Don't Watch It

Today we talked about the aspect of superheroes today and how they’ve brainwashed the innocent boys of today. Now at one point, I assume I was an innocent boy—I don’t remember. What I do remember is that I was never really into superheroes. I saw random episodes of some of the cartoons, but I never really caught on because typically they were always in the middle of storylines. (Spider-Man and X-Men were the most notorious about that. They said “This is Episode 11 of 14.”)

I grow up and, like it was mentioned today, superhero films blew up after the success of the first X-Men film. I saw most of them and liked a handful of them, but I never wanted to dress up as Batman. These stories and heroes affected millions of people, but I wasn’t one of them.

My media upbringing was on a lot of books, primarily. I read a lot of popular kids books of the time, but also a lot of older ones. Thanks to being able to read really fast and a great library, I was able to find a whole lot of different books. I then took that attention to film, still at a young age. Exposure to a lot of different ones made me realize what I really was looking for in characters.

So it wasn’t always the popular stuff of my age. It wasn’t because I was a snobby kid, but because I didn’t differentiate as much. I laughed more at Abbott and Costello than Adam Sandler so those were the films I devoured. My heroes were always the guys who were clever and funny instead of traditionally masculine. Groucho Marx, Basil of Baker Street (and human counterpart Sherlock Holmes), and The Great Brain. If I would have found Doctor Who when I was younger, I would be even more of a nerd.

I wasn’t trying to be a counter culture guy. I’m still not. I watch what I like to watch and I can always defend why I watch it. It’s not about what is popular. We rag on Disney Princess films and superhero films and reality shows and all of this. If you have problems with them DON’T WATCH THEM. Personally I think most of them are pretty good because I like the way they tell a story. I think the reality shows are terrible so I don’t watch those.

Always be actively thinking about what you are watching and then you aren’t “brainwashed.” Pop culture is a rich area of investigation, but why must we complain about stuff so heavily? There are so many fascinating trends and nuances but we only look at the major things because those are easier to calculate. Don’t be angry as something because it’s popular and it’s ruining the world. Make a difference by highlighting something you want to support. You want to change the world? There’s something to it.

--Austin Lugar

The Pixar Touch

In class this week we talked about two trends in Disney animation: Walt’s Princesses and Team Disney. Now I believe we are in a new era, one that isn’t as popular as those two but a trend just the same.

Team Disney fell apart after a lot of internal struggles. Jeffrey Katzenberg was let go and he went on to form Dreamworks as a vengeful attack on Disney. Years later Michael Eisner and Roy Disney left the company as well. The new CEO, Bob Iger, is a strong businessman but not a creative innovator.

Then something bizarre happened. During this time Pixar was booming. After a decade of designing technology, they were finally able to make feature films. Toy Story was a cultural phenomon. Years later Toy Story 2 was another box office and critical success. However through a contractual loophole, that film was not seen as part of the deal between Disney and Pixar. This led to a long argument which led Pixar to break off from Disney. Disney still had the creative properities of Pixar and started to make Toy Story 3 without Pixar. (The story involved Buzz malfunctioning and being sent back to the factory in Japan with Woody and the gang traveling across the world to save him.)

Months later, a deal was finally created. Pixar returned, that version of Toy Story 3 was scrapped, and the creative genius behind Pixar is now the chief creative officer of Disney animation. That man is named John Lasseter.

As great as some of the films of Team Disney were, they were led by producers instead of writers or directors. Walt Disney was a very creative person with rich ideas and vision. John Lassater is closer to Walt more than Eisner, Katzenberg and yes even more than Roy Disney.

So I’m going to call this new era “The Pixar Touch.” This is a term that has been used plenty of times but it’s becoming relevant now to Disney animation. Just like the time before Team Disney, the company’s animation was losing the world’s attention. They were making films like The Fox and the Hound, The Black Cauldron and the underrated masterpiece The Great Mouse Detective. Disney in the 2000s was making films like Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, and Treasure Planet.

With films like The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, Lassater is evoking the spirit of Walt’s films but bringing a more advanced level of storytelling. All of the character are more three-dimensional with their motivations and goals. Despite being princesses, the women are stronger role models and not just vague archetypes.

Pixar will still outshine Disney animation because they are making groundbreaking films that are consistently masterful. Pixar is making great films while Lassater is taking that mentality to make great Disney films. He’s satisfying a niche and bringing a level of care and creativity.

Disney has said they are going to take a break on princess films until they find a new take on the material. Yet next summer Pixar will be releasing its very first princess film (and their first film with a female lead). There is early and exciting information about it here.

--Austin Lugar

Artificial Reality TV

We talked in class about that certain reality shows exist to show the lives of interesting people. I still don’t believe this. Those shows remain incredibly artificial for a number of reasons. Once a camera is placed in a room, everybody will act differently. People change when they are being watched/observed but even more so when they are being recorded for a larger audience. A lot of the scripted elements of the reality shows come from the contrived storylines of an episode, but also the characters themselves playing up to their expectations. Would the people on Jersey Shore really fight so much if they didn’t know the fan reactions to those moments, which is labeled “good TV?”

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to capture the life of people using the medium of television or film. What is necessary is a sense of journalism. Too many of these shows have intervening producers determining plotlines or what characters should be introduced—an odd concept. A journalist should find an area and create an environment where they can observe their subject in what is close to their national setting and report accurately. That is how you are able to learn something and become emotionally invested. The Up Series ranks amongst the best documentaries I’ve ever seen because they are always showing the subjects are they truly are, flaws and all.

Showing people blissfully transforming themselves into vile caricatures is not the television I want to watch. Yes, Snookie is actually named Snookie so I suppose by definition she is a “real person.” Yet I’ve learned more about the human condition through people like Don Draper, Walter White, and even The Doctor. The best uses of fiction are the ones that are able to tap into the themes and reality of the world around them and convey it into a story that is compelling. Doing that in a reality show setting seems disingenuous when it’s actual people living their lives—or pretending to live their lives.

What remains in these shows is just exploitive sensationalism. The worse they behave, the more screen time they’ll get. Watching their shows and talking about their shows is only supporting this madness. Rising above it and laughing at their scandals is no longer a relevant excuse because it’s reached the point when they are self-aware as well.

--Austin Lugar

War and Other Contradictions

ABC has a tendency of showing the film Saving Private Ryan on Memorial Day. They give a warning at the beginning that they will broadcast the beginning of the film unedited. The scene they want to show in its entirety is the invasion of Normandy, which is depicted by Steven Spielberg as very intense.

The scene is unedited to show respect for veterans. It is not a romantic scene of war. There is bravery shown, but there is also chaos and horrifying deaths. The network believes this is important for the American public to see.

So this viewing of violence is important for the mass public to see because it’s a more realistic depiction of war. Then why is it rated R? That means that anyone under the age of 17 cannot purchase a ticket for the movie. The Motion Picture Association of America is a ruled organization that deems ratings for films as a way to protect the children. Oh I mean…”to advance the business and the art of filmmaking and its enjoyment around the world.” Right.

In the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated an argument is brought up on how Hollywood rationalizes violence in films. If it is a realistic portrayal that shows the damage it can cause to individuals and all around him then it’s R. If there isn’t blood or any gory damage, then it can be PG-13, which really means kids of any age, can go see that in theatres. In an attempt to protect the children, we’re teaching them about an illusion of violence.

Things are heating up with Libya. The air raid will not be the only thing that will happen. How the media will cover it will say a lot about how they will comment on violence and war. In terms of properly educating people on what is happening should we honest, should we be educating, or should we keep talking Supermoon?

--Austin Lugar

The Importance of Stories

When looking at whether or not pop culture is important, it seems like there is no question. It exists so let’s be curious about it. Personally, the examination of what sort of ring tones each gender uses or the philosophy of the Geico gecko is not as compelling as the pop culture that involves stories.

Stories are the one of the most effective forms of expression. Emotions are too complex for vocabulary. The English language has an absurd number of words—way more than any other language—but there is still a compromise to the nuances. The word “love” does not encompass what that word actually entails. So stories are created to replicate feelings and ideas so others can experience them.

Then the analysis comes from whether or not the story was as effective as it could be or whether it is a story worth telling. In order to fully have that emotional connection, quality is important. Sticking with the concept of love, what movie made you swoon: the wonderful Irish musical Once or the half-assed No Strings Attached?

When all of the elements are working there is something profound happening. The human experience can be richer and there is greater understanding of humanity. That is not to say that all stories must be dense and academic; the stories that make you laugh are just as important as the ones that make you cry. Laughter is invoking a pure emotion containing joy and surprise. It’s reactionary and yet still personal. This is effective expression. The artist observed something that struck them and they want to convey that to you. Through creation, we are now laughing at an actualized version of his thought.

So it is important to be critical. Stories have the potential for so much greatness that it is silly to keep supporting the ones that aren’t working. I don’t understand the idea of a “guilty pleasure” because I think you should be able to articulate why you like something. What you watch should be good, at least to you. I adore shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad, but I can also tell you why the show Greek is worthwhile…well at least the first few seasons. It’s not snobbery; it’s about recognizing when something is working, no matter the genre or subject matter. Those are the stories that really matter.

Now it would be completely silly to post this without telling a story of my own. So here’s a very simple story reflecting some of the stuff I’ve talked about.

“Honey?”

“Hmm?”

“You seem down.”

“Oh. I dunno. Sorry.”

“It’s just that you’re eating Fruity Pebbles. Nobody should look down when they’re eating Fruity Pebbles.”

“Because if you look down you’ll see this colory grossness?”

“Ah! Take that back.”

“I’m sorry. It’s just…what do you see when I hold my hands like this?”

“Like you’re holding an invisible basketball?”

“Yeah.”

“Nothing.”

“Yeah, exactly. There’s nothing here but in my imagination I see a globe. I can describe to you the color of the ocean and the way it turns and how Europe looks too simplified. I can describe that for hours and hours and no matter what, you won’t see the same globe I see. It’ll just be a little bit different and there’s something sad about that. That no matter what, we can’t experience the same thing.”

“It doesn’t have to be.”

“What?”

“Sad. It doesn’t have to be sad. Imagine that. One world and there’s only one perspective to see things. Where’s the fun in that? If we all saw sunflowers the same way, then we wouldn’t have what earless wonder did. I can’t see your globe, you can’t see mine but we have visions of each others. You didn’t fail, you inspired.”

“From all of that, from all you said, I feel that…it’s okay that I don’t like Fruity Pebbles.”

“No it is not. Seriously, what the hell?”

--Austin Lugar