After lecture on Wednesday, I had a greater understanding of how distinct the characteristics of popular TV sitcoms. One of the characteristics that we discussed was the idea of each episode having a "mini-resolution" at the end of each show. The mini-resolution coincides with the idea that the conflicts in sitcoms are not continual. Each show has a small conflict, usually between two main characters, that is almost always resolved in one way or another by the end of the 30 minute program. In many shows, particularly sitcoms aimed at children, the mini-resolutions provide a mini-lesson of sorts to teach its viewers. The mini-resolution gives the viewers a feeling that the episode came full circle from being to end, and allows its viewers to be able to watch episodes without necessarily seeing the one that was aired the previous week since the conflicts are rarely continual.
One of my favorite shows growing up was Full House. Each episode of Full House had a mini-resolution that offered its children viewers a valuable, but indeed cheesy, lesson about growing up. For example, recently, on a Full House re-run I watched on ABC Family, the littlest girl in Full House was attempting to learn how to ride a bike, but she fell off and got hurt during her first attempt (the conflict). In the final scene of the episode, the little girl learns from her trusty uncle that giving up isn't the answer, and that she must have confidence and courage in order to tackle the task of learning how to ride her bike. The little girl learned that the feeling of achievement once she conquers riding her bike will make her failed attempts worth it (the resolution and lesson). Each episode had similar situations and solutions for the various members of the family. The lessons varied depending on the characters' ages and interests, which made the show appealing to kids of all ages and lead to the shows undeniable success despite its cheesy writing and plot lines.
I have attached an article that vouches for the many lessons kids have learned via Full House and its use of mini-resolutions within each episode.
http://media.www.spectatornews.com/media/storage/paper218/news/2002/04/25/Spotlight/Column.Tv.Show.full.House.Teaches.Valued.Lessons-244502-page2.shtml
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Forrest Gump
For years now, "Forrest Gump" has been my all time favorite movie. I have seen the film more times than I can count and I can recite the entire movie from start to finish. However, after learning about the various angles used to shoot movies and the meaning behind them, I watched "Forrest Gump" with a completely new set of eyes, so to speak. In this post, I plan to illuminate how the long shot, medium shot, and close-up shot are used to convey a certain mood and meaning throughout the film through three specific examples.
In lecture we learned that the close up shot is commonly used to express the emotions of the character being shown. The close shot of the character's face, for example, is supposed to inform the audience on whether or not the character is lonely, sad, happy, excited, etc.. When Forrest Gump first rides the school bus, none of the students want to offer him a seat. However, a young, kind and innocent girl, named Jenny, offers him a seat next to her on the bus. The close up of Jenny's face shows her kind and accepting demeanor, and her interest in Forrest. Jenny immediately looks up at Forrest and shows her concern for his need to sit in this particular close up.
In lecture we learned that the close up shot is commonly used to express the emotions of the character being shown. The close shot of the character's face, for example, is supposed to inform the audience on whether or not the character is lonely, sad, happy, excited, etc.. When Forrest Gump first rides the school bus, none of the students want to offer him a seat. However, a young, kind and innocent girl, named Jenny, offers him a seat next to her on the bus. The close up of Jenny's face shows her kind and accepting demeanor, and her interest in Forrest. Jenny immediately looks up at Forrest and shows her concern for his need to sit in this particular close up.
The medium shot is commonly considered to be the "information shot." This shot is used to show the relationship between two or more characters in the film. The medium shot informs the audience as to the manner in which the characters in the film relate to one another whether it be on a romantic, platonic, or familial level. The medium shot of Forrest and Jenny spending time together in the tree is a perfect example of how the medium shot explains the relationship between two main characters in a film.
Finally, the long shot is commonly used to represent sadness, loneliness and isolation. Although there are countless long shots used in "Forrest Gump" to show how isolated Forrest was from the "normal" students growing up, I believe that the long shot is perfectly used in the scene where Forrest goes to visit Jenny's grave. The director's decision to zoom out captures just how lost Forrest is when Jenny is gone for good.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Star System and Classical Hollywood
After listening to the guest lecture on Monday and Wednesday of this week, it was apparent that there were many different defining characteristics of the Studio System in the Classical Hollywood era. However, the characteristic of the Studio System that intrigued me the most was the way in which different studios contracted specific actors for their projects, known as the Star System.
I learned in the lectures that in the Studio System in Classical Hollywood stars were tangible products of immaterial production. The Star System effected the way in which the films were made because after the stars were discovered and contracted by the studios, they became the studios' main tool to sell the their products. The stars that were contracted by studios were the greatest representation of what the studios were capable of as a company. As years passed, the public began to associate particular stars with certain studios. The star system effected the films because the stars essentially became the faces of the biggest and most powerful studios. In some cases, most big stars ended up having a trademark, of sorts, that they used in all of their movies. For example, Judy Garland, who appeared in countless MGM movies, was always expected to sing in her films. Humphrey Bogart, in addition, was always expected to be seen in his raincoat and fedora at some point in all of his films. In essence, if a consumer wanted to see Judy Garland sing, they would attend a film made by MGM studios, ultimately increasing the success of MGM as a whole.
After researching "The Biograph Girl" after the lecturer briefly mentioned her on Monday, I realized that she is a perfect example of how the studios treated their contracted actors and actress as tangible products of immaterial production. "The Biograph Girl" was a woman named Florence Lawrence acted in a total of over 35 movies. In all of her movies, Lawrence was never credited with her performance. Each one of her roles was performed anonymously. As a result, Florence became known as "The Biograph Girl" due to her association with Biograph Studios. Her anonymity made her increasingly more famous as the mystery of what her real name was became more intriguing to her fans. In addition, fans now wanted to see "The Biograph Girl" in more and more films, which lead to her title as the first "movie star" of the Classical Hollywood era. The idea that Florence Lawrence was an anonymous actress who was used as the face of Biograph Studios in order to sell more tickets to the studio's movies is a prime example of how Classical Hollywood studios used their contracted stars as products to increase their sales.
Below, I attached a link to one of Florence's early films, "The Awful Hats," from 1909. The beginning credit shows that the film was made by Biograph Studios, but as expected, does not show Florence's name on the slide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORwC7gNyUaY
I learned in the lectures that in the Studio System in Classical Hollywood stars were tangible products of immaterial production. The Star System effected the way in which the films were made because after the stars were discovered and contracted by the studios, they became the studios' main tool to sell the their products. The stars that were contracted by studios were the greatest representation of what the studios were capable of as a company. As years passed, the public began to associate particular stars with certain studios. The star system effected the films because the stars essentially became the faces of the biggest and most powerful studios. In some cases, most big stars ended up having a trademark, of sorts, that they used in all of their movies. For example, Judy Garland, who appeared in countless MGM movies, was always expected to sing in her films. Humphrey Bogart, in addition, was always expected to be seen in his raincoat and fedora at some point in all of his films. In essence, if a consumer wanted to see Judy Garland sing, they would attend a film made by MGM studios, ultimately increasing the success of MGM as a whole.
After researching "The Biograph Girl" after the lecturer briefly mentioned her on Monday, I realized that she is a perfect example of how the studios treated their contracted actors and actress as tangible products of immaterial production. "The Biograph Girl" was a woman named Florence Lawrence acted in a total of over 35 movies. In all of her movies, Lawrence was never credited with her performance. Each one of her roles was performed anonymously. As a result, Florence became known as "The Biograph Girl" due to her association with Biograph Studios. Her anonymity made her increasingly more famous as the mystery of what her real name was became more intriguing to her fans. In addition, fans now wanted to see "The Biograph Girl" in more and more films, which lead to her title as the first "movie star" of the Classical Hollywood era. The idea that Florence Lawrence was an anonymous actress who was used as the face of Biograph Studios in order to sell more tickets to the studio's movies is a prime example of how Classical Hollywood studios used their contracted stars as products to increase their sales.
Below, I attached a link to one of Florence's early films, "The Awful Hats," from 1909. The beginning credit shows that the film was made by Biograph Studios, but as expected, does not show Florence's name on the slide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORwC7gNyUaY
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Family Sitcoms: Then and Now
One of my favorite contemporary, family-based sitcoms, although it recently went off-air, is "Everybody Loves Raymond." After watching the 1970s hit, "All in the Family" in class last Thursday, I immediately noticed similarities and differences between the two very popular sitcoms.
One similarity I found between "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "All in the Family" is the way in which both shows use insults to get a laugh from their audience. In "Everybody Loves Raymond," the family members trade insults about each other's intelligence, cooking, way of living, and way of raising their children throughout each episode of their show. In fact, the realistic depiction of a typical sarcastic, Italian-American family is what made the show successful. Similarly, the characters in "All in the Family" continually trade insults about each other's race, way of living and appearance. "All in the Family" became notable specifically due to the daring script writing which included crude remarks and comments between its characters.
One difference I found between both TV sit-com hits was the specific words chosen to insult the characters on the show. "Everybody Loves Raymond" used words such as "idiot," "moron," "stupid" and "ugly", just to name a few. While "All in the Family" used racial slurs such as "fag", "spic", "jap" and "gook". Even though the words that "Everybody Loves Raymond" are definitely offensive, they are hardly as controversial as the words the characters in "All in the Family" used to trade insults. In other words, "Everybody Loves Raymond" playfully pokes fun at its characters, while "All in the Family" pushed the boundaries by having a discriminatory and racist script.
In my opinion, "All in the Family" dared to represent a group of Americans who are generally left out of many contemporary sit-coms today. Today, networks are concerned with being politically correct. As a result, a lot of controversial content regarding race, in particular, has been played down in family-based sitcoms. "Everybody Loves Raymond" is a perfect example of how family-based sitcoms have significantly toned down controversial content in its show. Racism is a topic that is generally left out of prime-time family based sitcoms. However, I do feel the need to mention that many dramas, particularly dramas on networks such as FX, HBO and Showtime continue to push the envelope when it comes to racism and its role in society. To be more specific, I recently began watching the hit drama "Rescue Me," on FX. "Rescue Me" addresses racism head-on during many episodes of the show and uses similar racist terms that "All in the Family" did in the 1970s. In conclusion, I think that family-based sitcoms have either tried to avoid racism in its scripts, or to tone it down. However, racial slurs and discriminatory behavior are still represented on certain networks.
Below I have attached clips of both "All in the Family" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" and how each show represents family in their scripts.
"Everybody Loves Raymond:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RHkpi0QYTs
"All in the Family"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKpHtc9F9M
One similarity I found between "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "All in the Family" is the way in which both shows use insults to get a laugh from their audience. In "Everybody Loves Raymond," the family members trade insults about each other's intelligence, cooking, way of living, and way of raising their children throughout each episode of their show. In fact, the realistic depiction of a typical sarcastic, Italian-American family is what made the show successful. Similarly, the characters in "All in the Family" continually trade insults about each other's race, way of living and appearance. "All in the Family" became notable specifically due to the daring script writing which included crude remarks and comments between its characters.
One difference I found between both TV sit-com hits was the specific words chosen to insult the characters on the show. "Everybody Loves Raymond" used words such as "idiot," "moron," "stupid" and "ugly", just to name a few. While "All in the Family" used racial slurs such as "fag", "spic", "jap" and "gook". Even though the words that "Everybody Loves Raymond" are definitely offensive, they are hardly as controversial as the words the characters in "All in the Family" used to trade insults. In other words, "Everybody Loves Raymond" playfully pokes fun at its characters, while "All in the Family" pushed the boundaries by having a discriminatory and racist script.
In my opinion, "All in the Family" dared to represent a group of Americans who are generally left out of many contemporary sit-coms today. Today, networks are concerned with being politically correct. As a result, a lot of controversial content regarding race, in particular, has been played down in family-based sitcoms. "Everybody Loves Raymond" is a perfect example of how family-based sitcoms have significantly toned down controversial content in its show. Racism is a topic that is generally left out of prime-time family based sitcoms. However, I do feel the need to mention that many dramas, particularly dramas on networks such as FX, HBO and Showtime continue to push the envelope when it comes to racism and its role in society. To be more specific, I recently began watching the hit drama "Rescue Me," on FX. "Rescue Me" addresses racism head-on during many episodes of the show and uses similar racist terms that "All in the Family" did in the 1970s. In conclusion, I think that family-based sitcoms have either tried to avoid racism in its scripts, or to tone it down. However, racial slurs and discriminatory behavior are still represented on certain networks.
Below I have attached clips of both "All in the Family" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" and how each show represents family in their scripts.
"Everybody Loves Raymond:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RHkpi0QYTs
"All in the Family"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKpHtc9F9M
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Technological Change and its Large Impact on the Radio Industry
After discussing the various forces that impacted the diffusion of the radio industry in the 1920s in lecture on Wednesday, I have come to the conclusion that technological change had the largest impact on the rise and fall of the radio industry, beginning in the 1920s. Technological change created a large demand for the radio in homes all across the United States and remained a large part of society for several years until technology continued to improve, which ultimately lead to the fall of the industry.
Technological change has been a driving force behind countless industries in the United States for several years. One large theory behind technological change is the idea of cultural determinism or SST. Cultural determinism is the idea that technology and society effect each other in a two-way relationship. Technology is influenced by social necessities and by society at large. Meanwhile, society is influenced by new technologies and the effect that they have on society as a whole. This theory is contrary to the also popular theory of technological determinism. Technological determinism is the claim that there is a one way relationship between technology and society. Technology is viewed as the dominant factor and society is powerless to its influence and society.
In my opinion, the diffusion of the radio industry is largely based on the idea of cultural determinism, rather than technological determinism. In the 1920s, there was a large demand for society to receive information at a very high speed. In addition, there was a social demand for entertainment in homes. On one hand, the demand for a technology such as the radio created the rapid diffusion of the technology. On the other hand, as we saw in "Radio Days", the spread of the use of the radio deeply effected society. The radio provided a new way for families to come together. It effected the way that stay-at-home moms spent their days. The radio was constantly playing in the background of homes. It was not only a news source for families, but also a new source of entertainment by playing soap operas, musicals and dramas over the airwaves. Essentially, family members, particularly the women, were living vicariously through the stories they heard through the radio. Ultimately, however, technological change lead to the fall of the radio industry as the demand for new technologies, such as the TV and the internet, began to replace the prominent role that the radio played in homes across the US.
Technological change has been a driving force behind countless industries in the United States for several years. One large theory behind technological change is the idea of cultural determinism or SST. Cultural determinism is the idea that technology and society effect each other in a two-way relationship. Technology is influenced by social necessities and by society at large. Meanwhile, society is influenced by new technologies and the effect that they have on society as a whole. This theory is contrary to the also popular theory of technological determinism. Technological determinism is the claim that there is a one way relationship between technology and society. Technology is viewed as the dominant factor and society is powerless to its influence and society.
In my opinion, the diffusion of the radio industry is largely based on the idea of cultural determinism, rather than technological determinism. In the 1920s, there was a large demand for society to receive information at a very high speed. In addition, there was a social demand for entertainment in homes. On one hand, the demand for a technology such as the radio created the rapid diffusion of the technology. On the other hand, as we saw in "Radio Days", the spread of the use of the radio deeply effected society. The radio provided a new way for families to come together. It effected the way that stay-at-home moms spent their days. The radio was constantly playing in the background of homes. It was not only a news source for families, but also a new source of entertainment by playing soap operas, musicals and dramas over the airwaves. Essentially, family members, particularly the women, were living vicariously through the stories they heard through the radio. Ultimately, however, technological change lead to the fall of the radio industry as the demand for new technologies, such as the TV and the internet, began to replace the prominent role that the radio played in homes across the US.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Elle Magazine Takes Photo Re-Touching Too Far
After studying the idea of Social Learning in lecture last Monday, I think that the article regarding if Elle magazine lightened Gabourey Sidibe's skin on their cover helps me further understand how the images we continually see in the mass media are not reality.
Social learning is the idea that users imitate or model attitudes and behaviors observed in the mass media on a regular basis. When media viewers see continual violence, sexual behaviors and examples of stereotypical gender roles over and over again, they begin to imitate the actions they view on various levels. For example, men are continually reminded through the media that in order to be considered "manly" they must be fearless, strong and aggressive. Children who see continual violence on television shows and in movies are more likely to be violent towards other children over time. Women are constantly bombarded by images of light skinned, skinny and tall woman who are supposed to represent what a "beautiful" woman looks like. As a result, women take all sorts of measures to fit that particular image.
This week, Elle Magazine caused gigantic controversy when they put "Precious" actress, Gabourey Sidibe, on their cover. The issue was dedicated to the "Most Notable Women Under 25" and the magazine ran four different covers with four different influential actresses. Three out of the four women chosen for the covers were skinny, white actresses and were pictured from head to toe on the cover. Gabourey Sidibe, on the other hand, is a heavy set, dark skinned, African-American woman. Not only was she the only actress to not have a full body shot on the cover, the color of her skin was significantly lightened. People are outraged with Elle's decision to retouch the color of her skin. One must wonder, what was the reasoning behind the excessive retouching? This article immediately reminded me of the movie we watched in class, "Killing Us Softly 3." The woman in the film directly addressed the issue of race and women in the media. By putting the same type of woman on covers of magazines time after time, the media is sending a message that people who do not resemble that type of woman is not attractive. Elle Magazine made the decision to put a woman who does not fit the stereotypical image of beauty on their magazine cover, but instead of embracing her different look, they drastically changed the way she looks in order to make her resemble the typical image of beauty that they promote. This article definitely helped me further understand the concept of social learning by giving me a current example of how the media promotes one particular image as beautiful, and as a result, women try to change the way they naturally look.
I have attached the link to the article below.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20016677-10391698.html
Social learning is the idea that users imitate or model attitudes and behaviors observed in the mass media on a regular basis. When media viewers see continual violence, sexual behaviors and examples of stereotypical gender roles over and over again, they begin to imitate the actions they view on various levels. For example, men are continually reminded through the media that in order to be considered "manly" they must be fearless, strong and aggressive. Children who see continual violence on television shows and in movies are more likely to be violent towards other children over time. Women are constantly bombarded by images of light skinned, skinny and tall woman who are supposed to represent what a "beautiful" woman looks like. As a result, women take all sorts of measures to fit that particular image.
This week, Elle Magazine caused gigantic controversy when they put "Precious" actress, Gabourey Sidibe, on their cover. The issue was dedicated to the "Most Notable Women Under 25" and the magazine ran four different covers with four different influential actresses. Three out of the four women chosen for the covers were skinny, white actresses and were pictured from head to toe on the cover. Gabourey Sidibe, on the other hand, is a heavy set, dark skinned, African-American woman. Not only was she the only actress to not have a full body shot on the cover, the color of her skin was significantly lightened. People are outraged with Elle's decision to retouch the color of her skin. One must wonder, what was the reasoning behind the excessive retouching? This article immediately reminded me of the movie we watched in class, "Killing Us Softly 3." The woman in the film directly addressed the issue of race and women in the media. By putting the same type of woman on covers of magazines time after time, the media is sending a message that people who do not resemble that type of woman is not attractive. Elle Magazine made the decision to put a woman who does not fit the stereotypical image of beauty on their magazine cover, but instead of embracing her different look, they drastically changed the way she looks in order to make her resemble the typical image of beauty that they promote. This article definitely helped me further understand the concept of social learning by giving me a current example of how the media promotes one particular image as beautiful, and as a result, women try to change the way they naturally look.
I have attached the link to the article below.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20016677-10391698.html
Friday, September 10, 2010
Hegemony and the Portrayal of Women in the Media Today
After studying hegemony in lecture and the assigned texts, I can better understand the "Evolution" commercial for Dove products by realizing that the women who are plastered on billboards, star in feature films and promote different consumer products are not a realistic image for a woman in today's world.
Hegemony is the ability for a group in power of the media to stay in power and continually promote its ideology on its viewers. However, hegemony is not a one way relationship between those in power and the audience. The audience, in fact, consents to the groups ideology due to the fact that the audience is so used to hearing and seeing the ideology of the most powerful groups that the audience now considers the groups' beliefs to be common sense. The most dominant ideology is perceived as natural over the course of time. However, Hegemony is in no way permanent. Different ideologies are continually contested and changed by the ruling groups.
We learned in lecture that media is one of the most prominent tools through which hegemony is reinforced and contested. While I watched the screening of "Killing Us Softly 3" on Thursday evening, I immediately remembered a commercial I saw on youtube.com for Dove products. In the past few years, Dove has launched a campaign promoting "real" beauty. Dove's campaign clearly contests the accepted ideology of what a beautiful woman is in today's society. The woman in "Killing Us Softly 3" gave many examples of how the small percentage of women with supermodel looks are the only ones that we see in most ads. She also provided proof of how a magazine re-touched Michelle Pfiefers' looks when she was booked to be on the cover. The ad that Dove created, titled "Evolution", is a perfect example of how the women who are on billboards and magazine covers do not look the same way in real life as they do in advertisements. In fact, they look drastically different. As a result of promoting one body type and facial structure as beautiful, women in today's world are striving to be an image of something that is not real.
I believe that the commercial, attached below, is a perfect example of a big company contesting the ideology that has been reinforced for years by the media companies with the most power.
Hegemony is the ability for a group in power of the media to stay in power and continually promote its ideology on its viewers. However, hegemony is not a one way relationship between those in power and the audience. The audience, in fact, consents to the groups ideology due to the fact that the audience is so used to hearing and seeing the ideology of the most powerful groups that the audience now considers the groups' beliefs to be common sense. The most dominant ideology is perceived as natural over the course of time. However, Hegemony is in no way permanent. Different ideologies are continually contested and changed by the ruling groups.
We learned in lecture that media is one of the most prominent tools through which hegemony is reinforced and contested. While I watched the screening of "Killing Us Softly 3" on Thursday evening, I immediately remembered a commercial I saw on youtube.com for Dove products. In the past few years, Dove has launched a campaign promoting "real" beauty. Dove's campaign clearly contests the accepted ideology of what a beautiful woman is in today's society. The woman in "Killing Us Softly 3" gave many examples of how the small percentage of women with supermodel looks are the only ones that we see in most ads. She also provided proof of how a magazine re-touched Michelle Pfiefers' looks when she was booked to be on the cover. The ad that Dove created, titled "Evolution", is a perfect example of how the women who are on billboards and magazine covers do not look the same way in real life as they do in advertisements. In fact, they look drastically different. As a result of promoting one body type and facial structure as beautiful, women in today's world are striving to be an image of something that is not real.
I believe that the commercial, attached below, is a perfect example of a big company contesting the ideology that has been reinforced for years by the media companies with the most power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)