Shine On, Kubrick.

This past Friday I saw The Shining for the first time. This past Saturday I saw The Shining for the second time. Throughout my first viewing I was gripped by every shot, I was captivated by every aspect of every shot because I knew that everything in the frame was there for a reason. There were no accidents in the final product. Every single detail means something. Throughout my first viewing I was also struck by how much tension and fear was created solely by the score. Scenes that would have been absolutely normal otherwise took on a sinister tone with music. You can feel yourself being drawn into the warped insane character that is Jack. The film isn't scary in the sense that it makes you jump, it is terrifying because of the implications of the actions of the characters. This film is truly terrifying, you are filled with a distinct unease and fear throughout. My second viewing was entirely different, I had read up on some of the symbolism in the movie after my first viewing and set out to see the film from a new perspective the second time around. One of the major "conspiracies" surrounding the film is the assertion that it is Kubrick's confession to faking the moon landing. I knew that there was some conspiracy regarding the moon landing but on my first viewing I didn't pick up anything. On my second viewing it became clear to me that the Overlook Hotel is supposed to symbolize America in that it is this vast space that is literally built upon a Native American burial ground, it looks beautiful from the outside but is deteriorating on the inside. Stuart Ullman is JFK, enlisting Jack to take care of this very important task for them and roping him into an extended commitment. Jack and Danny are a split version of Kubrick dealing with the pressures of faking the moon landing. Jack is the logical side of Kubrick while Danny is the young artist who is confused and horrified by the process. Wendy is supposed to be Kubrick's wife who is just mentally exhausted and abused by the task her husband has taken on. There are so many intricacies to this film that it would be near impossible to explain them without actually watching the film. This movie is made to be thought about, there is no clear thing that everyone takes away from it. You watch it and you feel something, your perception of what happened is entirely up to you. The audience is free to give meaning to the film in their own way. I could not recommend this film more, I will be watching it again for the third time within the next few days.

hole in the wall

Its true. the japanese versions of any gameshow ever are always better. always. give me one example where we do it better. do it. haha

I'll be the brave one

I thought I'd get on and post just some of my thoughts from our first class. Don't worry, I'm not normally such an overachiever.

The thing that kept hitting me as we watched what can be done using Second Life is the fact that the possibilities are endless. I had thoughts comming in which are completely absurd now as I realize I can do much more. Most in Anthropology don't take the time to look at "these types" of technologies. As if the use of something designated "gaming" is somehow going to sully the "good" name of Anthropology. In truth, we Anthrops tend to get a little defensive. You would too if upon meeting someone you have the following conversation, every time...
"I study Anthropology"... "What's that?"... "The study of culture." ... "Ok, so what part of culture do you study?"... "Well, I look at.... (glazed expression covers face of other person)...." "Well, what exactly can you do with it?" ... "I plan to flip burgers."

We've also dealt with the stigma of being a "fake" science - or rather being told that what we do is not science. The problem with that is that we employ research methods that follow along the scientific method. It just tends to make us a little irritated.

Now I find myself looking at Second Life from another perspective. The archaeologist that can recreate the structures from a site and then walk through them, as well as allow others to do so. An educational center could be created to allow speakers of Native American languages that are being lost to hear native speakers and perhaps even speak with them, all the while they are walking through a ceremonial center. I think of the Native American children taken in the 70s and 80s from thier homs because the government deemed they did not have a stable situation (cultural misunderstanding is what they call it now). Those people that strive to learn of thier genetic heritage, but are stopped short by an inability to reconnect. This could allow an opportunity to explore thier past from home. Then I started thinking of the medical applications as well as educational. At Shands, we have children in the hospital that are immune compromised as they undergo cancer treatment. These kids miss school, and if they manage to beat the odds and survive, they are so far behind. Why should they have to be? There are tutors and "schools" set up, but it's not the same as having your own teacher explain things too you. In second life, not only could a student meet thier teacher, but they could have streaming video of the class or lecture there, or post reading assingments, etc.

Anyway, it was a little eye opening for me to realize that the possibilities are so vast I cannot quite reconcile myself with them yet. My father has worked with computers and programing since I was very young. He has a degree in electrical engineering and was one of the first people to examine Linux. He told me years ago that the world would change because of things like Second Life. He urged me to examine the community there and to understand that it is a community. While we discussed it, I was too firmly stuck inside my own box to comprehend what he was saying. I focused on the removal of human contact from everyday life as people flocked to these "fantasy worlds." Now I find myself thinking along the same lines as he (a scary thought, really), that it isn't a lack of human contact, as much as a broadening of what human contact entails. Is contact less satisfying because the person you speak with is thousands of miles away? Is there something missing from the intereaction? I still can't answer those questions. I think there has to be a level of trust which is harder to achieve without being able to read expressions and look into someone's eyes, but with Second Life, can those aspects be part of the virtual world experience?

Those are my rambling thoughts for the day. What did you all think? Do you feel like you're mind is broader with acceptance of new possibilities?
Amy