Blade Runner

The argument I feel like director Ridley Scott was trying to make with Blade Runner was that when the body and technology are mixed together, the result is a disastrous one. Man should keep its relationship with technology a distant one, making sure to keep the lines between robot and a living being, a very distinct one.

Alright, let me know if there was something else you wanted to know.

Prompt #12

I think Cronenberg uses violence in Videodrome because of how it affects the audience. I think Cronenberg was aiming for the reaction that Julia said she had. By causing such emotions, the audience will definitely remember what they saw. In Videodrome, the emotional reaction caused by the violence is what causes the hallucinations. I think this goes right along with my argument for my final project. The relationship with the body and the technology, showing a violent scene, affects the body enough to get some kind of response, usually a negative one (such a Julia's repulsion or Max's hallucinations). This relationship is not a beneficial one and any time it occurs, there are negative consequences. This relationship seems to be a constant one as seen in Videodrome, Neuromancer and Blade Runner.

Prompt #11 - Blade Runner

"Blade Runner" makes an interesting argument about the relationship the body and technology have with one another. This movie surrounds a group of "Replicants," which are basically robots made to be very, very human-like. These Replicants were given traits that you wouldn't usually think a robot would have, such as a five o'clock shadow, the ability to sweat or the fact that they may not even know whether they are human or Replicant. This movie has your classic elements from any futuristic sci-fi film, right down to the flying cars.

The basic argument I feel this movie is making with the relationship between the body and technology is that they are two very different things, and people should remember this, no matter how human-like the technology gets. In the movie, the Replicants are basically murderers who are on the run. I won't give away too much of the story in case anybody wants to watch it in the future.

From a cinematic standpoint, director Ridley Scott uses all the traditional tools, such as the rule of thirds and character points of view. These tools help the viewer get a more personal feel for the movie.

Post #10

In "Neuromancer," Case is the only live hacker, aka cowboy, that we encounter. Aside from the Rastafarians, he is the only character who has no physical body modifications. I see this as ironic because he is the only one who actually goes in to cyberspace, which requires psychological modifications. Case isn't interested in physical body modifications because cowboys, Case included, have a stern disregard for the body. Throughout the book, Case usually refers to the body as simply, "the meat." This shows that Case prefers to be in cyberspace and leave his body behind.

There is really only one time throughout the book that we actually get a good look at how Case really looks like. This is towards the end when he jacks into the Matrix and flips his simstem switch to see Molly looking at him. He is described as "wasted", unshaven, and sweaty. This obviously is an unflattering description, but he doesn't seem to care. He doesn't care about his looks because as I previously mentioned, Case has no attachment to his physical being.

Based on our experience with Case and how he repeatedly refers to the body as "the meat" I would imagine that other hackers share his opinion about the body. To them, their mind and central nervous system are the only things that are important because that is what allows them to jack into the Matrix.

Prompt #7

In this class, we have been looking at all kinds of body modifications. When thinking about our past discussions about the different types, especially about tattoos, it seems that one thing we have touched on slightly is how much modification is too much. When talking about "normative" body modifications and when they become radical I think of when someone has had too much of it done. For example, body builders, whether male or female, look very odd. In my opinion it is very unnecessary for someone to look like that. In that case, their type of modification is a taboo, at least to me.

This idea stretches to all modifications. If someone has too many tattoos (which are now becoming normalized), too many piercings, too much plastic surgery, or has dieted too much and is now dangerously thin, then they are viewed as odd and their style to be taboo and out of the norm. Although these types of modifications, in a moderate extent, are usually viewed as normative and not frowned upon, in an extreme extent, they can cause dirty looks from people in public because of their "unnatural" appearance. This is when "normative" modifications become considered different just like non-normative modifications.

One thing I think is that different modifications may seem normal or odd to someone, it just depends on the person and their experiences. A body builder, or someone who works in the bodybuilding business, won't find the look of other bodybuilders odd, they will seem normal because they have experience in that field. Same thing goes with dieters, people with tattoos and people who are pierced.

Prompt #6

Well, this is my first college writing class. I passed the AP English test in my junior year of high school, so I didn't have to take the first rhetoric course. Before this class, I've never had to write more than a two-page paper. This is why I always feared the day when I would have to write my first multiple page paper for college. I didn't feel prepared, and based on my grade on paper 1.1, I apparently have some hard work ahead of me. In high school, I tried to stay away from the cliched five paragraph essay and just tried to make my writing flow as best as I could. When I think of any kind of academic writing, I think of doing the best I can to follow the prompt and use words that help me sound like I know what I'm talking about, whether I really do or not. When doing this kind of writing, I try to use an interesting opening sentence and a clever, well-worded conclusion. I do this because I like to have a strong beginning and a strong ending to try and make up for any problems that may occur in the body of the paper.

As usual, I like to talk about tattoos. This is mostly because I really want to get one, but I want it to really mean something so it's taking me a while to pick something. I think tattoos are the easiest, and most common (plus one of the most permanent) ways to really say something. Most of the time, there is a specific meaning or story to a tattoo. An example of this can be an experience that changed your life, so you get a picture to signify this, as if to say to the world "This happened and I got through it and look at me now." Another example could be getting a name or picture of a family member that passed away. This is obviously saying that you love(d) this person and you miss them. Although there is always room for interpretation by spectators when it comes to tattoos, there's always a meaning and possibly a message behind the tattoo.

Two semesters ago I took a communications class and one thing that really stuck out to me was that no matter what you say or how you say it, the audience may interpret the message in any way, mostly based on their experiences. I think this goes along with limitations in authorship and writing. Someone can make a bold statement or get a creative tattoo, but it is up to the audience reading or viewing to decipher the message behind it all. As we have all experienced, it's not uncommon for the audience to misinterpret the meaning behind the message. It doesn't really matter what I was trying to say with this statement or tattoo if the true message isn't received by the audience. For this reason, I don't think that authorship and control are equal terms. All one can really do is get their message out as effectively as they can and hope that the meaning is understood.

Prompt #5

Both of these sources look at how body modification is very alive in today's world. The first I want to touch on is the Marketplace story about how tattoos are becoming more and more acceptable in today's work force. This story approaches the body art in the context of the business world and how they affect one another. Every day, young adults are entering the work force with tattoos and every day, businesses are having to deal with these potential employers having tattoos. Recently, more businesses have begun to accept tattoos on their employees. This is radically different than 30 years ago. Times change quickly and businesses have to adapt to these changes. Although there are still some companies who do not hire people with tattoos, or at least visible ones, most companies have learned to accept these people and their individuality and potential for success.

The National Geographic photo gallery consists of multiple photos on various forms of modifications from scarification to tattoos to stretching of the ears and lip. These photographs and the captions that are with them are just basically to inform about different types of modifications done around the world by different peoples. These photos are meant to show the beauty of being different and how natural and spiritual it can be.

When looking at both of these examples of body modification, I think tattoos and certain modifications have become widely accepted throughout society to not be exotic, but to be a form of individuality. Although these practices originated from exotic people and places, Western society has adopted them as their own. I don't think certain practices will ever be changed in those exotic places, but I think that Western society will continue to adapt any new practices that come along.