We’ve had two nights of ds106 radio broadcasts so far this week. Monday’s shows were Rogue Agents, a fun quiz type show, and Girl Power, an interesting discussion of women in the secret agent business. There is more to say about all of these shows, but it’s getting late and I need to get up early, so I’m just putting them out there.
Tuesday’s shows both had music themes. The Secret Agent Power Hour covered spy film theme songs through the years, and the Secret Agent Hip/Hop Hour compared rappers to secret agents.
Secret Agent Hip/Hop hour
Secret Agent Power Hour
They’re all very different takes on the genre, and all worth a listen. It’s great to hear what happens when people bring their creative powers together.
I never get to participate in Open Learning as much as I want to. Mostly it’s because I’m so slow to get my thoughts together in any coherent format, I think. But a simple activity came up today, So I’m dipping a toe in.
The suggestion was to annotate Barbara Fister’s article on the 30th anniversary of the Web. She’s in my pantheon, so I always watch for her work. I can’t really add anything meaningful to it, but I did throw in a couple annotations as a way of adding connections, which may inspire others to try the same.
Hypothesis lets you add your thoughts on a web page. That by itself is cool, but you can also add tags and hyperlinks in your annotations, building a web within the web. And each of those annotations has a web address, so they can become nodes. As an example of the latter, I annotated a Berners-Lee Wikiquote and hyperlinked that in my annotation of one of his quotes in the article. Another line in the article reminded me of an old saying, so I annotated it with a link to an article about the saying.
I don’t know my little associative trails will do much for anyone, but I thought it might be useful to provide the examples. Fister mentions Maria Popova and Brain Pickings as an example of trailblazing. Like cross-references in an encyclopedia, the links and connections we make on the Web give us and others way to expand our knowledge. Tools like blogs and Hypothesis give us ways to make the web our own. The way it was meant to be all along.
I love the idea of a Pet Film Poster Mashup, yesterday’s Daily Create. I wasn’t really sure what to do for it though. I don’t have a pet of favorite animal, unless the Guinea worm counts. So I started thinking about movies and movie posters, but quickly realized that there were too many of them. Then I googled “top films of 2018,” and one of the titles that came up was Widows, which was really good, and had a cool poster. As a bonus, the way the poster was designed would make it easy to swap in an animal. The next step was to figure out what animal to use. I remembered to pigeon picture from an old listicle, one that I liked enough to make my desktop wallpaper.
To make them work together, the pigeons would need to be grayscale. I went to the Hue & Saturation function under the Image->Adjustments menu, and slid the saturation all the way down. I also tweaked the contrast a bit (Ctrl-L) to make it a little darker to fit in with the poster. I went to the poster and made a duplicate layer, then cut out some of the characters. I copied the pigeons picture and pasted it in the poster, and moved it behind the duplicate layer, and lined up some pigeons in the openings. They didn’t just all fall into place so I had to do some duplication and trimming to get the pigeon faces where I wanted them. You will notice that all the faces have a kind of a spotlight on them, so it fades to black at the edges. I needed to simulate that effect to really make the birds fit. I changed the rectangular selection tool to elliptical and set the feathering at 20 pixels, and then selected around each pigeon head and filled the background with black. The feathering gave it the gradation to fade to black and the elliptical selection acted as a spotlight. I took it a step further and re-did the title. I used Arial Black to get the heavy letters, and made some adjustments to the letterspacing and horizontal scaling to get it to fit and look right. The I used the polygonal selection tool to copy the characters and paste them in front of the type. I used the magic wand to grab the “Widows” letters and fill them with black.
That’s probably a little overboard for a Daily Create. Because I have some experience with Photoshop, I knew how to do what I wanted to do, mostly, so I didn’t do much trial and error experimentation. In hindsight, I think changing the title was a step too far, and it cost the image a lot of subtlety. I could have made some sort of pigeon pun with the other text. I also notice that the poster isn’t really grayscale, but rather has a dark sepia cast, so I should have done something to make the pigeons fit better. Live and learn.
I’ve been thinking about my own questions – What makes a book cover look like a book cover? etc. – and thought I’d do an analysis of a design here. So here’s a mock book cover design from mock design master Cris Shapan:
Two things jump out at me immediately. One is the shape. Books commonly have a rectangular shape, usually something close to the Golden Rectangle that I believe Vignelli referenced. The other is the details we typically see on a book. Title and author are expected, but we also have some publisher details that would indicate “book” even if it didn’t literally spell it out. If we whited out the artwork, it would still look like a book.
The artwork does something as well. My guess is the image comes from another book. (which I found through google image search) There’s a style to it that fits cheap paperbacks of a certain era. It looks like something my mom would have read. The iconography and typography are retro, harking back to the 50s & 60s.
Note how the yellow color contrasts nicely with the blue and black background. They are almost complementary colors, meaning that if you looked them up on a color wheel, they would be on opposite sides. The yellow color is also picked up from the woman’s hair, which brings a unity to the design. The black type at the bottom similarly ties to the black in the background, yet contrasts with the lighter color behind it. Subtle and effective.
For our third and fourth nights of ds106radio live tweeting, we listened to the Lux Radio Theater adaptation of Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious and a BBC adaptation of Ian Fleming’s You Only Live Twice. The former was from 1948 and the latter from 1991, so again we had the contrast between the age of radio and the age of video.
Lux was a soap company that sponsored the radio series. This was common in those days, and is where the term soap opera originates. From the sound, it may have been recorded live in a theater. There was applause, which sounded out of place, at the breaks between acts. The announcer would do product promotion in the breaks, commercials much different from what we hear these days. There was a judicious but effective use of sound effects and transition music.
It was a problematic adaptation however. The movie is considered a classic now, and was very popular then, bit with audiences and critics. Hitchcock was recognized as a master film maker. I think the radio producers were intimidated by this. It really shows in the final scene. In the movie, it was very dramatic, but also very visual. It could not work with sound alone. With a little imagination, I’m sure it could have been re-written to work as sound, but that would have meant tampering with the climactic moment, which probably wouldn’t have pleased anyone.
“The book was better” is something commonly said about movie adaptations. It’s pretty much always true. Stanley Kubrick once said that you can’t make a great film out of a great book. I think that’s because what makes a book great is the way it uses written language, which gets lost in translation to film. It’s better to use a mediocre book so you’re not bound by the original. The radio version of Notorious ran into that issue.
You Only Live Twice adapted Fleming’s novel for the radio. While the movies took liberties with his work, the BBC appears to try to be faithful. But that becomes problematic too. In a book, we can read what the characters are seeing and thinking. It’s difficult to translate that to dialogue without getting awkward, as this program showed. Instead of following the “show, don’t tell” rule, the producers gave us some longwinded exposition and extended sequences of Bond thinking out loud. I should have previewed the audio before taking to the air, because it sounded like someone did an amatuer job of layering soundtrack music on top of the radio broadcast, too loud and in the wrong spots. Even so, we could still hear examples of how sound can convey setting and a sense of the action. Both broadcasts give examples of things that work, and things that don’t. We can take lessons from the failures as well as the successes.
The modern production was a contrast to the previous night’s shows, produced 65 years earlier. The contrast was most apparent in the clarity, detail, and stereo imaging in the sound production. Several people remarked on this.
The smallest background noise or little sounds create such a clear image and enhance the story better. I liked the sound of the glass clinking #ds106
While the production quality was better, the production overall, I thought, was weaker. The BBC used a voice of Fleming as a narrator. Some people were okay with it and others found it distracting and out of place. Frequently it was superfluous. In some instances the narrator repeated information we could pick up from sound and dialogue, and in others the narrator interjected unnecessary details. Perhaps they’re trying to be faithful to Fleming’s stories in ways that the movies were not, but it felt like a failure of imagination and critical editing.
At one point, they used an old-fashioned newsreel to provide background exposition. This was an effective way to show rather than tell us about the villain. It also put the story in a particular time, one where newsreels were a thing. Later on they used some rather modern-sounding background music, which reminded me of Tool, and felt incongruous with the period. It’s a small detail, but it breaks the flow by calling attention to itself.
It made me think about the time periods and the talent pools. Nowadays, for the past half century really, people have grown up with video as the dominant form of storytelling. There are people who do excellent sound work, but most often it’s in service of visual storytelling. At the time of Douglas of the World, print and radio were the dominant forms of mass communication. Creators and audiences were much more attuned to those types of languages, whereas now it’s all about the moving image. That critical ear for tightly-edited audio storytelling is underdeveloped. That’s my conjecture anyway.
I had never heard either, and in fact never heard of the show until this past weekend, so it was a bit of a risk. The sound quality on the first episode was normal for old-time radio – listenable but not good. The second one was poor but mostly understandable.
Jeez, the way this was recorded it made the other one sound modern. It sounds like they’re recording these lines through three Motel 8 walls. #ds106
One value of listening to old shows recorded with primitive technology is that
they present a pretty low bar. Anyone can make something just as good or better without any special equipment beyond a computer and a microphone. Another value is that they show the effectiveness of just a few simple sound effects.
You can hear the door opening and closing. It shows how the background sounds are just as important as the dialogue. There's a difference between someone saying they are coming and hearing them actually come #ds106
A third value is in the writing and structure. A half hour drama has to be taut and economical, and in an audio setting, has to function purely through sound and dialogue. There’s that storytelling dictum of show, don’t tell. We know Douglas is a newspaper reporter from the office banter and typewriters in the background. We know they’re driving when we hear the car engine. We know they’re trapped when we hear the door close and the lock turn. Those simple sounds create a sense of place, of space, action, … even the transitional music gives us clues to the passage of time and the mood of the situation. All of which are parts of writing for audio. We will be making our own radio shows in a couple weeks, and we can take many lessons from what we hear in these old-time shows.
Some background on Douglas of the World can be found at the Digital Deli Too site. It was produced for Armed Forces Radio and referenced real world issues of the time, as we saw in The Terrorist with Mossadegh. That episode was written up on an Iranian site, which gives some interesting perspective on it.
The Engelbart Framework Annotation Project is worth paying attention to, and participating in, for those who can find the time. I’ve been struggling with it, as things I have to do crowd out the things I want to do. But I did find time to listen to Gardner Campbell’s reading of Engelbart’s paper, and a few minutes in I had the idea to give it a backing track. I found A Tribe Called Quest_Rare & Unreleased Instrumentals Vol 2 (Album) 2010 on Youtube and pretty much dropped Gardner’s recording right in top of it. I noticed the instrumental still had some Q-Tip in it near the beginning, so I made some room for that, although it might have been better to just take that part out. It was just a happy accident that the rhythm of the reading fits so well with the beats. I gave it a little nudge here and there, but mostly just let it fall where it may. Maybe it’s a silly mash-up, and better men than me have done it before, but I kinda like the way it came out. I wonder where my wallet went…
This morning a saw a new creation from one of my favorite contemporary artists, Cris Shapan. This is in response to advertising for an upcoming film, Alita: Battle Angel, which dares to venture into an uncanny valley. What I really like about Shapan’s work is the attention to detail, like that little blurb, “Not for sale where creepy is unlawful.”
But it got me to wondering if I could do something similarly creepy. It looks like a fairly simple bit of Photoshopping. I looked for images of James Bond and found a collage of the many actors in their role. It would have been great to work with, but the image was too small and the resolution was too low. Instead I grabbed several individual Bonds and put them together in my own collage. Then I used the polygon selection tool to copy the eyes, one pair at a time. I set the feathering to 2 px so that it would blend smoothly with the rest of the image. Then I enlarged the eye copies and moved them into place. I had to move the second eye separately to get them closer together, like in the original. I repeated that for each Bond.
The effect is interesting. The eyes are big enough so that they don’t look right, but not so much that it’s immediately obvious what’s wrong. I probably could have pushed it further, especially with Dalton and Bronson. Maybe I should have enlarged their eyes vertically.
OK, that’s creepy. So, I did this because I thought it would be fun. There wasn’t really a Visual Assignment that matched it, as far as I could tell, so I’m making a new one. I had to think of a title, and this just came to me:
About raptnrent: I got the name from my keys - R Apt and R Ent for the back door to my apartment and the back door to the house. I liked that they were also words: Rapt, meaning enthralled, riveted, captivated, and Rent, meaning torn asunder, violently wrenched. I thought it made for an interesting juxtaposition, open to all kinds of interpretations.