision" for the project as she realizes she's probably about to be eaten. Is that Tina's artistic integrity, or Louise's writing for how Tina's documentary film crew character would speak? I love the ambiguity of that.

The song was another comedy highlight for me; the meta jokes where Tina asks Louise why she's singing in this documentary, and then the song getting cut off... the fact that this was a joke that Louise wrote into her movie in-universe, as part of her character arc regarding learning how to be an archer... it's all so funny and cute.

I love Louise, so no surprise an episode like this, where she gets to be her zany, creative self, and also go through a bit of a journey of self-discovery, really works for me!

9/10

[jughead-is-canonically-aroace]

omg thank u for introducing me to the term kuleshov effect, that is my favorite aspect of fan edits it makes me go insane

it's so fucking cool, i was actually gonna make a video essay for a final project (before i realized that i don't know how to use a video editor + other problems befouled me) comparing two movies illustrating the connections and the contrasts i was making using the kuleshov effect, which would have pretty much just straightup been an amv using songs from one of the movies.

it's part of why a good gifset is one of my favorite kinds of fandom meta - clips from x episode paired with clips from y later episode, etc - like !!!!! you're making a connection and holding it up for me to look at directly so i can then make that connection myself purely through the juxtaposition!!!!!!!! that's so cool!!!!!!!!

like, look at this

you see what i'm saying??? the meaning comes from the interraction of the paired gifs/lines

or this one

which does like, angle or lighting comparison in addition to the contrast in emotion - shot comparison! match shots! et cetera!

like, the meaning here isn't coming from the caption, i don't see that until later, it's coming from seeing these visuals & dialogue juxtaposed and interpreting something from the decision to pair them. that's video essay

but like to get back to videos and amvs and the kuleshov effect and soviet montage in general - look at this supernatural amv. i've never seen supernatural but this is one of my favorite songs by the mountain goats, and there are lines in it that were put in a completely new perspective for me by watching this amv and seeing what shots the editor put under which lines

soviet montage is a style that developed pretty much in direct response to western/hollywood continuity editing, and specifically in response to the film birth of a nation, which was interesting to the soviet filmmakers in the way that they saw the style of filmmaking aided the film in selling the story of the KKK to the american audience

continuity editing stylistically wants to be noticed as little as possible, and guide you along the viewing of the movie, blurring the lines between your reality and the reality of the film (the idea of the suspension of disbelief) through things that mimic the real life experience of moving throug the world - shot-to-shot things like showing the exterior of the building and then the interior, keeping the camera within the same 180 degrees in a single scene so the people you're filming aren't suddenly on different sides of the camera (the viewer); and scene-to-scene things like having events occur chronologically (and if not, having a clear indication of flashback or flash forward as per filmmaking convention)

the soviet filmmakers saw this as like, some capitalist propaganda bullshit because it encouraged you to take in these ideas without necessarily thinking or critically examining them, and so it was very easy to make the KKK the heroes by just building a triumphant narrative around them, and how that narrative is shown to the viewer depends on how it's edited

and so montage editing, which is rising out of the same school of filmmaking as the kuleshov effect, is in direct response to that, to try and find a style of editing that makes the viewer pay attention to the techniques and to the fact that they're watching a film, keeps their brain engaged, and has them draw their own conclusions from what they're shown rather than being gently handed the conclusions by the film. so it's a style that is built on inviting thought and critique, and therefore a pretty natural style for expressing audiovisual critique and analysis

(amvs also have their roots in this style bc soviet filmmakers were often working with recutting american films rather than filming their own due to lack of funds for purchasing film. which is pretty cool)

if you wanna check out a cool classic example of soviet montage editing, vertov's man with a movie camera (1hr) is really fun, kind of a "day in the life" but also a display of different effects you can get by using a film camera in different ways, bit of stop motion, etc

(vertov is also a really interesting, he coined the idea of kino-eye, which is about the way that the camera looks at the world and how that's different from how a human eye looks at the world, and also, the way the world reacts or changes in response to being looked at by the camera. which is Pretty Relevant Right Now I'd Say! glares at tiktok. glares at surveilence state. anyway you might wanna check that out too it's a bit tangental to the topic but still relevant in terms of the idea of film as unique medium which can be used to express ideas differently than the written word)

[tvmicroscope]

Hi! Thank you ever so much for sharing your metaphor analytics. I feel like I'm seeing YR in a completely few light after having read them.

I want to ask you (but feel no pressure to reply), if you have any thoughts on verbal foretelling based on sarcasm, fears or simply being hideous wrong. I don't even know what's it technically called. But what I mean is a lot of the stuff that August spew in at least the early episodes of S1 are foreshadowing stuff that will happen to him ("Don't use the school WiFi..., You could kill someone and...) and my personal favourite "Do we want the future king..). So my question is there are some pretty evident lines that foreshadowing events - have you seen some more subtle and systematic usage of this technique throughout S1 and S2?

Actually there is one particular line by Rosh in S1 that I think foreshadows something about Simon, that is "Where are you going?". I really love that line and the ensuing dialogue.

Hey, I really, really have to apologize for replying to your kind ask so very late. I have a huge backlog when it comes to messages and comments right now. Everyone is so lovely and kind, but I can barely keep up with it all. I have a feeling that I will have to take a bit of a tumblr break (and break from other social media platforms, as well) because I can’t do both: write my analysis posts on my blog AND keep interacting on other platforms. I'll have to choose one, and that's going to the writing itself.

Anyway, I know this is no excuse for being so embarrassingly late, but I hope you’ll forgive me for the delay because I do actually find it so very encouraging and motivating when people like you say nice things about my little blog project. It really helps me and keeps me focused, so thank you for letting me know you enjoy the close-reading analysis I’m doing on the show. I’m surprised and a bit exhilarated to find out how many people tell me they’re seeing the whole show in a new light. It’s all very, very much appreciated.

As for your question…

Yes, I totally agree with and I think you are absolutely right: Looking at throw-away lines is very important when analyzing a ‘text’ (be it a novel, play, TV show, film, etc.). When a writer sits down to write a screenplay, they obviously don’t just come up with funny lines (or sarcastic or angry lines, for that matter) to fill the page. Usually, they will try to make sure the line in question is connected to the deeper theme of their ‘text’. Everything in their ‘text’ has to fulfil a purpose, i.e. either drive the plot forward or be plugged in into the broader network of metaphorical subtext.

One of the things we have to keep in mind, though, is the fact that not every line in a ‘text’ is necessarily a metaphorical line. There are lines that are just plain text, so to speak.

In essence, you end up with two types of throw-away lines:

1) Lines on the literal level (the textual layer=plot) that have ONE meaning (even if, at that point in the story, that meaning is still obscure to us, i.e. if the line serves the purpose of foreshadowing future events).

2) Lines that operate on both the literal level (textual layer) AND a subtextual level (metaphorical layer underneath) and thus have TWO different (sometimes divergent) meanings; they can even have three different meanings, when the meta-level is involved.

Let me give you an example: August’s line in s1 during the initiation party that you mentioned in your ask about being able to ‘murder somebody here without it ever coming out’ (I’m paraphrasing). That line is most likely a case of type 1. from our list above, i.e. it operates on the literal level of the script even if we assume it foreshadows some future revelation that we don't yet know anything about. It’s not a line that’s plugged into a metaphor. It’s not metaphorical subtext; it’s text.

If August were to proceed to murder (or try to murder) someone later on. Or alternatively get killed himself. Or if we were find out that somebody else was murdered and it was covered it up, then that would give us a resolution, explain to us why the line was said in the first place and what surprising revelation exactly it was foreshadowing.

This line is however (most likely) not a metaphor. In a metaphor something else represents the concept you’re trying to allude to. Just to give you an example: When Wilhelm in episode two of season one tells Simon in the boat to ‘keep the strokes close to the surface of the water, so as not to expend too much energy’, this is clearly a metaphorical line (type 2. from our list above) because it clearly has two meanings: the literal one (rowing advice) and the metaphorical one (rather dumb and conservative relationship advice). And we instantly see that it’s a metaphor because one thing (rowing) represents another thing (feelings/relationships), one concept stands in for another one.

This is most likely not the case with the ‘murder someone’ line: Here one thing (murdering someone) literally means that same thing (murdering someone). It’s (most likely) not a metaphor; it’s not metaphorical subtext; it’s just text – even if the meaning of the text is currently obscure to us because the show isn’t yet finished.

Why am I telling you all of this (you’re probably bored just reading it because you know all of this already :D)…

Because what I’m mainly concentrating on in my metaphor posts on my substack blog is the metaphorical subtext, i.e. the metaphorical lines, the type 2. lines, so to speak. I sometimes use plain textual lines (type 1 lines) as evidence when I think they are somehow connected to a broader point I’m trying to make or reinforce an argument I’m making, but I don’t really discuss them in and of themselves.

Mainly because, with a line that still hasn’t revealed its meaning to us because it’s obscure at this point in the story, I just don’t really know what to do with it. We can speculate what it means (which is always interesting, of course), but ultimately we don’t know. It’s fun. But if it’s not connected to the metaphorical subtext, I will probably not write about it in and of itself.

Now, as for the Rosh’s line that you mentioned (and thank you again for reminding me, my brain is like a sieve sometimes), that one arguably straddles the boundary between text and subtext, between type 1 line and type 2 line: Rosh, Ayub and Simon are pretty much talking figuratively already at that point, i.e. when Rosh says, “Where are you going?” she isn't asking whether Simon is literally leaving the room, this is meant figuratively (‘where are you going in life?’). It clearly foreshadows Simon’s path that’ll lead him away from Bjärstad not just as a place, but away from the narrow confines of his working class upbringing. So far the line is not a metaphor yet (there isn’t one concept that stands in for another one like, say, ‘water’ for feelings, or a ‘suitcase’ for a burdensome role, or ‘music’ for love, or the ‘ear’ for the heart, etc.). But it’s definitely meant to be understood figuratively. So far it has had only a tragic meaning (Simon only ‘went viral’ in the context of a crime that was committed against his privacy), but when it comes to leaving Bjärstad and the confines of his working class upbringing behind, I could very well see this at some point mean something along the lines of: going to university or study music at a conservatory - something often frowned upon in a milieu with a working-class background (the age-old, “What do you need that highfalutin' stuff for? Learn a trade like everyone else in the family!”). I still have a tiny hope that, “Where are you going?” might mean the famous Verbier Music Festival. If Simon gets at least an invitation in the mail and that’s the third time Verbier is mentioned (in a much more positive light than before), I would be over the moon.

Ultimately, it’s again a line that can foreshadow a lot of things, but it’s (probably) not meant to be understood entirely metaphorically, which is also why I most likely won’t discuss it on the blog itself where I’ll try to stick strictly to the metaphors.Does that make any sense?

I feel I’ve written too much, but I hope that makes up at least a little bit for the long delay.

Thank you again for your kind words, and you’re always welcome to read more on the blog. Even if I take a tumblr break, I will keep posting a new article every week (usually on the weekend).

All the best!

[shraviya]

Repurposing Existing Content for SEO: Using It to Boost Rankings

An Overview of Repurposing Content Content is king in the digital world, but producing new content on a regular basis can take a lot of time and resources. This is when reusing content becomes relevant. Repurposing old content entails changing its format or repackaging it to make it more accessible to new audiences and prolong its shelf life. By repurposing your existing content assets, you may increase their value instead of beginning from scratch every time. Content repurposing is an affordable means to improve your content strategy and increase your search engine optimization efforts. It can involve converting blog entries into podcasts, films, infographics, or guides, or gathering pre-existing content into full guides or eBooks.

Advantages of SEO Repurposing material can save time and resources while also offering significant benefits for Digital Marketing and SEO. Repurposing your content into new formats and distributing it across a range of media can increase its visibility and reach. By targeting different long-tail keywords and phrases, repurposing also improves your website's organic search exposure.

Additionally, carefully repurposing material can increase social media shares and backlinks, two important search engine ranking variables. In general, content repurposing boosts the effectiveness of your search engine optimization (SEO) campaigns by boosting the authority of your website in search engine results pages, boosting traffic, and improving content relevancy.

Evaluating Your Content Doing a comprehensive inventory of your current material is crucial before you begin reusing it. Start by classifying your material according to performance metrics, audience fit, and relevancy to your current objectives and target audience. Determine the best-performing articles, timeless material, and subjects that could be explored further. To determine the level of interest in your audience, pay attention to engagement indicators like time on page, social shares, and page views. Through a thorough assessment of your content library, you may identify potential repurposing opportunities and efficiently allocate resources to optimize impact and relevance.

Identifying Possibilities Finding possible repurposing options is the next step after evaluating your content collection. Seek for content that can be built upon to cover relevant topics in greater detail or that works well across a variety of forms. Think about the formats that best suit your content objectives and connect with your target audience. Analyze audience questions, comments, and feedback as well to identify areas that require more research or explanation.

Adapting Techniques Repurposing content entails changing its format to increase its visibility in search results and appeal to a wider audience. Written content can be transformed into infographics or other visual representations, or it can be adapted for new media like podcasts or videos. Compiling relevant materials into a comprehensive resource is another function of roundup posts and content compilations. Maintaining the relevance of evergreen material requires regular updates. You may efficiently cater to a wide range of audience tastes, optimize your content for several platforms, and extend its longevity by implementing these tactics.

Techniques for SEO Optimization Using efficient Search Engine Optimization(SEO) strategies is essential when repurposing material. To target suitable terms, start by conducting keyword research. Use keywords to enhance headers, meta descriptions, and titles. To increase authority, deliberately use both internal and external linkages. Incorporate descriptive text to maximize multimedia features as well. You may increase the exposure of your content and draw in organic traffic by implementing these strategies.

Distribution on Social Media Make thoughtful use of social media channels to increase the visibility of recycled material. Find and target platforms that are popular with your audience. Create enticing images and captions to promote interaction. Posts should be timed for maximum visibility, and material should be modified to suit the particulars of each platform. You may increase the reach of reused material and increase traffic to your website by strategically distributing it on social media.

Tracking Outcomes Monitor data for repurposed material such as website traffic, engagement, and conversions on a constant basis. Analyze audience behavior using analytics tools, then modify your strategy accordingly. To assess performance, keep an eye on social media analytics, backlinks, and search engine rankings. You can improve tactics and future content efforts by analyzing results on a regular basis and applying data-driven insights.

By optimizing already-existing content assets, content repurposing is a powerful strategy for improving search engine optimization (SEO) performance. By means of methodical repurposing and optimization, it is possible to increase visibility, draw in fresh audiences, and enhance search engine results. Ongoing success is ensured by keeping an eye on outcomes and modifying tactics in response to new information. Accept content repurposing to maximize the value of your material and improve search engine optimization (SEO) campaigns.

[doorbloggr]

Artists and Violins

Media Recommendations #42

Sunday 18/12/22

Content:

Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken (anime)

World's Smallest Violin (song)

It's almost Christmas, which means the school year is winding down and I have more free time to enjoy media. Expect at least one more Media Recommendation this year before Christmas.

Anime and animation in general are often misunderstood areas of media. What goes into the planning, storyboarding, and backgrounds? How is sound approached, and how do you pair it to the imagery? Hands Off Eizouken is a fairly meta series about how anime is made, but also about business and artistic minds. My enjoyment of anime these past few years and of being an artist meant I HAD to recommend this series.

I also want to recommend a song by AJR called World's Smallest Violin. I've been in an introspective mood lately, especially on my mental state and self-esteem. And this song tells a great message about the millennial struggle of sweating over the small stuff, which boomers will call us snowflakes over.

So with that intro, onto the recommendations.

Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken!

Science SARU/ Sumito Õwara

Pitch

Asakusa Midori is a highschool freshman and a big anime buff. Asakusa believes anime is all about setting and concepts. She has a wild imagination and gets lost in her own worlds, which she details in her sketchbooks. She is grounded by her friend Sayaka Kanamori, a realist sort who has a mind for money making. Kanamori and Asakusa meet a student model named Tsubame Mizusaki, who is big into anime technique, especially character animations and anatomy.

Midori wants to join the Anime club, but her eccentricty over detail has socially isolated her. Tsubame and Midori bond over their love for animation, and share their ideas with each other. With Tsubame's skill in character design and anatomy, and Midori's skill in concept and settings, they discover they have the skills to make their own animations, and with Kanamori's connections and business know-how, they would be able to start their own club, "Eizouken", or the "film studies club".

We follow the journey of the girls as they go through the processes of designing a world, and then a story. From storyboard to key frames, to full animations. But Anime is not just animation, the importance of outsourcing other processes through other school clubs, such as backgrounds, sound design, music, voice actors, and funding. And although Kanamori does not have any skills or interest relevant to animation, without her negotiations with these other resources, and a level head to push the others towards the deadline, the club would definitely have fallen apart.

My Thoughts

As an artist and general fan of weaboo culture, I gotta say I appreciate series that give a behind the scenes to the processes of it all. But while My Dress-Up Darling was a focus on fans of anime, Hands-Off Eizouken offers a focus on the types of struggles creators must endure.

I might do some more comparisons of series here, but I feel a good contrast is K-On! K-On is about the struggle of an artist (here a musician, Yui) on their journey to be good in their medium, and how her mesh with the others in the group obstruct the band from success and notoriety. Hands-Off Eizouken presents a group that are already very good at what they do, the struggle is putting those skills together, and a much greater focus on reaching the audience.

The school band in K-On never really have to struggle to reach their audience, and the only places where balance matters is Yui's attention span having to battle guitar practice and school studies. In Hands-Off, since Kanamori is such a realist of a character, the grim reality of anime is put in scorching spot-light. Anime is time-sensitive, so animation tricks have to be deployed such as long wide shots, looping movements, flipping and rotating frames, and smears, in order for the projects to be finished in time. It is Kanamori that suggests taking on other artists and sound engineers to take the workload off the main animators, and she makes sure that corners are cut where possible so that they have something to show when the deadline hits.

Anime is not about individual frames, it is about the whole at the end. Sometimes scenes have to be cut, animations have to reworked for the resources available. And most importantly, if nobody knows about the project, all the work may as well have been for naught. Advertisement is important.

Hands-Off Eizouken is a very important series that I think any artist should watch. Not just animators, but anyone who wants to pursue art seriously. The characters are endearing, the animation is amazing, the soundtrack is fun, and the series comes together as a whole. Because every moving piece is important. Please watch it.

World's Smallest Violin

AJR

AJR is an indie pop trio, three brothers with an overall upbeat tone and penchant for mixing genres to great effect. The first song I heard of theirs was "I'm Ready", a groovy motivational beat that sampled a line from Spongebob Squarepant ("I'm Ready" obviously) as it's central motif.

Admittedly I hadn't kept up with AJR beyond this song for a long time, but I recently heard a newer song of theirs called "World's Smallest Violin", and after my own emotional turmoil I've been through this year, I thought it a good a time as any to recommend this song to others.

First, musically, it is a really fun sounding song. It sort of has a Country undertone, but at the same time has the pace of Big Band, that come seamlessly together with acoustic clapping and the aforementioned Violin.

But lyrically is it is a less happy song, but it's not a sad song. More like a cry of desperation and a call to arms for confidence. Another call to Spongebob here, the World's Smallest Violin is a mocking call of pity. Oh boo hoo, let me play a song on the world's smallest violin. It is a mocking phrase meant to belittle insignificant problems. And the verses of this song are about explaining how "bigger" people in your own life have dealt with issues bigger than any you've had to deal with.

Although human society has progressed in a way that means that life is easier for newer generations, boomers will often try to sell this as a bad thing. But without trying to sound too snooty here, according to Maslow's Hierachy of Needs, the human experience is about securing basal needs so that more specific and intricate personal problems can be addressed. So yeah zoomers and millenials have more personal problems to deal with, but they're not insignificant.

The bridge of World's Smallest Violin explains that although:

"Next to them, my shit dont feel so grand/ But I can't help myself from feeling bad/ I kinda feel like two things can be sad".

Just because it's a different or "smaller" problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem.

The final part of the chorus goes:

"The world's smallest violin/ Really needs an audience/ So if I do not find somebody soon/ I'll blow up into smithereens/ And spew my tiny symphony/ Just let me play my violin for you."

Even if it is a problem that only the World's Smallest Violin is needed to play for, we need an audience. Someone to comfort us, someone to at least LISTEN. Because much of the struggle today's youth have with mental illness is because parents and carers do not recognise them as problems. The issues are repressed, the stresses increase tenfold and everything becomes worse.

Sure people before us have fought in wars, and conquered technologies, created the foundations for modern infrastructure, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems anymore. We've worked on the big things, so now we need to work on the small things. And it starts with listening to the world's smallest violin.

It's a good song that tells a good message. Give it a listen.

[ferusaurelius]

I've been reading your ofmd meta. It's amazing! How did you learn to figure all that stuff out?

Thank you for the ask!

There are two distinct questions here:

What makes OFMD a compelling ground for media and critical (meta) analysis?

What’s the critical basis I’m using in writing meta analysis and how did I learn to use it the way I do?

Why Write Meta Analysis of “Our Flag Means Death”?

The first question is easy: THERE IS SO MUCH TO UNPACK HERE. It’s all right out in the open, too, and it’s a real credit to David Jenkins that he created a supportive environment for the cast, the creative directors, the writers, and his entire CREW to bring all of their creative selves. 

OFMD is so full of love for its characters and story that it always takes my breath away whenever I think about it. So much creative energy and love was wrapped into this show in so many ways that I’ll never shut up about it ever.

The second question has a longer answer.

Analytical Training, Experience, and Practice (Not Necessarily In That Order)

While I am formally trained and have a BA in English, I would still credit my experience as a writer-practitioner as equally or more important in my analytical background as the formal training.

I am first and foremost a writer, and I “read” texts like a writer who wants to figure out what makes a narrative function. Learning how something is working is fundamental to being able to replicate it in your own artwork.

The simplest term for what I use as a framework for all my meta is a technique historically called close reading, but I’d openly admit that I am more flexible and informal with it than you’d find taught in a typical college class! 

Think of a “reading” in literature or film/media analysis as a bit like what a study or practice sketch does for visual artists.

When I was writing my meta post on The Tragedy of Israel Hands, I very explicitly decided to tackle OFMD and what was happening with Izzy by breaking down the show into episode-by-episode readings from Izzy’s point of view. 

I also chose to add some extra spice based on direct scene transcriptions, mentions of Izzy by-name even when he wasn’t on-screen, and what was happening for him as a character (what was his story?) vs. the obvious romance that was happening for Edward and Stede in the foreground.

David Jenkins had helpfully stated in an interview that OFMD was broken up into acts, so I just followed his lead on doing the same in my analysis. ;) He’d also suggested doing a rewatch with a focus on Con O’Neill and I was intrigued by the possibility of what I might find.

Turned out? Con managed to fit an actual three-act tragedy into the same visual and narrative space (albeit in the background) as Rhys and Taika acting the main romance in the foreground! This is fucking incredible in my opinion. Con’s narrative counterpoint with Izzy adds so much depth and richness to the romance and the comedy. I could chew glass over it (and I did! hence the post).

I firmly believe that ANYONE can do a good and detailed textual reading (with or without formal training), so here’s my quick(?) breakdown of how that works for me in the hope that it will inspire you and others to try your hand!

The best way to get good at analysis is to practice. Analyze, analyze, analyze! Write, write, write! Create in whatever way makes sense to your brain and energizes you to explore how you think about what you love. You don’t even have to publish/share the results. It can just be for you if you want.

As usual, only do what works for you. 

If there’s a thought or a step that you want to skip? Skip it. Do what you want. Create and write meta! Enrich the OFMD fandom with your own readings. :D

Ferus-Style Close Reading Guide

Goal: Break things down to build a detailed, text-supported understanding of a creative product (story, episode, play, film, painting, etc.). You can do this whenever you’re interested in something and feel like spending more time with it as a method of learning more and deeply appreciating a work of art.

Pick a moment in the text (show, fanfic, story, etc.) that interests you.

Interest is crucial! Think about why you’re interested. Sit with the text a bit.

Take extensive notes on what’s happening. You can also use another method you prefer like outlining, grabbing screencaps, or some combination to record and organize your first impressions and thoughts.

This serves as a record of where you started.

Don’t necessarily try to interpret right away, but DO decide for yourself what you think is happening in a moment or a particular scene. This can be as short as a single line of text or a few seconds of interaction in a TV episode or film. Trust yourself! The best art, by and large, does what it does in plain sight and will repeat or reinforce the significant themes and symbols.

Hold off on interpretation to allow yourself time to develop a good understanding of what has actually taken place in the text. Plenty of professional critics are weak at this step and jump straight into reshaping events to fit their thesis and interpretation rather than reading “out of” a text. It’s not necessarily bad (and there are techniques that use this sort of interpretation), but it’s really not where I’m coming from.

Break down your favorite scenes into as many moments (or points of focus) as are likely to be relevant to your analysis. If you’re working with a specific character, focus on their actions or their scenes (or other ‘by name’ references when they’re not on-screen). If the focus is a motif (a visual element), try to figure out what its appearance or framing is accomplishing when it is present. How do other characters react to it or introduce it? How do these interactions “read” to you? Again, what is happening?

This is the focusing step that typically tells me where the rest of my analysis is going. At this point I usually have an idea of what I’m seeing when it’s either reinforced by one or more sequential scenes (reinforced) or dropped and sidelined in an interesting way.

Take a step back and think about how the moment you’re analyzing is ‘working.’ What does it do? What purpose does this story beat or moment serve? Why is it happening in this moment, at this specific time, and what important features of character, setting, or story are happening? What are the consequences that follow?

I can’t stress consequences enough! Actions having consequences is a fundamental element of a well-structured narrative. The narrative consequences for a character or a plotline are one of the things that is MOST controlled by authorial choice. Do these consequences fit in with the theme you’ve noticed? Why or why not? Whatever is happening here is usually some of the most interesting elements of the narrative (if they’re present). 

Write down your initial guesses about the answers the questions above. Or answer a few of your own questions in a first pass. Theorize!

Now that you’ve considered the individual moments, scenes, or elements and taken a stab at the larger emergent themes it’s time to mash them together into a coherent picture (what are YOU seeing?). How are you seeing this text?

Keep repeating the process above for other surrounding scenes (the context) or moments relevant to your analysis.

YMMV with repetition. A longer analysis takes more repetition. A shorter or more contained analysis may only go through this process once. Again -- no one person will see the same scene the same way as another! Everyone has a valuable perspective to contribute.

Theorize once again after stringing the analytical moments together and connecting them -- what new ideas occur to you once you’ve chewed over the “small” interesting bits separately? Does a pattern begin to emerge? Why or why not?

You can learn as much from figuring out your first impressions were wrong (and looking again to see what’s ACTUALLY happening) as you will from being “right” the first time. Enjoy the experience!

You can learn almost as much from absence as from presence. While that may sound cryptic at first, glaring absences when characters or significant elements are NOT present are just as important in their own way, and may help you discover other themes in the same text. Strategic absences are MUCH more difficult to identify without careful attention. They’ll be obvious when you begin to look for them (which is the fun bit).

“Establishing” shots (introductions, first/last shots, first/last words) are always important.

Repeated and reinforced themes are generally stronger indications that a particular symbol or motif is significant. Looking for repetition or apparently deliberate call-backs to previous episodes, comments, scenes, or character relationships are often where the most fruitful opportunities for analysis are located.

Write up your general conclusions based on what you’ve learned from your smaller (close) bite-size readings and why you believe they’re significant along with how they’re functioning. If you observe a theme or pattern, focus your writing on how that pattern is built up and the evidence you found to support that conclusion.

And you’re done! Or whatever process you prefer is finished. For now. ;)

-

The most important element in my analytical process is close attention to the different on-screen choices (in framing, acting, and dialogue) that I’m seeing in a particular episode. 

I take extensive notes on what’s happening, sometimes by recording transcripts of the dialogue and often through watching and re-watching a scene of particular interest.

To continue with my example meta, The Tragedy of Israel Hands was based on rewatching OFMD with a focus on what was happening to Izzy in both the foreground and the background, with these questions in mind: 

What would this story arc appear to be from Izzy’s perspective?

What extent was that interpretation supported by: each character’s arc, the framing of various shots, and the choices and tone throughout the context of Con O’Neill’s overall performance of this character?

Was there a narrative thread linking together Izzy Hands’s story as a contrast to Edward and Stede’s foreground romance?

And now you have the meta on the meta. METACEPTION. -is shot-

You probably didn’t want an answer this long, dear asker, but regrettably I Am Just Like This.

[antiphotogenicfilmographer]

participatory vs reflexive documentary mode

this week, i will be discussing the reflexive and participatory mode of documentary. unfortunately, i was absent for a lot of my classes recently because of various illnesses, but i am doing okay now. the only reason i mention it is because i was unable to watch more documentaries within these modes of documentary. however, i still did the reading and understand these subjects rather well.

both reflexive mode and participatory mode are rather similar in practice, but are different in subject and application. they both consist of the filmmaker participating directly in the filmmaking, affecting what the subjects say and how everything comes across on camera; however where participatory mode focuses on a subject outside of filmmaking, the reflexive mode takes this all a step further, examining not just a particular subject but the very practice of filmmaking itself. interestingly enough, one documentary can be both reflexive and participatory.

such is the case with the previously discussed french film chronicle of a summer. chronicle of a summer has a focus outside of its filmmaking, life in france during the summertime, but the reflexive aspects of the film are of equal importance and consist of a similar runtime as the scenes discussing life. one notable participatory techniques chronicle of a summer uses is the interview, specifically the street interview. a clip of this can be seen in the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL6xHgxw9OY what is particularly interesting about this scene is that before its appearance in the film, a largely reflexive purpose of the film is established. the filmmakers talk to their subject about her part in the film and what their plans and intent for it is, they then send her out to conduct interviews. this discussion can be scene under the following link, among other clips and explanation undercut with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxk-fg771r8 the discussion can be seen at the 0:40 timestamp.

a notable example of a film that is participatory but not reflexive is supersize me, in which the filmmaker puts himself through an experiment to prove a point about the danger of mcdonald’s portion sizes. there is no meta commentary about filmmaking itself, but a critique of american fast food chain’s lack of care concerning human life and health. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9__23-zjhM

as far as reflexive documentaries that aren’t participatory, it is a bit harder to distinguish; however, the film surname viet given name nam does not focus much on its filmmaker, but its filmmaking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjkuTAWQ2-E the film makes it clear that the documentary is a blurring between performance and truth, making sure that we are aware that we are watching a show. the subjects are women in vietnam, who the viewer assumes experienced all the tales of abuse that they talk about, but that is not the case. the filmmaker tricks you into trusting the emotions of these women, and then reveals that they were actually actors retelling true accounts of events that happened to completely different women. this demonstrates how some reflexive films will utilize bertolt brecht’s verfremdungseffekt, or alienation effect, which was crafted to demonstrate the audience that a certain play is indeed a play, ensuring that they cannot become lost in its plot. brecht instead wanted the audience to constantly reflect onto their own lives and how what the narrative is telling them can change them.

all in all, participatory and reflective mode of documentary both utilize filmmaker participation, but where one seeks to inform on a certain subject, another wishes to effect the audience’s own perception of their viewing experience.