Globalization is the process of differing cultures and nations increasingly having more common threads.
A great example of how my version of globalization connects with hybridity is America's anime culture. The basis of this American culture is the Japanese-based goods imported for this country, most predominatly anime (Japanese cartoons) and manga (Japanese comic books). These normally separated cultures have blended due to easier product flow between the two countries and since the countries capitalist systems are similar.
Continuing with this anime culture in mind, films from Studio Ghibli (most notably Spirited Away), are able to reach American audiences due to the high demand of anime material from this large hybrid anime culture. These films are also able to make this jump due to increasing globalization.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
#10 Sex Sells: Axe and the Dirty Balls commercial
With commercials, advertisers are constantly pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and Axe is no exception. The ad (viewable in its long version below) shows two women using Axe products to clean "balls". Although, in reality, they are just cleaning various recreational balls, the ad is clearly sexual innuendo. Due to this type of sensationalism, Axe has created a commercial that is simultaneously lewd and memorable.
The appeal of sex is an old one and the basis for the phrase "sex sells." Usually with the sex appeal, more emphasis is placed on sexual situations rather that the product. The thought then becomes that using the product that is being "advertised" that the user can also receive sexual attention. This appeal is almost always geared towards males.
This ad by Axe is no different. Here, the two female hosts were clearly casted for their attractiveness, one of which even has a British accent. These beautiful women then proceed to clean off dirty balls, almost always in pairs. Following the initial demonstration, members of the audience bring down their "dirty balls" to be washed. The ad uses the appeal of sex to create an impression due to its sensationalism created by its use of extended innuendo. However, one aspect that this ad does that most ads of the same appeal fail to do is adding emphasis on the product by having the brand name in the background and the repetition of the action.
The appeal of sex is an old one and the basis for the phrase "sex sells." Usually with the sex appeal, more emphasis is placed on sexual situations rather that the product. The thought then becomes that using the product that is being "advertised" that the user can also receive sexual attention. This appeal is almost always geared towards males.
This ad by Axe is no different. Here, the two female hosts were clearly casted for their attractiveness, one of which even has a British accent. These beautiful women then proceed to clean off dirty balls, almost always in pairs. Following the initial demonstration, members of the audience bring down their "dirty balls" to be washed. The ad uses the appeal of sex to create an impression due to its sensationalism created by its use of extended innuendo. However, one aspect that this ad does that most ads of the same appeal fail to do is adding emphasis on the product by having the brand name in the background and the repetition of the action.
#9 Willy Wonka: a movie in 3 acts
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (dir. Mel Stuart) fits nicely within the 3 Act structure as described by Prof. Ramirez-Berg. The first act, the introduction, simply introduces Charlie Bucket as a poor student whose family barely makes ends meet. This also establishes the mystery behind the factory with the strange Tinker saying "Up the airy mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a hunting, for fear of little men. You see, nobody ever goes in... and nobody ever comes out." The acts ends with the beginning of the Golden Ticket hunt. The complication for Charlie is that there are only seven tickets and he doesn't have the financial means to by the chocolate that the ticket is to be found in.
During the hunt for the Golden Tickets, we are introduced to the other characters and the action quickly escalates as each ticket is found. Charlie, who only wants to find one of these tickets, is mostly unable to get any chocolates due to his family's low income. In a lucky break, Charlie finds a coin on the ground, buys two chocolates, and finds the last Golden Ticket. Plot point #2 is this action in combination with the confrontation by Mr. Slugworth who offers Charlie a large sum of money for a sample of the Everlasting Gobstopper.
Finally, in the last act, the winners are taken on a tour of the factory. The action is progressed by each child being naughty and caught by Wonka's strange punishments. When only Charlie is left and is told by Wonka to just leave, he returns a sample of the Everlasting Gobstopper that was given earlier in the tour. Excited, Wonka tell Charlie, at the climax of the movie, that he must take over the factory and continue to make his candy his way.
During the hunt for the Golden Tickets, we are introduced to the other characters and the action quickly escalates as each ticket is found. Charlie, who only wants to find one of these tickets, is mostly unable to get any chocolates due to his family's low income. In a lucky break, Charlie finds a coin on the ground, buys two chocolates, and finds the last Golden Ticket. Plot point #2 is this action in combination with the confrontation by Mr. Slugworth who offers Charlie a large sum of money for a sample of the Everlasting Gobstopper.
Finally, in the last act, the winners are taken on a tour of the factory. The action is progressed by each child being naughty and caught by Wonka's strange punishments. When only Charlie is left and is told by Wonka to just leave, he returns a sample of the Everlasting Gobstopper that was given earlier in the tour. Excited, Wonka tell Charlie, at the climax of the movie, that he must take over the factory and continue to make his candy his way.
Monday, October 25, 2010
#8 And the Tradition Continues (Sitcoms and the TV, from The Honeymooners to the Big Bang Theory)
TV has been, and always will be, self-reflexive. In this, I mean that TV programming, especially prominent in sitcoms, provides visual representation of the TV itself, whether implicit or explicit, and how it can be used by showing its usage within the show. Since its deployment in the domestic space (as discussed in Spigel’s “Installing the TV Set”), the TV has become a focal point in almost any living space. The sitcom, usually a reflection of reality, mirrors the contemporary living space by incorporating the TV into the set of the show or implying its existence in the proscenium. By doing this, the producers of the program make the show more relatable by incorporating familiar objects (TV in this case) and self-promotes the TV by requiring some scenes to have the TV as the focus.
For my example, I’ll use the Big Bang Theory as a comparison to the above described usage of the TV. In season 3, episode 22, one of the first scenes is when Leonard first meets Sheldon and first walk into the apartment. The set of the living rood, with the sparse furnishings of only two lawn chairs, there is still the all important TV (even though it rests on cinderblocks). By showing the TV, the audience can still identify the room as a living room, despite the lack of other familiar living room objects. Since the living room is identified, the audience can identify with the characters, even if only loosely, due to this reflection of reality.
For my example, I’ll use the Big Bang Theory as a comparison to the above described usage of the TV. In season 3, episode 22, one of the first scenes is when Leonard first meets Sheldon and first walk into the apartment. The set of the living rood, with the sparse furnishings of only two lawn chairs, there is still the all important TV (even though it rests on cinderblocks). By showing the TV, the audience can still identify the room as a living room, despite the lack of other familiar living room objects. Since the living room is identified, the audience can identify with the characters, even if only loosely, due to this reflection of reality.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
#7 On Fire! (or How the LS, MS, and CU are used in Daft Punk's Electroma)
In the movie Daft Punk's Electroma, the different shot choices are even more important due to the fact that the film is silent. Near the end, the Long Shot (LS), Mid Shot (MS), Close Up (CU) progression is prominent add creates meaning that is usually dependent on dialogue or facial expressions.
The LS in this sequence shows the second android walking away from his friend who he helped to exploded. The android is clearly sad for his fallen friend, but has no human or human-like face to express this, nor can speak. The LS helps in this respect in that the lone android is seen walking in the desert, engulfed by the scenery that is classic of the LS. He is sad and lonely, and this shot expresses this where the character cannot. Also, the setting of the desert is reestablished by the LS.
Following the LS, the android is seen in MS on his knees in the desert. He has given up, shown by putting the android at the edge of each of the MS. In this range, as opposed to the LS, we are able to view the android unzip his jacket to exposed the self-destruct panel on his back. Desperate to push the button, this shot length is able to show the view his struggle and failure to do so. In the final MS, the android, at the apex of his frustration, proceeds to take off his helmet and smash it on the ground until it breaks. The MS, in this final showing of brute force, is extremely important in order to capture this action.
In the CU shots that follow, we begin with a CU of the helmet-less "face". By showing this, we are reminded of the contradiction that the android, who is supposed to have no emotions, has just displayed a set of emotions linked with being human. We are also faced with the puzzling fact of having an close connection with the android, even though he is not human. The next CU shows the android picking up a fragment of his broken helmet and using the sunlight to catch himself on fire. The CU of the hand setting on fire shows the realness of the flames and give that certian amount of detail that makes the scene even more grotesque.
The LS in this sequence shows the second android walking away from his friend who he helped to exploded. The android is clearly sad for his fallen friend, but has no human or human-like face to express this, nor can speak. The LS helps in this respect in that the lone android is seen walking in the desert, engulfed by the scenery that is classic of the LS. He is sad and lonely, and this shot expresses this where the character cannot. Also, the setting of the desert is reestablished by the LS.
Following the LS, the android is seen in MS on his knees in the desert. He has given up, shown by putting the android at the edge of each of the MS. In this range, as opposed to the LS, we are able to view the android unzip his jacket to exposed the self-destruct panel on his back. Desperate to push the button, this shot length is able to show the view his struggle and failure to do so. In the final MS, the android, at the apex of his frustration, proceeds to take off his helmet and smash it on the ground until it breaks. The MS, in this final showing of brute force, is extremely important in order to capture this action.
In the CU shots that follow, we begin with a CU of the helmet-less "face". By showing this, we are reminded of the contradiction that the android, who is supposed to have no emotions, has just displayed a set of emotions linked with being human. We are also faced with the puzzling fact of having an close connection with the android, even though he is not human. The next CU shows the android picking up a fragment of his broken helmet and using the sunlight to catch himself on fire. The CU of the hand setting on fire shows the realness of the flames and give that certian amount of detail that makes the scene even more grotesque.
Friday, October 8, 2010
#6 - We Are All Made of Stars
In the classical Hollywood era, the studio systems allowed producers to churn out movies at a fast rate. One aspect of this system, the use of stars, is one of interest and importance.
The star system allowed studios to link certian stars with certian traits. This way, if you saw a particular star in a movie, you could be sure that the star would carry the same trait in any movie or appearance they appeared in. This kind of cut and paste taticts used made star a marketable commodity. Also, stars were used to promote other stars, thus not only adding worth to the star that is doing the promoting, but also the star that is being promoted.
For example, Judy Garland is always depicted as a young, innocent girl that always sings. The prime example of this that everyone knows about is The Wizard of Oz. Garland's character, Dorothy, is a youthful girl who's only wish is to get back home. Along the way, she doesn't hesitate to be caught in a musical number or two. Another example is the clip "Dear Mr. Gable":
In the following clip, Garland is shown with her standard attributes (young, innocent, and can sing) and uses these attributes to promote another star in the same studio, Clark Gable. In this way, both Garland and Gable get increased exposure and added importance to the public.
The star system allowed studios to link certian stars with certian traits. This way, if you saw a particular star in a movie, you could be sure that the star would carry the same trait in any movie or appearance they appeared in. This kind of cut and paste taticts used made star a marketable commodity. Also, stars were used to promote other stars, thus not only adding worth to the star that is doing the promoting, but also the star that is being promoted.
For example, Judy Garland is always depicted as a young, innocent girl that always sings. The prime example of this that everyone knows about is The Wizard of Oz. Garland's character, Dorothy, is a youthful girl who's only wish is to get back home. Along the way, she doesn't hesitate to be caught in a musical number or two. Another example is the clip "Dear Mr. Gable":
In the following clip, Garland is shown with her standard attributes (young, innocent, and can sing) and uses these attributes to promote another star in the same studio, Clark Gable. In this way, both Garland and Gable get increased exposure and added importance to the public.
Friday, October 1, 2010
#5- The Evolution of Sitcoms
"All in the Family" and "Modern Family": two family sitcoms separated by time. Even with this separation of 40 years, there not only exists a stark contrast of differences between the shows themselves and the issues they address, they also share some similarities that show an interesting bridge between these shows and the past that constructs them.
One key difference is the staging of the shows. "All in the Family" is edited in a way that is linear and shot so that it feels like a play. These elements show a continuation of the 50's thought that liveness should be a component of television. In contrast, "Modern Family" is non-linear in its editing style and is more cinematic than its counterpart. This type of presentation calls upon the system of telefilm, mostly credited to Desilu, and the higher production values that these shows were supposed to have.
Beside the styles of the shows, the issues that they address (or don't address) adds more difference between the shows. "All in the Family" choose to center much of its conflict around the fact that an adult married couple are still living with their parents where "Modern Family" doesn't not have this family dynamic within any of the three families depicted. Conversely, "Modern Family" shows adds cultural diversity with Manny and Gloria, but "All in the Family" depicts lacks this diversity. Both issues were present in both decades, but the shows depiction of a certian issue over another demonstrates what issues were important to the time period over another.
Despite all of these differences, "All in the Family" and "Modern Family" do share some common ground. Probably the most interesting similarity is the addressing of homosexuality. Even though the treatment of the issue has dramatically changed, the representation of gay people alone is a testiment of both shows to push boundaries by challenging social norms. A more important similarity lies with the generational struggle that both shows depict. The tentions between the younger occupants versuses the elders create friction between characters within a household.
So while the differences between the 1970's family sitcom "All in the Family" and contempoary sitcom "Modern Family" have more differences than similarities, both aspects create a bridge not only between eras in TV history, but also speaks to a broader evolution of social issues within America.
Here's the episode of "Modern Family that I reference to:
One key difference is the staging of the shows. "All in the Family" is edited in a way that is linear and shot so that it feels like a play. These elements show a continuation of the 50's thought that liveness should be a component of television. In contrast, "Modern Family" is non-linear in its editing style and is more cinematic than its counterpart. This type of presentation calls upon the system of telefilm, mostly credited to Desilu, and the higher production values that these shows were supposed to have.
Beside the styles of the shows, the issues that they address (or don't address) adds more difference between the shows. "All in the Family" choose to center much of its conflict around the fact that an adult married couple are still living with their parents where "Modern Family" doesn't not have this family dynamic within any of the three families depicted. Conversely, "Modern Family" shows adds cultural diversity with Manny and Gloria, but "All in the Family" depicts lacks this diversity. Both issues were present in both decades, but the shows depiction of a certian issue over another demonstrates what issues were important to the time period over another.
Despite all of these differences, "All in the Family" and "Modern Family" do share some common ground. Probably the most interesting similarity is the addressing of homosexuality. Even though the treatment of the issue has dramatically changed, the representation of gay people alone is a testiment of both shows to push boundaries by challenging social norms. A more important similarity lies with the generational struggle that both shows depict. The tentions between the younger occupants versuses the elders create friction between characters within a household.
So while the differences between the 1970's family sitcom "All in the Family" and contempoary sitcom "Modern Family" have more differences than similarities, both aspects create a bridge not only between eras in TV history, but also speaks to a broader evolution of social issues within America.
Here's the episode of "Modern Family that I reference to:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)