Extra cred.

                The internet! A teenager’s dream cure for boredom: screw reading, extracurricular activities, or other ways of having fun. You can now read electronically, “work out” on your WII consol and express artistic talents using the wonderful Photoshop. So, to answer your question: of course I had a blog before this RTF class. The 13 year old’s perfect blog at the time was xanga, and I mainly blogged because I was bored with my life and felt like maybe writing out how bored I was meant I wouldn’t be bored anymore. It sort of worked….and by sort of, I mean didn’t.
                I liked blogging for this class, because though this was a weekly assignment, it didn’t feel like it. Instead of “homework,” it was more like a fun way to discuss lectures. Instead of a group discussion or an analysis of the material, it was more engaging and fun to just write a paragraph or two about the topics in blog format. I also liked this blog because it was a nice way to take terms and ideologies from class and use them with our own examples.  
                I like to consider myself techno savy, so I didn’t really have any problems with the blogs. If I had a problem (conceptually) it was with finding an outside topic to write about. But, once I found my topic, it was easy to take the topic (like Mad Men, or The Lion King, or His Girl Friday) and relate them with terms from class lectures and readings. But, I think I easily overcame these problems by just thinking outside of the box. I thought about things I liked and therefore came up with ways to relate them to our lecture.
                The topics about film production the most fun. Also, it was fun to take examples from movies and really dissect them and make sense of them using film terms. The 3 act structure was my favorite topic, but watching the Lion King as homework was a lot of fun, too. Advertising blog prompts were fun, but only because I liked looking up pictures of Marc Jacobs’ ad for “Bang.” Guilty.
                Blogging should rule the university universe and dominate the “analytical essay.” I absolutely love writing analysis essays, but I think blogging is more fun. It doesn’t feel like a homework assignment, but another form of engaging in media (which is appropriate since this class is Media Studies…good usage of the class title, right?). I think more classes should have blog assignments, simply because it’s simple, doesn’t take up too much time or energy, and can be fun.
                If anything, all that I would change is more extra credit blogs…hell, they’re easy and fun, therefore I think more people would be more willing to do them. Plus, who isn’t a fan of extra credit? That’s right, no body! Also, you are more than welcome to use by blog for future references.

Wise Words of Wisdom....with The Beatles

Through music and a simply magnificent song, I must say that the Beatles surely provided a great definition of “globalization,” singing: “One thing I can tell you is you got to be free, come together right now over me.” (okay, so it may just be the one little part, but I really enjoyed it…plus it’s a lot more entertaining that just looking up a definition on dictionary.com, right?) Course it sounds like a long shot, but globalization is all about being interconnected, not only through people among our society, but nations, and even cultures. Therefore, I think “coming together” is a great way to provide a definition of globalization. And I am sticking to my Beatles reference. =]
 To explore globalization further, let’s take a look at the concept of cultural imperialism. There is a big difference between cultural imperialism and cultural influence. The former is sort of like the “taking over,” or dominance, of one culture or a trend. We don’t allow for one thing to slowly starting becoming a part of the community or society. Cultural influence, I think, learns towards heavily pushing the idea of something, so that is DOES become part of a new society. Let’s use the example of the expansion of everyone’s beloved restaurant, McDonalds! Now, this is something that is all over Western culture, and we never think “I wonder if there is a McDonalds around…,” simply because we KNOW that somewhere there is a McDonalds nearby. But McDonalds is slowly expanding to other nations and cultures. Some of these people may not like it because the western culture is managing to bleed within the cracks of their societies. While doing some research, I’ve read that the French had a giant outcry when the first McDonalds opened in France. And who could blame them? They don’t want cheese burgers and (although it would SEEM appropriate) French fries (haha, French humor) to become the new “French meal.” I do remember that when in Paris with friends and other people from the States, all of us at one point or another wanted to spot the golden arches and have a tasty meal (that we were accustomed to back in the States). We did manage to find one, only after struggling with placing an order in French, but we were all really bummed that there didn’t seem to be many McD’s all over like back home! And alas! An example of cultural imperialism. McDonalds is all over the US, and rarely we do find it throughout the streets of Paris, but this chain does manage to step outside of the States and in some way “connect” everyone. It is kind of sad that this restaurant is what connects us, but our western culture is managing to make its way to other people. Not necessarily to take over, but to make a common connection between people and cultures.
Hey, I still believe the Beatles said it best.

Sex Sells: A True Story

This is clearly a powerful ad, in many different ways. Though it is an ad to promote cologne, there is also the need to put in the man who made the cologne, Marc Jacobs. Not only do they feel the need to throw him into the photo shoot, but he is also nakedly promoting his own cologne.
When we think of the ways this ad appeals to audiences, we mainly think about how sex sells. With the ubiquity of the ad, this picture captures the attention of readers regardless of their sex, sexual preference, or age. The picture holds our attention, but not because we are interested in Jacobs' new cologne, but rather because of Jacobs is behind his cologne, in a sexy and naked pose. Through sex appeal, this ad works to grab everyone's attention as well as to "promote" his cologne.
But this ad is just one of many that uses sex as a form of appealing to audiences. Even the name of the cologne itself, Bang, is one that makes you question if there is any innuendo behind the name. But, we wouldn't be guessing if there is any sexual connotation behind Bang if there was not a naked man within the picture. This advertisement does a great job of putting two different things together, and allowing the reader to put the two puzzle pieces together: to form a sexual advertisement. There is a pro within this ad, and that is the ad stimulates the purchase of a new product. Of course, many people see this ad and think they need to go out and buy the product because the ad is that hot. But we don't really need new cologne do we? Here lies the con within this ad. We think just because the ad is powerful enough to hold our attention and we begin to drool over it, that we need to spend money on worthless things we don't NEED. And in this case, many men have said that this cologne doesn't even smell good! This equals an even BIGGER waste of money. It is true what they say, sex does sell.

"His Girl Friday" and the 3 Act Structure.

The 3 act structure within the film, His Girl Friday, is quite simple. In the film, Hildy is a former journalist who comes to say goodbye to her ex-husband (Walter, who is also the Editor of the newspaper) and run off with another man whom she has fallen in love with. But Walter does not want her to leave, and tricks her any way he can so she can stay and write for his paper. Through Berg's terminology, we will look at the plot points of the film, and where and what the climax is of the film.
The intro of the film just sets up the situation of Hildy and Walter's past relationship. We see how the two interact with one another, as well as how they both act with Hildy's new fiance, Bruce. Walter wants Hildy to stay and cover the story of a convict (Earl Williams) about to face the death penalty. There is much controversy with the situation, with people for/against the penalty, as well as thinking that Earl is an innocent man. Seeing as Hildy loves a good story, and with a desire for writing, she decides to stay in town (instead of hopping a train with her new to be hubby). This is the first plot point within the film. This plot point asks a question (what will the article read, will Williams be freed, etc.) and the next act will answer this question. This first plot point is at 23 minutes.
The film goes on, showing us the "answer" to the previous plot point's question. Hildy visits Williams in jail and writes her manuscript for the article. Once she has everything she needs for Walter, she wants to hop the train and head off to her big trip. But Walter still wants her to stay (and to secretly try to win her over). This time though, it is not Walter who convinces her to stay, but Earl Williams! He escapes his jail cell and finds Hildy to question her about the article she is soon about to publish. The second plot point (60 minutes out of 91) is at this moment: Hildy panics and calls up Walter. With both fright and delight she tells him that she has Earl Williams in the press room. This PP is exactly like the last one, but this transition also escalates the stakes. We don't know if the mad man will win or what will happen to Hildy, etc.
Hildy has a mad man in her newspaper press room, and everyone wants to know all the juicy details. Cops, family members, coworkers, and Walter all come to her aid and try to make out what exactly is going on. To not give much away, I will skip ahead to the climax! Now, you may think that the climax has something to do with Earl Williams and his psycho personality, but that is where you are wrong. Instead, the climax (which happens around 90:15/91) is this: Hildy realizes she really is in love with her goofball editor Walter and wants to stay with him. It's kind of sad for Bruce, but it makes everyone in the audience feel warm and cuddly, breaks the tension, provides a great deal of comfort (obviously), and shows us a perfect example of the Hollywood Happy Ending. His Girl Friday is a great example of the Hollywood 3 act structure, and all around a fun and enjoyable film.

30 Rock!

My favorite tv show is, without a doubt, 30 Rock. I love the humor and I have a huge crush on Tina Fey (who doesn't though, right?!) And after Professor Tait's lecture, I enjoyed trying to categorize 30 Rock within a sitcom category. Tait did use 30 Rock as an example within the lecture, but with the aspect of characters, and I can see that 30 Rock definitely has axial characters. But, what I could not figure out was whether the show was episodic or serial. I think that the show definitely has traits of both. Tait used an example with "Friends," asking if two characters will ever get together, which that itself displays both examples of serial and episodic. Seeing as Tait said that it is important for a sitcom to contain characteristics of both, 30 Rock is the perfect example of a sitcom containing both episodic and serial traits.
Throughout 30 Rock, we see the life and shenanigans of Liz Lemon, the head writer of a comedy show. Aside from her life, we see glimpses of other characters' lives, but only when Lemon is involved (which demonstrates the episodic characteristic of the sitcom; this really doesn't allow much character development for other characters, which is a tad disappointing). Liz always manages to learn a lesson from Jack Donague, or from her fellow coworkers. This lesson usually isn't learned until the last few minutes of the sitcom (a characteristic of episodic sitcoms), but the road to learning the lesson takes place the entire duration of the sitcom (this is where 30 Rock is not as serial centered). 30 Rock isn't as episodic in terms of the structure of the story lines. While most episodic sitcoms pick up where the last episode left off, 30 Rock doesn't have a structured plot. The script for the series is more sporadic as far as events and character development (meaning 30 Rock does not follow a long term plot, but does mean that the plot is not as predictable, a serial characteristic). To put it plain and simple, 30 Rock is an acrobat, walking a tight rope between Episodic and Serial.

The Lion King...in Film making Terms

Throughout this post is the dissection of Disney's best animated feature, The Lion King, throughout the terms of film making (as previously stated). Through three types of shots, we will see both the connotative and denotative interpretations for the three basic shots (LS, MS, CU).

The long shot: What I remember most (aside from the great musical numbers) from this movie was Simba’s journey back to Pride Rock. It was a nice simple long shot with Simba represented in two forms: one was in a small form, running across the screen, and the other displayed just his paws on top of the first shot, in a lower opacity. The denotative description of this shot is simple: it sets up the “going home” scene perfectly. The orientation shot shows us Simba leaving the world of Hakuna Matata, and going back to his responsibilities at Pride Rock. This sets up a moment of happiness. Yay, Simba is finally going home to challenge Scar and take his place as King of the Pridelands! However, when we look at this in a connotative connotation, we analyze it in a different matter. Simba is represented as a tiny form, and we see the scenery on a much larger level. The fact that he is so small shows us how isolated the character is, and how overwhelming his surroundings may be. Even though he is going home and we see this as a good thing, through the connotative description of the long shot we understand that his journey isn’t easy since he leaves his friends behind and ventures off alone.(In the screen shot, you can barely see little Simba, but his blurry shape is right above the paw in the shot)



MS- As the movie progresses and Simba reaches Pride Rock, we see a glimpse of his home and what it now looks like with Scar as King. Then we see a scene with Scar and Simba’s mother, Sarabi, which provides an excellent medium shot. In this shot, the audience understands what life is like now that Scar is King of the Pridelands (denotative). Through the screen shot, we see a nice visual representation of the two attitudes between the two characters. Sarabi keeps her head high and tries not to break to Scar and his dictatorship. Scar, however, is the opposite, and he is displayed as evil and downright mean. Their relationship (connotative) is perfectly spelled out through their words as well as their nonverbal communication.

 CU- Simba to the rescue! After Scar attacks Sarabi and Simba steps in, the audience sees interaction between Scar and Simba. Throughout these scenes, most are close up shots between the two rivals. Here we examine the important detail (denotative) of the two characters. We see Simba and how he really feels towards Scar. There is resentment throughout his words, and written all over his mane (connotative). Even with the close ups of Scar, he looks frightened and worried. Throughout their sharing of words, there lies the important detail of the plot of the story and what enfolds in the next couple of minutes.

The Lion King displays perfect examples of the shots we learned in class, as well as shot progression. Aside from just shots, the film also displays great camera angles and variations.

Hollywood!

  The studio system during the early days of Hollywood acted as nothing but promotion. Through Tait's lecture, we saw how strict Hollywood maintained its vertical integration. Through various examples, we see how stars, and even directors and screenwriters were seen as a way to bring in the money. But in reality, we never see, or recognize their names much later on throughout the years (we recognize the titles "Gone with the Wind," and "Casablanca," but in reality we probably wouldn't ever guess the person who directed either film).
   Through "contract talent," the studio system owned certain people to keep their image (or studio name) alive throughout pop culture. Studios like MGM managed to film movies with stars who had big voices and thus, most of MGM's films were musicals (examples: "Singing in the Rain," "The Wizard of Oz") MGM knew that the singing voice of Judy Garland would bring their studio popularity, and it became known that whatever movie Garland was in, she would probably be singing sometime throughout the film. Aside from just singing, some of the stars would even include other MGM stars (example: seeing Garland sing to the infamous Clark Gable).
As sad as it is, audiences saw the rise and fall of Judy Garland (who is a perfect example of the studio's "contract talent"). After fame and recognition in "The Wizard of Oz," people saw her singing in more and more movies by MGM. However, MGM Studios eventually overworked Garland, and her fame soon went downhill. After constantly moving from film to film within MGM Studios, she couldn't keep up with all of the Hollywood fame, or continue to live among "the stars in heaven." As we all know, Garland died by an accidental overdose, after all her life she was told this and that about her appearance by various studio executives, and even attempted to commit suicide more than one time.
The studio system liked to use their stars, rather than just "promote" them. Though contract system seemed like a good idea (i.e using singing sensations in various films and promoting other actors in the process), there could also be drawbacks, as anyone could see just by reading about the life of Judy Garland.

Sitcom Through the Ages

After watching "All in the Family"  and clearly seeing a difference between the sitcoms of the 70s to our own modern shows, you really can't just sit there and not compare and contrast ideas, story lines, character ambitions, and overall structure of teevee. And with that, comes my comparison between the popular 70s show, "All in the Family" and my own personal favorite ABC sitcom, "Modern Family."
  Let's take a loot at the similarities: between the two shows we see the use of comedy to really lighten the moods of characters, and to set the general atmosphere of the show's episode (of course, this is the strategy of any sitcom that is now airing on our tv sets). The issues of the sitcom's episode seem to be revealed through the use of jokes and laughter. In "All in the Family," we see Archie as the "class clown" of the family. With whoever he is talking to, or whatever he is talking about, Archie makes sure to crack a joke within every scene of the sitcom. For example, when Archie finds out that his company for the evening is a homosexual, he calls him a fairy, makes fun of his clothes and even takes a few jabs at his dialogue. In "Modern Family," the show features an open gay relationship. And like Archie, the other characters (including one of the gay man's parents) often crack a few jokes about the two men, all in a lighthearted manner.Going further within the similarities, I can't help but see the two father characters and their personalities. Archie doesn't like the fact that a gay man is in his house, or even around at the local bar. It is almost as if he is the conservative among his liberal family. The rest of the family enjoys the company of people, regardless of sexual orientation. There is a similar relationship in "Modern Family:" the father of one of the gay men, Jay, is accepting of his son's relationship with another man, but throughout the course of the show, he tends to give his son and his actions the cold shoulder (not all the time, but sometimes), he even makes some jokes that can instantly be taken as awkward or a little rude. While Jay is sometimes conservative about the issue, the rest of his family (his young wife, daughter, her husband, etc...) never seems to make a big deal about the gay relationship. If they make a joke about something, it is just a joke, there is no rude truth behind a simple jab.
But just because both sitcoms focus on comedy as a way to get construct issues and develop the plot, the kind of comedy is what sets the two apart. When we look at Archie and dissect his humor, it can easily be taken as cruel (like I said, calling a homosexual a "fairy" and having vulgar and rude nicknames for him throughout the episode). He says his humor is just "joking," but anything that comes out of his mouth can contain some hidden truth, or be taken the wrong way. Besides, watching the episode, anyone could easily hear a joke and know that is is meant for comedic relief. There's a fine line between having a good time and trying to cause harm. Archie's humor is intended to cause harm before it is meant to provide a few laughs to the characters. In "Modern Family," the humor is lighthearted: we can easily tell the jabs are meant to make the characters and audience laugh. There's no tone in the characters' voices that can convey a double entendre. Also looking at the time period, and just looking at the specific episode, we see that sexuality is very taboo. Now a days we see sexuality everywhere, and it isn't considered "bad" or frowned upon. The gay couple on "Modern Family" is openly gay, not only with family members, but also all around their neighborhood and society in general. Of course, this is only different because of the time period. In our society, sexuality has greatly come forward within media outlets, people, and other society outlets. In the 70s, homosexuality was something not to be discussed at the dinner table, but now we have advanced as a society to (somewhat) accept people for who they are, regardless of sexual orientation.
Obviously "Modern Family" will show much "modern" issues and up to date morals and what not, since it is a sitcom in our own "modern" society. "All in the Family" focuses on one family along with one issue or topic of the episode. We see the family's reactions to this topic, and how it progresses throughout the course of the episode. This is different from "Modern Family" because we see one issue develop into different scenarios, creating a bigger plot within the story line. We have different stories revolving around an issue and we see the development of scenarios and characters. By comparing the two shows, we see the great advancements that sitcoms have made throughout the years and among society.
"Modern Family" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5uuMr1YEyE

Hey, Mr. DJ!

No question about it: music is in every form of media. In movies, commercials, teevee, there’s just no escaping the music. Without a doubt, music is everywhere because of audience demand. Just look at any MySpace and face book page and you will find that some people would just die without music =[ Without the audience demand for more tunes, the world would just die. Just kidding, but it is an interesting thing to think about, is it not? Rhythms and melodies would not have a definition and we would probably get tired of listening to people and nature “sing” to us. Without the audience’s demand for music, the formation of music and radio would not be as advanced as it is today.
  How audience demand works is fairly simple: if you like what you hear, you can easily get more of it just by asking for it. Today, we can easily call up our radio station and request a certain song to be played within the hour. By demanding certain songs or artists, we help the artist become popular among the airwaves and reaching ears of listeners in the area. With popular songs comes the Top 40 list, (obviously a list of the most popular songs that plays on different stations). The genres of the 20s weren’t as “advanced” as they are today, but regardless, families loved listening to music as well as television shows and broadcasts as a family (as evident in Radio Days). With the demand for radio talk shows, programs like that of Howard Stern’s rule the airwaves and continue to be a popular hit, not only within the radio industry but also other outlets (for example he’s featured in some teevee programs and even in some movies).
 Different genres attack us every day: 60’s grunge, speed funk, goth pop, children’s hardcore, instrumental hip hop! We cannot escape the appearance of a genre. However, when we look at the evolution of music genres, we see that they all stem from one another, or are a spin off from another different genre (for example, in our text book we see that  blues had an influence of the shaping of swing, which led to big band, to pop, to rock and roll, and etc). But what we call rock and roll today was considered blues in the 1920s. Sure, the audience demand is a tad different with it being 2010 and all, but even in the 20s there was an audience demand. With performers like Sinatra being on the radio, the teenage girl population swooned over their radios, and the songs of Sinatra easily become big hits. Now a days, Lady Gaga rules the radio, internet, and concert arenas, and of course we all love her! But without audience demand, she would probably not be at the top of the charts or even have a career without our demand for her music.

Verb: it's what you do.

More like: Social learning: it's what we always do.
If we were to reflect on our lives and think about all of the verbs we EVER participated in, we probably wouldn’t think of “social learning” being at the top of the list. But it is. It is that simple. Our generation sees any form of media and we automatically think to imitate it. All forms of media can influence social learning, but to narrow it down, masculinity and femininity play a very large role in shaping how we view and see ourselves, as well as others.
                To put it in my own words, social learning equals playing the copy cat card. We see something we like or someone we admire (or even lust for), and automatically wish to live their life. We want to wrap ourselves in their lifestyle and escape our problems and issues we face every day. Little boys see the super strong power rangers and learn from their peers on the playground that if you are not as muscular as the green ranger, then you really aren’t that strong.  
                As silly as this example sounds, unfortunately it’s true. In lecture we saw the “improvements” made on GI Joe over the course of several years, only to see that his plastic muscles became bigger and bigger as time went on. Through Tough Guise we are taught that boys/men must be molded of muscles and show no fear. If any of these guys lack muscles, then they must turn to the next best thing: weapons (i.e. the terminator; though technically he had both muscles and weapons)
                Another example comes through the form of poetry from one of my favorite slam poets, Sierra DeMulder: in one of her poems she writes:
                                “As women, our worth lives secretly wrapped in lace and panties
                                  Our fragility armored in pepper spray and mace…”

Throughout the poem, entitled “Paper Dolls,” she is talking about women that are sexually assaulted. But to go back to social learning, DeMulder makes a point by saying that even as a young girl she is “taught” that she is as “light” and “collapsible” as a “paper doll.” DeMulder shows us through her intense and amazing poem that at a young age, (“from the moment we leave our pink nurseries”) anyone can witness or even be “taught” social learning. DeMulder is taking a stand against social learning by staying strong even with the poem baring such a harsh topic as rape. Here is a link to DeMulder performing her poem, from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvxQnT9Luqk

Hegemony

                I really enjoyed the Mad Men examples that were mentioned in class when we were first introducing hegemony and ideology. Through the tv show, which has won Best Drama THREE years in a row, we see both terms in action. In his article, James Lull defines hegemony as “the power that one social group holds over others.” Using this definition, I have a better understanding of the behavior of certain characters within the AMC show. Hegemony is what makes characters/viewers praise the lead protagonist, Donald Draper. The men of the office have hegemony over the women.
                Watching the show, we see the interaction between the men. They stick together, joke, laugh, drink, and work together. It is almost like a huge “bromance” going in within the office. But, we also see the men of Madison Avenue and their obvious oppression of women. Within the office, the women are all secretaries and most importantly, eye candy. For example throughout the first season, characters often made speculations about how a female character got the job as Donald Draper’s secretary (they all assumed that she slept with him). And the men praised him for it. Don Draper is envied and lots of men within the office wish they were him. Draper has it all: the job, the reputation, the gorgeous wife and children, etc. Because the men see his life, they think they should all have similar lifestyles. The men think that Draper is the “top dog,” and that all men should be like him. The men have the mentality that not staying faithful to your wife earns you a high five within the office, simply because they see Draper doing it. Some men see this, and even have affairs with secretaries from their office.
                “The capacity of the ruling group that enables it to maintain its power and reinforce its ideology.” In class we used this as the definition of hegemony. So to break it down: the “ruling group” is the men of Madison Avenue with the “capacity” being their mentality that they should all be Don Draper and live by his morals and standards (regardless if they are just or unjust). They think the “ideology” they should be upholding is the fact that they rule the world with women just being a side show. The way to uphold this ideology is through the “power” of their oppression to women.  
                I am posting a link to the first season trailer of Mad Men, just within the first few minutes you see wandering eyes and sexual comments from the guys directed to the women of the office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfuMhXcLa-Q