The election.

Well this years election has certainly been an interesting one. For most of us it has been the first opportunity that we have had to vote and that is a very exciting prospect. I have always been reasonably informed about politics and my mum and dad instilled in me from a very young age that it is so important that we take the opportunity given to us to vote.

When I heard that the political debates were going to be broadcast on television for the first time I thought that this was very interesting. I feel that Gordon Brown should be applauded for agreeing to do this. He is the first PM ever to agree and I think that it was a brave move. Despite not being the most charismatic or eloquent speaker I think he was confident in his policies and not afraid to shy away from discussing them.

I think that the debate its self was conducted in an okay fashion, I would have liked each candidate to be able to talk for longer than 60 seconds without being stopped but I suppose this is the case with any debate. In some respects it was a good idea to broadcast the debate because it really got people talking about the election. By placing it on three of the main channels it makes politics more accessible to people who don't normally read the news papers and may not have followed politics in the past. I think putting it on television also helps to appeal to the younger voters in the country.

However it worries me slightly that people watching the debate didn't actually pay very much attention to the content of what the party leaders were talking about, and instead seemed to be more impressed by the appearance of the politicians and the delivery of their speeches. It seems that putting the debate onto television may make the politicians seem more like celebrities, and so some members of the public may be more likely to vote for a candidate in the election based on their appearance.

For me watching the debate really highlighted how fickle politicians can be. Nick Clegg seemed to try and win votes based on the fact that he is not labor or tory, he is not an old party, and he is different than Brown and Cameron so people should vote for him. He seemed to be playing off the other candidates against each other, although his delivery of his speeches were very effective. Despite the fact that Clegg did not beat Tory or Labor I think the political debate served him well. It really gave him a chance to get his face and reputation out their and for three nights at least placed him on a level playing field with the two other parties.

I know some people feel that smaller parties should have been allowed to participate in the debate, however I feel that it may have over complicated the process and not given all the candidates a chance to really get across their policies. And talking realistically Lib Dem, Labor and Conservative were the only three parties who had a chance of getting into power. Maybe another debate should have been conducted featuring smaller parties and simply allowing them to get their policies across.

Overall I have found the election really interesting, I think in the future we may go in the direction of the USA. Getting more celebrities involved in the campaign and using the internet, youtube and music videos as a source for getting publiciy and getting even more young people involved and making it 'cool' to vote, just as america has done.

I have to say that i am disappointed by the results of the election. Although it was unlikely I had hoped that Labor would have won the election. Instead we are finding ourselves having to deal with the issues of a hung parliament. It will be interesting to see where we go from here and what the shape of the country will be like in a couple of years from now. Although I dont feel that Brown has done anything to justify having to resign I wonder if this would be best for the image of the party. Labor might become more successful if they had a new leader with a strong image, and someone who doesn't carry with the blame of the issues facing the UK over the past year or so.

Stagecoach

In general i am not particularly fond of westerns as a genre. I see them to be slightly outdated and aimed at a male audience rather than a female one. The iconography associated with westerns such as guns, cowboy hats and bows and arrows ect are practically all found within stagecoach. These objects associated with the genre are all made into replicas for children to play with. I frequently remember my brother playing with toy guns as a child, whilst I on the other hand had no interest in playing with that sort of toy. Guns and weapons are often seen as typically masculine objects and that might be why I felt that as a child, films involving cowboys and indians had no real place for me because they were 'boys films'. However I think that Stagecoach would be appealing to both a male and female audience, especially because of some of the subplots.

Like many members of the class I was not particularly excited about watching Stagecoach but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the film. I think that my view of westerns was slightly distorted by ones that I watched as a child. I have no idea what the films names were but I have to say that they were never of a very high quality. They never captivated me and I found the formula to be very similar from one film to the next. In fact I only watched these films with my family when it was a Sunday afternoon and nothing else was on television. However I feel that Stagecoach stands out from the genre. It is made to a very high quality, the tension at some points within the film really keeps you hooked and the musical score not only fits in with the genre of the piece but enhances the audiences emotion and enjoyment when watching the film.

To me the movie feels as though it was made after 1939, and I am sure that the two oscar wins and multitude of nominations reflect both the audience and the critics appreciation for the film. The fact that this film has also been both remade and re-released reflects the high standard of the movie. Although I still have to say that westerns are not, and probably never will be my favourite genre of film, I did enjoy Stagecoach and will make an effort to be more open minded about different genres of film in the future.

One lesson that I have really enjoyed since starting back at the academy was our class with Andy. We were discussing the representation of women within film and television, both in the past and in modern day. It was interesting to learn about some of the strong female women from the 30's 40's and beyond. Most of the women that Andy talked about were fairly unknown to me and I think it was a benefit that I am now aware of some of the major female stars in history.

We then moved on to talk about female stars in 2010. I got the impression that Andy did not like the way women in 2010 represented themselves in comparison with 50 years ago. We looked at the actress Cameron Diaz in particular. Some may say that she relies on her beauty within her films rather than being a serious actress or role model. However I would say that she is a positive role model. Although she may not be the most intelligent person to act as a role model to young girls she must surely have her wits about her. She has successfully created a strong and reasonably long lasting career and although she may be seen to rely on her beauty I would say that she simply uses her good looks to her advantage. Hollywood is a fickle place and there is no reason why a woman who is good looking should not use this to her full potential. People say that she may not be a wonderful actress, but she defiantly performs well in what she does. The audience are not always looking to watch a film full of serious dramatic actors, sometimes they just want some light comedy relief.

I understand that these perfect images of women that are showered across the media on a daily basis may make women feel inadequate. However I am sure that most people understand that this is not what these women really look like, they have hair stylists, make-up artist and their photographs are re-touched to the extreme. When you see a celebrity on the front cover of a magazine you know that this is not who they really are, it is simply a re-presentation of them created by the producers of the magazine. Infact no source created by the media, be it film, television, magazine articles or even documentaries, can ever provide a totally accurate or realistic representation because every source has been mediated, and every source has been edited. When you see something in a film or on television you can never say it is a totally realistic representation because this representation has been controlled by the creator, they show you what they want the audience to see not what the person or social group is actually like. Even something non fiction such as a documentary does has been controlled and edited to get across the appropriate message. I feel that for the most part that the audience understand this. What they are watching is not reality, it is simply one persons representation of that reality.

During this lesson we also discussed negative and positive traits in female characters within films. The girls in the class were asked to discuss some of the worst traits that could be found within a female character in a film. Some of the traits that arose were:

.Overly emotional.

. Weak

. Needy

. Dependant on men.

. Bitchy.

. Fickle

. Slutty.

. Obsessed with appearances.

The boys then had to come up with positive traits that they would like to see within women in films. It seemed that it was much easier to name characters in movies that had the negative characteristics that we listed as apposed to the positive traits that the boys brought up such as :

. Good looking.

. Successful in their own right.

. Confident ect.

It was quite disappointing that there were so few characters that embodied the positive values that we desire in female characters within films. However I think that we may be more likely to find these positive traits among women on television. I am unsure if the more positive female roles appear on television because it is a smaller viewing platform with a lower budget so there is less risk involved. Or if it is because television programmes such as soap operas have higher viewing figures amongst women, because they are the target audience the producers may be more likely to feature more strong female roles to cater to the demands of the audience.

Overall I really enjoyed this lesson, I liked the fact that it featured a bigger element of discussion and it really got me thinking about the representation of women within the media. After watching films such as 'The best years of our lives' it makes me question why a film made in 1946 can produce female characters that represent women in a more positive light than a film made in 2010. The role of women in society has changed so dramatically than in the 1940's yet this is not reflected on the screen. 'The best years of our lives' seems so advanced for the time period. I particularly liked the character of Peggy, who appeared as smart, funny and a strong character, who despite her love for Fred, didn't beg or plead with him to love her. I found this film really captivating and refreshing and would be something I would like to watch again.

The final term

So we are back for the final term of our first year. I cant believe that time has passed so quickly. When I first arrived at the academy it felt as though we would be here forever, but now I feel that if our first two terms are anything to go by, the rest of my time at the RSAMD will simply fly by. And that is a little bit scary.

However we still have a term to go before the long summer holidays. I am really excited about getting back to the academy as it feels like I have been away for ages. I am really looking forward to going out on shoots again, and after the holidays my brain seems to be brimming with ideas.

Although I had a really good holiday I was not able to visit the cinema at all. This is partly because the cinema nearest to me still isn’t as handy as Cineworld is in Glasgow. The other reason is my friends at home simply don’t like going to the cinema as much as I do and unlike my friends in DFTV, they are not all movie buffs.

However I did manage to watch quite a bit of TV over the holidays. The third series of Outnumbered aired last week which I was really excited about. I had been looking forward to new episodes of this program for ages and I am thrilled to see it back on television. I cant get over how good the three children within the show are. They are so natural on screen and their fresh comedic talent and quick wit displayed through improvisation makes them instantly humorous and loveable. One of Outnumbered’s merits is that it is a programme that the whole family can watch and enjoy. The young can watch it and relate to the children and find their situations funny. It is also suitable for younger children as there is no swearing or inappropriate innuendo’s that would deter parents from showing it to their children. However I think that that the show has huge appeal for adults. I think that everyone can relate to some of the situations that the program features.

When watching other family sitcoms it becomes obviously apparent just how good Outnumbered is in comparison with many other texts belonging to the same genre. When me and my mum were watching TV the other evening we came across a programme called ‘The Life of Riley’. Although this programme was intended to be a sitcom I did not find it funny at all. The format felt so overused and the comedy was stale and fell a little flat. I was quite surprised that a program of this standard was given a better timeslot than Outnumbered. To me it seems a shame that the BBC are wasting their primetime slots on programmes like The Life of Riley rather than investing in newer, fresher and more interesting programming that would expand the British publics taste in television, rather than simply pumping out the endless programs with the same format and simply playing o0n the safe side.

I recently watched several episodes from my box-set of Greenwing. I had forgotten just how good this programme is. It simply stands out from most of the other shows that have been on TV recently. I really wish that they didn’t decide to stop after only two seasons, but I suppose it is better to quit while your ahead and end on a high rather than dragging out a programme for longer than it should and watching the quality of the show decrease. I applaud people that can give up making a programme whilst it is still making money and the public are still interested in it. It must be a really hard thing to do, to give up the money, the success and take a risk by launching a totally new television programme. Many showrunners are not brave enough to give up on a hit show, for example I think ‘Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps’ was originally a good programme but it just went on for too long, the actors grew older and the last couple of series just felt as though they were trying to hard to be funny.

However the two series of Greenwing manage to remain fresh, funny and different. I think the editing is very interesting within the programme; slow motion and fast motion are often used for coming effect. These effects also represent and add to the quirky nature of the programme. Yet undoubtedly the best part of the programme has to be the strength and variety of characters. They are all so different and so funny in their own way. Its great to watch a programme set in a hospital that is not a drama and surprisingly enough when my brother was in hospital one of the surgeons told him that Greenwing was the most like life in a real hospital. If he wasn’t joking this is a very very scary thought!

River City

I have to say before coming to Glasgow I had never watched of River City, unlike most of the other soaps. Im not even entirely sure if it is broadcast in England. However when I found out that Kim was a storyliner for the show I thought that it was important to check it out. So since then I have watched an episode or two, I have to say that it has not become my new favorite TV program (nothing could beat Grey's Anatomy) but it isnt to bad. I found it slightly weird to watch a Scottish soap opera, simply because I am so used to seeing ones set around where I live, such as Hollyoaks and Corrie. Obviously it is not a requirement to only enjoy tv shows set in the place you come from, but it does help. I think it is nice to see places you know on TV or have actors speak in a similar accent to your own. That is one reason why it is good that River City is on television, as I have not really seen that many Scottish programs since being at university.

However when Kim told us that she has arranged a trip for us all to go to the set of River City I was extremely excited. I had never had the opportunity to visit a real TV set before so i fully relished in this opportunity when we set off on our trip to Dumbarton on Monday morning. When we arrived I was really surprised to see what the exterior of the building looked like, it was not at all glamourous or fancy like I imagined, in fact it looked a little like a prison. However when we went inside it began to look a little more like I envisioned, after a fire alarm as soon as we entered the building ( I am beginning to think that fire alarms follow me everywhere, as we had just had one at halls that very morning), we began to look around the back lot of the set where the majority of the external scenes on the soap are shot. I was really impressed with the set and it was much better than I had pictured in my head. I couldn't get over how realistic everything looked. If my mum dropped me off on that street one morning, i probably would have been convinced that it was infact a real street. The set design was excellent and all the tiny details that were paid attention to really helped to create a natural looking environment. All accept the exceptionaly clean kettle in the garage. It may sound silly but i wasn't expecting the set to be open air, for some reason I thought that it would all be indoor, but i thought that it was a really nice touch, and i suppose it would look alot more realistic filming in natural light.

After having lunch in the BBC canteen, sat on the next table to the stars of the show (how cool our we) it was then time for our tour of the studio. The indoor studio was like a giant maze, it was really interesting to see the wide variety of sets and the different houses the characters live in. Some of the sets, in particular the pub, looked alot smaller than they appear on television . Most of the sets also looked like the mini kitchen and livingrooms you see in Ikea as opposed to actual homes. I suppose that it is the actors and maybe the props that make these sets look realistic and lived in. I loved the fact that I was able to recognize some of the sets off the tv and i will be watching River City in more detail in the future to see if I can spot any of the sets we visited or the actors we saw.

I really enjoyed the day at the studio and really appreciate the fact that I am on a course which gives me the ability to visit such interesting places and meet a wide variety of industry professionals. The visit was very beneficial and I am happy that I know what a real television set actually looks like. Im really grateful to Kim for arranging this visit, I have really enjoyed her lessons as she has opened my eyes up to a wider variety of roles within the television industry that I was previously unaware of. I hope to have more lessons with her next year as they have made such a positive contribution to the course.

Feels like home to me

I have to say that I have been excited about this project from the very start, I thought that the theme was lovely and showed a lot of potential, but for the most part I was excited about this project as it was the first time we were going to be able to go out there and be creative.

Overall I really liked our idea and thought that we worked well together as a group, especially in terms of planning and organization. We had a very clear idea of what we wanted to film and the shots that were needed to achieve this effect. Although it was mentioned that our idea was very ambitious, it still didnt seem like a struggle to complete the film. Although traveling to Loch Lomand did take a while, we set off early and managed to plan our time well and we were back in Glasgow by teatime.

The whole day at the loch seemed to run very smoothly, there were no major complications and I felt that we worked very well as a team. However, by far the most stressful time during the shoot arose whilst filming at halls. We were in extremely cramped conditions and because of the fact that there we had lots of actors in the scene (thanks to the other group for volunteering:D) and it did get a little bit stressful. I think at some points we could have communicated better with each other, however as the filming process went on I feel that everyone improved in this area. By the end of Thursday I think that everyone was happy with the end results and it felt great to say that we had finally managed to shoot our first short film.

Seen as everyone has started doing lists of things they have learnt, I feel as though I should jump on board and give it a try:

. Communication is key, otherwise people can get annoyed or upset. And they may be about to tell you a great idea you may never have thought of alone.

. It is possible to de-rig in under two minutes. (Especially when you have the motivation of a fire alarm blaring in your ears.)

. Filming is very tiring, especially when you have to get up at 5.30 in the morning.

. Keep your actors happy.

. It's very useful to be in a group with people who have family in Glasgow who can be in our films. Its even better if you are in a group with someone who has a multi-talented performing dog, who may well have been the most experienced person on set.

. You cant rely upon Scottish weather, but it is important to be resourceful when it eventually does start pouring with rain.

. BNC cables are not vital, but they are very important and useful objects.

. Cars are in fact vital, and more of us need to learn to drive and purchase them. It would make going on location a whole lot easier. (Maybe we should all club together and by a DFTV car.)

. Lighting can make such a difference in a film, as can tracks.

. Filming is very hard work, very fulfilling and very very fun.

The Birds

This weekend I watched the Hitchcock film ‘The Birds’. I have been interested in Hitchcock for quite a while, and the effect his work has had on many other filmmakers. A couple of weeks ago I took ‘The Birds’ out of the library at the academy but I never got around to watching it. However when I went home this weekend my Dad got out the Hitchcock box set that he received at Christmas and let me pick out one of the DVD’s to watch. I had heard good things about ‘The Birds’ and my mum said that when she watched the film she found it really scary.

I really enjoyed the film, Hitchcock’s psychological thrillers are always very high quality and this one was no exception. He builds anticipation and creates suspense wonderfully. I love how his films are all about subtlety, a look or gesture can often tell the story or portray a message more effectively than dialogue. It is so interesting how Hitchcock manages to make something that would not be ordinarily scary, such as birds, into something terrifying. This is done simply by the use of camera angles, music and diegetic sound. Some of the special effects used when the birds are shown to be attacking people look a little outdated and unrealistic. However it got me thinking, would the film be better if it was remade now? Obviously we have more technology now that would provide us with the ability to create 3D animation to show the birds attacking. However I think this may actually spoil the look of the film and diminish its appeal. Part of the charm of the film is how the birds are made to appear scary, but done within a creative fashion. If special effects were used it would mean that less creativity would be required to produce the film.

One of the best scenes within the film is achieved so simply, it involves crows sitting on a climbing frame outside of a school. Every few seconds when the camera goes back to the climbing frame the number of birds seem to have multiplied, until the playground is covered in birds. All of these crows make up such a daunting image, each bird appears so sinister and the group of them together appears terrifying.

What I think makes the movie scary is that the fear within the film is not an unrealistic one that exists only in our imaginations. Everyone knows that monsters or vampires are not real, however birds are obviously very real, and they are EVERYWHERE! After watching the film I found myself looking around warily when I saw a bird, and flinching whenever a pigeon, or god forbid, a seagull flies over my head. So clearly this film has achieved its objective of scaring people. Yet again I am impressed with another one of Hitchcock’s films, and as the film ended I found myself wanting to watch more of the boxset straight away as I enjoyed the movie so much. However I will defiantly be watching out for those scary birds when I am walking around Glasgow tomorrow.