Lilibeth Robles

1. Considering the articles you've read for class today, which documentary mode or modes does the film borrow from? Please explain specific elements from the film to support your observations. I think the two modes the film follows is "The Observational Mode" and "The Participatory Mode". The film switches from just observing what events happened and there are also some parts where people explain their own experiences. For example, in the beginning they discus William Eggelston and they discuss his work and such. That in my opinion is the Participatory mode because they're just observing what happened with his photos and what they represent. Now the other mode I believe is something this film is because they discuss the bombing of Hiroshima and their experiences when it happened as well.   2. Why do you think the filmmaker chose to automate the voice of the narrator? What does it add or detract from the film?  I think that using an automate voic

I think this was an interesting little reading about Illustration and what it actually means to someone. It was an nice personal story about it as well, because I think that personal experiences are what make something even more interesting. Alexander really gives us past example on why an illustration is completely different from just a painting. It's something you show people to explain or get your point across. Which I agree to as well, because paintings should be a sense of story and expressing your thoughts through it as well. There's always supposed to be feeling put into it as well, not saying that every other art doesn't have feelings but an illustration has more that just regular colors and thought it has something you've thought about long and hard and what to share a story through it. I noticed that Alexander what trying to explain that literature and painting are what make illustration and those are the two key components to making one. Graphic Novels are

  This was an interesting graphic novel was very interesting and very visually nice to read. The story reminds me if it was a movie you'd be like "what in the world am I watching", but still continue to watch it after a while. The illustrations of this graphic novel are so beautiful and they're really well done that you can really understand what’s happening. One page with one drawing has such a powerful meaning to it even if they don't say anything.   The story itself is very nice and you really understand it as well. It was kind of weird in the beginning and at times I’d catch myself wondering what I’m reading and why I’m reading it. Once I got into the groove of it I started to kind of better understand the story. It’s also kind of sad once you start getting into it, because this person talks about losing his twin and that they feel like something’s missing and as if they’re living their life except their own. It’s quite chilling if you kind of think

1.      What is the time frame of this vignette? I think the time frame was around the 2000’s just because of the car she drives. I think that was Eggers' reasoning to put that piece of information in the story so we can figure out what time frame this story was taken place.  2.       What does the text imply about photography and about photographers? I think the text is implying that photography isn’t just a simple point and shoot, it takes time and thought. The text explains what she is waiting for and what she wants her photo to be like once she’s taken it. Now about photographers I think the text is implying that anyone who wants to be a photographer and is a photographer just wants to be a famous one. The dreaming of one day being a photographer who’s work goes from place to place being displayed. 3.      What is the writer’s attitude toward the woman? What words and phrases suggest that attitude? I think the writing is kind of short about the woman and thus ma