ENGL 668k: Digital Studies (Spring 2003)

I really enjoyed the film, but I'm a sucker for educational documentaries and independent filmmaking in general. Was anyone else convinced that the voice of the adult Ada was that of the actress Frances O'Connor (known for Mansfield Park, etc.)?

I think the particular charm of the film lay in the voiceovers and their sources; Ada's letters and self-reflective notes were remarkable. The spokesman for the London science museum was also a great find. It's a challenge to find a scholar who is an equally excellent camera subject, namely someone who can communicate concepts and/or historical fact with visual/vocal interest, in severely compressed time.

Just some thoughts.

Thought 1: Ada and Babbage looked at the technology from different perspectives, her perspective suppling the necessary shift to move from calculation to computation, as stated, but also beyond. I'm finding as I attend this seminar that even more than learning new things, I'm experiencing a shift in thinking and understanding--a shift in my point of view that is still sometimes somewhat vague to me but nevertheless feels forward moving, useful, and aesthetically rewarding.

Thought 2: The portrait of Ada made me think of Beth Loizeaux.

Thought 3: How depressing it is what remarkable people can do by the age of 36.

It was an absolutely amazing film. It definitely served its purpose by revealing to me the work of a woman that I knew nothing about. It would have been nice if they could have explained how the Difference Engine worked, but I'm sure that's an entirely new film. Also, Prof. Fuegi made an interesting comment about how so much of women's history is right under the surface. Makes me constantly aware of how much work still needs to be done.

I find the whole "Women of Power" series endeavor to be incredibly worthwhile and much needed. Fuegi’s comment that Ada is “everywhere yet no where” is very fitting for some one whose voice was lost to “his-story”.

Was anyone else completely frustrated by Ada’s unsupportive husband? I wanted to scream! How many houses did the man need?

I share Cathy’s amazement for what Ada could accomplish by the age of 36. Imagine where we would be now if she was able to continue her work.

It turns out, this is the first good documentary I've ever seen. The depth of the research made me confident I was hearing factual, documented material and the humorous writing made it downright enjoyable. I especially liked the connection with Mary Shelley--it was delightful to see the paths of technology and literature cross once again.

mjg

I guess I'll be the first to post a negative critique of one aspect of the film, one that I think the directors were anticipating when they began their post-film discussion.

It was evident on several occasions, particularly in the various landscape images, that the directors were struggling to find a balance between image and narrative. There were actually moments when I stopped listening to the narrative and counted the seconds until the next image appeared.

I think this critique was brought out implicitly in the post-film discussion when someone in the audience asked why Lovelace's theories were not discussed/shown in more detail. The response was that her theories were virtual, that nothing exists that could be shown. During this discussion, Jo Francis acknowledged the difficulty they had in supporting the narrative with images.

In general, I agree with the criticism that more could have been done with her theoretical work. Isn't that why the movie was being made in the first place? Even if her work was "virtual," it seems like something more could have been done to express the significance of her work or to give details about how her theories came into play in the twentieth century. Maybe then I wouldn't have counted the seconds between landscapes.

Although Ada Lovelace's contribution to computing/computers was not new to me, the level of her contribution was. I was always under the impression that having received an unorthodox education, she helped Babbage with his schemes.

To that extent, the movie was quite an eye-opener for me. But i was still left wanting for a closer integration of Ada's work and the tangible results of it in terms of technology then and now...is her work still being used actively or does it get buried under concepts and ideas that were built on it?

good call Rob, now that you mention it, I got sort of sick of seeing the grist mill wheel spin over and over, er, I think that is partially what you're talking about.

Perhaps some of what we're seeing here is a tension between--using Manovich's terms--narrative (the film itself, with its burden of linearity) and database (the more interactive and archival treatment the subject seems to deserve).

After all, there's no shortage of Ada information in that database of databases, the Web . . .

I found the question and answer session helpful in understanding the choices of the filmmakers. While I agree that I wanted to hear more specifics about Ada's theories, I was at least glad to hear that this vagueness was an intentional decision the directors made. Unfortunately, I think that it might have created the illusion that Ada's theories were vague and perhaps a bit insubstantial.

Down with Java. I'd a 2-page by this afternoon outlining the importance of computer programming and a background check on Comp. Sci. teacher--Mr. Hoffert. Pronto!