Post Eight: Stay Tuned!

Ah, the television. Although many critics call the television the “idiot box”, the television has attracted quite a following amongst many different audiences from the comedy-seeking Modern Family watchers to the loyal 30 Rock fans. These sitcoms tend to be only a half-hour long (with commercials), humorous in content, episodic, and consist of hyperbolic or overdramatic plots (which typically would not happen in real life). One of the characteristics of the sitcom genre is that there is usually a pattern that progresses as the show does. This pattern or cycling establishes a routine within a particular show which in a way guarantees its audience somewhat of a comfort zone or an expectation from the show. This way, the audience can sit down every week at the same time to the same network and see the same leading characters and similar plot devices and not be overly surprised at what they are viewing. By using this method, sitcoms can create a loyal following amongst viewers.

The show Weeds is a sitcom that revolves around the protagonist/antagonist (depending on the viewer's perspective) Nancy Botwin. Recently widowed and unable to afford her expensive-suburban lifestyle, she resorts to dealing marijuana. As the show progresses with additional seasons, her involvement in illegal dealings also increases from dealing marijuana to becoming involved with an underground drug cartel in Mexico. As the seasons continue, the plot thickens and the characters find themselves in increasingly difficult and even hyperbolic situations. However, the pattern stays consistent: the Botwins find themselves new ways to deal the drugs and avoid legal authorities. For example, by the start of the fourth season and the following ones, the Botwins eventually relocate to a different place because they have to run from those who are after them. In season 4, the Botwins, on the lam, move to (fictional) Ren Mar. They then move to Mexico, after Nancy finds herself involved with the mayor of Tijunana and also the person controlling the underground smuggling activity. They then race to Canada and after being turned away, find themselves in Seattle. After facing more problems from the authorities and their past in season 6, the Botwins find themselves back on the road to an off-the-road trailer park and subsequently are chased out of town. The last episode hinted that they would be heading to Copenhagen.

This pattern and cycle of finding new destinations allow the Botwins to continue their illegal shenanigans, propel the story and continue the sitcom (it would end if they were ever to get caught!) The pattern also implies that no matter how outrageous the situation may be, Nancy and her group can always find a way out and the viewers can find out simply if they stay tuned…for next week!

Post Seven: Shots, Shots, Shots...Everybody!

American Beauty is a critically acclaimed dark comedy that wonderfully depicts one’s man mid-life crisis. It also showcases a great variety of camera shots: long shot (establishing shot), middle shot, and the close-up shot.

• A long (establishing) shot does exactly what the name implies; it establishes or introduces the setting/characters/and overall and necessary information


• A medium shot is neither a long shot or close-up shot; it is something in the middle as the camera starts to focus on something in more detail


• A close-up shot is the most emotionally driven shot as the camera starts to show the more important details of the scene; usually the shot focuses only one person

In this scene, Lester Burnham, the protagonist is watching his daughter's dance performance.

The long-shot establishes that this scene is taking place in a high-school gym. His daughter is amongst the many other dancers. This shot essentially just tells the audience that the characters are in a gym and watching a dance performance.

The medium shots eventually start to pan and focus on a particular girl (who is not his daughter) who has caught Lester's eye. These two sequential shots show Lester's point of view (POV); he is not watching his own daughter's performance but is much more interested in this other girl, Angela Hayes.

The (extreme) close-up shot, which is eventually paired with an intense spot-light (and coincidentally, the disappearance of the other girls) shows the intimacy between Lester and his imaginary encounter with this particular girl. She has grabbed his attention and is the focus of Lester's POV. This is also the most emotionally-stimulating shot because the audience can actually feel the tension within the scene as Lester lusts after Angela.

Another example of these shots can be seen in the classic and possibly most well-known scene of the movie. In this scene, Lester is fantasizing about Angela naked in a field of roses.

Here, the viewing audience is introduced to the scene with both a long-shot and a high-angle shot. It establishes that the setting is in a bedroom with Lester. The high-angle is usually utilized when the director wants to take the power away from the subject. Here it is used to show Lester and his wife in bed (with his wife turned away from him) to imply that we are invading Lester's privacy.

A close-up shot of Lester tells us that he is in fact awake. Rose petals start to fall from above him and his fantasy starts. It cuts to...


A room with rose petals and a female figure in the middle as seen in this long-shot. With the quick cut from Lester and the rose petals still falling from above, the audience is introduced to Lester's fantasy and his POV again.

A medium shot slowly pans and focuses on the female figure in the middle.

It is revealed in this close-up shot that the female figure is Angela Hayes. The shot is intimate and detailed. Within his imagination, there is an interaction between her and Lester as she flirts with him. It also seems as though she is interacting with us as she looks straight-on to the camera during this shot.

(Scenes are screenshots taken from the movie American Beauty)

Post Six: The Stars Are Brighter Than Ever...

The very idea of Hollywood seems to convey a sense of wonder and amazement amongst its loyal followers and moviegoers. The industry is synonymous with phrases such as “the dream factory” or “movie magic”; it is where people can practice escapism. However, even with the “magic” that the industry is able to produce, it is still a business and has followed a certain system (also known as the studio system). This particular system and its ability to reinvent itself have enabled Hollywood to withstand time and revolutionary changes that have threatened the industry itself.

The most important and crucial aspect of the studio system has to be the emphasis that Hollywood placed on its film celebrities and their “star” qualities. Major film studios approached the business as a vertically integrated one, which meant that each studio controlled all aspects of production and distribution. They developed their own unique gathering of actors, writers, directors, and technicians that worked with the heads of the companies to produce certain types of films. With this system in place, Hollywood realized that members of the viewing audience were keen to see certain celebrities on the screen. They had developed a sense of loyalty and adoration towards certain actors and actresses and were willing to watch the movies as long as their favorites were showcased. Instead of emphasizing the type of movie or storyline, the studios marketed the celebrity actors as commodities. They took advantage of this growing phenomenon by putting the most popular celebrities in as many movies as they could and creating a specific storyline to showcase the actor or actress’ talents.

For example, MGM boasted that they had the greatest ensemble of actors (which were contracted to work only with that company) which included Judy Garland. She was extremely popular with moviegoers; the studio used her as another way of hyping or promoting other stars. The studio consistently type-casted her as a naïve, innocent young lady, one that the audience grew to expect would burst out into dance and song at least once during a movie. Thus, audience members began to associate her with a certain genre and would go into a movie starring Judy Garland with the expectations that she would perform a certain way. And because this genre was so successful, MGM became known for its consistent production of musicals.


Even today’s film studios take in account who they cast in their movies. Many moviegoers will base their decision on whether or not they will see a movie on the film ensemble. If it is someone that they enjoy watching or have a sense of loyalty towards, chances are, he or she will see it despite the weak premise, storyline, or other technical aspects. Many actors and actresses have also started a trend of working with the same people over again to the point where moviegoers expect a certain style from them. Examples include director Tim Burton working with Johnny Depp to create absurdist and dark films, Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider with their multiple tongue-in-cheek comedies, and Wes Anderson and Bill Murray with their dry-humor-driven films. Even if the movie itself does not show much promise, people will still go to see these movies because of the people behind and in the movies. Even actors and actresses criticized for their lack of talent will still bring in ticket sales as long as a loyal fan base is willing to pay. In addition, celebrities are also used in advertisements to push products: “you will be like Angelina Jolie if you use this perfume!” Even glancing at a cover of a tabloid in a supermarket will tell someone exactly how celebrity-driven our society has become. Actors and actresses are scrutinized, followed, and photographed as people obsess over their most intimate and private details. The idea that an actor is a commodity is still very prevalent.

Post Five: All in the Family vs. Modern Family

All in the Family was a very popular sitcom which ran from 1971 to 1979 (IMDB). According to the IMDB website, All in the Family had a premise of “a working class bigot [who] constantly squabbles with his family over the important issues of the day” (IMDB). One of the many contemporary family-based television situation comedies currently airing is called Modern Family which also deals with a family working through every-day issues and problems. All in the Family and Modern Family share differences and similarities as both shows deal with broad issues within the family setting.

All in the Family mainly deals with the main protagonist (or antagonist depending on the outlook) Archie Bunker and his conservative ideals and how his surrounding family members deal with them. In the All in the Family episode shown in class, it deals with the subject matter of homosexuality and the issue of homophobia. Archie Bunker is seen as unable to cope with his homophobia, pointing fingers at whomever he believes to be a “faggot”. He mocks his son-in-law’s effeminate friend and becomes shocked when his very masculine friend reveals his own unconventional sexual orientation. Archie is an archetype of a conservative and homophobic male unable to accept changing gender roles.

Modern Family is only in its second season so far but has shown itself to be a very progressive show because not only does it take the conventional family setting and actually makes it humorous in a refreshing way, but it also includes two homosexual fathers taking care of an adopted child. The two men are Cameron and Mitchell Tucker—one of them plays up the stereotype of flamboyant and obvious homosexuality while the other is more muted and does not cater to people’s predisposed perceptions of homosexuality. With this pair, Modern Family is able to subtly explore questions and the issues of homosexuality in today’s society. As a matter of fact, the last episode “The Kiss” aired on September 29, 2010, showed the two men giving each other a small kiss. Not many shows or major networks allow this sort of depiction and with this small little gesture, the ABC network was able to move a little bit forward.

Both shows are the similar because they deal with different issues within a family setting. They bring up issues that the American people and families probably ask themselves on a daily basis or at least of which have an opinion. They usually include a moral or lesson learned at the end. Both shows can be considered progressive when compared to their television counterparts. In All in the Family, the male main character Archie is portrayed as a conservative bigot whereas in Modern Family, the members are more supportive (although Jay, Mitchell’s father, sometimes is uncomfortable with the subject). All in the Family is much more blatant and negative with the exploration of the subject, even throwing around the word “faggot” around. Modern Family takes small steps and is much more subtle in dealing with the issue of homosexuality, taking a much more lighter note about it as the show tries to depict the two men as fun-loving and sweet caretakers. In addition, All in the Family has a very serious political undertone, as Archie scoffed at “socialists” who he believed were ruining the country. Although both shows show varying degrees of radicalism, it seems as though All in the Family was able to get away with a lot more. Even though Modern Family can still play with unconventional ideas, it has to keep in mind that it has to take the issues with some degree of hesitation so that it does not offend or alienate any of its viewers or the network.

Post Four: Number One Listener

The development of radio is a fascinating one because every factor correlates to one another in a way that without one of them, radio may not have become such a popular and defining entity in America’s media culture. Many forces helped to precipitate the rise of the radio including technological change (Marconi’s “wireless telegraph”), industries and institutional factors (competition between networks), regulation and government intervention (Federal Radio Commission), and audience demand. However, the most influential force behind the spread of radio had to be and still is the audience’s constant demand which consequently leads to the other aforementioned factors.

Radio stations started to compete with one another to provide for the audience’s demands. Media is always a fickle industry because it is based on communication—a process that needs two or more parties. Obviously, radio stations can only be successful if they can find someone to listen to them. Radio stations applied networking which is “the linking of stations together to share programming costs” (Straubhaar 163) and allowed each station to keep up with the expenses. Further competition forced stations to gather affiliated ones and to adopt a variety of shows and music genres to appeal to different audience members. The stations experimented with comic books, adventure shows, and pulp-fiction westerns. Furthermore, radio stations created radio personas that helped promote advertisements on shows. They also tried to create regular programming so that listeners would invest themselves into the shows as part of their daily routine.

Since then, radio has had to work extremely hard in order to keep up with the wavering audience demand. In the late 1940s, television’s popularity grew exponentially; radio struggled to keep its stability within its audience members. The radio had to figure out quickly how to regain some of its power and focused on cheaper entertainment such as localized content including music, news, and talk shows. Even today, radio stations have to constantly change and keep up with the audience’s wandering attention spans in order to stay profitable. Nowadays, radio stations have to keep tabs on and research who their targeted listeners are and how they can succeed in reaching them. It is crucial that the medium tries new innovative ways to stay current whether it is playing popular music or offering their sounds through the internet.

Post Three: I Watch What I Wanna Watch

The concept of selective process argues for and helps to support the idea that people are the ones who sustain the power in the exchange of media. It states that audiences exercise selective exposure by avoiding media circuits that espouse certain messages with which members may not agree. In addition, certain members will watch those which advocate in what they already believe or propagate. This further confirms their beliefs as they find support from those considered more knowledgeable. By adapting this way of digesting information from the media, people can undergo selective retention which means their perceptions can become distorted or skewed to the point where they remember what they want to remember instead of what actually happened. This selective reception in which a person chooses what he or she wants to watch decreases media’s hold and impact on its audience members but can also negatively proliferate ignorance.

An example of selective process can be seen in this article. The Today Show, a significantly popular daytime and morning show, has decided to open its Modern Day Wedding competition to same sex couples after discussing the matter with GLADD, a pro-LGBT rights group. Many (in my opinion, progressive) people have applauded The Today Show for showing an interest in equality concerning gay marriages. However, The Today Show has also found its share of criticisms from other people who are not as like-minded. As seen in the comments below in the article, many people who are against the recent change have declared that they will be protesting the show.

A few of the comments:

DeeBoo: “I will watch another channel in support marriage being between a man and woman.”
JDTransplant: “I won’t watch NBC any longer.”
nj_tax_man: “As of now, I will no longer watch any NBC programming.”
Oksusieq: “I for one, will not be watching, nor do I condone same sex marriage. I am so disappointed that NBC has given in to ‘peer pressure’ to encourage the moral decline in the country.”

In addition, one user (Traveling1) summarized selective exposure very well: "You always have the option of not watching...but America is the land of voyeurs. We are so anxious to not live our own lives that we have to turn to TV to live the lives of others. Well, if those TV lives are not what you like, live your own and turn the damn thing off. Better yet. Sell it! lol"

As exemplified in the aforementioned snippets taken from the comment section of the article, many people are choosing to end their support of NBC and The Today Show in order to show their disapproval. They are using the selective process in order to avoid messages that contradict their own beliefs and so-called values. Granted, I do believe that they all have a choice on what they decide to watch. At least selective process attempts to correct the imbalance that media and its audience have with one another. However, media and television are great technological inventions and should be used to progress society’s amount of knowledge and open up its ability to access other peoples’ opinions and perspectives. Ignorance and such examples of bigoted thinking and shutting off completely to media circuits solely because they do not agree with your personal perspective end up stinting society’s growth rather than helping it along.



Credit
Credit

Post Two: Another Spoonful Please!

The creators and owners of the media use hegemony advantageously in order to control exactly what the audience sees and to influence how the audience reacts to what it is seeing. According to James Lull, “hegemony is the power or dominance that one social group holds over others” and a “method of gaining and maintaining power” (Lull 62). According to Stuart Hall, it is a “framing [of] all competing definitions of reality within [the dominant class’s] range […]” (Lull 62). In other words, through the process of hegemony, the media insists on its power in order to influence subordinate parties in accepting their definition of what is normal and acceptable.

As the gatekeepers of media use agenda setting to advocate what issues are most important and relevant to the audience members’ lives, it also uses framing to influence how the audience should react to such pertinent issues. Framing is how the owners of media decide how and under what settings a story or issue should be presented. Media has the power, the resources, and reasons to take an event or subject matter and distort or skew it in its favor. And when the audience recieves what the media tells it based only on face-value, the media can and has gotten away with quite a bit!

Take for example of the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and its effects on the locals and the workers. News companies reported that many clean-up workers directly in contact with the oil spill had become ill and had to be hospitalized. However, according to this article, CEO Tony Hayward and his public representatives responded to such reports by shrugging it off, saying that it was probably “food poisoning.” It was also reported that the workers did not receive gas masks because the company did not feel as though they were necessary; the company tried to make the oil spill look less harmful than it actually is. In addition, according to this video on the BP YouTube channel, the company is currently taking the effort and time to take care of the workers and locals. BP tries to frame the oil spill incident as a tragic event but an opportunity for them to come together as a community. BP tries to make it look as though they are taking the steps to approach the oil spill in the most acceptable and productive way by spinning the situation with a positive light.

Sadly, it is a very cynical yet true view of the media as a conglomeration of elitist companies sitting on their high-horses spoon-feeding the audience whatever it takes to keep them under their control. Framing is a very prominent technique and used quite frequently by media companies. Because of this, I personally have to make sure I do a double-take and re-evaluate what I had just read or viewed. Understandably, everything in media has a certain perspective behind it and so framing is just a part of the process. However, when it is done maliciously or with certain intent behind it, the exchange between the producers and the audience becomes more complicated and sometimes more so than necessary. In the aforementioned example of BP, I am not easily persuaded by its attempt to make it look as if the workers’ health is not jeopardy nor does its “attempts” to alleviate those who are affected.