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.

Wow, Connections!

I really didn't know what to make of Wednesday's class discussion on hegemony and the like. It added to my theory of the media being something really creepy, but I really didn't make any connections about whether or not I've really noticed it. However, when I found myself reading a book for my research paper a few hours later, I came across a sentence that made me really think. It's referring to 1950s cinema and television and the amount of Antiblack and anti-Semetic attitudes.

""Media executives sought to indulge the prejudices of their majority audiences while not foisting too much egregoious offensiveness onto minority-group members--who were ticket buyers and TV watchers themselves--or onto majority-group members who might not like to think of themselves as prejuidiced or mean-spirited even if they did accept demeaning images of minorities."

Stop. Rewind. Go back to Wednesday's notes: "Media Agenda Thoery: the media tells us what issues we should care about."

So, in the 50s, according to all this, media producers tried riduclously hard to make it seem like racism didn't exist. If people didn't see it on the big screen, why should they worry when they saw it in the real world? After I read this, I thought back on all the old movies I've seen. I was startled to realize that I honestly can't think of ONE that featured a black actor or a Jewish actor in the foreground. Even "The Diary of Anne Frank," which is about the Holocaust, doesn't really talk about it. The movie tries to make it seem like the Holocaust wasn't really taht big of a deal--people everywhere have to suffer, and this time it was the turn of the Jewish people. CRAZY!

The book went on to site a Gregory Peck movie that tried to tackle the subject of racism: when Peck's son came home crying because people made fun of his Jewishness, Peck told him "Oh, don't worry. You're not REALLY Jewish!" WHAT?! How does that help anything?

Of course, now racism is a subject we can't escape in the media. It's in every cheesy tv sitcom, every big budget movie, every novel, blah blah blah. So what pressing topic is the media ignoring now? What information are we missing out on these days because the "Big 10" don't feel like tackling them just yet?

In the words of Allen Ginsberg, "America, this is quite serious."

My media blog is quickly turning into a paranoid rant.

Propaganda?

I've been watching a lot of old movies this week, for lack of better things to do. One of them was one of my childhood favorites, "Babe."

Look at that poster and say it with me: "awwww..."

Anyway. You've probably seen this movie, and if you haven't, you probably should. It's still as good as it was when we were little. It's the story of a little pig who is won at a county fair for Christmas dinner but ends up winning everyone's heart and becoming the world's first sheep-herding pig. With it's adorable animatronic talking animals and sweet storyline, it's a childhood classic.

After watching the movie, I decided to go online to see if it had won any awards or critical acclaim(yes, I do this for fun sometimes. I'm a nerd and I'm okay with it:) Well, it did. Critics love it and it was nominated for a bunch of Oscars, but that's not my point. As I was looking around the IMDB site for the movie, I found something on the message boards that caught my eye.

Apparantly, some people view the movie "Babe" as a modern propaganda film.

Wait, what?

I don't know about you, but when I hear "propaganda" I think of Nazis, and cults, and communism, and other things that aren't good. Propaganda tries to convince people to think a certain way. So how does "Babe" fit into this genre? Say it with me: vegetarianism. Is that a word? You know what I mean if it's not, I guess. Because of Babe's cute little face and adorable way of talking, people view him(it?) as a ploy to turn people against eating meat. Interesting. I guess I can see how this could be, but to call this cute movie a propaganda film is a bit much.

There were other movies that this person called propaganda that surprised me, including Casablanca. I guess people can turn media into anything they want it to be, which is kind of cool, but also a bit strange. If the right person analyzes it, anything could be propaganda, couldn't it? The purpose of a lot of films is to make the viewers leave with different opinions than they came in with. for example, after seeing "The Green Mile," I was against the death penalty. Does that make that movie propaganda for the death penalty? I'm not sure. I'd love to research and puzzle through this further. Maybe later.

The next time I watch a movie, I think I'll look at it differently. I'm sure I'll ask myself, what does the filmmaker want me to think about this? Are my opinions and beliefs going to change after viewing this? The film industry is such a powerful form of media--they have the power to make us think certain ways and believe certain things. Interesting.

What's True?

This morning I was channel surfing and came across a show on the Travel channel about Area 51. I don't really know much about this bit of American mythology, so I decided to watch. It was pretty intriguing. In case you, like I was, haven't a clue what makes Area 51 such a controversial topic, here's some background information. Area 51 is a place in the Nevada desert where the government(supposedly) tests new military aircraft and analyzes the weapons and aircraft of foreign "enemy" countries. It's ridiculously secretive, so much so that if you step onto the property, they have the right to shoot you or arrest you, depending on your intentions. People also believe that this is an are of UFO/alien activity, but there's no real proof. The government refused to admit that Area 51 even existed until the 1990s, when former employees filed a lawsuit saying that hazardous material used while they worked there caused major injuries and illness. Everything that goes on there is highly confidential, so naturally, Americans are obsessed with creating theories of what really happens there.

Fascinating stuff. Right?

It gets better. On the show, an expert was talking about all of the supposed UFOs that have been seen in the area. For years, Americans created their own wacky theories about the aliens that flew these UFOs and whatnot, until the government came out with a statement explaining that these weren't really UFOs at all. They were merely new military air crafts that the government was trying out, usually late at night so they couldn't be seen. It should've ended there, since that sounds like a pretty good explanation, right? Wrong.

The expert went on to say that even though that did sound logical, he believed it to be merely a case of "disinformation." What? Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of untrue information. According to the expert, the government didn't want America to know that there are aliens in Area 51, so they made up a clever cover up claiming that all of the UFO sightings were really military aircraft sightings. Pretty creepy.

Now, this example is pretty trippy and far fetched, and I for one don't believe that there are creatures from another planet roaming around Nevada, but that's not the point. Disinformation is a creepy thing, and probably something that gets used more often than we'd like to think in the news media. Think about it: We really have no choice but to believe what the media tells us in certain situations, because there's no way we can go out and find whether or not it is true. We are slaves to the media in this sense. We have to believe what they tell us and hope that it's all true. What if nothing the news reported was actually true? What if the evening news was more like a propaganda film than a reporting of what was happening in the world? Crazy stuff. This is probably starting to sound more like a tabloid conspiracy theory than an educated media blog, so I'll stop here. Hopefully at least some of this made sense.

Musings on "Zodiac"

On Friday, I went to see Jake Gyllenhaal's new movie "Zodiac." Have you heard of it? Maybe not, it's not getting much media attention yet, though it should be. It's the true story of the Zodiac killer, a Northern California serial killer from the late 60s/early 70s. The movie is based on the book by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist who became utterly obsessed by the Zodiac, so much so that he eventually (according to the movie at least) dedicated most of his time to solving the mystery. I was pretty excited for this movie--I love a good crime mystery, and I love Jake Gyllenhaal. I was completely satisfied with the movie and will recommend it to all of you in a heartbeat(go see it! now! go!) but what I didn't expect was to find myself thinking about class concepts while watching the movie...crazy!

While I was watching this, all I could think of for awhile was how much it fit into the media myth of "Wisdom of the Rustic" in a really strange way. Now, Robert Graysmith was not a rustic man. But he also wasn't trained to be a criminologist--he was a cartoonist. Yet he eventually ended up coming closer than anyone else to solving this crime. Many of the early scenes focus on the editors of the newspaper Graysmith worked at puzzling over the Zodiac letters, trying to come to any sort of conclusion. (The Zodiac killer was obsessed with gaining media attention, and thus sent tons of letters to the newspapers about himself. He also sent codes that contained clues as to who he was and why he was murdering.) Graysmith lurked in the background, wide eyed and fascinated, until someone would inevitably notice him and say scathingly, "Don't you have a cartoon to draw?" He would scamper off, and the "experts" would go back to puzzling. Then we would see Graysmith running into his house with an armful of books on code breaking from the library. He hunched over the desk, puzzling through the codes. Eventually, he solved them. As he explained to his colleagues what they meant and how he solved them, his coworkers looked at him, mystified.
"How did you figure this out?"
"Well, I went to the library. I like puzzles."

and so on and so forth.

Is it any surprise that long after the "experts" gave up, Graysmith continued to puzzle away at this case, until eventually he had a conclusion? It's the classic story--the person no one expects to save the day does. The cartoonist breaks the Zodiac codes and eventually figures out who the Zodiac is. Meanwhile, all of the educated people sit around, scratching their heads and eventually giving up. Ta da.

Ironic, isn't it, that this story is actually based on real events? Does this mean that the media myths we all have grown to love are infiltrating themselves into reality? Strange stuff.

Well, I guess that's it. Go see Zodiac. You probably won't be disappointed.

Hollywood: Who Will Get Picked Last?

Well, when we did the Hollywood simulation in class today, I was pretty pumped to see how it would all play out. I was on a writing team(surprise!) that specialized with sci-fi and fantasy genres. We wanted to try and expand our audience to include more than just the typical sci-fi "fanboy." I was optimistic. Our script was stellar(it really was!) and our intentions were good. We set out into the world of movie making confident that our scifi/romance/horror/comedy/drama film (can you say hybrid?) was going to succeed.

But then we started pitching our idea.

"No."
"Not interested."
"We don't like sci-fi."
"We already have a script."
"We're already signed."
"Wait...I"m going to play an ALIEN?!"

and so on and so forth. It was a stream of constant rejection for the two of us, and no matter how hard we tried, we couldn't sign a deal. We even lowered our salary and offered to rewrite the script. When class was over, we left, defeated. Our script was worthless to Hollywood. I felt like we were the kids picked last in gym class(kind of ironic, yes, that we were pitching a Sci Fi script? haha)

It seems as though the sci fi genre is officially dead, at least in the Malone version of Hollywood. I wonder, will anyone mourn its premature death?

This whole simulation gave me a frightening glimpse into what my future as a writer might possibly be. Rejection letter after rejection letter. No wonder they say Hollywood isn't for the faint at heart(do they really say that, or did I just make it up? oh well.) Good thing I'm not planning on writing scripts, or worse, sci-fi scripts.

This also made me think a little bit. Now, this may be totally off track of everything, and maybe I'm just reading into things a bit too much, but bear with me. Our script idea went against the mainstream and was at least somewhat original. But no one wanted it, because they didn't think it would sell. As a writer, am I going to have to limit what I write to what the media wants to hear? That's downright scary. If writers only get paid to write what the producers want to hear/see/whatever, then how can innovations ever arise? Granted, our sci fi thriller hybrid whatever you wanna call it wasn't exactly the Script That Would Change The World, but still.

Do we really control the media, or does the media control us? That, friends, is a question for a different blog....

Cool?

Call me nerdy, but I really liked "Merchants of Cool." I had to watch it last year for my Comm 110 class, so I noticed a lot more this time around. Yeah, the situations they portrayed were totally out of date, but it was a definitely a trip down memory lane. I never thought I would see Carson Daly during his TRL hipster days again:) It made me really nostalgic for my teenybopper preteen days.

When I was in junior high, I watched MTV religiously. I voted for my favorite boybands on TRL. I laughed and cried along with the casts of the Real World. I tried to talk and dress like the popstars I saw so often, because they were Cool. I remember singing Blink 182 songs with my friends and thinking we were really edgy, even though we obviously weren't. Oh, to be young again.

I wouldn't go so far as to say my friends and I were "midriffs." We weren't that obsessed. But we definitely dreamed of being midriffs. Do you remember the girl band Dream? Don't lie, you know you do. They sang classic songs such as "He Loves U Not" and "This is Me." My friends and I saw Dream on tv and decided that really, they weren't that different than us. We made plans to become the next Pop Sensation. Every weekend we would practice our singing in my basement, practicing not only Dream songs, but also Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and...the Ateens(I knooow.) We choreographed dances to Nysnc songs. We practiced being interviewed by teen magazines. We played with hair, makeup, and clothes. We were Ready. The sad thing was, we really believed we could do it. We were going to be on Mtv and sell hit records and maybe even change the world.

It never happened. But that's not the point.

The media shapes so much of who we are. Maybe you had a similar midriff experience. Maybe you aspired to be a Mook. Maybe you were really crazy and were a rabid fan of the ICP. Your story may be different than mine, but essentially they are the same. We are formed by the media in our preteen years, and there's really no way of escaping it.

The sad thing is, the makers of media realize this, as showcased in the Coolhunting segment as well as the ethnography scene. They know that young people are going to watch their programming and try their hardest to imitate what they see. Yet, they continue to fill the screens with mooks and midriffs, images of people who are not real, knowing teens are going to try to become the next Johnny Knoxville or Britney Spears. They know they're setting these kids up for disaster, yet they continue to do it. Why?

Because it sells.

When all is said and done, these producers aren't concerned about the morals behind what they're showing. It's not their job to be. Their job is to create media that sells, and the Mook and Midriff characters most definitely sell. As long as there are preteen boys out there who want to be the next Loud Outrageous Rude Boy and preteen girls who aspire to be the next Mega Pop Star Girl, the media producers will continue to do what they're doing. Really, we can't blame them for this. Can we?

Let's Give it a Try...

I've been thinking a lot about this whole "create a new television hybrid genre" thing. I've had lots of ideas, most of which were totally unoriginal and that would be disastrous if attempted in real life. I considered not even doing this blog, until it hit me. What if I combined two of my favorite shows into something crazy and new? Is it even possible? We shall see.

I love "The Office." It's so darn clever, and I can't get enough of it. The concept of making a television show that looks a lot like a documentary of real life in a place as mundane as an office is pure genius, and the writing and acting are just perfect. I also love "Scrubs." Who would have thought that a sitcom about working as a doctor in a hospital would actually work? The combination of the drama of medical shows and the comedy of the average sitcom is strange, but it works.

Ironic, yes, that the two shows I'm combining are already hybrids? So that makes this, what...a quadruple hybrid? Cool.

So, when we combine the documentary-like filming and scripting of "The Office" with the humor and drama of "Scrubs," what do we get?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the MedicalDocumentaryDramaticSitcom, hypothetically entitled for our purposes "The Hospital."

Why would this work? Well, its a proverbial field day for people who fit into the "critic" category...writers, artists, etc. This new innovation would provide everyone involved with a big challenge, since nothing of the sort has been attempted before. However, if it succeeded, it would be rewarding.

For "producers," this new genre would also pose a challenge. What situations and settings are typical for this new genre? The producers would be responsible for determining all of this.

And, of course, this whole thing would be perhaps most rewarding for the "audience." This would give them something fresh and new, a nice change from eveyrthing else they can watch on tv.

Yeah, it's a hit or miss situation. I think it could work. You may not. Maybe someday in the future we will see.

"Music and Lyrics" and genre hybrids

Last night, I saw the new movie "Music and Lyrics." I've wanted to see it since the first preview came out--Hugh Grant? Drew Barrymore? Singing? Yes, please. I walked into the theatre expecting a silly romantic comedy. No more, no less. I left happily surprised.

Don't get me wrong-- "Music and Lyrics" is a romantic comedy if there ever was one. But it's also more. It's a lso a clever commentary on the changing world of the music business, thus combining two really different genres--the romantic comedy and the music documentary.

Here's the story- Hugh Grant is Alex, a washed up pop star from the 80s boy band POP!. Drew Barrymore is Sophie, a young writer who just happens to stop by to water his plants. Alex has just received an offer to restart his career-by writing a hit pop song for a young pop star named Cora(a hilarious Britney Spears/Shakira imitation). The only problem? He has no lyricist. Guess who steps in to write the lyrics?

Of course, they fall in love. And of course, complications arise. Only in this movie, unlike every other romantic comedy in the history of the world, the complication isn't because of another man/woman. It's because of a moral dilemma. Cora wants to change the song andmake it something its not. Sophie knows this is a bad idea. Alex just wants to be famous again.

You can guess how this movie ends.

What makes this movie worth mentioning(besides Hugh Grants delightful dry British humor...gets me every time, haha) is the struggle for Alex to adapt to a music world that has changed in a big way since his POP! days. There is a particularly endearing scene in which he tries to learn how to dance as Cora does, showcasing how much dance has changed since the 80s. Without this aspect, I don't think the film would've been quite as enchanting.

That's what makes it so interesting I think--it stays within the confines of the romantic comedy genre, using all the conventions and limitations that define the genre, yet it also brings something incredibly new--the style of the music documentary. This is evident int he music videos featured in the film, as well as the concert scenes and "behind the scenes" feeling we get whenever Cora appears on camera.

All in all, a great movie. You should probably go see it. Now.

"Will You Be My Valentine?" and other nonsense

Hmmm. First of all, let's talk about how happy I was early this morning when, through a beautiful text message (sent in bulk, so it counts as media!) from a good friend explained to me that Malone decided to be nice and cancel classes. Joy! Unspeakable joy! A college kid's dream, and so on and so forth. I then checked the website myself, just to bask in the glory. There was that delightful red bar at the top of the Malone page, announcing that all classes had been cancelled and all offices were closed. What a wonderful present from God, brought to us by the media. A Valentine's Day gift, if you will.

What? Today was Valentine's Day? I'd never have guessed it. It's not like there have been approximately 9,440,006 advertisements telling me this since...January? Absurd. The media has turned this silly little holiday into a ridiculous ordeal. Commercials show me "happy" couples who are enveloped in each other's arms, men buying women diamond necklaces that cost them two months salary, women cooking men fancy dinners that she would never otherwise have cooked, and so on and so forth. Walking into any store, I am bombarded by pink and red hearts, teddy bears, elaborate bouquets of flowers, and enough chocolate to feed all of the starving children in the world.

Let's not even go into the world of second rate television sitcoms, which tell us that if you don't have a dream date on this cold February day, you are nothing. Filth. Scum. Destined to live alone for the rest of your life and collect cats. If you do have one, and that dream boy or girl forgets that it's Valentines Day, or, Heaven forbid, doesn't spend enough money on you, then they are worthless. They don't love you. In fact, they secretly hate you and are only with you because they find you mildly attractive. You might as well just go ahead and break up with them.

Ugh. You're probably reading this, thinking "Wow. This girl sure is bitter." Maybe I am. Just a litttle bit. I mean, honestly. Is it fully necessary for the media to take hold of every little thing and blow it out of proportion? If you love someone, you don't need a holiday to show them this. You don't need to buy them diamonds and chocolate and little teddy bears holding heart shaped pillows, or whatever the trend is nowadays. Show them every day. The Beatles were right when they sang "money can't buy me love." Neither can Valentine's Day. IT'S ALL A SHAM. Or something. I don't know, it's a snow day.

I am probably rambling and not making much sense. That is okay.

With that said, Happy Valentine's Day, everyone:) Here are some funny(?) anti-valentines from some very bitter people.

Dogme 95

What a grand, idealistic idea! In the totally corrupt world of filmmaking where it matters more how much money you spend and how many famous actors you cast than how innovative or interesting your film is, these filmmakers said "forget this. we're doing it our way and if you don't like it, then tough."

of course, I've never seen a Dogme 95 film. Maybe in actuality the films are horrible, pretentious pieces of filth. But the idea is awesome. I'm not sure if these filmmakers are still around or if they still religiously follow the "Vow of Chastity" (HAH!) in their films, but I can definitely see that they have made an impact on other filmmakers.

When we talked about this film movement in class, I immediately though of Gus Van Sant. He had major success with Good Will Hunting, but his other films(Gerry, Elephant, Last Days...) were kept mainly to artsy film festivals and whatnot. I haven't seen Last Days yet, and Gerry was absolutely terrible, but I feel that Elephant is one of the most amazing films ever made. Seriouly. Also, it definitely contains aspects of the Dogme 95 tradition: there is very little dialogue, and for the most part, what's there is totally unscripted. there are no "famous" people in the film. Instead the characters are all played by normal teenage kids. Costumes? More like what they had in their closet. Sets? More like a high school in Oregon. It's unlike anything I've ever seen before.

Of course, Elephant isn't a complete "Dogme" film. It is based loosely upon the Columbine school shooting, so there is some violence at the end. However, when the violence occurs, it is completely shocking and unexpected, a total contrast from the rest of the film, which focuses mainly on a day in the life of several teenagers, all incredibly different.

Elephant is an amazing film, one that showcases what "real" filmmaking should be. Much like the Dogme 95 filmmakers, Gus Van Sant chose to go against all conventions and do things his way, whether anyone liked it or not. See it. Reflect on it. If you like it, good. If not, too bad.

Wait, this isn't my semiotic domain...

Last night I attended a concert in a teeny tiny venue in the middle of nowhere. It was the farewell tour of a band I'm quite fond of, Last Tuesday. I've never been to a show that small before--previously I've only been to mega concerts or semi mega concerts, so this was a bit of a shock. The fact that the guys in the band wandered around before hand and watched part of the opening acts with us was incredibly cool, but very strange. Then there was their portion of the concert. We were right in the frong, so they were pretty much singing in our faces. Again, very very cool, but strange. I mean, where are you suppposed to look when someone is singing in your face? Awkward. It was a really great show, but bittersweet since I know I'll never get to see them play again after this tour.

Anyway. The reason I'm writing this isn't to tell you how awesome Last Tuesday is, although they are and you should definitely check them out on Myspace if you get a chance. I'm writing this because as I stood there at the concert, I realized that my friends and I were completely out of place in that teeny tiny venue. Not because we didn't love the band, because we did. But it's not always about the music at concerts. The problem was, we didn't fit into the semiotic domain featured at the concert: The Hip Concert Kids. Hip Concert Kids like concerts, and will go to any local show even if they don't know the band. They like to wear very tight pants, especially if they are boys. Their shirt must come from the thrift store, and their shoes must either be Chuck Taylors or ballet flats. Hair is also very important to Hip Concert Kids. If you are a boy HCK, your hair must be partially bleached and flopped in a stylish manor over one eye. If you are a girl HCK, your hair must either be very short and dyed numerous colors or long, crimped, and covering at least half of the face. Thrashing about and bobbing your head to the music is also a must, as is confronting various band members at the merch tables in pursuit of autographs and pictures to be used to prove your coolness.

Sadly, my friends and I are not Hip Concert Kids. We wore jeans and sweaters and were there simply to enjoy some good music and support some awesome guys in an awesome band. We did not thrash about as the cool kids did, though we did bust out a few dance moves(you can't listen to Last Tuesday without having the urge to dance.) It was a strange experience, being so out of place, but it was great fun. Who knows, maybe the future will hold another concert in a teeny tiny venue surrounded by the Hip Concert Kids. If so, I'm ready.

All You Need is Love

Hmm. I just read the Joseph Campbell articles on chivalry that were given in the 10th blog prompt, and I found them to be quite strange. How is it that the idea of chivalry has changed so drastically since it was first brought about? In its original form, chivalry was apparently a crazy revolution of love, going against all conventions to give people a unique "person to person" experience, according to these articles. Women were given the upper hand instead of being treated like weak little flowers who needed men to wait upon them. Things have changed so much since then, and not always for the better. We have these absurd notions of what "real" women and men should be like, and this travels over into our conception of romance. Take a look at the typical romantic comedy. Boy who is dangerously handsome, smart, and funny, meets Girl who is quirky and unique, but still beautiful and feminine. Boy likes Girl. Girl doesn't like Boy. Boy chases Girl. Things are nice. Boy screws things up with Girl. Boy chases Girl again. Boy and Girl live happily ever after, defying any realistic problem that has arisen between them. Please.

I guess it's apparent that some of Campbell's ideas about chivalry live on in the romantic comedy. The boy still has to vie for the attention of the girl, who ultimately still has the upper hand in the matter(if she doesn't want to take him back, then he's out of luck). But something is different. It often seems almost as if the boy isn't so much doing nice things and trying to get the girl because he is desperately in love with her as much as because he likes the chase. It's unrealistic and not about love at all. It's ridiculous.

Why do we let the media tell us how to act? We can deny all we want that we don't, but let's face it. If we dont' fit into the media's standards of what a girl or boy should act like, we're going to feel out of place. If our relationship with the boy/girl of our dreams isn't what the media says it should be, we're going to worry that our relationship is dysfunctional or even that we're doing it wrong. It's scary. The media is ruining our conceptions of love and relationships, and I hate it. Something needs to change.

There you have it. Yet another bitter rant from yours truly about the evils of media. You know you love it:)

"I Mean You No Harm..."

I've been thinking a lot about the "Presence of a Conspiracy" myth and how/why it can be viewed as harmful to certain groups of people. First of all, we talked in class about how this myth is often applied to political campaigns and politics in general. Do you see the huge problem here? If we're always being led to think that the person who is in charge of our nation(or state, or county, or whatever..) is a corrupt man/woman who isn't telling us the whole truth, then we can never truly trust them. Even when they are telling the truth, the public always has it in the back of their mind that something just isn't right--"no way could a politician be telling the truth! It's unheard of!" This is not detrimental only to politicians who must know that there will always be someone telling the public that what the politician is saying isn't true, that they're corrupt and unjust, and that they're hiding things...it also greatly harms the American public. Things can never just be plain black and white for us. We are always suspecting that we're not getting the full truth. If someone tells us one thing, in the back of our heads we immediately think that perhaps they mean just the opposite. For goodness sake, we don't even know whether or not to believe it when the media tells us someone has died--there are still people who believe Elvis is around somewhere, hanging out in a diner or something. And there are still theories going around about the big scandal with the Beatles' Sargent Pepper album and the "death" of Paul McCartney. Try it yourself. Type "conspiracy theories" into any search engine and I guarantee you'll find a ton of matches. It's absurd.

But at the same time, it's wonderfully entertaining, and isn't that one of the main purposes of media? That's why so many people are obsessed with conspiracy theories and movies or books or newspaper articles about conspiracy theories. They're entertaining. This is perhaps the main reason why the "Presence of a Conspiracy" myth has lived on for so many years. Even though it may in some way be ruining our country and corrupting our mindset, it entertains us and lets us use our minds to try and figure out who is really telling the truth.

Media Myth: Presence of a Conspiracy

Let's face it. America loves a good conspiracy theory, which is probably why this media myth is so darn popular. The guidelines for the myth are quite simple(someone, or a group of someones has a secret that could drastically change the world, and one person, usually a man, must stop this from happening,) but the ways in which the myth can be played out are endless. I have chosen to illustrate the myth with the movie "Donnie Darko." This example may be a bit abstract, but I feel as though it's a great example of the "Presence of a Conspiracy" myth.

In the film, we meet a young man named Donnie Darko. Donnie has a history of being mentally disturbed, so when we first see him encounter a "6 foot tall bunny rabbit" named Frank in the middle of the night who tells him that the world will end in 28 days, we are led to believe that this is just another of Donnie's hallucinations. However, the next morning, as he walks back home, he discovers that his house has been destroyed by a jet that crashed in his bedroom. (Still with me? I know, it's strange.) Through the course of the movie, Donnie continues to see Frank, and his encounters keep getting stranger and stranger. Frank leads him to an old woman called Grandma Death who knows a great deal about time travel, tells him to burn down the house of a child molestor, and makes him flood his school in the middle of the night. Donnie gets more and more confused as to what exactly Frank wants him to do, until finally, after the death of his girlfriend at the hands of a few evil teenager, it hits him. The world is going to end. He knows how to stop it. He must go back in time to the night the jet crashed in his bedroom, and this time, he must be hit. If this happens, the world will not have to end--he will have taken its place.

Crazy, right? But the elements are there. Frank has a secret. The secret will end the world. Donnie must be willing to sacrifice his life in order to keep the secret from happening. There are, of course, complications that keep this from being a perfect example. Frank tries to help Donnie, instead of being the "bad guy." Also, at times it seems as though other people know about this secret and are trying to help Donnie figure out his fate. However, I still think this movie fits into the conspiracy myth.

Something Unexpected

Well, I sat down just now planning to do the whole "Media Myth" blog that we're supposed to do, then realized that my notes on the matter are at school. I guess that will have to wait for now. In the meantime, I present to you...this.

Since the beginning, I've thought that the tv show Scrubs is one of the most amazing things on television. I don't watch much tv, because, lets be honest, most of it is complete crap. Scrubs is different though. It's quirky and off beat. It's absolutely hilarious, but at times can be extremely poignant and serious. It's the perfect combination of "laugh out loud" and "awww how sad" moments. The writing is perfect. Plus, how can you not adore Zach Braff? It's one of my favorite shows.

Anyway, the reason I'm writing this is not because I want you all to know how much I like Scrubs, but because I want to talk about Thursday's episode, which I just had the opportunity to watch. They've done it again. They've boldly gone where no sitcom(that I know of at least) has gone before. Friends, I present to you the Scrubs Musical.

Have I mentioned yet that I'm a huge musical theater nerd? No? Oh. I'M A HUGE MUSICAL THEATER NERD. I love it. I've always loved it. I always will love it. There, now you know. You can imagine my delight when I sat down to watch this episode to find that my favorite half hour show was not only going to be hilarious as usual, it was also going to be a half hour of musical pandemonium! The story focused on a woman who was hearing music in her head, though no one could figure out why. She was admitted to the hospital and as the doctors tried to diagnose her, she saw them dancing and singing their hearts out.

Who knew that it would be possible to showcase an entire Broadway-esque production in only half an hour? No, this wasn't just a few musical numbers thrown hastily together; the episode contained the classic fun opening number, showstopping act one finale, and heartwarming ending number along with the expected silly songs. It was very impressive.

I think this is why so many people are captivated by television: like most forms of media, it's a way to escape, if only for half an hour. It's also a way to connect with people. If a conversation isn't going quite as smoothly as one would wish, you could easily bring up this episode of Scrubs(or any other episode of any other show for that matter) and just like that, people are talking. It gives us something to talk about. Perhaps that's why television is so popular. Or maybe not. I guess there's really no way to know, right?

I'm sure the Scrubs Musical is on YouTube by now, or some similar site. You should probably go watch it. Now.

That is all:)

Media Ramblings

As I was looking over my notes from Friday, I started to think of the irony of semiotic domains. You see, everyone belongs to at least one, whether they choose to admit it or not. They're inescapable. No matter who you are, it seems, there's a group of people who are almost exactly like you. Even nonconformists and anarchists fit into their own semiotic domains...imagine how mad they must be to realize this. At the same time, it must be strangely comforting. Even if you are the only person you know who belongs to a certain semiotic domain, you can rest assured knowing that someone, somewhere understands you. Your language, your clothing, your beliefs and ideologies...they are shared. Interesting. Kind of.

On a completely different note, let's talk about MySpace. Do you have one? Don't lie, I know you do. We all do. And that is sad. I don't think any of us realized, when we were signing up for an account on that crazy site, that we were in a way definining our generation. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the MySpace generation. We post pictures of ourselves looking pensive, blowing kisses, posing with millions of people to show how "cool" we are. We write blogs about how much we hate life, or love life, or how much we really just don't care at all. We worry about why we aren't on that person's Top 8 when they're obviously on ours. We define ourselves purely by the clothing we wear, the music we listen to, the movies we think are entertaining. If we care about an issue, we post a banner about it on our page. It's ridiculous.

In a way, MySpace and other sites like it(Facebook, anyone?) are slowly taking over our lives. I mean, think about it. When was the last time you went a day, or even a couple of days, without checking it? If you're like me, you check it multiple times a day. Maybe not because you really care that much about it, but purely out of habit. I think it's time to break that habit. It's been fun, but things are getting just a little out of hand. It's time for us to step back from this media and do something more worthwhile with our time. Is this really what we want our generation to be remembered for? I don't.

So there you have it, my humble opinion on the matter. That is all.

Let's Go To the Movies....

My name is Amy, and I am a film geek. I'm one of those weird people who likes movies that never come to theaters in Ohio, who obsessed over foreign films, and who visits imdb.com daily to check up on the industry and whatnot. I even used to make short films with my friends in high school...they were silly and purely for fun, but I took pride in the fact that we had created something interesting(at least to us) and unique. I don't really know why I love movies so much, but since I was 3 and sobbing at the ending of E.T. I've been hooked. There's just something invigorating about sitting down in a theater(or at home) and being able to lose yourself for a few hours, totally immersed in the beauty and pain of an experience that doesn't belong to you. A really good movie can make you think about yourself and the world around you. It can make you question what you believe in(this is a good thing, I promise) and lead you to make changes in the way you behave. Or it can just make you laugh and leave the experience with a light heart and a smile. It's amazing.
I was lucky enough in high school to have a teacher who taught me to cultivate my love for film. He introduced me to independent and foreign films, and for this I am eternally grateful. He taught me that there are movies other than the big budget blockbusters that play in every major theater in the country. He taught me the beauty that comes from a really great director and script writer. My eyes were opened to something that has since influenced me majorly.
Now when I go to movies, I look for the little things the director throws in to make a movie look beautiful. As I leave the theater with friends, I rave over cinematography and editing and they look at me as though I'm slightly insane. I'm okay with it. In fact, I think a tiny part of me loves the fact that I'm the only person I know who has this crazy adoration for good filmmaking.
I feel that film is an exciting form of mass media, because there are so many ways it affects people. I look forward to exploring it more as the semester goes on. Until then, I will say goodbye.

test

test