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.