Annotations for "Transformation"

Item Time Annotation Layer
The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams 23:54 - 24:55 TOM [crouching toward her, overtowering her tiny figure. She backs away, gasping]: 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. [He goes through a series of violent, clumsy movements, seizing his overcoat, lunging to do door, pulling it fiercely open. The women watch him, aghast. His arm catches in the sleeve of the coat as he struggles to pull it on. For a moment he is pinioned by the bulky garment. With an outraged groan he tears the coat of again, splitting the shoulder of it, and hurls it across the room. It strikes against the shelf of Laura's glass collection, there is a tinkle of shattering glass. LAURA cries out as if wounded.]
 Transcription
Arrival Beginning 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
Arrival Beginning 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 on authenticity, as the film creators believed that showing these themes and ideas through a montage, versus an imitation of real human life, would illicit a more aesthetic or emotional response.
General Commentary
Arrival Beginning 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
Arrival Beginning 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
Arrival Beginning 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 holisitc 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
Arrival Ending 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
Arrival Ending 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
Arrival Ending 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 culture. 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
Arrival Ending 2:07 - 2:10 Before this scene, our relation from all of the scenes in the montage seem to be a 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 reponse to the scene that happened prior, though it was technically in the 'future'. This makes the scenes themselves and their presentation serve as not only a portrayal of Louise's life and memory, but also as her presentation of them.
General Commentary
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 18:36 - 18:42 Book turning
 Noise
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 25:34 - 25:45 Sqweaky noise; seemingly drops conversation and restarts
 Noise
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 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
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 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
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 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, pracipitates a way to gather for some power in a sort of searchless nature."
 Transcription
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 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
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 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
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 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
Carson McCullers at The Poetry Center, YMHA 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:13 - 0:18 across the darkening waves,
Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:19 - 0:21 your dreaming laughter
 Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:26 - 0:30 The heavens have stolen your smile,
 Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:39 - 0:44 all our memories are wasted.
 Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:46 - 0:53 Salt tears wound my blinded eyes
 Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:54 - 0:56 as I write this,
 Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 1:19 - 1:21 the day
 Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 1:27 - 1:38 That I would be left to bear witness to our friendship?
 Original poem, changed
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:39 - 0:39 [All our memories— the wild night fucking you on the floor of Heaven—]
 Original poem, omitted
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna McKevitt 0:34 - 0:39 The rainbow is fallen
 Video captions, mistake
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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 apocolyptic 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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 occurence in the transformation or adaptation of art, as there can many times be a 'bad' or simple mistake in them (like undoubtably 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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 effect people reading the screen and interpretting the phrases of the poem, or is the phrasing question completely answered through the use of the song and voice.
Commentary
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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
I sit here immobile by Derek Jarman and Donna 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