How to make a movie

I found the HRC exhibit to be informational and enjoyable. I personally love movies (even gave them up for Lent excluding the ones for class) and was always interested in how they were made. I knew that there's a lot of jobs to do when making a movie but I never realized how detailed everything was. For example, the costume designer for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf had written a letter describing her sketches and in one of her designs, the costume was light gray
so that it could photograph well when the actress walked in and out of the light. This made me realize that every little thing contributes to the overall perception of movies and that by designing something a certain way, the designer wants something specific to be done (like in Fog of War with the slanted background).

The setup for the exhibit was really organized and easy to follow. I noticed that some roles only had one wall like the art director, and others had a large section like the costume designer. Unfortunately, the music section was rather small which affected me because I am partly responsible for the music for our video. Nonetheless, the information presented was still helpful. Composers found it easier to have the movie playing in the background during recording sessions to get the timing and mood right. Although Lindsey and I won't be instructing an orchestra, we can still apply this to our project by watching the actual video or parts of it to get a good feel of the content so we can use the appropriate music. Also, I think it will be a good idea to have a general understanding of what we want the audience to feel so the music can reflect the desired mood. Music is an important component in movies because it really influences how the audience perceives what they're seeing.

The displays showed the chaotic nature of movie making. Lots of the scripts and notes had many edits written on them. Things were scratched out and added in, showing that ideas are constantly being revised so I expect this will also happen in our video. One area where I got the strongest sense of the stress of movie makers was the writer's display. The museum had a large picture of a woman in a paper-scattered room. What caught my attention was the fact that she wore one shoe normally but her other foot sat on top of her other shoe. I just thought this was really strange, and it made me feel that writing out a script will be no easy task.

After visiting the exhibit, I have a better sense of my role as composer and of how we are to make this video successfully. It looks challenging and stressful to make a movie so I'm mentally preparing myself to come across problems, but as a class, I think we can make this video effective.

HRC

I never would have guessed that the Harry Ransom Center had so much information about what a movie consists of. Each role has its own unique expertise and is so important while making a movie. What I liked about HRC was that each role was displayed separately and wasn't scrambled all over the place. Therefore, it was easy to see the difference between each role and easy to find.

I really enjoyed all the different types of movies that was on display. Almost every genre was displayed along with costumes and/or letters. I got lost into their amazing work and made me think “how did they come up with this technique.” I enjoyed the display of women costumes in the center. Seeing the clothes they used to wear back then and comparing it to now makes a huge difference. The different collections of artifacts left me speechless. It was as if I was at a dinosaur museum looking at dinosaur artifacts from millions of years ago (dorky I know). I enjoyed reading letters from the producers. Those letters got me sucked into their world and made me feel as if I was there, being part of their production. Some movies I was familiar with, and took a longer time viewing every single artifact in detail and reflecting over the movie scene.

Harry Ransom Center opened my eyes that there is no small role in a movie production, every role is greatly important. Each role was emphasized in its own unique way with multiple artifacts that traps the viewers. I enjoyed the exhibits at HRC and am looking forward to go back to get more insight as our video essay progresses. It would be really neat if they started adding movies that are made today. It would be great to reflect and compare from 60-70 years ago to today.

Movie Magic

I was a big fan of the Movie Exhibit at the Harry Ransom Center. You could easily get lost in the archives of cinema from decades past, there was just so much to look at, and everything was a piece of movie history. To start off, I felt the sectioning off of each "position" or job that we typically think comes with a movie was a smart move. It allowed you to get lost in one person's work and be fully involved with their aspect of the movie without any interference from another person's part of the movie. You really got to understand what it entailed to be a producer, or an art director, or a costume designer. I feel that in dividing up the exhibit by role, just made their role that much more important because then you could understand what would be missing had this part of the exhibit not been there.
The vast collection of artifacts they had at the HRC really blew my mind. Just reading letters from directors and producers, and looking at storyboards from 70 years ago really made me understand how timeless the genre of film is but at the same time how much it has changed in such a short amount of time. I was very impressed at how everything was neatly organized into its niche and how everything in that part of the exhibit, adhered to what it was describing, whether it was music scores in the composer section, or costumes in the costume designer section, it all fit and was just enough to portray the importance of that role in movie making.
The different movies that were focused on in the indivudal section of the "movie timeline" gave a good representation of how much film has changed in a short amount of time. To be honest the only movie that I really knew from that timeline of movies was Top Gun, which I didn't even watch but, the descriptions were detailed enough that I could understand everything they presented and was interested in what was shown even though I hadn't watched the movies.
Overall, I was very happy with the experience I had at the HRC; I will definitely try to go there again before the exhibit closes down since you can't see that stuff anywhere else. On a random tangent, I liked the costumes and propaganda (movie posters) sections very much because with the costumes, it was crazy to know someone wore this in a feature film almost a century ago and that its still in perfect condition; and with the movie posters it was just cool to trace the changes in movie posters that have led to our fancy flashy posters of today. I think if anything, the HRC taught me that every role is important, there is no small role in making a movie; each person's role is only an additive piece to the whole picture, without a certain role, you lose all aspects that come with that role from your movie. Also, another random tangent, I'm glad Robert De Niro was so supportive of the exhibit because he contributed a lot of really amazing pieces to the display that definitely made some parts of the exhibits what they were.

The Daily Show Formula (MUAHAHA mad science!)

I put research in quotes because watching 16 episodes of the Daily Show is NOT grunt work.
BUT I've come up with a basic formula (MUAHAHAHAH mad science!) for the daily show (from an editing perspective. SHEJAL THIS IS FOR US YO!!)

Formula:
1. Spiffy entry title scene with date. Announce the guest etc.

2. Intro to first topic topic of show through cuts back and forth between relevant (and often ridiculous) clips followed by funny John Stewart commentary. (Basically a thesis statement on what he's going to poke fun at).

3. Continues with cuts b/t clips and funny commentary, but usually in much more depth.

REPEAT FOR SECOND TOPIC

Guest segment:
Interview style, guest says funny things, John says funny things.
SEEMS like the segment is shot in one continuous segment


Moment of Zen:
Usually a clip that helps out the bits of ridiculousness that occurs in one of the topics discussed during the show. This is usually...
and THE END

SO Basically I'm going to say that we can equate the editing with the organization and fine tuning (duh) of a paper.


@Shejal: Your thoughts, madam?

Ransom Center FTW

You bet your booty I just said For the Win.

For me, the HRC exhibit basically took films and refracted them like a prism does light. The result is that all of the different components that go into the production of a film are arranged in front of us. It shows us the functions of each aspect of production, and how they go about doing it. It made it easier for me to see what my responsibilities as individual editor are AND what my responsibilities as the member of the production team are. Of course I probably won't splice and cut strips of film (ahh... technology) nor will our script writers be forced to use typewriter for their genius prose, but the duties are essentially still the same and will interact with each other in the same way. The whole exhibit helped me think of ways I could do my job better.

The Making Movies exhibit also helped with easing the stress that's attached to the video essay. Just thinking about everything that needs to get done would make any one person feel overwhelmed. But like i said before, the HRC breaks everything down and shows us that by assigning a professional to each aspect of production, the list of duties get smaller and more manageable for each person.

I feel that the HRC serves as both a model for the kind of collaboration we're going to need and as well as a way for us to know what we have to do to get the job done.

winning the vote

For me, reading Cnn.com and Perez Hilton are one in the same. As much as I hate to admit it, the scandal and juicy gossip of politics is what hooks me, and then I look into the issues at point and how they affect me. I don’t know if others feel the same way about this, but what I do know is that the majority of my friends couldn’t care less and probably couldn’t even name the speaker of the house, which to me is more embarrassing then my confession above.  Yet, they don’t seem to care or have a problem with being uninformed and clueless to what is going on around them. In our world today how is this possible, and even more troubling, why does no one care?

            David Foster Wallace, poses this question in Up,Simba and it got me thinking about all of my friends and how they represent the American youth. I came to the conclusion that there are two reasons why they avoid politics like the plague. One reason is what we touched on today in class, that it requires almost no brain power to accept parents thoughts and ideas and therefore, taking the easy way out, American Youth just does whatever mom and dad decide. The other reason for my friend’s lack of involvement in politics is that they are intimidated. It has nothing to do with being busy, and everything to do with being lazy. Reading the paper or watching the news takes time and concentration away from video games and socializing which is something a teenager does not want to give up.   So, they stay uninformed and intimidated by politics.

            Knowing the difficulty of breaking into today’s youth DFW tries to the best of his abilities to become an insider. The Rolling Stone is the perfect vehicle for this mission. Under the guise of an informative article about McCain, his actual motive is persuasion. In his article he uses a casual no BS tone. By doing this he makes the reader feel as if he is not a pencil but just a knowledgeable buddy helping you out and giving you the truth behind messy politics. Similarly to what he says about McCain being both a master rhetorician while using the truth as well to win over the population DFW wants youth to vote he hides it behind the truth about McCain. This I found very interesting.

 

Trust and Politics Don't Belong Together

I've never been into politics. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to all that bull, and this essay fortified my beliefs. I wasn't quite 18 when the last election rolled around, but I definitely wouldn't have voted for McCain. After reading this, the whole voting process seems like something I'd like to avoid in the future, and yet, something that is extremely important for me to take part in. Wallace drove the point home that all politicians want is your vote and will do anything to get it, even if it means putting on a huge show. The way he did it was pretty awesome, and that's because he first would make me feel like McCain was indeed a pretty swell guy, with his war story and "human-like" behavior. Numerous times while reading I started to reconsider my view on McCain, but just as soon as I would begin to do so Wallace would point out the rhetoric behind his actions. As he pointed out, the only real thing that there is to believe about McCain is that he made an insanely brave decision in the POW camp. This is something that I completely respect, and for this alone wish that he'd won the primary instead of Bush (I'm not from Texas... can't say I'm a fan, even with very little political involvement/focus).
I don't want to just say what all of you have already said, because that would be boring to reread. I agree that Wallace is fantastic; I liked how informal and "cool" he writes. If I were ever to become a writer, this is how I would strive to write like. Hearing that everything politicians say is calculated and only done to win votes, no matter how much they seem otherwise, from Wallace seemed more convincing than just observing it for myself. For instance, had I seen the Chris Duren incident on television back in the day (at my present age... when I was 9 I think I would've complained about having to watch such a thing and pulled out my Gameboy Color)I would've suspected that it was staged. Clearly, as Wallace pointed out, it was too convenient a time for it to occur. But having him reinforce my belief with his own rhetoric (he connected very well with me, I'm pretty sure that I'm his intended audience in both age and attitude) made my belief more sure and more rooted in my mind. Even though this essay was, yes, very long, I felt like it was easier to read than Trip to Hanoi because it was written knowing that people like me were going to read it. He knew how to keep me interested, when to throw in humor, when to remind me that he works for Rolling Stone. Even the title comes from just a small little observation he made about a "character" he interacted with that wasn't a boring journalist but a funny guy that could very well be an Uncle or something. I admit that I'm falling for his rhetorical agenda, but it's because I share basically the same viewpoint on the matter as he does.
Basically, I liked the essay, learned things about campaigning that I didn't know, reinforced my own beliefs and would have voted for McCain over Bush regardless of the acting, based purely on what happened in Vietnam.

I care who cares

This, my fellow classmates, is why David Foster Wallace is so sorely missed.

In an 70+ page essay (using the original pages, not our course packet's two sides per page), DFW explains political motivations, campaign tactics, and the confusing nature of it all while continuously remaining fresh and witty. He switches from macro to micro to intermediate so often in his focus that the audience gets a feel for (what seems like) the entire election process, be it the Cellular Waltz or the campaign themes. DFW makes us interested in what would normally act as a literary Lunesta.

The most striking thing to me in terms of content was that every claim or rhetorical question DFW poses is still relevant a decade later. People end up voting whether they register and go push a button or not. It's still near-impossible to tell if someone is really a good leader or merely a good seller. Young Voters are still apathetic. A good fight always gets more airtime than a good debate. What I'm trying to say is, Wallace reminds us this shit (which is how many of us feel about it) still matters, and he writes about it in such a way that is both accessible and stimulating (some would say challenging, or even difficult as f*ck).

One (hopefully) quick point about Wallace's writing style: that is the way the man writes (honestly, if you think this is long go pick up a copy of Infinite Jest). All the DFW writings I've read have been witty, engaging, and always smart. He writes in a way that simultaneously draws the reader in and elevates their thinking; he acts as a guide without being pretentious or degrading. His long, flowing sentences mirror the meandering stream of thoughts running through our heads, and by reading his you can start to figure out their current.

It's late, I'm tired, and we all have an 8 am class tomorrow. To quote DFW: "I see your eyes glazing over, so I'll hush."

Well played DFW...well played

Longest. Article. EVER.
(You already knew that)

BUT... I did get engrossed after I told my self to shut up and read. And get over those mile long sentences. Besides, how can I not feel partial to an author that decides to refer to me as "the person reading this"? (Aww...thanks man!)

DFW*does a really good job of taking care of his readers' interests. It is Rolling Stones Magazine he's writing, who's primary readership consists of our peers, and he understands that we usually have the attention span of a zombie in a brain factory. Especially regarding matters like McCain's campaign touring escapades. Wallace's writes in such a way that we actually begin to give a damn about McCain's activities for the election, and the election as a whole. He it's almost like he predicts when your attention will start to flag, and BAM! Hey look it's a cool imagery thing..."imagine that"!

As for the Vietnam bit of Wallace's article, despite the fact that it smacked slightly of favoritism, I ended up agreeing with everything he said. I've don't hate McCain, I'm pretty sure no body does, and I'm pretty sure Wallace knew that. He uses that to make us start actually liking McCain. I for one never had any sort of feelings attached to McCain, but reading the article, the guy began to grow on me. You actually start to respect him, and see him as a hero.

Wallace basically takes you through the motions he went through to form attitudes about McCain.You start out in two minds about the Senator and then slowly slowly, as more evidence is added, you begin to formulate what exactly you think of him till you arrive at the conclusion that he's kind of a great guy.

Wallace's engaging voice leads an unsespecting reader right into the conclusion that McCain and Wallace wants you to end up with: "John McCain was...incredibly honest and forthright" You almost don't want to know all of the facts. Why ruin the guy? He's a hero!



*does anyone else think Dallas-Fort Worth?

Thanks David Foster Wallace

To start, I can fully understand why they shortened the article from its original length before putting it into the magazine. That would have taken up the whole magazine...if not need a second issue to fully present to a reader the length of this article. As stated by everyone before, this article was long, wordy, sleep-inducing, and long. However, I really liked the beginning pages as that was when my interest was fresh and I didn't know how long the paper was. DFW really knows how to write with authority. What he writes is interesting and really appeals to the reader, for me anyway. He uses sarcasm a lot and has a style that is very in tuned with younger voters, the audience that he is aiming at, that style being very tongue in cheek, which us younger voters are all about! (not sarcasm).
I think his opening story was very well thought out. He gave us the raw POW story, the constant, how would you feel? definitely made me feel more connected to what he was saying. His very detailed descriptions were powerful in evooking emotion from the reader if anything, and the tie in with sticking with what he believed in was very smart. By using this story and squeezing out all of the pathos he could, he used it to drive the audience into his next argument and it works. Not only is it a heart-wrenching story to use to justify his point, the story was told in a way that definitely grabbed our attention early on and made us involved, as it set the tone he would use for the rest of the paper.
With that being said, the tone was of course very smart and appealing but like Sour Patch Kids, its good, its great, I love them, but maybe in just a 20 oz bag you grab on your way to class, in a 30lb jar? I would definitely get sick and tired of it, quick, and I felt in a similar fashion, that is what happened with this paper for me. My interest dwindled as he began to talk about things that had less involvement with things we had been learning about, POW was in the realm of Vietnam, but the other aspects were hard for me to really get involved in. Which brings me to his point of the "Who even cares who cares".
I felt like the "Who even cares who cares" passage was very true in some aspects. He was saying how young voters don't really care about politics because there's a connection with how politics is brought up in school with student council. He says that politics is not cool and the kids that did student government weren't the cool kids, they weren't the jocks and cheerleaders. I did student government, so I guess I wasn't the cool kid, but I stopped after middle school so maybe I am? I found this kind of contradictory since we all know that student government is basically a popularity contest and only the popular kids win or the person with most friends, so they have to be likeable to win, they have to be cool. Other than that, I think the argument with the lack of interest due to politicans making us feel sad is though a stretch, somewhat true. I think the lack of interest is more of a lack of knowledge by our young voters, a lack of knowledge about how much politics affects us, but definitely not as much as Facebook though.
All in all, I was a fan of the style and tone of David Foster Wallace's paper, it was engagning, relatable and fun to read (at parts); and I saw how the power in style and tone could easily bring in interest and grab the reader and maintain connection with the audience while proving a point without making it boring. I also saw how this could easily be lost with too much writing, since I definitely was hooked at the beginning but slowly began to lose interest. It was a tough read, but I did gain something from it so, Thanks David Foster Wallace.

Socrates says rhetoric is scary, and I find it scary that he uses rhetoric to prove it

The paragraph that really gets mei n this article is “That John. S. McCain III opposed making Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday in Arizone, or that he thinks clear-cut logging is good for America, or that he feels our present gun laws are not clinically insane, this stuff counts for nothing with those Town Hall crowds, all on their feet, cheering their own ability to finally really “cheer.”

Now here is the quest I ask after reading this. Are young voters votes worth the effort the politicians put into getting the vote? Of course, it is worth it for the politician, but what about for the citizens of America? DFW talks up McCain in the section “Who Even Cares Who Cares,” but as soon as he types the above quoted passage, all the build-up melts for me. If these voters are cheering for rhetoric, and not for the values, then why would it be helpful for them to vote.

I took a Philosophy class last semester, and this thought took me back to that class. Socrates believed and preached that rhetoric decieves so many people, especially from poltical leaders.

Another thing I would like to address in this blog is the connection I made between John McCain’s torture experience with the part in Trip to Hanoi that talks about how the North Vietnamese really cared about the American Pilots.

“The North Vietnamese genuinelly care about the welfare of the hundreds of captures American pilots and give them bigger rations than the Vietnamese population gets…” This is the quote from Trip to Hanoi. Now compare this with the quote over torture in Up, Simba.

“…where for a week they made him beg for a doctor and finally set a couple of the fractures without anesthetic and let two other fractures and the groin would go untreated.” Which quote do I believe? This, along with confusions over the LBJ museum and Fog of War is making me slowly lose faith in rhetoric. The thing is, I can never esc ape it which scares me now more than ever. 

Up Simba!

As many of your posts have already stated when I first started Up Simba I never saw it ending. With starting over multiply times I had to really focus on what Wallace was saying. Also, like many others once I started to really focus I found myself interested in his tone and the way in which he appealed to our generation. Like many others these things seemed to come up in my mind while reading through his writing. His techniques made me also question truth once more.

Throughout his writing I felt, like many other, that Wallace was using sarcasm, something our generation knows much about in order to draw us in. Wallace's writing style definitely drew me in (like many stated before me specifically when he stated imagine this). The only part of Wallace's style that seriously distracted me like crazy, especially in the beginning, was the extremely long sentences. I often found myself lost in them.

Also to add to what some have said, his bringing up the truth aspect and presenting his information as the truth seemed to add to our truth predicament we had previously been discussing. Especially in the beginning I noticed this point because he straight out discusses how do we know that what McCain is saying is more candidate bullshit or truth or both. Something that adds to what is truth.

Overall his techniques and rhetoric seemed to appeal to our generation in many ways. He used this to pull us in. Even from the start he wanted us to know he was not a political journalist. He gave us points through the whole process that made it feel like the truth and like he was speaking to us.

Oh Boy, Up Simba Was Exhausting!

This article was obviously a lengthy one since I am a curious student and decided to look ahead at what I had to read, which was probably a bad idea since I went in knowing that this was going to take a looooooooooong time. Even before I read, I knew that descriptions were going to be over the top, but I did not realize that the author's tone and style would be somewhat entertaining. He used a sarcastic tone that connected to me personally since I can be VERY sarcastic that it may seem like I am being slightly rude, but like Wallace, it's just my style. His word choice fit along with our generation and I honestly thought that a person our age was writing this to inform the younger voters. Descriptions such as Mike Murphey looking like a "Giant Dwarf" and "Hell could easily be a chain hotel" made me giggle and helped keep me interested.

This helped keep my attention through the enormously long sentences that seemed like paragraphs! I was always taught to avoid that, but he uses those quite frequently. I would put up an example, but that would look like I'm adding fluff and that's bad, yet very tempting (:]). Reading those sentences and observations lost my interest and it often confused me. There was just so much! Some seemed pointless like the descriptions of the phones and power cords. The names of the vans made me laugh and the new guy bathroom incident made me laugh which made me think how politics is B*S*, but that's just how it is! Yes, the details added to the ethos because it is all truthful, but the long sentence structure made me think somewhat less of him for some reason. It really bothered me. When it came to McCain, it informed me a good amount and I learned a lot about the campaign and the long hours that are put in. The length of the article reflected the long hours of a campaign. It also made me question what to believe anymore, but I guess that's how politics is.

"Up, Simpa" (What is the meaning?)

When we were assigned to read this article during Spring Break, I assumed that it would be another interesting article on the Vietnam War. I did not imagine that I would be reading a lengthy article on McCain's staff life on the road.
What I found most enjoyable of this article was the way that Wallace seemed to make a connection to our generation. It was definitely very, "Rolling Stone" styled and I felt like he did understand our train of thought.
I did not enjoy reading about life on the "Trail". It was so boring and meaningless to me because I did not see what information I was supposed to get out of reading about people eating Krispy Kremes, importance of cell phones to journalists, and Wendy trying to find Ms.McCain a manicure. This article would have been better if it had been narrowed down like they did on the Rolling Stone, rather then giving us the unrated, unscripted version. Unrated is good when it comes to movies, not articles about John McCain2000.
Whenever Wallace would speak on McCain, it made McCain look like a great guy and it caused me to wonder, why did he not win? This guy has the qualities that we would want in any president. Giving, unselfish, and honest. At this point in time, we, Americans are looking for and change and something bigger to believe in. We want reality.
McCain's background as a Vietnam veteran didn't seem something like something different to me. My thought was, "Yeah, so he served during this war? Give me something that will set him apart from all the other candidates that are running." The guy was a POW who risked his life and followed the US military's Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War. Wow, he actually chose to stay instead in Hoa Lo because he wanted the other POW's before him to also be released? The guy is dying from injuries and starvation, has broken bones, and yet he stayed inst ead of being released because of his dad? Any other person would have left running but McCain stayed. We, people, choose what gives us comfort but we praise those who do the right thing, the right thing we are too afraid to do.
Seemed to me like McCain is "capable of devotion to something other, more than his own self-interest." That is one of the qualities that I would cherish in someone who is leading my country. Knowing that he will put himself out there in order to protect the American public.
Then again, this article had me confused and pulling my hair out in order to figure out what I was supposed to take away from reading about BS1 and life on the Trail. I was looking for different ways that Wallace was using rhetoric. Then I came to the conclusion that I would rather read the Rolling Stone edition.

Up Simba, Down Simba

Up Simba, Down Simba
Yes it was long, very long. Wallace was very casual in writing this saying things like, “Is he a hypocrite?” referring to one of McCain’s ads. The casualness is probably the only thing that kept my eyes open, because all of the politics talk makes my eyes shut. I still learned about some things about the political world from Wallace’s point of view. He kind of shot down McCain in some ways and made him look good in other ways. Talking about how McCain was a veteran of the Vietnam War and his long campaigning that took forever were the generalized good parts, but all the mistakes he did and the assumed bull****, for example, “…it’s hard not to hear it as just one more piece of the carefully scripted bullshit that presidential candidates hand us as they go about the self-interested business of trying to become the most powerful, important, and talked-about human being on earth…” were the bad parts and this all really made me question Wallace’s position. I don’t even know if he had one because in the end I think he was just speaking what he thought about everything, what was bull and what wasn’t. McCain seemed to be a guy that Wallace pointed out much more than anyone else though.

Relating this to the title, I still don’t understand why Wallace chose the title: “Up, Simba.” It doesn’t mean anything to me and it doesn’t make me interested. If I looked at the title alone I would think this text I read will be about Lion King or something Disney-like.

It’s interesting how he questions himself or asks his audience if McCain is a hypocrite for what he does regarding polls. Although Up, Simba was really mainly about McCain, there were just many things about many people that I just couldn’t soak in my head. Wallace spoke of Ghandi, Churchill, the Roosevelt’s, JFK, Clinton, Bush, and CNN workers; people that I didn’t really know much about to have an interest in continuing to read. I liked the blurging subtitles though, it made me keep guessing what Wallace was going to say next. “SUCK IT UP” and “WHO EVEN CARES WHO CARES” stuck out to me. The fact that these subtitles are bold and are in all caps make it all the better and more interesting.

Throughout of the reading, I read many, many, and many quotations. I’m pretty sure I only remember like 10% of the quotations I read. Most of the quotes I remember are just the recent ones after I finished reading. My opinion is that writing too many quotations makes your audience lose interest. But on contrast, in In the Lake of the Woods, there were many quotations in the reading, especially in the “Evidence,” sections. The quotations in the evidence sections repeated though, and that’s probably how I remember most of the quotations in that book.

All in all, it was cool I guess, the casualness saved the otherwise 100% boring political talk. Not mainly about the Vietnam War, which is what I was kind of expecting.

"Up, Simba" continued

One thing that stood out to me about Wallace was his description of the Chris Duren incident. He first seems to have a positive view on how McCain reacts to Mrs. Duren, emphasizing that McCain didn't slam Bush for this phone call but instead apologized. Then he describes McCain's seemingly watery eyes and quick exit without his usual sign off catch phrase as dramatic, and from this point on questions McCain's true motives for his actions. How he used "dramatic" had a negative connotation when I read it. I thought about drama queens and this makes me believe that Wallace saw McCain like a drama queen and drama queens are definitely bad. His whole rant about McCain's motives explored many different possibilities, some good and some bad. This made me confused about what to make of McCain because all of Wallace's rhetorical questions (which some suggested that McCain was being sincere and others that it was all a political ploy) could be answered as yes. So to me, I could see McCain as being sincere but I could also see him as being manipulative since this was all occurring during the back-and-forth negative ads. I still have no clear opinion on this.

I didn't really know much about McCain before this essay. I just knew that he's a politician and my opinion of politicians aren't that positive, although I'm sure some of them really do care. Reading about McCain's service and experiences in Vietnam gave me a new perspective of him. I'm not very interested in politics and I don't really keep up with it, so it was my first time learning about the details of his confinement. I now have more respect for him and I see him more as a genuine person who might be one of those caring politicians. I also feel sympathy towards him because Wallace's account of his campaign seemed to require lots of effort and he ended up losing this and also the more recent presidential campaign. It must've been really disappointing to lose two major elections like that after months of planning and traveling and making speeches.

Up, Simba

I was not thrilled to hear about a reading assignment during Spring Break. This essay was a big step down from the last few readings. First of all, this essay was pretty long and got boring at times. His single sentence structures can be made into its own paragraph itself. There were also some parts of this essay that were hard for me to understand throughout this essay.

The beginning of the essay reminded me of Trip to Hanoi, how Sontag was being straight forward and stated how she wasn't a political activist nor planning on writing anything about her trip. Wallace also starts off by being straight forward and saying how he not was part of any political party nor he was a political activist. This made the reader feel that Wallace was being truthful and honest throughout his essay.

Wallace wrote about McCain's Presidential campaign. Wallace portrayed his comments towards McCain in an unbiased way, which let the reader decide their own opinions towards McCain. Wallace's words gave a visual image to the readers to feel the situation Wallace was trying to tell. I also enjoyed how he brought up voting. He gave the readers a sense of what to think and who to vote for. Why is the truth so difficult?

Reality Check...Whatever that means

While “Up, Simba” appeared lengthy, all right I’ll just say it, it was really long, it was written in a way that I’d never forget. David Foster Wallace lulled me into believing whatever he spewed onto the page. He wrote with a carefree attitude that appeals to our generation (as a matter of fact, I immediately went to go look at the current issue of Rolling Stone after starting this article, I wasn’t as intrigued as I thought I would be—at least for the current issue). By pointing out every minute detail, as some have said, (not to mention the stunning way he allows the reader to visualize the story, "imagine this") Wallace builds his credibility with the audience (possibly, assuming that the audience had never heard of this phenomenal writer before, like myself) by articulating that he isn't going to leave anything out, which insinuates that the story is the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" (ah, the truth problem again...is truth something that can be found?). It shows the audience that he isn't, at least on the surface level, trying to manipulate them, similar to Hearts and Minds. Wallace's colloquial style of writing pulls people into the article, a rhetorical move aimed at blinding readers allowing him to interject his subtle opinion of John McCain's campaign and character.

Up, Simba

Wallace’s ultra-descriptive technique used throughout Up, Simba was both enjoyable and horrifying. Reading about John McCain’s stubborn pride while a Prisoner of War in Vietnam assures me that he truly loves his country, but then again, he might be crazy.
From the beginning of the article Wallace’s description of John McCain reminded me a bit of the way Franklin Schaffner portrayed George Scott as General Patton in the movie, Patton. Wallace began the article by listing the separate titles attached to McCain – “USN, POW, USC, etc.” This shows that McCain is not only very well-respected, but perhaps a perfect representation of a true “American War Hero.” Patton’s medals and badges decorating his uniform serve the exact same purpose. No soldier or useless punk is going to mess with someone in full decorated uniform, and they are not going to bullshit around with a former POW either.
Wallace continued his description of McCain by listing a few of his nicknames such as “The Straight Talk Express” and “The Real McCain.” Finally, Wallace refers to him as “a serious hard-ass – a way – Right Republican senator from one of the most politically troglodytic states in the nation.” Cleary he has solidified John McCain as someone who isn’t interested in telling jokes with other politicians. What about General Patton? Well, all of you heard George Scott’s version of his chilling speech. He and John McCain were undeniably straightforward.
Not only did McCain and Patton’s personalities run parallel to one another, but McCain seemed to model his speeches after George Scott. For example, Wallace talked about the large American flag that hung in the background during McCain’s campaign speeches. That idea obviously came from the movie Patton. Surely it was intended to add to the “prideful American” description of John McCain. And I bet it worked. The situation is honestly not much different from the movie. The flag was supposed to appeal to those watching the speech on television, just as that perfectly placed flag in Patton did. After all, it took up the entire screen for a reason.

Up Simba

The article in my opinion was very interesting by being able to hear about all the different aspects of a campaign on the road. From how the buses are set up to all the way to the different press corps that attends. Also seeing how different aides of the candidate did their job and hearing how McCain organized his speeches and the way he presented himself on the road. One part was really interesting by when the author describes how the McCain team was trying to figure out what way they should respond to Bush's negative attacks that just occured. The author describes how each possible reaction has its pros and cons and the right decesion must be chosen very carefully. Even more interesting was how the author described the incident of the boy who was hurt but the Lowinskey scandal and how he called the boy to talk to him in private. The author writes that this situation might of been set up as a political tool to help McCain and if thats true helps to show the maneuvering candidates do to get elected. Also not only did the author describe the interesting parts I liked hearing how not great it is to be on the road and to see that all the people involved in the campaign work very hard and barely get any sleep. This helped to show how hard a candidate's team busts their asses for their boss and helps to show that a lot goes into the working of a campaign. All and all the article helped not only to bring light of the workings of a campaign but also showed how the honor and character McCain possesses. The description of how he would not break the code the army had while he was a prisoner helped to exemplify how McCain is a great man, especially since he had the opportunity to get the hell out of the Hanoi Hilton.