Here's a link to the final fight scene from one of my favorite movie trilogies, The Matrix.
:
The Matrix's theme can be described in just a few words: A constant fight for control, and reality.
This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest and most epic fight scenes to exist in modern cinema. Also, I feel it's one of the best fight scenes to close out a story. Here is the absolute end of these two characters, and their fight here sums up the entire conflict for the series: The battle for control. One of the things I really like about this scene is the virtual line drawn between the protagonist Neo and his antagonist Smith. There is a straight line drawn directly between the two and nothing at all every breaks or comes between this line. The two are always staring each other down, as they have been for the entirety of the Trilogy. It's just yet to break out into as cataclysmic of a conflict as it has here.
I also like the shape of this fight, if that's not too abstract of an idea. The fight is very spherical, and I think this was purposefully done by the Wachowski brothers. The "sphericalness" of this confrontation is a direct reference to the sphericalness of the overall confrontation. As stated by the Architect in The Matrix: Reloaded, this isn't the first time the One has come about as an anomaly. This has happened several times before, though it was only THIS Neo that chose the path deviating from the other "Chosen Ones." The sphericalness of this fight shows the recursion factor of the Matrix, further exemplified near the end by the "Deja Vu" cat "Deja-Vuing" as the Matrix reset itself. In my opinion, it's brilliant. The shape may not be all so easily seen, by the Brothers sort of drop the idea a couple of times as Neo and Smith joust towards one another and result in a spherical explosion of force.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
The Strongest Of Them All
Here is a link to David Rendall's Freak Factor: Discovering Uniqueness by Flaunting Weakness: http://changethis.com/manifesto/45.02.FreakFactor/pdf/45.02.FreakFactor.pdf
In this article David Rendall suggests that there really isn't a such thing as a weakness, and that apparent weaknesses are merely clues to a much larger picture, only the larger picture is more of a collage of our strengths. He provides his readers with nine suggestions to paint a path to turning your weakness into the realization of your strengths. He starts with "What's your problem," then continues to "What's my problem," "Flawless: There's nothing wrong with you," "Forget it, don't try to fix your weakness," "Foundation: build on your strengths," "Focus: you can't do both," "Fit: find the right spot," "Freak: the power of uniqueness," and "Freak factory: putting your quirks to work." To begin, I don't agree with this method personal improvement. I feel if a person is to improve themselves in any given field, then they need to confront their observed weaknesses, assess whether or not they are a hindrance, then change accordingly. Simply viewing your percieved weaknesses as a strength yet to be discovered may end up being more harmful than helpful. For example, if a person percieves Procrastination as simply a strength in disguise, they'll never work on improving that issue. As a matter of fact, if I understand this article correctly, they will work on bettering procrastination? But in a negative way?
His first suggestion was to realize "What's your problem." It seems rather redunant with his second suggetion "What's my problem," so let's tackle both at the same time. It's in these states that a person is to, obviously, take stock in their problems and issues, or what is actually holding them back. It seems that Rendall expects a person to take criticism positively, which is always a good lesson to teach, but to take it without question from everyone. Being a pretty heavily criticized person myself, I can't say I agree with taken criticism blindly from everywhere, as not everyone will drop criticism on your head with the intent of helping you to become a better person, and I feel it's this criticism a person should seek and apply to their lives. Otherwise, people will often just simply criticise to lower a person's self-esteem, or to be outright mean, things I can definitely vouch for. But, this does not mean that a person should try to sift through a stream of criticism for the ones that seem to be genuine as opposed to one that's not so sincere, as a person will often see kinder comments as sincere and the more biting comments as insincere and unnecessary. This, of course, is not often true, and often times can be seen absolutely opposite. As in, more biting comments are often those that are more sincere than others, and are often only so biting because of just how true they are to a person.
Suggestion number four from Mr. Rendall is titled "Forget About It: Don't Try to Fix Your Weaknesses." This section was the most painful for me to read, as I'm wondering if as a creative people we're finding more and more ways to simply be lazy. I'm going to break this section down into four parts and four criticisms just as he did.
1. Here, Rendall states we shouldn't fix our weaknesses because it is a slow process. It is difficult to make progress in our areas of weakness. To this I say... so what? We're supposed to avoid doing something because it takes a lot of time and is a slow process? Oh, because everything in Media can be done overnight. No way! A person should be able to push themselves despite time commitments.
2. It is painful. We don't enjoy working on our weakness. Again, so what? Because it's unenjoyable it should be ignored? I don't believe we've evolved into a hedonistic culture wherein things seen as unenjoyable are morally wrong. Again, we should be able to work on things that we see as being unenjoyable, especially if they are impedeing our growth.
3. It distracts us from activities where we could make significant progress and find fulfillment. Significant progress and find fulfillment, like improving our weaknesses?
4. It doesn’t actually work. Even if we remediate a weakness, it still doesn’t become a valuable
strength. I would argue that being able to look inwards, honestly evaluate oneself, and change accordingly is quite effective.
It seems like I don't agree with Mr. Rendall at all. And this assumption would be quite accurate. I don't like his blase approach to self-improvement; it seems to me he feels like everyone should be as they are and not really look for a way to improve, but instead make excuses for why they should stay just the way they are. This hedonistic approach to self-betterment is bsest exemplified in his next suggestion, "Build On Your Strengths."
1. 1st, Mr. Rendall decides a person should only build on their strengths becuse it feels good, and is enjoyable and energizing to work on your strengths. I don't feel a person should only work on something if they feel it's enjoyable. Life is full of moments in which people really don't want to do, but only because of the responsibility that comes with being an adult.
2. You have the greatest potential in your areas of strength. These are your natural gifts and provide you with your best chances for success. This one does stand pretty true. Things are much easier in a person's specialized area. But that doesn't mean they should ignore their weaknesses and only work on these strengths. Especially when many of the weaknesses can impede on the strengths.
3. Lastly, Mr. Rendall states that your strengths make up for your weaknesses. Well-developed strengths often make your weaknesses irrelevant. Again, I don't see this as being entirely irrelevant. But as stated in section 2 this does not mean that a weakness can not impede on a strength, or possible hinder growth or progress. This sounds like it wants a person to ignore their weakness after acknowledging it.
Throughout my career as a game designer and, moreover a creative thinker, I've been told that I have many many many many weaknesses and faults, ranging from my mode of thinking to methodology in general. Personally, from what I've gathered, that I do honestly have numerous weaknesses. Atop this mountain of weaknesses lie things such as procrastination, stubborness, and a lack of ability to adapt to certain situations. I've also found that I can be rather a pushover when it comes to others ideas, no matter how good or bad I think it is. However I've never adapted Mr. Rendall's model of dealing with weakness. I've tried to steel myself and my resolve, tried to be a bit more punctual with assignments and projects, to be a bit more open to ideas and to change, to be a bit more flexible.
And it's through these weaknesses and working to reshape them that I've found quite a few strengths in my repertoire. I used to find it difficult to adapt to situations, but now I've become the "Idea Guy," the person who will think of any reason for anything in any situation to work. I've let my imagination grow boundlessly, there's nothing I couldn't think up. I've also become a very hard worker by working on my procrastination. It's only by trying to improve my weaknesses that I've found such powerful strengths. If I didn't try to fix these problems, such as my stubborness or my procrastination, then they would only become obstacles becoming larger and more difficult to overcome.
In this article David Rendall suggests that there really isn't a such thing as a weakness, and that apparent weaknesses are merely clues to a much larger picture, only the larger picture is more of a collage of our strengths. He provides his readers with nine suggestions to paint a path to turning your weakness into the realization of your strengths. He starts with "What's your problem," then continues to "What's my problem," "Flawless: There's nothing wrong with you," "Forget it, don't try to fix your weakness," "Foundation: build on your strengths," "Focus: you can't do both," "Fit: find the right spot," "Freak: the power of uniqueness," and "Freak factory: putting your quirks to work." To begin, I don't agree with this method personal improvement. I feel if a person is to improve themselves in any given field, then they need to confront their observed weaknesses, assess whether or not they are a hindrance, then change accordingly. Simply viewing your percieved weaknesses as a strength yet to be discovered may end up being more harmful than helpful. For example, if a person percieves Procrastination as simply a strength in disguise, they'll never work on improving that issue. As a matter of fact, if I understand this article correctly, they will work on bettering procrastination? But in a negative way?
His first suggestion was to realize "What's your problem." It seems rather redunant with his second suggetion "What's my problem," so let's tackle both at the same time. It's in these states that a person is to, obviously, take stock in their problems and issues, or what is actually holding them back. It seems that Rendall expects a person to take criticism positively, which is always a good lesson to teach, but to take it without question from everyone. Being a pretty heavily criticized person myself, I can't say I agree with taken criticism blindly from everywhere, as not everyone will drop criticism on your head with the intent of helping you to become a better person, and I feel it's this criticism a person should seek and apply to their lives. Otherwise, people will often just simply criticise to lower a person's self-esteem, or to be outright mean, things I can definitely vouch for. But, this does not mean that a person should try to sift through a stream of criticism for the ones that seem to be genuine as opposed to one that's not so sincere, as a person will often see kinder comments as sincere and the more biting comments as insincere and unnecessary. This, of course, is not often true, and often times can be seen absolutely opposite. As in, more biting comments are often those that are more sincere than others, and are often only so biting because of just how true they are to a person.
Suggestion number four from Mr. Rendall is titled "Forget About It: Don't Try to Fix Your Weaknesses." This section was the most painful for me to read, as I'm wondering if as a creative people we're finding more and more ways to simply be lazy. I'm going to break this section down into four parts and four criticisms just as he did.
1. Here, Rendall states we shouldn't fix our weaknesses because it is a slow process. It is difficult to make progress in our areas of weakness. To this I say... so what? We're supposed to avoid doing something because it takes a lot of time and is a slow process? Oh, because everything in Media can be done overnight. No way! A person should be able to push themselves despite time commitments.
2. It is painful. We don't enjoy working on our weakness. Again, so what? Because it's unenjoyable it should be ignored? I don't believe we've evolved into a hedonistic culture wherein things seen as unenjoyable are morally wrong. Again, we should be able to work on things that we see as being unenjoyable, especially if they are impedeing our growth.
3. It distracts us from activities where we could make significant progress and find fulfillment. Significant progress and find fulfillment, like improving our weaknesses?
4. It doesn’t actually work. Even if we remediate a weakness, it still doesn’t become a valuable
strength. I would argue that being able to look inwards, honestly evaluate oneself, and change accordingly is quite effective.
It seems like I don't agree with Mr. Rendall at all. And this assumption would be quite accurate. I don't like his blase approach to self-improvement; it seems to me he feels like everyone should be as they are and not really look for a way to improve, but instead make excuses for why they should stay just the way they are. This hedonistic approach to self-betterment is bsest exemplified in his next suggestion, "Build On Your Strengths."
1. 1st, Mr. Rendall decides a person should only build on their strengths becuse it feels good, and is enjoyable and energizing to work on your strengths. I don't feel a person should only work on something if they feel it's enjoyable. Life is full of moments in which people really don't want to do, but only because of the responsibility that comes with being an adult.
2. You have the greatest potential in your areas of strength. These are your natural gifts and provide you with your best chances for success. This one does stand pretty true. Things are much easier in a person's specialized area. But that doesn't mean they should ignore their weaknesses and only work on these strengths. Especially when many of the weaknesses can impede on the strengths.
3. Lastly, Mr. Rendall states that your strengths make up for your weaknesses. Well-developed strengths often make your weaknesses irrelevant. Again, I don't see this as being entirely irrelevant. But as stated in section 2 this does not mean that a weakness can not impede on a strength, or possible hinder growth or progress. This sounds like it wants a person to ignore their weakness after acknowledging it.
Throughout my career as a game designer and, moreover a creative thinker, I've been told that I have many many many many weaknesses and faults, ranging from my mode of thinking to methodology in general. Personally, from what I've gathered, that I do honestly have numerous weaknesses. Atop this mountain of weaknesses lie things such as procrastination, stubborness, and a lack of ability to adapt to certain situations. I've also found that I can be rather a pushover when it comes to others ideas, no matter how good or bad I think it is. However I've never adapted Mr. Rendall's model of dealing with weakness. I've tried to steel myself and my resolve, tried to be a bit more punctual with assignments and projects, to be a bit more open to ideas and to change, to be a bit more flexible.
And it's through these weaknesses and working to reshape them that I've found quite a few strengths in my repertoire. I used to find it difficult to adapt to situations, but now I've become the "Idea Guy," the person who will think of any reason for anything in any situation to work. I've let my imagination grow boundlessly, there's nothing I couldn't think up. I've also become a very hard worker by working on my procrastination. It's only by trying to improve my weaknesses that I've found such powerful strengths. If I didn't try to fix these problems, such as my stubborness or my procrastination, then they would only become obstacles becoming larger and more difficult to overcome.
So Do We Think?
Here is a link to Seth Godin's "Brainwashed:" http://changethis.com/manifesto/66.01.Brainwashed/pdf/66.01.Brainwashed.pdf
Within this, Seth Godin describes several layers to reinventing yourself. One of these layers, acknowledging the lizard, states that in the back of our brains lies a "prehistoric lizard brain stem." It is this that prevents us from being as artistic and creative as we possibly can be, because the brain stem is what makes us afraid of being rejected, laughed at, ridiculed for what we are doing or what we have done. So, what Godin suggests is that we confront this fear, and we do what it is that needs to be done in spite of it. Another layer, which he calls "Ship" refers back to acknowledging the lizard. "Ship" asks a person to be a "shipper," or a person who ships. A person who gets things done, who is able to deliver, who is willing to deliver with the threat of ridicule. The layer that ties it all together, acording to Godin, is the ability to "Learn". To "Learn" is pretty self-explanitory: Don't take the other layers for granted and learn from your experiences.
Overall, our blogs do pretty well to exemplify Godin's model of reinventing oneself. With these blogs, we're sort of forced to acknowledge, yet ignore the lizard, to learn from what it is that we're doing, what it is that we're thinking, and also to ship and deliver. It's sort of getting us ready for our eventual first steps into the media industry. It helps us to better find our niche, and to refine our skills in each area. Also, putting it into a blog on the Internet gives us a pretty nice set point of reference as we more grow into our major. It gives us a place to look back to to see how we've grown or to reference if we need inspiration or aid on something in the future. All in all, it's a pretty good idea.
But, this is not to say this method is not without problems. If a person already has an idea of what it is that goes into the various means of Media production might find this a bit redundant or even unnecessary. I did personally find some of the assignments to be a bit unnecessary, and as more of an "Application" assignment as opposed to a learning and growth situatuion, which does not promote growth as a student, much less a media student. I didn't particularly find myself challenged, or pushed, or with a slight bit of discomfort which I feel should come with a student's assignments to promote growth, at least not with the assigment itself but more its deadline or word count requirement, such as having to write 400-500 words evaluating the assignments of this quarter.
But then I find myself at another impassible junction. If not these blogs, then what? What could take the place of this weekly assignment to better promote growth? Perhaps, I submit, we could be given a choice of roughly 30 or 40 blog topics at the beginning of the quarter, covering all sorts of creative media topics; from game design to storyboarding to animation even. After providing these topics, require students to complete three of these blogs of their choice by each three or four week benchmark until they've turned in ten or so. Yes, students are going to turn in 10 blogs that to them are the easiest they can slink by with, but that's the point. Most students are going to turn in the blogs that speak easily to them, and it will lead them more into their desired field of production. I feel this manner of assessment and application would better lead to growth and expansion of the mind.
Within this, Seth Godin describes several layers to reinventing yourself. One of these layers, acknowledging the lizard, states that in the back of our brains lies a "prehistoric lizard brain stem." It is this that prevents us from being as artistic and creative as we possibly can be, because the brain stem is what makes us afraid of being rejected, laughed at, ridiculed for what we are doing or what we have done. So, what Godin suggests is that we confront this fear, and we do what it is that needs to be done in spite of it. Another layer, which he calls "Ship" refers back to acknowledging the lizard. "Ship" asks a person to be a "shipper," or a person who ships. A person who gets things done, who is able to deliver, who is willing to deliver with the threat of ridicule. The layer that ties it all together, acording to Godin, is the ability to "Learn". To "Learn" is pretty self-explanitory: Don't take the other layers for granted and learn from your experiences.
Overall, our blogs do pretty well to exemplify Godin's model of reinventing oneself. With these blogs, we're sort of forced to acknowledge, yet ignore the lizard, to learn from what it is that we're doing, what it is that we're thinking, and also to ship and deliver. It's sort of getting us ready for our eventual first steps into the media industry. It helps us to better find our niche, and to refine our skills in each area. Also, putting it into a blog on the Internet gives us a pretty nice set point of reference as we more grow into our major. It gives us a place to look back to to see how we've grown or to reference if we need inspiration or aid on something in the future. All in all, it's a pretty good idea.
But, this is not to say this method is not without problems. If a person already has an idea of what it is that goes into the various means of Media production might find this a bit redundant or even unnecessary. I did personally find some of the assignments to be a bit unnecessary, and as more of an "Application" assignment as opposed to a learning and growth situatuion, which does not promote growth as a student, much less a media student. I didn't particularly find myself challenged, or pushed, or with a slight bit of discomfort which I feel should come with a student's assignments to promote growth, at least not with the assigment itself but more its deadline or word count requirement, such as having to write 400-500 words evaluating the assignments of this quarter.
But then I find myself at another impassible junction. If not these blogs, then what? What could take the place of this weekly assignment to better promote growth? Perhaps, I submit, we could be given a choice of roughly 30 or 40 blog topics at the beginning of the quarter, covering all sorts of creative media topics; from game design to storyboarding to animation even. After providing these topics, require students to complete three of these blogs of their choice by each three or four week benchmark until they've turned in ten or so. Yes, students are going to turn in 10 blogs that to them are the easiest they can slink by with, but that's the point. Most students are going to turn in the blogs that speak easily to them, and it will lead them more into their desired field of production. I feel this manner of assessment and application would better lead to growth and expansion of the mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)