oc was nice, it was very nice.
i think john stevens has a really cool voice, but it's not really suitable for pop, not versatile which is what american idol's looking for, so he has to go lor.
---
watched this film soc organised movie called Osama, a foreign-language film portraying Taleban oppression. i think foreign-language films and films-in-language-we-know are essentially two different mediums. foreign films are partly text based, just as a book is different from a movie, because we absorb the dialogue as a written form, the subtitles. Therefore we absorb a foreign film differently from a film we know, for the former we see the action but we absorb speech in textual form. translation plays an important part in conveying the meaning of a film, and also differentiates the two types of movies in terms of style and method.
at the same time i think we react to english translations of foreign language films differently than we would to english subtitle renditions of english films. . if we force ourselves to read the english subtitles of, say, an english film, then we probably would expect to read very flowery, litty language to be impressed by the artistic quality of a film,cause english films should have good english script. but foreign-language-translated film subtitles are very simple, probably simpler than the original language's script, but we give these words equal, if not deeper significance than it will if it's used as dialogue of an english films. assuming the content is the same, isn't it strange, that for foreign language films we allow ourselves to be swayed by simple simple subtitles which wouldn't work equally well as dialogue in an english films?
oh and foreign language films' attraction also seems to be to derive from the fact that it has an alien society, culture, values. Like, hence iranian films would be less impressive to the iranians, singapore chinese films with english subtitles would be more impressive to foreign critics, etc. the latter is surely true for me.
---
If You Can Picture The Following Vividly It Can Be Quite Funny
1.
The scene is a person eating noodles at a cafeteria, seated at the right of an otherwise empty table. His face is stained with bits of noodles and sauce. He seems oblivious to this, just eating on listlessly.
Enters another guy carrying a similar bowl of noodles, seating himself at the left of the first guy. They don't know each other, silent, strangers keeping to themselves. The second guy, the newcomer begins to dig in.
Then suddenly "woosh!" the second guy's head dives deep into his bowl of noodles! The second guy appears to struggle for a while, then manages to pull away from the bowl, his face now similarly stained as the first guy.
The second guy turns to the first guy, trying to make conversation.
"Gee, the food here sucks."
2.
It is raining. We see the closeup of a guy's face, which looks very agitated. The rain is mingling with streams of anguished tears sliding down his cheek. It is a furious rain; there are muffled booms of thunder in the distance occasionally. The guy is breathing heavily, not saying anything, his eyes fixed on someone or something we cannot see. This persists for a while as we take the scenario in.
Then the guy starts to shout,
"First you take away my HOME! Now you want my LIFE! You will stop at nothing!" then a few more moments of silence as he just stands there, indignant.
Camera pull-out. We see that he's actually talking to a karanguni (rag and bone) man, who looks very harassed and confused. he is holding some sections of the Straits Times. He manages a reply.
"Eh, so you don't want to sell ah?"
---
moving on.
isn't it if meaning is an ideological concept, that meaning is created by emerging human consciousness dealing with its primitive instincts and impulses. cause it means ultimately there is no objective meaning, underlying aesthetic beauty. No Plato's "forms". so meaning's not part of truth, rather it distorts objective reality. like how we either see the deaths of thousands of people as irrelevant in a huge cosmic universe or we have to give it more significance and feel grieved as it's a tragedy. in the end the more rationally intellectual we are the less we share in the human spirit. Isn't it?
---
oh slacked for pe today, walked all the way after one round.
Kaisiang: So i was so slow that i was practically the last guy.
Shawn: there were lots of girls after you la.
-Pause for a while as we took in what that last line could mean-
Both: woah.
i think john stevens has a really cool voice, but it's not really suitable for pop, not versatile which is what american idol's looking for, so he has to go lor.
---
watched this film soc organised movie called Osama, a foreign-language film portraying Taleban oppression. i think foreign-language films and films-in-language-we-know are essentially two different mediums. foreign films are partly text based, just as a book is different from a movie, because we absorb the dialogue as a written form, the subtitles. Therefore we absorb a foreign film differently from a film we know, for the former we see the action but we absorb speech in textual form. translation plays an important part in conveying the meaning of a film, and also differentiates the two types of movies in terms of style and method.
at the same time i think we react to english translations of foreign language films differently than we would to english subtitle renditions of english films. . if we force ourselves to read the english subtitles of, say, an english film, then we probably would expect to read very flowery, litty language to be impressed by the artistic quality of a film,cause english films should have good english script. but foreign-language-translated film subtitles are very simple, probably simpler than the original language's script, but we give these words equal, if not deeper significance than it will if it's used as dialogue of an english films. assuming the content is the same, isn't it strange, that for foreign language films we allow ourselves to be swayed by simple simple subtitles which wouldn't work equally well as dialogue in an english films?
oh and foreign language films' attraction also seems to be to derive from the fact that it has an alien society, culture, values. Like, hence iranian films would be less impressive to the iranians, singapore chinese films with english subtitles would be more impressive to foreign critics, etc. the latter is surely true for me.
---
If You Can Picture The Following Vividly It Can Be Quite Funny
1.
The scene is a person eating noodles at a cafeteria, seated at the right of an otherwise empty table. His face is stained with bits of noodles and sauce. He seems oblivious to this, just eating on listlessly.
Enters another guy carrying a similar bowl of noodles, seating himself at the left of the first guy. They don't know each other, silent, strangers keeping to themselves. The second guy, the newcomer begins to dig in.
Then suddenly "woosh!" the second guy's head dives deep into his bowl of noodles! The second guy appears to struggle for a while, then manages to pull away from the bowl, his face now similarly stained as the first guy.
The second guy turns to the first guy, trying to make conversation.
"Gee, the food here sucks."
2.
It is raining. We see the closeup of a guy's face, which looks very agitated. The rain is mingling with streams of anguished tears sliding down his cheek. It is a furious rain; there are muffled booms of thunder in the distance occasionally. The guy is breathing heavily, not saying anything, his eyes fixed on someone or something we cannot see. This persists for a while as we take the scenario in.
Then the guy starts to shout,
"First you take away my HOME! Now you want my LIFE! You will stop at nothing!" then a few more moments of silence as he just stands there, indignant.
Camera pull-out. We see that he's actually talking to a karanguni (rag and bone) man, who looks very harassed and confused. he is holding some sections of the Straits Times. He manages a reply.
"Eh, so you don't want to sell ah?"
---
moving on.
isn't it if meaning is an ideological concept, that meaning is created by emerging human consciousness dealing with its primitive instincts and impulses. cause it means ultimately there is no objective meaning, underlying aesthetic beauty. No Plato's "forms". so meaning's not part of truth, rather it distorts objective reality. like how we either see the deaths of thousands of people as irrelevant in a huge cosmic universe or we have to give it more significance and feel grieved as it's a tragedy. in the end the more rationally intellectual we are the less we share in the human spirit. Isn't it?
---
oh slacked for pe today, walked all the way after one round.
Kaisiang: So i was so slow that i was practically the last guy.
Shawn: there were lots of girls after you la.
-Pause for a while as we took in what that last line could mean-
Both: woah.
<< Home