chickenfingers123-blog

[chickenfingers123-blog]

Singing in the rain-all fun? Or is it showing us how shallow Hollywood has made us?

Singing in the rain. happy, funny, entertaining movie. But is there another side to this film? Could it possibly be pointing out a major flaw in our society? I see a parallel, in silent films, were everything is about looks, maybe not so much has changed now even with sound in films. Singing in the rain shows us that when it comes to us loving stars and actors, we really know nothing about them. We love them for roles they play, we raise them up on pedestals for their skills. But do they deserve it? We all say we “love” a certain actor, but we don't even know them! we see them, we watch them act, but we know nothing about who they really are. We idolize people who for a job, pretend to be someone else. Singing in the rain is tome a parallel, where everything looks great on the surface, but once we really find out who we are idolizing, there is something wrong. We get a chance to look closer at the people we so “love,” and what we see isn't always what we expected. As stated in Media, celebrity, and social influence: identification with Elvis Presley, “Results indicate that Elvis fans and impersonators develop strong identification with him by consciously role modeling his values and by changing their own lifestyles to emulate him.” We take on celebrities and stars and wish to become like them without really knowing who they are. We know who they pretend to be, and suddenly wish to be just like them.

Media, Celebrities, and Social Influence: Identification With Elvis Presley Benson P. Fraser , William J. Brown Mass Communication and Society Vol. 5, Iss. 2, 2002

[chickenfingers123-blog]

The Tempest- The U.S: from Caliban to Prospero

Inside ‘The Tempest’ by William Shakespeare, we get a glance at the two types of conqueree’s there are. the people who accept it, such as Ariel, and the ones who fight it, such as Taliban. Its funny how history makes Caliban out to be the villain, the other, the one that is the problem. Not the fact that his freedoms were taken from him, not that he is being ruled over against his will. No, he is the one being bad, he is the one making the wrong decisions and doing the wrong things. Ariel, who accepts her captivity is seen as better than Caliban. But when we break it down and put ourselves inside the story; the U.S. was Caliban. When we were ruled by the English, we rebelled. We fought back. We were the bad children who created issues when we should have just been obedient. We fought back when our freedoms were encroached upon, yet we vilify those that act like us when they are put under someone else control. Lets say, Iraq and Afghanistan. We entered and took over, and when they rebel we label them ‘terrorists.’ Yet when we were in the same position, we rebelled just as they did. We terrorized the English until they couldn't maintain the colonies. How can we be so blind? because now we are in the position of Prospero, and have become oblivious to the flip of roles. Put in the position of power has made us forget how we got here. And now we have become the self pronounced good guy, when in fact we are nothing more then what the English were to us. So who would you rather be? Ariel, the obedient slave who accepts its role? Or Caliban, who doesn't accept that his freedom has been stolen and now holds a grudge until his freedom is back. Or Prospero, the ruler who takes freedom away, then villifies those who want their freedom back? In “The Tempest” and its travels’ by Peter Hulme and William Howard Sherman, they discuss the wide variety of readers sympathy towards the characters of The Tempest. During a time where slavery was beginning to be seen as wrong, and legitimacy to rule was in question, readers started gravitating towards Caliban. So again, I ask, who do you sympathize with?

Sherman, William H., and Peter Hulme. "Robot Check." Robot Check. Reaktion Books, 2000. Web. 15 May 2015.

[chickenfingers123-blog]

Do we make films, or do films make us?

A constant theme in american film is one person taking on the many. One man or woman taking destiny into their own hands and doing whatever it takes to  succeed. Stories of amazing obstacles over come by sheer will power and determination. Batman is a great example. In a future where crime is rampant and everyone is in constant fear for their lives, one man takes matters into his own hands.  It has always been a theme in american film, and also american culture that one person can make change. But which came first? The classic American spirit? or was it created by the films and plays? I believe the people who created the films had the spirit, and therefore our media shadows our culture, but does not create it. But I do believe that once the media is created, it molds our culture and changes it. Once a theme is put into film, it spreads to everyone it reaches. It becomes more prevalent in our society, and grows off of the movies. So America was built by people who did what many thought were impossible. They gave that spirit to their children, and the generations after. As the spirit of taking on the impossible spread, it enters our media and our films. From there its impact grew exponentially. We have a culture, and that culture is put into our film, which then saturates us again with something we already feel. So when we see Batman take on everyone, and do what no one thought possible of one man, it reinforces or beliefs that anyone can do anything. So no, I don't believe films make us, but they do change us. That change is created by reinforcing traditions and beliefs we already hold. As Nicole Rafter says in her book, ‘Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society,’ “Viewers will carry away from films different bits of cultural information.” So what is important to you is reinforced by the films you see and how you interpret them. In affect, someone makes a movie and puts their traditions and beliefs in it, then that movie reaches million of people. It spreads the creators beliefs to others, and how that information is received depends on the person. So like i stated earlier, movies don't make us, we make movies. But those movies we make then continue on to change us, wether we know it or not.

Rafter, Nicole Hahn. Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.

[chickenfingers123-blog]

The saying is “you cant run from your past,” but can you run from your future?

Don Quixote and Willy from Death of a Salesmen attempted to run from the future by creating a world from the past. the famous saying is you cannot run from your past, so can you run from your future? If we use these stories as lessons, then no, you cannot. Both men were stuck in a past of their choosing, times where they felt most comfortable. The future just wasn't the place for them. Don Quixote was fascinated with knights and chivalry. He believed that he was born to be a knight, and travel the lands saving damsels in distress and other chivalrous actions. He stayed in this created reality for quite sometime, before reality hit, and hit hard. His facade couldn't withstand the truth of the reality he lived in, knight and chivalry were dead. He was lost in a time he didn't belong. And no matter how hard he tried to escape, he couldn't. Willy was the same way. Lost in a future where he was no longer the salesmen he once was. And the son he believed would be a great success hadn't quite reached the heights he had thought. Like John D. says in his article on Death of a Salesman, “ heroes and heroines would usually try to fight the fate that was dealt them and would struggle to become successful in life by achieving their set goals.” So to evade all this disappointment, Willy ran to memories of the good ole days when he was a thriving salesmen, and his son was set to take on the world!But those weren't the times Willy found himself in, and  no matter how hard he tried to go back, he couldn't. The future is an unstoppable, inevitable event that will always find its way into your reality. Wether you like it or not, we cannot escape the past, and we cannot escape the future. So to answer my own question with the revelations from Don Quixote De La Mancha, and Death of a Salesman; you cannot escape your future.

D, David. "Death of a Salesman." (n.d.): n. pag. Rpt. in Boolo. N.p.: n.p., 2008. 1-4. Print.

[chickenfingers123-blog]

Jazz singer- hating “the other” because it is the other

In the Jazz Singer, we see a perfect example of the idea of “the other,” or describing something simply as what you are not used to. the father has only know his music, the music of his father, and his fathers father. Singing in the synagogue is all he has ever known, so when his son branches out and sings something else, it is instantly a disaster. Because anything that is not sung at the synagogue is wrong, because it is not sung at the synagogue. you only sing songs that are sung at the synagogue, because thats what has always been done. the idea of “the other” goes along with a culture of close-mindedness and a rigid social structure. But why is this new music bad? because they see it as what their music is not. It is everything they are not, and everything they are not is bad. If it was good, they would be singing that in the first place, instead of the music they grew up with. this rigidness and resistance to change runs counter to everything that has made humanity great. Accepting, mixing, and always looking for new and improved ideas is what has furthered mankind’s abilities and given us our dominance over this planet.Joel Rosenburg brings up the issue when talking about the Jazz Singer. He says “the film keeps careful account of the cultural erosion and crisis of cultural succession in the generation that succeeded the Jewish immigrant culture of the early twentieth century,” talking about how as a culture, they struggled to keep what they were separate from where they were now. 

The problem being that it was not acceptable to mix cultures. It was expected to be separate and to be kept separate. I believe this to be in part of how the other has been incorporated and described throughout our history. By only acknowledging the differences, we alienate what we are not familiar with, Instead of creating intrigue and comfortability with the new knowledge.

Joel Rosenberg. "What You Ain't Heard Yet: The Languages of The Jazz Singer." Prooftexts 22.1 (2002): 11-54. Project MUSE. Web. 13 May. 2015. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.

[chickenfingers123-blog]

Visualizing the invisible with Freud, Darwin, and Dali

Freud, Darwin, and Dali all spent their lives creating a picture others could understand of the forces of the world that we cannot see. Freud envisioned the invisible subconscious and helped the world to understand something few people knew existed. Darwin brought to light an unseen force behind the change and evolution of the worlds creatures, including us. And Dali painted everyday objects in a dreamlike state, creating a completely unique universe of his very own. These three men took the world by storm, opening the public’s eyes to subjects never before even talked about. These men had a huge impact on where we are today, opening the door for debates and discoveries that no one would of had the bravery to study had it not been for these pioneers. I believe that the world is a much better place due to their works, and that democracy itself depends on the principles their works created. Being able to ask questions that seem absolutely ridiculous are the exact questions that have carried innovation and discovery into the modern age. These three men paved the way for humanity to become more knowledgeable, and also more accepting. Many of Dali’s works were actually supported by Freud’s own work,(Lopez) and these works were questioning the sub conscious of the population. Freud, Darwin, and Dali all went places the public believed impossible, and having gone there they changed the course human society has taken.

Ignacio Javier Lopez. "Film, Freud, and Paranoia: Dali and the Representation of Male Desire in An Andalusian Dog." Diacritics 31.2 (2001): 35-48. Project MUSE. Web. 13 May. 2015. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.

[chickenfingers123-blog]

Orientalism in Marco polo

Orientalism is used to describe the habit of explorers describing new lands by how they are different from their own, mainly used to describe how European explorers described the Asian countries. Explorers would only write down, and then spread, observations of the lands that were different from their homelands. They would leave out many observations of more regular attributes the new area shared with their homelands, making these new lands seem full of usually crazy and monstrous things. They would then take these descriptions back and spread an incomplete picture of these new lands. This created a whole misconception of the lands that were explored.

In Marco Polo, this is most obviously shown when Kubilai Khan asks Marco polo to describe the deserts of Khans land. At first he describes them as many other explorer; bland, lifeless, dangerous, a place to be avoided. but when Khan prompts Marco Polo to describe it how he really feels, Marco describes a desert  with sand moving as if alive and the sounds of constant motion. he describes the desert in two opposing lights, which parallels at the heart just what orientalist is. it is a recounting of only observations that stick out, ignoring the smaller details that would create a full and fair description.

In Marco polos adventures, he was sent to towns and cities, then asked to describe them to Khan. Khan chose him for this because he sensed the ability in Marco polo to observe things my other people missed. Timothy Kendall writes that Marco polo became a great narrator, and that Marco was a great observer and paid close attention to everything he saw on his travels. Marco Polo shows how at first he gave into orientalism, only describing the details that stuck out because they were so different from his homeland. But to keep Kubilai Khan happy, he had to learn to better observe. And he began to see these new lands not as just what Europe wasn't, but as their own, individual landscapes

Kendall, Timothy. Marco Polo, Orientalism and the Experience of China: Australian Travel Accounts of Mao's Republic. N.p.: n.p., 2004. Print.

Asian Studies Review. Nathan, Qld., Australia: Asian Studies Association of Australia., n.d. Print.

[chickenfingers123-blog]

Don Quixote: the first to be exploited for entertainment

The story of Don Quixote can be seen as a light hearted and humorous tale, but I see it as the first wave of a tide of exploitation that is to come. Don Quixote goes on a multitude of mislead adventures, and finds that he is being written about. The book on his travels does quite well and Don Quixote becomes almost famous. He believes for his chivalrous acts, bravery, and other countless virtues that he no doubt would boast he possesses. But really he is the village idiot that everyone loves to laugh at. People read about his travels to enjoy and revel in his humiliating failures and borderline insanity. 

The story of Don Quixote is a warning, as the world gets smaller and information sharing rises, it will become easier to spread books and stories. As it becomes more and more common to write books, authors will look to provide entertainment, and if they aren't clever enough to create it themselves, they may just find it in someone else's life. look at tabloids and such now. Magazines publish stories on people all the time, and rarely are the praising the subject. Most likely it is exposing and exploiting the individual as to draw readers attentions.

The parallel I use is the tv show Dirt. A schizophrenic photographer is used by a magazine editor for his great photography skills. He is also easily manipulated into doing immoral things because of his condition. He is exploited, just as Don Quixote was. Not to mention that Don most likely suffered from a mental illness such as the photographer from Dirt, whose name just so happens to be Don as well.

Just as P.E. Russell says in his article, "Don Quixote" as a funny book, the author clearly aims to be funny. It is that exploitation of someone else's misadventures and misfortunes that is so rampant in todays media. Don Quixote was, in a sense, the first celebrity to be used by the media to entertain the population

Works cited

Husbands, Winifred. 'Don Quixote' as a Funny Book. The Modern Language Review: A Quarterly Journal Ed. for the Modern Humanities Research Association: General Index: Volumes XXXI-L. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1960. N. pag. Print.