Post your evaluations here)
• write a 500-750 word blog post critically evaluating (not merely describing) a live speech you attend, and
• on Oct 14, present a 1 minute oral presentation in which you share some of your observations. (CHANGED FROM THE 2 minutes on assignment sheet)
Your analysis is to focus on the content and delivery aspects of the speech. Make sure we know enough about what went on in the speech (context, audience analysis) to be able to understand your comments. See the assignment sheet on blackboard for more detail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
continued...
ReplyDeleteThroughout her speech, Dr. Lange, had good volume, rhythm and composure. Her words flowed and she spoke very naturally as if she had practiced her speech but not memorized it. She stood behind a podium and used hand gestures as her mode of body language, which kept the audience focused on what she was saying rather than what she was doing. Dr. Lange effectively used transitions by saying such things as, “I will now show you a few case studies on how children engage in video blogging communication”. Although this was an informative speech, Dr. Lange included side comments such as “I found this to be very interesting…” which caught the listener’s attention.
The presentation as a whole was very thought out and structured. As an audience member, I followed her introduction, body, and conclusion. She concluded with a slide that had a summary of her main points and time allocated for questions. Dr. Lange was very welcoming to any and all questions and feedback from the audience. She answered all questions informatively and even included personal stories in them. As a whole, I found Dr. Lange’s speech to be very interesting and informative because I walked away learning something new. As far as improvements go, I would recommend her to revise her slides and reduce her vocabulary to make it more audience-friendly.
Dave Peterson
ReplyDeleteCOMM 204
Speech Observation
This afternoon I went to Kevin Filer’s “Spirit of the Law” lecture and found it well worth my time. Filer has worked as an attorney, civil rights activist, school board employee, and currently presides as a Superior Court judge over in Compton. He has been lauded for his work in each profession, and has graduated top of his class at both UC Santa Cruz and Berkley’s Boalt School of Law. So, with all these accomplishments to his name, all in fields that can be seen to hone social skills, I expected nothing less than a top-notch speaker. An hour later I wasn’t the least bit disappointed.
Besides me, Ashley, some self-proclaimed “theologian,” and Rev. Burklo (guess he really loves public speaking), the audience was almost entirely law students/ professors from SC’s law school. Consequently I was initially sitting in my chair thinking that the best part of this lecture might turn out to be the free sandwiches…I assumed I was in for a lesson on legal technicalities etc. Instead, I was treated to Filer’s enthusiastic delivery of his intriguing personal journey and how it relates to life and law. He gave his introduction with an aura of confidence, familiarity, and genuine interest that was indicative of his entire speech. In the first minute I knew what I could expect for the next 45; a renowned student of the law telling me about how he succeeded personally and professionally. It was made clear however that this talk wasn’t about tooting horns…Filer was there to help motivate, inspire, and principally to answer any and all questions. He’d certainly touch on the bar exam, networking etc (after all this was in the law building,) but he also simply wanted to talk with us, invite us to his court, and maybe even take an endearing look at the legal stars of tomorrow. For me, a COMM student who couldn’t tolerate law school if my life depended on it, his familiar tone and “promise” not to be boring immediately drew my attention. Sure criminal defense isn’t ever going to be my career choice, but here’s an authority on the issue who doesn’t want to lecture. Rather, he simply wants to talk about Compton, college girlfriends, his comical dad, defending murderers and oh yeah he can break into a discussion about habeas corpus too. I was in.
Now I know I’m exaggerating at least a little, but still I thought the body of his speech was pretty masterful. He’d go into some exciting anecdote about defending gangbangers or second-guessing professors, and then in a second he’d smoothly transition into how an understanding of that story can help you excel as a lawyer/ citizen. It was like “this is what I did/ this is what I saw, and this is how I feel it contributed to molding me into a successful professional.” Yet he never spoke down to the audience. He never said, “I did it the right way, now I’m a big-shot judge so you should do it like me if you want to make a lot of money.” He wasn’t giving the audience directions; he was sharing experiences in hopes of teaching. This was an approach that, for me at least, made Filer likeable, respectable, and worthy of my consideration.
ReplyDeleteYet, what really set him apart in my mind was that he was so sharp, intelligent, prepared and undaunted. I mean the man’s a judge so he has to be, but wow was he impressive. For all his avoidance of condescending/ pompous language and emphasis on connecting with the listeners, I never lost sight of the fact that he was an expert. Filer absolutely knew what he was talking about, and if his record didn’t convince you, the way he completely answered questions in a composed, convincing manner sure did. When the resident “theologian” tried to stump him with a question about church and state, Filer was undaunted and responded cleverly. Furthermore, he never pretended to be something he wasn’t. Filer didn’t act like he was the hand of God or that his cases always ended in a just verdict. He simply said that he has faith in the legal system, has done all he can to master its nuances, and attempts to execute its purpose each and every day.
Conclusively, today I witnessed a poised, prepared, almost perfect public speaker. Justice Filer, with years of courtroom experience under his belt, gave a presentation that catered to everyone in the room as evidenced by the fact that I truly wanted to listen even though it was prime tanning/ fratting weather outside. Not once did I feel like a little undergraduate in over my head. Filer’s speech was as valuable to me as it might have been to those forlorn looking law students on the other side of the room. His credibility was consistently proven, likability constantly earned, and reliability on display from start to finish. Hand gestures, posture, speaking rhythm…all that good stuff was carried out with the ease of a tenured actor. Best of all, his “big kicker” at the end, where he recounted his dad’s passing the bar exam on the 48th try, was inspirational and not corny in the least. He left me with the urge to “follow my dreams and pursue my interests passionately,” and I walked out the door of that classroom feeling a little like Rocky Balboa. Seriously, what a fantastic speech…I don’t think I realized how much I enjoyed it until I began writing this post. I’m actually very glad this assignment came up because there’s no other way I’m checking out the Arts & Events Calendar. I hope I can muster some of Filer’s confidence and charisma during my informative speech tomorrow afternoon and treat you all to the performance I enjoyed this afternoon.
Last Wednesday I attended an event through the USC Global Health and Lecture Series. The event featured a screening of “Pushing the Elephant” followed by a Q & A section with the film’s directors and protagonist (Beth Davenport, Elizabeth Mandel, and Rose Mapendo respectively). The event was really eye opening and I’m really glad I went.
ReplyDelete“Pushing the Elephant” is a documentary from Big Mouth Productions that follows the story of a Congolese family who has found refuge in Arizona after being traumatized by the genocide in their home country. The film follows mother Rose on her journey to be reunited with her lost daughter. Rose is alone raising her 10 children, as her husband was murder in the genocide, but her story and drive are so inspirational. Beyond entertaining audiences with the reunion of mother and daughter, this film serves to spread awareness about the devastating genocide going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
I’m embarrassed to admit this now, but before seeing this film I had heard nothing of this genocide. I think America as a whole is fairly ignorant when it comes to genocide and we tend to avoid the subject because it is so terrible. It’s a shame that people aren’t more educated and involved when it comes to devastation like this, but “Pushing the Elephant” is a great step towards making moves. The film’s title comes from the idea that no individual can move an elephant, but when a group comes together, it seems to easy.
The question and answer section after the film screening was great because we got to meet this amazing woman and the two American directors who put some much work into her cause. Rose is still learning English and is difficult to understand at times, but the message she has is so powerful. She talks about appreciation for life and the importance of forgiveness. She has forgiven her captors and her husband’s murderer, despite the hardships they caused her and her family. In doing so, she feels whole again. One thing Rose did really well was emphasize how appreciative she was for America for taking her in and providing a safe haven for her. I found this surprising; I would assume that she would be bitter that we are all so naturally privileged compared to her family and that our lack of participation in stopping genocide would anger her. On the contrary, she was so moved to see so many inspired students in the audience that it brought her to tears.
She was so complimentary of us as an audience that it strengthened my personal feelings towards the event and her message. She effectively understood her audience and did an amazing job of obtaining our trust and respect as a speaker. The directors were great persuasive speakers also because they used the opportunity to inform us on the issue and suggested ways we could help out (signing petitions, making donation, etc.). They were very persuasive in getting us to sympathize with the issue and informative in telling us how to help.
Overall, I don’t have much criticism for this event. It was hard to understand Rose at times, but that is a language issue and she can’t do much about it. Most of the event was spent watching the film, so not a while lot of live public speaking happened, but I’m still very glad I went.
Last Wednesday I attended an event through the USC Global Health and Lecture Series. The event featured a screening of “Pushing the Elephant” followed by a Q & A section with the film’s directors and protagonist (Beth Davenport, Elizabeth Mandel, and Rose Mapendo respectively). The event was really eye opening and I’m really glad I went.
ReplyDelete“Pushing the Elephant” is a documentary from Big Mouth Productions that follows the story of a Congolese family who has found refuge in Arizona after being traumatized by the genocide in their home country. The film follows mother Rose on her journey to be reunited with her lost daughter. Rose is alone raising her 10 children, as her husband was murder in the genocide, but her story and drive are so inspirational. Beyond entertaining audiences with the reunion of mother and daughter, this film serves to spread awareness about the devastating genocide going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
I’m embarrassed to admit this now, but before seeing this film I had heard nothing of this genocide. I think America as a whole is fairly ignorant when it comes to genocide and we tend to avoid the subject because it is so terrible. It’s a shame that people aren’t more educated and involved when it comes to devastation like this, but “Pushing the Elephant” is a great step towards making moves. The film’s title comes from the idea that no individual can move an elephant, but when a group comes together, it seems to easy.
The question and answer section after the film screening was great because we got to meet this amazing woman and the two American directors who put some much work into her cause. Rose is still learning English and is difficult to understand at times, but the message she has is so powerful. She talks about appreciation for life and the importance of forgiveness. She has forgiven her captors and her husband’s murderer, despite the hardships they caused her and her family. In doing so, she feels whole again. One thing Rose did really well was emphasize how appreciative she was for America for taking her in and providing a safe haven for her. I found this surprising; I would assume that she would be bitter that we are all so naturally privileged compared to her family and that our lack of participation in stopping genocide would anger her. On the contrary, she was so moved to see so many inspired students in the audience that it brought her to tears.
ReplyDeleteShe was so complimentary of us as an audience that it strengthened my personal feelings towards the event and her message. She effectively understood her audience and did an amazing job of obtaining our trust and respect as a speaker. The directors were great persuasive speakers also because they used the opportunity to inform us on the issue and suggested ways we could help out (signing petitions, making donation, etc.). They were very persuasive in getting us to sympathize with the issue and informative in telling us how to help.
Overall, I don’t have much criticism for this event. It was hard to understand Rose at times, but that is a language issue and she can’t do much about it. Most of the event was spent watching the film, so not a while lot of live public speaking happened, but I’m still very glad I went.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpeech Observation
ReplyDeleteLast Friday, October 7th from 12 to 1 pm, I had the opportunity to listen to my father, Ken Morris, speak to an accounting class in USCs Marshall School of business about the Institute of Internal Auditors. Along with James Jusko from the Aerospace Corporation, I was able to listen to Mr. Morris and Mr. Jusko speak about their experiences in the field of internal auditing. The presentation was meant to persuade students to start considering their possible future as an Internal Auditor, and what they could start doing now should they decide on such a career path. For the purposes of the speech analysis, I decided to focus on Mr. Morris, although they both contributed to the presentation.
Mr. Morris began the presentation by very clearly describing the purpose of the presentation, as well as addressing each subtopic that would be covered. There were accompanying slides to make these points more visible to the audience. He did stress the relevance of the IIA in relation to very probable career paths for the people in the room, making the presentation more relevant to the audience, as well as the possibility of an internal auditing degree at USC in the near future. The order of the presentation was very organized and appropriate, with clear transitions to each topic that followed in the Powerpoint presentation. He also summarized the main points of each slide before moving onto the next main point. The presentation explained the infrastructure of a business corporation in relation to the duties of an internal auditor and the internal audit department. He explained both the benefits and risks of holding such a position in a company. He then closed with his personal experiences as an internal auditor, different ways to get involved with the IIA as a student at USC, and the proceeded to open the floor for any questions.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteFocusing on the delivery of the presentation, Mr. Morris, overall, used effective delivery technique. His main visual aid, the Powerpoint presentation, was not overwhelming with information and provided useful diagrams to help further explain the concepts that to most would have been unfamiliar and confusing. He spoke at a rate that was understandable and paced the front area in order to maintain eye contact with the entire audience. Before he began the presentation he made sure that his speaking volume was appropriate in case the microphone volume needed to be adjusted. The only flaw I would have to point out in the delivery of his speech were his use of verbalized pauses. The verbal pauses could possibly be attribute to communication apprehension, although there weren't any other signs besides occasional stuttering. There were only a couple of instances where he was trying to gather his thoughts and an “um” arose. I recently discovered that he has given this same presentation several times before at Marshall, so he was definitely prepared to give the presentation and was familiarized with the material he had planned to present. Other than that he had clear, effective delivery which was appropriate for the subject he was discussing.
Overall, the topic of Mr. Morris' presentation was very much appropriate for the occasion; he was informing an accounting class about the Institute for Internal Auditors. He explained how in order to become a member of the IIA you must first obtain your license as a CPA. The presentation would be especially relevant to students majoring in business or accounting who would already be pursing a career path in that direction. Throughout the presentation, Mr. Morris compared what he was talking about to his career experiences at various companies and organizations. Being able to speak of his own experience, I thought, made what he was saying more credible. Both Mr. Morris and Mr. Jusko had been students at USC, and were able to share that they used to be in the same seats as the students they were talking to, contemplating their futures.
The speech I attended was titled “The Hidden Geopolitics of Cyberspace” given by Professor Deibert, an associate professor of political science and director of the citizen lab at University of Toronto. It was the last speech in the series that focused on the intersection between digital media, global security and human rights. It was a disappointment.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to see this speech because the description suggested that not only would the material be accessible to everyone, but Professor Deibert would be a riveting speaker because the description he wrote was so intriguing and eloquent. However, the same qualities did not carry over into his speech’s organization. I felt this was the most glaring flaw in his speech. The introduction was lackluster and muted—I was not sure when the introduction segued from the background work done on the topic and into his work. He did nothing to grab my attention. He started with statistics on the rate of crime, but it was so bogged down with acronyms and electronic jargon that it was nearly incomprehensible. Deibert then went onto outline the current effects of crime in cyberspace, then the history of government action on regulating cyberspace, and closed with a call to action for us to combat espionage to save public diplomacy. In short, there was no fluidity in his speech. The points in his speech seemed unrelated except for their loose ties to crime on the internet. His call to action came as a surprise because there was no thesis statement that prepped me to look for convincing pieces in his argument that I should be on guard against this espionage. Perhaps he thought that espionage was self evident in its need to be stopped, which it is, but there was no self-evident reason for the specific audience to combat this. Furthermore, although he tried to propel us into action, he did not give any specifics on how to do so. For such an esoteric subject, I thought that would have been the most important thing to do.
Part II
ReplyDeleteIn addition to his sub par structure was his equally substandard delivery. He had written his speech out. He did nothing to inject any urgency or rhythm of an extemporaneous delivery that would have engaged the audience more. Given that his speech was written, he had excellent rate, enunciation, and poise. There were no vocal fillers, and he alternated adeptly between reading his speech verbatim and glancing up at the audience. I see now why extemporaneous delivery is stressed so ardently in class—it was such an interest-killer when I heard him read his speech. What heightened my disappointment was that after the speech, there was a Q & A. Rid of a written speech, Deibert became fascinating as he answered questions impromptu. He has a dry, sharp wit, and spoke in an incredibly articulate manner with no fillers. He is a succinct, intelligent man. This came through in his powerpoint, which was cogent in conveying the dangers of cyberspace espionage. However, as his overall structure doomed the speech to sink, there was only so much water his immaculate powerpoint could bail out.
In terms of the content, I feel that I cannot critique this section credibly. I did not attend the lecture series leading up to his presentation, and so I suppose the content was appropriate. As stated before, there was no thesis. However, I did see that there were three main points he wished to impress: current espionage, history of governmental regulation, and call to action to combat internet crime. Although a plethora of evidence was supplied, it was all supplied in venn diagrams, with the juiciest points spoken. As a strong visual learner and an embarrassingly weak audio learner, I struggled to absorb and delineate in my mind the most salient items in his speech. Accommodating all learning types however, is not only daunting but impossible (there is no method to teach kinesthetic learners through speech alone) so I found this to be forgivable. Despite these shortcomings, I found him credible throughout the speech, established from his powerpoint. His ethos was only augmented during the Q & A where he fended questions brilliantly and hilariously.
In closing, I have great respect for Professor Deibert, and would have loved to have attended a Q & A session, or some other forum where he did not prepare a speech. I suppose he conquered speech anxiety with his manuscript, but he clearly did not need it as demonstrated after the presentation. It is a shame that this speech was mediocre at best, rotted away with his choice in organization and delivery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Tuesday September 28th, I went to a Digital Studies Symposium lecture at 7:00 PM in the Cinematic Arts building (SCA110). The two speakers were cinema artists Pia Tikka and Mauri Kaipainen. They are scholars-in-residence this fall at the Institute for Multimedia Literacy. Kaipainen is a professor of media technology at Södertörn University in Stockholm, Sweden, and Tikka is a filmmaker and a researcher. She has directed the feature films Daughters of Yemanjá and Sand Bride among many other international productions.
ReplyDeleteMauri went first with his presentation about perspective-relative video narrative. I am not sure what that is completely, which is not a good thing. Thankfully, he used a slide show visual aid so I was able to write down notes, but even the slides were confusing and really cluttered. He also showed video shots of how to assign coordinates in narrative space, but did not explain them in terms that I am familiar with. Another problem was that he has an accent that makes him difficult to understand, he had many slip-ups and fillers like “um” and “uh,” and his performance was completely monotone – I have been known to not vary my voice a lot, so I definitely will try not to sound that way again! Many times, he would stray from the topic, but he caught himself and returned to his structure that was dictated by the slides.
On a positive note, he had a clear thesis statement: “I’m going to be telling my approach on perspective-relative video narrative.” He also said began with saying he was honored to be there and tried to relate his work to cinematic arts students by saying “getting closer to you guys…” and by asking the audience what their majors were. He used hand gestures frequently and sign-posts that helped me follow the structure of his speech. For example, he made his sign-posts really obvious by saying “I’m going to be talking about” and “First, second, thirdly.”
ReplyDeleteThe second speaker, Pia Tikka, talked about neurocinematics and enactive cinema which is where the audience dictates what happens in movies. Her delivery was really great because she had a better volume, spoke more clearly, varied her tone, used a lot of hand gestures, and was very excited about what she was talking about – Many times she would admit it is complicated but say “anyway, it’s fascinating.” She also had slides that were easier to understand and showed us a video she made. At the end, she said she hopes we have questions because it was a “pretty fast run through” and she wants to open it up so we can understand.
Overall, I ended up enjoying the discussion even though it was a little over my head. It was a really interesting topic – the concept of neurocinematics, or relating the human brain to technological advances in cinema, is fascinating. Through Mauri, I learned that everything sounds a lot more boring if you use a monotone voice and do not define terms in ways that people who aren’t Swedish scientists can understand! From Pia, I learned that it really helps to be excited about the topic you are speaking about and that visual aids can be extremely effective if they are used properly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart I:
ReplyDeleteOn October 6, 2010, I observed a panel which included Elizabeth Tauro, James Shaw and Alexandra Datig, at 6:30 PM in the Tutor Campus Center room 227. The occasion was a heated debate about Proposition 19, which revolves around the legalization of marijuana. Among all of the speakers, I thought that Alexandra Datig’s introduction gained the most attention because she brought in a very personal issue about her relation to the topic. Alexandra explained how she moved to California as a teenager from Switzerland and was exposed to all sorts of drugs, including marijuana, which caused her to become an addict. This then lead to her subsequent rape as she was so incoherent from being on drugs. I thought this added to her speaker credibility because it was a subject she knew personally and had firsthand knowledge of what marijuana can offer both as a positive and a negative. She then concluded her opening statement by saying if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone, and if we had legalized marijuana anyone is susceptible. I thought she created immense personal relevance with these statements by saying they could happen to anyone and thus I should be aware of the consequences and the impact it could have on my life not only for me but for those I care about around me.
However, I found her source credibility to vanish as she was a condescending debater and while her conclusion did tie her speech together, stating that marijuana is essentially a gateway drug that leads to the disease of addiction and also stating that alcohol should be illegal too, by that point in the speech I actively disliked her to the point of not wanting to support her claims. I did not feel she used effective transitions because she would get so worked up about the topic at hand that she would interrupt others and not really present her ideas in a logical flow of order or with proper transition statements. I do not think this is an effective way to emphasize her points or show the relationships among ideas because it seemed as though she had a lot of information but was unorganized on how to present it all in the actual speech. I felt like if her information had been presented in writing it would have been easier to understand and follow along with.
Part II:
ReplyDeleteI also thought that Alexandra’s delivery was adequate but not amazing, especially as a woman who has worked in politics for 10 years. Her enunciation was extremely clear as well as her vocal variety ranging from normal to very passionate tones. However, I found her volume distracting as she seemed to almost be yelling at the audience when she got really fired up about a certain point and her eye contact varied from looking at the audience to reading her notes a lot for a great portion of the time. I thought her content started out appropriate for the occasion as it was on decriminalizing marijuana, however, she started telling too many personal stories to the point that she swayed far from the content she should have been focusing on. She even went on to talk about the legality of other drugs, which while relevant, were not the point of this particular speech.
Her credibility faltered as she almost attacked other speakers when they did not agree, continually interrupting them, making rude facials, and raising her voice like a parent scolding their child. I felt as though perhaps her content would have enhanced the speech if she did not have so many statistics because it felt like she was just throwing out information instead of making qualitative remarks about the situation. Also, because her source credibility fell so low in my mind, it was hard to take anything she said seriously and in fact I ended up despising her halfway through the speech because of how condescending and rude she was. To me, she should not have a job as a public speaker. This leads me to the point that no, she was not at all ethical in handling the material. She also did not address all learning styles because she was very unaware of the people who disagreed with her and only spoke to the one person in the room who was agreeing with her. As she did not have any visuals like maps or statistic charts, I found it hard to follow along when she did give statistics because I could not visualize what she was really saying and the true impact. She seemed very anxious instead of confident because she spoke so quickly and kept interrupting people, making her seem unprofessional.
I went into the speech thinking I knew a few facts at least about Proposition 19, and in the end I came out more confused about my own position on the subject. I would definitely try to avoid her style in my own speech. Although she was prepared with notes, this brings me to the 4th canon of rhetoric of memory that she needed to really know the figures she was stating instead of reading them off; she did not memorize but she also did not know her information on a subject she was so passionate about. Overall, I did not enjoy this speaker’s speech and found her different techniques abrasive.
part I:
ReplyDeleteOn October 6, 2010, I observed a panel which included Elizabeth Tauro, James Shaw and Alexandra Datig, at 6:30 PM in the Tutor Campus Center room 227. The occasion was a heated debate about Proposition 19, which revolves around the legalization of marijuana. Among all of the speakers, I thought that Alexandra Datig’s introduction gained the most attention because she brought in a very personal issue about her relation to the topic. Alexandra explained how she moved to California as a teenager from Switzerland and was exposed to all sorts of drugs, including marijuana, which caused her to become an addict. This then lead to her subsequent rape as she was so incoherent from being on drugs. I thought this added to her speaker credibility because it was a subject she knew personally and had firsthand knowledge of what marijuana can offer both as a positive and a negative. She then concluded her opening statement by saying if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone, and if we had legalized marijuana anyone is susceptible. I thought she created immense personal relevance with these statements by saying they could happen to anyone and thus I should be aware of the consequences and the impact it could have on my life not only for me but for those I care about around me.
However, I found her source credibility to vanish as she was a condescending debater and while her conclusion did tie her speech together, stating that marijuana is essentially a gateway drug that leads to the disease of addiction and also stating that alcohol should be illegal too, by that point in the speech I actively disliked her to the point of not wanting to support her claims. I did not feel she used effective transitions because she would get so worked up about the topic at hand that she would interrupt others and not really present her ideas in a logical flow of order or with proper transition statements. I do not think this is an effective way to emphasize her points or show the relationships among ideas because it seemed as though she had a lot of information but was unorganized on how to present it all in the actual speech. I felt like if her information had been presented in writing it would have been easier to understand and follow along with.
I also thought that Alexandra’s delivery was adequate but not amazing, especially as a woman who has worked in politics for 10 years. Her enunciation was extremely clear as well as her vocal variety ranging from normal to very passionate tones. However, I found her volume distracting as she seemed to almost be yelling at the audience when she got really fired up about a certain point and her eye contact varied from looking at the audience to reading her notes a lot for a great portion of the time. I thought her content started out appropriate for the occasion as it was on decriminalizing marijuana, however, she started telling too many personal stories to the point that she swayed far from the content she should have been focusing on. She even went on to talk about the legality of other drugs, which while relevant, were not the point of this particular speech.
The speech that I attended was given by professional surfer Bryan Jennings along with Steven Baldwin and Tom Curren. It was given at the USC Catholic Center on Tuesday night at 7:30. It was a screening of his documentary called, “Walking on Water” which he talked about afterwards.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary was about the surfing trip around the world that he shared with two young boys as a learning lesson and as a way to reach out to God. He described how when he was fourteen years old, he went on a surfing trip to Hawaii with a local professional surfer that had a lasting effect on his life. His documentary, “Walking on Water,” tells the story about Bryans attempt to make a difference in two young boys lives like the professional surfer had on his. He meets two boys, Tyler and Luke, and feels like they were the types of kids that deserve this chance of a lifetime. He takes them on a surfing trip across the world to Hawaii, Peru, Australia, Indonesia, South Africa, and France. Along the way, they meet up with three-time world champion surfer Tom Curren, teen shark attack survivor Bethany Hamilton, top professional surfers C.J. and Damien Hobgood, and many others. Each destination, the boys come across another lesson about faith in God. There was a specific moment in the documentary when they were in South Africa when they taught some local boys from a village near by how to surf. It was an eye opening experience to see how happy these boys were just to surf despite all of the hardships they were going through at home. It gave them an opportunity to be kids for once since they have to act as another parent for their younger siblings and take care of them.
The documentary showed clips where the boys gave their thoughts about the trip and about what they were experiencing. By meeting people who weren’t as nearly as fortunate as they were but who had an overwhelming amount of faith in God’s plan for them had a drastic effect on the boys, and even Bryan himself.
cont.
ReplyDeleteAfter the documentary finished, Bryan Jennings, Tom Curren, and Steven Baldwin spoke to us about the film and about their personal stories in which they changed their lives for the better by devoting themselves to God. Their speeches weren’t styled like ours in class. They had an introductory, a body of main points that they wanted to get across to the audience, and a conclusion, but it wasn’t structured with an obvious attention grabber, thesis, listener relevance, and so on. Even though he didn’t have an outlined structure of his speech, the way he presented his main points made his speech really effective. He had a really good conclusion that tied together his speech and left us wanting to also make a difference in people’s lives, even if it may not be through religion and faith. By appealing to our emotions and using pathos throughout his speech, he allowed the audience to really connect with his personal story and the lesson he was trying to get across. He also transitioned through his main points well to the point where I didn’t realize that he was going from one point to the other. It was a steady flow of information that kept my attention throughout its entirety.
Bryan did a really good job of presenting his speech. He was in an informal setting in front of only about twenty to thirty people and seemed really comfortable speaking in front of us. He kept really good eye contact, used hand gestures, and maintained a constant volume throughout his speech. He made it clear through pauses and voice dramatization when he was talking about something serious and meaningful to him. The way he gave his speech was appropriate for the setting and the audience he was giving it in front of. Since he was telling a personal experience, he didn’t use any supporting material other that the facts that he gathered while on his trip. His main points were about the trip itself, what he wanted Tyler and Luke to get from it, and what we can do to share the gift of God with others who may not believe without forcing it upon them. I took a lot away from this speech and felt the need to take my relationship with God to another level after everything he has provided for me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI attended “Spirit of the Law with Kelvin Filer” on October 13. This speech was very much directed at law students, but because of the quality of the speaker, it was very beneficial to all others in the crowd as well. Filer went through his own personal story of becoming a trial lawyer in Compton, including his Berkley law school education and the several years of appeal and criminal defense cases he took. From there he became commissioner and eventually, after an extensive background check, a judge in Compton. The second half of his speech offered helpful advice to students hoping to become lawyers themselves, including making connections, focusing on the job and disregarding emotion. He did mention, however, that even he had his limits. He would not represent anyone involved with PCP during his private practice days. He mentioned never being malicious to the members representing the opposing side of a case, as to not burn any bridges. Being a black man gaining success during a questionable social equality period in America, he touched on a few race issues as well (his struggles and his progressive strides). He also said some things that are applicable for all people, especially college students trying to pursue specific career paths. Such points included always make sure what you’re doing is that which you love. He also suggested that a change in careers at least once in a person’s life can offer healthy change. One thing that made him so eligible for judgeship is the fact that he never signed anything, though he was active in several protests and pickets in his life. This goes to prove that caution is always beneficial in the work place. He reminded the audience members that no matter what career path they were planning, to remember that they are not alone in their struggles.
ReplyDeleteSome things Filer did well in his speech include maintaining a three-step area of movement. That way it did not seem as if he was pacing, but he looked comfortable in his stance. His hand movements were frequent but never seemed forced. Each one had a specific motivation. His voice was loud and clear and extremely smooth. He made a point to make eye contact with every person in the room, though the audience members were very spread out across the room. He had a great use of inflection and honestly seemed to be having a conversation with the audience. If he used a word specific to the study of law, he would elaborate on its meaning. He made sure to use intelligent but understandable words in his speech. The only things he might improve on are his slight stutter and his strong appeal and relation to the law students.
The things that our class can take from his speech most is that which was noticeable in his audience interaction. One audience member in particular was extremely disruptive, but the speaker was not distracted and politely dismissed each of the interrupter’s comments. He had a question and answer session after his speech and seemed very collected in his answers. He seemed to know the questions they would ask. This is similar to how our class should know the opposing arguments and potential questions regarding their speech so that they can offer sufficient answers. He was a very intelligent man and an extremely good speaker.
I attended “Spirit of the Law with Kelvin Filer” on October 13. This speech was very much directed at law students, but because of the quality of the speaker, it was very beneficial to all others in the crowd as well. Filer went through his own personal story of becoming a trial lawyer in Compton, including his Berkley law school education and the several years of appeal and criminal defense cases he took. From there he became commissioner and eventually, after an extensive background check, a judge in Compton. The second half of his speech offered helpful advice to students hoping to become lawyers themselves, including making connections, focusing on the job and disregarding emotion. He did mention, however, that even he had his limits. He would not represent anyone involved with PCP during his private practice days. He mentioned never being malicious to the members representing the opposing side of a case, as to not burn any bridges. Being a black man gaining success during a questionable social equality period in America, he touched on a few race issues as well (his struggles and his progressive strides). He also said some things that are applicable for all people, especially college students trying to pursue specific career paths. Such points included always make sure what you’re doing is that which you love. He also suggested that a change in careers at least once in a person’s life can offer healthy change. One thing that made him so eligible for judgeship is the fact that he never signed anything, though he was active in several protests and pickets in his life. This goes to prove that caution is always beneficial in the work place. He reminded the audience members that no matter what career path they were planning, to remember that they are not alone in their struggles.
ReplyDeletesorry just ignore that repeat :/
ReplyDeletePart 1:
ReplyDeleteThis past Monday I attended the Visions and Voices event featuring Ira Glass. Some of you may know Ira Glass from his popular radio show on NPR, This American Life. In his talk/presentation he spoke about his approach in his work and how he got to be where he is now.
On stage, in Bovard Auditorium, there was a table with a microphone, a mixing board and a couple of CD decks. The dean of communication gives an introduction to Ira and the lights go down. Ira steps onto stage to big applause and starts to talk. He started out his speech in complete darkness drawing attention to the fact that when he’s on radio no one can see him. Oddly enough for someone who talks for a living he resorted to using a significant amount of filler words and other monosyllabic mutterings. I induced that part of this was due to the fact that the majority of his show consisted of recordings of other people and the little structuring parts that he speaks in the show are carefully scripted.
Speaking of which he also had a script that he was following but he would stray from it from time to time and directly engage the audience. I was on the balcony so I couldn’t really tell when he was reading but Ira had a very engaging presence. Even though he would sometimes “ahh” or “uhm” he was very personable. Perhaps the “ahh’s” and “uhm’s” added to the colloquial feeling of the talk. It was more as though he was talking to us, than lecturing to us.
Incidentally, his talk revolved a lot around the failing journalistic system. He claims that the cold and robotic form of reporting is part of the reason journalism is dying out to opinion based sources such as blogs and the like. As an example he played an excerpt from one of his shows where one of the producers was interviewing a Navy seaman. The seaman said something that surprised the producer, so much so that she exclaimed: “Oh really!? I didn’t know that.” Ira Glass claims that if a journalist were to say that in a normal news report they would loose their credibility and be black listed. The all-knowing position that reporters assume in their interviews results in a very arrogant delivery. Ira Glass believes that this is a turn off for the public. Current news lacks a sense of exploration, adventure and humor. Reporters don’t talk like normal people.
In this regard Ira took this approach and applied it to his talk. Yes, it was scripted, and structured and he had a set of ideas that he wanted to convey and yet he articulated his thoughts in a very down to earth manner.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteIn terms of structure, Ira Glass’s talk was not as clear-cut as say that of Bill Gates. He didn’t divide everything he was talking about into different sections. Part of his talk revolved around the idea of people’s obsession with stories. We, as humans, are fascinated by the chronology of things. This happened, and then this happened, and then what happens next. Ira uses this style in his program. He tells stories. That’s why people keep watching. It’s not necessarily because whatever is happening in the story is particularly interesting. It’s because we are hardwired to want to know what happens next. Much in the same way Ira structured his talk on Monday as a story and he would lead the audience along with this happened, then this happened, and then this, and finally this is what I think it all means. “Event, event, event, and a thought.”
Listener interest was also an important part of his talk. He would tell jokes and receive the approval of the crowd in their laughter. However, because the auditorium was dark he couldn’t see any of the audience members. At the end of his speech he confessed that in retrospect he would have preferred to have some of the house lights on so that he could see whom he was talking to. However, someone then asked him what it was like to go into a sound proof room, talk into a microphone and not know if anyone is listening. Ira answered by saying that he’s been in radio so long he takes it for granted and just assumes that someone is listening. I guess that’s the only way you can go about it. He has a steady two million listeners (one of the most popular shows on the airwaves) so I don’t think he’s really too concerned. However, his audience feedback comes from letters and polls. The show then uses this information for its next shows, and so forth and so on.
Overall, Ira Glass came across as a guy who really knew what he was talking about. Though sometime his speech would break a little due to its casualness there were definite occasions (such as at the end) that he spoke for minute at a time without any form of interruption. In these moments his words moved you. They were profound. He was giving you insight and you were listening. You couldn’t stop listening because you really wanted to know what he was going to say next.
Hello fabulous Creatures!
ReplyDeleteI went and saw a reading of poetry and prose by Mohja Kahf. She spoke at the Ground Zero coffee house on September 27th about western views on Islam and the reality that Muslims experience in America. I had a difficult time relating to what she was talking about because of my natural disposition to religion. Coming from an orthodox community I already know a great deal about religious life and the judgment mainstream society thrusts upon it. However her discussion of what coming of age means for a Muslim woman in America was fascinating. She spoke about her highly overprotective brothers and desires to shop at the mall with her classmates. She juxtaposed these sentiments by explaining how her community really supported her and her family during the rough times. She balanced articulating the negatives and positives of growing up in a highly religious Muslim community in America beautifully. The equilibrium she sought, and achieved, was extremely important because she was talking to a predominantly white audience who likely have very little experience with the Muslim community. Furthermore Islam in America is topic that is surrounded by much controversy and must be handled delicately. Her balance did just this because she spoke openly and brazenly about these issues while simultaneously not offending anyone.
While the content of her speech was interesting I feel as though I learned the most about public speaking by paying attention to her delivery. Kahf was essentially doing slam poetry, an art form that relies primarily on the exploration and experimentation of speed, annunciation, rhythm, volume and pitch. Each of these tools, all of which we have discussed in class, created a different consistency to her prose adding a layer of texture to her story and words. For example she discussed the widespread misunderstanding of the headdress many Muslim women wear and America’s harsh judgment and intolerance of this important cultural and religious ritual. She began talking slowly at a normal volume. But by the time she monologue was over she was standing up, pacing around the room, screaming and speaking a mile a minute. Her rage at the oppression she felt as both a Muslim and a woman was palpable in the air. As she raced through her words I could see the thoughts of anger race through her mind when she was judged in the supermarket. Her high pitch and volume let me hear the hollering in her mind as her country turned against her after 9/11.
She dealt with the audience very well. After reading what had clearly been a very intense poem the audience for some reason did not react. It was an awkward moment in the performance as silence ensued. However she took complete command of the situation and with confidence and determination moved swiftly allowing the moment to pass. She was also able to rile up the audience- as her pace became faster the crowd became more engrossed.
From Kahf I hope to learn a few things. The first is to not judge others culture’s because some of their fundamentals disagree with mine. The second thing is command over my pace and annunciation. I tend to speak to fast and my words can become a little bit jumbled up. She managed to find the perfect time for slow and fast verbalization without slurring her words. It is not just what you say. But HOW you say it.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteOn Tuesday, October 12th, 2010, I witnessed one of the most, if not the most, captivating displays of public speaking in my life. As part of the inaugural celebration for USC’s newest president, Max Nikias, Anna Deavere Smith was invited to speak in the new ballroom of the Campus Center. Her speech, or perhaps more appropriately said, “performance”, was entitled Engaging the World: The Role of the Artist in Society, with a message focused on bridging the gap that has been created between the “arts” and “sciences”. One cannot separate creativity from practicality; instead it’s necessary for people of all fields to “wrap” themselves around the world in order to be more effective in whatever they are doing.
However, I’ve gotten ahead of myself, seeing as how it took listening to the entirety of her speech to extract one overarching conclusion. To begin, the “attention catcher” of her introduction was ineffective in gaining all of the audience’s attention. Ms. Smith made a joking reference to a famous composer (of which I only gathered the first initial of his name “D”). Her reference to the famous composer most likely resonated with the music and theatre individuals in the audience (of “creatively” inclined fields). And seeing how her talk was titled “… The Role of the ARTIST in Society”, she must have based her audience analysis on the notion that many people would be aspiring artists. However, I forgave her for not immediately striking a connection with myself, a relatively “non-artistic” individual, due to the fact that I had already read a famous piece of hers, Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992, and realized that this titan of the theatre must be making some sophisticated “artsy” allusion that I should just go along with, so as to avoid looking dumb. The end of her introduction indicated her admiration for Mr. Nikias and his equal appreciation for both the sciences and the arts, which flowed into the thesis of her speech: while different, science and art should be viewed as equally important to the well-being of our society (although this was not directly stated). There was no preview statement of the points that would be covered during her speech; instead, each point was illustrated by some of her own advice and a piece from an interview.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteTo say that Anna Deavere Smith is a master of impersonation is an understatement; instead, I would hail her as a master of possession. She would state a brief point, end the point by lowering her pitch, state a first and last name, and transform. It was as if the people she had interviewed throughout her career would actually infiltrate her body as soon as she uttered their names. It’s fair to say that during that two hour session I encountered nine individuals apart from Anna, some of which included: a middle aged Jewish woman, Cornell West, and Governor Anne Richards. Her transition from self to character was instantaneous and abrupt; while her transition from character to character was mediated by some sort of conclusion she had drawn from her interviews. The ideas that were illustrated by each character were quite different from one another, yet extremely thought provoking because they were all connected by a common underlying thread: representations of major disparities that exist in our society. She highlighted racial tensions in the US, poor vs. privileged, medicine vs. healing, and justice vs. fairness. We can neither deny nor glorify one of these things over the other, just as we cannot deny or glorify science over the arts. Now, this conclusion was not explicitly clear at the end of her speech. In fact, the speech ended on a somewhat abrupt note, suggesting that Mr. Nikias not shy away from reserving some of his “chi” for himself when the “goin’ gets tough”. While said in a jovial manner, I struggled to connect the conclusion to what was said in the earlier portions of the speech. It seemed as though she realized she was out of time, and needed a way to wrap things up. This is something that I have been guilty of at times and need to correct! The overarching conclusion that I drew from the speech (made during my own time) was more apparent in the Q&A portion of the speech.
As far as her delivery goes, it was almost impeccable. She maintained a great level of eye contact with the audience, and while it was an extemporaneous delivery… she scarcely looked to her notes. Her volume was appropriately strong, and her pitch was varied in all of the appropriate parts: indicating beginnings and ends of points. The rhythm of her speech was music-like (not to be confused with sing-song speech); instead the rhythm indicated a strong knowledge and passion for the information being shared. She hardly ever used any vocal fillers, something that I would very much like to emulate in my own public speaking. The only criticism that I have would be in relation to the frequency with which she ran her hands through her hair, a slight distraction.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteThe delivery of each character was impeccable. Her use of dialects, duration (long drawn out words vs. terse words), volumes, speech impediments, bodily gestures (crouching, laughing, squinting, folding arms) were exquisite. Not to mention that she essentially memorized each interview, never looking to the notes but consciously turning the pages. From the very first character to the last, her source credibility was spot on… as indicated by the extreme variation in vocal/bodily aspects of delivery and memorization. She possessed an extreme ethical responsibility to present each character in a matter that was true to form. No matter what information they had given her, she could not impose her own bias or judgment. It was very apparent that she looked upon each interview with equal importance, not diminishing the characters of lesser fame. Her delivery also demonstrated how thoroughly she studied the emotion involved in each interview and each ethnic background. Her level of preparation was astounding, and has definitely inspired me to devote more time to the preparatory levels of speech assembly (specifically research and verbal practice). Anna Deavere Smith also commanded/captivated the audience’s attention, she’s truly mastered the idea of public speaking as a “two-way street” which must engage the audience and give them a reason to continue listen! THIS is something that I wish to infuse in my next projects. Finally, my breathing/voice often gives away my level of nervousness, while Ms. Smith’s voice was bold and confident… a trait that I wish to incorporate in my speaking abilities.
I attended the "Global University" Panel discussion on October 13th. This was an interesting event due to the fact that it was panel. C.L. Max Nikias, Karen Gallagher (Dean of Rossier), and the moderator, Val Zavala all had prepared speeches while the three panelists answered questions. The topic was discussing a Global University and how USC would be a beacon for international students and how students everywhere can get an USC education. The introduction lady was named Karen Gallager and she spoke by reading from her written speech. She started out with a joke and analyzed the crowd a bit. The crowd was mainly older people and I knew that it was mostly faculty and graduate students that attended the speech. Her speech differed a lot from Nikias' speech. Gallager did not really make eye contact with her audience because she was giving an introduction for the event. However, Nikias was more jocular and had a lighter tone to his speech. He had more movement in the body and use less fillers, probably because he has an accent. He was talking about his experience with international Universities and how he wanted to expand USC’s network. His diction and word choice were very precise, unlike Karen Gallager, who used a very limited vocabulary. The next speaker was the moderator, Val. She is an anchor and I could see her ease with words. She was more energetic and her annunciation was very on key. Val introduced each one of the panelists and hardly stumbled on words. She a lot of movement with her hands and definitely used a lot of facial expressions. After she is done with her speech, she was the moderator for the panel. It was actually really great to observe a panel because I could see how answering questions play into the memory side of a speech. I am sure all of the panelists were prepared to answer the majority of the questions yet they were improvising in on the spot. This is a great example of an improvised speech combined with solid facts and fluency in tone. I am happy that I attended this speech.
ReplyDeleteFor my public speech evaluation, I attended a speech by Kathy Dawson, my mother. It was on Tuesday, October 5th, 2010 at the Hilton Hotel in Costa Mesa, at 6:00 PM. She is president of an organization called NAWBO (National Association of Women Business Owners). This is their biggest event of the year called Remarkable Women Awards in which various speakers give their stories of starting their own business in an inspiring manner. There were a variety of speakers, and four main speeches, including my mom. I will be critiquing my mother’s speech. She was there to sort of MC and introduce everyone, but before that she gave an informative speech. She welcomed everyone, and discussed the organization, what they do, and what they have done this year.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, to grab everyone’s attention, she used a hook that was a joke. She said “Wow, look at you all out there, I feel like I’m on an episode of the Real Housewives of Orange County”. People chuckled, and were interested in listening to the rest of her speech. I think this was a great hook, because she properly used audience analysis. The majority of the audience was middle-aged women who own their own businesses in Orange County, so they could all relate. The conclusion was great, and tied her speech up but introduced the next speaker at the same time. Her speech could have been a little more organized though, it was more just listing things that they did, and I got bored. A thing she did do well was use transitions. She led one point into another. I remember her saying at one point saying, “Now that I have spoken to you about what we have accomplished, I want to tell you about what we will be doing this year to promote our goals”.
The part where the speech faulted, if any, was in the delivery. I think my mom was really nervous because this is her first year doing it. She wasn’t sure what to expect. The more she was in front of the crowd, the more she got used to it though. Her pace of words was going pretty fast at first, and that is how I could tell she was nervous. She did annunciate her words well though; I could understand everything she was saying. Through taking notes, I noted that she used a filler like “uh…” and looked down to her notes a few times. Her hand gestures helped her look more natural and made the audience feel at ease.
In regards to her content, it was very appropriate for the occasion. To have background on the organization and event you are attending is necessary. She didn’t give too many facts and statistics, which is good. She also kept a positive attitude and made sure that she was speaking positively about the organization to promote new members to join. It made the people feel good about why they were there. Her thesis was “I am going to tell you a little about NAWBO as an organization”. Her thesis preview statement was “I will be telling you what it is, what we do, and what our upcoming goals are for this year.” Those were her main points, and in her conclusion she introduced the first speaker. She had an ethical responsibility to make sure she promoted her own organization and give factual information. So she did not make up false facts to make it sound better than it is.
For my public speech evaluation, I attended a speech by Kathy Dawson, my mother. It was on Tuesday, October 5th, 2010 at the Hilton Hotel in Costa Mesa, at 6:00 PM. She is president of an organization called NAWBO (National Association of Women Business Owners). This is their biggest event of the year called Remarkable Women Awards in which various speakers give their stories of starting their own business in an inspiring manner. There were a variety of speakers, and four main speeches, including my mom. I will be critiquing my mother’s speech. She was there to sort of MC and introduce everyone, but before that she gave an informative speech. She welcomed everyone, and discussed the organization, what they do, and what they have done this year.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, to grab everyone’s attention, she used a hook that was a joke. She said “Wow, look at you all out there, I feel like I’m on an episode of the Real Housewives of Orange County”. People chuckled, and were interested in listening to the rest of her speech. I think this was a great hook, because she properly used audience analysis. The majority of the audience was middle-aged women who own their own businesses in Orange County, so they could all relate. The conclusion was great, and tied her speech up but introduced the next speaker at the same time. Her speech could have been a little more organized though, it was more just listing things that they did, and I got bored. A thing she did do well was use transitions. She led one point into another. I remember her saying at one point saying, “Now that I have spoken to you about what we have accomplished, I want to tell you about what we will be doing this year to promote our goals”.
The part where the speech faulted, if any, was in the delivery. I think my mom was really nervous because this is her first year doing it. She wasn’t sure what to expect. The more she was in front of the crowd, the more she got used to it though. Her pace of words was going pretty fast at first, and that is how I could tell she was nervous. She did annunciate her words well though; I could understand everything she was saying. Through taking notes, I noted that she used a filler like “uh…” and looked down to her notes a few times. Her hand gestures helped her look more natural and made the audience feel at ease.
In regards to her content, it was very appropriate for the occasion. To have background on the organization and event you are attending is necessary. She didn’t give too many facts and statistics, which is good. She also kept a positive attitude and made sure that she was speaking positively about the organization to promote new members to join. It made the people feel good about why they were there. Her thesis was “I am going to tell you a little about NAWBO as an organization”. Her thesis preview statement was “I will be telling you what it is, what we do, and what our upcoming goals are for this year.” Those were her main points, and in her conclusion she introduced the first speaker. She had an ethical responsibility to make sure she promoted her own organization and give factual information. So she did not make up false facts to make it sound better than it is.
PART I :
ReplyDeleteFor my Speech Observation Project, I chose to attend “Walking Wisdom: An Evening with Gotham and Deepak Chopra” at 7:30 P.M. on October 6th, 2010 in Bovard Auditorium. . This father-son duo spoke on the book they recently authored together entitled, Walking Wisdom, a poignant and powerful dialogue between fathers, sons, and dogs. Yes, I said dogs, and trust me, I was just as fascinated to hear that the relationship between man and dog was one of the central structures at work in a novel by Deepak Chopra.
Walking Wisdom chronicles the companionship and love possible between dog and owner, analyzes the way dogs view the world and what we can learn from them, while simultaneously including the complexities and consequences of becoming a parent. Deepak Chopra is Gotham Chopra’s father, and Gotham Chopra has recently become a father himself. This novel encourages the reader to take a step back and analyze a dog’s behavior, or the behavior of an infant with new eyes. Deepak and Gotham assert that both the infant and the dog have things to teach us as more sophisticated thinkers. The simplistic observation of their behavior serves to illustrate more general or abstract concepts relating to wisdom, spirituality, and enlightenment.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteThe event began with an introduction, moved to a question and answer session led by a USC Student, and then opened the floor up to questions from the audience. The way that this event was structured engendered a less than entertaining experience. The USC student who introduced Deepak and Gotham as well as led the Q& A portion of the event, interestingly enough, turned out to be the most engaging speaker of the three. He provided both father and son a glowing introduction and made sure to highlight his Indian background and Muslim faith so as to better relate to the audience as well as Deepak and Gotham, enhancing his ethos or speaker credibility. He varied his pitch and tone, included moments of audience interaction, communicated well through nonverbal signals (including facial expression) and articulated his words clearly. Both Deepak and Gotham struggled with all of the positives that I mention above.
Deepak Chopra, the man who has become a spiritual guru to celebrities and has somewhat arisen to god-like status in some circles, had a less than commanding presence on stage. Though it could be due to the fact that he was seated, he seemed to possess very little power. Unlike a speech by Martin Luther King, for example, it is impossible to hang on Deepak’s every word. His speech is very muddled, and monotone, and though his accent is very prominent contributing to the difficulty in understanding him, he makes it nearly impossible to become engulfed in what he is saying. Gotham, on the other hand, is a slightly better speaker with a slightly elevated stage presence. He emphasizes the points he is making, whereas Deepak will skim over any points he makes. It is almost as if Deepak gets lost in his own thoughts and does not use language conducive to helping the audience connect to his wavelength, what we have characterized in class as “colloquial language”. I struggled to follow Deepak’s philosophical musings as he did not analyze his audience’s conventional wisdom or the demographic he was speaking to in order to adapt his content to make it most enjoyable for those listening.
PART 3:
ReplyDeleteAs far as content, one of the main things that Deepak spoke on was that we should recognize and understand, through our relationship with dogs, the importance of living in the present. Deepak says that dogs have memory, as illustrated through their ability to learn commands such as “sit” or “stay” but that they also don’t ruminate so much in the past that they allow their fears or constructions of what has happened to interfere with the future. Gotham drew the comparison between dogs and children in that they both have a pure innocence about them that is admirable—they experience joy in a way that has not been tainted by the world. Another powerful sentiment that I took from this evening at Bovard was the idea that when we become so hysterical about seeking fulfillment or pursuing an end goal whether it be in a career or relationship or otherwise, that we must take time to recognize it and enjoy it when it has been achieved.
My mother is in an interfaith book club that has tea once a month and is always asking me to help her order he books on amazon (because no matter how many times I explain it to her, she can’t comprehend that all she has to do is click “checkout” ) I decided to go see Mohja Kahf because I remembered her name from one of the books I bought for my mother. My mom read “The girl in the Tangereen Scarf” written by Mohja Kahf and told me that is about a Muslim girl, growing up in Indiana. And although I have not read her book, I am sure it has similar comparisons of relating two cultures, like her potery jam at Ground Zero.Like Adam, I also went to Ground Zero and and saw a reading of poetry and prose by Mohja Kahf. She uses poetry to show educate her culture to an audience that has little to no idea of what it is like to be a Muslim woman. She takes it one step further by comparing and contrasting her Muslim culture with American culture. This seems like it would be quite the challenge, considering her audience IS mostly white, American, and comes from a stable socioeconomic background. She did do a good job of attempting to make her poems relate able by bringing in things in her life that American college students could relate to: like sibling family problems and teenage desires for independence. I think she has to be pretty much fearless for being able to try and make her audience understand that their own culture is not the best and sometimes even wrong. I think maybe that’s why she likes speaking to college kids, because she believes college kids are more understanding. College kids want to learn, that’s why were in school, right? I believe she uses her words, poems, and monologues as a form of education. I think her theme was being radical. Her delivery was shook me almost as much as her words. When I was watching her I felt like she was doing the exercises we did in class where Dave rapped, and Ashley talked like someone from SNL. But Mohja Kahf made it work. I think its because she was so confident and so passionate about what she was saying. Rhythm and tone stood out the most for me. She started talking normally but as she continued into her poems she got louder and louder, seeming to continuously drive every comparison in to you’re mind with her volume alone. She was not going to let you walk away with out at least listening to what she had to say. Her pace was also interesting, it would constantly change from fast to slow, but it had a nice flow and good rhythm. When she became more passionate about a point she would get faster and faster, leading up to big finale where she would pause and then disclose the realization with confidence and power.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing I took away was her confidence. There was not a single moment that she did not have complete control of her audience. If she felt like her audience started to lose interest (cause ill admit, even I spaced out a little) her voice was so quick to snap me out of whatever daydream I was in. I think it comes from her background and her passion for what she is speaking about, but that power, control and confidence is definitely something I desire as a public speaker.
Everyone can be an artist in their respective fields of interest. In the world, a mathematician’s number calculation is just as much a work of art as a painter’s brush stroke on a canvas. On Tuesday, October 12th, at 7:00 PM, I went to see Anna Deavere Smith, internationally known playwright and actress, give a talk in the Grand Ballroom of the Ronald Tutor Campus Center. The occasion was to celebrate the Inauguration of USC’s 11th President, C. L. Max Nikias and the title of her presentation was “Engaging the World: The Role of the Artist in Society.” Anna Deavere Smith was introduced by Dean Puzo, who despite being the Dean to the School of Theatre was not very enthusiastic in her introduction, but merely read Ms. Smith’s biography in a rather monotone and almost uninterested sounding manner. I understand that Dean Puzo was not scheduled as the speaker for the event, but it was still her job to, in a sense, set the tone for what the audience should expect for the rest of the evening.
ReplyDeleteAnna Deavere Smith’s introduction to her talk began with her telling us a personal anecdote about public performing and how she used to walk out onto the stage and bow at the beginning of her performances, until she saw Dudamel perform at Carnegie Hall. By using this tactic of a personal anecdote at the beginning of her speech, Ms. Smith sounded friendly and conversational and allowed for the audience to attempt a personal connection with her. Also, in her introduction, Ms. Smith speaks about the purpose of her presence to give the talk, namely the reason being, to celebrate the inauguration of Max Nikias and the subject of her talk regarding the role of the artist in society. Throughout the rest of her talk, Ms. Smith makes sure to mention Nikias, thereby interweaving him throughout her talk and reminding the audience of the purpose of her talk. Ms. Smith’s conclusion likewise ended with addressing Nikias’ skills as a leader as well as making final comments on the artist’s
role in the world.
Anna Deavere Smith’s delivery of her speech, taking into consideration things like vocal variety, rate, enunciation, volume, eye contact, etc., in my opinion was very well delivered. Smith evokes her acting background utilizing accents when delivering the monologues, some of which were from her one-woman play, Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992. By doing this, she helps the audience become more involved with her pieces, allowing them to feel as if they are actually speaking to the characters she is portraying. Her volume and tone were loud and involved. She was enthusiastic and made the audience feel like she really enjoyed what she was relaying to them. She did not read the whole time from her paper, but made eye contact with the audience allowing herself to transform into each character. She also stepped away from the podium, not confining herself to one area, but handled herself on stage with an air of confidence and comfort. Ms. Smith did not use any visual aids, but I did not feel like this detracted from her presentation, the purpose was more important to understand the words that were being relayed and the importance of the stories that Ms. Smith was telling.
Post Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe Content of Anna Deavere Smith’s speech was appropriate for the audience who came to help celebrate Max Nikias as well as to learn about the artist’s role in the world. Smith had a responsibility to explain to the audience about the artist’s role in society and I feel that she did and more. She took us into the lives of various people some Hurricane Katrina survivors as in the story of Kirsten Kurtsburgh, the nurse at Charity Hospital or Mrs. Yong Su Hun who experienced the Los Angeles riots of the early 90s. To prepare for her speech Smith had to know her subjects and I feel that she knew them so well that it was portrayed by her ability to imitate the manner in which each individual that she referenced spoke in the manner of their accent, tone, and inflection. She knew her subjects so well that she was able to essentially become them. Smith wanted to share with us what she called “American Music,” the dialogues of various Americans who through careers such as nurses, governors or homemakers are also artists in the world. To Smith art is a way to talk about human compassion as well as a way to understand the plight that many face. What I have learned from Anna Deavere Smith’s speech is that by truly understanding one’s subject so much that you can become that character or subject, you then have the ability to be confident and give a well rounded and informed presentation that is capable of informing as well as entertaining, something I felt Ms. Smith did brilliantly.
Delivery
ReplyDeleteWolf Gruner is a professor of History at USC. He was the first speaker on the panel. He had a strong accent but he compensated for it by talking at a slower pace. His speech was extemporaneous so he was able to engage the audience, and he did so in a very effective manner. He fidgeted with his foot underneath the table, however, which was somewhat distracting. Small things like that can make a big difference.
Conclusion
Wolfs biggest flaw in his presentation lay in his conclusion. He did not do a good enough job, in my opinion, of tying in his conclusion with the rest of his speech and it ended up feeling like a red herring. As a listener, I could not discern relevance or his intent. A more elaborate introduction to the anecdote would have made it a stronger conclusion.
Question-and-answer section
He did a good job of making sure he answered the exact questions that were posed by the audience. He did not attempt to answer questions he didn’t understand or give vague answers that required little effort to respond. He would also repeat the questions back to the audience in order to make sure they were included in the exchange.
Overall, the panel was executed very professionally and every speaker was knowledgeable and confident on stage. Despite there being many topics addressed, they all tied into to the core concept of the event and fit in with the structure of the presentation.