Contributing writer for The Artifice.

Contributor II

  • Plebian Penman
  • Lurker
  • Pssst
  • Hand Raiser
  • Sharp-Eyed Citizen
  • Town Watch
  • Article of the Month
  • ?
  • Articles
  • Featured
  • Comments
  • Ext. Comments
  • Processed
  • Revisions
  • Topics
  • Topics Taken
  • Notes
  • Topics Proc.
  • Topics Rev.
  • Points
  • Rank
  • Score

    Latest Articles

    Latest Topics


    The Challenges of Writing Second Person Point of View

    Using second person point of view isn’t exactly common when it comes to literature. It often brings to mind "Choose Your Own Adventure" stories, but not likely much else. Novels often seek to put the reader into the protagonist’s shoes so to speak, which second person point of view literally does, so what accounts for its limited use? Examine what puts this type of narrative at a disadvantage compared to the more popular first-person and third-person points of view in novels. What are some examples that make good use of second person point of view and how they successfully navigate its pitfalls and/or subvert its expectations?

    • The first example that comes to mind is Tolstoy's "Sevastopol in December," but you're correct to note its rarity. Epistolary novels can also, to a certain extent, be seen as utilizing second-person narration, since authors of letters are directly addressing an implied reader with a unique identity; this, however, becomes complicated by the commingling of the first-person "I" of the letter-writer and the second-person "you" of the recipient, thus reducing the formal purity of a single focalizing voice. It's interesting that you should bring up interactive narratives, since another possible example in that vein are so-called "first-person" video games. These may be better interpreted as actually being second-person, since the avatar through which the player experiences the game is less of a narrator than a participant à la "Choose Your Own Adventure." The true narrator in such cases is the text which appears on screen to provide instruction to the "you" who experiences the ludonarrative. – ProtoCanon 1 month ago
    • Here's a recent one--Jemisin's "Broken Earth" series. Of course, it's phrased as being told by someone to someone else, but that's just the frame of it. It never leaves "you," and knows everything. – IndiLeigh 1 month ago
    • This is something I'd really love to explore. I think often times in writing or English classes we are told not to bother with second person point of view because it's so rarely used and thus, we don't get to learn about it or appreciate it like other view points. – ReidaBookman 1 month ago

    The Role of Opening Credits

    TV opening credits obviously let viewers know who the main cast is as well as give everyone involved in the process their due. The aesthetics and artwork of each individual show’s credits can also persuade the audience into participation. How do opening credits function depending on what shows one is watching? There are certain shows that begin with catchy themes, eye-catching graphics, or contain "easter egg"-like codes/foreshadowing. There are others which keep the visibility of opening credits to a minimum, perhaps to heighten the realism of the show’s fictional world. How does the nature of certain shows determine the way opening credits are presented to the audience?

    • Approved this, but I was going to say would you be able to add some examples? One that always springs to mind for me is the minimalistic credits for Hannibal – Francesca Turauskis 12 months ago
    • How about a little bit of comparison and contrast with the opening credits from previous decades? I've notice several old programs that have opening theme songs that the lyrics were actually displayed on the screen as they were sung. – NoDakJack 11 months ago
    • This would be such a great prompt to expand on--once I get to the point where I can publish articles I may take this on myself! So many nuances and storytelling aspects can be found in a good opening credits sequence. There's so much to talk about! Context clues and interpretation of the cinematography and any song lyrics would be good points to discuss. – RachelHart 11 months ago
    • Just going to leave this right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG_P_1JnfXI – ProtoCanon 9 months ago
    • Wonder if there's much of a difference between opening credits and opening titles, but here's a fairly enlightening video by Cinefix i hope you find useful :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8twthdaqB8 – Matchbox 9 months ago
    • Just a pet theory for filmic opening-credits, but there must be an evolution in length. Perhaps I'm pointing to the obvious, but Hollywood films produced pre-millennium seem much longer than productions after. Watching Kramer vs. Kramer, I realized it was an eon worth of attention span for the generation of viewers today. The opening for some production during earlier periods are an encased vignette telling an encapsulated story. Perhaps viewer patience have been eroded that opening credit structure is susceptible to such pressures.By the way, after watching the opening-credits for Dexter, does anyone crave ham and eggs with a splash of Tapatio? – minylee 9 months ago
    • To expand on the comparison of opening credits now versus years ago, almost all older movies and tv shows (mid to late 20th century) feature the majority, if not all, credits at the beginning. Now, generally only the main characters are billed at the beginning, with everything else credited at the end. Perhaps you could examine what caused the switch, if anything, and how that has impacted the audience's viewing experience. – Noelle McNeill 2 months ago

    Movies to TV: What caused the shift?

    Whether it’s True Detective, Fargo, Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, Stranger Things, etc. there has been a strong shift of interest from movies to TV. TV shows now have high production levels that mimic large-scale movies in both aesthetics and tone. TV is perhaps taken more seriously now than ever before. Does this have to do with ease of access? With services such as Netflix, viewers can binge-watch entire seasons if they want to. There is also the bankable element of episodic teasing out of narrative compared to the contained narratives of movies. Are TV shows taking more risks? Orange is the New Black and Stranger Things cast mostly unfamiliar faces yet Netflix is also responsible for reboots of familiar shows as with Fuller House and the upcoming Gilmore Girls. Even actors have shown greater interest in moving to TV, which was once seen as lesser than being a film star. Or is something else at work here? Can films make a comeback from this and how?

    • Good topic! In terms of what caused the shift it seems like part of it is economics. Tentpole movies these days are supposed to have boxoffice appeal across the world—which is one of the main reasons most of them have low-IQ CGI action sequences that seem almost endless. TV shows, in contrast, can appeal to niche audiences and go for awards, which means prestige television tends to be more character-driven and thought-provoking. Since economics is driving this, at least to some degree, my guess is that it can't be reversed. – Ben Hufbauer 11 months ago
    • You're right! I don't know how I forgot to mention that aspect of it. Yes, movies nowadays are more keen to appeal to a global audience (especially China at the moment). That's also why big budget, CGI action movies such as those with universally recognizable superheroes became very popular. With exciting action sequences, as you mention, it also minimizes any problems in terms of language/cultural barriers. Thank you for the note! – aprosaicpintofpisces 11 months ago
    • I think it is a mixture of things that has resulted in a decline in movie attendance and the rise in television viewers.1. Ticket prices. People turn away from cinemas because of the cost of not only admission but concession items. Also, perhaps people do not find it as necessary as they once did to rush to the cinema to watch a new movie.2. The accessibility to premiere television programming from HBO and others. Whether it is through streaming providers or through pirating, perhaps people enjoy the comfort of their own home when watching movies or television.3. The most interesting analysis could be that the mini-series format that alot of television shows incorporate now is indeed a better way to tell a narrative than to squish the story into a 2 hour time limit. – Jeffrey Cook 11 months ago
    • The above commenters pretty much covered why there's been a shift to tv shows. I just wanted to add that tv shows give directors more time to cover stories, and they can flesh out their plots too since movies have a limited time frame.– seouljustice 11 months ago
    • I think its people's hunger for character development and relatability. We are living in difficult times and its hard to share or talk about experiences and having someone understand us. That's what TV is for. We like to feel like we can relate to characters, and we like to see their stories unfold and see them grow for better or for worse, while learning from them at the same time. It is a new form of growth for these modern times, but society hasn't fully grasped that concept. – jcastro4 8 months ago
    • I've read that some actors prefer to work on TV series because it allows them to develop more their characters. And now that we have shows like Game of Thrones, House of Cards, etc. that are like movies, and have attached directors like David Fincher in House of Cards, and the recently announced TV series that Alejandro G. Iñarritu will be making with Emmanuel Lubezki. The line that differentiates TV from Film production has become harder to draw. With the big studios producing just sequels to superhero movies, TV has become the place to find original content and allows filmmakers to experiment with pilots before investing millions of dollars. – arturoandre 8 months ago
    • Great observations. I have also noticed that although people are still going out to the theaters and appreciating movies, TV seems to be the go to for a casual evening at home. I think it's because now television is broaching more adult topics, like you said. In the past TV was the one place where things were censored, or created with family friendly intentions. Nowadays because of the new technique of showcasing intense and emotional moments, people find tv just as riveting as a major motion picture. Orange is the New Black is a great example of this. The subject of the show itself, a women's prison, is relatively controversial to start and the creators even took it to the next level by adding powerful character dynamics that resemble real life. Hollywood could actually learn a thing or two from the emotional resonance new television enraptures the world with. The Walking Dead is about zombies but it's easily one of the most moving shows of the last decade. At least, the first four seasons were. Movies are great because they have an entire storyline in only one to three hours. Maybe because the shows have more airtime they can explore more in depth topics. This may also affect why people have become more interested. Because the good shows have more runtime, thus the viewer can get more comfortable in their experience and enjoy having a lot of quality television to watch. Sometimes we even 'binge watch' tv for hours, even an entire day, because the quality of the show is so good. There are very few movies that have this effect; that they are worthy of wasting an entire day watching them. Lord of the Rings is binge watchable. However, the quote really usually only refers to the nonstop viewing of a tv series. If a show can capture a person's attention that long, most of these shows have adult topics, it's no wonder there's been a shift in favor towards television. Movies will always be loved though. You can't watch TV at a theater. – animerose 8 months ago
    • Great points made. I think that its definitely a mixture of a lot of things. A good thing to find would be statistics especially from streaming services. It would give great insight into this interesting observation. – vivientopalovic 5 months ago

    Can I Get a Take Two?: Actor Replacements in Film Franchises

    What happens when an actor takes on a character played by someone else within the same franchise? I’m not talking about reboots that completely refresh the cast (as in Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and most recently Tom Holland as Spider-Man). I’m talking about a single franchise where the film brings an entirely different actor to play the same character. For example, in the Harry Potter film series the initial actor who played Dumbledore passed away and Michael Gambon had to step in for the rest of the series. There are also The Mummy movies, where Rachel Weisz dropped out of the cast by her own volition and was replaced by another actress for the third film in the franchise. In my experience, the different Dumbledores didn’t bother me at all but to have Brendan Fraser’s character with a different woman playing his wife was confusing. How have these transitions fared for films that have replaced actors in the middle of the same series? Were they considered jarring and rejected by audiences or did they do little to affect the series as a whole? Does the nature of these replacements have an effect as well (i.e. an unprecedented event such as an actor’s death vs. an actor’s or studio’s decision)?

    • I wrote a long response that I think got erased... TLDR; The actor switch with Dumbledore suited the dark progression of the movies. The first guys was sweet and soft spoken, all about love while the second actor was full of movement, emotion and "did you put your name in the goblet harry?!" I think it was a fortunate (but unfortunate since the actor died) turn of events. In such a case, say, an actor can't fill a role right later in a franchise, better to replace them than have a sub-par rendition? – Slaidey 10 months ago
    • You make a very good point about the Dumbledore example. Michael Gambon's portrayal adds a great deal of emotional heft to the role, which is fitting for the increasingly darker tone of later Harry Potter films. It also aligns well with the change from an optimistically bright, Chris Columbus-style introduction to the Potter universe in the first film to the more melancholically heavy, David Yates-style of the final films. – aprosaicpintofpisces 10 months ago

    Future Film Movements: How will reflexivity tackle fully-immersive cinema?

    4D movie theaters are known for their immersive qualities including smells, seat vibrations, the simulation of certain weather conditions, etc. to replicate for the viewer what is being experienced in the fictional narrative presented onscreen. So far, 4D movies haven’t exactly dominated the movie-going experience but their existence does raise questions about how reflexivity will be achieved in the future. Self-reflexive films make viewers aware of the fact that they are watching a film, revealing “the artifice” as it were of the narrative and the characters involved. It’s a technique that’s often associated with art house or new wave cinema, though it can be found elsewhere in more palatable and consumer-friendly forms. Moviegoers usually like a fully immersive movie-going experience rather than be reminded that a film is a construct (it provides a nice escape from the tedium of reality for a few hours). With the increasing popularity of virtual reality in gaming nowadays, how will these increasingly more immersive technologies impact future movements in self-aware cinema? Will it undermine it all together? If not, how can reflexive techniques find a loophole around it to engage viewers as participants (not just spectators) again?

    • Cinema is designed to be communal. VR and video games are designed (for the most part) to be experienced alone, or at least in the domestic sphere of the home. Examining the aspects of place would be a critical view into your questions. There have been very few successful cross overs of video games to films (Lara Croft being an exceptIon) primarily because the social geography is different, and filmmakers rarely take that into account. An environment designed for personal consumption has some personal geography that is difficult to translate to a communal experience. So the question becomes, not how the reflexive techniques will find a loophole, but how the social geography can best be brought into the reflexive, because that is where the difference will really be made.Note to self, don't leave the page to look up an author's name... lest your note be deleted! Check out Lynn Spigel's work. – staceysimmons 11 months ago

    The Cinematic Space Odyssey

    Movies such as Gravity, Arrival, or the upcoming Passengers and Life films showcase the persistent human curiosity about outer space and who else (if anyone at all) is out there. We’re no longer in the era of little green men coming to invade the Earth in their silver flying saucers to abduct us or otherwise probe our brains. Cinematically speaking, how has the human vision of extraterrestrial life and exploration changed over the years? How have certain historical landmarks in the space program transformed what moviegoers want and expect to see in outer space-themed films? Has the recent media coverage about a possible mission to Mars in the not-too-distant future shifted the cinematic focus away from an interest in aliens to issues of human evolution/multi-planetary colonization? Is there something else at work here?

    • An interesting topic, for sure. Although I don't have the a very eclectic understanding of science fiction in cinema, I wonder if there has been a shift from the foreign/invading extraterrestrial to a interior extraterrestrial. That is to say, I have always perceived a shift from the flying saucer alien to the kind of alien that takes the form of human; an alien that changes our perception of the human body as human. Movies like Alien (where the alien is born from/comes from the human body) and Invasion of the Body snatchers. One might also consider Men in Black and Under the Skin. What we consider to be alien has, in some instances, become remarkably more human, and I think this would be a fascinating angle to take for this topic. – Dethlefs 11 months ago
    • The movies tend to change with science. The more things science figures out, and by extension, theories it creates, just add to the writer's creativity. One possible reason earlier movies were more about alien invasions is the fact that humans overestimated the planet's resources. Up until somewhat recently, people thought that we had a great thing going here. Now we see that the planet and its resources are finite, and that we are going to have to leave at some point. Which is why more blockbusters are centered more around space exploration rather than invasions from space. – MikeySheff 11 months ago

    The Fall of Calm, Cool, and Collected and the Rise of the Flawed Hero

    While watching re-runs of the 1960s cult classic, The Avengers, I was reminded of the effortless cool of many of that era’s heroes. With their witty banter and impeccable fashion sense, John Steed and Emma Peel were the epitome of the clever and effortlessly cool hero. Sean Connery as James Bond, the ever-jaded Humphrey Bogart, and even Cary Grant with his many aliases in the comic film Charade all exuded debonair qualities. Nowadays, many audiences gravitate toward anti-heroes instead. We are all about gritty realism, whether that’s by casting non-celebrity faces with minimal if any make-up as in Orange is the New Black, showing explicit content as in Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, or simply having skewed morals as in House of Cards or Dexter. There are even heroes who revoke the traditional heroism thrust upon them as with Jessica Jones. Modern-day protagonists are not often meant to be looked up to, but humanly flawed and as susceptible to be corrupted as we are. Yet it goes even beyond mere human flaws. It seems we enjoy seeing the extremes of bad behavior and the worst versions of ourselves. How did this come about? Is there a way to attain gritty realism without sacrificing the self-assuredness of the supposed heroes?

    • Great topic. I think there's an groundswell begging the return of standard heroes, not that antiheroes will disappear. – Tigey 1 year ago
    • In terms of how it came to be, talk about how relatable these anti-heros are to real life people and situations. Relatability goes a long way in modern day film, because people are more accepting of how these old "heros" are not exactly the most realistic, and find the anti-hero more exciting. Incorporate why this has changed over the years. – Deana Murphy 1 year ago

    No More Fade to Black

    The trend of showing just about everything in media, even if it seems unnecessary. I’m not talking about censoring, but about limiting the audience’s act of imagination to fill in the rest of the picture. What happens when a level of subtlety, implicitness, and mystery is lost? I was thinking of some classic black-and-white films such as M, The Innocents, Nosferatu, The Third Man, Gaslight, etc. whose atmosphere is heavily reliant on what is shrouded by shadow. A lot of suspense, dread, as well as intrigue is created by what we can’t see. When many movies now are so well-lit and in high-definition color, has something been lost? It seems like there is a strong desire to expose and reveal as much as we can instead. Has this transition affected how movies are filmed in other ways?

    • This is a great topic, and I do agree. The unspoken leads to contemplation, inquiry, and suspense. Though people fixate on the evolution of film technology, which is without a doubt extraordinarily impressive, some of basic cinematic concepts that make film so wonderful have been lost--what you are posing here is one. – danielle577 1 year ago
    • Interesting but if you pay attention to independent film(not commercial ones) they still adopt fade to black in their scenes. Maybe not common but it doesnt mean no more. When i 'm writing my script, I would sometimes use fade to black and fade in for transitions. I dont think it is fully abandoned. – moonyuet 1 year ago
    • I definitely agree with what you're saying about independent films. I'm not just talking about transitions, though, but about the general use of shadows or unseen areas in movies. I feel like we as an audience are often granted greater access to scenes we either would not have been shown before or would not be able to view with as much clarity, which is probably especially true in the case of commercial films. I hadn't intended to sound like I was making a generalization about all recent movies, just that it was a trend I had noticed. Sorry for not making myself clearer in that regard. – aprosaicpintofpisces 1 year ago

    Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

    Latest Comments

    Nice to see your article go live! Orson Welles was a real genius here. Although it isn’t one of my personal favorites, it’s not hard to see why it’s considered the greatest film of all time. Welles was also a pretty fearless man since he took great personal risk with his subject matter.

    Citizen Kane: Isolation and the American Identity

    I was somewhat familiar with this, but definitely not to the extent with which the article illuminates the issue. When I first read Frankenstein in high school, it was actually the preface/introduction that I found the most intriguing . . . even more so than the actual text (though I can’t remember what edition it was) since it’s pretty philosophical in tone. Nice examination of their marriage and its intertwining with the work they’re both associated with. Great title by the way!

    The Monsters We Marry—The Weight of Percy Shelley On His Wife, Mary

    You make a good point. I think those types of films stay with us much longer for that reason. They make a greater impression on our minds with just the right mixture of character and mood. For some inexplicable reason, there are certain films where I feel satisfied having watched them only once . . . whereas there are others I never get tired of watching over and over again. Both of those categories can contain perfectly good films so it isn’t necessarily an issue of quality. I guess it’s partly because films that rely too heavily on the plot are often more disposable. Exciting new plot twists can be a dime a dozen sometimes. You have to invest in more than just plot for it to really be memorable. Once you figure out the sequence of events and are given “the big reveal,” the mystery is gone and so is the potential for viewers to rewatch.

    Illuminated Landscapes: The City in Blade Runner and Lost in Translation

    This article’s terrific! It’s so well-written and takes an important look at the changing narrative for women’s roles in the film industry. It saddens me how feminism (which at its core is simply about women being respected as human beings and individuals in their own right) is often disregarded nowadays as being either outdated or altogether unimportant. Female characters deserve to have complexities and depths to their narratives as those commonly found in male-led stories. Why wouldn’t that be worth exploring? I hope we as viewers will get to see more diverse types of female characters onscreen, whose defining characteristics won’t be the fact that they’re women. Great work, daniellegreen624!

    The Strong Female Lead: Modern Cinema's Take on Women's Strength

    Although that also follows the assumption that men and women inherently gravitate towards disparate content. By the way, I’m not saying those gender-specific inclinations aren’t true to some extent. However, it would be a mistake to assume all women would want to turn action/adventure films such as the space opera Star Wars into romantic comedies. If that’s what studios assume in order to preserve their core male audience, then their decisions are built on a misreading of their potential audience. I do agree that there are instances where studios unintentionally discriminate, not necessarily because of any personal bias but because they simply want to make a lot of money and rely on the tried-and-true methods of getting it without trying to rock the boat by taking what they envision are risky ventures.

    The Strong Female Lead: Modern Cinema's Take on Women's Strength

    I can relate to that. I grew up watching Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli films too before discovering other anime and manga as I got a bit older. Different types of Japanese animation are often lumped together by those less familiar with it, meaning overly-sexualized and fan-pandering stuff like hentai can sometimes, somehow be mentioned in the same breath as titles with a bit more narrative substance like Princess Mononoke (now that’s a great film!!) or Fullmetal Alchemist as you mention. There are tons of great titles to explore that don’t necessarily involve the objectification of women or other questionable tactics used simply to attract a large audience.

    A Response To Miyazaki: The Dark Side of Anime

    Being judged as “unremarkable” is a pretty endearing quality to have. When I read somewhere that Neville Longbottom could have been “The Chosen One” instead of him, it really served to reinforce that fact. Harry just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It wasn’t necessarily because he was “special” or “different.” Harry’s harsh and unhappy upbringing also serves as an important contrast to his notoriety in the wizarding world as “the boy who lived.” He’s detested and adored in nearly equal measure. If he’d been raised without that early humbling experience, that ego-boost of a label could have easily gone to his head and made him arrogant instead of the brave and kind young man he eventually becomes.

    Harry Potter: The Remarkably Unremarkable Main Character

    Ray Bradbury made many important insights about literature. Despite it being a novel and not a “how to” book on writing, I got some of the best writing advice when I read Fahrenheit 451 for the first time. I also think it’s important to read as much as you can to improve your abilities. You start to figure out what does and doesn’t work.

    Are Creative Writers Taught or Talented?