#but now yall get an even less comprehensible version :))))

[palukoo]

So! @thxngam and @claudiasjeancregg enabled me to talk about that scene in Dead Irish Writers and oh boy did I run with it! 

So... the scene is super interesting for several reasons... let’s dive in...

It’s a scene that’s just women, and, by West Wing standards, several women, and you realize you’ve never really seen all the main women together without the men before that, I think. I mean, you also really haven’t seen how Donna and Abbey interact, which is why this scene is so good

The four of them actually have two scenes with this sort of thing off the top of my head-- this, and then during Zoey’s kidnapping arc with Amy and CJ trying to stop Abbey from going into the press room (though Donna doesn’t talk in that one)

I probably will bring this up again but on top of this not being a dynamic the audience has seen before, I don’t think it’s a dynamic that they’ve had before in this combination... like... 

Any group of two of them I will accept having spent some time together, though I doubt Donna and Abbey are close (partially due to the power dynamics I’ll get into later) and Donna and Amy don’t know each other well

Any group of the three of them? Not so much

Amy, CJ, and Abbey maybe, because they do say or imply that Amy knows both of them and is friends (?) with both of them before we ever see her, but... I don’t see her as being particularly close with the campaign or administration, so... (but I’m SO glad we get it here and during the kidnapping arc)

Amy, CJ, and Donna is a dynamic I adore and that I think this scene kinda opens the door for it in a lot of ways but again, since I don’t think Amy and Donna are close at all at this point and Amy’s not that close the the administration at this point, I don’t see it

CJ, Donna, and Abbey I will absolutely accept actually but not in any sort of like meaningful or non professional context. The way Donna reacts to being invited in in this scene? This is new for her

Amy, Donna, and Abbey? Nope. Love it as a concept, but nope

So the four of them? Yeah, no

Which is relevant in like. The way women get to interact on screen and like. The way women are isolated in male dominated fields

(Amy, working for the WLC, is certainly in a less male dominated subset of the male dominated field of politics, as is Donna since a bunch of the assistants are women, and I get that Abbey has a very specific and gendered position in the show, but she and CJ are both absolutely in male driven fields)

And it’s relevant because Abbey’s shifting her anger into this like, feminist framing where she doesn’t not have a point (I’ll get there) but it’s also not really the whole story at all, which is why I think it was very smart of them to have it be this group to call her on it, because from any of the guys it would’ve been... easily yikes?

The other absolutely crazy thing here is the power dynamics which I know people have talked about before and CJ even calls attention to but you’ve got like

Abbey is sort of CJ’s boss, and her friend, but the nature of their positions in the administration are weird and they’re both honestly undermined a fair amount but a lot of the admin doesn’t take First Lady/Abbey seriously, so! It’s interesting!

Not in a direct sort of way but CJ clearly has more power than Donna, and they’re also friends

Do the math on Abbey and Donna, plus again we don’t really see them interact before this

Amy sort of exists outside of this, because she’s the only one who doesn’t work in the White House, but that also like. Is a dynamic in it of itself. She also definitely has a more visible and overtly powerful position than Donna and is sort dating Donna’s boss, so?

Also Abbey used to babysit for Amy which just makes this. A lot!

So I’m gonna try to sort of break the scene up into parts and do it like that. If I wanted to make this even longer, I would start before this scene because there’s a lot of relevant context/lead up, but I’ll just mention it

Donna’s just found out she’s not a citizen which is a lot

Amy’s kind of pissed at Josh who’s kind of pissed at her

Abbey’s also kind of pissed at Josh probably, especially if she caught any of what he was saying to Amy

Abbey didn’t want a whole thing and is obviously stressed about her license

CJ’s the one who caught that the guy was recusing himself and had to tell Abbey

“Claudia Jean?” “Yes, ma’am?” “Let’s go get drunk.” “Okay” should be a master class in acting

Also relevant is Abbey choosing CJ and Amy to get drunk with for this. They’re career women in politics who are her friends and who should understand this sort of.

So they get to the residence... “Awasiwi Odinak, far from the things of man...”

Abbey instantly cuts to complaining about Jed bc she’s angry at him and in her defense only some of it is misplaced!

But like... she says “what a jackass” and CJ immediately says “I’m gonna open the wine” in a very “can we not do this” way, and Amy just... is there. Hanging out. Trying to open drawers

As a note on that there is no way Amy’s being like. Genuine there. I love how awkward she is but she’s not about to take notes while getting drunk with them. She’s being awkward and funny and avoidant and I love her (like as a random note Amy is... very rarely still)

When she comes to sit with them and sits on the arm of the couch, it’s a really interesting detail that I see as her sitting as far away from them as she can without it seeming so blatant

And Abbey keeps talking, and neither of them really respond 

CJ with the corkscrew is of course iconic and funny and I think it’s part of the reason the scene works and it makes sense because CJ’s uncomfortable in this scene. Her rambling about the corkscrew prevents her, momentarily, from being in this uncomfortable position that she’s put into so much more later where she’s thrown into the issues of Abbey and Jed’s marriage and she really doesn’t want to be because she has a ton of respect and care for both of them

What I mean by “the reason the scene works” is that it needs to keep being drawn back to funny before it can snap. It’s a very specific kind of bubbling tension, and I really like it

Abbey saying “I’m board certified in thoracic surgery” brings you back to the fact that maybe she won’t be for very long, but it’s said as a joke and moved on from quickly, so you can’t dwell on it

I describe Abbey in this scene as “erratically vulnerable” which I don’t know if that’s quite right, but I think there’s maybe a glimpse of her realizing what she’s saying here, and the specific implications in that moment, and then changing subjects immediately

And of course she asks Amy about Josh...

What I find really interesting about this is Amy’s response of “he’s... you know... he’s adjusting.”

Amy doesn’t pull punches with Josh usually, but she does here (she also seems to earlier when she tells him he’s right, but then she gets Abbey to bug him) and I think it’s because we’re seeing her talk about Josh, not to Josh

Abbey says “well let him adjust faster. Jackass.” which is again, funny, but so so indicative of how frustrated she is and how she’s taking it out because literally earlier in the episode she says to Amy and Josh something like “I still haven’t gotten credit for this (I love them and their responses of “we’ll see” and “jury’s still out” to that)

Enter Donna!

Side note on timing, Donna walking in as Abbey insults Josh vs Abbey walking up as Josh insults Abbey

Donna coming in shifts this scene a lot

For one thing, it sets up this interesting play (that feels like me being really contrived and probably is) on audience proxy, that if I get into will only complicate things so I guess... if you’re curious, ask

(Donna plays audience proxy a lot in The West Wing as they explain political concepts and whatnot, and it’s not a thing you see so much in these really character driven scenes because it becomes unnecessary and sort of clunky

But the thing is that in this scene at this point, Amy feels very audience proxy-y... I will concede that in any given scene it’s easy for me to default, in analysis, to Amy and her perspective, but she feels very much like an observer of CJ’s jokes and Abbey’s anger thus far in the scene-- it definitely shifts back to Donna after the fade out)

I also want to shout out Donna’s body language here! The way she steps in cautiously and plays with her hands as she talks is really good at showing her discomfort, and I think it’s neat to draw a parallel here between her and Amy a minute or two before. Like, seriously though, watch her hands in this scene. It’s so good

But Donna walking in this room shifts things!!

Pulls attention to the... D plot? I don’t know, it’s the B plot of the scene, but there’s a lot going on in this episode, which is funny in the context of watching it if not for Donna, and away from Abbey’s heavy plot here, like a pressure valve in that tension I was talking about. Donna looks nervous here, but everyone else seems to relax

It also makes this more of a... White House thing. Like, because Abbey and Donna specifically probably have not been friends much, it further complicates the lines between personal and professional relationships here

But let’s actually talk about the dialogue a little bit, because I think it’s really funny that she’s there looking for Amy for Josh, when Josh knows she left to get drunk with CJ and Abbey, and there’s not a second in that room where Amy is going to leave. It somehow feels shoehorned/plot device-y but also in character at the same time?

The line is “Josh was looking for Amy” to which Abbey says “She’s right here” and Amy just waves weirdly with half her hand since she’s holding her glass. Yes I know I keep fixating a little on Amy’s physicality, but it’s SO good

And then Abbey says “Where have you been all night?”

One of my FAVORITE exchanges this episode is “It’s a little tough to explain, ma’am.” “Tougher to explain than secretly prescribing Betaseron?”

The way Abbey jokes about it!! It’s very specific because it’s not an “I’m moving past it so I can joke about it” it’s that she’s specifically bitter and it comes out... not hostile, but something

That’s sort of what I mean by erratic vulnerability?

Donna explaining the citizenship issue with CJ’s convenient questions is a nice break, like I said, and Amy’s “you seem pretty calm about it” gives Donna the room to freak out about it a little

And Donna freaking out about it a little gives Abbey room to be the “rational” one? Not exactly?

It’s also just a nice contrast in how they show their anxieties and it works really well for them as characters

Donna goes to leave, and Abbey invites her to stay

Which is also interesting? Since like I said, I don’t think they’re friends

But it’s also super in character because there’s something very grandiose about Abbey and it’s there in this scene. Like she... wants an audience? Even as she’s sort of trying to get away from this room where she’s forced to perform? I don’t know

Donna’s genuine excitement here is so cute

She sits even further from them than Amy had, on a chair instead of the couches

Another great exchange? “I probably shouldn’t drink, though” “I wouldn’t worry about it!”

There’s also something a little awkward and desperate about Amy’s “Canadian, huh?” like she’s trying to fill the silence and keep it from driving straight back to Abbey’s anger and identity crisis, and I just like how they play off each other here

CJ "opens" the bottle, Abbey says they'll decant it, Amy says "Now it's a party" and does the most iconic slide from the arm of the couch onto the cushions with Abbey

And then it cuts back in, and they're all boozier, especially, evidently, CJ!

But there’s something to be said, if we’re tracing body language, for Donna now being on the couch and Amy leaning into Abbey so much

With the later context that they’ve known each other since Amy was a kid, I accept it, but it’s absolutely crazy in the context of Abbey as the First Lady and Amy joining them because “you think I don’t wanna write a book some day?”

I mean, I love it either way, but it makes more sense with the retroactive context

I love love love CJ laughing and rambling about the cork and the wine and then you get another really important shift. Because Abbey seems annoyed in general but more amused than anything by CJ’s tangents before the fade out, and she’s at this point way less endeared.

Which totally makes sense, of course, ‘cause if you’re stressed and frustrated, anything is going to annoy you, including and honestly especially your friend being rambly about something completely irrelevant

I also love Donna looking around at Abbey and Amy while CJ is talking trying to make like conspiratorially amused eye contact, it’s a really subtle, human detail

Anyways, Abbey interrupts CJ to make her stop (This is another body language thing where I love how leaned back she is, how she rubs at her forehead as CJ keeps going on)

And it’s here I’m gonna start being REALLY pedantic probably

“Mrs. Bartlet, I wanted to ask you a question but I’m not sure how” “What?” 

First of all, this feels so... soft? This is actually why I’ll accept the babysitter thing

Amy playing with Abbey’s dress is so! good! Look, Amy’s so fidgety and I adore it!!

Also, I love this because Amy clearly doesn’t really want to ask, but she’s also not good at keeping quiet when something is bothering her

“Well, if the most they can give you is a year's suspension, is it...?” “That big a deal?”

Amy stops herself! Because she doesn’t want to say it! Or doesn’t know how to 

Amy never actually criticizes her in this scene, which is neat, because Amy’s practically introduced to us through criticizing Abbey. One of her first lines in the show is “[Abbey] isn’t doing enough for women” and she has lines like “I’ll keep poking him with a stick. That’s how I show my love” but in Privateers, Josh also tells her “it’s okay to tell her you disagree with her” while Amy’s refusing to go against her. It’s not inconsistent-- I just think Amy has a think about criticizing Abbey to her face, kind of, and here, while Abbey’s this upset, of course she’s hesitant at best

“Yes.” “Yes. I'm a doctor. It's not like changing your major. You of all people should...”

Abbey really says this to Amy “who has had seven jobs in three years” Gardner, Amy “and I’d [stake my job and career on a political issue] again” Gardner... “you of all people should...” Amy’s a career driven feminist lobbyist, but she’s not someone who can tie her identity to a job which is the real issue Abbey’s having, she just wants to frame it like this

I love the way Amy looks down during this, too

(“You of all people should...” makes a lot more sense, actually, after Amy loses her job because of her and Josh’s political fights over marriage incentives in welfare reauthorization)

((Also, how many times did Donna change her major? It’s not relevant, really, it just makes this an even funnier room for Abbey to say this in))

“I mean, women talk about their husbands overshadowing their careers. Mine got eaten”

She’s valid for being angry about this, but also she’s conflating things. She’s not losing her license just because of Jed

Like, it’s fair for her to hate how much of herself and her career and her life she’s had to give up because her husband is the president. I think it’s important, even with Donna’s also valid criticism here in a minute, that Abbey’s not being irrationally upset. It’s a choice she played a part in making, but it was never going to be a good choice for her, and it isn’t really fair to her, and it isn’t really any one person’s fault

And yes, I DO love how Abbey talks with her hands here. It’s that kind of grandiose thing about her

“Your husband got eaten” “My career” “Yeah, well, I’m on dangling modifier patrol” “What is your problem?”

I’m going to lose it a little bit here, because it’s really funny at face value

Like, this is one of my favorite tww comedic moments. The timing is so good. But trying to analyze this scene? Watching this scene multiple times? This is them being snippy with each other. CJ is upset here, with Abbey

(One of the things I really like about Sorkin-style rapid fire dialogue is that there’s a rewatchability where you pick up on different things each time)

CJ’s really subtle about it, which is... CJ is very subtle about her emotions a lot and there’s something similar you can look at throughout the show as a whole and also this episode in particular with the different ways that she, Abbey, and Jed learn to put on facades and deal with being very, very public people. Abbey in particular in this episode has a lot of rapid demeanor shifts, but you get the same thing from CJ going to brief in some of the heavier episodes, or, like, Jed at Leo’s funeral

I mean, really, the “What is your problem” feels way more jarring than anything CJ has said because outwardly she’s just been joking, but there’s... a tension or something? A flatness to her voice? A lack of amusement? It’s a really stark contrast to how she’s been overly amused about the cork or whatever. It’s good, and I like that Abbey picks up on it and doesn’t let it keep going unspoken

I do wanna take a second here because CJ doesn’t fully answer, I don’t think, so I wanna answer for her

A part of it is just her loyalty to Jed, too, and specifically to the president I think, and the awkwardness of being thrown into Abbey being so disparaging about that 

I also think that, as a character who takes on a lot of personal responsibility and, to an extent, guilt (less than some of the others, or at least less overtly), and internalizes a lot, it sort of bothers her that Abbey’s refusing to take responsibility here, like, at all, and that Abbey is externalizing all of her anger

The other thing is that we do unpack all of the team feeling betrayed and upset and angry with Jed and even sort of Leo during the whole MS plot, but we don’t really deal with any of them being angry with Abbey

And none of them would be, particularly, because she’s not their boss, their career, their friend, but she is CJ’s friend

She tells CJ “I wanted to be there when you were told” but she didn’t say “I wanted to tell you” (which. I could write a lot more about this but this is already too long)

And I think CJ hasn’t had any opportunity to address or unpack that

Oh, and here we see CJ refilling her own AND Donna’s glasses, meaning Donna is drinking. I would love to see the full transition between the scenes tbh

“Are you First Lady right now?” I love CJ’s sigh leading up to that, the way she doesn’t want to get into it

“What are you talking about?” “Sometimes you like to talk, and I think that’s great, but sometimes you're Abbey and sometimes you’re my boss, and I respect both very much, but--”

HOW is CJ this eloquent moments after the corkscrew monologue? 

No, but this is really it, and speaking of taking things under the surface and calling them out (wow, I did it, the whole analysis, right there...), CJ is just shining a massive light on the weird power dynamics here, and that everyone in this room other than Abbey has a really, really valid reason to feel uneasy in this conversation because of those power dynamic

“I’m Abbey.” “Yes, I agree with her”

Cutting it off right here because I love how quick they are with this. Like, it’s Sorkin, so duh, but Abbey’s hand up cutting CJ off and as soon as she’s spoken, CJ jumping in to say what she wants to

This is interesting because Amy hasn’t exactly made a point for CJ to agree with, also. Like, it’s supposed to be “is it really a big deal?” but Amy did not say that. I just think it’s neat

Also, because I’m obsessed with CJ and Amy’s implied friendship, I love this moment

“Look, they take this job away from me, I got nothing. I don't have a cat. I could get one, but I don't have one. Frankly, I'm not wild about cats. I don't hate them. I'm just not... I could learn to like them, I guess, if I...”

CJ losing the thread here again gives the scene it’s rhythm... it’s ebb and flow of tension and humor... it’s funny, to watch this, but you also kind of want to get back to the point, too

“CJ?” (with the pointed arm motion, too) “You've got a husband, children, a home and a life. And we're talking about one year of your not having a medical license.”

I think CJ is mostly being like “It’s not all you are” and sort of “stop complaining” but it’s also a step away from a point that Amy also ends up approaching, which is... First Lady is a weird position, and they do something specific with it in the west wing

Essentially, neither Abbey nor Helen wants it and it sort of becomes about sacrifice and loyalty and public and political and private life balance, but the First Lady is a public figure, with responsibilities and powers and careers, and it’s fair to on a professional level be upset with Abbey for being so dismissive about those

It’s also fair for Abbey to resent being thrust into this role she doesn’t want

“Jed got censured, and that came with no tangible penalty, and it was a banner headline, and he's having a slow nervous breakdown.”

The way I interpret this is both that she’s bitter at having to bear the tangible penalty of the two of them, and she’s trying to justify being upset at it, at the perceived injustice

ALSO, Abbey’s voice here makes me want to cry, because she sounds like she’s about to cry, and I realize half of this analysis is me saying “Yeah they were right to call Abbey out” but like. You do feel for Abbey here. You understand why she made the choices she did and why she’s upset at having made them, at being put in a position to make them

CJ looking away and almost rolling her eyes here is also really good, she’s so frustrated at Abbey just willfully missing the point 

“That’s different” “Why?” “‘Cause it is, and you know it.”

The thing that makes it different is actually, I think, basically the point Donna’s about to make. Like CJ’s close to making that same point, because the thing that makes it different is that what Abbey did is directly related to her doing her job poorly, essentially, and what Jed did isn’t, so of course she’s gonna get a more tangible penalty

“Okay, I’m First Lady again” “Okay.”

Abbey saying that is obviously a shield but also feels so vulnerable, like an admission that she can’t take it

CJ’s tone here is so good, too. Like she is backing off but the way she says it like “Okay well if you don’t wanna hear it that’s fine I guess”

Again, god, watch their hands

“You are First Lady, Abbey.” “Yes.” “And it’s not like it’s been a detour from healthcare” “No” “What, you’ve expanded Medicare to...” etc etc

Cutting in after that and keeping talking about it is... pretty bold honestly

The thing here is that Amy’s both arguing CJ’s point, basically, of like, you still have things, a career, and reassuring Abbey and being like it’s not giving you or your priorities or your identity up

It’s very smart, and it reminds me that Amy is, in very specific circumstances, really good at this sort of communication

I also love that she can list all this off. Like, of course she can, but I love it

When CJ says “There’s plenty of stuff left” I really wonder if she’s supposed to mean to list or to do but I like the sort of ambiguity there

Here’s another bit where the tension subsides, and the thing is, this is a weird sort of fake out ‘cause it almost feels like that’s going to be it, but no one has said the thing, the tension hasn’t fully erupted yet

“That’s not the point” “What’s the point?”

The point is that Abbey never wanted this, it’s not her, and god, I want to hug her

“I’m a doctor” could be a really poignant beat because that’s also the thing Abbey hasn’t explicitly said yet, or at least not emphasized, that this is about feeling like her identity is being taken away

But do they let us sit with this line? No. If they gave us a beat here, Donna’s line would feel weird on several levels

“Oh, Mrs. Bartlet, for crying out loud, you were also a doctor when your husband said, ‘Give me the drugs, and don't tell anybody,’ and you said, ‘Okay.’”

Donna has not spoken, I should point out, since before the fade to black. It makes the line really slap you in the face. Everything about this line, from timing (immediately after line before, long pause after it) to who is saying it is designed for impact, surprise

She’s also saying it very nonchalantly, half laughing. There’s a lot about her delivery that is exasperated, genuinely frustrated criticism, but it’s also just... almost playful teasing for a second in there

More on why it’s Donna saying it, though

I think you just don’t expect Donna to be... it’s not quite rude. Antagonistic at all? Beyond like lightly teasing the others? Certainly not to Abbey especially with the lead in of her being surprised and honored by being invited to drink with them

Amy criticizing Abbey doesn’t have the same impact. She’s not a main character, you’re probably gonna take Abbey’s side, really, and Amy criticizing her, like I said, isn’t new

You can’t take the personal elements out of CJ saying it. You can’t. They don’t give us a ton of context on CJ and Abbey’s friendship, but it’s very clearly deep, and CJ has also already explicitly backed off as far as this conversation

Remember what I said about audience proxy? Donna’s kinda their go to every-man, and this also is a window into how the public would feel about it. For the like, hundredth time, Donna and Abbey are not close, and she’s as close as you can get in this show, maybe, to an objective messenger for this while it’s still from a trusted, likeable main character. You have to balance feeling for Abbey with Donna’s valid point here

Also, Donna’s really good at reading people and casually calling them out/breaking things down.

(Aka being a stand in for explaining things (if it’s political, explain it to Donna, if it’s someone’s emotional shit they’re too repressed to say but you want the audience to get anyway, explain it through Donna. This isn’t criticism, I exploit the second often in my fic)

See also: her and CJ in No Exit, her and Amy about Josh in Commencement

(Donna doesn’t actually look at Abbey like at all as she’s saying this. She’s mostly vaguely looking down or looking at Amy. I don’t know what to do with that, exactly)

Abbey’s stare here!! It’s... shellshocked. Because I don’t know that she really has processed like, no, this was your mistake too, you did have agency in this, etc, bc she’s been using the anger as a defense all episode

Amy’s face is comical here, which I think is mostly not expecting that from Donna (which is the point) or from anyone to Abbey. Based on their relationship, there’s probably some base defensiveness on Abbey’s behalf, but I also think, and this is more headcanon, that like this is a position Amy’s been in before

“I used to get you in some jams” “Yes you did” plus her whole vibe, I have to assume Amy’s stepped out of line with Abbey before

CJ doesn’t look surprised, because hey! She knows both Donna and Abbey well, so she can maybe see it coming more, and like I said, I think she was really about to make the same point before Abbey stopped her, kind of. She looks like she’s waiting for it to catch up with Donna

And catch up it does! She looks over, panicked, to CJ, like she’s just remembered the whole layout of power dynamics CJ articulated

“Oh my god. You switched back to First Lady” “That’s alright”

I love that the first thing Donna says isn’t an apology, isn’t saying she was wrong, she shouldn’t have said that, she’s out of line, it’s just panic

And the fact that Abbey quickly just reassures her after! It’s so good

“I’m so sorry, Mrs. Bartlet” “It’s okay”

The camera staying on Abbey here is really smart, the way she shakes her head and you can watch her distracted reassurance, her processing 

Even without the “O Canada” etc stunt, I would insist, from Abbey’s reaction here, that she really isn’t upset with Donna, she’s just upset, but she does know, really, that she needed to hear that, that she’ll be grateful for it

CJ and Amy both make faces that are kind of like... quietly agreeing with Donna. Like a “Well, yeah, and now it’s been said, and that’s... a relief?” It’s good for the release of tension they finally give us

“He took the censure standing up, Abbey. I was very proud to have voted for him that day.” “Me, too.”

This is not the place for me to unpack my feelings on Amy and Jed

Her calling her Abbey here is interesting, personal, considering she’s been calling her “Mrs. Bartlet” all night and they’ve explicitly gone over the “you switched back to first lady” but I think it really works for the line

With this, it’s different, too, because it did come with no tangible penalty for Jed, but it’s still... something about integrity, maybe.

And Abbey saying “Me, too” is so gently hopeful, in a way, and it’s the first positive thing she’s said about Jed this whole time, really, and it gives you a nice feeling, like it’s going to be okay. Abbey and Jed, and Abbey just as a person

Donna looks so sort of regretful here you just want to reassure her that Abbey really, really isn’t upset with her, that she appreciates it, but it’s okay because you get the Canadian flags at the end

“Let’s get back to the party” is sort of one of the switches I’m talking about with Abbey, and you need it to move the episode along, and it wraps it all up

anyways this is an 11 page document and i’m sorry

[neojeno]

I really wouldn't mind you aiding me with some tutorials love

giffing tutorial/resources

hi anon! sorry it took me so long to answer. i figured this might be helpful for others out there who have asked me similar questions, so i’ve compiled a pretty comprehensive list of tutorials/resources. idk about others but when i was new to giffing, it took me a lot of painful effort to go around and look for resources, so i’m putting it all here to make it a little easier!

i download videos using 4k video downloader. it will download very good quality 1080p videos in .mp4 format. if you’re downloading a 4k video, make sure to change the setting option to .mkv so that you get 4k and not 1080p—for obvious reasons since you want the highest quality.

i rely on kpopexciting to get .ts files — which are basically raw, very high quality video files for live performances. they are much less grainy than .mp4 versions of live performances—which are the ones you’ll see uploaded to youtube. i’ve found that 4k videos (in .mkv) are just as good quality as .ts, but obviously you will rarely see live performances in 4k, so get .ts when you can!! you can also try to find .ts files on twitter, but you may have to do a lot of digging. i wish i could recommend you twitter accounts, but the ones i used to go to have been very inactive/taken down all their drives :( but this website is really nice and updated frequently so i would recommend it!

vapoursynth links + download. the reason you would use vapoursynth is to resize your gif, while maintaining the optimal quality of the gif. if you gif without vapoursynth (.ie only using photoshop), it will still be fine, but the image quality may be grainier. also, you will definitely need vapoursynth to gif .ts files —more will be explained in the tutorial i’ve linked below. i would recommend that you have a high processing/lots of ram/newer desktop or laptop to use vapoursynth so that 1, your computer isn’t fried and 2, your vapoursynth process will go a lot faster. i am using a 2017 macbook pro for all my work, and it runs pretty well, but my laptop still gets pretty hot so just make sure you’re not running a million things in the background while using adobe products and vapoursynth lol. i used a pretty old and beat up 2011 model macbook air back then, and i will say that yes vapoursynth worked and ran on it, but it took much longer, and basically fried the laptop’s battery (aka i had to get the battery changed twice and the laptop would die randomly) but issok it was a school borrowed laptop so i didn’t feel too bad lol. im just saying this as a precaution, to preserve the health of your electronic devices!! but don’t be afraid to use vapoursynth! you should still try it at least once.

thank you to @realstraykids for this super detailed, really nice tutorial! it includes how and where to download videos, how to gif using vapoursynth, using photoshop, comparisons, coloring, and pretty much all you need to know. 10/10 would recommend

thank you to @dreamcolouring for this lifesaver!!! the best and easiest way to blur out unwanted captions/objects in your gifs. i recommend doing this step after converting your frames to video timeline and before you do sharpening and coloring. another tip i’ll add is to feather the selection you’ve made right before you click on “add vector mask” —this will make sense once you’ve read through the tutorial. feathering it will make the blurred spot less noticeable and more subtle.

i use this generator to create gradient colored captions! copy and paste your text, then select the colors you want. generate the code, and copy it. change the settings of the text editor on your post to HTML. paste the code, preview, and voila! add elements <blockquote>,<b>,<i>, etc as needed. see more on colored captions in this tutorial by @kylos​ --i believe op mentioned a different and better color generator but for some reason it won’t work for me :( hopefully it works for u! basically same idea as the previous generator i mentioned.

my own mini tutorial/workflow process of making gifs. this includes working with a .ts file, vapoursynth, photoshop, coloring, watermarking, etc. and a few of my own tips below:

if you are working with an .mp4, you do not have to make any changes to the preprocessor/denoise filters/sharpening in the resizing part of vapoursynth—it doesn’t make that big of a difference if you do. but if you are working with a .ts file, definitely do make those changes,, that’s the whole reason you have vapoursynth. with an .mp4, i like to use vapoursynth to just resize, but i don’t add any additional settings. i use smart sharpen in photoshop to sharpen it, which is pretty good on it’s own (at least in photoshop 2020!).

my rule of thumb is to do add .02 seconds when i am setting frame delay. so if when you first import the frames, they are at 0.04 seconds, i usually change them to 0.06. of course, this is my personal taste—you can make all your gifs faster or slower depending on how you want em to look.

if you are on a mac, you can screen record by pressing Command+Shift+5 (it’s a shortcut to quicktime screen recording). I only screen record for things like the beyond live concert or other live streamed events. the image quality of the screen recording, in my experience, is actually pretty good. when you gif the screen recording however, you may notice that it adds extra frames that you don’t need. by that i mean duplicate frames. you could keep the duplicate frames but that just means the size of your gif is going to be much bigger (keep in mind the limit is 8mb). in order to remove those duplicates, my only solution has been to remove them manually (by holding Command while selecting), or when you are importing the video to frames, select the option to “limit to every 2 frames”—but this method will be less precise and still not as good as manually removing frames. if you remove the duplicate frames, this means you will need to set the frame delay even slower, to make up for lost frames. in my experience, fps(frames per second) and frame delay work in conjunction. so for example, if i delete every other frame because they are duplicates,  but the starting frame delay is 0.02, i am now going to change it to something like 0.05 (so i added 0.03 seconds rather than my usual 0.02). if the duration length and the image dimensions of the gif are short/small, feel free to keep the duplicate frames in—i only delete duplicate frames in order to keep my gif under the 8mb limit. then, if you keep the duplicate frames in, continue with your standard frame delay preferences.  now that i’m writing this im realizing this might not make a lot of sense lol.. but don’t worry about it for now and if you run into trouble w screen recorded gifs then you can come back to this for reference. again, this is only my experience recording on a mac—it may be a lot different if you use a screen recording program or are on a pc.

i don’t really use .psd templates because i like to give every gif/gifset it’s own unique coloring—so i remake the coloring every time, but if you get into a rhythm it’s pretty easy. there are a lot of nice coloring tutorials out there, too! my personal coloring adjustments in order: levels, exposure, color balance, selective color (if needed), vibrance, photo filter (if needed), color lookup (i use 2strip most often and i put it on ‘color’ blending mode). don’t forget to adjust the opacities and fills of the ‘color lookup’ adjustment layer in case it’s too strong. go back to correct each adjustment layer as needed. then, when you’re done and satisfied, group all those layers, copy the group (you can do an easy command+c), and paste it onto the next gif you’re working on for easy workflow.

if for some reason you can’t see the frames when you import your layers/video, it’s likely because your ‘timeline’ window isn’t showing up. just go to the window menu on photoshop, go to the bottom and you’ll see ‘timeline.’ make sure it has a check next to it.

i recommend watermarking your gifs because a lot of people like to repost tings these days 😠 - so make sure u got your brand on it! i keep my watermark saved to my ‘libraries’ in photoshop so it’s ready when i need it. i use the blending mode ‘overlay’ and adjust the opacity, but if you don’t want to do that you can also add a stroke/shadow to your watermark/do all sorts.

tag #nctinc for your nct creations and #jenonet for your jeno creations!!

here’s my own mini tutorial (well not much of a tutorial ig more like a work process vid?): took about ten minutes including the time to search and download the video (but i didn’t record that part i trust yall know how to do that), vapoursynth, and exporting. i hope this helps somewhat! feel free to ask more questions whenever :)

keep in mind that giffing takes a lot of patience, energy, and experience—so don’t worry if it takes you a bit to figure things out or if your gifs don’t turn out the way you want them to the first time around. we all start at the same place and all run into problems. i know giffing can sound intimidating and seem like a lot of work, but i promise, once you get into a routine, giffing is going to happen in minutes—and you’ll get beautiful gifs. have fun! 😊

[biofunmy]

Behind Twitter’s Plan To Get People To Stop Yelling At Each Other

SAN FRANCISCO — In March, Twitter cofounder Biz Stone tweeted a screenshot of an iPhone homescreen along with a message: “Notice our new prototype? … It’s called ‘twttr.’ The bird flew away from the app icon representing: Simplicity. Blue sky thinking. We’re re-working. Not there yet: hence, no logo.”

Twitter, predictably, immediately dysregulated in response. “Most moronic design decision ever made.” “It’s horrible.” “Awful.” The most viral reply leaned on a popular Twitter trope to poke fun at the platform’s inability to ban bad actors: “everyone: get rid of the Nazis. yall: we got rid of the logo.”

And yet, it was all a misunderstanding. Twitter hadn’t changed its icon at all. It launched a separate app, “twttr,” as an external, public prototype to experiment with new features it’s considering rolling out on Twitter itself; a way to test things in public. Stone clarified: “Folks, the bird isn’t going away from Twitter.”

The entire episode was a microcosm of Twitter’s larger problems, some of which this new prototype itself is meant to address: everyone yelling, and no one talking. “Little t” twttr is a part of the company’s grand plan to treat the platform’s underlying issues, rather than just its symptoms. The idea is that what it learns from small-t twttr will help big Twitter foster conversations, rather than outrage.

Thanks to its open, freewheeling public platform, and stance on free speech, Twitter has been a hothouse for ginning up disinformation, harassment, and outrage. A lot of these problems were caused, the company’s leadership believes, by product decisions made early in its existence. And in very Silicon Valley fashion, the San Francisco–based company is now trying to solve these institutional problems with product fixes, without killing its platform’s open, real-time magic. But it isn’t exactly sure what those fixes are, and it knows that massive changes to its product, rolled out widely, might even make things worse. So, yes, the company is fundamentally overhauling its product, but it’s starting with baby steps on twttr.

Over several days this spring, BuzzFeed News met with Twitter’s leadership and watched as twttr’s team worked on its first big push: helping people better understand what’s being said in often chaotic conversations. The team thinks that if people took more time to read entire conversations, that would help improve their comprehension of them. Maybe they wouldn’t jump to react. Maybe they’d consider their tone. Maybe they’d quit yelling all the time.

Or maybe, not even thousands of deeply studied, highly tested product tweaks will be enough to fix the deep-seated issues with a culture more than 13 years in the making.

Jason Henry for BuzzFeed News

Cody Elam, senior user researcher, at the Twitter office in San Francisco, May 8, 2019.

A couple of weeks after Stone’s tweet, and after about 4,700 people had been using the new twttr prototype, Twitter senior user researcher Cody Elam was at work, late, looking at a massive spreadsheet. He had spent the past week collecting and reviewing every single piece of feedback — 600 tweets and 1,986 survey responses — from the program’s initial participants and, now, was tasked with identifying the most salient, important themes among their comments.

The twttr team began by testing what happens if the app more clearly shows who’s replying to whom. They also hid likes and retweet counts — Twitter’s primary incentives — behind a tap to put the primary focus on reply text. Now they were about to see, for the first time, what people thought.

Some of that initial feedback said that the bubbly design made Twitter feel more like a chat, and that it was easier to understand who was responding to what. Others were confused by the different colors labeling replies (blue for people you follow, and black for the original tweet’s author). People generally seemed to like the new design, Elam deduced, except for one change that received a more mixed response: hiding the metrics.

Nicole Nguyen / BuzzFeed News

Left: A screenshot of the chat bubble design from the first version of twttr, captured on March 12, 2019. Right: A screenshot from version two of twttr, featuring a more minimalist, “family tree-style” reply design, captured on May 14, 2019.

This wasn’t entirely unexpected. It was a step that they had suspected would not be popular, at least at first, but was maybe a necessary sacrifice to nudge its users in the right direction. Some of twttr’s first testers were feeling unnerved about the like and retweet buttons, and their counts, which had been seemingly removed from replies. In a meeting at Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters with the 13-person team behind twttr, Elam presented the users’ concerns.

“There’s a critical group of people — 20% or so — who are saying, ‘I prefer the way that likes are displayed in the main app,’” he told the group. “For some people, they feel like it’s more work when they don’t have something to anchor to. Like, if I’m looking at different replies, where should I draw my eye to, in terms of the popularity of tweets?”

While some users said the new design made replies “more equal,” others complained they couldn’t gauge the importance of replies without doing more work (that extra tap).

“Twitter already ranks replies based on some of that like and retweet data, and so if that information is removed, it may be confusing why you’re seeing one reply versus another,” posited Sara Haider, who is leading the twttr efforts.

Jason Henry for BuzzFeed News

Left: Sara Haider, director of product management. Right: Lisa Ding, senior product designer.

A week later, at another feedback review session, Elam told the group that a significant enough number of testers in Japan, Twitter’s other major market outside the US, also opposed the hidden like and RT counts, but for a different reason. Japan-based user researcher Kiyo Yamamuchi explained that some Japanese users actively avoid engaging with popular replies to avoid exposure that would attract attacks or abuse.

With the feedback in mind, Haider challenged the team “to think about that user need to understand which tweet is more important or worth my time, and see if there are other ways we can solve that, other than numbers.”

Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, has been outspoken about removing engagement metrics, because of how they encourage users to be outrageous in order to rack up more likes, retweets, and followers, and prompt readers to look for them. In an August 2018 interview with the Washington Post, Dorsey said, “The most important thing that we can do is we look at the incentives that we’re building into our product. Because they do express a point of view of what we want people to do — and I don’t think they are correct anymore.”

Haider and her twttr team are hoping to “nudge” people’s behavior in another way. Their hypothesis: Making the design for replies as minimal as possible, in addition to revealing how the conversation’s participants are related to you, may encourage people to read the entire back-and-forth before they react.

“We have this opportunity to learn about how not having [likes and retweets] could potentially change how people read things,” said senior product designer Lisa Ding. “Does it make you read something that you maybe would have guessed to be popular but actually isn’t that popular? How does that change the way you interact in a conversation? That’s super interesting.”

In its early years Twitter optimized for engagement, which engagement features (replies, and the like and retweet buttons) and metrics (number of followers, likes, retweets, and replies) help to deliver. So now it’s trying to shift what it encourages people to do.

Jason Henry for BuzzFeed News

Ding’s sketches for the new thread design

Twitter is not alone in this. Tech leaders across the industry are rethinking the role of their platforms’ incentives, in response to mounting criticism that technology platforms do more harm than good. Instagram is running a test where like counts are hidden to followers, but are viewable by the post’s account holder. Head of Instagram Adam Mosseri told BuzzFeed News that the test wasn’t about incentivizing specific behavior but “about creating a less pressurized environment where people feel comfortable expressing themselves” and focus less on like counts.

For Twitter, part of the rationale behind running an external-facing prototype with experimental features, in full view of its competitors, is easing users into the new design. “We are fundamentally changing how Twitter works. … We need for people to have some exposure to it,” said Haider.

Twitter

Twitter is exploring a new design for what it calls “replystorms,” or a conversation involving a back-and-forth between two people, to make them easier to read.

People typically don’t take kindly to changes, especially ones that come without warning. In 2009, Facebook users revolted so strongly to the introduction of the News Feed (which some groups called an “invasion of privacy”) that CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally responded, “Calm down. Breathe. We hear you.” So to avoid taking users by surprise with a big change, and instead of developing a product secretly inside of Twitter’s walls, Haider wants to take users along for the ride: “We need people who aren’t even in the program to read the press articles and think, ‘I am now mentally prepared for this change.’”

Haider’s team is considering future features that may be even more controversial than hidden likes. Two ideas they’re exploring: optional “presence indicators” that show people when you’re online or typing, and being able to add a status that lets people know what you want to talk about.

Jason Henry for BuzzFeed News

A sign at the Twitter office in San Francisco, May 8, 2019.

There are many challenges with fixing Twitter, but the primary issue has to do with the form of Twitter itself. It’s an extremely complex product: Every reply is itself a tweet, and every tweet can be infinitely replied to. Conversations can be hard to read, let alone understand, and that misunderstanding contributes to a lot of the repetitive first responses to tweets, reply dogpiling, and knee-jerk reactions — like the kind that flooded Stone’s mentions — that fuel the platform’s outrage cycle.

One user, @matthewreid, replying to Stone, summed up the issues facing Twitter nicely: “A quick scroll through many of these replies illustrates what made this place I love so toxic. Bullying. Mob mentality. Insufferable knowitalls.” Twitter CEO Dorsey has admitted the same himself: “I also don’t feel good about how Twitter tends to incentivize outrage, fast takes, short term thinking, echo chambers, and fragmented conversation and consideration.”

“Like, imagine being in a room and talking to a billion people. It’s chaos.”

“Having conversations that anyone can see and anyone can participate in is a really awesome super power that needs to feel really simple despite its complexity behind the scenes,” Twitter product lead and Periscope cofounder Kayvon Beykpour told BuzzFeed News. “Like, imagine being in a room and talking to a billion people. It’s chaos.“

To reduce the chaos, the twttr prototype is reimagining what Twitter could look like. “What are the mechanics that we allow you to do right at the surface versus one tap away? We are essentially rethinking paradigms that have been the case for 13-plus years,” Beykpour explained.

Much of Twitter’s efforts related to abuse and harassment are incorporated directly into the main Twitter app, but some concepts in twttr’s pipeline are in service of something directly related to harassment: trying to change the tone of replies. According to Dorsey, replies are one of the shared spaces where abuse happens the most on Twitter. In a potential upcoming feature, if you tap on an avatar while you’re reading a reply, a profile card showing more information about the tweet’s author appears alongside their tweet.

Twitter

The twttr team is considering a new test that would show a profile card alongside a tweet to give people more context about who wrote the tweet.

Haider explained, “If you can see who you’re replying to, then you may change the tone in which you reply. I know this anecdotally, when people tweet shit to me, and I respond, right? Imagine if in this reply state, you could actually see ‘oh, this person’s a father of two.’”

Beykpour acknowledged that the feature feels “tiny” but said Twitter is starting to “tug on this string” related to empathy: “How do you surface context around who this person is, but ideally also give you a little bit of empathy around who you’re talking to? It’s harder to have an uncivil dialogue with someone that you know a little bit more about than if it was an anonymous face.”

“It’s harder to have an uncivil dialogue with someone that you know a little bit more about than if it was an anonymous face.”

He added, “Civility is one really important aspect of [healthy conversations]. It’s very difficult for people to feel like they can speak freely, if they don’t feel safe enough to speak in the first place.”

Twitter is investing a lot of effort into making the experience on its platform better and more delightful (hello, cherry blossom like button), but it still has a lot to overcome with abuse and harassment, as well as issues that don’t have a simple fix — like tone and, more generally, sexism on the internet. A product overhaul can’t change the primary source of harassment on its platform: its own users.

Jason Henry for BuzzFeed News

A hashtag in the design department at the Twitter’s San Francisco office, May 8, 2019.

Like a lot of people, Tracy Chou, the CEO of Block Party, a company working on solving abuse and harassment online, has herself been subject to much targeted harassment on Twitter. “Group direct messages are the new spam vector. One of the group threads in my DMs looked like it was a bunch of college students, white men, who seemed to know each other, and were talking about how easy it would be to murder me,” Chou told Buzzfeed News.

If you have open direct messages, you can’t restrict specific accounts from sending you DMs unless you block them, which Chou says, is an example of a feature designed to protect users that doesn’t actually work in practice. “Blocking is aggressive and visible to the other person. That sometimes will set them off and cause them to harass you more, or use it as a trophy,” she said.

Chou also explained how retweeting and quote-tweeting are product features that can easily be turned into tools of abuse — and counter-abuse: “If some asshole says something racist, sometimes I’ll quote-tweet them, and say “no.” My followers will fight my battle on my behalf. But [quote-tweeting] can also be used to target harassment by people who have a lot of followers and want to sic their followers on a specific individual.” In 2016, conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos was banned for inciting his followers to flood Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones’ Twitter account with racist and demeaning mentions.

For users like Chou, the twttr program hasn’t done much to improve their Twitter experience so far. “I mainly find it harder to read replies,” Chou said. She added that the user image and username size have been minimized in the prototype, which isn’t helpful when trying to identify replies from known trolls. A Twitter spokesperson said the twttr team is testing different sizing and presentation for avatars and display names.

Jason Henry for BuzzFeed News

Left: Notes on a whiteboard regarding the company’s product priorities overall. Right: An LED unicorn on a desk at the Twitter office.

“Everything these companies do, at first, is driven by the short-term desire to stake a small share of the attention economy and to engage users just long enough to attract early funding. Only later does the medium view start to matter, and the long view doesn’t matter at all until very late in the game,“ explained Adam Alter, author of Irresistible, a book about the rise of addictive technology. “Most of the changes Twitter and other platforms are making now are fairly small. They aren’t going to change usage patterns much — but they’re a step in the right direction.”

As someone who has used twttr for over two months, the new design does feel like a change for the better. In replies, the eye-catching magenta “author” label makes it easy to scan for additional comments from the tweeter. The “family tree” lines denoting different threads are useful. If there are two “debate me” trolls shouting at each other in one thread, you can easily scroll down, gloss over the entire back-and-forth, and jump into the next one. In a future iteration of twttr, you’ll even be able to collapse conversations more easily.

But the twttr effort isn’t just about improving the product experience. There’s a business motivation, too. Haider thinks that the final changes, if and when they are rolled out to the main Twitter app, will ultimately lead to more tweeting: “Obviously with a better conversational experience, people will use [Twitter] more and they’ll get more value out of it, which is what we’re trying to aim for.”

Twitter

Twitter explored multiple views for conversations in twttr. The first version included the chat bubble design shown on the top left. After trying different iterations, including one inspired by stops on a subway map (“a good analogy for the complexity of Twitter’s conversation problems”), senior product designer Lisa Ding arrived at the family tree–inspired design on the bottom right for twttr version two.

While Twitter has been consistently profitable since early 2018, the company said in the first quarter of the year that its number of monthly active users declined to around 330 million, down 6 million from the same time last year, and said that it would stop reporting monthly active users altogether. To keep users on the platform — and advertising revenue flowing — the company needs to figure out how to make its service a nicer, better place for people to spend their time. In the most recent earnings call, Dorsey called the ability to have conversations on Twitter the platform’s “differentiator” and cited the twttr prototype as progress.

As the internet’s free, most popular platforms — Facebook, YouTube, Twitter — now know, people will use products in ways their inventors didn’t intend them to be used, and with software designed to “scale,” its downsides aren’t apparent until millions of people are using it. Twitter is now trying to undo the features that caused unseen, unanticipated effects — misinformation, trolling, tribalized outrage — by going back to basics.

Whenever you’re in a room with a lot of people talking at once, people raise their voices, so they can be heard. As more people arrive, it becomes cacophony. This is, essentially, what has happened on Twitter: The volume of the conversation has been getting louder and louder for 13 years. Beykpour and Haider’s solution is toning down the background noise, and helping people focus on the conversation right in front of them. But the longer a problem exists, the more intractable it becomes. Which means it is ultimately up to Twitter’s hundreds of millions of users to decide whether it is even possible to have a real conversation amid its din, or if the only answer is to shout louder. ●

Sahred From Source link Technology

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2W6WcC8 via IFTTT