Month: September 2008

I played some GTA this past weekend and I have to say it was the most fun I have had doing work for a class in a long time. The game was fun to play and it was interesting too. Once you turn the game on you are brought to a blue screen that looks like a blank computer or tv screen; then someone (not you) begins to type in GTA Vice City and it begins to load – it comes off as though someone were either loading an old computer game or loading up a DVD (I like to think the latter). From there the opening credits begin to role and we learn the back story of the main character, Tommy Vercetti, through a series of scenes from his perspective and the perspective of others. The scenes themselves are shot using different cuts, camera angles, ect… and they give the feeling that we are actually watching a movie. Through these scenes we get a sense of not only Tommy’s back story, but also a broad outline of what will happen over the course of the game. The fact that we get to see Tommy’s back story and that we are able to see scenes that he is not, in short the fact that we know more than he does, sets up an interesting relationship because we play the game as Tommy, therefore sometimes we have to do missions that we know are going to hurt us later or we still have to befriend someone who we know will double cross us later.

The game is also cool because there is a lot of freedom involved when playing it and to some extent whoever is playing, is also involved in creating his or her story world. The plot of the game progresses when Tommy completes missions for different people that he meets. However, for the most part there is not a lot of coltrol by the game over when you complete each mission. You can pick and choose when to do each mission or you can choose to do “side” missions as a taxi service, an ambulance, or a vigilante in a police car – these missions do not advance the plot, but they do allow you to imporve your character before continuing the game.

There is a lot to say about this game and I haven’t come close to covering it all, but i really would reccomend playing it, even for just a little bit, is very fun and it deals with a lot of the things that we have been talking about in class.

At the begining of The Singing Detective last night I was having a little trouble understanding what was going on and it took me a few minutes to understand how the story was being told. I eventually caught on to what was happening and started to really enjoy and appreciate it. After our discussion in class today about the ways in which the story was being told I started to wonder if a non film major would enjoy the story as much. This is not to say that one has to be a film major to enjoy The Singing Detective, but it is to say that film majors have watched a lot of films and are familiar with the ways different stories are told and the modes and conventions with wich they are told. It dawned on me that the creators of The Singing Detective were taking a few pretty large risks by choosing to start the viewer out in such a state of confusion. I began to wonder whether or not I would have watched this show if I saw it on TV, or if i had comne into it half way through. Would I have understood what was going on? Would I have been able to catch up with what was happening? I’m really not sure, but I think that it is safe to say that the creators put a lot of faith in the audience’s ability to not only piece together what is happening and how the story is being told but also to wait out the early confusion and uncertainty in the plot.

I was thinking about our discussion yesterday in class about the diegetic and mimetic styles. The way that I understand it diegetic is when the film makers make it clear to the audience that they are being told a story, either through a narrator or the way they shoot the and edit the movie. Mimetic is a considered a more “authentic” way to shoot a movie where film makers try to tell the story without making it clear to the audience that they are telling them a story. Is this about right? or am I still confusing something?

Either way, I started to think about different types of movies and I began to wonder how certain movies would be categorized. What about Goodfellas? This is a movie that is certainly trying to be “authentic” (it is based on a true story – setting and costumes fit the time period, ect…) but it is also a movie that is lets the viewer know that he or she is being told a story (it uses a narrator, the plot doesn’t always follow a strict chronological order, it has inter-titles). I think that Goodfellas is both diegetic and mimetic and i think that most movies would have to be a combination of the two. Does anyone know of any movies out there that are only diegetic or only mimetic? Are they any good?

Welcome to sites.middlebury.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!