Thursday, December 16, 2010
Final Project for CI5472: Art of Film Teaching Ideas
Here's a link to my teaching ideas for my upcoming Art of Film class.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
good movies, good books
V for Vendetta
Sideways (one instance where the movie is WAY better than the book)
The Road
No Country for Old Men
Fight Club
Atonement
The Namesake
Shopgirl
Sideways (one instance where the movie is WAY better than the book)
The Road
No Country for Old Men
Fight Club
Atonement
The Namesake
Shopgirl
Using Film Adaptations
Whenever my students read a piece of literature, they always ask, "Is there a movie version of this?" Some of the more disillusioned students have suggested that we eschew reading altogether and just watch the movie adaptations; "It would take a lot less time!" That being said, I usually try to show a film adaptation of what we read, when there is a decent one available. I'm pretty sure that some of our district curriculum is chosen with that in mind; for instance, this trimester my students will read Much Ado About Nothing. A fine play, but not really ideal for all seniors in "regular" English because of its wordiness and lack of what they'd see as real action. But the movie version with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson is excellent, and it really helps the students understand the play.
A couple weeks ago, my students also read the play Proof by David Auburn as a preface to starting Shakespeare plays. There's a good film adaptation starring Anthony Hopkins and Gwyneth Paltrow, which I showed on the finals day (the only 2-hour block we get). I've always thought about coming up with ways for students to think more critically about the movie rather than just watching, but I have yet to figure out a brilliant idea on that. (On the other hand, though, I don't necessarily think there's a problem with "just watching" either).
This trimester, while reading Much Ado, I plan to show scenes from the movie as we go along, instead of watching the entire thing at once after we are done reading. I think this will keep students more interested and help them see the emotions of the characters because of the superb acting. I may have them take notes, as they read and watch, on the emotions the characters are feeling during certain scenes (i.e., when the soldiers return home from war, when Claudio supposedly sees Hero cheating on him). So, students will use the movie as another way of "reading" the scenes.
A couple weeks ago, my students also read the play Proof by David Auburn as a preface to starting Shakespeare plays. There's a good film adaptation starring Anthony Hopkins and Gwyneth Paltrow, which I showed on the finals day (the only 2-hour block we get). I've always thought about coming up with ways for students to think more critically about the movie rather than just watching, but I have yet to figure out a brilliant idea on that. (On the other hand, though, I don't necessarily think there's a problem with "just watching" either).
This trimester, while reading Much Ado, I plan to show scenes from the movie as we go along, instead of watching the entire thing at once after we are done reading. I think this will keep students more interested and help them see the emotions of the characters because of the superb acting. I may have them take notes, as they read and watch, on the emotions the characters are feeling during certain scenes (i.e., when the soldiers return home from war, when Claudio supposedly sees Hero cheating on him). So, students will use the movie as another way of "reading" the scenes.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Song Analysis: "Old Man" by Neil Young
Doesn't everyone say they listen to "all kinds of music"? I suppose I like a variety of music, but I have a definite type that I like. My husband sometimes calls me "music Nazi" because I can be very opinionated about what I'm in the mood to hear. A lot of the contemporary music I like is moody British rock or singer-songwriter stuff. I really like classic rock; growing up, I would listen to anything my dad liked, which was mainly 60s and 70s rock. These days, I'm trying to do a better job of keeping up with contemporary music. Probably my favorite band at the moment is Muse, a British rock group. I went to a concert of theirs a couple months ago, and it was epic. With all music, vocals are really important to me; I was in choir for many years and always have to pick apart the singing. I tend toward real epic belt-it-out songs, not those ones where it seems like the singer is mumbling with no purpose.
The stuff that really gets to me are songs that seem to have some history behind them, a timeless sound. "Old Man" by Neil Young is one of my all-time favorite songs; it's no wonder I've been accused of having the musical tastes of a 60-year-old man. I think this song is incredibly profound. I'm not really sure what it's "about," but I love it anyway.
Old man, look at my life
I'm a lot like you were
Old man look at my life
Twenty four
and there's so much more
Live alone in a paradise
That makes me think of two
Love lost, such a cost
Give me things
that don't get lost
Like a coin that won't get tossed
Rolling home to you.
Old man, take a look at my life
I'm a lot like you
I need someone to love me
the whole day through
Ah, one look in my eyes
and you can tell that's true.
Lullabies, look in your eyes
Run around the same old town
Doesn't mean that much to me
To mean that much to you
I've been first and last
Look at how the time goes past
But I'm all alone at last
Rolling home to you
Old man take a look at my life
I'm a lot like you
I need someone to love me
the whole day through
Ah, one look in my eyes
and you can tell that's true
Old man look at my life
I'm a lot like you were
I looked around online and found this quote, which is how Neil Young explained this song in live performance:
I definitely have a thing for the singer-songwriter genre; this song is part country, part folk. It was written in the 70s, and although this song isn't really political, I'm fascinated by the music of the 60s and 70s and the anti-war songs. When I taught English 11 two years ago, the required text was The Things They Carried (one of my absolute favorites), and I did a short protest-music unit with it. One song I used was "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, a song about the shooting of college students by the National Guard during a war protest. I also used "Fortunate Son" by CCR and a few others. If I teach English 11 again, I'll definitely expand upon this mini-unit. Students could find a song that protests something and share it with the class: what is being protested and why, and how is the message being delivered.
The stuff that really gets to me are songs that seem to have some history behind them, a timeless sound. "Old Man" by Neil Young is one of my all-time favorite songs; it's no wonder I've been accused of having the musical tastes of a 60-year-old man. I think this song is incredibly profound. I'm not really sure what it's "about," but I love it anyway.
Old man, look at my life
I'm a lot like you were
Old man look at my life
Twenty four
and there's so much more
Live alone in a paradise
That makes me think of two
Love lost, such a cost
Give me things
that don't get lost
Like a coin that won't get tossed
Rolling home to you.
Old man, take a look at my life
I'm a lot like you
I need someone to love me
the whole day through
Ah, one look in my eyes
and you can tell that's true.
Lullabies, look in your eyes
Run around the same old town
Doesn't mean that much to me
To mean that much to you
I've been first and last
Look at how the time goes past
But I'm all alone at last
Rolling home to you
Old man take a look at my life
I'm a lot like you
I need someone to love me
the whole day through
Ah, one look in my eyes
and you can tell that's true
Old man look at my life
I'm a lot like you were
I looked around online and found this quote, which is how Neil Young explained this song in live performance:
About that time when I wrote "Heart of Gold" and I was touring, I had also -- just, you know, being a rich hippie for the first time -- I had purchased a ranch, and I still live there today. And there was a couple living on it that were the caretakers, an old gentleman named Louis Avala and his wife Clara. And there was this old blue Jeep there, and Louis took me for a ride in this blue Jeep. He gets me up there on the top side of the place, and there's this lake up there that fed all the pastures, and he says, "Well, tell me, how does a young man like yourself have enough money to buy a place like this?" And I said, "Well, just lucky, Louie, just real lucky." And he said, "Well, that's the darndest thing I ever heard." And I wrote this song for him.
I had always gotten the feeling that through this song, Young was talking to a particular man; I thought maybe it was his father. The song sounds almost bitter in parts: "Twenty four and there's so much more"--given that Young found wealth and fame at an early age, it suggests he still needed other things ("someone to love me") to make his life meaningful. That is one thing that a young person and an old person would have in common.I definitely have a thing for the singer-songwriter genre; this song is part country, part folk. It was written in the 70s, and although this song isn't really political, I'm fascinated by the music of the 60s and 70s and the anti-war songs. When I taught English 11 two years ago, the required text was The Things They Carried (one of my absolute favorites), and I did a short protest-music unit with it. One song I used was "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, a song about the shooting of college students by the National Guard during a war protest. I also used "Fortunate Son" by CCR and a few others. If I teach English 11 again, I'll definitely expand upon this mini-unit. Students could find a song that protests something and share it with the class: what is being protested and why, and how is the message being delivered.
Music Video Analysis: "Crossfire" by Brandon Flowers
Brandon Flowers (album title Flamingo)
I have been obsessed with this album lately. Brandon Flowers is the lead singer of The Killers, a band I was never that into. But I heard an interview with him on NPR and was intrigued by the concept of his solo album, which came out in summer 2010. Brandon Flowers grew up near Las Vegas, and the album is sort of a tribute to his hometown. He explores all sides of the city: the excitement, the excesses, the people who are down on their luck and can't get out of that town. I really connected with this album because I love Vegas and its mythology. I bought the album just before our trip to Vegas in October. Now, this album reminds me of being on that trip, which is why I literally couldn't listen to anything else during my three or four weeks of post-Vegas vacation withdrawal. (Yes, it took that long. I needed another break, apparently).
This music video is for the major single off the album, "Crossfire." It's not my favorite song, but since the music video came with it, I thought I'd watch and analyze it.
There’s a still in the street outside your window
You’re keepin’ secrets on your pillow
Let me inside, no cause for alarm
I promise tonight not to do no harm
I promise you baby, I won't be no harm
And we're caught up in the crossfire
Of heaven and hell
And were searching for shelter
Lay your body down...
Watching your dress as you turn down the light
I forget all about the storm outside
Dark clouds roll their way over town
Heartache and pain came pouring down like
Chaos in the rain, yeah
They're handing it out
And we're caught up in the crossfire
Heaven and hell
And were searching for shelter
Lay your body down...
Tell the devil that he can go back from where he came
His fire he airs all through their beating vein.
And when the hardest part is over we'll be here
And our dreams will break the boundaries of our fears
The video is pretty interesting and not at ALL what I expected. In short, it features Charlize Theron repeatedly saving Brandon Flowers from various ninja attacks. It's shot like a mini-movie with different scenarios: in each one, Brandon is tied up, bloody and bruised, and Charlize Theron appears out of nowhere to kick ninja ass. She is dressed in pants and a tank top that's somewhat revealing but not overly so, and she's wearing minimal makeup. Throughout all this, Brandon is the man-in-waiting. He needs her to rescue him, and he smiles appreciatively at her when she does, but they never kiss or anything. They exchange some meaningful looks that suggest these "characters" have a history, but none of it is shown in the video. At the end, they drive off in a car together.
"Crossfire" is a love song, but it seems this video has turned things around by making the male the one who is waiting to be found and loved. Brandon's character is very passive. The song starts by the male promising to do no harm, and that's the only part where he is singing along. Even though I think this video is a little goofy, the idea intrigues me. Brandon Flowers is known for being a flamboyant showman with The Killers (wearing eyeliner, the whole bit), but in this video, he's dirty, helpless, and beat up. Perhaps he's trying to show a more vulnerable side? (Swoon!) This video seems like an attempt to create a softer image of the lead singer of a rock band. Since this is his first solo album, it's trying to set him apart from his image with The Killers.
I think it'd be fun to have students analyze a music video like this that tells a story. (Another one that comes to mind is "The Scientist" by Coldplay). They would watch the video on mute first and infer the relationship between the characters. Then they'd follow along with the lyrics and see how they contribute additional meaning to the story being told in the video.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Teaching Activity for Documentary
Several years ago, I taught a unit around the film Super Size Me, and it was incredibly successful. I would love to repeat it sometime.
-Students watched the film and recorded important details about Morgan Spurlock's health decline as he trudged through his month of McDonald's.
-Students went on the McDonald's website and analyzed the nutrition info for various foods. (This part required them to do some math, which made me feel very multidisciplinary!). They also looked at how easy/difficult it is to find nutrition info while at McDonald's in person or using the website.
-I would also want students to analyze the message of the film and its possible limitations. For starters, it follows one guy's experience, and his consumption of McDonald's was extreme; there is the McDonald's-only diet on one extreme and veganism (his girlfriend) on the other. Students could look into recent changes in fast food offerings and see how they are improving.
-Students watched the film and recorded important details about Morgan Spurlock's health decline as he trudged through his month of McDonald's.
-Students went on the McDonald's website and analyzed the nutrition info for various foods. (This part required them to do some math, which made me feel very multidisciplinary!). They also looked at how easy/difficult it is to find nutrition info while at McDonald's in person or using the website.
-I would also want students to analyze the message of the film and its possible limitations. For starters, it follows one guy's experience, and his consumption of McDonald's was extreme; there is the McDonald's-only diet on one extreme and veganism (his girlfriend) on the other. Students could look into recent changes in fast food offerings and see how they are improving.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Documentary: "It Might Get Loud"
I am analyzing the documentary "It Might Get Loud," which features three gods of the rock guitar world: Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, Jack White of the White Stripes, and The Edge (David Evans) of U2. (Personally, I think Jimmy Page is the only one who deserves Rock God status, but don't get me started on that). These men have made millions on their distinctive guitar sounds, and the documentary puts them together in one room just to see what happens. On the surface, this movie seems to have no agenda: rock music is supposed to be everything that politics is not. But having no agenda IS having an agenda in itself, isn't it? And looking deeper, I found that even though this movie seems to have no real purpose other than to drool over guitars, it does make a statement about the music industry.
This is truly a documentary for rock geeks (if such a contradiction can exist)--people who want to understand where the music comes from. There is extensive footage of The Edge messing with guitar effects; he admits he's not an amazing player on his own, but his gift lies in manipulating the sounds coming out of the speakers. He knows how to engineer certain sounds from his guitar and uses those sounds to create the feeling of the song. The documentary takes The Edge back to his old high school, where he and the other guys used to rehearse in a classroom.
Jack White, despite his relatively young age, establishes himself as an opinionated old-school musician; he says that today's technology has destroyed a lot of musical creativity. He plays all sorts of busted instruments because he likes the challenge, and he makes weird instruments too. He is a purist. Growing up in Detroit, knew it was considered uncool to play an instrument; hip-hop and electronic music were popular, but they have no appeal to him.
Jimmy Page agreed that pop music in his age was crap, so he wanted to play the blues instead. Jimmy Page...where do I start? I'm a huge Zeppelin fan, so of course I'm all over any footage he's in. Apparently it was a total coincidence that he even started on guitar. His family moved to a new house and a previous owner had left a guitar behind. Oddly enough, in his youth, Page played in a nerdy sort-of blues/rockabilly band where all the boys wore collared shirts onstage; he never dreamed he'd be famous one day.
So what happens when Page, White, and Evans get together? Well, it gets sorta loud, but it's not as epic as it could be; mostly it's a music appreciation lesson. They listen to records of artists that inspired them, and they listen to each other play some well-known riffs, but since they all have such different styles and don't seem to be super close friends, it feels a little stilted. Near the end they have some cool stuff going on, though...I mean, how much can I really complain?
This is a documentary for, by, and about music geeks. Rock music lovers might be the most obvious target, but I think anyone who appreciates the technical aspects of music and recording could get something out of it. I think if this movie has an agenda, it's to prove that these guys are real musicians and that that still means something today. A lot of music now is electronic or fake in some way, but Page, White, and Evans actually play instruments, write their own parts, construct their own sounds, and have a sincere appreciation for the craft. These guys worship music and guitars themselves, and they want to keep music "pure." While not naming names, they take a definite stance against music that is not really authentic.
This documentary is unique because it mostly hides the spectacle of rock music. It showcases not the whole bands or the frontmen (well, Jack White kind of is) but the sometimes-underappreciated lead guitarists to show how integral they are to their bands' trademark sounds. It shows some footage of them onstage, but not much; mostly they are in natural settings with their guitars, just playing and doing what they do best. No costumes, no special lights, just music. Just guitars.
This is truly a documentary for rock geeks (if such a contradiction can exist)--people who want to understand where the music comes from. There is extensive footage of The Edge messing with guitar effects; he admits he's not an amazing player on his own, but his gift lies in manipulating the sounds coming out of the speakers. He knows how to engineer certain sounds from his guitar and uses those sounds to create the feeling of the song. The documentary takes The Edge back to his old high school, where he and the other guys used to rehearse in a classroom.
Jack White, despite his relatively young age, establishes himself as an opinionated old-school musician; he says that today's technology has destroyed a lot of musical creativity. He plays all sorts of busted instruments because he likes the challenge, and he makes weird instruments too. He is a purist. Growing up in Detroit, knew it was considered uncool to play an instrument; hip-hop and electronic music were popular, but they have no appeal to him.
Jimmy Page agreed that pop music in his age was crap, so he wanted to play the blues instead. Jimmy Page...where do I start? I'm a huge Zeppelin fan, so of course I'm all over any footage he's in. Apparently it was a total coincidence that he even started on guitar. His family moved to a new house and a previous owner had left a guitar behind. Oddly enough, in his youth, Page played in a nerdy sort-of blues/rockabilly band where all the boys wore collared shirts onstage; he never dreamed he'd be famous one day.
So what happens when Page, White, and Evans get together? Well, it gets sorta loud, but it's not as epic as it could be; mostly it's a music appreciation lesson. They listen to records of artists that inspired them, and they listen to each other play some well-known riffs, but since they all have such different styles and don't seem to be super close friends, it feels a little stilted. Near the end they have some cool stuff going on, though...I mean, how much can I really complain?
This is a documentary for, by, and about music geeks. Rock music lovers might be the most obvious target, but I think anyone who appreciates the technical aspects of music and recording could get something out of it. I think if this movie has an agenda, it's to prove that these guys are real musicians and that that still means something today. A lot of music now is electronic or fake in some way, but Page, White, and Evans actually play instruments, write their own parts, construct their own sounds, and have a sincere appreciation for the craft. These guys worship music and guitars themselves, and they want to keep music "pure." While not naming names, they take a definite stance against music that is not really authentic.
This documentary is unique because it mostly hides the spectacle of rock music. It showcases not the whole bands or the frontmen (well, Jack White kind of is) but the sometimes-underappreciated lead guitarists to show how integral they are to their bands' trademark sounds. It shows some footage of them onstage, but not much; mostly they are in natural settings with their guitars, just playing and doing what they do best. No costumes, no special lights, just music. Just guitars.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Teaching Activity for News Analysis
I'd have students start by discussing whether or not they watch the news and if so, if students or their parents have any "favorite" news personalities. Many people are loyal to their anchors and have ones they like and dislike. We would discuss the traits (personality and physical) that students believe are important in a newscaster. Students would then watch a few different local broadcasts and look at the anchors featured on each and take notes on what they see in terms of:
-Style of speech, esp. moments when the anchors go off-script
-Clothing/accessories
-Race/gender/size/weight/other types of diversity
Also, I have noticed that many news anchors use social networking, email, etc. to get in touch with viewers. Most of them at least have a Q&A profile listed on the news station's website. I would have students read some of these anchors' information and comment on their content. What sorts of information is given, and does it match with each anchor's TV persona?
Fox 9 News Analysis
I watched Fox 9 News at 5:30 on Tuesday evening for the first time ever. I'm not a big news watcher anymore, but I used to watch it all the time, the Today Show in the morning (to the extent you can call that a news show) and the 10:00 news most evenings. This was all before I started teaching on an asscrack-of-dawn schedule. Now I rarely watch the news on TV because I don't allow enough time in the morning and can't stay up until 10. Instead, I get my news from MPR and the internet, which I prefer anyway. I find those sources more reliable and in-depth and less annoying in terms of fake-news stories. Sometimes I do miss the ritual of watching the news on TV, but I stay well-informed through other means, as I check news websites like cnn.com at least once per day and listen to MPR at least once per day. I'm actually a lot more into news now that I don't just see it on TV; I feel I'm more engaged.
Here is my timeline of the 5:30 Fox 9 news:
-Tire slashings near Lake of the Isles (lead-off story)
-Hit and run in Bloomington 5:32
-Charges against nurse for assisted suicide 5:34--short story, the nurse is from MN but the suicides took place in Canada and England
-House explosion in WI 5:34
-Fridley High School donkey basketball game/conflict with PETA 5:35 (more at 9)
-Weather report outdoors 5:36
-Stories up next before commercials: grandma tries to sell grandchild, flight prices going up, Joe Mauer winning Gold Glove
-Holiday travel, flights cost 17% more this year (with travel expert, extensive conversation and Q&A and graphics)--started at 5:40
-Increasing # of senior citizen drivers 5:45
-Woman in FL tried to sell baby 5:45 “What is wrong with that lady?”--Marni Hughes
-Minnesota Wild update 5:46
-Devoe Joseph (Gopher bball, wooooo!) did not play in last night’s exhibition 5:47
-Joe Mauer won 3rd Gold Glove 5:48
-Timberwolves lost 5 straight games 5:48
-Sunset pic sent in by a viewer 5:48
-Ian Leonard reporting on weather from a bar in St. Louis Park (mingles in crowd, sits down with a group of people, awkward conversation); 7-day forecast; ends at 5:51
-Stories up next before commercials: “Betty White’s new job”
-Mentioned after commercials: donkey basketball game AGAIN, story following a mom who’s a recovering alcoholic
-Betty White is a forest ranger 5:55--last story
Most of these stories were of local interest. The first few stories centered around crime; the leadoff story was about several cars in Minneapolis that had their tires slashed overnight. The longest story by far was about the increasing cost of holiday travel. They had on a travel expert who talked with the anchor for several minutes, giving advice on how to find good deals despite the higher prices. This consumer news/info piece lasted about 4-5 minutes.
Then there were several local sports stories, only about a minute apiece. They provided a quick update on how our local teams are doing and showed brief footage of each.
The weather took 3-4 minutes because Ian Leonard was reporting from a bar in St. Louis Park and was determined to mingle with the crowd and make new friends, despite the awkward reactions of the customers. He explained the week's forecast for about 20 seconds but spent the rest of the time chatting it up with people (and not even chatting about the weather).
A story that got 2 mentions, even though it wasn't going to be on the air, was the controversial donkey basketball game at Fridley High School. They did it as a fundraiser or school event of some kind, but PETA got up in arms about it, so the controversy was to be reported on the 9:00 news, yet the story was mentioned twice during the 5:30 broadcast.
Near the end of the broadcast, the top story became Betty White's new job--she is now a forest ranger. This was the last story , suggesting that apparently they try to end on a positive note.
Content-wise, it was about what I expected--mainly news and some ridiculous fluff thrown in. Betty White and the donkey basketball game definitely didn't need to be in there, but the rest of the stories contained at least somewhat legitimate news. All in all, I found this broadcast to be pretty lighthearted and informal compared to, say, NBC Nightly News. This broadcast had a community feel; it was laid-back and not very high-tech. It seemed like the anchors were trying to be "regular people"--they showed a bit of their reactions to the stories, like when Marni Hughes editorialized on the woman who tried to sell her grandchild, and they expressed sympathy for the people whose tires were slashed. Some might see those comments and the weatherman's schmoozing at the bar as unprofessional. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but it's definitely a tactic that would appeal to viewers who want a more relaxed style.
Here is my timeline of the 5:30 Fox 9 news:
FOX NEWS 5:30 on Tuesday 11/9
Anchors: Jeff Passolt, Marni Hughes, Jim Rich (sports), Ian Leonard (weather)
-Tire slashings near Lake of the Isles (lead-off story)
-Hit and run in Bloomington 5:32
-Charges against nurse for assisted suicide 5:34--short story, the nurse is from MN but the suicides took place in Canada and England
-House explosion in WI 5:34
-Fridley High School donkey basketball game/conflict with PETA 5:35 (more at 9)
-Weather report outdoors 5:36
-Stories up next before commercials: grandma tries to sell grandchild, flight prices going up, Joe Mauer winning Gold Glove
-Holiday travel, flights cost 17% more this year (with travel expert, extensive conversation and Q&A and graphics)--started at 5:40
-Increasing # of senior citizen drivers 5:45
-Woman in FL tried to sell baby 5:45 “What is wrong with that lady?”--Marni Hughes
-Minnesota Wild update 5:46
-Devoe Joseph (Gopher bball, wooooo!) did not play in last night’s exhibition 5:47
-Joe Mauer won 3rd Gold Glove 5:48
-Timberwolves lost 5 straight games 5:48
-Sunset pic sent in by a viewer 5:48
-Ian Leonard reporting on weather from a bar in St. Louis Park (mingles in crowd, sits down with a group of people, awkward conversation); 7-day forecast; ends at 5:51
-Stories up next before commercials: “Betty White’s new job”
-Mentioned after commercials: donkey basketball game AGAIN, story following a mom who’s a recovering alcoholic
-Betty White is a forest ranger 5:55--last story
Most of these stories were of local interest. The first few stories centered around crime; the leadoff story was about several cars in Minneapolis that had their tires slashed overnight. The longest story by far was about the increasing cost of holiday travel. They had on a travel expert who talked with the anchor for several minutes, giving advice on how to find good deals despite the higher prices. This consumer news/info piece lasted about 4-5 minutes.
Then there were several local sports stories, only about a minute apiece. They provided a quick update on how our local teams are doing and showed brief footage of each.
The weather took 3-4 minutes because Ian Leonard was reporting from a bar in St. Louis Park and was determined to mingle with the crowd and make new friends, despite the awkward reactions of the customers. He explained the week's forecast for about 20 seconds but spent the rest of the time chatting it up with people (and not even chatting about the weather).
A story that got 2 mentions, even though it wasn't going to be on the air, was the controversial donkey basketball game at Fridley High School. They did it as a fundraiser or school event of some kind, but PETA got up in arms about it, so the controversy was to be reported on the 9:00 news, yet the story was mentioned twice during the 5:30 broadcast.
Near the end of the broadcast, the top story became Betty White's new job--she is now a forest ranger. This was the last story , suggesting that apparently they try to end on a positive note.
Content-wise, it was about what I expected--mainly news and some ridiculous fluff thrown in. Betty White and the donkey basketball game definitely didn't need to be in there, but the rest of the stories contained at least somewhat legitimate news. All in all, I found this broadcast to be pretty lighthearted and informal compared to, say, NBC Nightly News. This broadcast had a community feel; it was laid-back and not very high-tech. It seemed like the anchors were trying to be "regular people"--they showed a bit of their reactions to the stories, like when Marni Hughes editorialized on the woman who tried to sell her grandchild, and they expressed sympathy for the people whose tires were slashed. Some might see those comments and the weatherman's schmoozing at the bar as unprofessional. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but it's definitely a tactic that would appeal to viewers who want a more relaxed style.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Analysis of Cooking Shows
For the genre analysis, I decided to analyze cooking shows. I’m a lover of anything to do with food and cooking,, and I have my favorite shows on both Food Network and the Cooking Channel: Jamie Oliver, Barefoot Contessa, Giada DeLaurentis, Nigella Lawson, and David Rocco, to name a few. When I first started watching these shows, I had just gotten married (and getting cable came with it). I had always enjoyed eating, but as for cooking, I was a complete novice. Watching shows on the Food Network made me a quick learner, plus having someone else to cook for was a motivating factor. I soon learned all about ingredients and techniques, and I could figure out where I’d been going wrong before. Watching these shows is valuable to me because they involve a lot more than just following recipes. The hosts explain the techniques step-by-step, and viewers can follow the progress visually. Hosts explain which ingredient combinations work together and how to avoid common problems. Some hosts encourage experimentation or variations on their recipes. Overall, they need to have some entertainment value beyond just the recipe. Anyone can find a recipe, but cooking shows walk people through the process, which is especially helpful for beginning cooks. Even so, cooking shows need to be more than just instructions. No one would watch a dry show where the host simply went through the motions. Each “celebrity chef” has his/her own persona that attracts viewers just as much as the food does.
By watching a lot of cooking shows (and also reading cookbooks as if they were novels), I learned not just how to make some dishes but, more importantly, to trust my instincts as a cook. The cooking shows’ mixt of entertainment, information, and instruction got me hooked. Now if only I could figure out a way to meet the Barefoot Contessa...
The Typical “Storyline” of a Cooking Show (specifically Rachael Ray’s 30-Minute Meals)
-Before the show’s intro song, Rachael begins with a hint to the show’s recipe(s) using a catchy “hook.” (For example: “Want to impress the crowd at this year’s Superbowl party? Today I’ll show you some fun dishes that will wow your friends, and they’ll be ready in under 30 minutes!”). Depending on the show, there’s always some kind of theme that ties the menu together: she’s done date-night dinners, budget dinners, finger foods, breakfast-for-dinner, kid-friendly dinners, etc. No matter what the theme, the same message is clear: it’s rewarding to cook for yourself and others, and you should make time for it because it’s really not that difficult.
-Rachel gets all the ingredients out of the fridge and pantry (usually making a joke about how many things she can carry at once) and explains in more detail what she will make during the episode.
-She starts preparing the recipe and explains it step-by-step, giving hints and tips along the way. While chopping, sauteing, and stirring, she talks directly to the audience in an encouraging manner, as if the viewers are welcome friends. She often sidetracks to a story about how she first learned about the dish or a bit of trivia about an ingredient. This type of banter gives the show its character and makes it more than just instructions.
-Given that the show is called 30-Minute Meals, the food is always done right at the end of the show. Rachael finishes by showing off the completed dish, oohing and aahing over it, pointing out all the yummy last-minute features (melted cheese, sprinkle of herbs) and taking a bite, loudly exclaiming its deliciousness. It always turns out perfectly.
Assumptions/Limitations of Cooking Shows
I feel I’ve learned a lot from cooking shows shows, but I do think the cultural phenomenon of cooking shows and TV networks is pretty odd. As Michael Pollen points out in a piece for the New York Times, more and more people are watching cooking shows but not taking the opportunity to cook for themselves. Instead, people are eating restaurant food or processed, ready-to-eat meals. Few people cook from scratch on a regular basis; with busy lives, few are willing to devote much time to cooking, no matter how appealing the end result might be.
Cooking shows operate under the assumption that you have both the time and money to apply to cooking (but it doesn’t really matter if you don’t--they make money just by having viewers and fans). I think the money issue is significant. Rachael Ray will say that pasta makes a cheap dinner, but then again, the fresh basil on top can cost a lot and/or be difficult to find for people lacking access to fresh ingredients. The hosts of these shows are working in clean, well-equipped kitchens with sharp knives and fully-stocked pantries and fridges; given these situations, of course it’s easy to cook something great. The fact is that it’s challenging for lower-income people to find and afford quality ingredients, and even middle-class people would need to stretch their budgets to cook a Rachael Ray recipe every day. On cooking shows, the ingredients and supplies are just magically there.
I think the point of cooking shows may be to encourage people to cook, but really, the shows are profitable whether people cook or not. TV chefs are celebrities, and “food entertainment” is a big industry. As Mario Batali has pointed out (he’s quoted in Pollen’s article), each of these celebrity chefs has his/her own persona. Rachael Ray is the cheerful, family-friendly cook. Nigella Lawson is the sexy one who turns each episode into food porn. Jamie Oliver is the quirky, homebody, nature-loving type. Ina Garten is the elegant yet casual one who loves to cook for her husband. It seems everyone has a favorite they latch onto and identify with. These personalities are crucial to the success of their shows. These people need to be able to connect with an audience and explain things in an easily understandable way.
Cooking shows can also mask some of the gender inequities that persist in the cooking world. The Food Network seems to have a good mix of male and female hosts, but in real-life kitchens, few women hold top positions. I’ve noticed that on the competitive shows that recruit real-life chefs (such as Chopped), almost all are men. I think it’s so ironic that while cooking has long been viewed as “women’s work,” men still dominate the high posts in most restaurants.
Cooking shows also glorify the food industry while ignoring the difficult reality of a typical chef or cook’s daily work. TV hosts never have to sweat over the burners or work the line in a bustling kitchen; some don’t even chop their own onions. It’s important to remember that cooking shows really are for entertainment. If the show was boring, no one would watch it, no matter how great the food is.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Media Ethnography: Public Radio Listeners
For my Media Ethnography, I studied a group I consider myself a part of: public radio listeners/members. I’ve been a listener since college, and since then, hardly a day goes by where I don’t listen for at least a short time. Mostly I listen to the NPR news station (91.1 FM), but occasionally I listen to The Current or Classical. I’ve found I’m in good company, because most of my friends, co-workers, and acquaintances listen frequently to public radio and consider it an important part of their lives and, to some extent, of Minnesota culture. Based on the testimonials I’ve heard during the pledge drives, many listeners feel strongly about public radio. Some even go so far as to say they can’t imagine life without public radio, and there are often testimonials from people who have moved out of state and still listen to MPR online. For this assignment, I wanted to take a closer look at some of the people who invite public radio into their lives.
These were the questions I asked:
1. How long have you been listening to public radio? How did you get started?
2. Do you listen mainly alone or with others? Do you feel a sense of community among public radio listeners? Explain.
3. Do you in any way “advertise” your public radio appreciation (bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.)?
4. Are you a member of your local station? Why or why not?
5. How often do you listen to public radio? Where do you listen most? Are there any particular people/programs you listen to regularly?
6. Do you also use the NPR/MPR websites? If so, for what purpose(s)?
7. What do you think your public radio listening reflects about your identity?
Public Radio and Community-Building
Although my interviewees usually listen to public radio alone (esp. in the car), they also expressed the idea that MPR builds relationships because of discussions of the stories with others. It’s common to start conversations with, “I heard on NPR…”and then to dialogue about it with someone who heard the same story.
I think there’s a reason why contributors to public radio are called “members” instead of “donors.” The station attempts to build a loyal following that considers itself a sort of team, not just donors to a cause. There is also a reason why many of the member thank-you gifts are products with the MPR logo—they create “advertising” and a way for people to mark themselves not only as public radio listeners but financial supporters. Some of my interviewees show their loyalty by using car stickers, mugs, shirts, etc. with the MPR logo.
One interviewee pinpointed “A Prairie Home Companion” as a show that she believes builds community. She says, “It takes a certain kind of character to not just enjoy but really understand” that show. It creates a community of insiders: people who live in Minnesota, especially in the outlying areas, will appreciate the humor and understand the references made. APHC sets this community apart from other areas of the country.
Public radio has a Facebook and web presence that helps to build community. Most of my interviewees don’t use the websites often, but I’ve noticed that the MPR NewsQ website has a daily question where people can write in their responses and some are shared on air. The station also frequently employs call-ins, a low-tech but effective way for listeners to dialogue on important issues. MPR also has a group of approximately 94,000 listeners, the Public Insight Network, who sign up to share their experiences related to certain topics (for instance, “What’s going on with housing in your area?”). I think these outreach measures are important in building community. It shows that public radio, true to its name, values the beliefs and experiences of everyday people and wants to democratize its news process. Public radio is unique because it invites people to actively contribute to a dialogue. While my interviewees typically just listen, they often initiate a dialogue simply by discussing stories and topics with others.
Public Radio as Ritual
For my interviewees, public radio listening is an important part of their daily routine. For me, public radio is the first thing I hear in the morning (besides the alarm)—I always have it on the bathroom radio as I get ready. All the people I interviewed stated that they frequently listen while driving to and from work. One of my interviewees even has a nightly ritual of listening to the BBC on NPR with her husband before going to sleep.
For my interviewees and myself, some of our listening is purposeful (really paying attention), and other listening is passive, mainly for background noise. But some of my interviewees have certain programs that they regularly tune to, on schedule, as if they were TV shows. At least two of my interviewees subscribe to the podcasts of their favorite shows so that they can listen whenever they choose.
Public Radio and Social Marking
Doing research online, I learned that the typical National Public Radio listener is highly educated (65% have a bachelor’s degree), white (86%), and middle- or upper-middle class (median household income is $86,000). Many listeners are white-collar workers. These findings were not surprising to me because they match up with what I’ve observed throughout the years, but it would be interesting to find out why these results are the way they are. Most of the people I frequently associate with are college-educated, and most of them listen to at least some public radio. I’ve sometimes wondered if there is a “keeping up with the joneses” effect going on—I’ll admit that part of the reason why I have listened all these years is so that I know the same things others know and can understand what they’re talking about. I don’t want to be out of the loop.
http://www.wqub.org/media/NPR%20Profile%20stats%202009/NPR%20demographics.pdf
Public Radio and Identity
I asked my interviewees what they believe public radio listening reflects about their identities. One said it shows she is “nerdy but not boring” and is interested in a variety of topics. Another said that it shows she is intelligent and wants to stay informed about news and events. Another added that her listening to public radio shows that she leans to the left on political issues. The demographics I found in my research did not report on listeners’ political affiliation, but it’d be interesting to see if most listeners fall into that category.
When thinking about what public radio reflects about my own identity, I think it shows that I am rational, thoughtful, and curious. By listening, I’ve learned about topics I’d never heard of before, and that’s what I like about it; I’m constantly amazed at the variety of stories. I also listen for entertainment, and my choices reflect my interests and personality. My favorite is The Splendid Table cooking show. (If I met Lynn Rosetto Kasper, I would squeal like a preteen at a Justin Bieber concert). But even The Splendid Table goes beyond the typical cooking show and delves deep into issues with food: where it came from, who’s making it, how it affects our lives. It’s a lot more than just cooking technique.
For news and information, I prefer public radio because I think it is more thorough and balanced than other sources. For instance, instead of playing a short, controversial soundbite from a politician or celebrity, public radio often features long interviews that ask insightful questions and put comments into context. This applies not only to politicians but also musicians, writers, and other people who are just generally interesting to hear from. My choice of public radio for news reveals my values of open discussion and logical thought. Based on what I learned in my interviews, many listeners value public radio as a way to keep us intelligent, informed, and thinking deeply about important issues.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Link to my Voicethread
(It's actually written comments--some of it is copied from the blog post below, which I did before we got Voicethread working again)
Media Representations of Las Vegas
Media Representations of Las Vegas
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
My Use of Facebook and iPhone
Throughout my adult life, I have lagged behind when it comes to technology. I've never been interested in having the newest gadgets, and I only use technology on basic levels because I haven't taken the time to really learn more sophisticated methods. This class is my first step toward shedding my nickname: "Web 1.0"
CELL PHONE
This summer, I finally got a smart phone, an iPhone to be exact (3G, because I decided I really didn't need to pay extra for 4G, especially if it doesn't work yet). I did want to get a smart phone of some kind, but I only "settled" for the iPhone because my husband has one and we finally got ourselves on the same phone plan. After years of struggling with an old-school phone that could barely send text messages, I found the iPhone fairly easy to use, but I don't really love it. The iPhone is useful because I can finally send text messages easily, and it is really convenient to have access to email, Facebook, and the internet all the time. I feel much less attached to my computer now, which is nice.
Texting is useful to me, but I don't use "text-speak" and neither do most of my friends. I use fairly standard puncutation and avoid a lot of abbreviations. The iPhone makes it easy to type so it's not a hassle to spell out actual words. I have no major objections to "text-speak," it's just not my style, and most people I text feel the same way.
I see my phone as being somewhat a reflection of me. I have downloaded several apps that show my interests in cooking, reading, news, movies, etc. I have pics of people I know and places I've been. Even though I'm not really that attached to my phone, it does show some aspects of my identity.
FACEBOOK
Not surprisingly, I was a relative latecomer to Facebook. I got my account at the age of 26 or 27, well after most of my friends got it, because I realized that I was missing out on things due to not being on it. I finally decided to sign up for it, and I'm glad I did.
The first thing I did on Facebook is adjust the privacy settings so that I'm not searchable to the public and most of my content is restricted to "friends only." Privacy is a huge concern for me because of my teaching career. I don't want my students (or my boss) to see what I post on Facebook, and I want to try to maintain a life that is not always school-appropriate! I'm now toying with the idea of having a Facebook page for my "teacher-self," but I just have concerns about what could go wrong.
I have 81 friends on Facebook, which is a low number, relatively speaking. (I think my husband has over 250). Almost all of them are people I know personally and see at least occasionally. A few of my English department colleagues are my Facebook friends, which I really enjoy. They become a source of support when my status update reads like it did on Sunday: "Finally finished grading tests...having started at 8:30 a.m." (posted at about 7:00 at night). I can trust my colleagues, so friending them on Facebook was not a concern, but I would never friend my boss or go seeking out a bunch of colleagues as friends.
I use Facebook mainly as a way to stay informed about what's going on with people who are at least fairly close to me. My life is uneventful and I don't post a ton of stuff, but I do enjoy reading about my friends' lives. When my friends post pics of their vacations, I look at them. When they are in need of encouragement or sympathy, I comment on their statuses. I often use the "like" button because it allows me to express acknowledge someone without having to write something. I also use Facebook as a casual way to reconnect with people I haven't seen in awhile. I post a wall comment or send a private message and try to set up an in-person meeting. In sum, I use Facebook the way most people do: to keep in touch with people I already know.
Even so, I am pretty judicious about what I post on Facebook and whether it will be public or private. If the message is mundane and doesn't warrant others' input, I'll send a private message. Since everyone can see wall posts, I try to only post on people's walls if it's something actually interesting or that others might latch onto--for instance, if it's someone's birthday, I'll post a happy birthday message on the wall, but if I want to remind my husband to pick up a gallon of milk, I'll send a private message.
Sometimes I write and rewrite my status updates to try to find just the right wording to capture what I'm thinking/feeling. I think hard before I post, just as I think hard before I speak. If what I'm putting out there is a reflection of myself, I don't want to sound like a moron.
I do not use Facebook to rant about my political/religious ideas. Most of my friends avoid controversial topics as well, but one friend (one of my neighbors from college) posts about religion all the time and it drives our mutual friends nuts. Literally her every status update has to do with her religion, and several of us have discussed (in person) how we don't think Facebook is meant for espousing our beliefs. Clearly religion is a huge part of this friend's life, but many people are uncomfortable with that type of display. I avoid posting links/comments that could be controversial simply because I don't want to start a battle over issues that shouldn't be argued online.
Oddly, I don't swear on Facebook, even though at home I swear all the time. (I think it's a byproduct of having to censor my speech all day long). I use abbreviations or substitute calmer words if I feel the urge to swear in my status update. For some reason, I think of Facebook as a fairly civilized place and I am much more cautious on Facebook than I am in "real life." For the most part, the interactions I have on Facebook are positive, and I wouldn't want to ruin the vibe with a bunch of harsh words. I also wouldn't want to offend some of my more conservative friends and relatives. I guess I do censor myself, but that's what you need to do in a public forum where your tone/words may be taken out of context.
Facebook is a fairly important part of my life now. It's funny how much I rely on it, considering how late I was to the party. I find myself joking with friends about how life events like engagements, breakups, etc. are "only official when they're on Facebook." I enjoy having such a quick, easy way to keep updated on people who matter to me, and at the same time, I can withdraw myself as much as I choose to. Even just reading what's on there is satisfying to me.
TECHNOLOGIES I DON'T USE
-Twitter. I seriously don't understand how to read/follow the conversations. My friend was trying to explain it to me the other night, and he ended up laughing hysterically at my ignorance. All the @ symbols and the layout...I just don't get it. But I want to, because I would like to follow some people's Twitter feeds, but I haven't taken the time to understand it.
-Posting my own movies or videos. I've only operated a videocamera a few times, and I have no desire to put movies online or edit them. (My husband, on the other hand, is huge into movie editing. He hads taken extensive footage on all our ski trips and is now editing it into a full-length movie with music and narration). I have basically no experience with movie editing, but after trying iMovie in class, it didn't seem too hard. I actually enjoyed the process of trying to create meaning based on how I set up the shots. I hope to practice this more, especially since I'm teaching Art of Film for spring trimester.
-Blogging for personal use. I have this blog and one for the Creative Writing class I'm teaching. (I post assignments and journal topics on there, but that's about it). I just feel my life isn't interesting enough to blog about. Some of my friends have blogs that I follow--one friend started a blog about her adventures as a medical school student and mother of two, and another friend has an awesome and somewhat- nationally publicized Gopher Basketball blog. I like the idea of it, but I don't really have anything that unique to put out there. Perhaps one day I'll change my mind.
CELL PHONE
This summer, I finally got a smart phone, an iPhone to be exact (3G, because I decided I really didn't need to pay extra for 4G, especially if it doesn't work yet). I did want to get a smart phone of some kind, but I only "settled" for the iPhone because my husband has one and we finally got ourselves on the same phone plan. After years of struggling with an old-school phone that could barely send text messages, I found the iPhone fairly easy to use, but I don't really love it. The iPhone is useful because I can finally send text messages easily, and it is really convenient to have access to email, Facebook, and the internet all the time. I feel much less attached to my computer now, which is nice.
Texting is useful to me, but I don't use "text-speak" and neither do most of my friends. I use fairly standard puncutation and avoid a lot of abbreviations. The iPhone makes it easy to type so it's not a hassle to spell out actual words. I have no major objections to "text-speak," it's just not my style, and most people I text feel the same way.
I see my phone as being somewhat a reflection of me. I have downloaded several apps that show my interests in cooking, reading, news, movies, etc. I have pics of people I know and places I've been. Even though I'm not really that attached to my phone, it does show some aspects of my identity.
Not surprisingly, I was a relative latecomer to Facebook. I got my account at the age of 26 or 27, well after most of my friends got it, because I realized that I was missing out on things due to not being on it. I finally decided to sign up for it, and I'm glad I did.
The first thing I did on Facebook is adjust the privacy settings so that I'm not searchable to the public and most of my content is restricted to "friends only." Privacy is a huge concern for me because of my teaching career. I don't want my students (or my boss) to see what I post on Facebook, and I want to try to maintain a life that is not always school-appropriate! I'm now toying with the idea of having a Facebook page for my "teacher-self," but I just have concerns about what could go wrong.
I have 81 friends on Facebook, which is a low number, relatively speaking. (I think my husband has over 250). Almost all of them are people I know personally and see at least occasionally. A few of my English department colleagues are my Facebook friends, which I really enjoy. They become a source of support when my status update reads like it did on Sunday: "Finally finished grading tests...having started at 8:30 a.m." (posted at about 7:00 at night). I can trust my colleagues, so friending them on Facebook was not a concern, but I would never friend my boss or go seeking out a bunch of colleagues as friends.
I use Facebook mainly as a way to stay informed about what's going on with people who are at least fairly close to me. My life is uneventful and I don't post a ton of stuff, but I do enjoy reading about my friends' lives. When my friends post pics of their vacations, I look at them. When they are in need of encouragement or sympathy, I comment on their statuses. I often use the "like" button because it allows me to express acknowledge someone without having to write something. I also use Facebook as a casual way to reconnect with people I haven't seen in awhile. I post a wall comment or send a private message and try to set up an in-person meeting. In sum, I use Facebook the way most people do: to keep in touch with people I already know.
Even so, I am pretty judicious about what I post on Facebook and whether it will be public or private. If the message is mundane and doesn't warrant others' input, I'll send a private message. Since everyone can see wall posts, I try to only post on people's walls if it's something actually interesting or that others might latch onto--for instance, if it's someone's birthday, I'll post a happy birthday message on the wall, but if I want to remind my husband to pick up a gallon of milk, I'll send a private message.
Sometimes I write and rewrite my status updates to try to find just the right wording to capture what I'm thinking/feeling. I think hard before I post, just as I think hard before I speak. If what I'm putting out there is a reflection of myself, I don't want to sound like a moron.
I do not use Facebook to rant about my political/religious ideas. Most of my friends avoid controversial topics as well, but one friend (one of my neighbors from college) posts about religion all the time and it drives our mutual friends nuts. Literally her every status update has to do with her religion, and several of us have discussed (in person) how we don't think Facebook is meant for espousing our beliefs. Clearly religion is a huge part of this friend's life, but many people are uncomfortable with that type of display. I avoid posting links/comments that could be controversial simply because I don't want to start a battle over issues that shouldn't be argued online.
Oddly, I don't swear on Facebook, even though at home I swear all the time. (I think it's a byproduct of having to censor my speech all day long). I use abbreviations or substitute calmer words if I feel the urge to swear in my status update. For some reason, I think of Facebook as a fairly civilized place and I am much more cautious on Facebook than I am in "real life." For the most part, the interactions I have on Facebook are positive, and I wouldn't want to ruin the vibe with a bunch of harsh words. I also wouldn't want to offend some of my more conservative friends and relatives. I guess I do censor myself, but that's what you need to do in a public forum where your tone/words may be taken out of context.
Facebook is a fairly important part of my life now. It's funny how much I rely on it, considering how late I was to the party. I find myself joking with friends about how life events like engagements, breakups, etc. are "only official when they're on Facebook." I enjoy having such a quick, easy way to keep updated on people who matter to me, and at the same time, I can withdraw myself as much as I choose to. Even just reading what's on there is satisfying to me.
TECHNOLOGIES I DON'T USE
-Twitter. I seriously don't understand how to read/follow the conversations. My friend was trying to explain it to me the other night, and he ended up laughing hysterically at my ignorance. All the @ symbols and the layout...I just don't get it. But I want to, because I would like to follow some people's Twitter feeds, but I haven't taken the time to understand it.
-Posting my own movies or videos. I've only operated a videocamera a few times, and I have no desire to put movies online or edit them. (My husband, on the other hand, is huge into movie editing. He hads taken extensive footage on all our ski trips and is now editing it into a full-length movie with music and narration). I have basically no experience with movie editing, but after trying iMovie in class, it didn't seem too hard. I actually enjoyed the process of trying to create meaning based on how I set up the shots. I hope to practice this more, especially since I'm teaching Art of Film for spring trimester.
-Blogging for personal use. I have this blog and one for the Creative Writing class I'm teaching. (I post assignments and journal topics on there, but that's about it). I just feel my life isn't interesting enough to blog about. Some of my friends have blogs that I follow--one friend started a blog about her adventures as a medical school student and mother of two, and another friend has an awesome and somewhat- nationally publicized Gopher Basketball blog. I like the idea of it, but I don't really have anything that unique to put out there. Perhaps one day I'll change my mind.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Vegas on the brain (I’m going there next Thursday after class, woo hoo!)
Media representations of Las Vegas
For this assignment I chose to study depictions of Las Vegas, which is depicted in the media as a luxurious place that’s in continuous party mode. The famous sign welcomes people to “fabulous” Las Vegas, a word that has connotations of glamour and class.
I myself was susceptible to the media representation of Vegas. I went there for the first time several years ago and expected to feel like an underdressed frump everywhere I went. Given the city’s party-hard image, I expected to stay up all night and laugh at the antics of young people on bachelor/ette parties. When I arrived, though, I was somewhat let down by the reality of Vegas. People sitting in the casinos were wearing pajamas (at best), chain-smoking at the slots all day long. Many of them were old, not the young and hip people shown in the ads, TV shows, and movies. It really wasn’t that surprising, but I was a little disappointed that Vegas didn’t live up to the coolness I had in mind.
The city's brilliant advertising campaign shaped the image that everyone has of Vegas. The line "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" implies excitement--all the vices, including gambling, drinking, and casual sex--and offers the guarantee that the city will keep your secrets. It is portrayed as basically an alternate universe where everyone is single, young, wealthy, and attractive.
Vegas is full of lights and fantasy, an image mainly perpetuated by the variety of themed hotels on the strip. (The ironic thing about this city is that it tries to make you feel like you’re somewhere else entirely. Most of the themed hotels are replicas of different places—Italy, Paris, Egypt, etc. Las Vegas is supposed to be an escape, but…to somewhere that’s not even the U.S.? Strange. Well, I suppose it’s cheaper than traveling around the world). The city’s brilliant façade and clever ad campaign hide its larger problems—high unemployment and depressed housing values for residents, and gambling/alcohol addiction for some residents or visitors. The idea of staying up all night gambling may sound fun, but if you can’t afford it, it can cause huge problems. And you can’t really avoid gambling in Vegas. The airport has slot machines, so you’re inundated from the moment you arrive, and the casinos are windowless caverns that shield you from the outside world. Gambling is portrayed in the media as a glamorous and sophisticated activity (I’m thinking of movies like Casino Royale and 21), and the casinos certainly look the part, but this image ignores the risks of gambling in excess…I actually think the city ignores pretty much all reality. I will admit, though, that’s one of the reasons why I enjoy going there.
When I go there, though, I can’t turn off my brain completely. (I don’t drink that much!). I find that in Vegas, reality sometimes clashes with fantasy in uncomfortable ways. Passing the guys on the street giving out calling cards for prostitutes. Dirt and trash on the streets. People gambling money that they really can’t afford to lose. But when I’m there, it’s easy to stay in my own little world and ignore the reality around me, which is exactly what this city wants me to do.
For this assignment I chose to study depictions of Las Vegas, which is depicted in the media as a luxurious place that’s in continuous party mode. The famous sign welcomes people to “fabulous” Las Vegas, a word that has connotations of glamour and class.
I myself was susceptible to the media representation of Vegas. I went there for the first time several years ago and expected to feel like an underdressed frump everywhere I went. Given the city’s party-hard image, I expected to stay up all night and laugh at the antics of young people on bachelor/ette parties. When I arrived, though, I was somewhat let down by the reality of Vegas. People sitting in the casinos were wearing pajamas (at best), chain-smoking at the slots all day long. Many of them were old, not the young and hip people shown in the ads, TV shows, and movies. It really wasn’t that surprising, but I was a little disappointed that Vegas didn’t live up to the coolness I had in mind.
The city's brilliant advertising campaign shaped the image that everyone has of Vegas. The line "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" implies excitement--all the vices, including gambling, drinking, and casual sex--and offers the guarantee that the city will keep your secrets. It is portrayed as basically an alternate universe where everyone is single, young, wealthy, and attractive.
Vegas is full of lights and fantasy, an image mainly perpetuated by the variety of themed hotels on the strip. (The ironic thing about this city is that it tries to make you feel like you’re somewhere else entirely. Most of the themed hotels are replicas of different places—Italy, Paris, Egypt, etc. Las Vegas is supposed to be an escape, but…to somewhere that’s not even the U.S.? Strange. Well, I suppose it’s cheaper than traveling around the world). The city’s brilliant façade and clever ad campaign hide its larger problems—high unemployment and depressed housing values for residents, and gambling/alcohol addiction for some residents or visitors. The idea of staying up all night gambling may sound fun, but if you can’t afford it, it can cause huge problems. And you can’t really avoid gambling in Vegas. The airport has slot machines, so you’re inundated from the moment you arrive, and the casinos are windowless caverns that shield you from the outside world. Gambling is portrayed in the media as a glamorous and sophisticated activity (I’m thinking of movies like Casino Royale and 21), and the casinos certainly look the part, but this image ignores the risks of gambling in excess…I actually think the city ignores pretty much all reality. I will admit, though, that’s one of the reasons why I enjoy going there.
When I go there, though, I can’t turn off my brain completely. (I don’t drink that much!). I find that in Vegas, reality sometimes clashes with fantasy in uncomfortable ways. Passing the guys on the street giving out calling cards for prostitutes. Dirt and trash on the streets. People gambling money that they really can’t afford to lose. But when I’m there, it’s easy to stay in my own little world and ignore the reality around me, which is exactly what this city wants me to do.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Using Marxist and feminist lenses with students
Using this ad, I would have my students discuss the following questions:
BEFORE VIEWING...
- Why do you think many companies use celebrities in their ads? Have you ever bought something because of a celebrity endorsement?
DURING/AFTER VIEWING...
- What type(s) of people do you see in this ad? What type(s) of people are not shown?
- What feeling does the background song give you? Why do you think this song was used?
- What connection do you think the company is making between guys playing football and the jeans? What are they supposed to have in common?
- What image of men is being projected in this ad?
- Why do you think Brett Favre was chosen as a spokesperson for Wrangler? Out of all the famous people (and all the NFL players, even), why Favre? [This question may require some prior knowledge about Favre]
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Wrangler Jeans commercial w/Brett Favre - Marxist and feminist analysis
I look for any opportunity to rail on Brett Favre in general, but this commercial actually has a lot to pick apart.
MARXIST
This commercial is Brett Favre promoting Wrangler Jeans. He is shown playing football in a muddy field with a bunch of guys (regular guys in their 30s, not pro football players). They're also shown hanging out in a pickup truck with golden retriever. The background music is "Bad to the Bone." In this commercial, Favre is clearly trying to take on a "regular" guy persona; he's unshaven and wearing a faded t-shirt (with #4 on it). Favre states that he's comfortable in Wranglers, and he looks comfortable hanging out playing a casual game of football with these guys. Of course, it's not hard to spot the contradition, which is that Favre is a multi-millionaire. He is promoting a product that is designed for the no-nonsense, middle-class type of guy, but he is far from a "regular" person. [On a side note, this is the same reason why I hate that "Pink Houses" song by John Mellancamp. Or actually just any song by John Mellancamp].
In this commercial, Wrangler is trying to associate itself with a middle-class lifestyle. By positioning its product with "all-American everyman" things like football, pickup trucks, and dogs--while using a multi-millionaire celebrity spokesperson--Wrangler is able to create an image of their jeans that has nothing to do with the price, and to create a humble image for Favre as well. The price of the jeans is never mentioned, not even in vague terms, but because of the humble image they're given in the ad, we assume them to be widely affordable--the irony being that Favre is the last person who really needs his stuff to be cheap.
FEMINIST
There are no women or kids in this commercial, not even watching from the sidelines. The ad portrays men as athletic, rough-and-tumble, and competitive. One of the taglines is "Built tough"--referring to the jeans, but also to the image of the males in the ad. The background song, "Bad to the Bone," enhances the image of men as hard-core. At one point Favre passes to a guy who dives into a giant puddle. The competition looks friendly enough (Favre is smiling), but the level of activity is definitely sort of intense for a game among friends. The voice-over states that Wranglers are built durably and comfortably, suggesting that they'd hold up to an intense game without getting ruined. The men are tough, the jeans are tough. This ad shows a community of men that women--who according to the stereotype are weak and fragile--cannot be part of. It seems to suggest a strong dichotomy between the sexes.
A funny thing about this ad is that even though it's selling men's jeans and only men are shown, there is definitely a close-up of Favre's butt. Hmmmm.
MARXIST
This commercial is Brett Favre promoting Wrangler Jeans. He is shown playing football in a muddy field with a bunch of guys (regular guys in their 30s, not pro football players). They're also shown hanging out in a pickup truck with golden retriever. The background music is "Bad to the Bone." In this commercial, Favre is clearly trying to take on a "regular" guy persona; he's unshaven and wearing a faded t-shirt (with #4 on it). Favre states that he's comfortable in Wranglers, and he looks comfortable hanging out playing a casual game of football with these guys. Of course, it's not hard to spot the contradition, which is that Favre is a multi-millionaire. He is promoting a product that is designed for the no-nonsense, middle-class type of guy, but he is far from a "regular" person. [On a side note, this is the same reason why I hate that "Pink Houses" song by John Mellancamp. Or actually just any song by John Mellancamp].
In this commercial, Wrangler is trying to associate itself with a middle-class lifestyle. By positioning its product with "all-American everyman" things like football, pickup trucks, and dogs--while using a multi-millionaire celebrity spokesperson--Wrangler is able to create an image of their jeans that has nothing to do with the price, and to create a humble image for Favre as well. The price of the jeans is never mentioned, not even in vague terms, but because of the humble image they're given in the ad, we assume them to be widely affordable--the irony being that Favre is the last person who really needs his stuff to be cheap.
FEMINIST
There are no women or kids in this commercial, not even watching from the sidelines. The ad portrays men as athletic, rough-and-tumble, and competitive. One of the taglines is "Built tough"--referring to the jeans, but also to the image of the males in the ad. The background song, "Bad to the Bone," enhances the image of men as hard-core. At one point Favre passes to a guy who dives into a giant puddle. The competition looks friendly enough (Favre is smiling), but the level of activity is definitely sort of intense for a game among friends. The voice-over states that Wranglers are built durably and comfortably, suggesting that they'd hold up to an intense game without getting ruined. The men are tough, the jeans are tough. This ad shows a community of men that women--who according to the stereotype are weak and fragile--cannot be part of. It seems to suggest a strong dichotomy between the sexes.
A funny thing about this ad is that even though it's selling men's jeans and only men are shown, there is definitely a close-up of Favre's butt. Hmmmm.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Teaching idea for "Silence of the Lambs" clip
The Silence of the Lambs is one of my favorite movies. I've seen it probably a dozen times, and it never gets old--I seem to notice different things each time I watch it. It goes without saying that it's not exactly a school-appropriate movie, but parts of it are masterful for their camera shots, usually notable for what they don't show. I chose this short clip (starting at 7:34- ending at 8:31) because it would be interesting for students to analyze how suspense is created through the various camera shots.
Here is a link to the clip I used (again, only 7:34-8:31). I'm not cool enough to know how to put it directly on the blog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUjnbbc0iIM&feature=related
In the first few seconds, as Dr. Chilton is talking, tell students to "watch the pen" and write down what happens with it.
A high-angle shot is then used to show Lector and Chilton. Have students analyze why they think the high-angle shot was used here and what it tells us. I think it serves the purpose of showing how alone they are and how vulnerable Lector is. Chilton moves around Lector and gets in his face, whereas Lector is strapped down and unable to move.
Then the camera cuts to a close-up shot of Lector in profile with Chilton standing to his side. Have students discuss this shot as well. Why aren't they shown side-by-side or with Chilton standing in front?
General Thoughts for Discussion
Discuss with students that the genius of this scene is in its subtlety. Without Hannibal using dialogue, facial expressions, or gestures, we can tell he plans to somehow get the pen and use it for...something bad. Hannibal is a different kind of bad guy. He isn't a raving lunatic; indeed, his stoic behavior is what makes him most frightening. This scene cleverly uses understated camera zooms to show us a glimpse into Lector's mind.
There are at least 2 more scenes that I think are just genius for what they don't show. One is where someone describes to Clarice what Lector did to a nurse. He shows her a photo, but we don't see it. He just says that doctors were able to reconstruct the nurse's jaw and save one of her eyes. We don't need to see the picture to get an image of what happened.
The other scene is in a dramatic one in an elevator. The camera shows a body falling down from the elevator ceiling after being shot by police, thinking it was Lector. The body comes down, but we don't see his face, just the shocked expressions of the policemen. Cut to a shot of a man lying in an ambulance. Immediately we know that Lector is the one in the ambulance, thereby having escaped from the police. (OK, maybe the first time I saw it, I didn't realize it wasn't Lector who was killed. I'm gullible like that. I do remember being amazed at the camerawork in this scene, which is saying something, because I'm usually incredibly dense when it comes to the finer points of film).
So even though The Silence of the Lambs isn't exactly school-appropriate, some of its scenes can be carefully chosen and analyzed by students. Love this film!
Here is a link to the clip I used (again, only 7:34-8:31). I'm not cool enough to know how to put it directly on the blog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUjnbbc0iIM&feature=related
In the first few seconds, as Dr. Chilton is talking, tell students to "watch the pen" and write down what happens with it.
- At first, Chilton continually fidgets with the pen as he's taunting Hannibal Lector about being lied to about a possible prison transfer.
- As soon as the assistant leaves the room and Chilton stands up, the camera turns to show the pen lying there.
- Chilton keeps talking in the background--we don't even see him--but the camera continues to zoom in on the pen. This shows us what Lector is really paying attention to.
- Shots alternate between Lector's face and the pen. Ask students what this might mean or what they think will happen later.
A high-angle shot is then used to show Lector and Chilton. Have students analyze why they think the high-angle shot was used here and what it tells us. I think it serves the purpose of showing how alone they are and how vulnerable Lector is. Chilton moves around Lector and gets in his face, whereas Lector is strapped down and unable to move.
Then the camera cuts to a close-up shot of Lector in profile with Chilton standing to his side. Have students discuss this shot as well. Why aren't they shown side-by-side or with Chilton standing in front?
General Thoughts for Discussion
Discuss with students that the genius of this scene is in its subtlety. Without Hannibal using dialogue, facial expressions, or gestures, we can tell he plans to somehow get the pen and use it for...something bad. Hannibal is a different kind of bad guy. He isn't a raving lunatic; indeed, his stoic behavior is what makes him most frightening. This scene cleverly uses understated camera zooms to show us a glimpse into Lector's mind.
There are at least 2 more scenes that I think are just genius for what they don't show. One is where someone describes to Clarice what Lector did to a nurse. He shows her a photo, but we don't see it. He just says that doctors were able to reconstruct the nurse's jaw and save one of her eyes. We don't need to see the picture to get an image of what happened.
The other scene is in a dramatic one in an elevator. The camera shows a body falling down from the elevator ceiling after being shot by police, thinking it was Lector. The body comes down, but we don't see his face, just the shocked expressions of the policemen. Cut to a shot of a man lying in an ambulance. Immediately we know that Lector is the one in the ambulance, thereby having escaped from the police. (OK, maybe the first time I saw it, I didn't realize it wasn't Lector who was killed. I'm gullible like that. I do remember being amazed at the camerawork in this scene, which is saying something, because I'm usually incredibly dense when it comes to the finer points of film).
So even though The Silence of the Lambs isn't exactly school-appropriate, some of its scenes can be carefully chosen and analyzed by students. Love this film!
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Annotated clip of The Truman Show
Here's the link to my annotations of a clip from The Truman Show (it's actually a few clips pieced together): http://ant.umn.edu/vav.php?pid=61473167489250
The movie is about a man named Truman (Jim Carrey) who lives a comfortable, middle-class suburban life, all the while oblivious to the fact that his entire life has been filmed for a reality TV show. Cameras have been on him since birth, and his entire life--his job, his neighborhood, his best friend and wife--is artificial and full of actors who profit off of the popularity of The Truman Show. This clip shows some examples of how the show uses product placement; gradually, the ads become a big part of Truman's "awakening." In the last scene in the clip, Truman realizes his wife is using ad-speak when he's the only one in the room.
The film uses camera shots to show Truman from many different places and points of view. At times, he is filmed from angles suggesting that cameras are hidden all over the neighborhood. Other times, we see Truman directly through another person's camera. And sometimes we see directly through Truman's eyes, suggesting that a camera is on him or following his exact movements at all times. The cameras are shown to us, the audience, only through the lenses.
I think this clip, and the entire film, is incredibly effective. Millions of people enjoy reality shows because they give a glimpse of the strange lives of others we'd never meet in real life. This film allows us to be voyeurs in an unsuspecting (and later, unwilling) man's life, showing how easy it is to be complicit in the exploitation of others. When we see through Truman's eyes, from a camera on/near him, it is especially unsettling. At times, we even see audiences gathered in front of televisions and their genuine emotional reactions to the experiences Truman goes though.
Ultimately, the film shows how the presence of a camera can manipulate a scene and create an artificial environment. Near the end of the film, after Truman realizes his whole life has been a TV show, he says, "Was nothing real?" To me, this is a heartbreaking line that shows how reality TV is really not reality at all. All people, whether they watch reality TV shows or not, should be concerned about the ethics involved. Where is the line between observing and exploiting? To what extent can our own versions of reality be manipulated by what we see? How do we know an advertisement when we see one...or do we? Man, this is great stuff, and The Truman Show is a great movie!
The movie is about a man named Truman (Jim Carrey) who lives a comfortable, middle-class suburban life, all the while oblivious to the fact that his entire life has been filmed for a reality TV show. Cameras have been on him since birth, and his entire life--his job, his neighborhood, his best friend and wife--is artificial and full of actors who profit off of the popularity of The Truman Show. This clip shows some examples of how the show uses product placement; gradually, the ads become a big part of Truman's "awakening." In the last scene in the clip, Truman realizes his wife is using ad-speak when he's the only one in the room.
The film uses camera shots to show Truman from many different places and points of view. At times, he is filmed from angles suggesting that cameras are hidden all over the neighborhood. Other times, we see Truman directly through another person's camera. And sometimes we see directly through Truman's eyes, suggesting that a camera is on him or following his exact movements at all times. The cameras are shown to us, the audience, only through the lenses.
I think this clip, and the entire film, is incredibly effective. Millions of people enjoy reality shows because they give a glimpse of the strange lives of others we'd never meet in real life. This film allows us to be voyeurs in an unsuspecting (and later, unwilling) man's life, showing how easy it is to be complicit in the exploitation of others. When we see through Truman's eyes, from a camera on/near him, it is especially unsettling. At times, we even see audiences gathered in front of televisions and their genuine emotional reactions to the experiences Truman goes though.
Ultimately, the film shows how the presence of a camera can manipulate a scene and create an artificial environment. Near the end of the film, after Truman realizes his whole life has been a TV show, he says, "Was nothing real?" To me, this is a heartbreaking line that shows how reality TV is really not reality at all. All people, whether they watch reality TV shows or not, should be concerned about the ethics involved. Where is the line between observing and exploiting? To what extent can our own versions of reality be manipulated by what we see? How do we know an advertisement when we see one...or do we? Man, this is great stuff, and The Truman Show is a great movie!
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Vlog review
I chose to review a vlog from http://www.duncanspeakman.net/, having randomly clicked on it from the class wiki page. I was surprised to see a video titled "Seoul, South Korea." I'm Korean myself and have traveled there once (summer of 2000), so I was interested to check it out.
The tagline of the video says "Seoul, South Korea. Sunrise to sunset. One photo per minute." The video is simply a collection of photos set to music, and the photos play very rapidly, like a flip book.
The first several images are of coffee cups, shoes, beds, household items. Then the images switch to outdoor city scenes. The images play so quickly it's hard to tell what's going on. All you can see are urban images of sidewalks, food markets, shops, traffic, people walking, and signs.
(I even saw a red swastika sign in there...not sure why). It is definitely an urban scene, not a nature/country scene.
This video doesn't seem heavy on visual rhetoric and does not use any narration, but the piece as a whole is a spastic, quick-flashing snapshot of urban life in Seoul. The music, only a couple repeating notes and a pulsing back tone (almost reminded me of The Postal Service on crack), enhance the rushed feel of the images. A few of the shots of the street were taken at ground level.
I think this video could be a reflection of the hurried, frantic nature of city living. Only a couple places slow down in this video, where the photographer must have taken several quick shots in a row. These images show people coming and going in a park and other scenery. Those slow spots were almost a relief for me while watching the video. Perhaps there is some reason to the pacing of all these images...something telling us to slow down? To comment on the hurried pace of urban daily life? Or am I reading too much into it?
The intended audience for this video would probably be people interested in photography (and/or Korea itself). The only motion comes from the editing of all the photographs in sequence. The photos are basically a collage of images from a visit to Seoul, but the pacing and music are what make it feel so in-your-face.
The tagline of the video says "Seoul, South Korea. Sunrise to sunset. One photo per minute." The video is simply a collection of photos set to music, and the photos play very rapidly, like a flip book.
The first several images are of coffee cups, shoes, beds, household items. Then the images switch to outdoor city scenes. The images play so quickly it's hard to tell what's going on. All you can see are urban images of sidewalks, food markets, shops, traffic, people walking, and signs.
(I even saw a red swastika sign in there...not sure why). It is definitely an urban scene, not a nature/country scene.
This video doesn't seem heavy on visual rhetoric and does not use any narration, but the piece as a whole is a spastic, quick-flashing snapshot of urban life in Seoul. The music, only a couple repeating notes and a pulsing back tone (almost reminded me of The Postal Service on crack), enhance the rushed feel of the images. A few of the shots of the street were taken at ground level.
I think this video could be a reflection of the hurried, frantic nature of city living. Only a couple places slow down in this video, where the photographer must have taken several quick shots in a row. These images show people coming and going in a park and other scenery. Those slow spots were almost a relief for me while watching the video. Perhaps there is some reason to the pacing of all these images...something telling us to slow down? To comment on the hurried pace of urban daily life? Or am I reading too much into it?
The intended audience for this video would probably be people interested in photography (and/or Korea itself). The only motion comes from the editing of all the photographs in sequence. The photos are basically a collage of images from a visit to Seoul, but the pacing and music are what make it feel so in-your-face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)