BLOG #2: Information Found in "Constructing Panic" by Lisa Capps

For our capstone project, Nick Morgan and I have decided to create a short film.  For this film, we had two different ideas that we were trying to decide on to be the narrative for the film.  In the end, we decided to go with Nick's idea of the story of a man who suffers from agoraphobia and refuses to leave his home.  This character has two friends, one male friend who continuously tries to get the main character to stop behaving this way and leave his house so that he can have a "normal" life.  The other friend is female and she thinks that the main character should do as he likes as long as it makes him feel safe, and she enables him in this way.  Eventually, the character decides one day that he is going to go outside, but he ends of dropping dead once he's out there.

We're using a few different academic sources for research for this film.  Most of our resources are articles about filmmaking, such as lighting, composition, camera technology.  However, I thought it would be a good idea for at least one of our sources to be about agoraphobia.  So I found a book on Google Scholar called Constructing Panic: the discourse of agoraphobia by Lisa Capps.  This book defines what agoraphobia is, goes into who suffers from agoraphobia and how they suffer, but it also describes Capps interaction with a woman named Meg, a person with agoraphobia, who she interviews as a participant in her study of agoraphobia.

According to Capps (1997), "the term 'agoraphobia' means 'fear of open spaces', but is more appropriately described as a fear of being any place where one might feel vulnerable to fear and panic".  I thought this was very interesting because I always thought of agoraphobia as just being a fear of open spaces but knowing that it can be any place is an aspect that would be good to incorporate into the film.  Capps (1997) also notes that sufferers of agoraphobia "express fear of being in a place or situation where it may be difficult to escape or obtain help should they experience a panic attack or develop other potentially incapacitating or extremely embarrassing symptoms" (p. 3).  This means that agoraphobia can incorporate not only a fear of something bad happening to the person physically but as well as socially.

Another reason I wanted to do some research on agoraphobia on the film was to get an accurate idea of how a person who suffers from agoraphobia feels and behaves.  When reading, I came across this quote from Capps (1997): "Agoraphobic persons often describe feeling trapped by an over present threat of panic and their belief that they cannot risk leaving safe havens such as home" (p. 3).  This said to me that it is not as much the fear of the space but the fear of the actual experience of "panic" or a panic attack, so this creates a behavior of wanting to avoid any place that the person feels might induce a panic attack.

Capps also describes her meeting with Meg, a sufferer of agoraphobia and a participant in Capps' study of agoraphobia.  Capps describes pulling up to Meg's home and says that it had paint that was old and peeling but that front door looked beautifully detailed.  "The architectural contrast stood as a metaphor for a hallmark feature of agoraphobia: the attempt to exert control over a highly circumscribed space, to create a safe haven within a chaotic, often unwelcoming universe" (p. 3).  I thought this would be an interesting element to incorporate into the film; our main character's home could represent physical what it was a symbol of emotionally.

However, Capps makes a point in telling the audience that even though Meg has made her home a safe haven physically, the fear and panic from her past experiences haunt her as well as the possibility of future situations that induce the same fear and panic.  So even though the homes of these people are seen by them as their "safe havens", Capps says that still, "home is a paradise lost in that it cannot provide refuge from the mind and the scenarios it (re)creates" (p.4).  This element would be good to incorporate into the main character as to make the portrayal of him suffering with agoraphobia more accurate.



Capps, L. (1997). Constructing Panic: The discourse of agoraphobia . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

COMM 352 - Blog #7 - A Computer That Teaches Itself

iO9.com put out an article on March 25th about the Pentagon's desire for a computer that can actually TEACH itself.  According to the article they are launching an initiative to "design automated tools that will make it easier to not just program computers, but to help computers teach themselves" (Dvorsky, 2013).  Now, if you have read this blog post that I wrote about the "Future of the Computer" than you know how I feel about where technology is going and you should also understand why having read this article has only scared the shit out of me even more.  Now I understand that advances in technology have done great things for the human race, and for the most part, will continue to do so.  However, the idea of a computer than can change, learn and teach itself is seemingly something right out of Terminator 2 (1991).  And comparing this to a film may seem farfetched, but I am just saying that the coincidence in the chain of events is eerie.


Maybe I am crazy and paranoid but I leave you with this quote from the iO9.com article so that you can REALLY think about what this means:

"And looking further ahead into the future , this could represent an important step in advanced computer bootstrapping - the ability for an artificially intelligent system to not just teach itself, but to re-write and improve upon itself. It could be seen as an important stage in the development of a recursively improving AI — a system that can continually become better at optimizing itself, potentially leading to an exponential increase in intelligence" (Dvorsky, 2013).

COMM 352 - Blog #4 - Wifi For All!

After reading this article about the concept of having "Free Wifi for All"(meaning having free wifi available to everyone in the country EVERYWHERE), I decided to make a pros and cons table to weigh whether or not "Free Wifi For All" is a good idea.

After creating the pros and cons table above from what I read in the above Washington Post article, I have decided that "Free Wifi for All" is a good idea that should definitely be pursued.  I fully believe that the pros outweigh the cons.  I also believe that the majority of the cons that are presented are coming from companies that do not want "Free Wifi for All" because right now they benefit financially from the lack of "Free Wifi for All", and the last thing they want is for there to be a disruption in that financial flow.

COMM 352-Blog #2-Patents & Steve Jobs

This story from TheVerge.com is an example of how Steve Jobs and Apple have used their patents as a means of seeking litigation and controlling the mobile market.  Now, the popular debate in regard to this is whether Apple is right in their actions or whether it is wrong that they have the ability to do this.  My personal opinion on this matter is that it is not right that Apple has the ability to sue someone for the shape of a phone, or as in the story above, sue a company for hiring former Apple employee.  The way I see it is that with these outrageous abilities to sue a company over the shape of a phone or the fact that they hired former employees of Apple is bordering on having a monopoly over the entire mobile market. I absolutely believe that the mobile market is big enough and diverse enough for more than one company to exist.  As for the story from TheVerge.com, I believe that former employees of Apple should be able to work wherever they want and if they want to work at a competing company, than the company should be able to hire that person without threat of litigation from Apple.  And lastly, for the idea of Apple being able to sue a company for have the same shaped technological device is ludicrous. Bottom line:  Apple does not and should not be able to own shapes.

COMM 352 - Blog #1 - Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was a co-developer of RSS and a co-founder of Reddit; he helped "lead a campaign to defeat a law [SOPA] that would have made it easier to shut down websites accused of violating copyright protections"; and was also an advocate of free information.  It was because of his advocacy that, according to an article from the Associated Press, "he illegally gained access to millions of academic articles through the academic database JSTOR. He allegedly hid a computer in a computer utility closet at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and downloaded the articles before being caught by campus and local police in 2011" (Wagner & Dobnik, 2013). While I understand how Aaron Swartz's actions could be considered illegal by some, I do not agree that he should have been pursued as heavily and with as much intimidation.  Because he was doing this for the people and he had no malicious intent when doing this, I do not agree with the treatment of Aaron Swartz before his suicide and I don't agree that the same laws used "to go after digital bank robbers" should be the same laws used to prosecute people like Aaron Swartz.  In fact, I do agree that advocates like him should " be protected from the full force of laws used to prosecute thieves and gangsters" (Wagner & Dobnik, 2013).  The lack of accounting for the variety of different technological "crimes" within our legal system is clearly a problem, the case of Aaron Swartz is just one example, and this needs to change.

COMM 352 - Blog #5 - Anonymous & Hacktivism

"Anonymous has always come to the defense of whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked information from the military to WikiLeaks; Aaron Swartz, the co-founder of Reddit who leaked academic documents and may have also contributed to WikiLeaks; and Barett Brown, who is facing 100 years in prison and did detailed research into the inner workings of American security firms. But of course, a murderous ex-cop is a lot harder to defend than these nonviolent liberators of information." -Patrick McGuire, Vice.com

This explanation of the "hacktivist" group known only as "Anonymous" by Patrick McGuire of Vice.com can probably tell you more about them than I could.  I only first became aware of "Anonymous" when they got involved in the Aaron Swartz situation (late to the game, I know) and in response to his death and the persecution of other "information liberators" like him, "Anonymous" hacked the Department of Defense's website and left this eerie message.

So, what exactly is "hacktivism"? 

Wikipedia defines "hacktivism" as: "the use of computers and computer networks as a means of protest to promote political ends." 

Now, other hacktivist groups exist, but "Anonymous" is perhaps the most well known, and now with the recent events involving Christopher Dorner, they are back in the light again.  As far as many can tell, "Anonymous" seems to be leaning towards defending Dorner due in most part to the contents of his manifesto.  In his manifesto, Dorner essentially accuses the LAPD of not only wrongfully firing him but he also accuses them of being corrupt.  "He describes racist harassment from fellow cops and writes about his being fired from the force after he made a complaint that an officer kicked a homeless man, a complaint dismissed by a judge" (McGuire, Vice.com). 

In regard to these claims, Patrick McGuire also states in his Vice.com article that "there is obviously some uncertainty from official channels surrounding the truthfulness of Dorner's claims, but even if the LAPD wrongfully fired him, he had no good reason to allegedly murder the daughter of the LAPD officer who represented him during his termination hearing, her fiancé and two other cops who got in his way."  I completely agree with McGuire's statement.  Whether or not these claims of LAPD corruption were true, Dorner did not have the right to go around on some self-prescribed "vigilante" killing spree.
  
However, according to McGuire, the biggest issue that "Anonymous" has with the recent turn of events involving Christopher Dorner was the apparent censorship of his final standoff with the LAPD.  According to McGuire, "Authorities were, in fact, telling news crews not to broadcast live footage of the cabin, and—while there is the reality that no one wants to see another human being shoot themselves on live TV again—footage appears to show LAPD officers yelling “burn this motherfucker," indicating that there may be a larger reason why the LAPD didn’t want live close-ups on the scene."  As well, a representative of "Anonymous" stated that "CNN, FOX, and every news affiliate present at the scene are suspect. They were complicit in concealing the truth by allowing the police to dictate what information the American public deserved to be privy to."  While I do not agree with "Anonymous" on defending Christopher Dorner, I do understand and agree with them that the public has every right to know what is actually going on; media censorship and controlling what the public can and cannot see is wrong.

So right now, at least when it comes to the issues stated above, I would say that I stand on the fence for the most part when it comes to "Anonymous".  But, perhaps as I learn more about them, that stance will change.

COMM 352-Blog Post #3-The Future of the Computer

Computers.  Where are they headed in the future?

 

"Will they stay much the same as they are now or will science fiction soon become reality?"

 

My outlook on the future of technology is built on my present outlook of technology: it already scares the shit out of me.  We already have so many technologies now that are unbelievable.  Some of these technologies most people know about, i.e. the IPhone, and some most people do not know about.  My opinion is that "science fiction will become reality" and sooner rather than later.  The really paranoid part of me looks around at these new advances in technology and says "yep, SkyNet goes online in about 5 years...max."

 

Think I'm just crazy?  That's fair.  But, hey, just for funsies, let's look at some examples:

 

1)  Remember in Terminator Salvation (2009) when John Connor is in the water and he gets attacked by those snake robots?  Those don't exist right?

 

Wrong.

 

 



2)  How about cyborgs and androids like in I, Robot (2004)?  We won't even be alive for that sort of technology, right?

 

Try again.

 

 

Meet Jules, watch as he carries on conversations with these people, and tells that baby that "one day [he] will come and find him."

 

 

3) Iron Man is not just a fictional super hero anymore.  The government has already been creating and perfecting robotic technology, such as exoskeletons, to benefit the military.

 

 

 

4) Then there's this thing:

Just imagining that thing chasing you is enough to freak me out about what the future of technology holds.

 

But, if you're still not convinced that you should be afraid, then I will let Brett Erlich explain it to you in this segment of Viral Video Film School: