Media and Fear

Before taking this course, I was already extremely skeptical of our country and how we presented issues of fear in the media. After this semester, I am even more untrusting of our news system and the stories that we are being told are important. Instead of being told the truth, we are being told to live in fear, and I really think that it is destroying us as a country.

I honestly value everything that I have learned this semester. Even if we read articles or watched documentaries on issues that I already knew about, it was really refreshing to have our weekly discussions and hear other people's opinions and takes on what we were talking about. I think that is part of what made the class so special to me.

It really upsets me that we live in a country in which we are constantly being lied to by what are supposed to be "trusted" news sources. The journalists that we watch nightly and turn to for important news are repeatedly misleading us or flat out lying in order to further the agenda of those in charge of them. It is honestly pretty sickening to me. What is worse than this being the case is that most Americans are completely unaware that they are being lied to. They have no idea that what they are listening to nightly is all perfectly crafted in order to present one image and one story, rather than to represent the truth and get out a real news story. I think what also makes me very upset is knowing that so many Americans are completely unwilling to acknowledge that the news could be incorrect or misleading, because they want to believe that it is just the skeptical liberals who hate America trying to bring down our news system. I think everyone in America should be required to take courses such as this one or read the articles we have read. I think everyone could stand to be a little more educated.

Something that has really stood out to me throughout the course of the semester is the reoccurring idea of the Other. I did not realize how repeatedly we create new Others in our society, and they are all created in order to benefit those in power. It is really disturbing to me. It has to lead one to wonder who the next enemy is going to be. I had always thought of the Other in the context of horror movies, but never really thought about it as much in our society, but it really is completely true. We have to have people in our culture that we cannot trust. We have to constantly live in a state of paranoia. As Americans, we are supposed to be able to trust our leaders and those in charge, but we are always being lied to or told to hate new enemies. It is truly disturbing how many people blindly follow what they are told, do not think twice about the information they are given, and then just live in ignorance.

After this class, I am truly going to be even more conscious and skeptical about what information I am being given. I am just always going to be thinking that any new "dangerous fad" or trend is just being told to us to keep us scared and keep us from thinking about the real problems in our culture. We really would much rather fear something completely detached and unrelated to us than think about things that we really should be afraid of. As Americans, we want to live in this ignorance. We don't want to think that we could be at fault for anything and that there is nothing inherently wrong with our society. I think that we really need a huge wake up call and we deserve to be told the truth.

Overall, I really enjoyed this course. It was definitely my favorite course of this semester, and I really appreciated all of our discussions and everyone in the class for participating as much as they did. Also, I really thought the readings we were assigned were extremely thought-provoking and smart, and the films we watched were enlightening and fit in extremely well with what we were learning. I honestly enjoyed the class a lot and will miss it.

On a final note, I want to say remember what Public Enemy told us: Don't Believe the Hype

The Power of Nightmares: Part III

Finally, we come to the conclusion of Adam Curtis' documentary "The Power of Nightmares". In this section, we look deeper into the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on 9/11 and our search for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda after that. This part really had me thinking a lot about us as Americans and as citizens in this country. Also, it brought up bad memories of He Who Should Not Be Name (aka George W. Bush).

I always forget how much I hate George W. until I watch him speak. He is just so unintelligent to me that it is ridiculous. Whenever I see him speak, it still baffles me as to how he was elected not once but TWICE as our president (although I still have my concerns over his first "election" in 2000). The parts of this documentary also make it even more glaringly obvious that all of our military involvement in the Middle East is a continuation of him finishing what his father started. Here's a chart that someone put together of how similar the faces George W. makes to a chimpanzee.

What really stands out to me was when a clip from Bush was included with him stating that it is not the job of the United States to go into other countries when we feel it is necessary and implement change. He said that America is not to think that what we do and how we do it is right and therefore, other people must be like us. This clip was from 2000, yet in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, Bush pulled a complete 180 and that was essentially the cry of the War on Terror: we have democracy, we're bringing it to them. What they're doing is wrong, and it is our job to right them. Although I do not agree with tyranny and the laws of many Middle Eastern countries, I also believe that it is not our place to jump in and kill civilians under the false premise that we're bringing them democracy. We were completely misled from the beginning of this war, and some are still under the false impression that what we're doing over there is actually helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Something else interesting that I noticed in the film is the idea of just aimlessly searching for terrorists in not only Afghanistan, but also the United States. There is a clip of a patrol man saying that we do not know what a terrorist looks like, what a terrorist wears, and what kind of car a terrorist drives. However, we still seemed to have found a way to find and detain terrorists, and they were all interestingly enough Muslim or Middle Eastern. Pretty much, that is what we have to base terrorists off of in the United States. If they are Middle Eastern, wear a turban, practice a foreign religion - they must be a terrorist. It's disgusting to think that we really used such shameful stereotyping as this, but we did and still do in this country.

Another standout moment in the film for me was the idea that we are chasing a phantom enemy, rather than getting down to looking into the real reason behind our fear of terrorism and who we are calling terrorists. The American and British troops were scoping out Afghanistan to look for terrorists associate with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, even though it was discovered that the attacks were planned by a small group of men based around Bin Laden, and the term Al Qaeda wasn't even given to them until we needed a name for our enemy. This stands out to me because it reminds me of what we discuss in class all of the time. Rather than looking for the root causes in society for a problem, we instead look at individual cases and examples and then make up sweeping generalizations about a group of people or an illness. It's really unfortunate and something that our country needs to stop doing. We'd rather just assume that all Arabs are terrorists, rather than think about as a society why we chose them to be our current "Other".

All in all, I really thought this was a smart and thought provoking documentary. Go figure it would need to be done by a British person rather than an American to lay down all of the facts, rather than just glaze over the topics as we have been given them. Also, as I've said before, the parallels between the Neo-Conservative movement and the Radical Islamist movement is really astonishing. I've always personally looked at the Neo-Conservatives as an enemy, specifically as a woman, seeing as how they are looking to essentially strip me of my rights and are attempting to control my body. I think that more Americans could benefit greatly from watching this documentary and learning the actual facts about two movements that are at complete odds, but really have so much in common.

The Power of Nightmares: Part II

The second part of Adam Curtis' documentary "The Power of Nightmares" takes us through the 80's and 90's, as we see the evolution of both the Neo-Conservative and Islamic Radicalist movements. As I pointed it out in my last post, it is really interesting to see the parallels between the two groups. Both had to deal with major backlash and hardships before getting to the levels of power that they are at now, and both had to rely on scare tactics (although in different ways) to get to those levels as well.

What stood out to me the most during this portion of the documentary was the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement. The film discussed how when attempting to gain followers to the movement through the use of morality and religion, people actually turned away from the ideals and were looking for a different candidate other than the conservative George H.W. Bush to vote for. This surprised me because I didn't realize how the strategy used by the Neo-Conservatives backfired on them. I had assumed that he had his followers and those who believed his ideals, and so he won. I was actually really glad to hear this to, because it gives me some hope that people in this country care about personal rights, which Bush's morality campaign unfortunately attempted to strip away from us. I feel though that this is happening again with this current election, as the republican candidates are focusing a lot on morality issues, and I'm hoping that this won't work out as it didn't for Bush when he ran for re-election. It was also interesting to see how conservatives literally "boo-ed" conservative candidates who didn't want to take away human rights. That really shows the power that he Neo-Conservatives had. One of the commentators in the film even said that America was a myth and it was buying into its myth. America created its own past and stories and we were believing them under the Neo-Conservative rule.

I want to point out that I also liked the section about Bill Clinton and how the Neo-Conservatives failed at getting their smear campaign about him going because "polls showed Americans didn't care about moral issues". I liked hearing that because it bothers me when people try to pull the morality card, seeing as how morality is essentially based off of religion and not everyone has the same beliefs, which we tend to forget in our country.

The portions about the growth of the Islamic Radicalist movement also were interesting to me and provided new information that I wasn't aware of. I had not heard of all the other attacks that the Jihad had done in Africa and that they were shunned and turned against by other Muslims. This honestly made me pretty happy because it shows that not all Muslims are terrorists and support the actions of the extremists. I already knew this, but I think it would be important for a lot of other Americans to see this documentary as well to learn that. Our fear of Muslims is not really a fear of Muslims, but just the most extreme example of a group of them that we have seen. Americans need to realize that.

The idea of terrorists and terrorism always scares me, but the ending of this part of the documentary really sent chills down my spine. The fact that the extremists turned their attention specifically to America and bringing down America's excessiveness really disturbs me. Obviously, I have learned that other countries hate America, but it's really unsettling to see the actual footage of people saying they want to bring death to our country. I don't think I'll ever get used to it. The ending of the film left me nervous for the final installment and I know I'm going to have a hard time sitting through that, as it seems our present is scarier than our past.

The Power Of Nightmares: Part I

Now, I know that I'm a bit off here. I sincerely apologize or posting a day (almost two) late for this week's post. To be honest, the long weekend threw me off and I completely forgot that it was Sunday and missed the deadline. So, I'll make up for it now.

The first part of Adam Curtis' "The Power of Nightmares" was a very insightful look into the creations of the Neo-Conservative and Islamic radical movements. What was most interesting was the look at their parallels to one another in the creation of fear and scare tactics that have been bombarding not only our society, but most parts of the world, for the past few decades. It is interesting to look at our society and culture now, how we think and act, and then watch a documentary such as this one and see how our thoughts and ideas have changed over time due to historic events that may have not seemed as significant at the time.

The film begins by discussing Sayed Kotb (also spelled "Sayyid Qutb"), an Egyptian Muslim who traveled to America to study the education system. Once here, he was horrified with how materialistic and individualistic Americans were and decided that he needed to start a movement back in Egypt to make sure that Egyptians did not turn out the same way. The film explains that Kotb was overwhelmed with how much people only talked about celebrities or their automobile expenses. This made me wonder how he would react if he were here now, in present day, when our culture is so much more focused and obsessed with the entertainment industry and our purchases. It kind of does show that his fear of Americans becoming more self-involved was true, but I clearly think he went to extreme lengths and shared extreme ideals when he returned home to make sure the same thing didn't happen over there.

 Kotb

Parallel to this information about Kotb, the documentary provides information on Leo Strauss, the father of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States. Like Kotb, Strauss was horrified with the materialism of the American culture. He was more concerned with the idea of liberalism spreading and that the growth of materialism and individualism would lead to selfish lifestyles. I think it really is extremely interesting that the foundations of what our country has turned into was happening at about the same time as the foundations of our "completely enemy", and it seems that they both began for the same reasons. It goes to show that these two different groups of people may have more in common than they would think, but in this world we all feel we deserve to have a sense of entitlement, so there could be no way that we could work together. On the other hand, however, I completely disagree with the beliefs of both Neo-Conservatives and Islamic radicals, so I would not want them working together, because I have been led to believe that this will only lead to violence and evil.

 Strauss

Although this was only part one of the documentary and therefore more introductory than the following parts will be, I can definitely see how these two movements completely work to shape our ideas about fear. Both use extreme scare tactics, they are both using religion to push forth their ideals, that ideal being that they are going to rid the world of evil, and they are offering violence as a solution. Although both groups would definitely not want to admit it, they have way more in common than many Americans would think on their own. I am excited to watch the next two parts of the documentary to see how these movements grew and got us to the point we are at today with how we think about each.

Beyond Beats and Rhymes

Like most comm students, I have taken multiple Sut Jhally classes. I think I've taken all of them, actually. So, having taken these courses, I have seen the documentary, or at least different parts of the documentary "Beyond Beats and Rhymes" multiple times. Although I am so familiar with the film and the subject matter, whenever I rewatch it, I still find myself getting shocked and disgusted over the same parts.

I find myself in a similar position to Byron's when I have to think about the idea of rap music. On the one hand, I am a huge fan of rap music; I grew up with cousins who were deeply immersed in the genre and listened to it constantly. I just love the way some songs sound and the way the words flow with the music. However, over time, I have come to see just how misogynistic and homophobic, and just downright hateful in general, most rap music is, and this causes a huge problem for me. Whereas Byron finds himself at odds with rap music because he is black and rap is such a huge part of the black community, I find myself at odds with it because I am a woman and so much of rap is revolved around the idea of demeaning and objectifying women. On top of this, I also have several close friends and family members who are gay, so that just adds onto my problem. Although I hate the message being sent out through the lyrics of rap music, I can't help but find myself rapping along with the artists and nodding my head to the beats.

I think that the documentary itself can be seen as incredibly brave. Byron goes into the black and rap communities to discuss the deeper meanings behind both rap music and the industry. What always astounds me is the reaction from rappers when he asks them questions pertaining to misogyny. If Byron asks a question about the need for masculinity in rap culture, all the rappers agree that it was what we were taught about in our society; men need guns and tattoos to show that they are "tough" and "real men". However, when Byron would mention how women are portrayed in videos and through lyrics, the rappers never seemed to see much of an issue. Russell Simmons, who is supposed to be such an activist, doesn't even really show any real concern about the issue, simply stating that it would be impossible to get involved in every issue. With misogyny being so prominent in rap culture, it's pretty concerning that Simmons could consider it with the issues that he doesn't need to get involved in directly.

What is more concerning, however, is the interviews that Byron did with women down in Daytona for BET spring break who just accepted the objectification and assault that was thrown at them. They just accepted it as a part of what rap is and what society has taught men that they are allowed to do and how to act, so they didn't attempt to talk back to the men who were harassing them. This is really a huge problem. Women are not only allowing themselves to be objectified in this way, but also accepting it. That is just an overriding summary of how most women who listen to rap deal with the subject. The women being interviewed were explaining how although there is sexism in rap, the insults aren't being directed at specific women in particular, so it isn't an issue. It is this kind of thinking that really pushes women's rights back decades and allows men to continue living the way they do.

Every time I watch this documentary, I come to appreciate Chuck D more and more. I have seen other interviews with him and documentaries that he comments on, and he just further proves himself to be one of the only popular rappers who is willing to deal with actual issues and discuss them, rather than shutting them down and ignoring them. It is that kind of bravery that is extremely needed in the rap community. Other rappers need to follow his lead and come to do the same. Here's a picture of him that I like for everyone's enjoyment:

I think something that really stood out to me was when Byron interviewed hopeful rappers, they explained how they very easily could make a real rap that deals with real issues and still sounds good, but no one wants to hear that. We have been taught that being sexist and hateful will sell records and make you famous, so even if you don't agree with what you are saying, you will say it in order to get a foot in the door. It is yet another huge issue within the rap community that needs to be addressed, rather than swept under the rug.

As I've said, I really enjoy this documentary. It always gives me a new insight into the rap community and reminds me that no matter how much time passes, we are still allowing the same music with the same messages to be made, without a hand being raised to object to it. To end my blog, here's a link to David Guetta's and Akon's "Sexy Bitch", because I have nothing but anger toward this song, which was not only ridiculously popular, but also ridiculously stupid and sexist. And, yet again, no one questioned it.

Sexy Bitch

On Orientalism

Edward Said's "On Orientalism" provides an in-depth look into the perceptions of Muslims, the religion of Islam, Middle Easterners, and the Middle East itself that we have come to know and understand as fact in the United States. The news media and entertainment industry have taught us that Middle Easterners are violent, hateful, and extremists. These ideas are continuously upheld by these media and our country has accepted them as true, with almost no exception. Said explains that it is our lack of knowledge about that area of the world itself that is helping with upholding our misconceptions.

The main portrayal we see of Middle Easterners in film and on television is that of the fanatic terrorist. We are taught to believe that essentially all Middle Easterners and Muslims are suicide bombers, waiting to destroy the United States. This idea was already extremely prevalent in the 1980's and 1990's, but became even more enforced after the 9/11 attacks. Because we are only showed such a limited view of who and what Muslims are in the news and on television shows, we are to believe that what we are shown is true and this further stigmatizes Muslims and those from the Middle East. We are also generally shown men being the main perpetrators of these crimes and acts, so that leads us to absolutely believe that Middle Eastern men are extremely violent.

Another portrayal of Middle Easterns that we see is the hyper-sexualized subservient woman. The females we see are scantily clad, usually belly dancing, and generally always serving men. These women are also usually portrayed as deviant and not to be trusted. It is interesting to see how because the United States is upholding these stereotypes, we have familiar themes of sexism and objectification when dealing with the portrayal of women.

Something I found interesting is the idea of the movie "Aladdin". Growing up in the Disney generation of the 90's, I have seen "Aladdin" more times than I can count. I've only started noticing recently after re-watching it at an older age just how racist the portrayal of Middle Easterners are. Physically, they are mostly menacing-looking. Jafar himself is very scary-looking, as are all of the men who work security (I think that's what they're supposed to be doing). The men who work in the marketplace are all complete caricatures. The women in the film are either absolutely beautiful, with unrealistic bodies (a la Jasmine), or overweight and unappealing. There is no middle ground. Personality-wise, most of the characters seem devious and underhanded. It is just amazing to think about how all of the stereotypes we have been taught about Middle Easterners are all present in this one children's film, and we don't even realize it.

These stereotypes are allowed to be upheld, and are even accepted in our society, due to our lack of knowledge about the Middle East. We know nothing of the area itself, other than what we are taught on the news and in movies, and this information is misleading and racist. It is really astounding to see how our idea of the Other that Hall discusses has evolved and changed form over time, to not only include Middle Easterners and Muslims as the Other, but to perhaps now have replaced African Americans as the Other. We are still not attempting to learn about the Middle East or Islam, we are allowing them to stay separate - and as we are taught, below us - from us. As Said explains, we need to contextualize our history and their histories and learn to understand our history in terms of theirs. We need to stop comparing the histories as better or worse than the other, and accept Middle Easterners and Muslims as a part of our culture, rather than as the Other.

The Semester So Far

I have really been enjoying this course so far this semester. I think that it is an important course to offer because we are so inundated with images and stories of fear that I really feel the topic needs to be addressed and discussed. I do not think that people in our society realize just how much the news is either misleading us, leaving out facts, or just flat out lying to us about very important issues, just so they can press on with their own agenda.

I also have enjoyed a lot of the readings that we have done up to this point. I liked reading the chapters from Glassner that we have read. He brings up a lot of very important issues in our society that we focus on to an insane degree, but we do not realize that we are being lied to and misinformed about. I think that his chapters are not only interesting but also pretty easy to get through, which makes reading them a better experience.

My favorite discussion section so far hands down has to be the one about horror movies. I've stated this about seventy times so far in this blog, but I love horror movies. I love being able to discuss them and look further into them. I took the horror class offered at UMass last semester, and I was sad to see it end. Having that discussion and doing those readings brought me back a little bit and let me extend the class in a sense, so I was really happy and appreciative about that.

The documentaries and films we have been assigned have also all been engaging. I don't think that I have sat through any of them feeling bored or that I haven't taken something out of it. I think that my favorites we have been assigned were "Bowling for Columbine" and "The Golden Age of Horror" (I don't remember if that is the actual title and for some reason I cannot make myself go find out for a fact). I am already a Michael Moore fan and love "Bowling for Columbine". I just think it is such a smart documentary and one that every American citizen should see. Obviously, Moore is an outspoken liberal so he is ignored by many sectors of the United States, but he really s a smart man who knows what he is talking about. I think that it was clear that I would be a fan of the horror documentary. I love horror movie countdowns and interviews with those involved with the films, especially the filmmakers. I love getting their perspective on what went into making the film and the meanings they put behind it or took out of it after it was completed. Although some parts of the documentary made me a little queasy, it was overall an enjoyable experience watching it.

I do not really think that I have any complaints for the class. I guess I would say that some of the readings, such as the Hall articles, were a little slow for me, or did not keep my attention as much as some of the others. Other than that, I don't know if I really have any other issues. I do not feel that we are assigned too much work, and I like that the class only meets one day a week because I like to have free days in my schedule. Although, this would be one class that I actually wouldn't mind meeting multiple days of the week.

I am really glad that this class is a discussion. I think that when talking about such important issues, it is important that all voices can be heard and that everyone who wants to can express his or her opinion about the topics at hand. I am very glad that I decided to take this course, and I genuinely look forward to what we are going to learn in the upcoming weeks.

HAPPY SPRING BREAK EVERYONE!! I'm off to Florida in the morning. I hope everyone has a great week!

"War on Drugs: The Prison Industrial Complex" and "Oz"

Going into watching this week's blog assignment, "War on Drugs: The Prison Industrial Complex", I already knew that I would have strong feelings on the subject. I feel that our prison system is completely corrupt and needs to really be figured out. What really stood out to me the most is the idea of how easily someone can be arrested for drug-related offenses, and for how long. Drug crime offenders can be put away for years upon years for crimes that don't cause direct and immediate harm to others, yet people will be put away for far less time or totally acquitted for very violent and dangerous crimes. There is a complete system in place for drug-related crimes, and it's really messed up to me that the police officers interviewed were acting as if that isn't an issue in and of itself.

As someone who has had family members with drug problems, and therefor also trouble with the law, I think it is such a problem that we so easily throw those with drug problems in prison - already extremely overcrowded prisons - rather than putting them in programs to get help and quit their addictions. It seems that in the United States, we want to choose the quickest and easiest solution, rather than what is probably the correct or most beneficial solution.

Something else that stood out to me in the documentary was the discussion about what the police will seize from people who they suspect of being involved with drugs. Someone interviewed was saying the police can seize large sums of money because there is a suspicion it has to do with drugs, but they don't need any solid proof or evidence that this is true. If anything, this just pushes the Hollywood stereotype of police officers being the bad guys and crooked cops, involved in shady business. That makes people not want to trust authority. I think that it's really all just a cycle. Also, I feel like we never hear about this at all, and it reminds me of how we are also not told all information on the news. We aren't given full stories about anything that would make those "above" us be portrayed in a negative light. Also, I feel that like media moguls that run the news corporations, the police officers are working for their own agenda. I feel like nothing is being done for the benefit of the people anymore.

I noticed something very interesting while watching clips of "Oz". On the side of the screen where it gives recommendations for other clips and videos you should watch, almost all of them had the title "Oz: death of ______".  It's pretty concerning to me that so many of the clips were only of the deaths of the characters. I think that this says a lot. Not only is it saying that murder is a very prominent subject on the show, but it is also saying that the murders themselves are the most viewed clips and most popular moments on the show. If people sit around watching these clips, they are watching solely scenes depicting brutal murder. This is just saying so much not only about the show itself, but also the audience. The show is portraying the inmates as evil and murderous, and the audience is completely receptive of this. This is a completely misleading portrayal of the prison system. As we saw in the film "The Prison Industrial Complex", these kind of people are clearly not really the most prominent in jails. Rather, it is those there for non-violent crimes. This really is dangerous to viewers of the show. As we read in the Yousman article, people are going to get the wrong idea of those in jail and support the prison system to put these characters away, when they are really in the minority.

As I stated before, I really think that the prison and police systems need a reboot. Our money could be going toward finding actual dangerous criminals, rather than throwing in those who need help, not incarceration.

The American Nightmare

I feel that I've stated this several times before in this blog, but I'll state it again: I am a huge fan of horror movies. So watching a documentary about horror films is really ideal to me. I've actually seen several before throughout the years, so a lot of the information given about the films themselves and people interviewed in the documentary "The American Nightmare: The History of Horror's Golden Age" were very familiar to me. However, I also gained a lot of new information and insight from those interviewed about their personal experiences and feelings on both history and American culture.

The interview that stood out to me the most in the film was that of Tom Savini. I have seen interviews with Savini before, but they were purely related to films, rather than his own backstory and interest in the horror genre. His story about eyewitnessing everything happening in Vietnam was ridiculous to me, because I could really not ever imagine being a witness to the events during any war, let alone what we know of Vietnam. It makes sense to me that someone who has gone through that experience would be interested in doing make up for horror films, and also be interested in horror films in general. I feel like with an experience like that, a person would either be completely repelled by the horror genre or completely interested in it. I don't think there can be an in between. So Savini's story made complete sense to me.

I also found it interesting later when Savini was explaining that George Romero's intention was to make the audience numb to the violence. This fits so well with Savini's story, as he explains how the camera acted as some sort of fence or separation from the real dead bodies he was taking pictures of. He was shielding himself and in a way becoming numb to what was around him because he knew he had to in order to get through his ordeal. That entire interview was just very interesting to me.

Something that also stands out to me is something that was presented on the discussion board. Someone stated that they think it is more the analyzers of horror films who are giving them the cultural meaning the movies then take on. While part of me really agreed with this when I first saw the statement, after viewing this film, I think differently. Clearly, not all filmmakers are going out there to produce a groundbreaking, hard-hitting film that will impact us insanely culturally. However, true filmmakers, such as Romero and Craven, really did have a specific meaning and intention behind what they were doing, and that's completely evident from their interviews. There are those out there looking to say something with their work, rather than to just make money. I do find it ironic, however, that many of the filmmakers interviewed in this documentary HAVE in fact gone on to create some God-awful films all for the sake of making a profit. It's very interesting actually, since Carpenter himself says that the filmmakers of the "golden age" were rejecting the dogma of the 50's, but now have sold out and just want to make money. This definitely seems to be true.

I really enjoyed this documentary. It gave me an overwhelmingly unsettling feeling, however. One reason is because of the clips from the film "Shivers". That was just disgusting. I have heard of David Cronenberg, but never this film. While I love horror movies, I really do not like gore and horrifying malformations of bodies, or whatever it was that was going on in those clips. I understood what Cronenberg was getting at with his work, but those clips were really grossing me out and I had a difficult time watching them. Since horror films are supposed to disturb us to our core, I'd say he accomplished his mission.

There is another reason, however, as to why I think the film was unsettling. The interviewees all discussed the idea of the inevitability of death. Romero even went as far as saying that all humans are in fact the living dead, because we are all going to die. Talk like this just unsettles me and makes me uncomfortable. I understand that death is inevitable, but I hate thinking about it. I hate thinking about what happens to us after we die. So to hear all of these filmmakers discuss these ideas really made me unhappy. They are completely right, though, and I know that. That's what I think makes it even more unsettling.

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. Aside from the clips from "Shivers" and also from "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", which I have seen but really don't enjoy very much, I liked watching the film and hearing what all those being interviewed had to say. (I dislike "Texas Chainsaw" mostly in part because it claims it is based off of a true story, when in reality, they took a very abstract concept about a serial killer named Ed Gein and ran with it in a completely inappropriate direction. I highly suggest that everyone looks up Ed Gein, by the way. I think he is completely fascinating. And anyone who has seen "Silence of the Lambs" or "Psycho" will see that there are far more accurate representations of him in cinema). I think that any horror buff would definitely want to watch this film. The 60's and 70's really were the golden age of horror films. Films since then have been unoriginal, taking cues from the films of the past but never hitting the same stride. The films from this time are absolutely worth watching and definitely have a story to tell and message to send out.

Night of the Living Dead

I am a huge horror movie buff, yet I had never seen George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". I feel like that can be seen as blasphemous by others who also love horror movies, but I really just don't care for zombie movies, so it never really interested me. I'm glad though that this class has given me an excuse to finally watch the film. It pretty much re-affirmed the fact that I am not interested in zombie narratives, but I feel a little better about my stance as a horror buff now having seen it.

When thinking about this film in relation to Hall's essay on representation, two points stand out to me most. The first is one that I touched on in my review of "Scream" last week - the idea that no one in horror movies reacts normally to the events happening around them. Obviously, the events are absurd and people can't take the time in the film to grieve and mope around, but I note this for a different reason than I did in "Scream". In "Scream", no one but the heroine cared about the murders happening around her. In "Night of the Living Dead", the characters actually did react in a more realistic way. Barbara is completely haunted and horrified by the death of her brother and appearance of zombies around her. She can't function properly anymore after going through her ordeal. Ben, while less emotional, takes on another realistic character, that of someone attempting to do all they could to survive. While that character is more common in horror films, I'm actually shocked that Barbara was as emotional and affected as she was. It is just so rare to see that in films. This reminds me of Hall's essay because it is an actual representation of real life, far more realistic than the partying teenagers in "Scream", despite the completely unrealistic events happening around her. I actually really appreciated Barbara's character because I know that if I were to ever be in the situation she was in, I would react in the same way as her, and not like the typical characters you find in horror movies.

The other notable point I'd like to bring up is the idea that the lead character was played by a black man. Obviously, that's completely common now, seeing a person of color as a hero wouldn't cause someone to have a second thought. But, back in 1968 when the film was made, that would be far more unheard of. I feel like at the time, this would have completely shaken the audience's views on representation. It made the colored community more visible, and once again, more realistically represented society, as being a hero is not just left up to the white man. Romero claimed that the actor who portrayed Ben got the job because he was the best for the part, but intentions aside, it definitely caused a stir, and I think that's a positive thing.

While I may not be the biggest zombie fan, I am glad that I finally saw "Night of the Living Dead". It had the gory elements that we are used to in horror films today, but it was done in a completely different way. It's absolutely a staple in the history of horror.

Scream

For this week's blog assignment, I chose to watch the movie "Scream". I won't lie, I've seen Scream more times than I can count. I love this movie, I've loved it for years. I could probably quote a good majority of the film to someone if they asked me to (for whatever weird reason). I think I saw it for the first time when I was about eight or so (thanks to having an older brother who let me watch tv with him). Obviously, my views on the film have changed over the years. My overwhelming consensus is that I still love it. It remains one of my top three films I have to watch around Halloween time.

What I love about "Scream" is that it's both scary, but also hilarious. The lines are ridiculous. Stu, my favorite character in the film, at one point says "liver alone", as in "leave her alone". It is stupidly funny, but also gets me to my first point when thinking about this film in terms of Hall's "The Work of Representation". That line is in response to the main group of characters discussing the murder of two fellow classmates. What I never noticed about this scene, or most of the film in general, when I was younger was just how ridiculously apathetic almost every single character is to what has happened. No one seems to care at all that these two students were gutted. When the news is breaking at the school about it, there seem to be no mourning students. No one even seems upset. Only the main character, Sidney, shows any concern, and this is only because her mother had been murdered almost a year earlier. Apparently, because no one else had any direct experience with murder, no one seems to care that these students have been killed. I see this as also being a take on society. Terrible, horrible things happen every single day, and we just pass by them without a second thought. Unless something happens directly to us, we aren't affected by it in the same way, if at all. That's completely what was happening in the film. It took me several times watching it to really see that absolutely no one but Sidney and the school principal show concern. When school is announced as being closed for several days after the murders, the students celebrate by having a party. When the principal is murdered and then hung from the football post, all of the drunk students decide to drive and check it out, rather than being scared for their lives or even remotely upset. It really, in my opinion, does reflect how we as a society deal with certain situations. Unless it happens to us, we don't care.

Something else in the movie that has always stood out to me, and I personally love, is that one of the killers (SPOILER ALERT) declares that he has no motive for why he killed, other than "peer pressure. I'm far too sensitive". This always stood out to me because there are serial killers out there who really just kill for what seems like no reason to others. It is just out of the sheer desire to murder. The other killer has a clear reason, but the other one has no backstory for his madness. This just makes me think about how in our society, we want reasons and motives for what happens, but in reality, there sometimes just aren't logical ones. This isn't as closely related to Hall's work, but it just always stood out to me in the film, so I felt like adding it to my blog.

All this said, I think "Scream" is one of the best made horror movies in the past 20 years. It is smart, socially aware, and a ridiculously clever take on the horror genre. Every character knows every convention of horror films, and all of them succumb to them. It's humorous and twisted, and I love it.

On Watching the News

As a grade A procrastinator, I made the mistake of waiting until the last minute to watch some news programs. This is really a mistake today because of the passing of Whitney Houston last night. That is all the news is focusing on, so I didn't get a full affect of how the news really reports and on what topics. Also, I don't think Hall's "Work of Representation" applied as much to what I saw. I do not usually watch the news. I know how important it is to get information about the world and also the local community, but the news just bores me and I find most of the stories misleading or fluff pieces. I probably feel that way because that's essentially all the news is.

For this blog assignment, I decided that I wanted to check out three different sources of news. I looked at Fox News, CNN, and then local news reports to see how their stories and reporting differed. I discovered what I had forgotten to be true since the death of Michael Jackson in 2009: celebrity, especially celebrity deaths, triumph all. Both Fox News and CNN were filled with stories of Houston's death and how that would be affecting the Grammy Awards. I found myself sitting and waiting for the real news to be reported on. Don't get me wrong, I find the passing of Houston extremely upsetting. She has had a very troubled past decade or so, maybe even longer, but she was an amazing talent and there's no denying that. However, I didn't feel it was appropriate for so much of a show to be focused on this one story, when literally every other station I turned on had stories about it also.

I will give Fox News credit, which it kills me to do because I really really hate Fox News, that they at least did more coverage of other events and news topics than CNN did, during my time watching both stations. Fox News at least also talked about the president's mandate that health insurance providers for companies offer birth control coverage for employees. Also, they discussed the Republican GOP race. These topics made sense for Fox News, but I was actually shocked at how unbiased the reporting was. I was expecting the stories to completely be right-sided and minded, but the stories were more just told. I realized that it's because I was watching the coverage of news, rather than the specialized news programmers hosted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, that are at the base of my hatred for Fox News.

The only place I found some distance from the death of Whitney Houston were the local news programs. Yes, her death was clearly covered, but I got to see stories that had no connection to her at all, also. I did notice, though, that there was a level of fear built into the stories on the local news. For example, a big topic of interest on every local station I turned on was of the weather. It is going to be extremely cold in these upcoming days, and the meteorologists and news anchors were making sure the audience was completely aware of that. Multiple stories in each program revolved around the upcoming cold. It honestly made me nervous about how cold it was going to be and what that's going to mean for the environment and everything that the weather has been switching so frequently.

Other than this, though, the main focus was on Whitney Houston. I think that I didn't notice how much this kind of news gets in the way of other stories because when Michael Jackson passed away, I was very invested in what had happened, since I am a bigger fan of his than Whitney's. Also, it makes me think about the fact that this death gives the news yet another excuse to not cover footage of the war, or on different problems happening all around the world. I feel like celebrity ultimately comes first, over so many topics in this country. As others have discussed in their blogs before, we are far more fascinated by the lives of the rich and famous than those in need or similar to ourselves. And I really think that we need to readjust that.

Also, as a way of trying to look at it through Hall's work, I guess we could say that the media constructs the portrayal of the celebrity who has passed away. The news could be saying all they wanted before Houston died about her drug abuse and toxic lifestyle, but after she died, the story could either be twisted to make her the poster child for what drugs will do to ones life (even if drugs had nothing to do with the death, we won't know for another six to eight weeks), or they could make her out to be a complete hero for the music industry, which seems to be what they're doing. It is all about how the media wants to twist and present the story.

Bowling for Columbine

I have seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" before. I've actually seen it, or at least parts of it, several times. It is definitely one of the most informative documentaries that I have seen that is completely relevant to the culture of the United States, and I think it would benefit a majority of Americans to watch it.

What I really remembered from seeing it years ago was Michael Moore's interviews with Marilyn Manson. The Marilyn Manson interview really stands out to me because of how "normal" he comes off, and also completely informed and rational, yet we see him as such a "freak" in our society. He sounds far smarter to me than half of the people interviewed for this movie who claim they understand what the "problems" in America are. He himself acknowledges that we are taught to fear and consume. I completely agree that it is all too easy to blame those in the entertainment industries for the "problems" with youth in this country. Those boys from Columbine who shot up their school didn't do it because they liked Marilyn Manson's music. They did it because they had a lot deeper problems than we'll ever be able to understand.

This really is seen when Moore goes to Canada to check out the violence there. People are so much more trusting of their neighbors, their news isn't covered in stories about violence and anger, and yet the youth still go see the same movies, play the same video games, and listen to the same music as the youth in the United States. Clearly, this is a United States problem. It is also apparent when the statistics about gun violence in Europe, Japan, and Australia are listed. The highest gun crime rate for all three is in Germany, and it was roughly 300-something crimes a year. Yet in the United States, we have over 1,000 gun crimes a year. If this isn't proof that the United States has a gun control problem, then I don't know what is. It seems blatantly clear to me, and just aggravates me that others can be so blind to this issue.

What has always stood out to me about this documentary is how the NRA and Charlton Heston kept going to towns that had been directly affected by massacres and school shootings, almost immediately after these attacks had happened. I just always can't believe the level of disrespect that both Heston and the NRA are demonstrating when doing this. It's like adding insult to injury; while community members are grieving those lost and injured due to gun violence, Heston and the NRA are glorifying the right to own and use guns. It's just absolutely ridiculous and completely insensitive. I also find it ironic, as should everyone watching this film, that the NRA was formed after the KKK was deemed illegal.

The accessibility in this country to guns is appalling. The fact that youths can go to KMart in certain areas and buy bullets for such a cheap amount, and that you can get a free gun when opening a bank account, is just insane. There is no way, to me, that anyone can say the United States doesn't have a problem with gun control. It is blatantly out there. We are promoting this violence, glorifying it, and claiming it is our right. I find this absolutely irresponsible on the part of so many Americans and feel we absolutely need to fix this problem.

"Mean World Syndrome"

Having already seen this film, or at least clips of this film, multiple times for a few other comm courses, I knew before watching it that I was interested in the subject matter the film touches upon. What always interests me is the connection people and the media try to make between violence in the media and entertainment industry and violence in both the youth and older viewers. As someone who has read a lot of books on serial killers, I am very interested in the idea of nature vs. nurture in shaping a person's personality and who they grow into. Although it is very easy to just say there is a clear connection between those who watch violent movies and play violent video games becoming killers and mass murderers, to me, it isn't as simple as that. There are so many examples of killers who came from a standard, "normal" childhood, yet have done unthinkable crimes. True, some killers do come from troubled pasts, but that is not just a set fact about all killers and criminals.

I think the real problems we have to focus on when talking about the media and violence are at what age are children exposed to violence and how glorified that media is. A lot of the time, young children will emulate what they see in movies or television, and that I feel is a more reasonable connection to make because up until a certain point, children are not aware of the difference between right and wrong and don't understand what they're doing is not acceptable yet. However, someone in their teens, unless actually psychologically unstable, will know the difference between right and wrong and can't use the excuse that they were just copying what they saw on television. And if these teenagers actually are psychologically unstable, it usually comes from something else, a chemical imbalance that was already there, and not from listening to too much death metal.

However, I completely disagree with how glorified violence is in the media. It is ridiculous that it is used so often for entertainment purposes. I studied abroad in London last year and it's such a shock how less violent the television is over there, because they realize that there is less reason to be exposed to that than issues that we find offensive here, such as sexual matters. Also, as a heavy tv watcher, I thought it was interesting to see the statistics about how much tv a person watches and how much more fearful they are of the outside world. I know all of these statistics, about how crime rates have fallen, but yet I still find myself uncomfortable walking alone at night. The media is just too focused on making people be afraid of everything possible.

Something else I found very interesting in the film were the statistics about how different races are displayed on television, and how often. What really stood out to me was the discussion about African Americans on tv, how they are displayed as middle class and it's almost as a way for white America to let everyone know that we're equal now. I think it is so twisted that after how much oppression African Americans were put through for as long as it happened, white America still thinks that we have the right to say when another race is "equal" to us and making it to where we are. That just seems so wrong to me, and the blatant acts of racism seen on television and in film to this day about ALL races is extremely ridiculous.

I would definitely recommend this film to people who are less informed about how controlling the media is about our fear and representation of races. I think this would be a great learning tool for sure.