Technology's Imprint on Story Telling--Lesson 3: Perspective

Stumbling on reviews and summaries of Scott Kirsner's book Inventing the Movies, I found an uncanny distinction made on perspective.  Suggesting that not everyone is always ready for technology to hurtle forward, Kirsner categorizes people into three groups:

a. innovators: people who view technology as an opportunity
b. preservationists: see technology as a threat to how business is currently (and comfortably) done -- the status quo is defended as heels are dug into the earth...they are a resistant lot
c. side-line sitters: those willing to wait things out to see how everything goes -- the status quo is fine for now

Kirsner could have been writing about education--status quo retards innovation so often that it becomes a pattern.  Even words as specific as "hostility" and "indifference" are used to describe what meets innovation head on--the result is "frustration."  Educators are frustrated that they are being asked to change again; educators are frustrated that they cannot try the innovation...yet.

Kirsner points out that most big business entities respond to big ideas in this same way--why should we try something new if the current standard works just fine?  Those in favor of the staus quo might disagree that they are afraid of change or technology--some may even champion it to a certain degree--but they would rather not undermine current best practice...because it works, and more specifically, it is what we know.

Those in education might see the point--I am writing a summary of Kirner's point of view of technology and film, yet this speaks so profoundly to technology and education...it is uncanny.

Casual movie goers may not know the name or work of Harold Lloyd.  Also, it is far less likely that our students would have heard of Lloyd over Chaplin.

Yet I find it valuable to mention Lloyd because of his ability to take technology and change our perspective--literally.  Before sound, stunning achievements built with the simple tools available at the time separated artist from employee (Lon Chaney's work as a pioneer in makeup; Buster Keaton's camera work and stunts) yet it is easy to forget that these innovations persevered over a culture of staus quo thinkers.

And so I ask myself, is that what we always are--a culture of status quo thinkers?  Is it natural for human beings to want to remain anchored to the status quo?

Yet, life is change.  Technology changes so much so often around us, that perhaps we do find comfort in picking one thing, and sticking with it because we understand how it works in our classrooms and schools.  Some might even argue that the greatest innovation still in place is the pencil and paper--what the hell do we need a typewriter, word processor, iPad for anyway?

The willingness of allowing one's perspective to change is part of the beauty of the genius I see in actor Harold Lloyd. 

Lloyd used camera angles so well that what he did was regarded as one of Hollywood's best kept secrets.  Audiences, directors, actors were so used to seeing film and camera work done one way, that to comprehend what Lloyd did was out of the vision of preservationists and side-line sitters.

In several films Lloyd crafted scenes where the hero would be scaling a building, out on a ledge, dangling from girder--ten, twenty, thirty stories above the busy city streets.

Yet, the actors were never more than a few feet from placing their feet safely down.

Lloyd understood that if he positioned a camera in just the right way that he could frame the actor, the wall or ledge, and the streets and traffic below.  He could frame it so that the roof just below the actor's feet would never be shot or seen.

He built, tore down, and rebuilt his sets on the rooftops of progressively taller buildings thereby creating the illusion that the actor was actually scaling a building.

Considered real by audiences, legend has it that women fainted in their seats during a Lloyd film.

Understanding that the status quo was once innovation, only innovators can produce greatness.

Personally and professionally I am in the frame of mind of innovator--I am not saying I am one, but I am in that frame of mind.  I am willing to read, and see, and try.  Technology hurtles forward, and as educators, we will always work with innovators, preservationists, and side-line sitters--it is just a healthy part of being human.  It is a checks and balances system--not every new idea is an improvement, not every established system remains effective forever.  Yet change presses down upon us as does greatness.

Change is a part of being human...at the very least it is a part of education.  Rightly so.

Greatness is a part of being human...at the very least that is how educators are judged by the public.  Rightly so.

One of my personal/professional causes currently is encouraging more educators to use Twitter.  So far, it is subtle and non-threatening--I ask colleagues if they use it and try to share an example of how I use it which I think might be of interest to them.  It hasn't really stuck on anyone so far.

I'm trying to be a part of the positive change of perspective on technology in the classroom in general, but for right now, Twitter is the innovation I'm waving high over my head.

But not for long.

Technology's Imprint on Story Telling: Lesson 2 - The Crossroads of Sound

A lesson I used in my 6th grade theater class which I am revising for my 8th grade writing class is centered on the crossroads Charlie Chaplin faced when sound forever altered our experiences at the movies.

The genius of Charlie Chaplin is as obvious and well-documented a truth as any in the history of entertainment.  One need only spend five minutes in front of a Chaplin film to be charmed by his talent.

Once sound lodged itself into the film industry, Chaplin's ability to adapt and change in the midst of film's rapidly changing technology is nothing short of astonishing.  It is what separates the artists from those who "merely" work in an art whether that be film, music, writing, dance, et al.

As a story teller, Chaplin understood visual and physical artistic nuance so well, that he could tell a narrative with length and breadth and scope and humor.  Born into silent film, his persona, The Tramp, worked brilliantly in silent film.  Asking my students to speculate the challenges a writer, an artist, or any performer would have to tackle in the face of such drastic technological change has been one of my favorite exercises in my career.

After showing my students several different scenes with the silent Tramp (one of my favorites pits Chaplin stuck in a lion's cage) I ask them:

a) how would The Tramp be the same/different with sound?
b) would the artist have been able to create the The Tramp if sound existed all along?
c) using The Tramp, in what ways can show how the limited/silent technology of the time inspired the artist to create the persona and consistently build stories around him?
d) can we locate similar crossroads in recent history?
e) my 8th grade students might be a little young but the history behind Napster and the struggles of the music industry certainly apply here.
f) Hollywood would also step in and offer that they too are struggling to adapt--with film streaming to all of our devices, are we seeing a slow death of the movie theater?  or will there always be a place for the large Hollywood movie theater?  (was there always a place for The Tramp?)
g) How do we know which changes will forever alter how we do business or create, and are there ever any changes, especially in technology, that writers, artists, business people, educators, parents, young people...can ever afford to ignore?

When technology changes it provides new opportunities for performers, but it also poses great personal questions for artists who have built a career (and a financial fortune) within the scope of a very specific set of rules.  When technology changes, the rules and possibilities are altered.

While we can study and discuss how Chaplin did adapt and grow to certain degree, that is not the purpose of my lesson--I want to illustrate the crossroads, and I want my students to think about it.  I want them to write about what Chaplin must have faced, and speaking to a more immediate concern I want them to speculate about the world around us.

How is technology altering the rules and possibilities of writing, story telling, and art today?

Certainly, the introduction and growing comfort with self-publishing (especially e-books) is apropos to the lesson at hand.  Even publishers, such as Penguin's Book Country, are trying to adapt to the changing climate of story telling...all due to technology.  At Book Country aspiring authors can self-publish online through Penguin.

On a more successful and teen-friendly level, the discovery and rise of performer Justin Bieber on YouTube certainly provides a fresh example of how technology is laying everything at our feet that Chaplin faced--when technology changes, the rules and possibilities are altered.

Technology's Imprint on Story Telling-- Lesson 1: Early Silent Film

Having taught a theater course to 6th grade students for over ten years, I learned a lot about the relationship between technology and the evolution of story telling.  I watched a lot of film as I dug for mentor "texts" and in the process constantly observed "something else" to include in the lesson.  Judging by the quality and depth of responses in their writer's notebooks, the unit called Technology's Imprint grew in scope and quality and became a favorite of many students--especially because they could clearly see themselves in the throes of the constant evolution and influence of technology.

An early relationship I tried to capture was the importance of the freshness of any technology when first developed.  For my purposes with early silent film, no one had acted for the screen before or had been an audience for it.  That simply relationship was new--think of the first time we sent a text message to someone, or used Skype--there is something to remember in humanity's trill with discovery.

Human Beings have a great passion and need and thirst for new experiences. I try to connect the feelings our kids had the first time they played XBox (can we mention here that computer games are developing epic stories which the player takes the central role in?)  See, the more you look, the more you see "something else" to include in the lesson.

But, back to the beginning...

I learned that starting with Thomas Edison's and Edwin Porter's Great Train Robbery from 1903 provided many great starting points of inquiry and discussion:

a) it was only 10 minutes long
b) only one stationary camera angle or perspective existed, yet the film was shot in several locations/settings
c) it was silent yet there is music on most copies today
d) for weeks my students would have studied "sound and movement" as the genesis for all acting, yet here a challenge presented it self to actors--tell the story with just movement.  This affected acting styles greatly and we were set to trace the changes actors and directors made the more they worked with this technology--for instance, early film such as GTR made little room for anything but meoldrama in its performances.
e) the speed of the action was controlled my frames per second or how fast a cameraman turned the crank on the camera (did any of those cameramen even get recognized with an Oscar, even post humously?  I wonder if that can even be traced anymore--the skillful work of a particular cameraman?)
f) the wonderfully odd choices to hand-paint (with dye) segments of individual frames in the GTR--you'll see gun fire appear yellow and read, a little girls cloak appear purple--some had experimented with dipping entire scenes into dyes to help control the mood of the audience, much in the same way a lighting directors works with a live stage production.
g) the image of the bandit firing his gun into the camera/audience must have thrilled audiences much in the same way that 3D thrills people today.  It is interesting to note that Martin Scorsese paid homage to this film and moment at the end of Goodfellas--Joe Pesci pointing and firing his gun at the the camera, at us.  Before I knew anything about GTR, I saw Goodfellas in a theater, and was completely unnerved by that final scene.
h) crosscutting: the idea that the audience can understand that two consecutive scenes shot in different locations with different characters could be happening at the same time.
i) distributed with a note saying the famous shot of the bandit firing his gun at the camera/audience could appeareither at the beginning or at the end of the film, or both.

As I taught this unit, I loved asking the students to draw parallels to today.  What new technologies do we see altering the way we are told stories or altering the way in which our story-tellers work?
The answers to this question evolve every year--we could discuss everything from computer animation and the importance now for actors to be able to do voice work well, to the infusion of reality TV which by all accounts takes jobs away from professional actors yet opens the door for more types of "acting" or storytelling.  Shows like The Biggest Loser, Survivor, The Amazing Race, and the granddaddy of them all American Idol are popular because they are stories and are marketed as that--real stories.  How thrilling to follow the story of someone just like us...which, by the way, is nothing new.  Shakespeare knew enough when he wrote Romeo and Juliet--capitalizing for the first time on the notion that a play could be about someone other than a King or Queen or great military or political hero from history--my gosh, give the people the story of a teenage girl and boy in love and see what happens.  We can identify this in the work of many great story tellers: Charles Dickens, John Dos Passos, Carson McCullers, John Steinbeck, etc.

But I am digressing, in this series of blog posts I aim to share with you the many angles and discussions you can have on story telling simply by looking at how technology influenced it, and still does today...the iPad? the smartphone, the Kindle, the Nook, anyone?