Sunk Scribbles...

Funny one

2006-06-04T20:06:00.000-07:00

A Photographer Vs Photojournalist

2006-06-04T19:16:00.000-07:00

Did you ever know that there is actually some difference between a photographer and a photojournalist.. I never did until i stumbled onto this blog of a photojournalist.

http://markhancock.blogspot.com/

To pick a few lines from his blog ->

Photojournalism. It destroys almost all barriers. Justice can draw its sword in the time it takes an eye to scan an image. An image has no age, language or intelligence limits.

Thats exactly what i thought about a normal photographer...but read on..

A journalist tells stories. A photographer takes pictures of nouns (people, places and things). A photojournalist takes the best of both and locks it into the most powerful medium available--a single frozen image.

But, to be a photojournalist, you must understand the relationship between the image and these basic elements of language (all languages--worldwide).

"The girl (must) hit (or miss) the ball. There are no other options."

The girl is easy to photograph. The ball is easy to photograph. The verb is the hard part.

Photographers take pictures of nouns (people, places and things). Photojournalists shoot action verbs ("kicks," "explodes," "cries," etc. ...).

You really wouldnt understand what it is until u browse through some of the pics on that site.Theres definitely a huge difference ..an interesting difference !!

A Clock Work Orange

2006-06-03T19:49:00.000-07:00

Being the adventures of a young man ... who couldn't resist pretty girls ... or a bit of the old ultra-violence ... went to jail, was re-conditioned ... and came out a different young man ... or was he ? ......Thats how the movie tag line goes !!

Released in 1971,this masterpiece by Stanley Kubrick shocks viewers with its explicit portrayal of violence and crime . And mind you, by explicit i mean very explicit with its brutal and savage images of rape and ruthless killing and beating up. Why would anybody make a movie
so filled with violence and savagery whose only outward aim seems to be glorifying what it shows so explicitly? Only the sickest of bastards would do such a thing...but to get things straight Stanley Kubrick was or is not a sick bastard to have made this movie. The answer to the above question is very simple, he just did not make this movie to glorify violence or so i think.

Alexander 'Alex' de Large, the protaganist of the movie or should we say "hero" is just a regular college kid in his adolescent years who lives with his parents during the day and turns into a killer/rapist by night. He and his buddies every night make their way into happy homes by using the same decieving phrase,but one night lucks turns back on them, when one lady alerts the police and alex alone is caught.

After the process of being sent to prison, Alex grows to learn to tell offices and guards what they like to hear. He reads the bible, is never involved with any major fights or complications, and almost volunteers for a new kind of experiment. An experiment so probationary it is still being tested and held under wraps. What it does, though a series of "sessions," is cure a violent individual from his sickness; he will feel terrible pain if involved in any sort of violence after the medicine takes place.

This movie gets you so involved into alex's character, played very originally by Malcom McDowell( also seen in HIDALGO, THE ADVENTURES OF BATMAN AND ROBIN, MILK MONEY...), that even though the character needs to despised and hated, u start devolping an interest in his sick, demented, psychotic mind. This is mostly because of the flawless point of view the film contains, one that both provokes empathy and involvement.

This is what Stanley Kubrick had actually intended, to force down the character upon us, by this he forces us to investigate deep down in ourselves, which i should say he executed it with finesse.Stanley Kubrick's treatment of the film has been unabashedly bold and on the face. His mastery of depicting emotions can be seen in the scene where our "hero", hooks up with two 14 year old girls in his apartment. The scene showing Alex havin sex with the two girls moves at fastforward at a speed just enough for the viewers to make out what exactly is happening(This i heard was done for the film to get rated R than X, and i also heard the actual scene was 20 long mins). Throughout the whole scene, the camera is stationary and the whole scene is taken in one shot. Unlike steamy scenes in other movies, where the expressions of the people involved are taken in close up and the camera is moving, this one does not arouse any interest from the viewers, and is not meant to. It denotes how emotionless Alex is, even during his sexual acts.

Though this movie will always remain in my "Movies of all time" list, i would prefer not to recommend it to anybody in the fear that the true meaning of the film would be misinterpret. This is definitely not a movie that glorifies violence, but uses violence to depict the savage nature of violence. Truly a Masterpiece !!

My First Entry !!

2006-06-01T11:45:00.000-07:00

I strongly believe in celebrations of all good and happy events... after months of speculating my entry into the blogging scene...ive decided to enter it(Applause...) . Thank you..thank you!!

The only reason tat held me back from entering it long back was tat i would be 2 lazy to maintain..but tat lets jus c .

anyway heres to good times !! Clink !