Once Upon a Blog Post #9

Watch this.

     In this Talk - not by Ted - Andrew Stanton speaks on the proper way to tell a story. He says that the most important part of storytelling is to make the reader, listener, or absorber through mental osmosis care about the story. He says that good stories make a promise that the story is going to go somewhere, that it will be worth the observer's time. Furthermore, Drew argues that an audience wants to have a story that makes them work more than a story that tells them everything. He says, "Make the audience put things together. Don't give them four, give them two plus two" (Stanton). A crucial part of storytelling then becomes not only what you show the audience, but also how and when. Mr. Stanton speaks of how characters need a driving force, a spine that forces their choices. Drama is anticipation mingled with uncertainty. Create conflicts that develop not only the current conflict, but set up the final resolution to the story as a whole. He makes the argument for following the guidelines of storytelling, but not getting trapped in a cookie-cutter mold, not being afraid to push the notions of what are the boundaries of telling a story. He says that you should like your main character. Just because a character needs a moral flaw, does not mean that they need to be evil. A character can have many qualities of a nice person and still grow to learn a lesson. Stories also need a theme: no matter how subtle, a strong theme must be present. Andrew says that the secret sauce is not
store-bought mayonnaise, sweet pickle relish and yellow mustard whisked together with vinegar, garlic powder, onion powder and paprika, but to evoke bewonderment. Finally, a storyteller should draw from what they know.

     Andrew Stanton begins his story with a dirty joke. This lets his audience know that he is a cool guy that just wants to have fun, which is furthered by his super-chill neck beard. Furthermore, this joke causes bewonderment (wow, did he just say that :o ), and establishes a jumping-off point for the audience. He is entrapping them into a 19 minute English lesson by making the the audience interested in his joke. Andrew said create a conflict and do not give the audience everything, make them work for it, and he does this by never resolving his joke. What is the man's nickname? Andrew spins such an effective yarn that I sat for nineteen minutes waiting for a punchline. Andrew is a pathos junkie. He gets his fix by making the audience fell emotions about himself and his work. Before trying to establish any type of logical credibility for his arguments, Andrew tells a quip (quip it good) to make the audience care where the story is going (crack that quip).

     Andrew loves to talk about himself. In fact, this TEDTalk was more like an AndyTalk, as that's what he spoke of most; himself. This is called ethos. By telling the audience his successes, failures, discoveries, revelations, questions, problems, and entire life story he is letting them know that he knows his stuff. In this, he is using his own storytelling technique of using what you know. He is showing the audience a perspective that allows them to consider his argument and synthesize their own message. He gives the audience not only two plus two, but a little story about what two is and that time he was working on a film that you might not have heard of, *cough* Toy Story *cough*, where he used two to do something that you can, too.

     I chose this TEDTalk because I thought I saw it in my eighth grade band class. However, this was filmed in February of 2012, when I was a Freshman in High School, so I don't know how I watched it in eighth grade. This is an example of appearance versus reality. I swear that I have seen the guy who worked on Finding Nemo give a TEDTalk where he talks about Bambi and his black teeth. However, the reality is that I must be mistaking this one for another TEDTalk exactly like it, but one year older. My choosing his TEDTalk is also an example of creation and alienation. I did not find this TEDTalk on the link that was provided to me by the effervescent Miss Lauren Genesky (née Stokes). I did not want to share a video with on of the peons that refers to me as a classmate. Therefore, I alienated myself and created my own video link. Plus, he says f**k which is hilarious and scandalous.

Watch this.

Film Noir = Black Film, But Not Like Tyler Perry

2. Film noir literally means "black film". As you are watching the film, keep track of all of the elements in the picture that seem dark or depressing. Think about the characters, the setting, and the storyline.

Double Indemnity is part of the cult classic movie genre of the bygone 1940s Hollywood era. Much like the 1940s themselves, these films had dark, depressing overtones with dames that would lock your heart in an icebox just to watch you freeze. With storylines that evolved around mysteries and settings that were gloomy, Film Noir was steeped in darkness — and Double Indemnity shows this like a dame, shining through the night of a storm.

The usage of dark elements in  Double Indemnity progress elements of the plot and characters. The setting, especially the lighting, that is present for each character helps to illustrate the character's morals and current actions. For example, the entire first sequence of events is very dark, it is literally hard to tell what is happening due to the absence of light in the picture. This sequence of events was a car, racing through the streets. When the car stops at a building, a man gets out, but his face is shielded and shaded by his fedora. This man walks through the building, frantic-like, and gets to an office, where his face is exposed, and he begins to tell a tale.

In the flashback, this man, who is introduced as Neff, is not shown in darkness, but appears to be one of the brightest things in frame. Unlike the flashback, he is composed, suave, clean-cut, and lit. But, everything changes when Neff meets Phyllis. I mean, of all of the gin joints in all the towns in all the world. When Neff first meets Phyllis, they are both alit, as Neff only has good intentions for the dame with a heart so icy it could make the sun want a winter jacket. However, when she begins to speak of attaining accident insurance for her husband unbeknownst to him, her face begins to get shaded and shrouded in darkness — literal foreshadowing. Furthermore, Neff catches on and he discourages the dame from such a dastardly deed, and, therefore, his face remains lit up. However, soon Neff latches onto the nefarious plot, and onto the dame.

The sequence of before the kill, during the kill, and after the kill is all dark, as black as the soulless eyes of a dame only lookin' for trouble. When Neff hides in the car before the kill, it is super hard to see him or anything, because of how dark the deed is that he is about to commit. Furthermore, the whole drive leading up to the kill is dark; the peoples' faces are shadowed, the setting is at night in a black car. The darkness of the killing is contrasted to the next sequence, where Neff and Phyllis are siting in the car and then Neff goes to his apartment. This sequence is very brightly lit as the characters believe they just did a good thing and will get away with it.

This happiness and lighting were short lived, as Neff realizes that they will be caught. When he says this, the screen immediately gets darker. In fact, when describing his desperation, Neff mentions that at this time he started wearing dark glasses to hide his eyes. The present darkness is not only the darkness of the crime that he committed but also his guilt that weighs on him like a cloak made of lead.

When all of the insurance men are speaking to Neff, bringing him the news of the death of Mr. Dietrichson, Mr. Keyes and Mr. Nortons' faces are lit, as they are trying to find the truth of the case. However, Neff hides in the shadowy corner, especially when Phyllis enters the room. He is afraid of what the two men will accuse, and he especially does not want to be caught, locked in the gaze of the dame.

When Lola comes to Neff to tell him that she expects that Phyllis hatched a nefarious plot to kill he mother and father, her face is porcelain; shining like a full moon. This represents the truth that she is telling — her actions and testimony are pure. When Neff goes to cheer her up, his face is also lit up, as he also wants to make her happy so that she does not tell anyone else what she suspects happened with her father.

Neff returns to the shadows once again when Keyes is questioning Jackson about who was the man that he saw on the train who claimed to be Mr. Dietrichson. The darkness represents not only his worrying about the dark deed that he committed, but also Neff is hiding from the questioning gaze of Jackson, who saw him that night in the train.

The setting gets super dark when Neff goes with Lola to Make-out Point. Here, Lola speaks of how her boyfriend was conspiring with Phyllis to kill her father. Lola tells of how she fallowed her boyfriend and ho she saw him go to Phyllis' house. There is no need for this scene to be dark, in my opinion, so maybe it represents the naughty things that happen between the two youthful bodies.

The next time the setting achieves this level of darkness is when Phyllis plans Neff's murder. She turns all of the lights out and the places a gun under the seat, and the darkness of the scene foreshadows the darkness of what will happen next. However, Walter is also in the darkness, as he is schemin' and telling Phyllis of how Nino will be his fall guy. Then the scene gets super-duper dark as Neff shuts a window. In the extreme darkness, Phyllis attempts to kill him with a pistol. However, Neff survives and talks to Phyllis as her face is illuminated. This is her realization that she loves Neff and cannot kill him. However, Neff does not feel the same about her. Bang bang.

Bye bye, birdie.