"Never plead guilty!"-Rumpole of the Bailey, Defender of the Downtrodden

"Elementary, my dear Watson."

Authors in the British Empire, and it's remnants are often fondly remembered in the annuals of mystery fiction. In the late 1850's Wilkie Collins wrote the first mystery novel in the English language The Moonstone. In the late 1880's a young Scotsman named Arthur Conan Doyle had a struggling medical practice, when he wrote a little piece called A Study in a Scarlet, that would introduce the world to Mr. Sherlock Holmes of 221B Baker Street, and his trustworthy companion Dr. John H. Watson. Their exploits would be some of the best remembered (and repeated in television, radio, and film) in the world. In the early decades of the twentieth century, a novel called The Mysterious Affair at Styles would not only be the start of the long, and brilliant career of the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, but also his creator Agatha Christie who would go on to perfect the mystery genre, with many memorable stories, and characters. Any of these authors is bound to get a mention in a high school English class. But there is one author, whose works have yet to gained the notoriety of the above mentioned-Sir John Mortimer.

Sir John Mortimer

Sir John Mortimer was a British  barrister  (a lawyer who is specifically trained to argue in court as opposed to a solicitor, lawyers who do legal work, sort of appearing in court, and will hire barristers on behalf of their clients), who would eventually retire from the Bar, to focus on his writing career that encompassed anything from novels, short stories, plays, radio, to film and television. Taking the phrase "write about what you know" to heart, Sir John drew from his days in the courtroom to create Rumpole of the Bailey.

Rumpole's tools of the trade: his wig, a brief, and a glass of "Chateu Fleet Street"

Horace Rumpole is a barrister with a few quirks. Amongst them are his tendency to quote English poets particularly Wordsworth, his fondness for cheap cigars, and wine from Pomeroy's Wine Bar, his refusal to be made a Circuit Judge, or a "Circus Judge, or a Queen's Counsel (special honor to recognize senior members of the Bar), or a "Queer Customer", and somewhat surprising his disdain for law:

         
 "Law is a subject which, I may say, never interested me greatly. People in trouble, yes. Bloodstains and handwriting, certainly. The art of cross-examination, of course. Winning over a jury, fascinating. But law!"-John Mortimer, Rumpole and the Gentle Art of Blackmail

 Then there is of course there is the most defining trait of Rumpole, which is his motto-"never plead guilty!". Rumpole, a self proclaimed "Old Bailey Hack" who works almost entirely  as a defense counsel. He is a firm believer of the credo "innocent until proven guilty, believes it is "more necessary to defend, then prosecute" and will do the best he can for his clients, although he frequently laments the hopeless cases he is given, and the incompetence of his clients:

             " I could win most of my cases if it weren't for the clients. Clients have no tact, poor old darlings. No bloody sensitivity! They will waltz into the witness-box and blurt out things which are far better left unblurted."-John Mortimer, Rumpole and the Confession of  Guilt

Despite his losses, Rumpole is very talented at what he does. In his youth as a junior barrister he gained recognition for winning the Penge Bungalow Murders "alone and without a leader", which paved the way for his career as a defense counsel. Rumpole's most frequent clients are the Timsons, a clan of "minor villains" from South London who deal with petty theft, and will call upon Rumpole whenever they have need of his services. Rumpole has defened at least three generations of the family.  Although Rumpole is not a detective in the tradition of Sherlock Holmes, or Hercule Poirot, he often plays the part when trying to get a "not guilty" verdict, by either digging up evidence that is harmful to the prosecution himself, or with the help of either his client's solicitor, or private investigator F.I.G. "Fig" Newton. Although Rumpole firmly believes in "innocent until proven guilty", there are times when the reality of his job kicks in. In Rumpole and the Expert Witness, he learns that his client is guilty on his own, after a "not guilty" verdict comes back from the jury, and is genuinely upset by the fact he unwittingly helped get a murder (who happens to be a son of an old frined") off, and can do nothing about it. In Rumpole and the Alternative Society, when his hippie-like client whom he is defending on a drug charge openly admits that she is guilty after a rather good day in cour for her, he goes straight to the presiding judge, and informs him that his client decided to change her plea to "guilty".  Most striking is Rumpole and the Honourable Member, where he defends a MP on a rape charge. His cross-examination of the victim causes him to get into a heated argument with his daughter-in-law over his tactics. The MP  admits his guilt on the stand, but Rumpole is shaken by the experience.

Rumpole in his element-the Old Bailey

Rumpole's ideals, and attitudes make him a very controversial character with his peers, and family. His colleagues at his chambers (barristers are not allowed to "partner up" they are considered self-employed but will group together in a building with their own separate offices independent of each other) think of him as an embarrassment. They often frown upon the type of people Rumpole takes in as clients, and prefer "respectable" civil, and prosecution work instead of criminal defence. Particularly vocal are Claude Erskine-Brown, and the very priggishly pious Head of Chamber  "Soap Sam" Ballard (or "Bollard" as Rumpole calls him) both of whom long for the day when Rumpole will leave chambers, and have at times tried to hasten Rumpole's retirement. However Rumpole does have a few friends in chambers amongst them Liz Probert a "radical barrister" (no surprise since she was Rumpole's pupil), and Pydilla Erskine-Brown née Trant (the Portia of our Chambers), whom although she later becomes a judge never-the-less thinks of very highly of her old mentor Rumpole. The best example occurs in Rumpole's Return, where she gets into an argument with a so called "radical" barrister, after Rumpole won a murder case. He thought it was hopeless so he offered it to Rumpole, because he thought Rumpole would lose, and then retire allowing him to takeover Rumpole's office in chambers. Phydilla has this to tell him:
       
"You’re wrong. Wrong about Rumpole. He’s the radical! You’re not. You’ll grow up to be a prosecutor, or a Circuit Judge! But Rumpole never will, because he says what he thinks, and because he doesn’t give a damn what anybody thinks about him. And because he can win the cases you’re afraid even to do on your own."


Rumpole's colleague aren't the only ones who disapprove of him, most judges don't like him either, and Rumpole returns the sentiment.  All of them share the following traits: they are bluntly biased towards the prosecution, and believe that Rumpole is always wasting the court's time no matter how good his case is. Amongst them are Mr. Justice Grave, or "Justice Gravestone",  Mr. Justice Oliphant (whose fondness of "Northern common sense" drives Rumpole crazy), and then there is the most infamous of them all Judge Roger Bullingham. Judge Bullingham or the "Mad Bull" is a judge with an "unreasoning prejudice against all black persons, defence lawyers and probation officers", and can barely hide his contempt for Rumpole.


It may seem that no one is able to control Rumpole, but there is one person who is able to keep him line-Mrs. Hilda Rumpole, his wife. Hilda, or "She Who Must Be Obeyed" as Rumpole calls her, is very disappointed that her husband is neither a Queen's Counsel, Circuit Judge, or at least Head of Chambers. Despite her criticism of Rumpole,the two do seem to care for each other. Hilda is somewhat prone to suspicions of acts of adultery committed by her husband that often leads to tense relations between the two, such as the time Rumpole did a divorce case due to a lull in crime in   Rumpole and the Married Lady:


"‘You can come home as late as you like now, Rumpole. And you can spend all the time you like with her.’

‘Her?’ Whoever could she be talking about?

‘I’ve heard her! Time and time again. On the telephone.’

‘Don’t be ridiculous.’ I tried a light laugh. ‘That’s a client.’

‘Rumpole! I’ve lived with you for a good many years.’

‘Man and boy.’

‘And I’ve never known you to be telephoned by a client. At home!’

‘I usually have quiet, undemanding clients. Murderers don’t fuss. Robbers can usually guess the outcome, so that they’re calm and resigned. Divorcing ladies are different. They’re inclined to telephone constantly.’

‘So I’ve noticed!’

But love conquers all and they always reconcile, as Rumpole puts it "they'd rather have war together than a lonley peace", not unlike his divorce client. Hilda on her part, believes that Rumpole "would go to seed" without her. The two have one child Nick Rumpole the "brains of the family", who works in America as a professor of sociology.


Although the stories are written for humour, they do tackle serious issues. Rumpole and the Confession of Guilt deals with racism in the criminal justice system of the UK. But most serious of all is Rumpole and the Reign of Terror, in which Rumpole takes on a Pakistani doctor as a client, who is beening held on terrorism charges, and is determined that even if he is guilty he should at least be given a fair trial to decide his guilt, much to the disapproval of the establishment, and the government itself. These witty, and engaging stories are overlooked treasures of the mystery genre, deserve a much wider audience, and are sure not to disappoint the reader.


                                                           Adaptions 

Leo McKern in his most famous role

Besides the books, Rumpole has been a stable fixture of British radio, and television. The television series Rumpole of the Bailey (which inspired the early istallments of the book series, every episode having either a short story, or full-length novel adaption by Mortimer himself) aired on PBS' MYSTERY!, and starred Australian character actor Leo McKern as Rumpole. On BBC Radio, Rumpole has been portrayed by multiple actors. In 1980, Maurice Denham played Rumpole in Rumpole: The Splendours and Miseries of an Old Bailey Hack.  Desmond Barrit played him once in a one radio play, before Timothy West took over the role in 2003 in new radio plays adapted by Mortimer himself. He continues to appear in new radio plays adapted by others after Mortimer's death, mainly serving as the narator, as the new plays feature Benedict Cumberbatch as a younger Rumpole.

Video Production Project

Video #1

Role-Editor, and Actor

Video #2 

Role: Set Designer & Actor 

Blog #9-Freak Factor

http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/45.02.FreakFactor

What's your biggest weakness is question, that is bound to pop up in any job interview. The question is how to improve this-a) focus on your strengths, or b) try to fix your weakness. The majority of people try to fix their weaknesses, instead of focusing on their strengths. If they try to do both it usually doesn't work out. According to David Randall there are eight different things you can do to change this-1) what's my problem is, 2) believe you are flawless 3) Don't try to fix your weakness 4) Build on your strength, 5) Focus on what you want to do most, 6) Find the spot 7),  The power of uniqueness, 8) Putting your quirk to works.

One of Randall's suggestions for overcoming weakness "Believe You are Flawless" is perhaps his worst suggestion. Nobody is flawless. We have to admit there are some things we are not good at to do so would be a blatant lie. For example having an habit not showing up to class, or work on time on a regular basis is a definite flaw, that could be improved or there is a very good chance you could find yourself with a low GPA, or in the unemployment line. Each of has one negative trait about ourself-bad temper, or maybe a proud attitude. As much as we all loathe criticism, we must admit there are times it can be useful-such as if someone shows us how to use a hammer the right way, or how to parallel park with bumping into the other cars. If we are foolish enough to believe this then there is a good chance, that are egos will be over inflated. Point in case Orson Welles. Every one he's responsible for what is considered the greatest film ever made-Citizen Kane. What other major films did Welles direct after Kane none. Welles developed a reputation for being impossible to work with, and unreliable when it came to schedules, and budgets. The rest of his career was reduced to making cameo acting bits to raise money for his low budget independent features. Although these cameos include show-stealing appearances in films such as Carol Reed's the Third Man, John Huston's Moby Dick, and Fred Zinemann's A Man for All Seasons, he never regained the hype he did after Kane (and even that lost money with it's first release).

Among Randall's other suggestion's "Build Your Strength" is a very good idea. Each of us has a certain knack-organization skills, mathematics, communication skills, or artistic talent. Why shouldn't we hone on these knacks, they could prove to our advantage. For example why would some one is good at art, but not at public speaking decide for some reason to become a lawyer? There is no satisfying answer at all. It would be foolish to ignore your special knacks, and gifts in life. The best thing to do is find a career that not only satisfies you, but can also make use of your special talents. But in order to take full advantage of those talents you need to learn how to home them, and improve them properly. If you have a knack at wood working, and carpentering you'd be better off going to a vocational school to learn how to apply those talents in the workplace, then you would here at Ohio University which doesn't offer you much opportunity to take advantage of such gifts. If you're good at taking care of people, you'd be better off in medical school, than business school. Walt Disney tried to make a living first as a commercial artist, and then as animator. But he simply couldn't work fast enough to meet the demands that both of those professions required. He found his knack instead as a film producer hiring the best people to do the best work to on the films he wanted to make.

Randall's most helpful suggestion is "Putting your quirks to work". Every one of us have special traits, and knacks that makes us each stand out from each other. Some of us may not be very good at art, but we have a knack for technical stuff, that other people couldn't hope to understand, so instead of going in for screenwriting, we go into setting up the lights maybe in a TV studio, or a Broadway theatre. Some of us might be terrible at biology, but good at art, and physics so why not go into architecture. Take the Fleischer Brothers the creators of Betty Boop, Out of the Inkwell, and Popeye for example what their cartoons might have lacked in artistically, they made up for technically. They invented the rotoscope, which allowed animators to trace over live-action frame by frame to achieve stunning realism in their cartoons. They also engineered early attempts, of blending sound, and animation before Disney's Steamboat Willie. Would-be Fleischer animator Jack Mercer, had a very good knack at doing the Popeye voice, so when the Fleischers fired the original, he got the role that he would play (amongst others) for the rest of his life. Disney animator Ub Iwerks, found himself a knack at the studio after he retired from animation in the special effects department, because he had a talent to look at a problem through technical eyes. Even Alfred Hitchcock employed him for his feature the Birds. Each of these people had special knacks that made them stand out, to enjoy very successful, and unique careers, something we could all achieve.

When it comes to my strengths, and weakness in the "creative process" there are several. One of my strengths is being to come up with wonder ideas. A weakness being is having difficultly translating those ideas into reality. I once tried to write a play based on the legend of King Arthur from the point of view of Merlin just for the fun of it, but I struggled with the dialogue so I eventually gave up on the project. Another weakness would be frustration at times when some unexpected difficulty comes along, and it takes me a while to think of a way to resolve that issue, before I get back on track. During the various projects this quarter is my strength for using the limited resources I have to in a sense "make something out of nothing" as the old phrase goes" such with the soundscape we had to make based on our screenplay. When I begin a project a weakness I have discovered is that sometimes I have a habit of being less diligent if I'm not entirely dedicated, or if I chafe under ceratin petty restrictions like having to use a poorly desinged  program like Pencil which is the most frustrating thing to use if you aspire to be a professional animator one day. But, amongst my strengths is when I'm truly dedicated is to remain focused when I need to be, such as when I worked as colorist last year on the pilot for Camelittle. Other of my strengths is when if something goes wrong on a project to salavge what I can and polish it off like I did with the animation project. I have some strengths, but also weakness that I need to improve to be a better artist.

Blog #8-Brainwashed

http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/66.01.Brainwashed

According to Seth Godin the Lizard is the resistant part of our brain. It's what makes us worry about our security, and our safety, and dishes out anger. It also has the unfortunate side effect of shutting down our artistic skills. To be an artist is too be free thinking, and creative. It's what makes us stop being Winston Smith, and instead being obient. But if we acknowledge it, we can fight it. Making art is the most unique part of being human. It's doesn't require instructions, or a manual. Instead it requires interacting on the human level to create something that changes lives, that's "real art. Being generous is essential is the modern economy, instead of doing something for profit, you do it to help support, and grow with your fellow artists, and deliver their products more faster than anyone ever could.

These three layers-the Lizard, Creating Art, and Being Generous are all key factors in being a good creative person. During this quarter, we have to keep a Blog, and in away all of these layers have in one way, or another. The Lizard has predominantly found it's way into these blog posts. All of these posts came with a syllabus of what must be in each weekly blog post. Granted of course, sometimes we had a little freedom to chose what to write about, but we had a rigid set of instructions to follow including a set word limit for each blog post. I don't consider these blog posts as "Creating Art". I don't interact with people, on the human level. These blog posts are not very profound. To the best of my knowledge only my TA reads these. It's true that in a sense I have created something, but this is not done by any human interaction, and these simple blog posts really don't have the power to change something, so in that sense they are not art. With regards to "Being Generous" I'm afraid these blog posts don't posses this trait either. When I write these blog posts I do them for the sole purpose of keeping my GPA up. They do not help promote the work of young artists such as myself, or help support them. They do instead help promote the commercial work of artists such as Christopher Nolan who is already well established, and has the road of success before out his feet. I have been writing these blog posts all quarter, and now I am faced with this question: have these blog posts helped me to become a better artist? The answer is yes in a way. Although these blogs do not give me the chance to actually make something, they do allow me to help verify, and understand the basic rules, and principles of this highly creative competitive business, often by dissecting small scenes from my favorite films to better understand the basic principles that went into making them, and therefore understand how to apply these basic prinicples such as the 180 line, rule of thirds into my own work someday, and therefore make it look not like the work of some novice, but instead looks like it was made by a pro. So it that respect yes these blogs have helped me to become a better artist after all

Blog # 7-Scene Deconstruction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQMPOA8BTKk

       This scene from the Secret of Kells, shows us that the theme of the film is that even in time of despair, and darkness, a thing of beauty can be more important than anything else. This brought to the front with Aidan, and the Abbot. The Abbot thinks the most pressing thing is finishing a wall intended to keep out the vikings, while Aidan belives the finishing the Book of Kells will be more useful to the people than the wall. He even tells the Abbot that the wall will never keep out the vikings, and all they can do is run. Of course there are many other scenes like this in the film, stressing the importance of the Book of Kells and the hope it will bring, so the theme of the film is active.


In the scene, one of the more subtle ways the theme is showcase is through the contrast and affinity of shapes of the Abbot, and Aidan. The Abbot's head is only slightly rounded; it is more square shape, which is very fitting. It means he likes to be in control (he is the Abbot after all), strong, and conservative and he dislike the change to the Abbey that Aidan brings with him, by questioning his wisdom. His exact opposite is Aidan. Aidan is literally a more rounded character than the Abbot. He's kind, and warm. All of which are in direct contrast to the stern, cold Abbot. Another way the theme is shown is through space. Most of the scene takes place within the Abbot's tower room. It sounds simple, but it's changing throughout the scene-from limited space, to flat space-the drawings on the wall have dissparead, and it becomes merged with the floor. On the surface you think, "it's just an animated film, so it's part of the direction".  Remember the Abbot's devotion to the wall is equal to Aidan's devotion to the wall. When the room changes into flat space the main focus in on the Abbot's plan for the wall surrounding the abbey, which takes up the entire floor. This also gives us an insight on the Abbot’s mind unconsciously, for his room itself is a manifestation of his mind, the floor, and the wall everything has been covered with madcap plan for defenses that aren’t very stable.

In Class iMovie Project

Animation Project in Class

Blog # 6-Animation Deconstruction

Our protagonist Brendan 

The semi-antagonist Abbot Cellach

The above images our from Irish filmmaker Thomas Moore's highly acclaimed independent animated film The Secret of Kells. Let's begin our analysis with the protagonist Brendan's color scheme. Since he is just a novice in a medieval monetary, his outfit consists of a plain robe and cape. His entire outfit is done in a hue of brown. All of it's done in a light saturation nothing too dark about it at all to suggest any sinister motivations. He's a young boy with not a hint of darkness in him. As we can see Brendan is outside during the middle of the day. Behind him you can see the abbey farm fields, and the wall in the background. It's a multitude of colors-grey, green, yellow, etc. Now let's talk about the lighting of the image. It's bright, and there are precious few shadows in the image. This suggests a mood of peacefulness, and tranquility, nothing dark or sinister, or something to imply that something terrible might happen. 

Now let’s turn our attention to Abbot Cellach. As you can see it’s literally a very different picture from the one with Brendan. Since he is the Abbot his robe, is not a plain brown one at all. Instead his ornate robe is done in a hue of red. This not only symbolizes his place as the leader of the monks of Kells, but it also suggests something else as well. Brendan’s robe was done in a light saturation of brown, while the Abbot’s robe is done in a dark saturation of red. This is fitting since the Abbot, while he is not exactly an antagonist; he is at least an obstacle to Brendan’s goal, which explains why his color scheme is dark, and not in the least way bright in any way. Where Brendan was surrounded by a multitude of colors, only a very dark blue wall that is almost black covered with chalk drawings of building plans surrounds the Abbot. Now let’s turn our attention to the lighting of the scene. Brendan’s scene had no shadows at all, while the Abbot’s scene is far more generous with shadows, the only stream of light comes from the a window off screen which keeps the image from being in total darkness. But it also serves to show us that even though the Abbot might be an obstacle he does have a good heart. But never the less the mood is foreboding one, as we sense the Abbot is not someone who likes to be crossed.

Blog # 5-Storyboard Imitation

                                                                             



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMKI5r12JKo&feature=relate

In this scene from Inception, Christopher Nolan does abide the 180-degree rule. At the beginning when Ariadne is in the elevator, and glimpses the train passing by (which we see as a cut scene) see is looking straight at it, thus setting up a new 180 line. When she exits the elevator and into the hotel suite, the camera pans around the wrecked room until it comes across Mal who hears Ariadne, and stares at her. Ariadne the makes eye contact with Mal reestablishing the line.  With the rule of thirds it’s a mixed bag. The train that Ariadne glimpses passes left from right on the screen, near the top of the shot, while the elevator wall is below the train and is the last thing our eyes notice. However he does not follow this rule in the hotel suite.  When we cut to Mal, the first thing our eyes should is Mal, but since it's a wide shot what we notice first is the lamp next to her, then we notice Mal, then the back of the couch she is sitting on. All of this distracts our attention from Mal, which should be the main focus of that particular shot. But since it's a very brief shot our mind is inclined to overlook it.  However, Nolan does follow the 30 percent rule. When Ariadne enters the hotel suite, the camera is not stationary it's always slightly panning over the wrecked room until it lands on Mal then it becomes stationary again. This also explains why we are introduced to Mal in a wide shot. If we had seen her in a close up it would’ve been a jaunting jump cut. But by instead of having a close up like on Ariadne, Nolan merely reduces the image by 30 percent, allowing for a smooth transition if at the expense, of the rule of thirds.

Blog # 4-Song Deconstruction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CgBs3-BlqA

Nil Se'n La by Celtic Woman

LISTENING FRAMEWORK

LISTENING PHASE 1 (Rhythm)

Tempo [slow, medium, fast]

Medium, but also fast in some parts.

Source [where is the rhythm coming from?]

Drums.

Groove [describe how the personality of the rhythm]

Playful, slightly sensual, and flirtatious 

LISTENING PHASE 2 (Arrangement)

Instrumentation [which instruments drive the song?] 

Drums, guitar, but mainly a fiddle

Structure/Organization [how is the song built? Order, patterns, etc.]

The song is not very chaotic, but highly ordered the vocals, and the instrumental segments transitioning very smoothly one, after the other.

Emotional Architecture [Draw how the song build and drop?]

The song begins with some light vocalization with drums in the background with a low pitch fiddle making us feel anxious with an air of mystery about it, but this soon gives way to a playful feeling of fliratiousness with lyrics such "In my heart it's still the night, and we'll stay until the morning" that remains throughout the entire song

LISTENING PHASE 3 (Sound Quality)

Balance

Height [high and low of frequency]

The frequency is low.

Width [stereo panning left/right]

The width remains on both left, and the right at all times.

Depth [layers of instruments - via loudness]

The vocals, and  fiddle are the loudest and are on top. These are followed by the drums which are usaully medium, and the guitars which aew soft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaRz-3DYV7c

Hey Bulldog by the Beatles

LISTENING FRAMEWORK

LISTENING PHASE 1 (Rhythm)

Tempo [slow, medium, fast]

It's mostly fast.

Source [where is the rhythm coming from?]

Drums.

Groove [describe how the personality of the rhythm]

Loose, happy, mellow

LISTENING PHASE 2 (Arrangement)

Instrumentation [which instruments drive the song?]

Piano, guitar, bass.

Structure/Organization [how is the song built? Order, patterns, etc.]

The song is organized with a very ordered, the instruments do not clash. It begins with a sort piano, that leads into the fast-paced bass, and guitar which is constant through out the song.

Emotional Architecture [Draw how the song build and drop?]

The song begins with moderate piano cue, and then switches over into a mellow bass giving off a slight depressing feeling. This then settles into a sort ambigous guitar melody which is re-enforced with lyrics such as "What makes you think you're something special when you smile?", or "Some kind of innocence is measured out in years, You don't know what it's like to listen to your fears" that gives off an anxious, moody feeling that makes us feel uncomfortable. But later the same melody is paired with the lyrics "if you're lonley you can talk to me. This is repeated throughout the song ending with a livley "hey bulldog" leaving us with a happy feeling.

LISTENING PHASE 3 (Sound Quality)

Balance

Height [high and low of frequency]

Low frequency

Width [stereo panning left/right]

The song begins with the music on just on the left side, but soon becomes audibe on both the left, and right sides

Depth [layers of instruments - via loudness]

The bass, and guitar are  the loudest, when not accompianed by vocals, and the drums are midly loud a certain snare beat is present but it does not overtake the other instruments

Nil Se'n La by Celtic Woman, and Hey Bulldog by the Beatles both use guitars, and drums but that’s it. Both songs are from two completely different genres. Nil Se'n La is a Celtic folk song. Hey Bulldog is a rock song. As both songs are from different genres, they in turn have different musical qualities, and these will be discussed in turn.

            Let’s begin with Nil Se'n La by Celtic Woman.  The song’s tempo is for the most part moderate, although it is fast in some parts set up by the drums. Its intensity of the song is soft with a fiddle, and soft guitar. The groove of the rhythm is slightly playful, in fact you could also call it flirtatious. The timbre of the song is rather simple. The depth of the song is the fiddle is the loudest, while drums, and guitars are in the background. The lyrics are an odd mix of modern English, with the chorus of is in Gaelic. The song is highly ordered the vocals, and the fiddle coexists peacefully. The width is equally distributed on both the right, and left sides. Emotionally the song begins with some light vocalization with drums in the background with a low pitch fiddle making us feel anxious with an air of mystery about it, but this soon gives way to a playful feeling of being flirtatious, which remains throughout the song. It’s meant to be a celebration of life with a harmless nighttime fun.

            Now, Hey Bulldog by the Beatles is a completely different song. Its tempo is fast-paced. The intensity of the song is loud reinforced by the loud bass, and drums. The width begins on the left, but then is balanced on both sides. The groove of the rhythm is sort of loose, and mellow. The depth of the song is structured so the bass, and the guitar are the loudest on top, followed by the drums, which although on the bottom are still audible with that snare beat. The song is a mixture of emotion. The melody of the song is sort ambiguous towards emotion, but the lyrics fix that. Lyrics like “you don’t what it’s like to listen to your fears” invokes sadness, while “if you’re lonely you can talk to me invokes happiness. If you feel troubled, or alone in the world there’s always someone to turn to.

Blog # 3- Sound Deconstruction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=eMKI5r12JKo&feature=related

                                                              Sound Critique:

In this scene from Inception, as you listen the sounds that we hear are all casual, they are all literal sounds that happen as we hear them as they are digetic (the world of the movie). They only sounds that are non-digetic are the soundtracks that we the audience can hear but the characters in the film can't. The soundtrack is the only sounds, which are sematic. It used for to represent a specific character-Mal. The music is very dark, and harsh. Which is ideal since she is the villain. Since the scene takes place in limited space, the sound is affected as such. The directionality plays an important part. When Ariadne steps on a glass, there is ting with an echo, when Mal steps on the glass there is just a low crunch. The difference is the ting gets Mal to become aware of Ariadne, it's important to the scene. When Mal steps on the glass it's immaterial hence the lower volume. To invoke emotional response there is the music becomes tense, and eerie, as Mal threatens Ariadne, and the audience is meant to feel her fear, and anxiety, which is enforced by her audible breathing, and quiet speaking.

Blog # 2-Response to Finding your Howl

http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/51.01.YourHowl

                          Summary of Mumon's story:
In the 1970's, some red wolves have been released into the wild. But they’ve forgotten "howl", and how to be a real wolf. Mumon realizes that he’s got to find his howl in order to be a real wolf again. Along his journey he instinctively kills a deer which pains him. He then meets a raven he tells him to not be ashamed of what he truly is. He then meets a farmer who fires a gun at him, and it is then that Mumon finally "howls", and become proud of who he is, and become free.

                                My Favorite Quote:

"That's all any of us are-amateurs. We don't live long enough to be anything else."- Charlie Chaplin, Limelight

 It was a small shock to have heard the above quote uttered by Charlie Chaplin in his last American film, a man dubbed as a cinematic genius by film critics and historians. As a young student who hopes someday to work in the special effects industry, it got me thinking about people in show business. Most people in show business start as "amateurs", before they become "professionals". As "professionals" they want there films to be the best, and in order for that to happen the strive for perfection. But sometimes you might ask yourself if it's even worth it to try to reach for perfection. As artists grow, and mature they've got to stop be an "amateur" when it comes to criticism of their work, and take on the "professional" attitude and acknowledge when we've made an atrocity. But most importantly of all do we ever stop being amateurs at all, no matter what are level of success is? I shall look at each of these questions in turn.

Let's begin with perfection. Directors Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles, and producers Walt Disney and Irving Thalberg all had reputations for wanting to make their films the best. Some times it worked and they were met with critical praise, and financial success with films such as The Great Dictator, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and A Night at the Opera. When it didn't they were left with a financial embarrassment with films such as Citizen Kane, and Fantasia. With the financial burden that is entitled with the entertainment industry, you might ask yourself if it's really worth it to strive for perfection? The answer is yes. Doing so gives you a better feeling about the project you're working on, and it gives you a better reputation-you're willing to do what's necessary to make your work special, to make it stand out from the crowd. Even if it might be a less a financial success in the short term, with age, and the home video market you might have a cult classic on your hands.

As artists in the entertainment industry you can spend months, or even years on a project. But there is nothing more heartbreaking than after spending all that time on it, than for the critics, or the audience to tear it to shreds. It's very tempting for an artist to respond with "you just don't get it", or "you don't know what's good". But to have such an attitude is to be an "amateur".  Even though you might be very attached to a project, you need to listen criticism in order to learn, and improve your work. No one is immune to working on a flop (critical or financial). Actor Michael Caine admits to squandering his talents in a string of horrible films. Andrew Lloyd Webber's Love Never Dies a sequel to Phantom of the Opera was a dud in the West End Theatre District and will never see a Broadway production. Then there was Kenneth Branagh the "next Laurence Olivier", who learned a hard lesson in humility with his disastrous adaptation of Frankenstein. These "professionals" have learned to admit their mistakes and by doing so become better artists. If they hadn't they would all be "amateurs".

Every artist in the entertainment industry starts out as an "amateur" hoping to be noticed by studio bosses and some of the lucky ones include George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Sir Peter Jackson, and Christopher Nolan. Each of these men have managed to achieve considerable critical, and financial success over their careers. No one would think of these men as "amateurs". Or are they?  When you stop being an "amateur", and start being a "professional"? The answer is never. We tend to think of "professionals" as being people who have perfected their craft and have nothing left to learn.  But that is not true. No one is ever too old to learn, and no craft, or art can ever be perfected. It can be tweaked, or enhanced but not perfected. But we can try and produce some incredible masterpieces, or some embarrassments that can help us learn humility. We can all try to make the best film we can, and then learn the whole process over again with our next project. So that sense we are just "amateurs".