I attended a presentation at the Knight library showcasing Matt Piedmont. Piedmont is an Emmy award winning writer, producer and director. At the beginning of the presentation, a small portion of his recent work from the last episode of his series, “The Spoils of Babylon,” was shown. The section we watched was very comical and professionally done. The aesthetics were pleasing and the sequence was produced cleverly. Multiple big time actors and actresses starred in the feature, making it almost familiar and more entertaining for the attendees of the presentation. After watching about twenty minutes of the mini series, an interview followed. A professor from the Cinema Studies department began asking questions before opening up questions to the audience.

I was appreciative of Matt’s willingness to visit us at the University of Oregon and sharing his unique experiences with us. The presentation was very casual and light. It also seemed somewhat unplanned. Overall, I was disappointed with the presentation and lack of preparedness of answers to the interview questions. Piedmont appeared unsure about how to answer multiple questions and did not fully offer insight into how he got to where he is today. He briefly walked through the jobs he had leading up to his current position as if he just got lucky. He was repetitive when asking questions often trailing off into unrelated ideas about motivation and taking chances.

Although he was not entirely perceptive, he was sincere and clearly cared about what he does. He made his dream a reality and his natural funny manner led him in the direction of working with SNL where he works now. I fully respected the path he took to attain his goal because he did it all on his own and did not have to take any absolutely crazy risks (that he mentioned) in order to do so.

While his presentation did not necessarily contain educational content, it was fascinating to be in the presence of someone who has come so far from how he explained himself at our age. He explained that during his undergraduate years, he was unsure about what he wanted to study and accomplish for quite a long time. He knew he was interested in movies and possibly making them, but did not go to school to accomplish this passion. Eventually, he decided to take chances and aim high. Hearing this gave me hope for my future because evidently, it is possible to find one’s passion after undergrad years. He brought light to the idea that there are so many opportunities available and it is important to take risks to achieve success. He worked some nine to five jobs and slowly but surely made his way up to doing work for SNL. At first, he was solely completing diverse busy work for the company and his talent was finally discovered. Since then he has directed many films, commercials and mini series, showing his true talent. He has won numerous awards and is extremely well regarded in the film industry.

While watching “The Watermelon Woman,” I was able to make some connections to the protagonist, Cheryl. I was unable to connect to her fascination with African American, lesbian actresses and people involved in filmmaking. However, I was about to associate with the general motives of her movie-making project. I am a journalism student and have had to go through similar processes to complete films and smaller video projects.

At the beginning of my journalism career, I learned about story telling and the importance behind it. As I have delved deeper into the journalism school and the field on my own, I have had to come up with my own story ideas and bring them to life through multiple media platforms. I too have experienced making low or no-budget films as Cheryl did. Toward the beginning on the film, Cheryl discusses that she is unsure about what she wishes to make a movie about and I instantly related to that feeling.  I was able to feel empathetic toward her because I have experienced the difficulty behind choosing an abundant topic for a film project. There is so much to take into account when making such a decision. It is important to plan ahead to know who the audience is and who can provide insight for the project. Cheryl had to go through a similar process of reaching out to the public to gather employable information. It is crucial to think about if there will be enough material to gather about a specific subject to produce a complete story through film. I have often had to veto ideas because there is either not enough variety in the possible shots to take, people are not available or willing to meet, the timeline is unrealistic and more.

I have spent ample time simply setting up meeting times to talk to and interview people about something they may not even be entirely educated about. Seeing Cheryl slightly struggle to find people who knew what she was talking about and passionate about reminded me of experiences I have undergone as well. I have recently had to pick a subject for whom I possessed a fascination with to make a multimedia project. I had to toy with at least four ideas before narrowing it down to one who held interest and insight with plenty of visual components to offer.

It was extremely interesting to see how Cheryl went about finding the people to talk to and how she used her own style in executing the film work. It made me think about my own style in comparison and I concluded that I have a more formal demeanor when interviewing people and keeping the camera in place. A similarity I noticed was Cheryl’s format of storytelling. I have been taught to tell stories in the order of present, past, future. Cheryl utilized this form by showing the audience what she was considering in the present, then delving into the past by communicating with people from the Watermelon Woman’s life, and finally making a movie to educate people about the Watermelon Woman and to gain experience in order to execute more films in the future.

I am generally a fan of horror and thriller films. Peeping Tom was unlike any other horror or thriller movie I have ever seen. The plot as well as Mark’s character was quite ambiguous for some time, and I had no idea where the story was going.

After watching the entire film and reflecting on the uncovered, creepy character of Mark, I made some connections about his upbringing. I analyzed the psychological disparities experienced by Mark due the Freudian relationship he held with his father.

Mark’s father was a scientist interested in the effects of fear on the human body. He used Mark as a prime suspect for his psychoanalysis motives. His father would deliberately scare Mark and film these experiences. Due to his fascination with fear and exposing Mark to this during his developmental years, this fascination stuck with Mark in a variation of ways as well.

Mark grew up to be obsessive about film because his father constantly had a camera pointed in his face when he was a boy. His father would creepily surprise him with premises of fear. Mark also clearly adapted an obscure obsession with witnessing fear as his father did. Although Mark seems to be haunted by his father’s presence, he still lived in his old home with all of his books and films. For some reason, Mark could not let go of his father’s daunting presence and therefore he held onto the volatile obsessions and bent them into his own unnerving interest.

I want to focus on the nurture aspect of Mark’s growth and compare it to personal experiences. Clearly, Mark became psychologically inept due to frightening instances with his father’s methods of raising him. Because his father would conduct scientific experiments on Mark and film the experience, Mark grew up to document such sightings as well. However, the resentment he felt toward his father caused him to rid of these faces of fear he would witness through the lens of his camera. If his father did not manipulate Mark in such demoralizing ways, his experience of fear would most likely be entirely different.

For example, as I grew up, my parents have taught me to face my fears. Unlike Mark, I have strived to surpass my fears and overcome them. Mark was never able to overcome his fears because the central theme of fear itself was embedded in his mind as something to take interest to. This uncomforting interest he was nurtured with turned into rage and he killed those who presented fear on their faces in front of his camera.

Mark could not overcome the conflict instilled in him by his overbearing father. For me, as I have been taught to be brave, I have learned to overcome struggle. My process of nurturing was wholly different than that of Mark’s. Moreover, I try to not be scared and aim high no matter what. Aiming high and past the limitations of nurture have allowed me to successfully take on challenges and look past fearful situations. Mark’s experience shows that his type of nurture can cause psychological dysfunction. Because Mark was not taught to think for himself about fear, he bottled it up for the remainder of his life.

“Singin’ in the Rain” has easily advanced to one of my favorite musicals. I saw “Singin’ in the Rain” for the first time in class on Monday. However I had seen a rendition of it live on stage prior. My brother featured in the play and played both Cosmo and Jimmy Thompson, the singer of “Beautiful Girl,” in different casts. The scene of Cosmo singing “Make ‘Em Laugh” as well as the scene when “Beautiful Girl” is sung evokes a feeling of nostalgia for me.

Inherently, there were several dissimilarities between the scenes in the movie in comparison to the show that took place on the stage at my former high school. The setting, musical ability, and costuming were all extremely different. As I watched the scene in the movie, I was comparing the mis-en-scene between the two performances I witnessed. The sets and props were innately different as there is a time lapse of over 60 years involved. In addition, the clothing that was worn by the characters in the movie was very true to the time, whereas in the stage show, the costumes were modeled after the actual time the story occurred.

The cinematography is another factor to take into account. Discernibly, the play did not involve the use of cinematographic forms. On stage, as also told by Kathy Selden in the film, cannot be as deeply manipulated essentially. In film, the camera can tell the story depending on the angle, speediness, placement, etc. On stage, the audience cannot see a variety of shots and sceneries. I enjoyed being able to see the same story told in a wide variety of locations in its original form. For example, the scenes when the two aforementioned songs are performed allow for ample space as the camera moves along with the performances. Seeing a larger amount of space used for the characters to move around while they perform creates a platform for more activity and thus more excitement.

Although Cosmo was a major character throughout the film, his performance of  “Make ‘Em Laugh” undoubtedly gave him the absolute spotlight as it did for my brother. And while the character that sings “beautiful Girl” does not play a major role in the entirety of the film, he experiences a moment of stardom as well. The scene helps to tie the story together and give more insight about life at the time. I have now seen the inspiration behind the way the play was exposed the amount of space can entirely change how far the creative license can be carried.

Going back and watching the video of my brother’s performance opens my imagination to how it could have been different if there was more space to move around. A live representation of a movie is a courageous feat because editing and camera manipulations are not possibilities. In all, a play on stage will never come close to a viewing of a movie, but it is interesting to consider how all the various settings from a film can be transformed into an in-person stage performance.   “Singin’ in the Rain” has been reproduced on numerous occasions throughout the world and it has set a standard for Hollywood movies ever since.