Globalization is the concept of an interweaving network of culture and communication amongst people globally. Globalization has become increasingly more prominent as technology improves. Because of the Internet, what was once culturally exclusive is now available at the click of a mouse. In high school, the French teen dance craze Techtonik became the newest youtube sensation right before prom, my freshman year in college I was told about a cool, Swedish vampire movie that translated to “Let the Right One In”. In these cases, these cultural works stood out as great and because of globalization I had a chance to experience them, however, with globalization (and capitalism) comes glocalization. This is the taking of an idea or formula that proved successful in one place and adopting it in another. Only a year after watching the Swedish film “Let the Right One In”, I saw a trailer for a Hollywood movie “Let Me In”, the exact remake of the Swedish original but with an American cast for an American audience. At virtually the same time “Dinner for Schmucks” was coming to theaters. I saw this preview and immediately knew it to be an American remake of the French classic “Le Dîner de Cons”.
Some awesome things have been created out of glocalization, but by far, “The Office” is the best thing America’s ripped off. At least seasons 1-4.
The beer industry is a very competitive market due to huge barriers of entry, and unfathomable amounts of competition, from huge brewery conglomerates to the millions of locally brewed beers around the world. To ensure that one beer is exalted above the rest, companies have invested billions of dollars into beer advertising. America’s funniest and best commercials year after year come from beer companies such as Coors, Budweiser, and Miller. They usually all involve either, being manly, being cool, getting hot (specifically busty) girls, or being extremely humorous (an usually a humor geared towards men). But one company has stood out above the rest in its current marketing campaign combining all of the characteristics previously mentioned.
Dos Equis newest spokesman is “the most interesting man in the world”. The commercials are the whole package. In regards to the advertising appeals mentioned in class, these commercials cover most of them; sex, guidance, dominance, prominence, attention, and even escape. At this point you should probably watch the add below. Yea, prominence oozes from it, and not even in a blatantly pretentious way! He’s so calm, cool, and collected its funny but so cool at the same time. That’s the way prominence works in commercials, and the reason why celebrities usually are the ones filling this role. Ads that use prominence as a main advertising appeal focus on creating a person or a kind of person they feel they public will want to be. The catch is, the only way to fulfill this wish is to by their product.
The Dos Equis “Most Interesting Man in the World” is meant to make one laugh, but at the same time point out how awesome he is by listing off all of his amazing feats that the ordinary man could never replicate, however, the one thing anybody can do to be more classy, more appealing, more adventurous, is drink a Dos Equis. Well played Dos Equis, well played. .
There is said to be two types of TV sitcom, episodic and serial. An episodic sitcom is a show like The Simpsons or Family Guy, where a single issue is presented for that episode and the episode ends with the resolution of that issue. Often times at the conclusion a lesson is learned. With more controversial and political episodic sitcoms like South Park or the Boondocks, a social issue is addressed or a political statement is made and episodes end when the point has been made and next week a brand new issue is addressed. Serial sitcoms are very different. With serial sitcoms, a plot is present throughout the entire series and every episode is an advance on that plot. Thus each episode may not end with a huge resolution or life lesson, in the case of the serial sitcom Lost, most episodes actually ended with no resolution and even more questions.
Using the examples previously given, one can see how TV sitcoms can be seen as black and white as episodic or serial sitcoms when comparing two shows like The Simpsons and Lost. However, many shows are in the gray, blending both characteristics of serial and episodic television. Once again I bring up my favorite show, Arrested Development, because it is one of the shows that lies in the gray. Arrested Development is both an episodic sitcom and a serial sitcom. Arrested Development doesn’t have the character development of a serial sitcom like Lost, however the depth of the characters in the serious is more so then that of a typical episodic sitcom. Also, every episode presents a new hilarious problem the family must deal with while simultaneously playing off of the central problem throughout all three seasons of the series. What Arrested Development does, which is why I believe they are distinguished from the rest is its ability to successfully function as an episodic sitcom and a serial sitcom in the sense anyone can view any episode and enjoy it, but at the same time the show makes references that transcend several seasons making the shows exponentially funnier to those who follow the series.
(Funny clip from Arrested Development, however this clip is even funnier if you get all of the references to past episodes)
In the film American Beauty, there is an excellent scene where all three shot types are used as a progression of intimacy. In said scene, the daughter Jane has just been slapped following a confrontation with her mother and father. She looks out of her window and sees her neighbor, a boy that one can tell she likes at this point in the movie, filming her.
At this point the audience sees two long shots of the two teenagers from both perspectives. Having just witnessed the confrontation between Jane and the rest of her dysfunctional family, we assume that she feels alone. The long shot gives the connotation of her feeling alone, and it is no coincidence that her neighbor is shot via a long shot as well. Though it is not clear as to why yet, he too is lonely in his household. However after a moment of subtle greetings with the wave of their hands the shot then become closer, and the audience is now viewing the teenagers in medium shots, implying a barrier has been broken, and even though at a distance, these two are figuratively becoming closer.
It is at which point Jane begins to undress for him; she takes off her shirt, then lets down her hair, then eventually removes her bra. The movies camera stays at medium shots, however the neighbor’s camera zooms in to a close up of Jane’s nearly naked body. The removal of her cloths was not meant to be taken as a sexual act, but as a way of Jane saying, "I trust you, I need someone whom I can bare it all to". She allows herself to become vulnerable, however he has only opened up so much. This is translated in the closeness of the shots. At this point of the film Ricky, the neighbor, has gotten "closer" to Jane (having witnessed her mom just slap her) then Jane has to Ricky. This is why we only get a close up of Jane through Ricky's camera at the end of this beautiful scene.
In the studio system, studios had actors, actresses, and directors under contract. Studios would use their big stars to promote their films. During the time of classic Hollywood, studios were known for certain style or genre of films. This paired with the fact that the same cast and crew were involved in these productions; led to a case in which actors/actresses were playing the same person in every movie. The studio system showed us our first glimpse of actors being casted in the same roles over and over again. A modern equivalent would be some one like Vince Vaughn or Seth Rogen or Michael Cera. The example used in class was the American icon, Judy Garland. In her younger years, when first breaking into the industry, Garland was paired with Mickey Rooney in a string of "backyard musicals"; some of these films included: Babes in Arms, Strike Up the Band, Babes on Broadway, and Girl Crazy. In all of these films the young actors are said to be portrayals of teenagers dreaming big, fighting with parents who don't understand them, facing rejection and disappointment, and dealing with low self-esteem and self-doubt.
I usually find it kind of lame when actors/actresses play the same roles over and over again, but history had told us that it works. (I love Seth Rogan and Will Ferrel movies, so I guess I really does work)
My favorite family-based TV situation comedy is by far, Arrested Development. This show follows the Bluth family as they try to survive legal issues and the demise of the family business. Hilarious and well-written scenarios occur, as the family has to deal with the fall out of the collapsing business and the arrest of the head of the family.
Mitchell Hurwitz, the creator of Arrested Development, made a show that was purely for entertainment. He never addressed any social issues or never tried to bring to light any sort of injustice. To find anything of substance is simply overanalyzing the work. If anything, Arrested Development was a parody of a show like All in the Family because it poked fun of social issues by creating hilarious and absurd “social issues” of their own. For example, Tobias Funke’s ridiculous “never nude” condition or his daughter’s fake disease rightfully named B.S. Norman Lear on the other hand had an intended reading for his show in which he was purposely trying to address social issues. While Arrested Development spent three seasons of poking fun of Tobias’ implied homosexuality, All in the Family makes jokes about the subject via Archie Bunker, but quite blatantly asks the audience to take a serious look at the idea of sexuality.
The similarities and differences in these two shows are really just signs of the times. The ability to poke fun of issues of race, disability, and sexuality show that as a nation we have grown past the unacceptable ideology stage, through the “it’s a sensitive issue” stage, and have just surpassed the “this is an important issue that needs to be brought to attention” stage and now we can laugh about it. Of course there are still issues that deal with things such as race and sexuality, however on a larger scale these social issues are less issues and becoming more of social norms. When we look at the fact we have a black president and that homosexuality is portrayed in the media all the time in a neutral or even positive light, we must admit that we have seen progress. For these are all things that would have never been allowed to come to fruition as little as 40 years ago.
The most powerful force in a market economy is the consumer. At the heart of any democratic government are the people. Thus, technological change, industries or institutional factors, regulation and government intervention are all trumped by the power of audience demand. In the 1920’s radio was what television was during the 1960 (the 60’s as oppose to today because TV is less significant today with all the alternatives available such as the internet, movies, netflicks, etc). It served as the primary source of news, entertainment (radio shows), and eventually music. At one point in our nations history, the radio acted as the dinner table in the sense it brought the family together on a daily/weekly schedule as seen in the film Radio Days. This love that people shared for radio was the primary force driving industry, which in turn drove technology to improve.
The devotion of a mass audience on a regular schedule was a marketers dream. This led to advertising agencies producing their own radio programs for commercial sponsors interested in selling consumer goods, and the development of integrated advertising. All of which lead to the development of radio as we know it.
Ok, so this is a perfect example of audience demand forcing technology to meet the demands of the public (whom happen to hate commercials and the repetition of the same songs). Is this the future of radio?
The textbook address the social learning theory from a violent and sexual point of view primarily aimed at the social reform of the 1960’s. During this time America experienced a rise in violence, political unrest, and a general “decline in public morality”. The masses were said to have learned this behavior through the media, be it that they were in fact the first “TV generation”. What was true then seems just as true now, but with social learning through media becoming the proprietors of the masculine guise embedded into our young men’s heads today.
We can only hope that media does not play the primary role in the exemplification of the “real” man. Ideally a young boy’s (or even girls, for they too have their own idea of what a man should be) first example of a man is his father. The danger lies in a situation where the father is either too preoccupied with work or other activities or simply not present at all in the child’s life. It is at this point the child is forced to seek out the male image, and in a day and age in which youth are more media savvy then ever, the media becomes the one to teach little Johnny what it means to be a man.
Unfortunately, the media often gets it wrong. Prosocial and antisocial behaviors are frequently intertwined and very subjective. The power rangers exhibited bravery, teamwork, and even ingenuity; all of which can be considered prosocial qualities. However, the leader of the power rangers was always a white male that when faced with adversity used violence to settle ALL disputes. It would have been preposterous for power rangers to negotiate or solve their intergalactic issues diplomatically, because like the film Tough Guise points out, to deviate from the medias image of masculinity is to be considered a “wuss, wimp, fag, or sissy”. There are no homosexual crime fighters, no sensitive male super heros, and at least while I was growing up little to no portrayals of successful men of color. And because of this, we have an epidemic of skewed ideologies pertaining to masculinity.
Hegemony deals with the political economy and how media is used by people in power to reinforce ideas and beliefs. The reasoning for the use of such tactics can vary from political agendas to maintaining a corporate reputation. In the case of Disney, Michael Eisner, the chairman of the Walt Disney Co. and ultimately boss of ABC News was quoted saying, "I would prefer ABC not to cover Disney ... ABC News knows that I would prefer them not to cover [Disney]." (Irvine, 1998). And because of Michael Eisner’s position of power, he can guarantee exactly that. A story that was to air on 20/20 exposing “Disney's lax attitude toward employing pedophiles at its theme parks” was killed by David Westin by Eisner’s request (Irvine, 1998).
p.s. use the buddy system when venturing through disney world, apparently Mickey Mouse and Michael Jackson had more in common then their white gloves... (too soon? lol)
I’m currently undeclared and just trying to figure it all out. I’ve always found myself captivated by television and film, but have only just recently seen it as a viable option for a career. I saw RTF 305 as the perfect way to explore this option and gain a realistic grasp of the media industry. In high school I did some short film projects here and there with friends dumb enough to get tricked into it, but despite this, I honestly feel as though I know nothing… However, I expect this class to change all of that. I have the desire to learn, be that from the professor, the TA’s, or even other students. The best thing that could come out of taking this class is not necessarily the information gained but working with and learning from the awesome people I’m sure to meet.
I don't read blogs, but when looking up concert tours I stumbled upon my favorite rapper, Common's blog. It's pretty cool.
p.s.
Rereading this I can see how some may think I’m in this class just to find the next Robert Rodriguez, buddy up with him, and try and play real life entourage. Rest assured that’s totally not the case, however if there are any future Robert Rodriguez’s out there looking for a cool, black guy in their entourage to mooch off of them well… I’m not saying no…
Globalization is the concept of an interweaving network of culture and communication amongst people globally. Globalization has become increasingly more prominent as technology improves. Because of the Internet, what was once culturally exclusive is now available at the click of a mouse. In high school, the French teen dance craze Techtonik became the newest youtube sensation right before prom, my freshman year in college I was told about a cool, Swedish vampire movie that translated to “Let the Right One In”. In these cases, these cultural works stood out as great and because of globalization I had a chance to experience them, however, with globalization (and capitalism) comes glocalization. This is the taking of an idea or formula that proved successful in one place and adopting it in another. Only a year after watching the Swedish film “Let the Right One In”, I saw a trailer for a Hollywood movie “Let Me In”, the exact remake of the Swedish original but with an American cast for an American audience. At virtually the same time “Dinner for Schmucks” was coming to theaters. I saw this preview and immediately knew it to be an American remake of the French classic “Le Dîner de Cons”. 
