Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
im jealousOriginally posted by timmii
haha gilly...i've finished hsc![]()
Good advice.Originally posted by timmii
Talk about how verisimilitude is established with grainy footage, a handheld camera and seemingly behind-the-scenes, exclusive insight into the personal lives, conversations and stories behind the show broadcast each night. The format of a "documentary" of a current affairs program also adds integrity to the perspectives being depicted since it makes it seemmore real and plausible than if the team were to merely just *tell* you what's wrong with current affairs programs.
Talk about methods of portraying "the truth" used both within "frontline" and 'frontline' - since remember, advanced wants to know *how* meaning is conveyed, not only *what* is conveyed.
Yay!Originally posted by timmii
gregor's got it right!
Especially that part about intertextuality - they merge so many "real life" references and personalities into the episodes you don't know what's real and what's note - there's no clear demarcation between Frontline the fictional show and the real world. As such, again verisimilitude is created and by being unable to discern truth from fiction you as the viewer are manipulated such that you are inclined to believe it all.
*Raises hand* Yessss! and then they juxtapose (now theres a word ive heard too many times) Ha-ha, he's done it again.. He's a national treasure. with he's shithouse!Originally posted by Gregor Samsa
And to briefly comment about Frontline on a entertainment level; Does anyone else find it hillarious whenever Mike is shown trying to gauge whether Elliot's songs are funny, followed by his usual comically overdone reaction? I think it's great.. [Even when I've seen the episodes multiple times, I can't help but laugh.]
Ha-ha, he's done it again.. He's a national treasure.
Thats very sad. But it's memories like those that wont be forgotten heheOriginally posted by timmii
Hehehe a girl in my class last year asked me if Cheryl Kernot was a real person or not(and she was ranked first in english at the time!)
Would you mind explaining this notion of universal truth vs subjective truth? All my essays to date have only really dealt with the way the truth is manipulated by the media in order to increase ratings, and by the powerful to conceal information. Really shallow stuff...Originally posted by timmii
I also had a "children overboard" article - which i related to how truth was at the mercy of those who had the power, and there is no single objective truth, but merely several subjective truths - which one is publicised however is determined by power, politics and money....
more like a 99.6+ uaiOriginally posted by GillyBean
im jealous...but you did get a band 6 in Advanced didnt you, DIDNT YOU!? hehe and a 90 something uai im sure....
I just want this all to be overI dont CARE what i get anymore...
Ah i see what you mean. Thanks alot.Originally posted by timmii
Hehe not so shallow - after all that *is* what your text is about, and you're not exactly going to have time in the exam to go into an extensive discussion on existentialism and the meaning of truth.
All you really need to be aware of is that "truth" is highly dependent on who is perceiving/interpreting events. Who are you or I or anyone to really determine what is *the* truth, we merely see different versions of it - many "truths" as it were. In addition to that you then have the deliberate/implicit manipulation of the presentation of "the truth" in order to present a specific truth. For instance, in "This night of nights" Frontline portrays the "truth" that Telecom is a wonderful company etc, choosing to suppress the "truth" that it is bugging its customers phones.
Or even, the Cheryl kernot interview, the "truth" she wants to talk about is that of the cross-media laws, (i think...damn my bad memory), while they're more interested in her "balancing home and work"...
Think about a dangerous situation like The Siege. Frontline doesn't lie when it says the gunman may have been a war veteran - he may have been - but he also may not have been! Think of how the "truth" of the whole piece is then interpreted, does he seem more dangerous? Is the tension heightened?