Less Analysis, More Action

I feel like in a class like ours, where we are supposed to analyze content, we have made ourselves aware of many social issues raised in the media. But I think we are reacting by what we know we are supposed to say. It is easy to point out how the princesses set really high expectations of how girls should look or act. But I guarantee that we are not the only age group noticing these problems. So why aren’t things getting changing? Because these stereotypes and expectations work. We aren’t comfortable yet breaking the status quo.

I asked a couple women that if they were to be animators for the next Disney Princess-type movie, what would the princess look like. One mentioned that there needs to be a Hispanic princess, because there isn’t one yet. The other was much more traditional approach (not that different from Belle in my opinion). But neither said that the princess should have a bit bigger or body type. I asked if there should be a “chubby princess”. They said no, it might send the wrong message to girls. I found it very interesting that they would say this when just a couple days ago they were talking about the unrealistic beauty expectations TV shows amplify.

So fellow classmates I challenge you to take the lessons we learn from this class, and apply them. Don’t be afraid to make an ugly princess (that isn’t the point of the story). As the next generation, we have to stop analyzing, and start doing. But it’s a thin line to walk. I have noticed the emergence of a new character type. The “anti-stereotype-stereotype”. I think we have such motivation to change things that we go to the extreme and put them at the opposite end of the spectrum immediately. But the flaw is that we acknowledge that they break the stereotype through dialogue or plot. I think this only reinforces those stereotypes. So be careful.

War - No Time for Gray Area

I was listening to NPR today and they were having discussion about Libya. What I found interesting about their debate was the phrasing they were using. “What would constitute a victory?” and “If Gaddafi is in power 3 months from now, it will go down as a loss for Obama and his doctrine.”

I was thinking about the reading which inquired about how the media’s coverage of war and video games affect the public’s views of war. I feel that with all-day-every-day media coverage of military action, we expect to hear results reported. We don’t want to wait for events to unfold over time. I think we are looking more and more at military intervention as a win or lose occurrence; a black and white us vs. them conflict. But the situation in Libya is more complicated than that. We went as peace keepers, and intimidation. Now we have to consider whether overthrowing a government that hasn’t provoked us directly is the right thing to do. And if we did, who will take power? Short sided thinking like that can lead to prolonged occupation (see Iraq).

Part of me wonders if video games contribute to this narrow mindset of war. In video games, it is rather simple. Someone shoots at you, keep shooting back until no one is left shooting at you. You don’t have to consider why they are shooting at you and what the political consequences are of open fire on them. Games also condition us to think of war as constant conflict. They aren’t set up to amplify guarding essential public utilities for months on end. And no one thinks about the aid that comes in the form of non-military supplies.

I am not one of those that thinks that video games and constant media coverage make us numb to the horrors of war. But it has changed the way we view what a war entails. We want clear results NOW!

Social Media: I apologize...slightly

So the dreaded (for me) Twitter project is in the history books, but I’m still thinking about Twitter’s place in the world. And I think I have had a change in my attitude towards Twitter. I began this semester with a very strong hatred toward social media. But after the experimenting with Twitter it I am willing now to give credit where credit is due. Social Media has its place in the world. Let us make it very clear that I am not going to continue using Twitter and I still think that Facebook is for the most part is a scourge of humanity. But both sites have proven a shred of worth to me over the past couple months.

I find Facebook to be an extremely valuable tool for small businesses. Especially restaurants and bars. I have used Facebook as the number one tool for finding out business hours for many Muncie establishments that don’t have their own website. It is a great cheap way to make your company known. And unlike a website, changes can be made very easily to menus and specials.

Twitter on the other hand does have connectivity going for it. I don’t mean connecting you to Kim Kardashian’s babble. But having the ability to stay connected to current events in the world or things that you may not go out of you way to find outside of Twitter. For personal example, my sister has a great literature blog http://notyourmamasbookshelf2.blogspot.com/ (shameless plug) but I am always forgetting to check for updates. But she is able to preview an update in Twitter and link to it. So if I was someone always checking Twitter, I am more likely to remember. I realized then can also be greatly applied to World News. I think everyone with a Twitter account should follow at least one News Company, because you are being inundated with current event happenings without knowing or taking effort, and if something does interest you, you merely have to click a link.

Social Media: I still hate you, but I can at least respect you now.

The Evolution of a Reality TV show.

In class, when we talk about the kind of characters that reality TV show's feature, the "crazy slutty bitch" is a oft recurring theme. But how did this become such common place? Why are we subjected to such characters time and time again? I believe we did this to ourselves, we demanded it. To help prove my theory, let us examine the VH1 reality series "Rock of Love". Rock of Love featured Bret Michaels (of Poison fame) in his search for true love within a house full of 20-or-so women competing for his affection. There were 3 seasons of this show. (Apparently finding love in a game show format doesn't work out too well. Who'd of thought?) Season one featured a wide variety in the types of women in the house. There were punky girls, hippie girls, and groupie girls. There were some quiet reserved ones and over the top big breasted bimbos. The finally actually came down to the most human and nicer girls on the show. But when that relationship failed to take off and season two looked imminent, the producers probably used focus groups and research to figure out what girls the viewers were most interested in seeing. And it wasn't the calm and rather sane Amber. It was the "crazy whore" Daisy and bitchy Heather that drew the most attention. Daisy even got her own show on VH1. And low and behold on season three "Tour Bus of Love" we have nothing but plastic bitchy women.

So before you go and complain that reality TV is shoving poor role models in front of us, remember, producers listen to the audience. And the ridiculous tests better that normalcy.

Product Placement

I, like most of you I’m sure, have become quite accustom to product placement is movies and TV. Product placement is when companies pay to have their product used in a shot. A good example is all those darn Coca-Cola bottles and cups on the judges table of American Idol. Cars are a very common prop in movies that is decided by advertisers. Most of the time the placement is inconspicuous. The character gets in his car and the shot is framed in such a way that we see the Mercedes Benz logo on the steering wheel. Occasionally the company makes it well known that their product is in a movie. When I, Robot was about to be released, Audi ran an commercial displaying how they designed the futuristic car Will Smith drives in the film. And the Audi logo is featured prominently during the film.

But typically product placement is rather hush hush. The logo is seen, but it doesn’t affect the way the actor behaves or what they say. But recently I was watching Freedom Writers, starring Hillary Swank educating troubled inner-city kids. In the film, there is a scene where the kids are to make a “toast to change” and pick up their bag of assigned books for the semester. (http://www1.teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?title=Freedom_Writers_Part_8&video_id=88028 around the 40 second mark) The table behind Swank is lined with Border’s bags. I had no problem with this, just another run-of-the-mill example of product placement. But the dialogue used actually mentions Borders by name. “I want each of you to come up here and take one of these Borders bags, which contain the 4 books you will be reading this semester.” I found the unnecessary mention of the company by name off-putting. When the advertisers start determining dialogue, it draws attention to the product placement and, in my opinion, makes the film seem less credible. As if they are selling themselves out even more than usual. I was just wondering if product placement ever takes you out of the show. Or are we all immune to it by this point?

Group Project: Video Games and Women

Ashley knapp, jesus Martinez, tyler pittman, steven towle, matt patton, mikey whiteker, renee Atkinson

GOALS/THESIS: Our video text will address the issue of stereotyping of women in the medium of video games. It will take a historical approach by illuminating the milestones in women in video game history as far as female characterization is concerned. The Damsel in Distress, the Dangerous Midriff, the Just One of the Boys, the Ghost Girlfriend, and other tropes will be discussed with examples. These will be integrated into video examples of the same stereotypes in other medias such as television and movies from the same time period to show the male dominated industries provide a limited vision of women through the male gaze regardless of the particular medium used. We will also touch on how consolidation has limited the consumers options , like in Rich Media, Poor democracy. We will tie in some o f the definition about masculinity to the documentary Culture of Cool, and how important the virtual citizen soldier is to our ideas of masculinity in video games, terrorist thwarting movie and television plots.

INFLUENCES: Our group has a variety of viewpoints in it. We have some members who haven’t played video games since childhood, we have some members who love video games, and some members who only play video games occasionally. Our group has 3 women and 4 men, which will influence how we look at gender issues to come out a bit more evenly. Our group’s perspective is limited by all over us being enrolled at the same Midwestern college as far as education level, socioeconomic class, and geographic influence.

Idea for video: A composite documentary using existing video game play footage, video game trailers, film trailers, television ads, and scenes from movies and film with voice over narration summarizing main ideas. Dissection of each stereotype will be divided into two parts revealing the stereotype in the video game via video scenes and audio explanation, before following it up with a Film/TV example of a similar trope using footage and voice over narration.

Our introduction will feature a quick history of video games contrasted with a history of films and tv (Not in-depth, just things like starting dates, demographics of industry leaders. )

Our conclusion will feature in reiterating our main argument with more evidence that video games are gender segregated, and revealing that films and TV are much the same way. It will end on a hopeful note that all mediums are trying to draw in all audiences, though, and hopefully attain a more balanced portrayal of gender.

RESOURCES: We will secure the resources we need by dividing up the labor for the project. Because we will not be shooting new footage, we need only to ensure the group member doing the recording has an adequate microphone. We will always be able to share audio files digitally if we cannot arrange a time to meet in person. We have divided the job of project idea, initial script and outline, video gather/conversion to different individuals in the group.