Old vs. New

This picture is a satire on the advance of technology. During the past two decades, we have seen a major change in the way we consume media. The move from cassette tapes to IPods happened within a ten year period. I remember being five or six years old, listening to my cassette player, and by the time I turned 15, I had an mp3 player. This shift occurred congruent to the improvements made to computers and the internet. The cassette player in this pic represents the older view of new technology being something dangerous and delinquent, and the IPod represents the view of the younger generation which is a “Nobody cares” sort of attitude. The older view is stuck in the past, and not realizing the benefits of “youth” or in other words “new technology” because at some point in time all old technology were “new technology,” but instead of empathizing, we see ridicule and judgment. Many view new things as something dangerous because they do not know how to take in all its “newness.” This pokes fun at the idea of the past being so much greater than the present and not to mention the future. If instead of highlighting the disadvantages of new technology (all technologies have their disadvantages), we focus on what new and old technology have in common or why new technology is beneficial, then we will be that much closer to bettering ourselves as a society. I say this because technological advance reflect where we are as a society.

Good Parenting?

In Saginaw,Micigan lived a rich timber baron named Wellington R. Burt who died in 1919. He was valued to be one of the richest men at the time with a multimillion dollar fortune currently valued at 100 million. You would think his prosperity would be well off after his death with that kind of fortune. That is not quite the case. Wellington made an usual will which is just taking effect this month over 80 years later which passes on his fortune 21 years after his last grandchild's death. That pretty much means his son's and grandchildren didn't any of this fortune to themselves. He reportedly gave his favorite son $30,000 while leaving everyone else with nearly squat. I'm not too sure if this is a good parenting technique or not. It kind of seems like he is trying to make sure that his kids and grand kids don't grow spoiled, however I would take it the wrong way and assume my grandpa didn't like me if I was one of the grand kids. Is generation-skipping trusts a common thing? What implications can this kind of behavior have on one's own children and their grandchildren? Wellington's great great great great granchild, Christina Cameron, is currently set to receive the largest amount of the inheritance at over 3 million dollars. The rest will be split up between three great grandchildren, seven great great grandchildren, and Christina. Is this messed up or what?

Mr. Bojangles

Mr. Bojangles is a perfect example when speaking of Black portrayal on television in the past. Mr. Bojangles was basically an in-house servant. In ‘Color Adjustment’ one of the statements emphasized was that the few blacks that actually had the opportunity on TV, were portrayed on television in the beginning years as being happy. This was a time of extreme hardship and pain for black people as a whole. White people did not except them. Families were broken up due to slavery. Life was not good. I highly doubt Bojangles was truly ecstatic about helping a little girl tap dance down the stairs. In reality he probably would have been beaten or killed for being so close to her. A grown black man and a little white girl would have never been alone together in that time. Mr. Bojangles was in multiple films around the 30’s and 40’s and he was always the “happy” guy waiting to help out. With a smile always present, a viewer would think that these times were nothing but pleasant. This inaccurate viewpoint fooled viewers into thinking black people were “fine.” If the movies show them being happy, then that must be the real feelings they have.

Judas is Evil!

This week I came across this video response to Lady Gaga's song Jesus. The song upset a girl so much to the point that it brought her to tears. She claims the song is evil and goes against the Church... woah. I would at least give her some credit if she made some valid arguments. She first claims that Judas is another word for Jesus which is absolutely false. Shout out to my bible buffs: Judas was one of the 12 apostles. He actually betrayed Jesus which makes him a bad boy which is why he happens to turn Lady Gaga on. Which is weird because I thought she was into girls? Whatever the case may be, Judas is not Jesus. The other point she makes is how if one has sex then they go to hell. hmm... Last time I checked, sex was a part of our evolution as a species and she would not be alive without it.

Rather than being angry at the song, she should just be flat out confused as to what is going on in Lady Gaga's head. I mean, I guess the song is catchy, but at what point does Lady Gaga stop making "a statement" and just start acting weird for weird's sake. Sometimes, less is more, and Gaga needs to take a chill pill. Remember the first big song that she came out with? Just Dance. Simple stupid, good song, and it got people moving. Then again, she's making millions, and I am not.

Sequels Galore

Let's admit it: there will be a Hangover 3. Why? Because Part II will spend a couple weeks at the top of the box office and another installment would do the same in the future. Plus, there are still bachelors remaining in the script. How convenient.
11 of the top 20 all-time grossing films in the US have been sequels or installments in a series of films. Why another Pirates of the Carribbean movie? Goodness, I completely forgot about Fast5. There are some standard questions that are always asked about these movies: Is it as good as the first one? If it's based on a book, is it as good as the book? Are the special effects the only thing impressive? Are the special effects/computer animation terrible? Dialogue, anybody?

It is safe to say that it is easier to win an Oscar than it is to get 100 million people to see the film. And, in many cases (not all), the more money you spend in Hollywood the more money you make. Plus, Americans have an enormous appetite for cheese. Who is this silent majority? Why is critical and general opinion about blockbuster movies so wishy washy and so many people still see them?

Can it be chalked up to marketing? Or have our standards fallen this far?

A Heavy Bottom FTW?

This Nike ad portrays that it is alright to have a curvaceous body or bottom heavy body as long as the skin is tight. In other words, being thick or voluptuous only becomes a problem when a woman has excessive flabby skin. This advertisement is not defying boundaries or creating empowerment for the curvaceous woman because it is still creating an ideology that they must abide to. Instead of creating a commonality between the consumer and the model, it just further points out the stereotype that women of color are the only ones with a butt. According to “Categorizing the Other: Stereotypes and Stereotyping”, the idea that “stereotypes flatten, homogenize, and generalize individuals within a group, emphasizing sameness and ignoring individual agency and variety” is reinforced (16). Nike tries to illustrate that the woman has agency because the woman is compared to a border collie, which is part of a breed of herding dogs. In addition, she is the one who is in control of her fit body thanks to “ten thousand lunges” and that those who mind her bottom heavy body are “invited to kiss it”. This advertisement proves that the in group are petite Caucasian women while the out group are those women of color. Thus, it still proves that the out group is subordinate. Why is it that Nike believes women of color need such empowerment? Had the woman been Caucasian the writing on the side would have been different because a different stereotype would be “addressed”.

Logorama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ligDITLoehA

In the short film, Logorama, we see an alternate reality in which there is nothing but “Logos,” which are advertisement. The short get’s us to think about the effects that all of these logos influence our lives, especially living in a society which is now saturated with different advertisements from all over. All industries have a targeted market, but at the same time, each industry want to appeal to as many as possible, a result of political economy, and the Logo’s while making fun of advertisement, is also being critical of how our society has changed. For instance, if we look at how women are portrayed as sex objects through the “Esso,” which is the name of an oil and fuel company. This connotes a sense of being taken advantage of, since the world has abused oil and fuel, much like a woman. We also see Ronald McDonald as the bad guy, which would work to paint a picture of childhood obesity, or obesity in general. This can also be seen as a view on McDonald’s as a brand in general. Furthermore, we see the two boys at the zoo, misbehaving and being disrespectful. The colloquialisms used in the film work to heighten the sense of post-modernity and how norms are redefined from generation to generation. Logorama is touching on several themes that force us to look at ourselves as a whole.