Journal - for October 22nd

With profiles as the topic of discussion in class this week, I decided to look into some interesting profiles that I stumbled on in the New York Times. I came across an article about Sonia Nassery Cole, a movie director who has been shooting a film, using Afghanistan as the setting. I'm not entirely sure if this is a profile, when I look at it now, but it may as well be a feature that focuses mainly on Cole and her movie. Which, for the purpose of addressing style and structure, seems to be rather similar to that of a profile. A question that I actually wanted to ask in class though had to do with what the difference actually is between a feature and a profile...My guess is that a profile is allowed to go more in depth about the subject, (it can be about a person and their hobbies, lifestyle, interesting facts, etc.) while a feature is more so focused on topics on the whole, a lighter news story, that doesn't have to be about the details of a person's life. (There's more to this definition but this is the best I can come up with right now.)

The first thing I noticed in the NY Times feature/profile, (for simplicity, I'm just going to say article) was the very straightforward lede that the writer, Brooks Barnes, chose to go with.

Lede: "Sonia Nassery Cole knew that shooting a movie on location in Afghanistan could get her killed. The most vivid reminder came a few weeks before filming, she said, when militants located her leading actress and cut off both of her feet.

But Ms. Cole, an Afghan expatriate with a flair for the dramatic and a history of not taking no for an answer, had her mind made up. Unable to find another actress to take the part — the film is overtly critical of the Taliban — Ms. Cole, 45, decided to play the role herself."

Split into two sentences, it addresses the key points of the article, but what it doesn't do, is use much creative language. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just that it is not the same as any of the profiles we've read for class. (In the next paragraph, I'll address the Lois Weisberg as a comparison in style.) It had a very news-like feel to it, and I thought it was because of how intense the piece of information was that the writer just dropped in the lede. It's a fantastic hook too, because it had me right off the bat wanting to read more.  Barnes' take on this entire article was not narrative at all though, it was completely news-like, which I found to be interesting. The topic itself, is technically categorized under entertainment, so I wondered why Barnes chose to take this angle for the topic. Once again, it's not a negative comment at all, it's actually quite intriguing, which is why I take note of it. Looking at this story, there was definitely an opportunity to paint a picture for the audience with a scene out of Afghanistan, but instead, I got to read about the people who suffered through the making of this movie in Afghanistan. I really appreciated the way Barnes integrated several other sources into the article, who really helped relay the idea that was being presented: Afghanistan is a dangerous place to film a movie.

Perhaps without even realizing, I've figured out the difference between Features and Profiles, after looking at this article.

Contrastingly, "Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg" offered an entirely different subject. All opinions aside,  this was a fantastically written piece. Why? The lede tells us right off the bat what kind of subject we're dealing with. Not a Frank Sinatra type, no, but a woman who "brings people together." The writer, Malcolm Gladwell, does a great job of painting a picture of this woman for the audience, without actually saying too much about how she looks. From that, we get the impression that who she is, can be based off of her manner and personality. The entire story has a narrative feel to it, because I just felt like I was reading a story. I love how Gladwell showed without just telling, because all of his descriptions that had to do with Weisberg, were examples of encounters she's had with other people.

Ever since we discussed the Frank Sinatra profile in class, I've been reading profiles especially, with an eye out for certain things. One of the things I particularly enjoyed about that piece, was how Talese was able to give the audience an impression of Sinatra's style and personality, through the syntax and grammar of his paragraphs. Long, complex sentences with tons of description, gave me an overwhelming feel, which ultimately made me decide that that is how one might feel around Sinatra: overwhelmed by his presence and persona. So when I read the profile on Weisberg, I paid particular attention to these elements of paragraph structure, and I found that the sentences were much more average in length, but packed with details about people that she's met, or encounters that she's had. (This can be said with the exception of the first graph, where Gladwell describes her personality and physical characteristics, which are put into a sort of list format...) There's a lot of story re-telling, and sharing of experiences, so what I gathered from that, was that Weisberg is a person that people talk about. People talk about her experiences with other people, and people remember her, because she has the ability to connect people. The fact that the entire first 'chapter' if you will, is dedicated to encounters Weisberg has had, is totally indicative of a personality that is to be remembered. I think that's the most important thing to take away from this profile: showing that a person is memorable upon first encounter, is much more affective than just saying that this person has a memorable personality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/movies/22tulip.html?scp=1&sq=celebrity%20profiles&st=cse