Annotations for "Transformation"

Play All

Item	Time	Annotation	Layer
III. The Beginning Montage	0:04 - 0:16	This panning of the window also juxtaposes and emphasizes the stillness of the landscape, which is something that film is alone in its ability to showcase.	General Commentary
III. The Beginning Montage	0:23 - 0:25	Her discussion of time and order become a central theme in the film, and something to keep in mind is why would the film creator decide to explicitly tell us these things, why would they put these things in a montage instead of being hinted at throughout the film? This seems to bring into question the authenticity, as the film creators believed that showing these themes and ideas through a montage, versus an imitation of real human life, would elicit a more aesthetic or emotional response.	General Commentary
III. The Beginning Montage	0:32 - 0:35	Louise is looking at her baby, also to note that the baby's father, as noted in the other montage's annotations, Dr. Ian Donnelly, is not to be found. She seems to look down, almost as if she were dreading or coming to terms with her baby's existence. We now know, due to the film's plot, that this is because she knows the entire trajectory of her child's life. However, when people were watching this scene for the first time, they would not have initially come to that conclusion, so there is also a combined aspect of these subtle actions that either the film's creators believed the viewers would come back to, or that these subtle actions would help shape a very specific and niche environment to push the viewer into the suggested mindset.	General Commentary
III. The Beginning Montage	2:02 - 2:29	With the descension, it is important to keep in mind that this is another specific instance where film holds an advantage in creating its own atmosphere, as each and every aspect of what the viewer is hearing and listening to has been chosen and created to make a specific environment to evoke a specific aesthetic or emotional response. The descension of music, the acting of Louise crying, the panning of the camera allowing the viewer to get close, and the lighting, have all transformed the different aspects of the film into one synthesis.	General Commentary
III. The Beginning Montage	2:27 - 2:30	With this last narration, Louise mentioned that she is "not sure" about what she thinks about beginnings and endings. This could be an example of how the film makes an interesting choice about what mental or time-space the narrator lives in. In the earlier examples, we know that Louise already has her holistic understanding of time because it was after her interaction with the aliens. So, that leaves us with the question: why is she not sure? Are the creator's leaving it as a question to not give too much away to the viewer? Through this montage she went from "I used to believe" to "I'm not sure anymore", so is this to give us more answers about why she still has these emotions with her daughter? Is it not because these emotions will exist even with the knowledge of her death, but more that she doesn't completely comprehend that knowledge in the first place? I'm keen to believe that it was a stylistic choice to keep the story more interesting and open-ended in order to be cohesive in the beginning.	General Commentary
III. The Beginning Montage	2:02 - 2:03	Within that similar interaction, this explains why not only movement is important as a transformation between one image to the next as we see in the Movement-Image, but also in the sense that there is a transformation from the Movement-Image into the Time-Image. It can seem contradictory to want to include the importance of transformation as well as time if I were to appeal to Deleuze, but in reality transformation, in the way I'm using it, allocates room for both the movement itself as well as the transcendental movement beyond.	General Commentary
IV. The Ending Montage	1:21 - 1:22	The picture that is, we assume, to be created by the daughter is hanging up on the wall of Ian and Louise's house, and this begs the question of time and memory in a much more 'usual' way in most cultures. We can assume that the daughter, Hannah, drew this image after being told about the story by either Louise or Ian, or both. This seems to give credit to memory in that way, as opposed to the more controversial and non-linear understanding of time they have been hinting at. So, it could either be the film creators' inclusion of an idea other than their own to give it its own credit, or it could be seen as them including that understanding into their more holistic view of time.	General Commentary
IV. The Ending Montage	2:07 - 2:10	Before this scene, our relation from all of the scenes in the montage seem to be merely good coordination from the editor of the film, as some of the scenes seem to be in conversation with each other. However, this is the first scene where it seems like Louise smirks as a direct response to the scene that happened prior, though it was technically in the 'future'. This makes the scenes themselves and their presentation serve not only as a portrayal of Louise's life and memory, but also as her presentation of them.	General Commentary
IV. The Ending Montage	0:47 - 0:49	In the official recording, there is a mistake done by the orchestra at the top of this repetition sequence, and the officials in the film decided to fix it for this note or do a whole different orchestral recording instead. Was it to correct this note? What do mistakes in music add to their authenticity, and this correction adds further content to the discussion of adaptation in art and how it utilizing art can lead to the challenge of its authenticity.	Score
IV. The Ending Montage	2:16 - 2:22	Two note repetition that blends together into one note: A question that comes up a lot in film and in art in general is the reality of intention versus the created importance. In other words, for this example, is there intention in the repetition blending into one voice as a commentary for the film itself?	Score
VII. The Glass Menagerie	23:54 - 24:55	TOM: No? Well, you're right. For once in your life you're right. I'm going to opium dens ! Yes, opium dens, dens of vice and criminals' hang-outs, Mother. I've joined the Hogan gang, I'm a hired assassin, I carry a tommy-gun in a violin case! I run a string of cathouses in the Valley! They call me Killer, Killer Wingfield, I'm leading a double-life, a simple, honest warehouse worker by day, by night a dynamic tsar of the underworld, Mother. I go to gambling casinos, I spin away fortunes on the roulette table ! I wear a patch over one eye and a false moustache, sometimes I put on green whiskers. On those occasions they call me -El Diablo ! Oh, I could tell you things to make you sleepless ! My enemies plan to dynamite this place. They're going to blow us all sky-high some night ! And will I be glad, and so will you ! You'll go up, up on a broomstick, over Blue Mountain with seventeen gentlemen callers! You ugly - babbling old - witch.	Transcription
VII. The Glass Menagerie	0:01 - 0:01	An important thing to keep in mind is that the original play by Tennessee Williams The Glass Menagerie premiered in Chicago in 1944 was intended to be performed on stage with a live and physical audience. As the speech begins, it is important to recognize that now, sound is the only sense that we are given, so something that was both auditory and visual is now constrained to just audio.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	2:39 - 2:40	Here is the first line beyond the perfect transcription of the introduction by Tom, and we already see how, in performance, actors often make many changes to their lines through improvisation, poor memory, or other factors. There is already a question of translation from audio-visual to plainly audio like mentioned before, but now we have to also pay attention to the fact that versions of the play, even if performed on radio with script, can be adapted and changed by the creators of the performance or the actors themselves.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	2:46 - 2:47	This is another example of a change, as the original play had the word "Coming, Mother" as well as an indicator of the movement of the actor that states "He bows slightly and withdraws, a few moments later in his place at the table". This movement is now seen through the sounds of footsteps, though our imagination takes much more authority in regards to the table itself, the outline of the house, or even where each person is sitting. An interesting aspect of this is that in many parts of the South, where Williams' works are usually in critique or response to, or even just where they happen to be located, the men of the family sit at the ends of tables. How does this change our perception of this family, especially audiences not from the South?	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	2:55 - 3:04	Here we have a complete addition to the play, as the transcription above is not found in the original screenplay. This emphasizes the creators of this performance feeling as though it is necessary to perhaps make up for the lack of visual components of the play and to fluff it with more conversation. This also adds a layer of that Southern feeling that was lost with my earlier comment on the table etiquette.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	3:06 - 3:09	We can also hear the clanging of the forks to allow our imagination’s authorship. This point reminds me of Linda Hutcheon's discussion of how sometimes these adaptations are intended to be consumed with their originals in mind. This can complicate many things, especially like additions we saw right before because if this was truly intended to have your memory of watching the physical play, why not get more vague or mystical instead of more specific?	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	4:29 - 4:30	Due to its time and place, there are also sentiments of racism within the play. In some renditions of the script there also includes more derogatory language towards Black people.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	3:31 - 3:32	We can hear the silverware hit the plate, but an interesting note in the original script is that the fork is called imaginary. This could mean many things, considering the scene itself is technically imaginary according to Tom as it is a memory, but it could also be an interpretation, as other points in the script there aren't strict distinctions like saying Tom sits at the imaginary table.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	4:03 - 4:05	Another example of how the use of sound to indicate movement.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	4:41 - 4:42	Amanda leaving the room is indicated through her disappearing voice. It would've made Tom and Laura's conversation awkward if the audience assumed that Amanda was in the same room.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	4:45 - 4:46	Another change of words in the updated version due to the intensity of racist language used. How can this transformation of art into the digital or virtual world also be an attempt to erase their problematic past?	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	5:19 - 5:20	Between the above and below lines, the original play also had an image of Amanda as a young girl greeting those callers, but this was obviously much harder for the radio broadcast to include, so they either had hoped that the reference did enough work or relied heavily on Hutcheon's idea that the audience would be merely extending their understanding of the play from their previous interaction with it.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	5:40 - 5:42	Within this scene, Tom is meant to be reading the script of the play and pointing the crew to change the lights and highlight Amanda's place in the scene. However, we are only able to hear the conversation that Amanda and Tom are having together. This creates a very easy argument for critics of digital art and art's digitalization as a complete destruction of Williams' play, however, in light of Williams using what I believe Deleuze to be talking about mentioned in the commentary above, I will now cite Hutcheon again in her belief of this adaptation as a creation of its own as well as an extension of the original. It is quite apparent to us that the creator's of this play would know very well that the original Williams play had these integral conceptual pieces to them, and in their exclusion of them, are highlighting the role of dialogue and conversation through this broadcast. This allows us to see the masterworking of dialogue that Williams created on top of these visual or conceptual scenes of the original.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	7:47 - 7:48	Within the original script, there was a note here to show Laura going off to the portiere and having a bright light shine on her, but it was left out and Amanda's next line was smushed into her previous one.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	10:14 - 10:15	There was supposed to be a count of ten between the line above and below me, so there is also a question of how art through its digitalization can also be victim to the growing perils of money and bureaucracy.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	12:38 - 12:40	The last sentence of Amanda's line above that ends in "don't play that victrola" were additions made by the actress, Jessica Tandy, and is an example of the difference between this act of individuality by the actor in radio versions of the play versus the original. In the radio version, it can be either pre recorded and edited to be very intentional through this addition, which would be very different than original renditions of the play on, say, Broadway, or they can be in the rush of the moment, which would be very similar to the reality of acting in a play like the original.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	13:15 - 13:20	In the middle of Laura's line above, there was originally meant to be another image displayed that depicted Laura in the park. This ability to use imagery within the original play, again, being lost.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	14:16 - 14:19	In between the above and below lines, in the original there were notes for a legend that writes "the crust of humility."	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	15:59 - 16:00	The image of "Jim as a high-school hero bearing a silver cup" was meant to display.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	16:33 - 16:34	An image of blue roses appeared in the original play in between the above and below lines.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	17:59 - 18:01	What is left out from the original, again, in the same way an omission of the control that Tom has in his memory play, was that Tom was meant to wave to the fiddle to sign that it was time to play.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	18:37 - 18:38	Image of the young man was also meant to be shown during this monologue.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	20:45 - 20:47	This is an example of how digitalization of these processes can also result in errors or mistakes, as you can hear her sentence being cut off. She was meant to say "I'll hold the wire." Just like in this project, having so many external factors can make it hard to tune out every issue and curate everything perfectly. This is another argument seen against the digitalization of great artworks; it's just too much work!	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	21:12 - 21:13	This note was not referenced or made-up immediately after in the radio broadcasting.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	20:54 - 20:54	The line above and below are not included in the original script, and seems to be making up for the fact that, in the original, there was a faint arguing between Tom and Amanda that starts the scene off, whereas in a couple of seconds is when the argument emerges for this version.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	21:48 - 21:50	The radio broadcast also chose to change the language from "house, house!" to "My house, my house!" to emphasize the point, even though the rest of the line about questioning who pays the rent was still in the original.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	22:02 - 22:03	There is also an included note about Amanda's appearance in Mr. Wingfeild's clothes, as well as how both Amanda's and Tom's shadows appear projected onto the ceiling in the fiery glow.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	23:45 - 23:48	When mentioning him, there is an integral piece of visual information that the original play and script had that isn't possible through this radio broadcast: Tom pointing at his father on the mantle. It is implied in some ways, if you can remember that Mr. Wingfield is on the mantle and that he had died, but other than that, it requires a good amount of context clues.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	24:54 - 24:55	In the original, there was meant to be moments after he calls Amanda a witch where he stumbles and ultimately hits the glass menagerie, but as you can hear, he hits and breaks the glass menagerie before he even calls her a witch. This seems to be an intentional change and time-saving effort of the radio broadcast to make the scene and communication of the broken glass efficient to people listening on the radio.	Commentary
VII. The Glass Menagerie	25:09 - 25:10	One of the most interesting changes we see in this adaptation of the play is that Tom is originally supposed to be stunned stupidly by his mistake in destroying Laura's glass menagerie, and the script mentions that he looks at Laura as if to speak, yet he couldn't. However, in this broadcast, they decided that he would apologize, even if it sounds like his apology doesn't make him feel better. There seems to be quite a different level of meaning behind and development of the characters through this, and in some ways it could argue the perversion of Williams' play, but on another hand, it could be an argument for its own authorship and creation.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:13 - 0:18	across the darkening waves,	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:19 - 0:21	your dreaming laughter	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:26 - 0:30	The heavens have stolen your smile,	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:39 - 0:44	all our memories are wasted.	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:46 - 0:53	Salt tears wound my blinded eyes	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:54 - 0:56	as I write this,	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	1:19 - 1:21	the day	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	1:27 - 1:38	That I would be left to bear witness to our friendship?	Original poem, changed
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:03 - 0:08	Both the video captions as well as the music lyrics leave out the comma that was used in the original poem, and this seems to hint at a large point in the argument that the essence or meaning of the original poetry is left changed when we adapt it to different mediums. Overall, punctuation is a literary device that aids in understanding the flow of sentences due to the lack of voice, visuals, or body language. One could argue that including punctuation in the lyrics of a song isn't necessary due to the ability to use your voice to indicate the flow of the sentence.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:03 - 0:08	The ability to see the words on a screen with visual aspects, which in this video are heavily influenced by some of the chaos-oriented details of Jarman's films, can add to our understanding of the poem's concepts. Ultimately, this technique aids in guiding the imagination of the viewer by providing them with foundational imagery; the feeling of sitting in a quiet room, looking out in retrospect of the horizon and landscape around you. This imagery sets you in a reflective tone to, in the creator, Chris Briggs' view, interpret the poem in a fruitful way.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:20 - 0:21	We see here, in the original poem, there is the word "dreaming", whereas for both the video and music, they use the word "dream". This can be read differently in comparison to the original, as without the original words, we would emphasize that the author chose "your dream laughter" as a laughter that is a dream. In comparison to the original, this changes the meaning of the line as "your dreaming laughter" emphasizes the importance and authority of the laughter having the ability to dream, not being a dream itself.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:27 - 0:30	There is an omission of the original poem here. We lose Jarman's "stolen your smile" and it is replaced in both the video captions and musical lyrics with "are fallen". This is a trend we see throughout the change in the poem: the removal of the other person that Jarman is referring to.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:27 - 0:30	The change here also adds and subtracts different meanings from the original poem. "The heavens have fallen" completely changes the meaning as it provides an apocalyptic or tragic story of the divine ending, whereas the original sees no end in the divine and simply points out the lack of divineness in 'the heavens', as we wouldn't normally associate something God-like as doing something stereotypically frowned upon or immoral like 'stealing' or making someone 'frown'.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:34 - 0:39	In this sequence, we see both a punctuation change as well as a seeming mistake done in the video. Instead of using the word "broken" we see the word "fallen" appear again in the poem written on screen. This highlights a difficulty and common occurrence in the transformation or adaptation of art, as there can many times be a 'bad' or simple mistake in them (like undoubtedly in this project). The question we have to ask is whether or not this new interpretation, this new analysis, or new medium, should pay the price and be written-off as completely unhelpful or lacking meaning.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:39 - 0:39	The annotation above is a direct omission from the original poem, and it completely changes the tone of the work in Jarman's version compared to the video/music. Without knowledge or looking at the original poem you would not get this sexual tone, and that seems to be something that was specifically chosen by Donna McKevitt to exclude, as she seems to be making the poem as general as possible-- removing the specifics of and relationship between Jarman and the other person he includes in the poem-- to make it about a collective or personal discussion.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:39 - 0:44	Here we see the end of a sentence within the original poem, and this creates a new problem concerning the original essence of the poem that hasn't happened yet. Not an omission, not only a change in words, but the inclusion of part of a sentence. The music and then video only uses the end of the sentence "all our memories are wasted". This creates a question of whether the essence of the sentence and meaning can hold any of its original form if there is a manipulation of the words. Ultimately, not many would argue that the music or video carries the original essence of Jarman's poem, but allows the musician and video creator to shift and expand their interpretation on Jarman's original art. How much of what we consider "common knowledge" about our understanding of language, metaphor, or literary devices are extensions of previous artwork, and can Jarman's poem be authentic or unique in essence to his inspiration?	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:54 - 0:56	This use of capitalization is also relevant, as the question of phrasing comes to the forefront of discussion. In the video captions, each line we see has been capitalized in the beginning, whereas in the poem, only the beginning of sentences are capitalized. Could this affect people reading the screen and interpreting the phrases of the poem, or is the phrasing question completely answered through the use of the song and voice.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	1:20 - 1:21	There was also a change between the music and the original poem, once again, as we go from "the day" to "one morning" and this can be a problem as it seems, as in the day, to be a reoccuring theme in the original poem, and Donna McKevitt would've had to make a very cautious decision to change a theme of that importance.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	1:28 - 1:38	Here we see the final omission and change of the original poem and the work, but it happens to be the last words and line of the music themselves, so that might not mean much. It means a lot, however, to the essence and meaning of the poem itself. One change is the omission of "to our friendship" which ties into the theme we've seen throughout in which Donna McKevitt is erasing the relationship Jarman has with the person in the original poem.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	1:28 - 1:38	The original also uses "would be left" whereas the music uses "would have". The seeming difference between how one would read these is that for "be left", you are seemingly being alone in comparison to being with someone before, and in the original poem we see that this loss of the day not rising would require Jarman to remove the active aspect of his relationship with the other person and look at it, rather, in retrospect. Again, the reason it was changed to "would have" is related to removing that relationship from the artwork.	Commentary
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:34 - 0:39	The rainbow is fallen	Video captions, mistake
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	1:07 - 1:45	The video seemed to end the captions after the line "Consume your heart", and the front page for the album "Translucence" appears.	Video captions
VIII. Jarman and McKevitt	0:39 - 0:39	[All our memories— the wild night fucking you on the floor of Heaven—]	Original poem, omitted
X. The Poetry Center	0:56 - 1:06	"Which is but another way of saying that she is an artist who, out of the real world, has created a world that is her own."	Transcription
X. The Poetry Center	1:08 - 1:35	"And by successive glimpses into that world, by those works of the creative imagination and titled "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter", "Reflections in a Golden Eye", "The Ballad of a Sad Cafe", and "The Member of the Wedding", we read the accomplishment of a brilliant young career, that has already put its mark on a whole literary generation.	Transcription
X. The Poetry Center	12:08 - 12:35	"But about this mystery of creation that fascinates all us creative people. What is- what- what is- what is the time, and what, precipitates a way to gather for some power in a sort of searchless nature."	Transcription
X. The Poetry Center	13:46 - 15:32	"But I was still fascinated by the- this silicone novel, but now and then I'll think, well, when worst comes to worst, I'll split it up in little stories like Weinsburg or Hao. But-but still didn't satisfy me, I still thought- as a novel. And one day I was walking up and down in the lil- living room, in our little square or everrow, and I was skipping squares. I was thinking and worrying about that book. And suddenly, that came to me, and illumination. Suddenly, I knew that, that um, Minovitz, that was the character who was always being talked to was a deaf-mute. And then immediately after that, I said but his name was not Minovitz, too, it was Singer. John Singer. And so immediately, all the other things just fitted into place. And there was a focus and a blaze, and the- and I understood what was being done and what I was supposed to do. And um, a few days later, I started- in the town, now two mutes, and they were always together. Now Tennessee, you want to. What are you going to read?"	Transcription
X. The Poetry Center	23:46 - 25:00	"Why this is so, I don't know, but it seems to me that my work, so far, has been split up in two categories: one category, and I have been puzzled about what those difference between those categories were several times until, um, a dear friend and former music teacher of mine was staying with me last summer, and she said, "'The Heart of a Lonely Hunter' has a soul, 'The Member of the Wedding' has a soul, but 'Reflections of a Golden Eye' doesn't have a soul. Neither does 'The Ballad of a Sad Cafe.' Well, I said, well, I admit that 'Reflections' doesn't have much of a- soul in the way that I could name it, but I didn't agree with her about 'The Ballad of a Sad Cafe'. "	Transcription
X. The Poetry Center	25:46 - 28:52	"Then my next workout, again, was, um, the hardest- writing I've ever done. It was "The Member of the Wedding." And, for more than a year, I just wrote the first paragraph over and over and over, and I couldn't get to the middle of the node, as Katherine Mansfield says. And all that first paragraph, that's the worst of all, because I think that, um, that the first paragraph should suggest, intimate the whole tone of the novel. And suggest all the themes, the first page, anyhow. And that is hard, you know, to do. And then I wrote, and wrote, and wrote, and I knew that I wasn't doing the right thing. And I kept working, and working, every day. It was just a novel about this, um, girl who had a crush with her music teacher, which had been done many many times before. And so, knew that wasn't a thing at all. And then one day, I was having Thanksgiving dinner with friends in Brooklyn. And, um, after we'd eaten and drunk a lot, suddenly, I heard a fire engine. And since I love fires, I rushed out of the door, I don't mean fires, but fire engines, I rushed out of the door, and, um, a friend of mine, Gypsy Rose Lee she was, who also loves fire engines, the one who rushed out with me. And something about that, that rush of air, the fresh air, you know, and I guess, it was the oxygen in my nose and excitement, I was starting on the street, called on watching the fire engine. When suddenly I came to me another illumination things I'm talking about, and I suddenly realized that Frankie is in love with her bride and the brother. And so I said, 'So listen, Gypsy, Frankie is in love with her bride and her brother.' "	Transcription
X. The Poetry Center	28:56 - 29:41	"And there I found this symbol. [pause] Now, well, what is the connection between that [inaudible] and that, um, understanding of the 'Heart of the Lonely Hunter', what is the connection between the fire engine and, um, the other illumination about 'The Member of the Wedding'?"	Transcription
X. The Poetry Center	18:36 - 18:42	Book turning	Noise
X. The Poetry Center	25:34 - 25:45	Squeaky noise; seemingly drops conversation and restarts	Noise
X. The Poetry Center	0:24 - 2:39	This gives us a historical understanding of how these digitalizations worked. At this time, it was a recording of an interaction at The Poetry Center that included Carson McCullers, Tennessee Williams, and the moderator. This introduction allows us to see that these are not direct digitalizations, but many parts of McCullers works are kept in this time capsule nonetheless.	Commentary
X. The Poetry Center	3:20 - 15:32	Now, we will see Carson McCullers, in her own voice and words, give us an understanding and background of her book and poetry. This allows for a monumental amount of scholarship to delve into not only how her work is seen on paper but also how she subtly pushes or hints at through her introduction of her own work.	Commentary
X. The Poetry Center	7:35 - 8:50	Having a recording of Carson McCullers reading her own poetry is also a very substantial key for researchers and scholars of her work or Southern Gothic literature to know where she pauses, what words she emphasizes, and what tone she uses overall. These are important aspects of the poetry that are normally left to the reader's interpretation, with the guidance of structure and imagery by McCullers, but ultimately within the hands of the audience. Some might say that this is, like every other person who has read her poem, just a single interpretation. Once an artist releases their work into the world, it becomes a more collective piece, rather than hers or theirs. Nonetheless, for historians or archivists, this can paint a clearer picture on how she viewed her own work and how her work had changed through scholarly work on it from its origin in her mind.	Commentary
X. The Poetry Center	16:27 - 16:40	The transcription of the book itself was left out for copyright considerations, but again, there is an example of how these digitalizations can help archivists and researchers keep organized understandings of how things were. For this instance, we are getting an intricate understanding of how Tennessee Williams and Carson McCullers' relationship works, as well as how Williams understands and appreciates McCullers' work. It is interesting to think that with McCullers there, why would she, or the sponsors of the event, want Williams to do the reading. This leads to many different understandings of what is going on, some including the presence of Williams as a publicity stunt in order to raise awareness or attract interest in the event. Nonetheless, there is still insight into how these Southern artists interacted and knew each other, giving us insights to not only their work, not only how they view their work, but how they interacted with each other.	Commentary
X. The Poetry Center	23:47 - 25:00	The annotation above synthesizes McCullers' perception of her own work, and highlights a very important aspect of these digital artifacts. As we can see, there is not only aesthetic and artistic value in these recordings when they are discussing her work or reading out her work, but they also give an important view into how she crafts, executes, and views her work in retrospect. Giving us another reason to value these digital forms of art as important archival pieces as well as independently important works of art.	Commentary