i have blogger's block...

which is unfortunate, considering i have about an hour before the deadline.

Let's see...

I guess I'll write about the Film Festival--get my bonus points...

In the first film, Still Roommates, I noticed a few things that I would have missed, had I not taken this class. First of all, I noticed the use of the 180 degree plane in the dialogue between the two actors. The filmmaker also made good use of close up shots to emphasize the characters' feelings of disappointment, frustration, etc.

The film She is Sister also made use of close up shots. I think these shots had a different effect than the close ups in Still Roommates. Instead of revealing the emotion of the character, I think the close ups of Sister evoked emotion from the viewer. I'm not sure why, or what the difference was... hmm.

Also, on a more personal note, I noticed that I found more enjoyment in the films that were purely entertaining than I did in the ones that were trying to communicate some deeper message. I think that's partially due to a misconception I have that movies=entertainment. I don't explicitly believe this, but I think it is an underlying expectation that I have. When I sit down to watch a movie, I expect to enjoy it--not to be challenged by it. Not that I can't enjoy something AND be challenged by it. I don't know... I just found myself wondering if the films I liked more were actually better, or if they were just more entertaining. And of course, an important aspect of any film is that it captures the attention of the viewer. So maybe the films that I didn't enjoy as much were lacking in some way artistically, despite their good message?

wow. Did that make any sense? I'll stop rambling now.

One of the biggest things I've learned as a result of this course is that everything is so much more complex than I even realize!

The Holiday

The book Eyes Wide Open challenges us to respond as Christians to the popular art that forms our society. Last night, I watched the movie The Holiday. I thought it might be good to share my thoughts on this particular movie, as a Christian...

I'm really becoming a sucker for chick-flicks and sappy love stories. I used to watch and roll my eyes. Now I ooh and awe and giggle and cry (well, not quite!) like the girly-girl I am. It's disgusting. Anyways...

...that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was great--two feel-good love stories for the pirce of one! But--one of the things that bothered me was that one relationship started with friendship, the other one started with sex (literally--they knew each other for about 5 minutes first), and they all lived happily ever after regardless. God created sex for marriage, so it seems to me that there would be consequences when it's taken outside of the way it was created. While this movie makes their relationship look close to perfect, in the light of the way God wants us to live, I can see that this is not an honest picture of life.

Now, I'm NOT saying that they should change the storyline of the movie, or that Christians shouldn't watch this movie. That attitude is what Bill Romanowski is criticizing.

As a Christian, what I can take from this movie is the understanding that our culture views sex as a natural and acceptable part of any relationship, and that it expects people to act like they're married without actually getting married. This can point me to look at the bigger issues of our culture's idea of the value of marriage in general, the rising divorce rate, and the need that everyone has for love. Instead of watching a movie and saying, "That's bad--how can they do that?" I should try to understand the characters and see what their lives can tell me about the world I live in--the one I'm trying to be in and not of and point to Jesus all at the same time.

Contibuting to the Conversation

"We need to look as Christians at the stories that contemporary culture is telling by learning how to discern and evaluate perspectives in these representations of life in God's world. And as Christians we also need to create popular art that shows what it means to live everyday life in God's world, while others consume and eavesdrop on our contribution to the cultural conversation."
-Bill Romanowski, Eyes Wide Open, page 19

This quote presents a wonderful picture of how we're supposed to interact with the world around us. I love the idea of culture as a conversation. I think Christians can sometimes be like those people who butt into conversations with something totally irrelevant and off-the-wall. No one likes that! Especially when you're talking about something that's important to you.

We shouldn't be interrupting the "conversation" with nice, Christian-sounding cliches. We need to be contributing to the "conversation" with words that are meaningful and relevant to the world around us.

The only way to truly engage in a conversation is to listen first. That's why it's so important for us to pay attention to "the stories that contemporary culture is telling us." These stories are "representations of life in God's world." They may not show things the way God intended them to be, but the people who are telling the stories are telling them for a reason, and we need to listen. Then after we listen, we need to reply with our side of the story--not in a way that is condescending, but in a way that is honest and real.

Stars

I had forgotten that the constellations had stories behind them...

Cassiopeia, the Queen, is visible in the Northern Hemisphere all year long. Cassiopeia is bound to her chair and forever circles the pole with her head downward. A fitting punishment by the Nereids (Sea Nymphys) for her boast of being more beautiful than all the Nereids. Cassiopeia was the wife of Cepheus and mother of Andromeda.

and some of them are pretty elaborate and dramatic...

Perseus, the Rescuer of Andromeda, can be seen in late summer and autumn in the Northern Hemisphere.
His quest was to bring back the head of Medusa, not knowing her whereabouts he went to the three sisters of Polydectes, who were blind and shared a glass eye. They refused to help him until he stole the eye and would not return it until they told him where to find Medusa. Using a shield given to him by Minerva, he avoided looking directly at Medusa and beheaded her. Pegasus sprang out of the Medusa's blood and he rode him back to Artos, where he found Andromeda chained to the rocks as a sacrifice to Cetus, using the Gorgons head, Cetus turned to stone. Perseus and Andromeda fell in love, both were placed among the stars.

and touching...awe...

Coma Berenices, Bernice's Hair, is visible in the northern hemisphere in spring and summer and may be found between Virgo and Ursa Major.
Bernice's Hair, is the hair of Queen Berenice of Egypt, which became a constellation around 230 B.C.E. When her husband (and brother) Ptolemy Euergetes went off to war, she offered her hair as a sacrifice to the gods, if they would grant him a safe return. He did and she cut off her hair and placed it on the Altar in the temple of Venus. The locks were stolen and placed among the stars, some say Venus herself was the thief, while other think it was just an astronomer named Conon, who made up the whole story in order to comfort Berenice when she heard of the theft. Some other versions of the story said that the hair was turned into a hair-star, or comet.

and there were villians...

Scorpius the Scorpion, can be seen in summer from the Northern Hemisphere, but is best seen from the Southern Hemisphere or southern US. Scorpius is the slayer of Orion. Sent by a jealous Artemis, Orion was stung by the Scorpion and caused his death. Orion could not be saved even by Asclepius, the god of healing.
Scorpius was also responsible for the runaway horses of Phoebus Apollo when Phaethon tried to drive the Chariot of the Sun, he caused great havoc as he careened around the skies, drying up rivers and scorching the earth.

Society hasn't changed all that much... we still relate to each other through stories...we the only things that have changed are the meduims through which we tell those stories.

Content Creators

According to a study done by Amanda Lenhart and Mary Madden of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 57% of all online teens are "Content Creators." They say this percentage translates into 12 million teens who share their own personal artwork, photos, stories, music, or videos online, or who have made a webpage for someone else.

This statistic is not at all surprising to me--especially because even creating a blog counts as content creation--and i think i have three! New technologies make it so easy to create personal webpages, to share pictures, to "publish" poems, to post videos...and the list goes on.

I'm trying to figure out how this "low culture" expression is actually a threat to "high culture." If the Internet is opening up areas of self-expression that are more accessible to the common person, isn't that a good thing? I suppose this could be eroding standards of what is "good" art or "good" music...but is that really the case? Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit the Chicago Institute of Art. One of the pieces of "art" on display was a large, red-orange, 3-D rectangle propped vertically against the wall. With all due respect to the artist, if that can be considered art, what else can? We also saw a couple canvases with scribbles, stick figures, and doodles all over them--on display in a very "high culture" art museum! I don't understand how we decide what's "good" and what's not. Who makes the decision? What do they base it on? And how is the rise of self-expression on the Internet a problem for anyone?

If any of you have some answers/thoughts, please leave me some comments :0)

Trekkies

wow. I just don't understand the value of devoting so much of your life to something fictional. I have nothing against Star Trek--it's a good show (Data was always my favorite...and Geordie LaForge...LeVar Burton and that cool visor he wore...) I just don't understand the devotion...the obsession... As I was watching the video this morning, I was trying to decide if there was something in my life that fit into the same category--is there some media text that I'm devoted to that parallels the devotion of star trek fans? So far, I haven't been able to think of anything. the only thing I go to "conventions" for would be Jesus probably. Is Star Trek a religion to some people? I think it very well could be.

I don't like to judge, or write people off as crazy or silly...but wow. That's all I have to say.

What is a good society?

I'm so used to living in this society. The society we live in has a lot of good characteristics, but there also so many terrible things that go on. I think I've learned to take the good with the bad and to accept the bad as inevitable. For this reason (and also because I live a self-centered life), I've never considered what actually makes a good society. The stories I've heard or read about so-called utopias, both real and fictional, always seem to show these utopian societies as communites where individuality is repressed and the society cannot last. Because I know that a perfect society cannot exist on earth, I haven't ever thought to ask what makes a good society.

But it is worth asking. We have a responsibility to form the society we live in, and if we don't know what it is we're aiming for, I think it's possible that we'll end up creating (or at least continuing) a society that we don't want to live in.

So, what makes a good society?

In my naive, underdeveloped opinion, a society can be measured by what it values. Regardless of the style of government or leadership, there are certain things that I think every good society will value.

Life. A good society will value human life at every level. This goes beyond simply banning abortion. A good society views life as precious and rare, and will have compassion on the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the unborn. Under this category falls things like public health and safety.

Truth. A good society will not tolerate dishonesty. Its members will desire to know the truth, not just to hear what they want to hear.

Order. A good society will have established rules that are in place to benefit all its members, and these will be enforced so that the society remains a safe place to live.

Love. This might seem a little far-fetched, but I believe a good society will follow the command: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Family. A good society will value family over work or money.

Education. If you want to help someone escape the cycle of poverty, educate them. A good society will provide a basic education for all its members, and will value higher education as well by making it affordable and available to anyone who wants it.

I'm sure I'll think of more later...in fact I've probably forgotten some important ones...

What's the real issue?

We say that the media has too much control. We say that it tells us how to act and what to think--that the Big 6 or Big 8 or however many Bigs there are have far too much power over the public.

To me, these sound like excuses.

Saying that the media tells us what to think and leaving it at that is simply an excuse for us not to try to think. Even saying that the media is a negative influence on children is an excuse for the problems that we have allowed. I don't mean to say that the media doesn't tell us what to think or that it doesn't negatively affect kids. What I want to say is that we have a responsibility to own up to the problems in our society. Aren't we, as individuals and as American citizens, responsible for our own knowledge? Aren't we responsible for the well-being of younger generations? We can't blame everything on media. We create media, therefore the problems in the media are a reflection of the problems in us.

The media is not going to raise the standard. The government is not going to raise the standard. Deregulation of media conglomerates is not going to change anything. I'd like to borrow a quote that one of my friends has listed on her facebook site (I apologize, I don't know who to give the credit for this): "One of the greatest delusions is the hope that the evils in this world can be cured by legislation." Unless the individuals in a society want to see a change and are willing to work for it, new laws are not going to help.

We have to raise the standard. If we refused to watch and applaud programming with sick humor, if we responded to the nightly news with curiosity and a real desire for truth and put that desire into action by researching issues on our own, if we took responsibility for our choices and our actions and for the welfare of the people around us, would things change? I don't know. I'm just one person. You're just one person. But I believe it would be a good start.

Money Talks

One of the ideas discussed in Reading 6 (I can't remember the author's name) is the reality that the people supplying the money have a direct say in the content of the tv show, news program, magazine, newspaper, radio station, etc. Lately, I have been listening to a radio station that is primarily listener-supported. This week was their annual membership drive, and consequently, every twenty minutes or so they would take a break from their usual programming and ask for money. This is extemely annoying, BUT it's a good reminder that the aspects of this station that most of its listeners value (the wide variety of news stories and viewpoints, the style and quality of the music, etc.) are only on the air because the listeners support these things financially. If the listeners were not happy with the station, they would stop sending their money, and the station would need to change it's content, find a different source of income, or go off the air.

By the same token, if a big corporate sponsor is pouring money into a media venue, that sponsor is going to want content that attracts the most consumers and sells the most products. The station, newspaper, etc. has to work to please the sponsor in order to continue to recieve the funding it needs.

This may or may not be good for the consumer. One of the problems with media conglomerates is that, not only are the numbers of options of sponsors decreasing, but these major companies are growing in power. The media can no longer decide what to give the public based soley on what the public wants; they must make their decisions with much more concern for what the sponsors want. I suppose you could argue that the sponsors and the general public want the same things, but I don't think that is always the case. (If it is, we're in more trouble than I originally thought!)

Run, Forest, Run!

I watched Forest Gump for the first time the other night. (I loved it!) But, ever since we did that role-playing activity last week in class, when I watch movies, I find myself thinking about the movie before it was a movie... What did the story sound like when the idea was first presented to a director or producer? (*If you haven't seen this movie and you plan on seeing it, just go aheah and skip to the last paragraph*) The storyline of Forest's life is pretty ridiculous. I think if someone came to me and said, "We're going to tell the story of a man who has a severly low IQ, but is a super fast runner, plays college football, gets a degree (how?), fights in Vietnam, gets a medal of honor, becomes a world class ping-pong player, captains a shrimp boat and becomes a millionaire, runs nonstop for 3 years, and then marries his childhood sweetheart (who dies of aids) and has an adorable son (not exactly in that order)--and the entire story will be narrated by him, as he is sitting at a bus stop, talking to random strangers."

... I don't know, I just don't think I would go for it!

(Of course, that's not all the movie is about--it's about love and perserverance and other things like that--so I guess anyone trying to convince a producer to make this movie would probably not tell the story in the way I told it above!)

Now, despite the ridiculous plotline, Forest Gump is, in my humble opinion, a wonderful movie. So I find myself asking: What makes a good movie? How does one decide whether or not a story is worth telling? Does the storyline even matter, or is it the way a story is told that makes it a hit? It's fascinating to me to think about everything that comes together to make a movie--to think about the existence of the idea before anything was ever filmed, before the cast was chosen, before anyone knew whether or not this story or this idea would ever be tranferred to the big screen.

In class on Wednesday, I learned...

...that I should never ever be a producer. In fact, I don't think I even want to go to Hollywood!

I was half of "Sprocket Productions" (and not the better half, lol). We were a low-budget production company, which didn't bother me at first... Then I took a look at our list of expenses. At 9 in the morning, my mental math abilities are certainly not at their peak. As I tried to add in different items and figure out how much we could pay actors and actresses and writers, all I could think was, "Why did I get out of bed...?"

And then writers approached. We had to decide what stories we liked and who we wanted to make a deal with and whether or not we could get actors for the storyline and whether or not we would be able to pay those actors and what if one of the actors signed with another company too and ahhh!!! Of course, I was also worried about how other writers would feel when we turned them down, because that's just how I am--I'm always worried about hurting someone else's feelings, even in a situation like this where it clearly does not matter. I think that was the worst part for me--I wanted to say yes to everyone!

I would never ever ever make it as a producer. I hate making important decisions--especially decisions that involve large amounts of money. Come to think of it, I don't even like to spend large amounts of money. 40 million dollars?!?! And that's cosidered "low budget"? oy.

One question that I still have about this whole process... As producers, the writers and actors approached us. Is this how it works? Or were we supposed to be approaching them? Do the producers seek out writers who have ideas that they want to promote, or do the writers seek out producers who will support their ideas?

Bullhorn Guy part 1

(I realized that this blog exceded the 500 word limit by over 200 words, so i decided to break it up)

Last night at Campus Crusade (which meets at 7:30 in the library basement, for those of you who might be interested ;) ) we watched one of the nooma videos. Many of you have probably familiar with these videos and with Rob Bell. For those of you who aren't, nooma videos are like mini sermons, only the speaker (Rob Bell) is in a normal everyday setting, usually seated, wearing casual clothes, with all the usual background noise and activity appropriate to the particular setting going on around him. These videos are designed to make the viewer feel like they're sitting across from the speaker, having a casual conversation.

The one we watched last night was called The Bullhorn, and it was about sharing Christ by showing others His love rather than just preaching at them. In it, Bell described city evangelist who stood on the corner with a megaphone (or a bullhorn), shouting for people to be saved so they could go to heaven.

The video didn't start out with any kind of "establishing shot" to allow me to orient myself to the setting. Instead, it began with a combination of close up and medium shots of a man in an office using the copier. It then cut to a busy city street. These two seemingly unrelated scenes were confusing to me at first. I began to ask myself what was going on, who I was supposed to be paying attention to, and why. The fact that the camera gave me little or no initial clues was very effective, because this sparked my curiosity and attention and drew me in. I wanted to know more...

Eventually, I realized that the camera was very slowly zooming in on a man seated on a bench in front of a storefront along the street. He didn't look like anyone special--just some guy in a t-shirt and sweatpants, waiting for the bus--but as the camera continued to zoom in, i realized that this man was important--i was supposed to focus my attention on him. He started talking, and the more he talked, the closer the camera got to his face. He was pulling me into the conversation, and the camera mirrored that.

Bullhorn Guy part 2

Periodically, as Bell continued to talk, the camera would return to images of the man I had seen in the office at the beginning. I was still curious as to what he had to do with anything. Bell had been talking about Bullhorn Man, and I wondered if this might be him... At one moment, Bell addressed Bullhorn Man as if he was speaking directly to him, and at this particular instant, there was a shot of the man from the office in his car, turning his face away from the camera, as if looking out the window. This was a powerful shot that showed me that the man from the office was indeed Bullhorn Man, and that Bullhorn Man did not want to hear what Bell or anyone else had to say.

At the beginning of the video, after the camera had zoomed in on Bell, he had been slightly to the left of the center of the screen. As time went on, the camera moved slightly, and by the end, Bell was more to the right. Bullhorn Man was almost always on the left. I'm not sure if this is really significant or if I'm reading into something that's not there, but I think it's possible that the placement of these two people was intentional. Both Bell and Bullhorn Man are Christians, and any negative feelings that a person had towards what Bullhorn Man was doing would most likely be applied to Bell (guilty by association--they both serve the same God, right?) But, as Bell talked, he began to distance himself from Bullhorn Man with his attitude and words, so that by the end of the video, we know that the two men really don't have the same things in mind.

Nooma videos are interesting, because if you take away the pictures, what you have left is not much different than your typically Sunday night sermon. However, the makers of these videos employ different film techniques to get their points across in a way that I believe is much more effective than words alone would ever be.

I'm ready for my close-up...

Try to imagine American Idol without the close-up shot... It doesn't really work, does it? The close-up is used to show emotion, and the makers of American Idol take full advantage of this. For example, on last night's episode, they showed a young man whose parents had been ashamed of his singing talent. Earlier, when he made it "to Hollywood," he had called his mom to tell her. On this episode, he made it past the first audition, and naturally, the producers of the show wanted the viewers to witness his phone call to his mom. The camera zoomed in nice and close so that we could see the emotion brimming in his eyes--the look of relief on his face when his mom said she was proud of him. It was a scene designed to tug on the hearts of the viewers. I'm pretty sure the tugging on our heartstrings would've been significantly less forceful, had the shot not been so up close and personal. Also, at both the beginning and the end of the show, they used close-up shots to highlight the anxiety of the contestants. Actually, for most of the show, I found myself uncomfortable close to someone's face. They want the viewers to feel the sadness or frustation or disappointment, or joy that the participants feel, whether they move on or get cut.

Churchianity

offering
benediction
doxolgy
fellowship hall
narthex
coffee hour

As a regular chuch-goer, I am a part of a semiotic domain that employs its own symbols and its own codes. For me, following these symbols and codes is a natural thing (I have acheived "fluency"). For some, however, stepping into a church is extremely awkward simply because they are not familiar with the implicit and explicit codes that exist.

For example, in some churches the pastor says, "This is the Word of the Lord" and the congregation replies with "Thanks be to God." This is not written anywhere, not explained--unless someone is already familiar with the code, they wouldn't know to say it.

Which book is the hymnal? Why are there candles up front? How do you know when to sit and when to stand? What am I expected to do during communion? How does everyone know the words to this prayer?! And the list goes on...

I can understand why so many people feel like outsiders when they come to church. A congregation is an affinity group with certain rules and standards. Of course everyone is welcome (technically), but how is a person supposed to feel welcome when their lack of knowledge of the codes the church follows makes them feel like an outsider?

As a Christian who has grown up in the church, I believe it is so important to realize that, yes, Churchianity is it's own semiotic domain, and to be sensitive to the fact that this can be intimidating and confusing to those who have not attended church all their lives.

In the midst of all the research I've been doing lately, I ran across an article about the way prisons are portrayed in the media. The main point that the author was making was that, for most of us, the only experience we have with correctional institutions like prisons is through what we've seen in movies, or on television shows, etc.

If someone were to ask me if I knew what a prison looked like or what it was like to be there, I would probably answer yes. But have I ever been inside a prison? No. Do I have any firsthand experience with what that kind of environment looks or feels like? No. How, then, can I say that I know what one is like?

This got me thinking... What else have I only experienced through media? What else do I fool myself into thinking I understand, when actually the only view I have of it is the subjective view that some author or producer or reporter has given me?

I think this is a very important distinction to make. We need to be able to differentiate between what is truth and what is fiction. This goes for both entertainment and the news. I think it's so easy to forget that seeing is not believing. I'm not saying that we're naive enough to think that everything we see in the movies is true. What I am saying, using the previous example of prisons, is that we let what we view on the screen influence our idea of reality--I've never been inside a prison, but I believe that the movie sets I've seen of these facilities are true to life. Are they?

Hmm.

The Possibility of Success

This myth is not only present in our media, it is prevalent in all aspects of our culture. This idea that a normal, everyday, working class man can rise to a position of wealth and power is one that is deeply engrained in our nation's history. Americans believe in individual freedom and the power of believing in yourself. The myth of the possibility of success serves an important purpose in our society: it motivates. We have been taught (through real-life experience and through stories of fictional characters) that we have the power to change our life situation--to overcome whatever obstacles are in our way. With hard work and determination, we can attain a life of success and happiness. This is both an encouragement and a motivator. It gives us hope and encourages us to keep on trying because, no matter how hard the road may be, there is always the possibility that we will get that big break we've been waiting for.

This myth, however, is not always true. Hard work does not always lead to monetary gain. There are people who work and work and struggle to provide for their family and still end up on the streets. There are musicians who play night after night in clubs and never get discovered. There are talented athletes who practice and practice and never make it past the minor leagues. And the way this myth, this peconcieved notion that hard work always leads to success, can hurt, is when we measure how hard someone is trying by the level of success they have achieved. I think we, as middle- and upper-class Americans, often disregard poverty because deep down we believe that the poor are poor because they don't work hard enough. We think that they should be able to pull themselves out of their situation--that they are in this situation because they somehow deserve it.

Another way that this myth can hurt is that it can mislead us in our idea of what brings true happiness. We can place too much value on the American Dream and, consequently, mistakenly think that money and status bring with them happiness. This possibility of success lurks in the back of our minds and we think, "If I just had _____, I'd be happy." The characters in these myths get the money, or the dream job, or the position of power (against all odds), and with these things comes happiness. But in real life, happiness does not automatically follow theses things, and unfortunately, many do not realize this until after they have wasted their lives stiving for "success."

The solution to all the world's problems...

Coca-Cola

If Coke's television commercials and ad campaigns are any indication, the key to world peace is on the shelf of almost every American grocery store, around the next corner in a vending machine, or perhaps you're even drinking it at this very moment.

I once saw a man walking down a crowded city street, drinking a bottle of coke, and single-handedly righting every wrong he encountered. He stopped a bank robbery, returned an old lady's purse, helped a cat down out of a tree (I might have made that last one up), and before I knew it, the entire city was out in the street, celebrating and laughing. And all because one man decided to grab a bottle of coke and make his world a better place.

I also saw a woman who would walk around singing and passing out bottles of coca-cola. The song she sang went something like this: "I wish I could share all the love that's in my heart...remove all the walls that keep us apart..." I guess sharing coke is the next best thing.

And did you know that coca-cola is so powerful that it even brings peguins and polar bears together?

How about this famous jingle:
"The sun will always shine the birds will always sing,
As long as there is Coke, there's always the real thing..."

Take a look at this description of a coca-cola commercial from the 80's:
"I clearly remember a very moving Coke ad featuring children of many different nationalities. It started with one girl singing, then many more children joined in. The song went like this: I am the future of the world I am the hope of my nation I am tomorrow's people I am the new inspiration (At this point all the other young people began to enter, united by the Coca Cola they carried in their hands.) And we've got a song to sing to you We've got a message to bring to you Please let there be for you and for me A tomorrow ( tomorrow) If we all can agree there'll be sweet harmony Tomorrow (tomorrow) And we all will be there, Coca Cola to share Feeling so real and so true Promise us tomorrow And we'll build a better world for you."

What in the world does Coca-Cola have to do with building a better tomorrow for kids?!?! How does a soft drink bring us together? What connection is there between a can of Coke and pleading for a better future?

There is no connection--until these things are placed together in these ads. I think this has something to do with what we were talking about on Friday. Symbols take on different meanings when they're used in a certain way. The creators of coke commercials have worked very hard to make sure that their product becomes associated with happiness, peace, and the good life. All advertisers do this. They know that we see one thing in the ad and think of other things connected to it... They show the woman singing and passing out bottles of coke and making people smile, and we see a loving, caring person, making an effort to live a good life and make her world happier. The result: Coke=happiness. And if you've seen any of the other commercials, you know it also equals unity, community, peace, and fun.

Out of the Loop...

When I was in Elementary School, all my friends worshiped The Spice Girls.
In Middle School, they fell in love with N*sync or The Backstreet Boys.
THE radio station that ALL my friends sang along with: Hot 101

I, on the other hand, listened to news reports on NPR.
Or Christian talk shows on WORD radio, the Christian station out of Pittsburgh, PA.
I can still remember trying to explain to my friends what classical music was, and that no, I didn't mean classic rock.

Now, keep in mind, I was 9 or 10. I didn't turn on the radio and look for a station I liked. I just listened to whatever my parents wanted to listen to.

Now that I'm older, I do a lot more thinking on my own, but I've still kept the same apathetic attitude toward my media diet. The books I read are usually either assigned or recommended. The movies I watch are the ones my friends show me. The music I listen to is whatever is available--if I don't like it right away, I usually learn to like it eventually.

I'm not sure what the cause of this is. Perhaps it's a lack of curiosity. Maybe it's simply laziness! I think part of it is a subconscious fear of exposing myself to "bad things." It would by no means be a stretch to describe my life as "sheltered," and I think that is as much my own fault as it is my parents'. The words of the Apostle Paul haunt me: "Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, excellent, or praise-worthy--think about such things." How do I know what is true or right or pure before I watch, read, or listen to it?

The question that I've been asking myself since the start of this class is this: What am I missing? By living a lifestyle that's very low on media intake, am I missing something important? I'm content and happy, and I like to think I'm living a purposeful life, but when it comes to what's going on in the world of news and entertainment, I'm terribly uneducated. The problem is that I honestly don't have the time (or desire, actually) to keep up with the latest music, TV shows, movies, and news. And my question is whether or not I'm wrong to feel this way.

So throughout this course, I want to keep an open mind--see what I'm supposed to learn, what applies to my life. So far, this has been a challenge. I know the things we're discussing are important issues. I also know that different forms of mass media have more influence on my life than I realize--a thought that is somewhat disconcerting. The challenge is making myself care about the things we're discussing and then actively involving myself in those discussions!

Nancy Drew, Super Sleuth

Last week in class, when we were prompted to write about a "formative media text," the only thing that came to my mind was Seseme Street. Unfortunately, I really didn't want to write about Seseme Street.

But today...today I remembered...
Once upon a time, I was an avid reader of Nancy Drew mysteries.

Nancy was "the young sleuth" who always had a "hunch," could track down any criminal without losing her "pumps," and could get out of even the tightest scrape with a little help from the contents of her purse.

From my 9-year-old perspective, Nancy Drew had it all--brains, looks, her two best "chums" Bess and George, and a gorgeous boyfriend, Ned. I loved reading and re-reading as she repeatedly solved each case.

Nancy Drew Mysteries helped to spark my love for reading, and of course, provided me with an image of a smart, beautiful, successful girl, whose adventures could (for a few short days at a time) become my own.