Friday, January 30, 2009
THE GOLDEN COMPASS
I remember when “The Passion of the Christ” came out and I personally thought that it was a very good movie. I did not realize that Mel Gibson never did talk out against the anti-Semitism of the movie. I do know that he had an interview about the anti-Semitism against himself. The ideas of Christianity being involved with movies have been an issue for more movies than just “The Passion of the Christ”. In 2007 a movie called “The Golden Compass” came out. The Catholic Church saying that the movie itself was attacking them attacked the Catholic Church. (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20164193,00.html) The movie was about a 12 year old girl who is trying to save her friends while facing evil. Every person has a demon that expresses the other side of the person, such as the little girl is brave and her demon is scared while she travels on her journey. She also learns about the magic of “Dust”. I find it interesting on how the church can take a simple story that is quite interesting and exciting and turn it into anti- Catholic. This also goes for “The Passion of the Christ” . I mean I don’t even understand what the argument was. Jewish belief says that Jesus was not Christ and history says that their was a profit named Jesus that was in fact nailed to the cross. If they don’t believe it was God then why do they care and its no different than someone making a movie about time in America during the time of slavery. No one comes out and says “HEY! This movies portrays white people persecuting black people” Anyway here is the intro to the Golden Compass:
The pull of controversy
I agree in full about the whole controversy=money concept. Where there is controversy, there is press and media hype, and where there is media hype there are people there to see just what all the fuss is about. One example of this theory was a few years back (I think it was in 2004), and was centered around a movie that was to be released; "The Passion of the Christ."
According to this news clip that I found,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/earlyshow/leisure/boxoffice/main595101.shtml,
much of the controversy stemmed from the film's visually graphic and violent scenes, from the fact that it was a religious story, from the Pope's reaction to it, and also from some critics saying that the film was anti-Semitic. The news clip also mentioned how many of those critics who were criticizing the film hadn't actually seen it.
"The Passion of the Christ" was released as an independent film. Usually when films are independent, they don't get as much publicity or money. Yet, for this film, this was not the case. Because of all of the controversy the media and press were making over it, people came to see it not only because of their religious affiliation, but also because they wanted to see what what was so controversial. Mel Gibson (the film's creator) must've known this too. Not once did he try to reason with the press about how his movie wasn't graphic or anti-Semitic. He just let the controversy take its course, bringing in more viewers all the while, because where there's controversy, there's money.
According to this news clip that I found,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/earlyshow/leisure/boxoffice/main595101.shtml,
much of the controversy stemmed from the film's visually graphic and violent scenes, from the fact that it was a religious story, from the Pope's reaction to it, and also from some critics saying that the film was anti-Semitic. The news clip also mentioned how many of those critics who were criticizing the film hadn't actually seen it.
"The Passion of the Christ" was released as an independent film. Usually when films are independent, they don't get as much publicity or money. Yet, for this film, this was not the case. Because of all of the controversy the media and press were making over it, people came to see it not only because of their religious affiliation, but also because they wanted to see what what was so controversial. Mel Gibson (the film's creator) must've known this too. Not once did he try to reason with the press about how his movie wasn't graphic or anti-Semitic. He just let the controversy take its course, bringing in more viewers all the while, because where there's controversy, there's money.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Controversy = Money
While I haven't finished reading this chapter what Jenna had said about the mazda commercial made me think. Whether woman are being objectified are not is not the issue, in my opinion. Because this wasn't just a car commercial but something that got peopled excited, angry, or simply curious. By causing controversy Mazda has produced more press for themselves than if they would have just showed the car driving on winding roads.
This immediately brought my attention to the idea of publicity and controversy. The latter leads to the former, ALWAYS. The best example of this is Pink, her husband (whom she is separated from), the video for 'So What', and her new album funhouse.
Here's the timeline, roughly:
Feb. 2008 - Pink and Carey Hart separate. It's big news in Hollywood when there is a break-up and this one had people talking.
Aug. 2008 - Pink releases her video for 'So What'. Her estranged husband makes a lengthy cameo and it seems odd that an ex would stand to be publicly humiliated.
Here is the video if you haven't seen it.
Oct. 2008 - Her album Funhouse is released.
Dec08/Jan09 - New years Eve a picture is taken of Pink and Carey Hart sharing a New Years kiss
And then this article was written on Jan, 23
Is this a coincidence? I don't believe so. When the video came out this summer I already had a hunch
that this was a massive publicity stunt. After the first People magazine for 2009 came out, and had a
picture of their New Year's kiss, I was even more convinced. And after the article from news24.com
there isn't a doubt in my mind.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this type of advertisement. In fact I think its genius. The more
that people have to talk about something(good or bad), the more people will be talking about it! And
the best form of advertisement is word of mouth.
Methods of Decoding
I’m not sure if I found Chapter Two not very interesting, or I found it hard to follow, or what, but I did not really like this chapter. I did, however, find it easy to understand the different modes of engagement which was introduced by Stuart Hall. These modes were dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional. In the book these modes were related to the television show American Idol, which I found interesting, so I messed around on the internet and I found this Mazda commercial:
and decided to apply the modes of decoding myself. In my opinion, a dominant-hegemonic reading of this commercial would be that the car is so nice that NO ONE would want to leave it. After some research I found that some people actually took an oppositional reading towards this commercial saying that the commercial was “was offensive and that women were being shown as sex objects”, claiming that the mannequins were becoming arouse (26 April, 2006; BBC News webpage). These complaints did not hold, however the controversy of the commercial and the mixed feelings stayed. In our book it states that being able to negotiate, when it comes t o images, is a key factor within a complex relationship consisting of producers and viewers. Even though it is impossible to please everyone within advertising, I think the negotiable way of looking at this commercial would be that the Madza commercial insinuated that the turn-on is really the car itself, with all its attributes, and a woman mannequin was the best way to describe that to avoid sexually exploiting women. What do you all think?
and decided to apply the modes of decoding myself. In my opinion, a dominant-hegemonic reading of this commercial would be that the car is so nice that NO ONE would want to leave it. After some research I found that some people actually took an oppositional reading towards this commercial saying that the commercial was “was offensive and that women were being shown as sex objects”, claiming that the mannequins were becoming arouse (26 April, 2006; BBC News webpage). These complaints did not hold, however the controversy of the commercial and the mixed feelings stayed. In our book it states that being able to negotiate, when it comes t o images, is a key factor within a complex relationship consisting of producers and viewers. Even though it is impossible to please everyone within advertising, I think the negotiable way of looking at this commercial would be that the Madza commercial insinuated that the turn-on is really the car itself, with all its attributes, and a woman mannequin was the best way to describe that to avoid sexually exploiting women. What do you all think?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
HAMSTER ON A PIANO
This video is hysterical.
***Warning***
***Warning***
This song WILL get stuck in your head!
If you think you've seen this, still watch it. There are a few versions out there. And the song makes the video.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Funny Foreign Commercial
I was sent this in an email this morning and i thought it was funny.
Im amazed at some of the foreign commercials. They seem to have less restrictions as far as the content goes. This would never be seen on a U.S. network.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Week 1: When Have We Gone Too Far?
Haha, the post below me reminded me of a video of an advertisement form another country that I had seen years ago.
These types of ads are something that I have never seen in the U.S., but seem to be acceptable and possibly even normal in other countries. Is this because we have laws against them? Because the powers that be in the television industry would not allow it? I for one don't have the answer.
To me this "suggestive" advertising is funny, but I can't help by being caught off guard. I know that many countries in Europe have more relaxed standards and views of nudity and what they deem appropriate and I often find myself thinking that it is better to have such ideas. I would say most can agree that the giagantic backlash after the wardrobe malfunction in the superbowl was a bit overboard.
But at the same time I can see the U.S. traveling down the road to such standards, when one looks at the relaxation of regulations with the use of profanity and violence in mainstream t.v. and often I feel that this is something that may not be in our best interest, and I consider myself to be more liberal then most.
What do you all think..Do you think that the U.S. as a whole would be better of if these types of "open" commercials were allowed to air and not thought of as inappropriate?
I can't say for sure, but I know if I had a child, I certainly would not want them to ever even have the thought of a human and a dog having sex, even if they were in the form of a balloon.
These types of ads are something that I have never seen in the U.S., but seem to be acceptable and possibly even normal in other countries. Is this because we have laws against them? Because the powers that be in the television industry would not allow it? I for one don't have the answer.
To me this "suggestive" advertising is funny, but I can't help by being caught off guard. I know that many countries in Europe have more relaxed standards and views of nudity and what they deem appropriate and I often find myself thinking that it is better to have such ideas. I would say most can agree that the giagantic backlash after the wardrobe malfunction in the superbowl was a bit overboard.
But at the same time I can see the U.S. traveling down the road to such standards, when one looks at the relaxation of regulations with the use of profanity and violence in mainstream t.v. and often I feel that this is something that may not be in our best interest, and I consider myself to be more liberal then most.
What do you all think..Do you think that the U.S. as a whole would be better of if these types of "open" commercials were allowed to air and not thought of as inappropriate?
I can't say for sure, but I know if I had a child, I certainly would not want them to ever even have the thought of a human and a dog having sex, even if they were in the form of a balloon.
There is nothing like viral marketing.
I'm sure we can find a way to work this into class. Enjoy. :)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Ideology
When reading the first chapter in the book, the section on ideology caught my attention more that the others. I think it is interesting how a persons particular ideology about a person can be impacted so greatly by the media. I think that today it is seen a lot towards Obama and his beliefs and plans to change our country. There was a news program that was supposed to be non-bias, yet it was flashing pictures and videos of Obama that would give a person a horrible opinion of him. Its amazing how in todays society, we can be so easly manipulated by pictures in the media that may not be realistic. We each have our own opnion on certin things, but whether we realize it or not, we are influnced by the media. The way we look at things is what seperates us into our groups. an example would be republican and democratic, members of the groups have the same ideology on politics.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Myth of Photography
In Chapter one, I found the reading on “The Myth of Photographic Truth” pretty interesting. When mentioning the philosophy of positivism and how the use of machines to capture a moment or represent a frame of time were regarded as more reliable than a painting or sketch done by human hand, I had a hard time applying it for today’s world. Granted, this description was formulated in the mid- 19th century when today’s technology was not in existence, but it stated that “a photograph is often perceived to be an unmediated copy of the real world, a trace of reality skimmed off the very surface of live, and evidence of real”, however in today’s world, you can rarely look at a professional photograph that has not be altered in some way. If you checkout this youtube video you can see how easy it is for today’s technology to alter a simple photograph. So, how much of what we really look at in our magazines and television ads are real, and how much are altered in order to appease what we want to see as reality? So when the book defines “myth” as a “hidden set of rules and conventions through which meanings are made to seem universal and given to the whole society”, I have to apply it to how people and advertising agencies use the magic of photo shop and all the other fancy gadgets they utilize to create an image of beauty, in this particular case, that influences our society.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
