Download e-book Ruby Jensing: Movie Producer

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Ruby Jensing: Movie Producer file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Ruby Jensing: Movie Producer book. Happy reading Ruby Jensing: Movie Producer Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Ruby Jensing: Movie Producer at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Ruby Jensing: Movie Producer Pocket Guide.

The second motto [I lived by] when I came into the industry was, 'Be the person that you needed when you were younger. Batwoman, whose real name is Kate Kane, was first introduced in as a love interest for Batman. However, the character was re-introduced in as a lesbian and hero in her own right separate from Batman, becoming DC Comics' most high-profile canonically gay character to date. In addition to the crossover, Rose will presumably star in a standalone series currently in the works at the CW.

The show will follow her journey as an out lesbian and vigilante snuffing out the resurgence of criminals in Gotham, but that doesn't mean you should call her a hero just yet. After all, she still has her own demons to face. The series will be executive-produced by super producer Greg Berlanti and Caroline Dries, who will also serve as the writer on the project.

While both the upcoming series and the crossover event will visit the famed Gotham City, don't expect to see Batman popping up.

Upcoming Events

CW has no current plans to introduce the billionaire caped crusader into the Arrowverse. Sign up and add shows to get the latest updates about your favorite shows - Start Now. Created with Sketch. Keep track of your favorite shows and movies, across all your devices. Sign up to get started Login About My Watchlist. The CW has found its Batwoman and the casting couldn't be more perfect. Share on Flipboard. My News Sign up and add shows to get the latest updates about your favorite shows - Start Now.

As Caldarola suggests, these studies are ' It has only been in the last thirty. Unfortunately, visual anthropologists, or for that matter, most anthropologists, have contributed little to the debate. As Martinez points out that the postmodern analysis of anthropology has so far paid ' Reception theory is clearly a step in the right direction because it ' And besides several excellent critical surveys already exist Caldarola, ; Martinez, ; Seiter, ; and Staiger, As an anthropologist I am obviously drawn to any model that argues for the primacy of culture in the construction of meaning.

This vantage point, a bias toward theory grounded in culture, eliminates most literary and media criticism, including much that has been written about reader-response and reception. While some writers like Stanley Fish propose that we understand readers as belonging to 'interpretative communities', few theorists argue for field testing their concepts, that is, doing ethnographies of reception. Literary critics, including the postmodernists see e. Grossberg, , apparently see no need to discover whether there are any actual readers who consciously or otherwise employ the proposed models.

Readers are invented rather than discovered. Research in reception consists of sitting in one's study reading or viewing texts and fantasizing about viewers. These models lack the means of verification and instead rely on the elegance of the scholars' argument.

During the past decade, the advent of ethnographic studies of television reception Michaels, ; Caldarola, ; Kottak, ; Lyons, ; and Lyons, suggests that an anthropology of television may soon challenge the mainstream paradigms of communication research. I shall here employ an anthropology of visual communication reception model known as symbolic strategies, derived from the ethnographic semiotics of Sol Worth and Larry Gross and Dell Hymes' ethnography of communication to give shape to my remarks.

It assumes that a film is a culturally coded communicative event designed to function in a particular context. Producers employ various codes they deem culturally appropriate for the context in which they wish the film seen. The producer takes it for granted that viewers share their. Lacking a convenient or common means of feedback, producers must hypothesize their viewers' ability to understand with little hope of ever really knowing whether their assumptions are correct.

In other words, producers make cultural assumptions about their viewers' cultural assumptions about codes and their contexts. Viewers have an active, perhaps seminal, role in this process in that they can both imply from and attribute to films, that is, they can attempt to comprehend the film as a symbolic act designed by the producer to be understood in a particular way or they attribute meaning to the film's plot, characters, narrative, etc. Implying from a film or attempting to understand the motives and intentions of the maker appears to be an activity largely confined to specialized viewers like critics, scholars, students in film courses and others esoterically involved in film.

Most viewers simply attribute to the film what they already know about the people, places, and events depicted in the film regardless of what the producer intended.

THE FIRST 100 YEARS 1893–1993

In others words, if viewers opt to attribute their cultural assumption to the film, they are able to overlook, ignore, contradict or even misunderstand the producer's meaning. Research evidence suggests that when the producer's intended message conflicts with the viewer's world view, it is the viewers' attributions that will most likely dominate. Viewers therefore construct a meaning that may be contrary to the producer's intentions. Let me give a concrete, if not, obvious example. It is not very complicated to understand Leni Riefenstahl's intention in her film Tri umph of the Will.

It is also equally easy to subvert that intention by seeing the film as Nazi propaganda. This oppositional reading is facilitated in two ways: the film can be placed by gatekeepers such as film programmers or teachers in a context that encourages a reading contrary to the one intended by the producer.

It is also possible that the knowledge and values of the viewer are sufficiently contrary to the producers as to thwart the producer.

Navigation menu

Worth and Gross' perspective argues that the culture of the viewer together with the cultural context of reception may be the most crucial factors in the construction of meaning. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to point out what I regard as the most serious problem facing ethnographic film-makers and anthropologists who wish to use film to teach. There appears to be an apparent chasm between the intentions of anyone who attempts to communicate anthropological knowledge and the. In other words, the general purpose of an anthropological communication is to alter the relationship between ourselves and the other.

Postmodernist critics like Marcus and Clifford wish to add another goal-to make viewers aware of the constructed and tentative nature of anthropological knowledge Marcus and Fischer, ; Marcus and Clifford, This admonition logically leads us into a discussion of reflexivity-something that I have written about in a number of places over the past years Ruby Martinez has argued that these two goals should be linked.

If a film is reflexively open, less authoritative, and multivocal, it may be that viewers will be more able to overcome their ethnocentric tendencies and gain some empathetic feelings for the people portrayed in the film. Martinez, , p. Mainstream U. It is popularly assumed that the subject matter of anthropology is exclusively the exotic other, that is, Third and Fourth world people.

To put it a bit crudely, anthropologists study partially clothed brown and black people who live far away from their audiences. The noble savage model suggests that the other resides in a cultural paradise of stressless activities, sexual freedom, and ecological balance. If we, the nasty West, would only leave them alone, they could lead idyllic lives. It is a folk rendition and misreading of Rousseau-very popular in the s and s and seen most recently in the Save the Rain Forest campaigns. The opposite but co-existing folk model is the ignoble savage in which the other is viewed as the backward, barbaric simpleton in desperate need of things Western.


  • Top Navigation.
  • Read This Book If Your Pants Are On Fire: Stories From The Big, Fat Liars’ Club.
  • Reformas o declive: Los cambios necesarios para salir de la crisis y volver al crecimiento (Spanish Edition)!

We will be their salvation-physically and spiritually. It is the nineteenth century 'White Man's Burden' and the basis of the Peace Corps in the twentieth century. All missionaries, whether Christian, capitalist or Marxist are manifestations of this concept. The moral, political, and intellectual task of the anthropologist is to somehow thwart or subvert these folk models and if we are to follow the dictums of Marcus and Clifford to alienate viewers from their suspension of disbelief so ingrained in.

To employ the jargon of the Worth-Gross model, anthropological producers' implied meanings should be diametrically opposed to their readers and viewers' attributions. The role of the ethnographic film-maker is to produce programs subversive to their audiences' view of the world and of the media. In its most radical formulation, anthropology's public message should be designed to alter the West's conceptualization of the Other and the construction of knowledge.

Viewed from this perspective, the ethnographic film-maker is not merely attempting to educate his or her viewers about the humanity of exotic people but to propagandize for a fundamental alteration of their view of the world. Given the economic and political realities of the funding and distribution, ethnographic film has a difficult battle to fight. With the dilemma now stated in its most radical form, let me examine, albeit in a cursory manner, the producer and production of ethnographic films in the U.

The world of ethnographic film in the U. The educational market, mainly one of rental, while still sizable, is economically unimportant in that few educational institutions have the funds to purchase any but the most inexpensive videotapes. Most teachers I know are forced into violating the copyright laws if they wish to teach with film.

No national funding agency provides production monies for films made primarily for educational purposes. The largest grant-giving organization is the National Endowment for the Humanities NEH , a government entity with a media program designed to promote the humanities to the public via television.

While not all ethnographic films are federally funded and only a small percentage of them are ever broadcast, it is fair to say that the majority of ethnographic film-makers aspire to be part of that system. The possibility of a television national audience with the even greater potential of international broadcasting has an enormous impact of how films are produced from seemingly insignificant things like determining the length of a film It must be thirty, sixty, or ninety minutes to be considered for television to assumptions about the ability of an audience to comprehend complex ideas that compete with their cultural predispositions.

Virtually all research about television audiences everywhere in the world suggests that viewers' motivation for watching television is the desire to be entertained. It is difficult for me to see anthropology's messages about the importance of culture in determining behavior or the nonjudgementalness of cultural relativity as being entertaining.

Anthropologists want to make people aware that difference can be appreciated without ethnocentric judgments.

Emmys 12222

Viewers want to be amused by watching exotic people do strange things. The remainder teach-usually in film departments in universities.

Production Notes from IMDbPro

Whether or not they continue producing these shows depends upon their ability to conform to the values and suppositions of. For example, all television producers assume that their viewers will only have one chance to see a program. Audience profiles suggest that the people who watch PBS and more specifically documentaries and ethnographic films are urban, young middle-aged, well educated, primarily European American with little or no knowledge of anthropology.

Audiences are motivated to watch these shows because they have a curiosity about people and places exotic to their experience. They are not interested in anthropology per se. While I have no hard evidence to support it, I think that the audience for documentary is composed primarily of people who also watch nature films and travelogues.

Unlike psychology, most anthropological concepts have not become part of common parlance-for every ten people who can explain what an Oedipal complex is, there is one who knows what patrilineality means. Logically, producers are loath to employ anthropological jargon or to produce anything overly complex that assumes prior knowledge or is sufficiently difficult as to defy closure. The received wisdom is that successful programmer end with a conclusion that gives their audience comfort in assuming that they know something clear and unproblematic.

The world of television programs seems at times to be fundamentally different from the world of written anthropology in which most communications are tentative, even uncertain. Anthropological writings are designed for an esoteric audience of scholarly journals and university press books where a readership of students and fellow scholars seldom numbers more than a few thousand.

Ruby Jensing: Movie Producer eBook: Maria Paola Chironi, Paul Clingan: uketerinucuz.tk: Kindle Store

Even 'best-seller' authors like George Marcus or James Clifford are known to a relatively proscribed circle of intellectuals and scholars. Few anthropologists before or after Margaret Mead have been interested in communicating to a mass audience. Producers make the assumption that film is, by definition, a mass medium. While it may sound harsh, the truth of the matter is that the production of ethnographic films in the U. Funds are available primarily because agencies believe there is a television market for the product with viewers who number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Related News Nice! The Wonderful World of Disney List.


  • What Every Parent Needs To Know.
  • Profile Menu.
  • Environmental Geophysics: A Practical Guide (Environmental Science and Engineering).
  • Sex Education.
  • Ruby Rose Will Play Batwoman in the CW's Arrowverse Four-Way Crossover.
  • Tips for IELTS: What Every Test Taker Should Know.

Civil Rights Movies. Best African American movie. Disney Educational Films. Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Photos Add Image. Barbara Henry Kevin Pollak Robert Coles Michael Beach Abon Bridges Jean Louisa Kelly Jane Coles Peter Francis James Broyard Patrika Darbo Miss Spencer Chaz Monet Ruby Nell Bridges Diana Scarwid Miss Woodmere Lela Rochon Alma Broyard Michael Burgess Lewis Al Butler Deputy U.

Marshal Al Buffer Charlie Lucas Taylor Kiara Tucker Alison Christopher Monroe Stokes Certificate: TV-PG. Edit Details Official Sites: Official site.

Top 10 Stars You Forgot Appeared on Grey’s Anatomy

Country: USA. Language: English. Runtime: 96 min. Sound Mix: Stereo. Color: Color. Edit Did You Know? Quotes Jimmy : Hey Scott!


  • Street Crime (Crime and Society Series)?
  • Moon Turn The Tides Gently Gently Away?
  • Buy for others;
  • 6.15 The French Mistake.
  • Full Cast & Crew;

Hey wait up. I'm coming too! Mother 1 : Jimmy, come back here Jimmy : No!