Posts Tagged ‘movies’

Gaslight: November in Media History

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Tina Fey and Seth Myers picket at Rockefeller Center.

Tina Fey and Seth Myers picket at Rockefeller Center.

November 5, 2007 marked the first day of a strike by the Writers Guild of America-West and WGA-East which lasted one hundred days. The main issue was the compensation received by writers, which was meager when compared with large studio profits, and also how writers were to be compensated for reality and online content. The WGA strike is significant for many reasons: It was a clear turning point in the business of digital media, cost Hollywood billions of dollars, and drew attention to the plight of thousands of people working behind the scenes of media which most of us take for granted as being free (not to mention illegally downloadable). On February 26, 2008, a new contract was ratified by the union, and writers went back to work with new rights and protections. However, that contract is up in 2011, and a lot can happen between now and then in the world of media and entertainment. The issue will linger as long as we have an Internet, but the WGA strike  represented the arguably first big shot across the bow of the online media business.

On November 13, 1969, United States Vice President Spiro Agnew gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, accusing the nation’s television networks of using bias and distortion in their reporting. He further urged viewers to “register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations.” Agnew lamented that the media was dictated by a small group of men, informing the opinions of an estimated 40 millions Americans who watched the nightly news, and who had recently seen several newsmen harshly critique President Nixon’s November 3 speech on Vietnam minutes after it was delivered. Forty years later, this event is especially significant amid the conflict between Barack Obama’s White House and Roger Ailes’ Fox News, with White House Communications Director Anita Dunn saying that the Administration is “not going to legitimize them as a news organization.” Then, as now, the White House was trying to define the meaning and purpose of news, and possibly reign in an independent and free press. In both cases, it seems, the Presidents might have been wishing that Americans were just a little more news literate.

The Hollywood Ten with their lawyers

The Hollywood Ten with their lawyers

November 25, 1947: A group of ten screenwriters and directors, known collectively as “The Hollywood Ten” are fired from their jobs in the first systemic Hollywood blacklist. Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo were all held in contempt of court one day prior for refusing to testify before the House of Un-American Activities (HUAC). Ultimately, 41 artists were called to testify, and over 320 people were eventually added to the blacklist that kept them from working in Hollywood. HUAC feared that these artists were  Communists, imbuing their work with propaganda designed to recruit members to the Communist Party. Those who refused to “name names” of anyone they knew who might be a Communist were added to the list, leaving many prominent voices silent, livelihoods destroyed and promising careers cut short. Those who did testify were despised by many of Hollywood’s elite, including Elia Kazan, who, when honored with the 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences, was met with protest; many Oscar attendees refused to stand when he took the podium to accept the award. The blacklisting of the Hollywood 10 was a pivotal moment in American cinematic history, both acknowledging and condemning the power of film.

Who Watches The Watchmen?

Monday, March 9th, 2009

This past weekend, I joined the throngs and saw Watchmen in theatres. Hoping to avoid the most obnoxious crowds, I went to a matinee showing, but was far more bothered than I think I would have been if the crowd were just unruly–in the audience, there were no fewer than three children who could not have been more than five years old. My moviegoing companion counted more.

Here at The LAMP, we’re all big proponents of making media a family affair, but the ages of the family members must also be considered. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not okay for a toddler just because Mommy or Daddy happen to be sitting nearby, and this holds true for Watchmen as well. I’ve read the novel, and went into the movie expecting a certain degree of violence, but I still was unprepared for the level of gore onscreen. There is nothing about Watchmen that is okay for young children; in fact, I would caution anyone under the age of sixteen against seeing it. (I’d even warn adults with a weak stomach.) Not only is the movie extremely graphic, but the story is also famously complex for a “superhero” tale, and I would be surprised if every adult in the theatre could have explained everything that happened during the film. This is not a case of a very violent telling of Goldilocks–neither the visuals nor the narrative are appropriate for young children.

Part of what astounded me is that I cannot comprehend of any parent bringing their young child to see this movie if they had any idea of the movie’s content. Not only does Watchmen carry a well-deserved R rating that should help parents make decisions, it also is based on a book that parents can refer to if they have questions about the story. My conclusion is that the parents of these children didn’t do their research, or lost their sitter at the last moment but were determined to go to the movie anyway. Or, perhaps they simply weren’t thinking.

To be clear, the reason I think young children should be shielded from such violence is not because I imagine they will never see it. I know they can turn on the news or open a paper, and see some horrible things. My concern comes from my doubt, cynical though it may be, that these parents left the theatre and gave their kids a lesson on real violence versus movie/entertainment violence, how special effects are created, the real-world consequences of murder, etc. And–I don’t care how brilliant that parent may be at explaining those things, but even if a conversation like that did happen, I doubt that it will leave an imprint as lasting as the 160 minutes of brutality they just saw played out onscreen.

Rooting for the Bad Guy

Monday, August 11th, 2008

Do we love to hate the villains? Or do we in fact, love them?

Isn’t Heath Ledger fascinating as the Joker in The Dark Knight? His make-up, his hair, his rasping voice, his devious plans – all scream ‘psychotic’ , and yet we are strangely drawn to him. If you ask me, and many will agree on this, he is more memorable than the Dark Knight himself. Why do we find a homicidal maniac endearing? Can this morbid attraction have larger consequences?

Movies have, since their birth, given plenty of opportunities for villains to
dazzle. So much so, that Norman Bates of Psycho remains a pop-culture icon to this day. His legacy will be continued by Hannibal Lector of Hannibal, Mr. Brooks of the movie by the same name, Anton Chigurgh of No Country for Old Men and many others who will be manufactured to continue this glorious tradition.

So, why did I root for the Joker? Firstly because I think portraying evil and menace so chillingly is no mean feat. Histrionic skills aside, the Joker was clearly sheer genius. He had a distinctive (and dark) sense of humor, no protective gadgets but a fearless persona nevertheless, he was fantastically clever (though completely evil), with a touch of sarcasm and lots of (bizarre) style. Smart, funny, brave, proud and stylish. What’s not to like? Batman himself was clearly deficient in many of these areas and having a cape, an armored car and an engineered voice didn’t exactly add to his charm.

I admit, I fell for the freak. And I imagine that I would have fallen harder if the Joker had been smarter and darker. But thankfully, I am not a Joker wannabe, and other than being good entertainment, the movie had little effect on me. What could a more innocent (or a more twisted) person learn from such movies? That the bad guys have more fun? That by terrifying people, they can make sure that the spotlight is always on them? That being sufficiently smart and wicked can guarantee them a spot on the early morning and late light news for a week?

That these movies glorify the anti-hero is apparent. But whether this portrayal is healthy or unhealthy is the subject of a long debate and a matter of personal judgment. If the makers of the movie aimed for packed crowds, they certainly got that. If they wanted their movie to be ‘most talked about’, they got that too. But remember, media effects are media effects, whether they are intended or not. We definitely don’t want such movies inspiring people to emulate psychopaths. The key is ‘detached  appreciation’, something that is perhaps easier for adults to understand. In an ideal world, we would watch these movies with the awareness of the neat line that separates  our world from Gotham, a line that separates reality from fantasy. We would be  terrified, intrigued and even impressed by the Joker, fully aware that these emotions  certain to a world and a person that does not, could not and should not exist. And at the end of the movie, we would leave the theatre with entertained minds and popcorn  flavored clothes, and the Joker would take his place with Godzilla, King Kong, ShrekDarth Vader, and Voldemort: the good and the bad in a different, non-existent world. This skill of separation and detached appreciation is what we need to pass on to our children if they are to appreciate entertainment happily and safely. Also, if they are to see the Joker for what he really is: a joker.

–Radhika Ramesh

Starting Today: New York International Children’s Film Festival

Friday, February 29th, 2008

For the next three weekends (2/29-3/16), be sure to check out the New York International Children’s Film Festival, showcasing original films from all over the world.  Some films are shorts, some are full-length; some are animated, others are live action; some are for toddlers, others for teens.  If you’re looking for something fun to do with your kids, this is a great option–it’s high-caliber work that parents will enjoy just as much as their young ones.  You can also browse films by age group to find what’s appropriate for your family.  Films are shown at various locations in Manhattan, and tickets can be purchased online.

Don’t miss this opportunity to make media a family affair!

Findings from the Geena Davis Institute

Friday, February 8th, 2008

When you turn on the TV, watch a movie or play a video game, you can be sure that at least one thing will happen: the male or female gender will be represented.  As such, it’s important for you and your children or students to understand that the way women and men are presented on screen is not always truthful, but instead they’re seeing something highly conceptual.

For example, the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media released an overview of their findings today that males outnumber females at the rate of almost 3 to 1 in films.  It should come as no surprise they found that women were far more likely than men to be hypersexualized in kid-targeted media. However, it is also worth noting their findings regarding the portrayal of men in animated media, specifically the frequency with which men are drawn as having unusually large chests or having an impossibly muscularized body.

Their statistics happen to come out at the same time that Guy Trebay of the New York Times published an article about male models getting thinner and thinner.  (You’d think the media could at least stay on message–which is it, should men be skinny or ripped with muscles?)  Of course, none of this renders the issue of skeletal female models any less urgent, but it serves as a good reminder that both boys and girls are receiving conflicting messages telling them how they “should” look.  For a mildly humorous example of just how conflicted these messages can be, check out this piece about CosmoGirl’s latest attempt at being responsible.

Take some time to sit down with your children and students, and talk to them about what they see.  It’s unrealistic to expect them to never watch another movie, but help them understand the difference between air-brushed entertainment and healthy men and women.

(For tips from Commonsensemedia.org on how to take an active role in your child’s media habits, click here.)

Study shows violent movies may curb violence

Tuesday, January 8th, 2008

A new study presented by two researchers at the annual conference of the American Economists Association suggests that violent movies might help to curb real-world violence–an assertion that flies in the face of previous research by many groups, which has shown that violent movies lead to violent behavior.  Click here to read the article by Peter S. Goodman published January 7th in the New York Times.

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License