Should downloading music for free be considered as criminal activity? The logical answer is YES but a portion of the population have downloaded or burned music for free. In most cases we know or are these people and I doubt we would label them or ourselves as criminals. For most listeners, we don't care how we get our music, just as long as we get it. There are copyrights and acts protecting the rights of music labels and musician/artists from illegal file sharing. But who is really getting hurt? Most people would say that musicians take a hit but it's actually quite the opposite.
In a nutshell, the traditional way of distributing music goes in this manner: musicians make the music while the record label will provide the money upfront for studio time and distribution. A significant amount of money is invested but the labels are banking that the musicians will become big and sell a lot of albums. The amount sold will dictate the record labels profits. However, on the flip side, musicians only get a small fraction of these profits. Their earnings are dependent on them performing in live venues or to "tour". (Looking at prominent musicians/artists' touring schedule, it appears that they perform every other night.)
Based at that information it is no surprise that the industry is opposed to internet music downloading. If a certain album is downloaded for free, in theory it is detracting from record sales. Thus their investment was a waste. As for the musicians, it's a matter of ethics. Some artists will say that is wrong because of general principle, while others will have a liberal point of view. They will argue that free file sharing is a method of marketing/advertising. It helps get their name out which results into a larger fan base.
Yet, it's not all peaches and cream for some artists. Some argue that touring is not a reliable source of income because it is hard to find "gigs". Additionally, the increasing costs of travel and accommodations do not make it easier.
Consequently, free file sharing has to be restricted. If people are allowed to file share with not costs where does it end? If the musician/artists are smart the internet and technology helps them in two ways: distributing through the internet and producing music with readily available software. Basically they have full control of their music and the manner in which it is distributed. The internet and MySpace have created an abundance of "indie" artists who are reaping the benefits from the internet.
At the same time labels have to embrace the internet. It is another avenue for revenue and compared to traditional methods of distribution, the music is easily accessible. In the present, music labels are finding new ways to distribute music and entice customers. Partnering up with internet companies which allow customers to stream a predetermined amount of music for free each month has proven to be successful for cetain record labels in the UK. Research has shown that customers are still willing to pay for an album in support of their favorite artist(s). Regardless if they are able to obtain the album for free.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, released in 1967 is a film that addresses interracial marriages in the 60’s. The film was three years removed from the Civil Rights Act, which granted African-Americans basic civil rights. Stanley Kramer, one of Hollywood's most prominent liberal moviemakers produced and directed the film. He understood the significance of the movie because at the time of production it was still illegal to have interracial marriages in 14 states. Consequently, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner coincided with two significant events that shaped the nation’s political and cultural atmosphere: the Loving v. Virginia case ruling, which determined interracial marriage laws were constitutional, and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is an important film because it shows social climates in the United States progressing after the Civil Rights Act. But it also emphasizes the struggle to eliminate the embedded social prejudices and views of racial differences in American Society.
John Prentice (Sydney Poitier) and Joanna “Joey” Drayton (Katharine Houghton) are the young interracial couple who meet in Hawaii and within a ten-day period fall in love and become engaged. However, they do not inform their parents of the decision, because they feared opposition. Joey Drayton is a young Caucasian woman with affluent parents that live in San Francisco. Meanwhile, John Prentice is perfect groom: polite, handsome, and an internationally renowned doctor who happens to be African-American. Joey is ecstatic in introducing her fiancée to her parents (played by Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) before he leaves the country on assignment. John and Joey visit her parents for dinner and have also invited John’s parents who fly up from Los Angeles to join them. Joey believes that her parents will not object to her decision because they raised her on liberal principles that advocated for civil rights and an end to discrimination. Her parents’ beliefs are put to the test when they meet John.
The film is not centered on the relationship between John and Joey; the audience rarely sees the couple share a scene together by themselves. John and Joey’s roles are used as a backdrop for the beliefs held by the supporting characters and their reactions to the couple’s decision. Both John and Joey’s parents are in initial shock when they receive the news of the couple’s engagement. The mothers are more empathetic and reflect when they fell in love. The mothers come to support the couple’s decision. Meanwhile, the fathers embody stereotypical male traits (at that time) and are stubborn with their beliefs and ways. Furthermore, their spouses’ opinions appear to have little meaning to them. Their reluctance comes from the racial environment in which they grew up in. Spencer Tracy plays Matt Drayton, the grumpy old father that is set in his traditional ways. Throughout the film, Matt is under harsh criticism by the supporting characters. The interaction between Matt and Christina Drayton seems genuine, their arguing seem believable and their concern for their daughter’s abrupt decision is an example of most parents’ reactions at the time. Sidney Poitier’s character, Dr. John Prentice is another interesting aspect of the film because Kramer intentionally crafts John as the perfect groom. John’s “imperfection” is being an African-American male.
It would have been more intriguing to see more dialogue between Joey and John because it was hard to believe that they fell passionately in love in the amazing span of ten days. In the film, they often seem like two separate entities, not as a couple. John Prentice was simple and static in comparison to Matt Drayton. Poitier’s defining moment within the movie is when John’s character confronts his father. Both engage in an intense argument, the father is adamantly opposed to his son’s decision and points out that his marriage would be illegal in 16 states. This scene in the film, underlines the views most Americans had after the Civil Rights of 1964. The film seems outdated to 20 something year olds because interracial marriages are generally accepted and seen in the media, school, and in our families. The film is significant because it illustrates the complexity of accepting interracial marriages in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement. Despite the fact that the Civil Rights Act was passed 3 years earlier, many Americans were still adjusting to accept racial differences in their own personal lives.
John Prentice (Sydney Poitier) and Joanna “Joey” Drayton (Katharine Houghton) are the young interracial couple who meet in Hawaii and within a ten-day period fall in love and become engaged. However, they do not inform their parents of the decision, because they feared opposition. Joey Drayton is a young Caucasian woman with affluent parents that live in San Francisco. Meanwhile, John Prentice is perfect groom: polite, handsome, and an internationally renowned doctor who happens to be African-American. Joey is ecstatic in introducing her fiancée to her parents (played by Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) before he leaves the country on assignment. John and Joey visit her parents for dinner and have also invited John’s parents who fly up from Los Angeles to join them. Joey believes that her parents will not object to her decision because they raised her on liberal principles that advocated for civil rights and an end to discrimination. Her parents’ beliefs are put to the test when they meet John.
The film is not centered on the relationship between John and Joey; the audience rarely sees the couple share a scene together by themselves. John and Joey’s roles are used as a backdrop for the beliefs held by the supporting characters and their reactions to the couple’s decision. Both John and Joey’s parents are in initial shock when they receive the news of the couple’s engagement. The mothers are more empathetic and reflect when they fell in love. The mothers come to support the couple’s decision. Meanwhile, the fathers embody stereotypical male traits (at that time) and are stubborn with their beliefs and ways. Furthermore, their spouses’ opinions appear to have little meaning to them. Their reluctance comes from the racial environment in which they grew up in. Spencer Tracy plays Matt Drayton, the grumpy old father that is set in his traditional ways. Throughout the film, Matt is under harsh criticism by the supporting characters. The interaction between Matt and Christina Drayton seems genuine, their arguing seem believable and their concern for their daughter’s abrupt decision is an example of most parents’ reactions at the time. Sidney Poitier’s character, Dr. John Prentice is another interesting aspect of the film because Kramer intentionally crafts John as the perfect groom. John’s “imperfection” is being an African-American male.
It would have been more intriguing to see more dialogue between Joey and John because it was hard to believe that they fell passionately in love in the amazing span of ten days. In the film, they often seem like two separate entities, not as a couple. John Prentice was simple and static in comparison to Matt Drayton. Poitier’s defining moment within the movie is when John’s character confronts his father. Both engage in an intense argument, the father is adamantly opposed to his son’s decision and points out that his marriage would be illegal in 16 states. This scene in the film, underlines the views most Americans had after the Civil Rights of 1964. The film seems outdated to 20 something year olds because interracial marriages are generally accepted and seen in the media, school, and in our families. The film is significant because it illustrates the complexity of accepting interracial marriages in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement. Despite the fact that the Civil Rights Act was passed 3 years earlier, many Americans were still adjusting to accept racial differences in their own personal lives.
Friday, June 27, 2008
My Consumption of Broadcast Media
I will have to admit that lately I have not been keeping tabs on the current events in terms of television or music. However, with the introduction of new technology and the crusade to reform the internet, it has changed the way I consume media. Now more than ever content is easily accessible to computer users. Furthermore with the invention of the iPod, mp3 players, TiVO, and broadband it has changed the way I watch television, movies, and/or listen to music.
Before, when I wanted to watch a specific program or movie that was going to be aired on television. I had to rearrange my schedule to make sure that I was not going to miss it. All that has changed with the invention of the DVR, TiVO, and Comcast's OnDemand. Now, I can watch T.V. on my own terms. To make things even more convenient, websites like Hulu and other similar sites, allow for users to stream full episodes or movies.
I still have not caught on to streaming because I do not like the loss of quality and the amount of bandwidth that is used to watch these shows. I have tried a few times but only to be interrupted because the video was "buffering". That really hindered my experience. On top of that, I do not like to be sitting in front of my computer for an extended amount of time. Yet, I am not totally opposed because it is convenient and quick way to kill time on a laptop.
In terms of music and radio, the iPod has basically removed me from listening to the radio. Usually I will buy music from iTunes or scour through specific message boards to find a specific album to download. For that reason, the FM frequency is of no use to me. Even then, I have a disdain for the local FM stations. The significant ones are owned by Clear Channel Communications. So most of them present the similar regurgitated style of mainstream music.
However, the AM side of radio is still significant. Mainly because the local sports teams that I follow are all broadcasted on the same local radio show, KNBR 680 am. I also enjoy listening to the station when I am commuting to school or work. I love the radio station but the truth is that I can't sit down and listen to it 24/7. Due to that reason, there are times when I miss live interviews. Yet, like many syndicated shows, the radio station offers podcasts to all their interviews. This is convenient because I can download them and then upload them to my iPod. I can listen to portions of the radio show at my convenience.
Ultimately, I still will for the most part go to a theater, listen to the radio, and watch T.V. (when I can) in the traditional manner. However, with the internet and new technology, I can do the majority of these things on my own terms. There is no pressure in missing an episode or an event on television or radio because chances are that I will be able to access it later. The drawback to such convenience is that it will come at a price. But I am willing to pay for that price. I am more concerned that in the future only a few corporations will control these types of accommodations in broadcasting.
Before, when I wanted to watch a specific program or movie that was going to be aired on television. I had to rearrange my schedule to make sure that I was not going to miss it. All that has changed with the invention of the DVR, TiVO, and Comcast's OnDemand. Now, I can watch T.V. on my own terms. To make things even more convenient, websites like Hulu and other similar sites, allow for users to stream full episodes or movies.
I still have not caught on to streaming because I do not like the loss of quality and the amount of bandwidth that is used to watch these shows. I have tried a few times but only to be interrupted because the video was "buffering". That really hindered my experience. On top of that, I do not like to be sitting in front of my computer for an extended amount of time. Yet, I am not totally opposed because it is convenient and quick way to kill time on a laptop.
In terms of music and radio, the iPod has basically removed me from listening to the radio. Usually I will buy music from iTunes or scour through specific message boards to find a specific album to download. For that reason, the FM frequency is of no use to me. Even then, I have a disdain for the local FM stations. The significant ones are owned by Clear Channel Communications. So most of them present the similar regurgitated style of mainstream music.
However, the AM side of radio is still significant. Mainly because the local sports teams that I follow are all broadcasted on the same local radio show, KNBR 680 am. I also enjoy listening to the station when I am commuting to school or work. I love the radio station but the truth is that I can't sit down and listen to it 24/7. Due to that reason, there are times when I miss live interviews. Yet, like many syndicated shows, the radio station offers podcasts to all their interviews. This is convenient because I can download them and then upload them to my iPod. I can listen to portions of the radio show at my convenience.
Ultimately, I still will for the most part go to a theater, listen to the radio, and watch T.V. (when I can) in the traditional manner. However, with the internet and new technology, I can do the majority of these things on my own terms. There is no pressure in missing an episode or an event on television or radio because chances are that I will be able to access it later. The drawback to such convenience is that it will come at a price. But I am willing to pay for that price. I am more concerned that in the future only a few corporations will control these types of accommodations in broadcasting.
Little Mosque on the Prairie
Earlier this week, in my RTVF 110 class, we watched two episodes from the Canadian show "Little Mosque on the Prairie". The basis of the show focuses on a small Muslim community located in a small rural Canadian city, which mainly consists of white people. Consequently, there are few people that are not exactly open to their Muslim neighbors. However, unlike other shows, the stereotypes are not on the Muslim characters but on the white characters.
Our instructor first asked if we enjoyed the show? Yes, I did enjoy it because it was a breath of fresh air and it did not play on the stereotypes that are commonly portrayed on Muslim characters in film and television. Furthermore, the show was funny but also instructive in teaching aspects of Muslim culture.
The show was an initial success, garnering 2.1 million viewers in Canada. The ratings have dropped a little but it has been generally received well. Ultimately leading CBC Television to pickup the show for a second season. Due to its success other networks worldwide have added the show to their lineup. Recently, the United States came knocking on the door. On June 10, 2008, FOX signed a deal to pick up the U.S. rights for "Little Mosque on the Prairie".
Initially, that sounds great. The executive producer of the Canadian version, Mary Darling, sees it as a " way to bridge cultures and bring peoples" together. Yet, the war in Iraq brings daily news of U.S. soldiers dying which causes tension between a portion of the U.S. population and the Muslim community. Obviously, this is manifested through prejudice and discrimination. It is these type of people that will argue against the show. Perhaps, they would even go as far and declare it un-Patriotic.
I am skeptical of the show being successful in the United States because it will be composed of entirely different writers and producers, basically a different perspective. There are no guarantees that the essence of the show will remain intact. The current situation between Islamic nations and the United States government will add strain to be politically correct. Some people feel that the show makes fun of people with Muslim backgrounds and how they are treated. (I argue that while it is humor the show aims to point out that these events happen on a daily basis. After all, humor is the greatest ice breaker. ) Due to this reason, I think important elements from the Canadian version will eliminated. I am not too sure that white portion of the United States population would embrace the depiction of white characters. Many within the show play the stereotypical "red neck", which is to be ignorant.
I think if the U.S. version is a stark contrast from the Canadian version, the FOX network would have missed an opportunity to mend some cultural gaps. The show may seem annoying or corny but underneath that layer are subtle messages that serve as didactic tools to correct misconceptions of the Muslim faith.
Our instructor first asked if we enjoyed the show? Yes, I did enjoy it because it was a breath of fresh air and it did not play on the stereotypes that are commonly portrayed on Muslim characters in film and television. Furthermore, the show was funny but also instructive in teaching aspects of Muslim culture.
The show was an initial success, garnering 2.1 million viewers in Canada. The ratings have dropped a little but it has been generally received well. Ultimately leading CBC Television to pickup the show for a second season. Due to its success other networks worldwide have added the show to their lineup. Recently, the United States came knocking on the door. On June 10, 2008, FOX signed a deal to pick up the U.S. rights for "Little Mosque on the Prairie".
Initially, that sounds great. The executive producer of the Canadian version, Mary Darling, sees it as a " way to bridge cultures and bring peoples" together. Yet, the war in Iraq brings daily news of U.S. soldiers dying which causes tension between a portion of the U.S. population and the Muslim community. Obviously, this is manifested through prejudice and discrimination. It is these type of people that will argue against the show. Perhaps, they would even go as far and declare it un-Patriotic.
I am skeptical of the show being successful in the United States because it will be composed of entirely different writers and producers, basically a different perspective. There are no guarantees that the essence of the show will remain intact. The current situation between Islamic nations and the United States government will add strain to be politically correct. Some people feel that the show makes fun of people with Muslim backgrounds and how they are treated. (I argue that while it is humor the show aims to point out that these events happen on a daily basis. After all, humor is the greatest ice breaker. ) Due to this reason, I think important elements from the Canadian version will eliminated. I am not too sure that white portion of the United States population would embrace the depiction of white characters. Many within the show play the stereotypical "red neck", which is to be ignorant.
I think if the U.S. version is a stark contrast from the Canadian version, the FOX network would have missed an opportunity to mend some cultural gaps. The show may seem annoying or corny but underneath that layer are subtle messages that serve as didactic tools to correct misconceptions of the Muslim faith.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Movie Editing......Harmless?
The discussion of moving editing arose in class the other day. Initially, you think of movie editing as a harmless thing and part of the process. I would concur but several examples and analogies made me change my perceptions of movie editing.
The whole point of editing is to shorten the film, to comply with the studio's demands or to edit unnecessary parts of the film for aesthetic reasons. However, lets say after the movie has been released, a certain amount of years have passed. The director received harsh criticism for a particular scene in a movie. Consequently, the director decides to go back and re-edit that scene. So that when it is re-released that scene is made to appease those that were in disfavor. Basically, the editor is trying to be politically correct. Is there any problems with the director's actions?
The majority will say NO because the film is the director's work of art and they should have the ability to do as they please with it. However, I say YES, there is a problem with that director's decision. I guess one example of movie editing years after the movie had initially been released can be "E.T." As pointed out by a student in the class, in one particular scene cops were originally holding guns when confronting the kids. However, in the 20th anniversary edition, Spielberg edited the guns and substituted them with walkie-talkies. Perhaps he considered that since this was a movie for children it was best not to expose them to the image of guns. Is he now trying to imply that cops don't use guns? Obviously that is the furthest thing from the truth. (There is a parody on South Park commenting on Spielberg's decision. It is quite funny but it also highlights how far directors can go and how frustrating it can be for the audience. Click Here to see clip.)
The problem with re-editing movies on the basis of making certain scenes politically correct is that they are changing the movie's original statement. It's like a book, if a publisher decided to omit/change a certain a part of the book, which happened to be the climax of the story, that would change the entire context of the book. When a director re-edits a scene for a reasons beyond aesthetics they are re-contextualizing it. The movie is no longer the same movie because of this action. It's like the statement, say something only if you mean it. If they didn't want to include those images or scenes maybe they should have omitted them in the first place.
The whole point of editing is to shorten the film, to comply with the studio's demands or to edit unnecessary parts of the film for aesthetic reasons. However, lets say after the movie has been released, a certain amount of years have passed. The director received harsh criticism for a particular scene in a movie. Consequently, the director decides to go back and re-edit that scene. So that when it is re-released that scene is made to appease those that were in disfavor. Basically, the editor is trying to be politically correct. Is there any problems with the director's actions?
The majority will say NO because the film is the director's work of art and they should have the ability to do as they please with it. However, I say YES, there is a problem with that director's decision. I guess one example of movie editing years after the movie had initially been released can be "E.T." As pointed out by a student in the class, in one particular scene cops were originally holding guns when confronting the kids. However, in the 20th anniversary edition, Spielberg edited the guns and substituted them with walkie-talkies. Perhaps he considered that since this was a movie for children it was best not to expose them to the image of guns. Is he now trying to imply that cops don't use guns? Obviously that is the furthest thing from the truth. (There is a parody on South Park commenting on Spielberg's decision. It is quite funny but it also highlights how far directors can go and how frustrating it can be for the audience. Click Here to see clip.)
The problem with re-editing movies on the basis of making certain scenes politically correct is that they are changing the movie's original statement. It's like a book, if a publisher decided to omit/change a certain a part of the book, which happened to be the climax of the story, that would change the entire context of the book. When a director re-edits a scene for a reasons beyond aesthetics they are re-contextualizing it. The movie is no longer the same movie because of this action. It's like the statement, say something only if you mean it. If they didn't want to include those images or scenes maybe they should have omitted them in the first place.
Removing Books From Shelves....
Can you imagine one day, when you go to the library in hopes to find a favorite book but when you look at the shelves it is no longer there? Or you go online trying to look for an eBook of your favorite title and to your dismay it is no longer available. You start thinking why and then after asking a librarian or doing your own research, you realize that the book was removed because it was banned by the U.S. Government.
It sounds outrageous but this scenario has occurred quite few times in the history of the United States. A few examples of books that have been banned or challenged are the following: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Where's Waldo, Lord of the Flies, Goosebumps (the Series), James and the Giant Peach, and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, etc. (The complete list can be found here)
I have read all the books that I have mentioned and also quite a few that are on that list from the link. I would be outraged if the U.S. Government went to drastic measures by banning books. (Although, the blame cannot entirely be placed on them because there are groups who try to challenge books in hopes of getting them banned.) I don't see how such actions are warranted because authors and publishers for the most part are protected under the First Amendment. Granted, there are certain restrictions, especially pertaining to things that are considered obscene, libel, and or slander. However, much of the books mentioned on the list cannot be categorized under those restrictions.
Much of my negative attitudes towards the thought of banning books is towards the groups that initiate the challenges. They are the ones that are trying to influence the politicians and in some cases have succeeded. Yet, in many instances these same groups did not even read the book that they are trying to ban. So how can they argue against something that they have no clue about? Furthermore, while they may be doing it in their best interest to protect their children. Who are they to decide on what is best for my children? (I don't have children, but my statement is more so a figure of speech.) Shouldn't the individual and the parents be able to make a decision on what is acceptable to read or not read? Basically their actions, are denying other parents rights of raising a child. They are also denying the basic principle that has been the foundation of this country, which is the person's ability to make choices.
They are many genres of books, which allows people to make a wide range of selections. If they don't like a certain book or genre, they can just move on. Just because one particular book is published and it is considered unconventional or it contains "inappropriate" content doesn't warrant it to be banned. I guess it is easier to simply ban a book instead of going through the process of hearing both sides. Yet, if schools and libraries succumb to these groups' request or the U.S. Government mandates that certain books should be banned, where does it end? Today it is books, tomorrow it is music, the next day movies, the day after that it is art. U.S. Citizens would be denied their rights to think independently.
It sounds outrageous but this scenario has occurred quite few times in the history of the United States. A few examples of books that have been banned or challenged are the following: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Where's Waldo, Lord of the Flies, Goosebumps (the Series), James and the Giant Peach, and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, etc. (The complete list can be found here)
I have read all the books that I have mentioned and also quite a few that are on that list from the link. I would be outraged if the U.S. Government went to drastic measures by banning books. (Although, the blame cannot entirely be placed on them because there are groups who try to challenge books in hopes of getting them banned.) I don't see how such actions are warranted because authors and publishers for the most part are protected under the First Amendment. Granted, there are certain restrictions, especially pertaining to things that are considered obscene, libel, and or slander. However, much of the books mentioned on the list cannot be categorized under those restrictions.
Much of my negative attitudes towards the thought of banning books is towards the groups that initiate the challenges. They are the ones that are trying to influence the politicians and in some cases have succeeded. Yet, in many instances these same groups did not even read the book that they are trying to ban. So how can they argue against something that they have no clue about? Furthermore, while they may be doing it in their best interest to protect their children. Who are they to decide on what is best for my children? (I don't have children, but my statement is more so a figure of speech.) Shouldn't the individual and the parents be able to make a decision on what is acceptable to read or not read? Basically their actions, are denying other parents rights of raising a child. They are also denying the basic principle that has been the foundation of this country, which is the person's ability to make choices.
They are many genres of books, which allows people to make a wide range of selections. If they don't like a certain book or genre, they can just move on. Just because one particular book is published and it is considered unconventional or it contains "inappropriate" content doesn't warrant it to be banned. I guess it is easier to simply ban a book instead of going through the process of hearing both sides. Yet, if schools and libraries succumb to these groups' request or the U.S. Government mandates that certain books should be banned, where does it end? Today it is books, tomorrow it is music, the next day movies, the day after that it is art. U.S. Citizens would be denied their rights to think independently.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Essay on Water for Elephants
In Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants, a variety of topics involving love, loyalty, alcohol, and violence are discussed. The most prominent theme that is evident throughout the novel is social classicism. Individuals or groups are assigned into classes based on their status within the workforce, politics, and community. Jacob, the narrator and main character of the story, witnesses and is subject to social classicism during his time with the Benzini Brothers’ Circus and at a nursing home. Jacob’s narrative documents how presumptions become engraved in individuals and the negative effects they have on those who are judged.
Jacob first encounters with social classicism are evident during his time in the Benzini Brothers’ circus, which was owned by Uncle Al. Consequently, Uncle Al developed a hierarchy within the circus that was determined by the value he placed on individuals. Performers and bosses of the circus received better treatment because they contributed to Uncle Al’s financial gains. Meanwhile, the workers were viewed as inferior because they set up and cleaned up before and after the circus shows. Uncle Al considered the workers to be cheap and expendable and often referred to them as “little shits”. Jacob observed that performers and bosses had better accommodations while traveling by train. The workers’ cars were at the end of the train. These cars were not suited for humans or animals, but instead were intended as freight cars that would carry cargo. One can only imagine the discomfort and pain that was felt during the trip. The negative class distinction between the workers and the performers and bosses was evident during meal times and pay periods. Jacob describes the blue and orange flag being raised to signal mealtime. The entire staff, with the exception of Uncle Al, would congregate in the cook house. However, once inside, a drape would segregate the area for the workers and the rest of the circus staff. During pay periods, the rest of the circus staff were guaranteed pay, meanwhile workers rarely received financial compensations for their duties. On the contrary, if there were financial losses, Uncle Al would order workers to be thrown off the train while it was still moving. The distinctions between the workers and the rest of the circus staff paralleled the Great Depression. During this time there was a large gap between the really poor and the really rich. Yet, only the rich had the power to influence decisions that affected everyone.
Parts of the story focus on Jacob during his elder years in a nursing home. A social class distinction is clearly present between the younger nurses and the elderly residents. Jacob is subjected to nurses that are unsympathetic to his thoughts, behavior, or actions. For example, the nurse with the horse face ignores Jacob’s request for a walker. Instead, she thought it was best for him to remain in the wheelchair because she assumed he was not strong enough for the walker. In the end, Jacob was given his walker, much to the dismay of the nurse. Her actions suggest that she had a presumption of Jacob, perhaps she viewed him as an old, grumpy, and dependent person. Another instance of ageism can be exemplified when Jacob was irritated with the food that was being served to him. Though he and the rest of the residents were feeble, he felt that they should choose their own meals. In disdain, Jacob tipped the plate over the table and caused it to break. The nursing home staff disregarded Jacob’s feelings of powerlessness. Instead, they diagnosed him as depressive and put him on medication. Jacob did not take the medication but unknowingly was injected with an antidepressant. The actions of the nursing home staff reflect their disregard of elders, thus they treated them as children rather than adults.
Water for Elephants discusses the social classism that is placed upon Jacob and his peers during his time in the Benzini Brothers’ Circus and in a nursing home. Consequently, these assumptions were instilled in individuals and resulted into negative consequences on those that were being viewed critically. The majority of events narrated by Jacob were a reflection of the Depression Era. However, one could argue that the class distinctions that occurred in the Benzini circus are transferable to any neighborhood, school, and/or corporation in the present.
Jacob first encounters with social classicism are evident during his time in the Benzini Brothers’ circus, which was owned by Uncle Al. Consequently, Uncle Al developed a hierarchy within the circus that was determined by the value he placed on individuals. Performers and bosses of the circus received better treatment because they contributed to Uncle Al’s financial gains. Meanwhile, the workers were viewed as inferior because they set up and cleaned up before and after the circus shows. Uncle Al considered the workers to be cheap and expendable and often referred to them as “little shits”. Jacob observed that performers and bosses had better accommodations while traveling by train. The workers’ cars were at the end of the train. These cars were not suited for humans or animals, but instead were intended as freight cars that would carry cargo. One can only imagine the discomfort and pain that was felt during the trip. The negative class distinction between the workers and the performers and bosses was evident during meal times and pay periods. Jacob describes the blue and orange flag being raised to signal mealtime. The entire staff, with the exception of Uncle Al, would congregate in the cook house. However, once inside, a drape would segregate the area for the workers and the rest of the circus staff. During pay periods, the rest of the circus staff were guaranteed pay, meanwhile workers rarely received financial compensations for their duties. On the contrary, if there were financial losses, Uncle Al would order workers to be thrown off the train while it was still moving. The distinctions between the workers and the rest of the circus staff paralleled the Great Depression. During this time there was a large gap between the really poor and the really rich. Yet, only the rich had the power to influence decisions that affected everyone.
Parts of the story focus on Jacob during his elder years in a nursing home. A social class distinction is clearly present between the younger nurses and the elderly residents. Jacob is subjected to nurses that are unsympathetic to his thoughts, behavior, or actions. For example, the nurse with the horse face ignores Jacob’s request for a walker. Instead, she thought it was best for him to remain in the wheelchair because she assumed he was not strong enough for the walker. In the end, Jacob was given his walker, much to the dismay of the nurse. Her actions suggest that she had a presumption of Jacob, perhaps she viewed him as an old, grumpy, and dependent person. Another instance of ageism can be exemplified when Jacob was irritated with the food that was being served to him. Though he and the rest of the residents were feeble, he felt that they should choose their own meals. In disdain, Jacob tipped the plate over the table and caused it to break. The nursing home staff disregarded Jacob’s feelings of powerlessness. Instead, they diagnosed him as depressive and put him on medication. Jacob did not take the medication but unknowingly was injected with an antidepressant. The actions of the nursing home staff reflect their disregard of elders, thus they treated them as children rather than adults.
Water for Elephants discusses the social classism that is placed upon Jacob and his peers during his time in the Benzini Brothers’ Circus and in a nursing home. Consequently, these assumptions were instilled in individuals and resulted into negative consequences on those that were being viewed critically. The majority of events narrated by Jacob were a reflection of the Depression Era. However, one could argue that the class distinctions that occurred in the Benzini circus are transferable to any neighborhood, school, and/or corporation in the present.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Good Night Ann, and Good Luck Murrow
On this blog posting I am going to focus on the character of Ann Mitchell in the movie Meet John Doe and the character of Edward R. Murrow in the movie Good Night, and Good Luck. In particular, I am going to contrast their differences. Both characters were journalists. However, both took a different approach in delivering the news that they were reporting.
Before I go any further, I just want to elaborate on the context for each movie. Meet John Doe was a movie that was released in 1941. Meanwhile, Goodnight, and Good Luck was released in 2004 and based on actual events that occurred half a century ago.
Ann Mitchell’s character was about to be given the pink slip. However, her final task was to write her last column for the newspaper. She was irked by her boss’s statement that her pieces needed more “fireworks.” So she decided to fabricate an event to create more attention to the newspaper company. Her final column was based on a man named John Doe and how he was going to commit suicide because he could no longer take the pressure of living in the United States. Basically, this is an example of “yellow journalism.”
As a result, this stunt went as planned. It went a step further when Mitchell decided to select a man to portray the role of John Doe. It went so far that he became a national idol, allowing people to identify and sympathize with this John Doe character. Consequently, her boss’s boss saw this as an opportunity to become a political candidate.
The character of Ann Mitchell was a young, good-looking woman that was smart and innovative. She did not portray the stereotypical female. Instead, she was demanding and challenged those above her. However, I believed the movie tried to portray women with Mitchell's characteristics as the root of all of man’s problems. Basically, in that period, the woman's role was perceived to be submissive. (Whatever, that is backwards thinking).
The negative characteristics that can be attributed to Mitchell was that she was manipulative, and money motivative. Since, her decisions were based on her potential financial gains. One example would be her partnering with D.B. Norton. Even after he made his real intentions known, she continued to work with him.
Throughout the movie, her character was not sympathetic or caring. Even in the scene with her children, she was more concerned with finishing her task. It was almost as if the film was trying to tell women how not to act. It was until the end, when she lost everything, that her strong characteristics regressed and she seemed more apologetic, sympathetic and submissive.
Meanwhile, Edward Murrow’s character in Good Night, and Good Luck was obviously the account or a real person. The filmed focused on his role as a journalist, and his drive, when reporting, to take down Senator McCarthy.
His method of reporting was biased and made no attempts of portraying the other side. This was a subject of disagreement between his co-worker Frank, who argued that the code of conduct among journalist is to present both sides of the story without commentary. Murrow had a different belief and stated that he could “call it editorializing." This suggested that he was firm with his method in journalism and he was determined to get the real facts out. (On a side note, George Clooney, who directed the film, drew inspiration from his father, who worked as a journalist. His father believed it was a journalist duties to question authority regardless if they are deemed as unpatriotic.)
In contrast to Mitchell’s decision in Meet John Doe, Murrow’s decision to cover McCarthy in a biased approached may be sympathized by his audience. Since, his motives were not to make money (at least it appeared so) but instead to utilize television as a tool to teach people. The stark contrast between both characters is not only seen in terms of their gender but also in their approach to journalism. Murrow's approach is questionable while Mitchell's method is considered unethical among fellow journalists.
Before I go any further, I just want to elaborate on the context for each movie. Meet John Doe was a movie that was released in 1941. Meanwhile, Goodnight, and Good Luck was released in 2004 and based on actual events that occurred half a century ago.
Ann Mitchell’s character was about to be given the pink slip. However, her final task was to write her last column for the newspaper. She was irked by her boss’s statement that her pieces needed more “fireworks.” So she decided to fabricate an event to create more attention to the newspaper company. Her final column was based on a man named John Doe and how he was going to commit suicide because he could no longer take the pressure of living in the United States. Basically, this is an example of “yellow journalism.”
As a result, this stunt went as planned. It went a step further when Mitchell decided to select a man to portray the role of John Doe. It went so far that he became a national idol, allowing people to identify and sympathize with this John Doe character. Consequently, her boss’s boss saw this as an opportunity to become a political candidate.
The character of Ann Mitchell was a young, good-looking woman that was smart and innovative. She did not portray the stereotypical female. Instead, she was demanding and challenged those above her. However, I believed the movie tried to portray women with Mitchell's characteristics as the root of all of man’s problems. Basically, in that period, the woman's role was perceived to be submissive. (Whatever, that is backwards thinking).
The negative characteristics that can be attributed to Mitchell was that she was manipulative, and money motivative. Since, her decisions were based on her potential financial gains. One example would be her partnering with D.B. Norton. Even after he made his real intentions known, she continued to work with him.
Throughout the movie, her character was not sympathetic or caring. Even in the scene with her children, she was more concerned with finishing her task. It was almost as if the film was trying to tell women how not to act. It was until the end, when she lost everything, that her strong characteristics regressed and she seemed more apologetic, sympathetic and submissive.
Meanwhile, Edward Murrow’s character in Good Night, and Good Luck was obviously the account or a real person. The filmed focused on his role as a journalist, and his drive, when reporting, to take down Senator McCarthy.
His method of reporting was biased and made no attempts of portraying the other side. This was a subject of disagreement between his co-worker Frank, who argued that the code of conduct among journalist is to present both sides of the story without commentary. Murrow had a different belief and stated that he could “call it editorializing." This suggested that he was firm with his method in journalism and he was determined to get the real facts out. (On a side note, George Clooney, who directed the film, drew inspiration from his father, who worked as a journalist. His father believed it was a journalist duties to question authority regardless if they are deemed as unpatriotic.)
In contrast to Mitchell’s decision in Meet John Doe, Murrow’s decision to cover McCarthy in a biased approached may be sympathized by his audience. Since, his motives were not to make money (at least it appeared so) but instead to utilize television as a tool to teach people. The stark contrast between both characters is not only seen in terms of their gender but also in their approach to journalism. Murrow's approach is questionable while Mitchell's method is considered unethical among fellow journalists.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Why Good Night and Good Luck?
Well, I beg to differ. The movie was subtle and had a lot to offer if the person approached it with an open mind. Even though the subject matter of the movie revolved around events that occurred over 50 years ago, it is still relevant in our current time.
The instructor for my course on Electronic Media and Culture, presented this movie to the class on Monday. Afterwards she posed the question on why this movie was made until now?
The movie, which was based on the accounts of the journalist Edward R. Murrow and his fellow colleagues reporting on Senator McCarthy, who was trying to get rid of Communism within the United States at the expense of innocent people. Murrow and his colleagues on the other hand were on their own crusade of taking down McCarthy.
The US government has opposed Communism for a significant amount of time in its history. During the 1950’s, the United States was opposed with a few Communist Nations such as the following: the then Soviet Union, North Korea, and North Vietnam. Consequently, anyone in the United States that was affiliated with Communism was deemed a threat to National Security. McCarthy along with others opposed to Communism, would go at lengths to exploit people that they consider threats and had affiliations with the party. Yet, most of these people were charged without any significant evidence.
In the present, the US government and media actively used the word “terrorism” for a substantial amount of time after 9/11. The result led to the Arabic, Islamic, or Middle Eastern nations being associated with the words "terrorist" or "terrorism." Consequently, anyone that is considered to condone “terrorism” or a “terrorists” is considered a threat to National Security. If someone doesn’t support the War in Iraq, they are considered “un-Patriotic”. This is analogous to those who were referred to as “pink” because they were sympathetic to Communist ideals or were considered Communists. It is until recently that the US Government and the Bush administration decided to start a linguistic reform in regards to terrorism.
There is saying that history repeats itself if people don’t learn from it. The reason why this movie was made is to highlight that a lot of people didn’t take this flyer after the attacks of 9/11. This approach of singling out individuals without warrant resembles the McCarthism that occurred in the 1950's. I was thinking throughout the movie of the word “terrorism” and how many people of Middle Eastern, Arab, or Islamic background are singled out by the Government and narrow minded U.S. citizens.
You could substitute the word “Communism” with “Terrorism” and the movie would correlate to today’s events. Furthermore, in Murrow’s speech, he referenced the media and television at the time as an instrument “being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us” from other more important matters that can educate and inform people. Looking at television programs today, he was right. I see nothing but crap.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Crap TV = Reality TV
In my opinion I think most television is crap these days. A lot of the shows are uninspiring and unoriginal. This can be exemplified by most shows sharing similar themes or being structured in similar formats. Yet, these shows are constantly being produced and the ratings indicate no drop off. Well, first off we can thank larger corporations for using these television shows as vehicles to promote their products. However, the ultimate demise of television has to be laid upon reality television.
We can place Survivor, Big Brother, the Anna Nicole Smith Show, Flavor of Love, American Idol and countless others into one large garbage dispenser. However, at least in the United States, MTV’s Real World attributed to the success of the shows previously mentioned because it started before them. Real World certainly is not the first reality based show in the history of television. Yet, it remains the most popular. Currently in its 20th season there are no signs of the show slowing down because it has been determined that the location of 21st season is going to be set in Brooklyn, New York.
The structure of the show is that the “cast” is composed of 7 members that fall in the age range between 18-25. In most cases, the cast members are good looking and in good physical condition, which is kind ironic given that not everyone in the United States looks like this. They all live together in a house that was furnished by MTV and is supposed to look to hip/modern. The members are usually from different racial backgrounds and usually consist of 3 female member and 4 male members or vice-versa. The result of this diversity leads to themes of sexuality, ethics, romance, religion, politics, and prejudice. When you combine all of this usually there is tension and/or a mess because people are going to have a difference of opinions. In the present, it is not uncommon to see that other reality shows have incorporated these themes within their shows.
The credibility of Real World and reality shows in general have always been questioned. One such example is from the cast of Real World: Chicago, which later admitted that their reactions to the attacks on September 11 were staged. Even then it is not hard to fathom that all of these “reality” shows follow in the same path. Editing also allows for shows to be altered into a different viewpoint from the original script or events that actually occurred. Another example is Stacey Stillman who was part of Survivor: Borneo. She sued the network on the claim that her being voted off the island was rigged by the executive producer of the show.
My main gripe with these shows is the nature in which people are pinned against each other. The results are cast members fighting against each other. The networks of course are in favor of such events because more people are likely to watch. Shows like American Idol exploit people who lack singing talents. Survivor humiliates people by forcing them to eat bugs and doing other outrageous things. Real World seems more like a frat party for young good-looking college students instead of an actual depiction of the real world. Most of these shows are the furthest thing from reality. Consequently, they provide nothing in terms of valuable content and make a putrid attempt of being "entertainment".
Millennials......WTF?
As reported by Morley Safer, I along with about 80 million people of the U.S. population fall into the category of "Millennials". Millennials are defined as people born between the years of 1981 through 1995. This group is supposed to be "tech savvy", narcissists, and a group that has to be constantly pampered and accommodated by both their employers and parents.
According to Mary Crane, who was interviewed for Safer's "Millennials" segment which aired on CBS's 60 minutes, much of the blame has to fall on the parents for raising their children in an environment that was filled with trophies and excessive admiration. The result has led to many of these children, who are now grown, unprepared for the workplace.
Well, based on my experiences, I would have to disagree. My parents, who came to this country as immigrants from El Salvador, a "Third World country", instilled a “work hard” mentality. They taught me the importance of working hard in both school and work is necessary but at the same time I should not expect praise or admiration. Since this was expected from everyone else. The phrase, "you only get what you put in" holds true and much of my childhood was not filled with trophies or this adulation that Crane claimed was present for Millennials. Furthermore, I have had substantial experience in the workplace that predated my completion of high school and my time during college.
In Brooks article, which was published in the NY Times at the beginning of this century, it states that Millennials were more likely to be non-cynical and would favor a "team first" mentality. I beg to differ and would agree more with Safer’s opening statement during his segment that Millennials are more concerned with themselves.
In this capitalistic society, where people are constantly trying to move forward and the main concern is to secure financial success, it is only natural that our generation is more concerned to fulfill their needs. Furthermore, this motivation is fueled by an uncertain future and by companies that are outsourcing. Bob Herbert's article, "Here Come the Millennials", focuses on the Millennials' employment future which is filled with uncertainty. The prospect of jobs offering perks such as paid vacations; health coverage or pensions appear to be dwindling. I am in accordance with Marian Salzman's comment in which Millenials view themselves as "merchandise on eBay". As an employee, I am not willing to show loyalty, when at any given moment I could be deemed as expandable.
For the most part, I would agree with this generalization of being classified as a "Millennial". I am "tech savvy" because today's society is geared towards new media and technology. At the same time these skills are extremely necessary in order to succeed. I am a narcissist because I want the best for myself because the future is not guaranteed and does not look favorable. No one will give anything to me or anyone else for free. Finally, in the present I do view my parents as a safety net. Only because they are willing to support me during my time in college. Yet, I do realize that I can't always rely on their support and must move on to really obtain adulthood. However, I would have to state that not all of us were subjected to "trophies" or the constant adulation from our parents. I think that depends on the "Millennials" class when they were growing up. At least, in regards to my parents, there was always that "tough love" and money has always been tight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)