Jean Kilbourne comments that the impossible, ideal image of a woman presented by advertisers “wouldn’t matter so much if it didn’t connect with the core belief of American and Canadian culture that such transformation is possible; that we can look like this if we just try hard enough, buy the right products. If we’re not beautiful, or thin, or rich, or successful, it’s because we’re just not trying hard enough.” Explore this statement further. In what ways is transformation a central principle of American and Canadian society? What is the connection between advertising’s impossible image of ideal beauty and the American/Canadian belief in transformation?
In North American mainstream culture, change could be considered to be one of the most central principles across the continent. Change depends on the method and success of a product's advertising. Advertisers have found that chipping away at an audience's weakness and insecurity is an effective way of attracting attention and revenue for their product. The "perfect" woman used by advertisers of beauty products and apparel is one of advertising's most effective ways at getting at women's weaknesses, and lure them to the product in order to change their lives for the "better". People all across the nation are faced with the possibility of changing themselves every day. However, it gets difficult to keep up with current trends due to the amount of change that happens daily.
In Killing us Softly, Kilbourne says that, “throughout an American person's day, they are exposed to over 3000 ads.” Although the numbers may not be this excessive today, it is safe to state that North Americans encounter at least a thousand or so pieces of advertising. With children being exposed to advertising at a young age, they are the most susceptible to the messages that are being conveyed. Companies can advertise to an age class and follow them throughout their childhood and adolescence. Through researching trends and such, companies can keep up with these growing children, even to the point of influencing these children to change every aspect of their daily life.
Companies thrive on the insecurity that all teenagers hold deep within their hearts. Teenagers are very susceptible to products that guarantee an aesthetic improvement, and do so by having their product endorsed by the "perfect person". These advertisers don't give a second thought about using insecurity as a tool to get their product known. Companies are happy to see people buying their product, but what they don’t realize is that they sell at a person's expense. Take for example a teenage girl who idolizes the women of television. She will end up buying a product that promises aesthetic change, and will even harm herself in the process of being "beautiful" by dieting or even regurgitating their food after each and every meal.
Advertisers have gotten away with endorsing unattainable beauty and calling it easy and possible. What they don't realize is that their simple lie can ruin the lives of millions of girls and women. What makes this worse is that this type of destructive advertising is widespread, and can be seen literally everywhere. Advertisers, whether they realize it or not, have been harming women and girls for years, and the sad fact is, that their ad campaigns don't seem to be taking a turn for the better anywhere in the near future. The only way to fight this type of advertising is to try and be indifferent to the attractive women on billboards and to realize that they are not real, that they have been touched up and airbrushed to many lengths to look this way.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Copyright Legal Case
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1992) was a court case which established the rights of users to modify copyrighted works for their own use. Galoob manufactured an add-on product called Game Genie, which allowed users to modify video games by entering in certain codes; for example, a code might make the player invincible by negating the programming that updates the player's health amount. Nintendo, which sold a video game system and video games that could be modified by Game Genie, sued Galoob for copyright infringement, arguing that Game Genie made a derivative work, violating Nintendo's copyright in their video games.
The Court denied Nintendo's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that Game Genie did not create a derivative work and also suggesting that even if it did, it might well be fair use. As the district court wrote, "Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment, without creating a derivative work."
Derivative Work: The Copyright Act of 1976 gives copyright holders the exclusive right to prepare and authorize others to prepare derivative works based on their copyrighted works. Nintendo argues that the district court made a mistake in claiming that the audiovisual displays created by the Game Genie are not derivative works. A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work that consists of editing changes, adding, elaborating, or other modifications that try to pass itself off as an original work is a "derivative work.
Some time ago, for example, computer companies began marketing spell-checkers that operate within already existing word processors by signalling the writer when a word is misspelled. These applications could not be made and marketed if courts would say that the audiovisual display of a word processors and spell-checkers are derivative works based on the design of the word processor. The Game Genie is useless by itself. It can only enhance, and cannot duplicate, a game. Such innovations rarely will constitute derivative works under the Copyright Act.
Fair Use: The fair use doctrine allows a holder of the privilege to use copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the consent of the copyright owner. The district court concluded that, even if the audiovisual displays created by the Game Genie are derivative works, Galoob is not liable because the displays are a fair use of Nintendo's copyrighted displays.
Factors that determine fair use are:
1.) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
2.) The nature of the copyrighted work.
3.) The amount and value of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
4.) The effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work.
Museum of IP
http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/cases/lewis.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3EYqSevmuE&feature=related
http://museumofintellectualproperty.eejlaw.com/exhibits/images/game_genie_item_fv_m_6515.JPG
Monday, January 11, 2010
Yes Men
Yes Men is a film that gives the audience a glimpse at the satirical exploits of the Yes Men, and the preparatory measures taken to ensure their message is conveyed, by conventional means or not (and most often the latter). In performing their charades, the Yes Men successfully manipulate the media into sending their anti-World Trade Organization protests across to the masses in a witty fashion. There are scenes in the beginning used to foreshadow later events in the movie, butYes Men is, for the most part, in chronological order. I didn't think that having the events in chronological order was necessary to convey the film's essence, but I did find the Australian conference concerning the WTO's "dissolution" to be a very effective conclusion. It conveyed a sense of hope in regards to the fate of the world's economic condition.
Yes Men was an expository documentary. Although physically it was told through the exploits of a small group of men opposed to the immoral actions of the WTO, ultimately the film gives a voice to the millions of people in the world who live in extreme poverty and are taken advantage of by the WTO and other big western corporations. Aside from the Yes Men giving commentary on their next upcoming scheme, or discussing (and frowning upon) the WTO, dialogue also come in the form of their satirical conferences as they represent the WTO. Although it was an expository documentary, Yes Men has the trappings of a reflexive documentary. Although it was live and not on film, the Yes Men adapted traits of reflexive documentary to their pranks, being in control of basically everything going on there and then. The Yes Men changed their names to pose as members of the WTO, Mr. Unruh being one of these aliases, as well as created a false website to draw potential conference audiences in. Archival footage was used to show the news channel event where the WTO were represented by an oblivious, self-righteous moron.
The film had many strengths, however one of them that stood out most to me was the way that the Yes Men managed use everything they could for their film. In any instance of filming, there will be setbacks and complications in filming. However, the Yes Men managed to turn many of these mishaps into great scenes and sequences. Showing the audience their disappointments helped to achieve an interactive feel for the documentary. A scene that I found to be intriguing was the lecture at the university. Unlike the older audiences the Yes Men had in their earlier conferences, the university students were not timid in voicing what they thought was twisted or immoral of the WTO. It shows that there are people who strongly oppose the unethical actions of huge corporations, shedding a bit of hope on the otherwise grim topic. Another scene that appealed to me was at the end of the film, when the Yes Men declared the WTO's "disbanding". Although it was false, it managed to provoke thought into the people in attendance (and the audience), as well as serve as an effective conclusion to the film.
The Yes Men, aside from undermining the exploits of huge corporations like the WTO, tell us that it isn't truly necessary to hold economical or political power in order to make a change or provoke thought in regards to any issue, local or global. The Yes Men had managed to seep their way into the media, from articles praising their endeavours to newscasts exposing WTO representatives as selfish and without empathy. The Yes Men are now a faction spread worldwide, with an agenda to address economic and political wrongdoings and bring them to light. Any way they do it, orthodox or otherwise, the Yes Men bring awareness to the injustices that come with capitalism and government corruption. Although they may not have shocked people with their leisure suit, or brought the World Trade Organization to its knees on their own, they managed to make many issues known. In this aspect, the Yes Men have already won.
Yes Men was an expository documentary. Although physically it was told through the exploits of a small group of men opposed to the immoral actions of the WTO, ultimately the film gives a voice to the millions of people in the world who live in extreme poverty and are taken advantage of by the WTO and other big western corporations. Aside from the Yes Men giving commentary on their next upcoming scheme, or discussing (and frowning upon) the WTO, dialogue also come in the form of their satirical conferences as they represent the WTO. Although it was an expository documentary, Yes Men has the trappings of a reflexive documentary. Although it was live and not on film, the Yes Men adapted traits of reflexive documentary to their pranks, being in control of basically everything going on there and then. The Yes Men changed their names to pose as members of the WTO, Mr. Unruh being one of these aliases, as well as created a false website to draw potential conference audiences in. Archival footage was used to show the news channel event where the WTO were represented by an oblivious, self-righteous moron.
The film had many strengths, however one of them that stood out most to me was the way that the Yes Men managed use everything they could for their film. In any instance of filming, there will be setbacks and complications in filming. However, the Yes Men managed to turn many of these mishaps into great scenes and sequences. Showing the audience their disappointments helped to achieve an interactive feel for the documentary. A scene that I found to be intriguing was the lecture at the university. Unlike the older audiences the Yes Men had in their earlier conferences, the university students were not timid in voicing what they thought was twisted or immoral of the WTO. It shows that there are people who strongly oppose the unethical actions of huge corporations, shedding a bit of hope on the otherwise grim topic. Another scene that appealed to me was at the end of the film, when the Yes Men declared the WTO's "disbanding". Although it was false, it managed to provoke thought into the people in attendance (and the audience), as well as serve as an effective conclusion to the film.
The Yes Men, aside from undermining the exploits of huge corporations like the WTO, tell us that it isn't truly necessary to hold economical or political power in order to make a change or provoke thought in regards to any issue, local or global. The Yes Men had managed to seep their way into the media, from articles praising their endeavours to newscasts exposing WTO representatives as selfish and without empathy. The Yes Men are now a faction spread worldwide, with an agenda to address economic and political wrongdoings and bring them to light. Any way they do it, orthodox or otherwise, the Yes Men bring awareness to the injustices that come with capitalism and government corruption. Although they may not have shocked people with their leisure suit, or brought the World Trade Organization to its knees on their own, they managed to make many issues known. In this aspect, the Yes Men have already won.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Zeitgeist
Even if you have seen films like "Loose Change", did the film segment make you question or challenge your beliefs about 9/11? Explain.
My original beliefs towards the 9/11 incident were fairly two-dimensional to begin with. They were as limited as a news headline is brief. "Hijacker Flies Into Twin Towers" was pretty much all I knew about the incident until films such as Loose Change, and more recently, Zeitgeist. The use of conventions such as archival footage, and their technique involving hammering away at individual ideas in the paragraph shown to the audience certainly planted the possibility of an inside job scenario in my head (but it hasn't caused a change of heart towards what the real story could be).
What documentary conventions did this film employ?
Zeitgeist used film conventions such as archival footage and talking heads. Many video clips from news reports and witness accounts were used. Footage from some of Bush's presidential speeches were included, as well as some made by others of governmental office.
What aspects of the film make its assertions seem true? List three facts that support their claim that 9/11 was authored by the US.
“All the World’s a Stage”, attempts to prove that the US government plotted the 9/11 attacks in New York and contracted the dirty work to international resources. Provided evidence includes a mixture of the apparent “TV clips of witnesses describing a second explosion”, the questionable “government efforts to hide any conclusive evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon” and the perplexing “the demolition-like accuracy with which the buildings collapsed”.
What would make you think that the film's assertions are false?
The second part of the film opens with a paragraph detailing the "myth" of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 (called 9/11 from here on). The film maker has already reached a predetermined conclusion, and assumes you have as well, that the attacks on 9/11 were an inside job or something to that affect. Therefore this calls his entire analysis into question, however we will go on anyway, discussing each piece of evidence.
Why are critical thinking and research skills important when viewing a film like Zeitgeist?
If film-maker Peter Joseph can be credited for one thing, it’s flawlessly utilizing Dale Carnegie’s yes-yes technique to influence the viewer. Like any good conspiracy theorist, he starts with information that is true (yes #1), follows with information that is apparent enough to make the viewer question previous dogma (yes #2) and inserts his interpretation of what is driving those occurrences (in this case, that the US government intentionally detonated the twin towers). One major distinction between a conspiracy theory and a valid explanation is that conspiracy theories rarely work inversely as deduction.
My original beliefs towards the 9/11 incident were fairly two-dimensional to begin with. They were as limited as a news headline is brief. "Hijacker Flies Into Twin Towers" was pretty much all I knew about the incident until films such as Loose Change, and more recently, Zeitgeist. The use of conventions such as archival footage, and their technique involving hammering away at individual ideas in the paragraph shown to the audience certainly planted the possibility of an inside job scenario in my head (but it hasn't caused a change of heart towards what the real story could be).
What documentary conventions did this film employ?
Zeitgeist used film conventions such as archival footage and talking heads. Many video clips from news reports and witness accounts were used. Footage from some of Bush's presidential speeches were included, as well as some made by others of governmental office.
What aspects of the film make its assertions seem true? List three facts that support their claim that 9/11 was authored by the US.
“All the World’s a Stage”, attempts to prove that the US government plotted the 9/11 attacks in New York and contracted the dirty work to international resources. Provided evidence includes a mixture of the apparent “TV clips of witnesses describing a second explosion”, the questionable “government efforts to hide any conclusive evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon” and the perplexing “the demolition-like accuracy with which the buildings collapsed”.
What would make you think that the film's assertions are false?
The second part of the film opens with a paragraph detailing the "myth" of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 (called 9/11 from here on). The film maker has already reached a predetermined conclusion, and assumes you have as well, that the attacks on 9/11 were an inside job or something to that affect. Therefore this calls his entire analysis into question, however we will go on anyway, discussing each piece of evidence.
Why are critical thinking and research skills important when viewing a film like Zeitgeist?
If film-maker Peter Joseph can be credited for one thing, it’s flawlessly utilizing Dale Carnegie’s yes-yes technique to influence the viewer. Like any good conspiracy theorist, he starts with information that is true (yes #1), follows with information that is apparent enough to make the viewer question previous dogma (yes #2) and inserts his interpretation of what is driving those occurrences (in this case, that the US government intentionally detonated the twin towers). One major distinction between a conspiracy theory and a valid explanation is that conspiracy theories rarely work inversely as deduction.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
War Tapes
1) What does Deborah Scranton mean by the “disconnect” she hopes to “bridge” with her documentary?
Scranton refers to how distant the War in Iraq is in relation to our lives. We tend to see the war as an event that occasionally comes to our attention and nothing more. The mainstream media only brings to our attention the death of a soldier or the aftermath of a bombing. With her film, Scranton hopes to make us aware that war is a daily reality for not just the soldiers, but for the civilians of Iraq who live in constant fear and panic. Scranton also wants to document the individual lives of the soldiers. People tend to completely disregard the value of a soldier’s service. Scranton wants to portray these soldiers as real people facing real obstacles in a real warzone.
2) How does media (television, news, documentaries, film) contribute to creating this disconnect?
The mainstream media is often impersonal. The mainstream media does not portray the soldiers as real people. The media only seeks out the facts and forego the experience of a soldier. Media has managed to turn death into a mere statistics. A reason they stay impersonal would be to avoid as much bias as they can (putting aside political agendas).
3) How can a documentary like "War Tapes" help remedy or bridge this disconnect?
War Tapes brings to us the human element of the war by bringing us face to face with the soldiers, and showing us the war through the eyes of the soldiers.
Scranton refers to how distant the War in Iraq is in relation to our lives. We tend to see the war as an event that occasionally comes to our attention and nothing more. The mainstream media only brings to our attention the death of a soldier or the aftermath of a bombing. With her film, Scranton hopes to make us aware that war is a daily reality for not just the soldiers, but for the civilians of Iraq who live in constant fear and panic. Scranton also wants to document the individual lives of the soldiers. People tend to completely disregard the value of a soldier’s service. Scranton wants to portray these soldiers as real people facing real obstacles in a real warzone.
2) How does media (television, news, documentaries, film) contribute to creating this disconnect?
The mainstream media is often impersonal. The mainstream media does not portray the soldiers as real people. The media only seeks out the facts and forego the experience of a soldier. Media has managed to turn death into a mere statistics. A reason they stay impersonal would be to avoid as much bias as they can (putting aside political agendas).
3) How can a documentary like "War Tapes" help remedy or bridge this disconnect?
War Tapes brings to us the human element of the war by bringing us face to face with the soldiers, and showing us the war through the eyes of the soldiers.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Hearts of Darkness
Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse, shot by Eleanor Coppola, is a film that reveals many of the hardships that filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola faced while filming Apocalypse Now. The film Apocalypse Now, despite its great success, was not an easy film to write, direct and produce. The film shows all of the obstacles that Francis Coppola had to navigate through, nearly costing him his career and even his life. There is an innate parallel of Apocalypse Now to the Vietnam War itself. Hearts of Darkness begins with the beginning of Coppola's filming. The documentary follows the film’s descent into chaos through the 18 month filming period. The film is a chronological summary of Apocalypse Now’s filming; from their arrival to the Philippines to Marlon Brando’s arrival and the conception of Coppola’s film’s ending. The audience is shown the anticipation and worry that gradually builds up from Coppola’s point of view.
Hearts of Darkness was an expository documentary. Throughout the film, there were interviews with people involved in the making of Hearts of Darkness, especially Francis and Eleanor Coppola. In fact, most of their interviews are used as narration for the documentary. Eleanor Coppola even included clips of conversations with her husband that she had secretly recorded for narrative effect. Quoting some of these: “I tell you from the bottom of my heart that I am making a bad film.” and “We are all lost. I have no idea where to go with this.” Much of Coppola’s ideas were undermined. An example would be Marlon Brando arriving on set completely out of shape, contrasting the storyboard depiction of Kurtz, a gaunt, almost skeletal figure. Evidence of these various shortcomings are shown using talking heads (interviews), voiceovers and archival footage.
Hearts of Darkness was comprised of a healthy combination of behind-the-scenes footage, footage from Apocalypse Now, archival footage, interviews, still images (some derived from Apocalypse Now’s storyboard/playbook) and audio of secretly recorded conversations. I enjoyed how “honest” the documentary seemed. Nothing about it was polished and pretty like some documentaries can be. Eleanor Coppola managed to get as much footage as possible, instead of being selective in what she wanted to film. A scene (or rather, two) that I found really thought provoking involved the caribou being slaughtered as a ritual. Although people know of indigenous races and the ways their cultures function, it’s a different experience altogether witnessing an even like this as close to live as possible. It was also effective in revealing how the symbol of the caribou was meant to foreshadow the death of Kurtz in the film. Another scene in Hearts of Darkness that caught my attention was Martin Sheen’s drunken improvisation in the hotel. The scene made me think about reasons why the room would be charged with the possibility of Sheen attacking Coppola or the crewmembers. I was also impressed to learn that Coppola chose to film Sheen while intoxicated, aiming for something as natural as possible to film – the real thing.
There really isn’t much that I could critique about Hearts of Darkness. There was a variety of different camera angles, a diverse abundance of content, and a truly intimate look of the film. The only thing that I could think of that could have been added were more shots without voice-overs, but even then this is such an insignificant loss.
Much like Apocalypse Now, Hearts of Darkness is about far more than its subject matter. As we join Martin Sheen in his quest to assassinate a madman in the jungle, we see human nature, how it clings to order, how it may embrace chaos. In this film, we see more than a movie being made. There’s the struggle against commercialism, the drive to create, and the inner battle that is the artistic process made manifest. Watching Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse, we can feel for once that we’re eye-witnesses to the true story of how a phenomenal film was made.
Hearts of Darkness was an expository documentary. Throughout the film, there were interviews with people involved in the making of Hearts of Darkness, especially Francis and Eleanor Coppola. In fact, most of their interviews are used as narration for the documentary. Eleanor Coppola even included clips of conversations with her husband that she had secretly recorded for narrative effect. Quoting some of these: “I tell you from the bottom of my heart that I am making a bad film.” and “We are all lost. I have no idea where to go with this.” Much of Coppola’s ideas were undermined. An example would be Marlon Brando arriving on set completely out of shape, contrasting the storyboard depiction of Kurtz, a gaunt, almost skeletal figure. Evidence of these various shortcomings are shown using talking heads (interviews), voiceovers and archival footage.
Hearts of Darkness was comprised of a healthy combination of behind-the-scenes footage, footage from Apocalypse Now, archival footage, interviews, still images (some derived from Apocalypse Now’s storyboard/playbook) and audio of secretly recorded conversations. I enjoyed how “honest” the documentary seemed. Nothing about it was polished and pretty like some documentaries can be. Eleanor Coppola managed to get as much footage as possible, instead of being selective in what she wanted to film. A scene (or rather, two) that I found really thought provoking involved the caribou being slaughtered as a ritual. Although people know of indigenous races and the ways their cultures function, it’s a different experience altogether witnessing an even like this as close to live as possible. It was also effective in revealing how the symbol of the caribou was meant to foreshadow the death of Kurtz in the film. Another scene in Hearts of Darkness that caught my attention was Martin Sheen’s drunken improvisation in the hotel. The scene made me think about reasons why the room would be charged with the possibility of Sheen attacking Coppola or the crewmembers. I was also impressed to learn that Coppola chose to film Sheen while intoxicated, aiming for something as natural as possible to film – the real thing.
There really isn’t much that I could critique about Hearts of Darkness. There was a variety of different camera angles, a diverse abundance of content, and a truly intimate look of the film. The only thing that I could think of that could have been added were more shots without voice-overs, but even then this is such an insignificant loss.
Much like Apocalypse Now, Hearts of Darkness is about far more than its subject matter. As we join Martin Sheen in his quest to assassinate a madman in the jungle, we see human nature, how it clings to order, how it may embrace chaos. In this film, we see more than a movie being made. There’s the struggle against commercialism, the drive to create, and the inner battle that is the artistic process made manifest. Watching Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse, we can feel for once that we’re eye-witnesses to the true story of how a phenomenal film was made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)