When we arrange the media we know on a single line, the order of their communication levels might be as follows. First, put photos and paintings on the far left, then put film and animation which are forms of photography and painting verbs. So, what should be done now? It's a game. Since the game medium began with 'Pong', which is a set of dots, it has evolved into modern-day internet broadcasting, virtual reality and advertising. To put it simply, a game is not based on recorded material such as a photo or a film, but can appear in the form of a game at any time, anywhere if there is a possibility that we can jump right into it.
Based on the fact that it can appear in the form of a game anytime, anywhere, the concept of working gamification has emerged to help users do fun work, but we can actually give the game a certain form. Sometimes they feel anxious about not being there. In short, this form of indefiniteness is like ghostly, so that the inviolable control that stems from our inability to control it at will, permeates the mind, and goes against the substitution of something slowly pervading 'like Cold War era ideology. Jinyoung's voice.
However, it may be remembered that this is not much different from what this gory photo or film provides. People often say that sadness floods their mind or that anger increases. There will be no difference in principle. At this point, if someone were to say that the feelings they had while watching the film were entirely theirs, we would disagree with that opinion and respond like this. Don't you really hear the sound the film gives you?
The sound given by the film does not come from the narrative or the structure under the control and the course set comes from the scenario name structure. What the film tells us is a story about ourselves, that is, a story that is told by the soul in the ego called film. It's like the dead king Hamlet trying to save his corpse in a soul state. The soul emerges from the dead body and, through its living ego, eagerly begs the audience still on stage to see its body. In short, the way the film talks to us is by building one's ego and then introducing oneself into a body built short by short.
However, at the lowest stage of the Short by Short film, the film material does not act as an adhesive. As can be seen from Sergei Eisenstein's montage theory, for example, the observer's perspective acts as an important glue between shooting, not film. When two shorts, A and B, are put together, a completely different feeling of C comes out, and the number of cases cannot be achieved with only film material A and B. That is, C is extraterrestrial life from outside, not in the film, and not a being that born from a primitive sea called film, but seeds that appear outside the earth.
In other words, it appears that the fundamental combination of film structure is not the spontaneity of the film, but an external view. And those gazes are our thoughts and actions as glue. In short, this can be compared to what happened in Prometheus, where aliens came to primitive Earth and surrendered themselves to mankind. In other words, we are the creators of film life. In the end, the film medium is not what he wants to convey to us unilaterally, but is equipped with the making of a body in his soul.
Then, can't this short shot fit the step-by-step process of building a film body to the game level? For example, just as we intervened in Short-by-Short, step-by-step execution requires several processes that we mix right away. However, the biggest difference between movies and games is that their bodies have or don't have a shape in the intervening process.
There is a difference in the film Short by Short which tries to encourage our participation implicitly by hiding its own presence, but level by level the game tries to encourage our participation by expressing its presence clearly. At this time, the difference between hiding and expressing a sense of existence contained not only the visual elements. Movies and games both belong to the realm of vision because they are observed by us, so they cannot be elements that separate them.
Therefore, it is necessary to ask about the material form, not the visual cultural approach, to distinguish the two. If the film material is a film and the playing material is the brain stem, then as mentioned above, the film is the body and the brain stem is the soul. And it is our job to assemble the bodies, and it is our job to assemble the joints between them, that is, our job to glue the glue to the remaining blueprints. In the case of games, body and soul are determined separately. Since it is not and united, to determine the soul means to cut off the body.
In short, the content of the game stems from the fact that what we see in front of us is fiction. The game level in front of you is like a mirage that can be beat at any time because there is no physical form like the movies in the movies. Even if we use real-world physical tools such as board games, the game rules can be modified in various ways by arbitrary judgment, or they can be used against their original purpose. For example, it is possible to play various variations with trump cards, but that is to create its own rules of the game and to be able to play by throwing cards with a hand. It will be born.
If so, you may be thinking about the possibility of replacing the interactivity of the game medium into the medium of film. Considering the fact that level-by-level corresponds to short-by-short, and the body develops from the soul, you can think of the gamification of the film medium that the way the viewer builds a short film can define the essence of the film. . In short, can't watching movies become 'creative fun' building level by level rather than 'interpretation fun', which is the joy of joining the short-by-shot?
Therefore, this is not an attempt to try different ways of accepting film, but an attempt to explore something more basic than that. The object of interpretation is that the film is used as another object, that is, supposing that we are in a world different from the screen curtain. The relationship between this film and the audience is not the relationship between the creature and its creator, but the unity of body and soul. I want to describe it as 'Avatar'. Simply put, as James Cameron tries to put it through, the dichotomy between humans and the Navi tribe does not mean that the human soul resides in the body of the Navi tribe, but rather that the human soul resides behind the body of the Navi tribe. It must be an acquired judgment that follows.
If we think about the type of film, we can find the basis for our assessment of the gamification of the film. In this film, the protagonist Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a man who is paralyzed, and he participates in Project Avatar, which invades the planet of the Navi tribe to get a fee to fix it. As the word implies, this avatar project is an attempt to insert a human soul into the body of the Navi tribe and communicate with the Navi tribe with that body, so to speak, this is a trick that tries to lure them in with a human soul while only a body makes sense.
Here, if we take the film construction logic briefly and replace it as follows. In this film, if humans are replaced by viewers and Navi people are defined as another as a film, Jake Sully's appearance will be an audience that only maintains the homogeneity of the material and the understanding of the soul is not supported. That is, Jake Sulli is currently saying that he can become the creator of the Navi tribe. The physiology of the Navi tribe can only be continued with human intervention, and something completely different can emerge between them, so it's not necessarily a combination of the Navi and the Navi tribe. It suggests logic like Eisenstein that it doesn't matter. (Should the accident montage be a shock between humans and the Prophet's race?)
On the other hand, in the second half of the film, in the scene where Jake Sulley actually interacts with Navi, Jake Sulley realizes that the human body cannot be sexually linked to Navi, so to speak, which means that two different images will intertwine well. . This is a brief blocking that cannot be done, and the solution is not to transfer the soul to the avatar, but become the avatar itself. And, as we mentioned above, if the way the film talks to us is to build one's ego and transfer itself to a briefly constructed body, Jake Sulley's process of becoming the avatar itself is what the film means (To let go of the fact that he can create life Nabi), that is, he tried to be the film itself.
Considering Jake Sully's current state here, we can recall that he chose to be an avatar for his recovery because he is physically imperfect. He volunteered for the Avatar Project because he was a physically indifferent person, but when he became an avatar he became a free body but the body of the Navi tribe was not human. That's what James Cameron pointed out. In other words, this implies that understanding the physiology of film level by level, the touch we give to understand how the film is alive, and in short, the meaning of the game is not in its fun, but in its subjective construction.
If you look at Jake Sully in, you can remember that the inviolable nature of the Prophet and the human race prevented them from reaching mates. Even if you got in touch with the Navi tribe in an avatar state, it wouldn't be a proper crossroads because Jake Sully realized he was human. Because he became an avatar to heal his deformed lower body, and because of that, he must not forget that he was a human body that was the object of repair. (I can't be him without forgetting that I am.)
And this word can be used interchangeably as follows. Although short by short marriage is done physically, mentally (soul) is incomplete or not fulfilled. As we mentioned above, the short-by-short approach is not a lack of understanding of the other person as him (the butterfly), but the sense of subjectivity that we are in the audience with, and the sense of subjectivity we so desperately need to understand film. This means separating the instructions from the interpretation of the film.
If so, is there no way for us to fully understand other people as films? Given that Christian Metz borrows Jacques Lacan's arguments to film, our cinematic experience is to know clearly that there is a mirror, that is, in the process of identifying the betrayal of us here and us. In other words, our ego is split in two, but that's another and this is who we are. In short, we now realize that films are another subjective party and the audience is self-subjective, and that the domination of the subject over others is like the belief that we can control ourselves.
This belief is the fundamental reason we watch movies. In fact, we want a lot of things, but we always feel dissatisfied because we can't get there, and the main pleasure of this film is the fun of peering around while embracing the screen with the satisfaction of being the object of that dissatisfaction. In short, it is like incest in the sense of exchanging bonds with myself, sex, narcissism and genetic identity, so that this couple has a genetic defect.
There is nothing quite as strange as meeting the so-called 'my other', which is manifested as the opposite of the short term called 'I', and our souls are inserted between the union. Can this approach be said to be correct? In this approach, we are interested in what we lead. Because the creative subject's belief that we are making films precludes shooting films, films today remain not as films, but only ourselves.
However, when we approach the film with a level-by-level gamification approach that breaks the boundary between the auditorium and the screen, the shot is not an object of association, but the ego and soul that each speak to us, enabling us to communicate. Game possibilities are explored and game rules are rewritten when the movie rules are broken.
In that context, the phrase "Sex is a game" used by Park Jin-young can be sung here. He uses such an expression from a partner's perspective that sex with a loved one is not subject to any interests or laws of reality, but that they together form the concept of the rule of love. In other words, in the films we like, the way we interact with the film is not sex for fun, but for each other and for each other, a common understandable way of creating the concept of the rules of love, combining briefly my vocation. and you with a false sense of subjectivity. This should be a level by level method of stepping through the steps to get to know each other.
We don't just watch movies, so we might love someone in reality. So maybe this is how we love someone. Either way, I just thought it would be fun. Because only loved ones survive.
