The Birth of a Net

This week's assigned materials have us examining the origin of contemporary computing and the birth of the internet that we use today.  In one of our readings, "20 Things I learned About Browsers and the Web" the following line jumped out at me: "The movement of many of our daily tasks online enables us to live more fully in the real world." Really? I'm not so sure about that.

No doubt the web enabled world that we live in today certainly possesses the potential to allow us all more time to partake in "real world" activities, but how many of us actually use that time to do so? Speaking personally I know that the additional time I gain from banking online is usually spent...well...online.  Hours, minutes or seconds that I don't have to spend standing in lines is generally devoted to online activities, Facebook chatting, leisure surfing, shopping, reading and re-reading beloved literary classics or just catching up on missed episodes of my favorite shows. Non leisure activities like research and homework are  completed exclusively using the resources of  the web.  In fact I had been a grad student for an entire semester before I ever physically stepped foot in the university library. That doesn't mean, however, that I hadn't been making exhaustive use of the library's resources. Quite the contrary, in fact. Now I bet you thought I was a slacker! The point that I am getting at is that while the resources of the internet allow users more time to participate in activities of the "real world" increasingly that world exists on the internet.

The embedded videos above are part of a funny series of ads for the new Windows phone. Supposedly it's interface is so well designed that users can access the apps they need lightning fast and then get back to the business of the real world just as quickly.  In the ads apparent Android and iPhone users are so immersed in their smart phones that they wander into the middle of their kid's soccer game without even noticing or accidentally drop their phone into a urinal because they couldn't put it down long enough to take a restroom break.  These ads are meant to be over the top, and indeed they are quite funny.  However they're also eerily close the the reality that we live in today.  Now let's be honest, how many times have you found yourself live tweeting with someone sitting in the very same room with you, or Facebook chatting with your friend instead of phone chatting - or actually visiting? Recently I read a tweet from a concert goer who was viewing the concert, that she was actually at, up close on the screen of her smart phone. So what, exactly, is the 2011 definition of the "real world?" That's hard to say, however if that definition doesn't include cloud computing, online communication, smart phones and social media then it is already obsolete.  

Actors 2.0: Humanity in the Age of Digital Reproduction

"The stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role. The film actor is often denied this opportunity. His creation is by no means all of a piece; it is composed of many separate performances." (p.10)



The quote above pulled from this week's reading of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin immediately brought to mind the movie Avatar. Specifically I was reminded of the raw emotion evoked by the character Neytiri when she discovers Jake's duplicity, and indeed throughout the entire film. If, according to Benjamin, a stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role - an opportunity that is denied to the film actor - how does that interpretation change when the actor is digital?

All of the awards and accolades heaped upon the film Avatar had in common that the film presented a very realistic vision of a very make-believe world.  Certainly everyone I know raved about how "real" the characters and settings read on screen. That is quite a remarkable accomplishment given that the characters are 10 foot tall blue humanoid beings who have tails. And live in trees.  What struck me about the film, more even than the lush opulence of the cinematography, were the absolutely human performances of the digital actors.  When Neytiri rips into Jack for deceiving her and her dooming her people I knew exactly how she felt. The emotions evident in her facial expressions are exactly what a woman deceived and betrayed by her boyfriend - and whose betrayal threatens to wipe out her entire race - would feel.  The clip above shows a tiny bit of that scene and then goes on to explain how the filmmakers achieved such realistic effect. How did they do it? By very closely recording the actual facial expressions of the human actors. As Benjamin further elucidates, "Experts have long recognized that in the film 'the greatest effects are almost always obtained by 'acting' as little as possible...'" (p. 10)

In this example these digital actors (in the final theatrical presentation) are completely divorced from their human counterparts however to produce an authentic performance it became necessary to closely record and augment their humanity.  Applying Benjamin's model we see that the same rule applies. Though denied a live audience to react to, the film actor, even the digital one, still draws on the universal human experience to convey his performance.  I wonder if the same rule will apply when it becomes commonplace for films - not just kiddie movies - to use completely digitally rendered characters with no human actors ever involved in the process?