I had used blogs before RTF 305, one was to keep in touch
with my family and friends while I was away during the summer. I had another
for an AP English Composition course which we used to turn in our writing
assignments and critique other student’s pieces. Using the blog for a class is
great, it’s very simple to use, and it’s easy to incorporate examples (i.e.
links to articles, pictures, videos, etc.), and I like using them because I am
able to keep track of my work. There were really no difficulties which I
encountered.
The prompts which I found interesting were ones where I was
able to take a piece of media with which I was familiar and analyze and apply
it to what we were presently learning: I especially enjoyed analyzing camera
angles and the different formats of television shows, blogs number 7 and 8,
respectively).I found others to be less
engaging, normally when we were required to write about a concept with no
specific direction, such as cultivation theory or globalization. I felt that
aside from the short definition, they could be extremely subjective, and I was
not always confident in what I was writing.
I would recommend using blogs in the future courses of RTF
305, and other courses as well; they are extremely useful for students and
teachers alike. However, in the future, I would recommend more communication
through the blogs. I would have liked to see feedback from the TAs on my posts
instead of discussing them in our section meetings.
Globalization is the process by which cultures are gradually integrated with one an other and regional culture slowly becomes subversive to another. This is evident though many different facets: business, music, food, and film. One could say film is where American cultural imperialism is best illustrated. Cultural imperialism, of course, being the promotion of one culture over another, usually a powerful culture over one with less [power].
All over the world American films can be seen, almost disproportionally over regional films. When I was staying in Ireland over the summer, I went to the local video store, nearly all films on display were American, the ones people were renting were American, and the ones being promoted were, yes, American. I was also taken to a movie theater. The features: Toy Story 3, Twilight, and assorted other American films. Not a single Irish made film or films featuring Irish actors. This would lead one to believe that Ireland does not produce films or have decent actors, but that's not the case. The country actually has produced many actors and directors who are recognized on an international level. However, despite the regional talent, preference is given to "foreign" films (specifically American film). On the Irish Film and Television Academy website there is even a statement referring to the premier of TRON: Legacy (an American film) in Ireland.
When there is such an overwhelming presence of American film, it's difficult for other countries to establish and maintain a film industry which produces films relevant to their own regional culture.
Here are recent Irish Box office numbers: notice all the the films are of American origin.
Advertisements which I find to be especially effective are the recent advertisements of Old Spice.
Why are they so effective? They employ a character which women want and which men want to be like. Isaiah Mustafa, now forgetting that his name already sounds inherently awesome, Old Spice is sure to use his sex appeal to draw in a female audience. He is depicted either in only a towel, or shirtless in most incarnations of their advertisements. He even directly addresses women and states he is "the man your man could smell like," insisting that their current significant other smells inferior. By making this assertion, he is made more desirable to women, who at this point must think "yeah, my guy does smell pretty bad--do tell me more mysterious attractive shirtless man." Sex appeal is essential to their message--if their actor was in any way "inferior" in appearance, their message would not be as well received and viewers would be less inclined to listen to their advertisement. Because really, who wants to listen to an unattractive male tell you how to smell nice.
Now, another important component of their advertisements is their ability to make men feel inferior, and hence envy the man who uses their product. It creates a fear that if a man cannot do all these amazing things then at least he can smell like the man who does these amazing things, so of course after viewing this commercial every man becomes insecure until they are able to go pick up some Old Spice and smell like a man. The commercials effectively target men because they challenge their masculinity; when a man's masculinity is challenged, they feel a need to prove themselves--in this situation, by buying Old Spice scented body wash. It's like children on a playground: when you relentlessly taunt a child, "I bet you can't go ALL the way across the monkey bars," that child will feel an inherent need to prove the contrary, and have the opportunity to say "I can too!"
With men wanting to be this man, and women wanting their man to be this man, it's clear why Old Spice's marketing is affective. It is able to appeal to two different demographics in very vulnerable ways: women with sex appeal, and men with challenges to their masculinity.
*It should be noted that after watching this commercial, my brother went to CVS and immediately bought three bottles of Old Spice. Why three? I guess he's extra manly, or....well, never-mind.
Professor Ramirez-Berg explained the template for nearly every Hollywood produced movie: the three act structure. Act one sets up the action, act two introduces the conflict, and act three has the conflict and resolution. Of course there are always deviations from this norm, such as the repeat action structure, or the five act structure commonly used for tragedies, but as stated, most films follow the linear three act structure.
An example of the three-act structure is the film The Lost Boys. The first act, the set-up, quickly explains how Michal, his brother Sam, and his mother have come to live in Santa Clara--the "murder capital of the world," with their grandfather. The first act also introduces Micheal to the vampire gang, and Sam to the vampire hunting Frog Brothers. The first plot point comes when Michael is tricked into drinking blood by David (the perceived leader of the vampires). This action is the first step in turning him into vampire, and leads into the second act. The conflict arises out of Michael's increasing vampireish tendencies (such as sleeping all day, having no reflection, and his thirst for blood), and Sam's resolution to help change Michael (and eventually other "half-vampires") back to normal. The second plot point comes when Michael leads them to the gang's cave, where the Frog Brothers intend to kill all the vampires, but instead only kill the smallest after his death awakens the others. The third act involves Michael, Sam, and the Frog Brothers preparing for the impending battle with David and the remaining vampires at nightfall. The climax, logically, is said battle in their Santa Clara home. As you can see, Joel Shumacher's The Lost Boys clearly follows the Hollywood three act structure as described in Professor Ramirez-Berg's lecture.
The scene where Sam discovers Michael is a vampire:
The episodic sitcom format affords great freedom to writers and viewers. Shows which implement
this style do not have sweeping seasonal character arcs, and viewers can easily begin watching any show during the season and grasp what is happening in the story. A problem for a character is highlighted for one, sometimes two episodes, then the show moves on to the next plot-line. By the next episode, what happened previously is rarely referenced, and can largely be disregarded as it's not essential to the current episode. Episodes very rarely tie into each other, and each is essentially their own story, they just all utilize the same characters. This gives the writers more opportunity to feature the life of each character and develop their traits whenever they see fit--instead of relying on season-long arcs to reach the same realization. And a viewer can miss an episode, but understand the next. This is not to say that episodic sitcoms cannot feature character growth and development. General stories can be found throughout a season, they are just not the predominant story of the episode.
One example is the show Community: during the season premier, Chang was trying to get into the study group. He tries to do so for one more episode, then the story is largely dropped.
After this situation, nothing more has been done with Chang trying to earn the groups affection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73sdlRGqC6I (It will not embed, so please watch at the link).
His character is given other stories, and the main characters in the study group are more prominently featured. Other examples are Jeff and Brita's/Amy's relationship or Shirley's divorce, both situations were large parts of one story, then quietly referenced in other shows without any development to that specific storyline.
Here is what I find to be a fantastic example of a scene whose consequences will never be mentioned, and if so only in passing:
*Everyone, please watch Community. It's a great show with a unique premise, and I can't have any more of my favorite shows get canceled...seriously."
Danny Boyle's 2002 thriller 28 Days Later features incredibly compelling camera work to convey the completely isolated mood of the film. The film begins with an introduction to the "rage" virus. A close up on a television is playing violent news reels, then the camera pans back to reveal multiple televisions with the content, then back further to reveal the subject to which this content is directed--a monkey. The use of reverse shot progression, from specific to general immediately disorients the viewer: they are unsure of what is going on, where they are, why they are being shown this, then the meaning becomes more clear as the scene progresses. Slowly, more information is given via the medium and long shots: the viewer can now see that this is in a lab, and there are cages and cages of monkeys, all very upset. Then the shots revert back to close ups, specifically on the faces and upper bodies of the monkeys, being sure to show them scream and pound their fists against their cage. At this point, the motives of the scene are still uncertain; the shots meant for identification are providing extremely limited insight into the surrounding area, and this confusion sets the tone for the remainder of the film.
The reverse shot progression is also prominent in the scene immediately following, when the Jim is introduced to the film. An extreme close-up first introduces his face, and then there is a medium shot showing him in a hospital bed, then back to a close up of his face. The alternating shots leave the viewer longing for information: "Why is he in a hospital?" "Is anyone else there?" "What is he doing?" Information is clearly being withheld. As he walks out of the hospital, we see medium shots of Jim walking alone through streets. Through extreme long shots, we can now see that the city is London, and appears to be completely deserted. The leak of information through the reverse progression signifies the complete isolation Jim feels, as he realizes that he is absolutely alone, and the sheer confusion that ultimately arises from this realization.
These are the first six minutes of the film, which show the scene's I'm talking about:
The studio system dominated Hollywood production from the 20s until the 50s. Unlike today’s system, the studio system involved complete ownership over all aspects of film creation: the actors, writers, producers, and theaters. Having actors on contract was especially important—better actors drew larger audiences. Occasionally these actors were traded between studios, but most often they were exclusive to one specific studio.
Essentially, studios trained audiences to expect certain types of films when billed with certain actors. When someone saw Judy Garland, Clark Gable, or Humphrey Bogart, listed as a film’s star, they knew what to expect from the movie. This predictability limited the creativity of the studios—as they could churn out fundamentally identical movies and continue to make a profit—while it also limited the abilities of the stars as they were typecast and shoved into the same role over and over again.
This is perhaps most apparent over the career of John Wayne. He is now referred to as the quintessential cowboy. Relentlessly, he was cast as the heroic cowboy in westerns. Yes, this did transform him from struggling bit actor to a “star” with the success of “Stagecoach.” Despite the fact that he had made westerns for years prior, his breakthrough film forever relegated him to the role of Hollywood’s cowboy.
The family based sitcom has been around since the beginning of television. It has served as a medium for comedy as well as compelling social commentary, as seen from the shows "All in the Family" and "Modern Family." Set decades apart, the two shows still touch an enduring societal issues, but contemporaneous issues as well. The screening of "All in the Family" brought about the issue of homosexuality in the 70s. Archie is disturbed by one of his daughter's friends, who he repeatedly referrers to as a "queer" and "fag" on the basis of his appearance. He is then floored to find out that not only this man is straight, but one of his friends--who he considers to be the pinnacle of manliness--is in fact gay. The episode revealed how uncomfortable society was by the emergence of homosexuality from underground to acceptable lifestyle. Conversely, the show "Modern Family" touches on the acceptance of this lifestyle in the 2000s. Mitchell and Cameron are a gay couple with an adopted daughter. They face the issues of their sexuality in multiple episodes, as they are concerned by what others will think of them, such as when they attempt to act straight at their daughter's playgroup and when Mitchell does not want to publicly show affection to Cameron. Both shows confront the difficulties that arise from homosexuality, one, the issue that comes from discovering a friend's sexuality, and the other a couple trying to live with theirs. The approach is very different between the shows, but both touch on the same issue as it applies to their target generation.One of the most apparent differences is that "All in the Family" only deals with Archie and his immediate family. Whereas "Modern Family" shows the interrelationship of three families, though they are all related. The family dynamic provides different types of issues to be brought up. "All in the Family" is limited to the relationship Archie has with his wife, daughter and her husband. However "Modern Family" can explore the relationship between father/adult child, parents/young children, brother/sister; essentially, they can explore greater familial relationships, where "All in the Family" cannot. Both shows provide excellent social commentary despite the fact that they are set decades apart. Surprisingly, they also touch on some of the same issues, which illustrates that some family issues are enduring, while others are strictly limited to the time period in which a show is set.
When control of radio waves was returned to public power after the end of World War One, there was what can only be described as frequency chaos. There were too many stations attempting to transmit on limited frequencies. The government attempted to rectify this situation with the Radio Act of 1927.
The Federal Radio Commission was created from the act. It became their job to bring order to the
airwaves. Standards were set for the burgeoning radio industry, and frequencies became organized, and programming was limited at certain times of day. These regulations did rectify the problem of interference, but it largely ignored the monopolies that had been bred from the loose regulations after the war and made it more difficult for smaller companies to find airtime.
AT&T had quickly rose to domination of the radio since they were able to use their already established telephone lines to link several stations. The government made them choose between their monopolies, and they stayed with telephones, effectively passing the radio monopoly to RCA (which set up NBC). The only real challenge to NBC was CBS, and both conglomerates quickly had their own station and affiliated stations. The new federal regulations didn't account for this, but both companies allowed for the rapid rise and growth of the radio industry that was seen in the 1920s.
Here is a link to an interesting article detailing the history of AT&T and NBC in the early days of radio.
, The media influences how viewers think. Cultivation theory suggests that after viewing television with large amounts of violence, people will overestimate the chance that that violence will be reciprocated onto themselves.
People often take what is shown in the media, and apply it to their current reality. When images of violence are consistently shown, a person may then feel that this is more likely to happen to them. Despite the fact that this person lives in a neighborhood which is relatively free of violent crime, the media has taught them to expect that danger is lurking around every corner; this causes them to be far more concerned than their situation calls for. In essence, media has constructed their world view and their fears. However, when the interaction of one's world fits the violent schema designed by the media then they become content. A subset of cultivation, mainstreaming explains why violence may be seen as a norm, instead of shocking. With the repeated message from the media that violence is expected it would be commonplace for one to see it on the streets and not have a reaction to it.
For example, take the Law and Order franchise. If someone frequently watched Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, they might begin to believe that they cannot leave their home without being raped--even though they do not live in New York City, and rape is relatively rare in their community. Whereas, if it was a common crime in their community, they would be more likely to be a bystander in the event of the act being committed because the media has taught them that it's normal. Cultivation theory defines the two extremes that media can force on viewers, violence is everywhere and should be feared as such, or violence is everywhere and therefore is commonplace. Depending on ones current situation, either of these views could permeate their existing beliefs, and influence their future thoughts and actions.
Females in the male dominated media: a look at the consequences of hegemony
Females are weak: at least that is what media would lead one to believe. In an industry which is dominated by males, women are still confined to cliched roles which do not reflect the equality they have so rightly fought for in society. The hegemonic control males exhibit over female identity in film and television is abhorrent.
Quick, name a director, screenwriter, actor. I guarantee all three names you picked were male, even though all titles are not gender specific. When men are the majority, one would expect that they would be writing decent roles for both genders, since they are essentially controlling [both gender's] their image within media. However all too often a woman's role is pushed to the extreme sides of the feminine spectrum: overtly feminine, or dangerously masculine. There is no consistent representation of a strong woman who can function well in society. The reason that this harsh reality goes largely unnoticed and unchecked, is due to the fact that this meek representation of women has become so ingrained into our society that when we see anything other, THAT is what we find eccentric.
For example, take any strong female lead in a Joss Whedon piece: Buffy, Serenity, Firefly, Dollhouse. It's still considered odd that a man can conceive such characters, and he is continually asked "Why do you create strong female characters?" During his speech given at a 2006 Equality Now event, discussing the repetitive nature of the question, he challenged "Why don't you ask 100 other guys why they don't write strong women characters?"
No one asks that question because it's the norm to write in women characters like those in the 2009 film, Up in the Air. The female leads are, like I stated earlier, pushed to either end of the spectrum. The younger woman, played by Anna Kendrick, appears passionate and business minded, but is quickly put in her place by Clooney's more experienced male character who makes her realize that she just isn't cut out for the job. Oh, and she only took said job in the first place so she could be close to her (then) boyfriend. Clooney's love interest in the film, portrayed by Vera Farmiga, is equally career minded as Clooney, perhaps more; however, she's nothing more than a cheating woman who can't deal with the reality of life with her husband and young children. This was a critically acclaimed film which drew six nominations at the academy awards. Oh right, and the characters were created by males.
So far, the message is clear: males who write women characters who fall in line with the status quo are praised, and those who write strong women are questioned for their distension.This appalling standard will continue as long as it is encouraged, and the practice of questioning anything other than such is the norm. To continue Whedon's quote "Equality is not a concept, it's not something we should be striving for, it's a necessity...the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. We need equality."
My name is Alyse, I am from San Diego, CA, currently I miss my sweet ocean breeze, but thankfully school work is able to distract me from the luxuries of home. One of those courses with distracting work being Intro to Media Studies. Why this? Well, it was offered as part of a FIG [Reel America], and I thought being part of a FIG would be good for me. It didn't hurt that one of my favorite teachers told me "if you ever get a chance to do media studies in college, be sure to take it." But, I really am interested in "media," and I'm anxious to really get into the material and explore what this course has to offer because [media] does play such a tremendous role in every day life...and I may secretly hope that my dream of being a "Hollywood big-shot" will magically be fulfilled, but then again who doesn't?
