Green Grass Running Water - english blog

Green Grass Running Water Blog

Part 1

1. “Well,” I says, “Old Woman just fell through that hole into the sky and then she fell into” “I know, I know,” says Coyote. “A whale!” (pg. 348)

Old Woman falling into the whale is a biblical allusion to the story of Jonah, who was swallowed whole by a whale and lived inside it. This quote contributes to the plot because it is what starts Old Woman’s biblical story, which culminates in explaining how she wound up in Fort Marion.

2. “Get back men,” shouted Wayne, and he began firing at the Indians. Widmark pulled both guns and began firing from the hip. The soldiers ran back to their logs and holes and rocks, shooting as they went. But as Lionel and Charlie and Eli and the old Indians and Bill and Coyote watched, none of the Indians fell.” (pg. 321)

Lionel, Charlie, Eli, the old Indians, Bill, and Coyote watching is a reference to the pop culture phenomena Western film was. This is used by King to weave all of the differing plot lines and stories of the residents of Blossom. This is one of many examples of plot weaving King does in Green Grass Running Water.

3. “The last time you fooled around like this” said Robinson Crusoe, “the world got very wet.” (pg. 416)

This quote is referring to the first flood Coyote caused earlier in the book. The first flood he caused was the flood that caused the story of Noah’s Ark, making the quote a biblical allusion. This quote also gives the reader a better understanding of how mischievous Coyote is, and how he has caused some of the more prolific events in human history.

4. “So Old Woman is floating in the water. And she looks around. And she sees a man. Young man. A young man walking on water.” (pg. 349)

This quote is clearly an allusion to the biblical story wherein Jesus walked on water. The quote also helps to explain the story of Old Woman (specifically how she winds up in Fort Marion with the other Indians, who are trying to ‘fix’ the world)

5. “But I was helpful too,” says Coyote. “That woman who wanted a baby. Now, that was helpful.” “Helpful!” said Robinson Crusoe. “You remember the last time you did that?” (pg. 416)

Robinson Crusoe is referring to the time when Coyote gave Alberta a baby; which is an allusion to when God gave Mary a baby in the bible. Both were immaculate conceptions. This quote shows the recklessness of Coyote, and how he rarely acts with any sort of empathy.

Part 2

1. Eli Stands Alone -

“Eli sat down and waited for the coffee to brew and looked about the house at what he had become. Ph.D. in literature. Professor Emeritus from the University of Toronto. A book on William Shakespeare. Another on Francis Bacon. Teach of the Year. Twice. Indian. In the end, he had become what he had always been. An Indian. Not a particularly successful one at that.” (pg. 262)

This quote shows a lot about Eli Stands Alone – it shows a lot about his history, and also a fair amount about his insecurity, and how he views himself. It reveals that he is a very intelligent and learned person, as well as the fact that he has difficulty viewing himself as anything more than an Indian.

2. Lionel Red Dog –

“Happy Birthday. Forty years old… Life, Lionel mused as he felt his chest slide on top of his stomach, had become embarrassing. His job was embarrassing. His gold blazer was embarrassing. His car was embarrassing. Norma was right. Alberta wasn’t about to marry an embarrassment.” (pg. 239)

This quote shows how depressed Lionel has become over the years, and also accurately shows what people view Lionel Red Dog as. It portrays him as an overweight 40-year old, with a boring job, but who is still too apathetic to change anything. However, the final line shows somewhat of a silver lining. Lionel realizes that Alberta will never marry an ‘embarrassment’ such as himself, and the silver lining is that it shows that Lionel may change the way he is in order to appease Alberta.

3. Coyote –

The Lone Ranger and Ishmael and Robinson Crusoe and Hawkeye looked at Coyote. “It’s a lot of work fixing up this world, you know,” said the Lone Ranger. “Yes,” said Ishmael. “And we can use all the help we can get.”… “I didn’t do anything,” says Coyote. “I just sang a little… I just danced a little, too,” says Coyote.” (pg. 416)

The portrayal of Coyote as the ‘trickster’ of the group is shown thoroughly throughout this quote. It shows Coyote’s reckless behavior, his immaturity, and his lack of any kind of foresight. Though Coyote is a companion and somewhat of a friend of the Old Indians, he is more often than not a nuisance to the Old Indians, and tends to get in their way.

Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Hogarth comparison

Media Studies Blog

Comparing Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Hogarth's class visits

Before Mr. Kilgour or Mr. Hogarth came in, I was very narrow-minded towards both copyright and piracy laws, as well as the remixing genre. However, thanks to the visits we had, I have now gained perspective on the difficulties Mr. Hogarth faces, and I know have realized that remixing wasn’t as simple as I had previously thought. These visits have given me perspective, and it has not only helped with my understanding of the remixing controversy, but also with my understanding of how remixes are made.

I have always been adamantly against copyright and pirating laws. I have always had the belief that file sharing online was equal to sharing a CD or a DVD in real life. So, when Mr. Hogarth came in, I started off a little biased against him. However, he was very well spoken, and brought up quite a few good points. For example, he told us a story of a female indie artist who had created a great album, which never reached the recognition it deserved due to the file sharing epidemic (“Within a few weeks, the song was downloaded 3 million times on file-sharing sites. She made $150,000. That wouldn’t even cover coffee at the recording studio.”). Despite Mr. Hogarth’s best arguments, I still believe that file sharing should be legal and I have remained against copyright and piracy laws. Mr. Hogarth did, however, help me gain some perspective, and helped me see acknowledge how difficult his job must be.

When Mr. Kilgour first came into our class, I had already come to the conclusion that remixing was reserved for those who couldn’t actually play music, and instead opted to mix other people’s talents. I held the belief that those who remixed shouldn’t be considered musicians; because they couldn’t actually play anything I considered to be an instrument. I now realize how blinkered of a belief that is. Thankfully, Mr. Kilgour was able to prove to me that remixing takes a legitimate amount of skill and it isn’t something that teenagers can just create in their basement. It takes a lot of legitimate talent and effort. On top of that, he also had valid points for the remixing controversy. For example, he brought up the point that, without remixing, there is no other way he could create this music (“I can’t afford a horn section, or a guitarist, or a singer … what other way could I make this music?”). I admit that I still don’t listen to remixing music, but thanks to Mr. Kilgour’s visit, I now have a better level of appreciation for the amount of effort that goes into these songs, which many people seem to enjoy.

Media Studies Blog

The Yes Men Fix The World review

By: Sam Caldarone

In The Yes Men Fix the World, world-renowned pranksters Mike Bonanno and Andy Bichlbaum attempt to ‘fix the world’ through their creative hoaxes. The whole theme of this movie, and of the ‘Yes Men’ is to show good and evil, and how any evil can be good if they just put in some effort. The film does not follow a particular structure: although it does show many flashbacks to accentuate just how bad some of the companies are, it never follows a real, solid structure. However, the way they set up the structure is effective in the film, and it helps to have the aforementioned flashbacks.

The Yes Men Fix The World is, for the most part, an expository documentary. It does share some elements with reflexive documentaries, but it is mostly expository. The film is mostly shown through Andy and Mike’s perspectives. Although, their identity is constantly changing, which allows other people’s perspectives to be shown. For example, the journalist who knew of the impending Bhopal disaster, or even the man who lived and grew up in Bhopal. The film was a little biased, but it was biased against the bad companies, who deserved all the bad karma they got.

I thought that one of the main strengths of the film was the way it was set up. I thought that the cinematography was great (in particular, I liked the scenes where Andy and Mike went swimming in their suits, and got out and went to their ‘headquarters’). I enjoyed all those breaks they had in the film. They lightened up a pretty dark documentary.

The Yes Men Fix The World is important in our society because it plays the role of the everyman rising up against a cruel corporation. Obviously, the negative components of the film were DOW losing a ridiculously large amount of money in stocks, and even when the people of Bhopal had falsely believed that DOW had actually apologized for the incident. It is unfortunate that they had gotten their hopes up just to be shot down like that. However, the positives are great: it shows that anyone can do what Andy and Mike did, which is very inspirational to some. All things considered, it was a great documentary.

TED talk questions

1) What does Deborah Scranton mean by the “disconnect” she hopes to “bridge” with her documentary?

Deborah Scranton is referring to the disconnect between the people at home and the soldiers who are in the line of duty. She hopes to bridge that gap by showing exactly what it's like to be in the army by giving them the cameras. This will give the public a much better idea of what it's like to be in the war. She is posting the raw footage, and connecting that with the emotional toll the soldiers feel. The emotional toll is shown through various methods: the soldiers' reading their diaries', the soldiers' calling home, and even showing how they adjust to normal life when they get back from the war.

2) How does media (television, news, documentaries, film) contribute to creating this disconnect?

The news contributes to creating this disconnect via their reporting. It's not that it's bad reporting, but the grisly images that they show create this idea that Iraq is a dystopian wasteland, so when soldiers first arrive in Iraq, this is what the expect. It also gives the public this idea, and they will tend to act differently towards war veterans. This definitely adds to the disconnect between the soldiers and the public.

3) How can a documentary like "War Tapes" help remedy or bridge this disconnect?

It can help through the raw footage. This will show the public just what it's like in the war. It should show that these soldiers won't always change all that much. Most of the time the reason soldiers act stranger when they return from the war is only because that everyone else is acting so much stranger to them

A moveable feast blog

A Moveable Feast Blog

By Sam Caldarone

In Ernest Hemingway’s timeless classic A Moveable Feast, we are introduced to a plethora of interesting characters that have withstood the test of time. Of those, one of the more interesting characters is Scott Fitzgerald. He is the well-known author of many classic stories, the most famous being The Great Gatsby. It is interesting to have a first-hand account of what it is like to spend time with Scott Fitzgerald. However, I doubt that Hemingway enjoyed his time with Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald isn’t that much fun to spend time with. Fitzgerald is depressed, mostly because of his mentally ill wife pecking away at his confidence. To top it all off, he is a hypochondriac (“There was nothing wrong with me at the Dingo.” This is after he gets taken to the hospital for having too much to drink; pg. 152.). Despite Fitzgerald’s flaws, it is still interesting to see two of the best writers of the 20^th century enjoying small talk.

" If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for all of Paris is a moveable feast.”

The above quote is where I want to go. I have been to Paris once before, but I went years ago, and I don’t think I got the full experience I had hoped. I would love to have the opportunity to go again; only with my good friends and family and during a time where I could remember it. I don’t necessarily want to live there, but I would be perfectly content with a visit. I don’t think any visit could match the beauty of Paris in the 1920’s, but I wish to visit Paris nonetheless. The allure of Paris is incomparable, and I wish to be able to go there; specifically to the Café on St-Michael. I would love to be able to drink white wine with oysters, while being served by a beautiful women with black hair. The place itself seems like a great place to spend an afternoon, or even a day. Of course I would love to be able to visit other places (Eiffel tower, L’arc de triomphe), but that just seems like one of the best ways to let a day pass you by.

We Live in Public Review

By Sam Caldarone

In We Live in Public, filmmaker Ondi Timoner takes the audience on a journey to explore a side of media many people have not considered before. With all the positives to all the new media that’s being created, it’s easy to overlook the downsides of media. That is the theme that this explores, and it is done through the eyes of Josh Harris. Josh Harris was a media prodigy, but, through an increasing series of bad investments, eventually wound up losing all his money. The film starts off with a shot of Josh Harris saying good-bye to his mother (who has terminal cancer). This is done to show just how heartless Josh Harris is. He doesn’t break a tear in the video, and won’t even talk to her in person. Timoner then goes back in time, and, in a chronological sequence, shows how Harris came to be what he has become. It’s not defending Harris or accusing him of anything, but showing his life and how he predicts that the media will take over our day-to-day life. I liked Timoner’s idea of showing one recent shot, and then going back in time to explain how they got to that point. I thought it was effective in conveying the point of the film.

Although the narrator is almost never seen (except one scene near the end of the film where Timoner finally tracks down Harris in Ethiopia), she is still present, and providing the occasional voiceover. Voiceovers are very uncommon in this documentary, but are still present, making this documentary a hybrid of expository and performative. The film includes a lot of archival footage, and features many interviews with some of Josh Harris’ past acquaintances. It was filmed with an unbiased approach, and let the audience draw their own conclusions. I believe that Harris is an insane genius, who has become so heartless because of a bad childhood. He was the youngest child, and it sometimes seemed as though his mother had no time for him. He claims that he was ‘raised by television’.

The strength of the story was within the main character, Josh Harris. His fascinating story is what made this documentary a great one. I enjoyed hearing a story that I had never heard of before. I thought the way the documentary was started (Josh Harris saying his good-bye’s to his mother) was brilliant, and was a great foreshadowing to the rest of the film. My favorite scene would have to be the scene where Timoner finally finds Josh Harris in Ethiopia. It ends the story somewhat of a good note, since Josh has become successful there, but he does get his comeuppance for being somewhat of a bad person (he goes bankrupt for a while). It was a genius way to end the film.

Even though Josh Harris wasn’t exactly a great guy, he was very smart. He made intelligent and accurate guesses as to where the future of media was going, and he made a lot of money off of this. When he created the ‘We live in public’ building, despite the disastrous end results, it was asking citizens to re-examine the situation they were in. Do people want to wind up like these people, being watched all the time? It clearly did not work out for the members of the ‘We live in public’ building. The building was asking us to be more careful, and to not let us get overrun by cameras all around us. I doubt that this is the type of future that we are headed towards, but nevertheless, we still must be careful. All things considered, We Live in Public is a great documentary, that explored some very interesting concepts.

Rip: A Remix Manifesto review

The documentary Rip: A Remix Manifesto is designed to change the way we think about the remixing phenomenon. It is defending remixes, and claims that the copyright laws have gotten out of control, and if we do nothing about these laws then we will soon be living in a dystopian future where the government regulates everything we do. The documentary was created in mostly a chronological structure, as filmmaker Brett Gaylor occasionally references instances in the past to accentuate his point. The film follows Gaylor, as he attempts to find reasoning for the current copyrighting laws.

It is told from the perspective of Brett Gaylor, and it draws on some of his own experiences, and also references some major events in the history of mass media (examples include but are not limited to: the invention of the printing press, the creation of Napster, etc.). In the documentary, audiences watch Gaylor travel to Disneyland, Stanford University, and many other places to meet with media literate people to try to find a plausible solution to this media dilemma we have. The people he meets with, including author Lawrence Lessig; provide valuable insight into this conundrum. This factor, along with many others, classifies this documentary as a reflexive one.

Many of his arguments involve the fact that if you aren’t able to take samples from other artists, Brett Gaylor should be jailed for including some samples of artists in his documentary. He also uses some clips from other TV shows and movies, and argues that the same penalty inflicted on artists such as Girl Talk, should be used on him. It’s a risky argument, but he is not just referring to himself here. He’s saying that many prominent TV shows use samples of other shows or movies on a daily basis. Examples of this include The Daily Show, or The Colbert Report, or even, albeit rarely, shows on CNN, or Fox News. Gaylor has a valid argument here, and this leads back to the ultimate question: Where does the copyright law draw the line? Why can a show like CNN Newsroom use clips of past events, but Girl Talk get sued whenever he uses a loop from an old Elvis Presley song? It all seems very reasonable, and Brett Gaylor, along with many other fans, are anxiously waiting for a feasible, equitable answer to this problem that will keep everyone happy. But, until that answer is found, there will be many arguments over this issue.

One thing that I didn’t particularly enjoy about Brett Gaylor’s documentary was his official ‘remix manifesto’ list. It bugged me because it makes Gaylor sound a little bit conceded; in the sense that only he knows what is wrong with the copyright laws. Also, he seems to take this belief he has to some extremes (for example, the fines handed out to those who used Napster). I realize his intent is to shock the audience, but it bugs me because I don’t like that whole philosophy of shocking someone into agreeing with you. While I didn’t really like the genre of music being defended, I do have to tip my hat off to Brett Gaylor for making a compelling documentary that is sure to be a turning point of his budding career as a filmmaker.