Open Frame Film Fest

I must say, the student film festival is probably my favorite Malone event. It's so cool to see the ways different people choose to present their art. Last night's event was full of interesting films, some good, some bad.

I had a hard time picking my favorite film when it came time to vote for the Audience award. I ended up picking "When There are No Words." I really liked that this was the only serious film of the night, yet there were comedic moments. It was really well written and directed, and I'm glad it won best film. Losing a grandparent is something we've all probably experienced, so this film brought forth emotion from a lot of people I saw. Also, it was fun to see Dr. Case in a cameo appearance:)

I also really liked "Still Roomates." What an awesome use of music! This really showed how easy it is to communicate through song. I can't help but wonder how long it took them to find the songs and choreoraph it so perfectly, though. Very cool.

"Penn Hall" was also really cool, and I'm disappointed that they didn't win anything for it. I'm a sucker for "The Office," and this was a great parody of the show. I think a lot of the laughs came from the fact that these are people we know or have seen around campus; it was something that probably only was funny to Malone students. Maybe that's why it didn't get any awards? Nonetheless, I enjoyed it.

Here's what I don't like: music videos. I really just don't see the point of including these in the film festival. They're pretentious and contrived, and I jsut don't like them. I understand that these people put a lot of time and effort into making their music videos, but I have a hard time counting them as "short films," and isn't that what the film fest is supposed to be for? Maybe it's just me...


All in all, the film fest was a great way to spend a Saturday night, and I'm really glad I went. It kind of makes me want to make a film for next year's festival. We'll see.

Anyway, this is my last Mass Media blog of the semester. It's been fun, really it has. This class has taught me so much and has probaby been my favorite class of the semester(shh...don't tell my other professors!) I think I'm a more "media literate person" now. Mission accomplished, right?

Diegetic Music

I thought our discussion about diegetic music yesterday was going to be horribly dull, but it actually ended up making me think quite a bit. Go figure, right?

When we go to see a movie, we expect music to be there. We know that when the big emotional moment happens, the music will swell and our hearts will be warmed. We know that when the killer sneaks up behind the unexpecting teenage couple to murder them, the music is going to get so creepy that we just might have to close our eyes in anticipation. We expect this, and I think for the most part we enjoy it. I mean, music is a huuuge part of the movie experience, especially in Hollywood films. If it wasn't there, I know I for one would be disgusted and disappointed. So many films rely on music in a big way. Let's face it--the storylines of most movies these days just aren't gripping enough to give a really stellar effect without diegetic music.

What's really interesting is when filmmmakers decide to leave the music out of big scenes. We talked about this in class, and a few examples immediately popped into my mind. "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou," which I FINALLY saw over break and is unbelievably good (seriously, go rent it) features music throughout most of the movie. However, during a pivotal scene during the end, when a tragic thing happens, the music disappears. We sit in silence as we watch disjointed flashbacks occur, until suddenly we're taken back into the film to see what happened. It was incredibly jarring. Had there been music there, the effect wouldn't have been as strong. Another good example of the abscence of music(and sound altogether for that matter) comes from the movie "Jarhead," which everyone but me seems to hate. In the middle of a bombing scene, the sound disappears. We watch Jake Gyllenhaal's character stand there, unprotected and seemingly oblivious to what's going on around him as things around him explode and his fellow soldiers yell to him to get down. He watches them lazily. This shows how emotionally numb war has made him, how unattached from the real world he has become. It's a pretty intense moment. Once again, if there had been sound there, the effect would have been severely lessened. Pretty interesting.

I have one final thing to share about music in movies. Last night I saw the movie "Amazing Grace," about the slave trade in Britain. It was an OK movie, a bit cheesy and dull at times, but overall a decent film. At the end of the movie, while the credits rolled, a traditional band played "Amazing Grace," the way they would at the funeral of an important person. My friends and I got up, not thinking much about it, but no one else moved. We ended up standing in the back of the theater. No one moved until the band stopped playing. Then they all applauded. It was fascinating, something I've never seen at a movie theater before. I guess this shows how strongly certain songs effect us in such strong ways. Pretty cool.

Film Trends

Yesterday I was reading in my World Cinema textbook about film genres. I thought the author had some pretty interesting things to say, so I thought I'd reflect about them here, since film is media and this is a media blog.

The book talked a lot about how genre popularity occurs in cycles...for example, the success of "The Godfather" caused a ton of other gangster movies to become popular after it was released. That made me think--what genres are popular today? Looking at movie previews, it seems that Hollywood is obsessed by cheesy horror/slasher movies and comic book adaptations. The romantic comedy is of course still in a cycle of popularity that doesn't seem to be even close to ending. But how many more horror movies can this country stomach? Unless horror writers learn some new plotlines, I can see this genre starting to decline in popularity sometime soon...I mean, there's only so many times we can see the same story before it gets old..right? Lets hope so. It's time for something new.

My book also talked about how film genres function in society...we talked about this in class a few times, I think. According to the book, the secret of the success of war movies and romantic comedies is the predictability--we go in knowing that the good side is going to win, that the guy is going to get the girl, and that inevitably, no matter what happens, everyone is going to live happily ever after. These kinds of movies reinforce what we believe.

But here's what I'm really interested in--the book talked a lot about musicals. They were insanely popular during the early era of American cinema, but I never really thought about why. The book talked about how, during the tumultuous times of the popularity of the movie musical, social commentary was often incorporated into the films. It even talked about one of my favorites, "Meet Me In St. Louis," expressing concern for the American homefront during WWII. Crazy! So, even as audiences were enjoying themselves and getting to forget their problems via the happy world of the Musical, they were being force fed commentary on how they should be reacting to the changing world around them. Very cool. Maybe a little creepy if you think about it too much, but still kind of cool.

Personally, I think that Hollywood should go back to making movie musicals. Things are pretty crazy in this world, and filmgoers deserve a fun way to escape. Maybe they could even through in a little social commentary while they're at it. Its definitely time for the return of the movie musical.

Parasocial Relationships

I'm really interested in this concept of parasocial relationships. When we filled out that survey on Monday, my score was average. I am a fan of certain celebrities and characters, but I don't go too crazy about them. I can remember a time in my life when I did, though. My first parasocial relationship was pretty amazing, and it's one I probaby shared with a million other girls. Blog readers, I present to you my first parasocial relationship, and probably one of the best friendships I had as a child: The Baby-Sitters Club.

When I was in second grade, I was a pretty normal kid. I played baseball, took ballet classes, and was a Girl Scout. I had friends to play with. I wasn't "pathologically lonely" or anything like that. But I loved to read. When I discovered this awesome series by Ann M. Martin, I knew that these girls were going to be the greatest friends I could find.

My friend Emily also read the books, and we would always pretend we were the girls. I was Mary Anne, because she was quiet and polite and liked to read. But I could relate to all of them in some way, the way you can relate to real friends. Jessi Ramsey was a dancer, just like me. Mallory Pike had glasses and wanted to be a writer. Stacey McGill was obsessed with New York City. Claudia Kishi was an artist. Dawn Schaffer cared about the environment. Kristy Thomas was the hardest to relate to, because she was a tomboy who liked sports, but I still thought she was a pretty good friend.

I took these books very seriously. When Dawn decided to leave the club and move to California with her dad, I felt like one of my best friends was moving away. When Mallory Pike was obsessed with the book "Harriet the Spy," I decided to read it. And when Kristy decided that maybe starting a baby-sitting club was the worst idea she had ever had, I thought the world would end.

Luckily the series went on for at least 20 more books after that awful experience.

I think parasocial relationships are totally normal and even healthy. As I got older, the girls in the Baby-Sitters Club and I grew apart, but I have fond memories of them, just as I have fond memories of the other friends I've lost touch with since childhood. Is that weird? You might think so, and that's totally okay with me. I think it's normal. I think we NEED to have parasocial relationships, especially when we're young. We need to be able to have "friends" that are there for no purpose other than to entertain us. It's a way to escape and get our mind off of the real world. It helps us deal with the bad things in life. The characters (or celebrities)become real to us. We care about what happens to them almost as much as we care about what happens to people in real life. Why? I honestly don't know. Maybe we'll talk about it in class on Wednesday....

Beam me up.

So uh...how 'bout those Trekkies, eh?

I am not a Trekkie. I have never seen Star Trek, or Star Wars, or any other Star-thing that has been mass produced. I guess I'm out of the loop. I realized that Trekkies existed, and that they were an odd breed, and that's where my knowledged ended.

Until last Friday.

All I can say is...wow. I'm fascinated. I want to meet a Trekkie and go to a convention just to observe these crazy people. A million thoughts ran through my head while watching this movie, and they were verrrry varied.

AT first, I had the reaction that is probably expected: "WHAT THE HECK?!" What is wrong with you people? Why are you so invested in this made up world? Why do you spend thousands of dollars on masks? WHY ARE YOU DRESSING UP AS A (INSERT STAR TREK CREATURE HERE)??!??!? I was kind of disturbed by these people. I wondered what was so bad about their own lives that they had to focus so much on this pretend world. Then the woman who wore her outfit to the major trial came on the screen.

Wow. I mean, yeah, it's weird that she's so into Star Trek, but wow. What courage and self confidence! I say more power to her. If she wants to wear that outfit and stand up for her right to be a Trekkie, than good for her. I want to meet her. It was so interesting how all the other Trekkies made her a celebrity at the conventions.

I guess I never realized how powerful Star Trek is. When the actors came on screen to share stories about the lives they have touched, I was floored. I don't care how crazy you think Trekkies are, this is amazing. Who knew that a scifi show had the power to save lives? This just shows how freakishly powerful the media can be...it can destroy us, or it can save our lives.

Trekkies aren't really that different from the rest of the American population. We all have our media obsessions. We just don't take it to such an extreme. Regardless, everyone needs a release, an outlet through which one can forget the world. For some of us, this release is religion, or art, or sports, or whatever. For them, it's Star Trek. Maybe they're not choosing to deal with their problems in the right way. Maybe they have lost touch with reality and need to come back, if only for a moment.

But you know what...it's not only Trekkies that are like this. So why judge them differently or make fun of them for it? I say good for them. It takes guts to be a Trekkie. Right?

Embrace the Trekkies. Befriend the Trekkies. But it's probably not best to become one.

Just Thinking...

So, I seriously really liked yesterday's chapel speaker, Kerri Pomorelli. I thought she was hilarious and outspoken and said some things about Malone and Christianity that others would have been too meek to say. She's someone who has genuinely struggled with the concept of marriage in the Christian circle and the idea that you have to find your mate before you leave college or else you're nothing (as she put it so candidly: "I'm 19 and single! My life is over!") I really liked what she had to say and want to read her book if I get a chance. However, I do have a bit of a problem.

I went on her website to see what her book was called and started looking at the comic strips that she does for Radiance magazine(I think.) I was kind of disgusted by what I saw. Her comics are all about the Christian version of "Girl Power," or being content with being single. That's great! But they also feature a lot of stuff that isn't positive. For example, some of her comics feature "The Proverbs 32" woman, who indulges herself with laziness and shopping. Some of her mottos included "I will submit to NOT going to work!"

Here's another one:


So wait a second, Kerri. What exactly are you promoting here??? You're trying to be a strong Christian woman, which is AWESOME. As a semi-feminist(there, I said it) I support you in that. But if you're going to try to promote this image of a strong woman who doesn't need a man and can support herself and be happy on her own and all that jazz, then what the heck is that crap? Women's Lib is getting me down? I need a man to pay my bills? I don't have to work, I'm a woman? WHAT?!

Here we have a woman who is trying to break the media stereotype of a Christian woman by saying it's okay to be single. Yet in her own media, she does the exact opposite: When I look at these comics, I feel like she's only feeding the "bad" media image. I feel like she's saying, "yeah, it's great to be single...until I need a man to do manly things for me."

I understand that these comics are meant to be humorous and I'm probably taking them waaay to seriously, but isn't that part of being a media literate person? Partaking in media with a "surveillence" motive? I don't know. Does this count as hegemony? Even in trying to speak out against bad stereotypes, Kerri Pomorelli is essentially promoting them, or in some cases, making even worse ones. Just a thought, I guess...

Everybody Loooves a Debate.

Well, the debate in class today was interesting to say the least. Both sides brought up pretty interesting points, and though I was on the side for media conglomeration being a harmful thing(surprise, surprise!), I found myself agreeing a lot with what thye other side said. So...here's my response.

One thing that the side for media conglomeration being a good thing said that I really didn't agree with was the fact that because the media has so much money, they can use it to present us with the most important news stories. Their job is to tell us what's important, so we should trust them. Okay. I can live with that. But think back to the big stories that the media has been covering lately. For me, the first thing that pops into my mind is Anna Nicole Smith. Yeah, she was a trainwreck and it's sad that she died with all that drama, but is that REALLY important to society as a whole? What was going on in the world while the big 10 was covering her sordid life story for this past month? Maybe I'm going out on a limb, but I'm gonna say a lot has happened, stuff that we should really know as citizens of this country. Yet we're not being told. The big 10 knows that the important stuff doesn't sell as much as trashy human interest stories, so often times they don't cover them. They're abusing their power.

Something I didn't really agree with coming from my side as I heard it was the argument that the media takes away the individual spirit and all that jazz. This is very true--it's hard to be original in this media focused society, when everything innovative is quickly exploited. However, that doesn't mean that a person can't stay an individual. No matter what the media does, you're still going to be who you are. The media can't change that, it's not THAT powerful. Yes, your clothing style and whatnot will be affected, but last time I checked, you're more than what you wear. Ultimately, your opinions and personal beliefs are going to stay the same, unless you let yourself be completely taken over by the media, in which case I would be very sad for you.

One final point--maybe it's a good thing that the media causes a bit of conformity. As much as I hate to admit it, sometimes we need conformity. I mean, if a bunch of people got together and refused to compromise, instead choosing to say "I am an individual and you can't change that! So Boo on You!" or something like that, then nothing would get done. Am I making sense? Sometimes we NEED for our opinions to match up. If they didn't, we would be a society constantly arguing, to the point that nothing would ever get done and we would eventually self destruct.

So my conclusion? The media as it is right now is in a bad place. However, if they stopped abusing their power and started showing us things we need to know, things would get a LOT better.