RACE: Sleep Dealer is obviously influenced by The Matrix (among other films). What connections do you see to The Matrix and like films? What differences do you see? What do these differences say about issues of race, for example Sleep Dealer is a Mexican-American production--What elements or themes in the film mark it as “particularly Latino” or “particularly Mexican”? What does Sleep Dealer have to say about the rural life versus urban life?
As mentioned above it is obvious that sleep dealer is inspired by the matrix.
however there are very few similarities. when it comes to comparing both films the only similarities would be the virtual reality theme they both carry both protagonist's had nodes implanted in their body. In the matrix people were living and working in the dream world. while in sleep dealer people were living in the real world and working in the dream world so to speak. In a way both characters were fighting to free something, Neo was fighting to free the people from the system known as "the matrix" and Memo was fighting to free his family from poverty and eventually his land from the opressing corporation that was holding his towns water.
The differences between the two are great. the matrix is an action film so there's alot to be gained for those looking for some philosophy and cool shootouts. sleep dealer has a deeper message so you get the picture im sure. another difference is that sleep dealer has a stronger focus on latinos even the american drone soldier was latino (minus the white t.v. announcer or that one guy who told memo where to place the cylinder), where in the matrix (although they didn't have much variety either)you at least see a couple different ethnicities placed here and there, so i guess these differences also relate to the focus on race. The matrix subliminally states that the system was a white mans world, (given the fact that in the film there's few black or spanish people visible in the world itself)im guessing the machines thought it would be funny to keep it that way. In sleep dealer it's focused on the mexican and latino population mainly because thats were the story takes place, it is acknowledged early on that other races do exist in this world but because of the setting and story it was appropriate and thats what makes it "particulary latino".
The matrix shows urban life as a slave life, constant repetition, and all you would expect from urban life and today's society.....bullshit, in sleep dealer although rural life seemed unacceptable by the standards of many people today there was opportunity the land had potential to flourish but the very people who come from a urban life (the corporation) held it hostage and deprived the land of it's necessary source. So in a way that's the subliminal message (that and the exploitation of mexicans for labor) in the story more can be gained with what we have, technology is just a dirty business.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
penetrating keanu/ ExistenZ
In "Penetrating Keanu" Cynthia Freeland argues in her comparison of The Matrix and Existenz that The Matrix, though "sleeker" is actually more "infantile" emotionally and philosophically and that, really, we have very little that is new to learn from the film. What reasons does she give for this claim? What evidence does she supply? Do you agree with her or not? Why or why not? Write a multi-paragraph blog entry engaging with Freeland's arguments.
before starting this blog i would have to say that my arguement may seem a bit incomplete since i've never seen Existenz, and although i have a small amount of helpful data in comparision to the different styles of the films. I would still need to see it to deliver a full subjective viewpoint.
However I understand what cynthia freeland is saying when she bashes the matrix. Although the movie is trying to deliver something new its still typical hollywood bullshit. The main protaganist (Neo)and supporting female role (Trinity) fit the stereotypes that we all know and...love. She doesnt agree with the way they describe the matrix, in my opinion she see's it as an excuse to throw in the special abilities these characters have while inside.And in short she's basically saying she preferes the way existenz handled many of the things she feels the matrix failed at. i cant bash the matrix because admittedly i liked it alot maybe im some sort of "geeky young male who yearns autonomy and super powers" as she so elequently puts it, but i cant compare it to existenz because i havent seent yet. But that goes without saying that i agree with some of her points so far, the matrix is a bit flashy, and sometimes i feel like its trying to balance style with meaning but thats only sometimes but either way it succeeds admirably. That being said the matrix is still a good film with interesting meanings behind everything. so until i see existenz...
(5/20/2010)
After seeing existenz i can now argue that this film has a deeper meaning than the matrix. my proof is the fact that i just didn't understand it. now i know that's a funny statement, but before any judgment is placed on my opinion i want to say its not hard to get the general concept or the idea of the film, and its not hard to understand that they were apparently just testing another game of another name for 20 minutes. but everything that happens in between is what makes the story (if it even really has one) questionable. I cant tell if the filmmakers intended to make a film so utterly confusing that when its done you just cant help but feel like you missed something or if it's all just really a crock of shit. Either way i'm sure there's more to everything and thats why think this film has a deeper meaning when compared to the matrix. The beauty of this film is that it really isn't the normal cliche hollywood film we're all use to,i cant really find that many stereotypes here and the beauty of the whole thing was that i wasn't sure what the hell was going to happen, if what was happening was real, and how it was going to end. overall there's a lot to be found here and i found hat this movie left me thinking and even considering giving it a re-watch.
before starting this blog i would have to say that my arguement may seem a bit incomplete since i've never seen Existenz, and although i have a small amount of helpful data in comparision to the different styles of the films. I would still need to see it to deliver a full subjective viewpoint.
However I understand what cynthia freeland is saying when she bashes the matrix. Although the movie is trying to deliver something new its still typical hollywood bullshit. The main protaganist (Neo)and supporting female role (Trinity) fit the stereotypes that we all know and...love. She doesnt agree with the way they describe the matrix, in my opinion she see's it as an excuse to throw in the special abilities these characters have while inside.And in short she's basically saying she preferes the way existenz handled many of the things she feels the matrix failed at. i cant bash the matrix because admittedly i liked it alot maybe im some sort of "geeky young male who yearns autonomy and super powers" as she so elequently puts it, but i cant compare it to existenz because i havent seent yet. But that goes without saying that i agree with some of her points so far, the matrix is a bit flashy, and sometimes i feel like its trying to balance style with meaning but thats only sometimes but either way it succeeds admirably. That being said the matrix is still a good film with interesting meanings behind everything. so until i see existenz...
(5/20/2010)
After seeing existenz i can now argue that this film has a deeper meaning than the matrix. my proof is the fact that i just didn't understand it. now i know that's a funny statement, but before any judgment is placed on my opinion i want to say its not hard to get the general concept or the idea of the film, and its not hard to understand that they were apparently just testing another game of another name for 20 minutes. but everything that happens in between is what makes the story (if it even really has one) questionable. I cant tell if the filmmakers intended to make a film so utterly confusing that when its done you just cant help but feel like you missed something or if it's all just really a crock of shit. Either way i'm sure there's more to everything and thats why think this film has a deeper meaning when compared to the matrix. The beauty of this film is that it really isn't the normal cliche hollywood film we're all use to,i cant really find that many stereotypes here and the beauty of the whole thing was that i wasn't sure what the hell was going to happen, if what was happening was real, and how it was going to end. overall there's a lot to be found here and i found hat this movie left me thinking and even considering giving it a re-watch.
blog 18 part 2
so we have created our outline (rough draft) we have the idea of what we intend to use. and later on today we will begin the editing process.
Outline
Network intro
Brief description of symbolism
Examples of symbolism in films
Ending (symbol speech)
Outline
Network intro
Brief description of symbolism
Examples of symbolism in films
Ending (symbol speech)
blog 18
today me and kris are going to outline, and or get started on the editing process of our project.
Are we really here, or there...or anywhere?
Are you, or could you, be living in the Matrix? How would you know?
Well the only answer to that question is exactly the question that's being asked...how would you know?. the matrix is a program. it's meant to show us what we "perceive" as reality. If we've known this world all our life how could we ever be so certain? or even have such a theory that we are living in a false world such as the matrix?. i dont think there would be anyway to know. unless you're neo and morpheus just so happens to pop into your life offering two pills that will either return you to your "dream" state or show you the "real" world. however there is a possibility we could already be living in the matrix. If you want to think about it from a technical viewpoint, look at the people around, look at the world today, there was a time when people had people skills, diversity was something you would see (sure you see the selected few who followed the trend but nowadays its all the same). If you want to find a true individual nowadays you have to search deeper and with the lack of effort a lot of people portray makes it hard to see anything genuine. As mentioned in the matrix Everybody is living in a dream world, technology is the proof behind this, people depend on it it's a necessity. You look around and you notice the texting, the tweeting, and the social networking sites. It's become part of their routine, it's become their second life, so in that sense yes we are living in the matrix. If you're thinking more along the lines of the movie, if i think we're floating in a pod of pink goo while our minds stay hooked up to a machine then like i said before how could we know?.
Well the only answer to that question is exactly the question that's being asked...how would you know?. the matrix is a program. it's meant to show us what we "perceive" as reality. If we've known this world all our life how could we ever be so certain? or even have such a theory that we are living in a false world such as the matrix?. i dont think there would be anyway to know. unless you're neo and morpheus just so happens to pop into your life offering two pills that will either return you to your "dream" state or show you the "real" world. however there is a possibility we could already be living in the matrix. If you want to think about it from a technical viewpoint, look at the people around, look at the world today, there was a time when people had people skills, diversity was something you would see (sure you see the selected few who followed the trend but nowadays its all the same). If you want to find a true individual nowadays you have to search deeper and with the lack of effort a lot of people portray makes it hard to see anything genuine. As mentioned in the matrix Everybody is living in a dream world, technology is the proof behind this, people depend on it it's a necessity. You look around and you notice the texting, the tweeting, and the social networking sites. It's become part of their routine, it's become their second life, so in that sense yes we are living in the matrix. If you're thinking more along the lines of the movie, if i think we're floating in a pod of pink goo while our minds stay hooked up to a machine then like i said before how could we know?.
sunrise outline
intro
thesis statement
example 1
example 2
example 3
example 4
example 5
example 6
closing statement
thesis statement
example 1
example 2
example 3
example 4
example 5
example 6
closing statement
sunrise
sunrise is a film that requires multiple views. (like pulp fiction) there's just something new you find every time you see it. everybody has a different perspective on this film, some are obvious things you notice that stand out as metaphors others are just things you see that were left there by the filmmakers themselves to have people like us talking about it. there is no right or wrong answer here just an observation supported by something relevant, someone could easily see it differently. now that i made that clear, on to what i intend to prove...
sunrise (as you already know) is a film of metaphors, in my paper i intend to prove the resemblance of the city woman to that of the vampire, and the transition of the main character as he juggles between his wife and the city woman.
in the film you immediatly notice the flaw the main protaganist has. He's infatuated with the woman from the city, he's driven by her influence. In the tracking shot thats shows him walking to the swamp to meet the city woman you can notice in his walk that he is a different person. in the early scene when he is home in the presence of his wife you see him standing straight he seems a little mischevious but non the less his wife's presence signifies purity, he doesnt seem to realize it but he's calm and ok in this state. As he makes his way to the city woman you begin to see him slouch and walk in a creepy manner as if he was a zombie or was forcing himself to move.
Another time you notice his transition is in the shot where he's going over the drowning of his wife in his head. its a medium close up shot he looks like a normal man observing his wife as she's feeding the chickens he then invisions her drowning while he imagines the city woman caressing him in a super imposed image. He then puts his head in his hands eventually lifts his head up and you begin to notice this black shade under his eyes he becomes this different person entirely.
But the most obvious reason that he is a different person (depending on who he's with) is shown early in the film. The neighbour women describe how the relationship between the married couple use to be saying "They used to be like children, carefree...always happy and laughing..." after the title card explains this you see a flashback of him, his wife, and their baby they all seem carefree and all is well and simple. Then another title card appears and it says "Now he ruins himself for that woman from the city - Money-lenders strip the farm - and his wife sits alone". another flashback shows the difference and all the change the city woman has brought as he selling his cows with a look of grief. it's safe to say he is a different person depending on which woman is present.
My next theory i intend to prove is the resemblence the city woman shares with the vamp. As we all know the vampire is a creature of the night, who feeds on the life form of living creatures, they never come out during the day, they have an influence about them that makes it easy to lure their prey to them and wherever they go it's sure to be bad news for someone. this can all be said for the city woman.
My first example begins with the fact that the city woman is never seen coming out during the day. the first shot to show this is the shot of the city woman in her room in the country, the room is dim with only a hint of light shining through one of the windows she's smoking and she has on a slinky black dress. The second fact is proven when the husband leaves his house to meet her at the swamp it's night time and it's the only time they ever meet.
another example that relates her to the vamp is her complexion she is very pale, you can notice this when the husband finally meets her at the swamp and the moonlight shines on her face. this a clear sign that she doesnt get enough sunlight and could very well be a creature of the night. Another small detail i want to add, vampires are a symbol of death they are the living dead they take life and dont really value it. before the husband finally meets the city woman there is a shot of her standing in the pale moon light twirling a flower (which represents life and all that the country has to offer) and then she carelessly throws it away this can reresent her disdain for the country and life itself. since vampires are creatures of death it can be said that she really doesnt appreciate life you can relate this to the fact that she suggested in a nonchalant manner to the husband that he kill his wife, as if it was no big deal, and as if life itself had no value.
My last example focuses on her influence. vampires are usually very charming they have this influence about them, and the ability to seduce and lure in their prey. This all relates to the husband and the difference in his behavior when he's with the city woman. You can first notice this in the tracking shot of the husband walking to the swamp when he goes to meet her, he almost seems like he's in a trance, and as if he's forcing himself to move. Another example can be seen in the shot when the city woman suggest that the husband drowns his wife, at first the husband is enraged he begins to choke the city woman but she kisses him and quickly changes his mind, this is a sign of the power she has over him. The next example is shown when the husband wakes up the next day and he begins to think about the act of murder he was asked to commit, after his thought he seems to have a change of heart but soon after a super impose image of the city woman appears and she's holding him smiling ensuring the fact that the city woman is in his mind, and has indeed influenced him enough to have him carry out her wishes.
i stated i would prove every theory i had with relevant information, i hope this will suffice.
sunrise (as you already know) is a film of metaphors, in my paper i intend to prove the resemblance of the city woman to that of the vampire, and the transition of the main character as he juggles between his wife and the city woman.
in the film you immediatly notice the flaw the main protaganist has. He's infatuated with the woman from the city, he's driven by her influence. In the tracking shot thats shows him walking to the swamp to meet the city woman you can notice in his walk that he is a different person. in the early scene when he is home in the presence of his wife you see him standing straight he seems a little mischevious but non the less his wife's presence signifies purity, he doesnt seem to realize it but he's calm and ok in this state. As he makes his way to the city woman you begin to see him slouch and walk in a creepy manner as if he was a zombie or was forcing himself to move.
Another time you notice his transition is in the shot where he's going over the drowning of his wife in his head. its a medium close up shot he looks like a normal man observing his wife as she's feeding the chickens he then invisions her drowning while he imagines the city woman caressing him in a super imposed image. He then puts his head in his hands eventually lifts his head up and you begin to notice this black shade under his eyes he becomes this different person entirely.
But the most obvious reason that he is a different person (depending on who he's with) is shown early in the film. The neighbour women describe how the relationship between the married couple use to be saying "They used to be like children, carefree...always happy and laughing..." after the title card explains this you see a flashback of him, his wife, and their baby they all seem carefree and all is well and simple. Then another title card appears and it says "Now he ruins himself for that woman from the city - Money-lenders strip the farm - and his wife sits alone". another flashback shows the difference and all the change the city woman has brought as he selling his cows with a look of grief. it's safe to say he is a different person depending on which woman is present.
My next theory i intend to prove is the resemblence the city woman shares with the vamp. As we all know the vampire is a creature of the night, who feeds on the life form of living creatures, they never come out during the day, they have an influence about them that makes it easy to lure their prey to them and wherever they go it's sure to be bad news for someone. this can all be said for the city woman.
My first example begins with the fact that the city woman is never seen coming out during the day. the first shot to show this is the shot of the city woman in her room in the country, the room is dim with only a hint of light shining through one of the windows she's smoking and she has on a slinky black dress. The second fact is proven when the husband leaves his house to meet her at the swamp it's night time and it's the only time they ever meet.
another example that relates her to the vamp is her complexion she is very pale, you can notice this when the husband finally meets her at the swamp and the moonlight shines on her face. this a clear sign that she doesnt get enough sunlight and could very well be a creature of the night. Another small detail i want to add, vampires are a symbol of death they are the living dead they take life and dont really value it. before the husband finally meets the city woman there is a shot of her standing in the pale moon light twirling a flower (which represents life and all that the country has to offer) and then she carelessly throws it away this can reresent her disdain for the country and life itself. since vampires are creatures of death it can be said that she really doesnt appreciate life you can relate this to the fact that she suggested in a nonchalant manner to the husband that he kill his wife, as if it was no big deal, and as if life itself had no value.
My last example focuses on her influence. vampires are usually very charming they have this influence about them, and the ability to seduce and lure in their prey. This all relates to the husband and the difference in his behavior when he's with the city woman. You can first notice this in the tracking shot of the husband walking to the swamp when he goes to meet her, he almost seems like he's in a trance, and as if he's forcing himself to move. Another example can be seen in the shot when the city woman suggest that the husband drowns his wife, at first the husband is enraged he begins to choke the city woman but she kisses him and quickly changes his mind, this is a sign of the power she has over him. The next example is shown when the husband wakes up the next day and he begins to think about the act of murder he was asked to commit, after his thought he seems to have a change of heart but soon after a super impose image of the city woman appears and she's holding him smiling ensuring the fact that the city woman is in his mind, and has indeed influenced him enough to have him carry out her wishes.
i stated i would prove every theory i had with relevant information, i hope this will suffice.
violence and the media (mid term)
Jose Pena
Professor: Lucca
4/28/2010
Mass communication
Violence and the media
Is the media responsible for the increase in violence? I believe the media has its influences as does any form of entertainment, but to say that it's one hundred responsible for the increase in violence is a bit far-fetched in my opinion. In this article i will be presenting facts, along with some of my own theories to prove why the media is not responsible for the increase in violence.
Reason one: my beliefs on violence as a whole
Violence is a part of society, and everyone's social life. One way or another you've all experienced violence, you've all had violent thoughts, and at one point in time you all gave into to the aggression within you, getting straight to the point violence is a part of all of us and always has been even before the media. It's a normal part of human nature, it sinks right down to our primal roots, I don’t believe its a disease, I just think it's something that people are over analyzing (this is just my opinion of course). There are things in our life that makes us angry i mean downright pissed...a lot of people can deal with the pressure others react in excess and either commit murders, or portray acts of domestic violence, or turn to crime (which most of the time is out of desperation and has nothing to do with influence) at the end of the day it all comes down to the mind state of the individual.
I mean if i can differentiate fiction from reality, right from wrong but some other person can't what should be held responsible?, television? or the individual?, What about when all this violence occurred before television, what was to blame?. There are millions of people out there like me (you're probably one of them), im sure you've seen your fair share of violence on television war movies, crime stories did that make you want to kill someone?, did that make you want to commit a robbery?, why cant we admit that we find it intriguing? And that we need it. It's like our momentary buzz away from reality, a moment where we get to live the life without actually living the life, a necessary "Evil" that helps us vent. This brings me to my next point.
Reason two: media violence helps us maintain sanity.
As weird as it may sound think about it. Without looking for facts or statistics think of yourself and how you feel, and what you do when you’re angry. Ever had a day when you were really pissed to the point that you felt like snapping and lashing out on the first sorry person who stared at you wrong?, or maybe you just came out the wrong way to certain people because of your frustration. Now imagine yourself in your state of anger listening to the angriest music ever something that relates to your situation, or is just downright violent in content, the lyrics are raw and the message is aggressive.
Now you swirling your head back and forth your feeling it you start to sing the lyrics and get into it your venting, isn't it a beautiful thing when your angry and you hear music about breaking someone's neck?. It may sound sadistic but in truth your just releasing all that aggression that was pent up in you, and stopping a potential lash out. The same can be said about television, sometimes when people are angry they put on a show or movie it can be violent, or not, through it they can get their mind off things and place their focus on what's in front of them until they feel better. Even i from time to time put on grand theft auto and just go on a shooting spree it's surprisingly effective (if you can differentiate reality and fiction) and it does relieve stress.(these example don't apply to everyone but it's still something to consider). But if that doesn't sit well with you or convinces you enough here is a quote from (feshbach 1961)"One such condition is said to occur when viewers are deficient in the ability to invent aggressive fantasies, the entertainment of which Feshbach hypothesizes is helpful in self-control of aggressive impulses. Television violence, it is argued, supplies material for such
fantasies, thus reducing aggressive behavior.
Another condition is said
to occur when the television violence creates aggression anxiety, which
leads to the inhibition of aggressive impulses". We can settle for that or go back to the historic roman circus days where they started off with calm civilized entertainment, which out of repetition and boredom played host to rape and violence, which later became even more grotesque as the audience demanded more and thousands of people were killed for the audiences entertainment, Take your pick.
Reason three: we need violence.
for those who believe violence has no use, or isn’t necessary, violence is a way of control and everything needs a certain order to it. Sometimes the only way that can be achieved is through violence. As Philip Atkinson said "The truth that the law is only maintained by the tacit threat of violence is forgotten by most citizens who rarely breach any major law, and are willing to pay the fines imposed by the official discovery of their misdemeanors such as speeding. Even those who steal or murder generally accept the notion that public discovery will demand private penalty. However the reality is that without the threat, or actual use, of violence by law officers, the law would be ignored. People can only enjoy their property and liberty within a community because of the community's readiness and ability to inflict violence upon lawbreakers". The world we live in won’t allow us to always resolve things through peace, (just throwing that out there).
Reason four: The facts/conclusion
(Cyber College, TV. violence article)"If you eat something that you have not tried before and immediately get sick, you will probably assume there's a direct relationship between the two. And if at some later date you forget about your first experience and eat the same thing again, and immediately get sick again, you can be fairly sure that whatever you ate makes you sick. No rocket science here, just clear cause and effect. Unfortunately, the cause and effect in many other areas of life are not as readily apparent". The problem with this whole debate is the simple fact there is no real bad guy to blame, just endless theories. Millions of people view media violence daily and have been doing so since they were children, many are unscathed by it, except for that small percentage which a lot of people seem to be focusing on. I’m not saying that people aren’t influenced by media violence, im not saying or denying that crimes weren't committed because of it. I’m simply saying that there's always going to be two groups of people in every problem (the affected and unaffected) and fortunately the percentage of affected is small. We cant blame TV. violence only. because that’s a small part of everyone's life people go through many things in their life that make them who they are, living conditions, parents, friends, education etc. not media violence. Everyone is capable of thinking before they act, the problem is people just need something to blame, so ask yourself now who's responsible the media or the individual?.
In closing I would like to say that i hate television I rarely watch it, we just couldn’t flourish together.
The end
Professor: Lucca
4/28/2010
Mass communication
Violence and the media
Is the media responsible for the increase in violence? I believe the media has its influences as does any form of entertainment, but to say that it's one hundred responsible for the increase in violence is a bit far-fetched in my opinion. In this article i will be presenting facts, along with some of my own theories to prove why the media is not responsible for the increase in violence.
Reason one: my beliefs on violence as a whole
Violence is a part of society, and everyone's social life. One way or another you've all experienced violence, you've all had violent thoughts, and at one point in time you all gave into to the aggression within you, getting straight to the point violence is a part of all of us and always has been even before the media. It's a normal part of human nature, it sinks right down to our primal roots, I don’t believe its a disease, I just think it's something that people are over analyzing (this is just my opinion of course). There are things in our life that makes us angry i mean downright pissed...a lot of people can deal with the pressure others react in excess and either commit murders, or portray acts of domestic violence, or turn to crime (which most of the time is out of desperation and has nothing to do with influence) at the end of the day it all comes down to the mind state of the individual.
I mean if i can differentiate fiction from reality, right from wrong but some other person can't what should be held responsible?, television? or the individual?, What about when all this violence occurred before television, what was to blame?. There are millions of people out there like me (you're probably one of them), im sure you've seen your fair share of violence on television war movies, crime stories did that make you want to kill someone?, did that make you want to commit a robbery?, why cant we admit that we find it intriguing? And that we need it. It's like our momentary buzz away from reality, a moment where we get to live the life without actually living the life, a necessary "Evil" that helps us vent. This brings me to my next point.
Reason two: media violence helps us maintain sanity.
As weird as it may sound think about it. Without looking for facts or statistics think of yourself and how you feel, and what you do when you’re angry. Ever had a day when you were really pissed to the point that you felt like snapping and lashing out on the first sorry person who stared at you wrong?, or maybe you just came out the wrong way to certain people because of your frustration. Now imagine yourself in your state of anger listening to the angriest music ever something that relates to your situation, or is just downright violent in content, the lyrics are raw and the message is aggressive.
Now you swirling your head back and forth your feeling it you start to sing the lyrics and get into it your venting, isn't it a beautiful thing when your angry and you hear music about breaking someone's neck?. It may sound sadistic but in truth your just releasing all that aggression that was pent up in you, and stopping a potential lash out. The same can be said about television, sometimes when people are angry they put on a show or movie it can be violent, or not, through it they can get their mind off things and place their focus on what's in front of them until they feel better. Even i from time to time put on grand theft auto and just go on a shooting spree it's surprisingly effective (if you can differentiate reality and fiction) and it does relieve stress.(these example don't apply to everyone but it's still something to consider). But if that doesn't sit well with you or convinces you enough here is a quote from (feshbach 1961)"One such condition is said to occur when viewers are deficient in the ability to invent aggressive fantasies, the entertainment of which Feshbach hypothesizes is helpful in self-control of aggressive impulses. Television violence, it is argued, supplies material for such
fantasies, thus reducing aggressive behavior.
Another condition is said
to occur when the television violence creates aggression anxiety, which
leads to the inhibition of aggressive impulses". We can settle for that or go back to the historic roman circus days where they started off with calm civilized entertainment, which out of repetition and boredom played host to rape and violence, which later became even more grotesque as the audience demanded more and thousands of people were killed for the audiences entertainment, Take your pick.
Reason three: we need violence.
for those who believe violence has no use, or isn’t necessary, violence is a way of control and everything needs a certain order to it. Sometimes the only way that can be achieved is through violence. As Philip Atkinson said "The truth that the law is only maintained by the tacit threat of violence is forgotten by most citizens who rarely breach any major law, and are willing to pay the fines imposed by the official discovery of their misdemeanors such as speeding. Even those who steal or murder generally accept the notion that public discovery will demand private penalty. However the reality is that without the threat, or actual use, of violence by law officers, the law would be ignored. People can only enjoy their property and liberty within a community because of the community's readiness and ability to inflict violence upon lawbreakers". The world we live in won’t allow us to always resolve things through peace, (just throwing that out there).
Reason four: The facts/conclusion
(Cyber College, TV. violence article)"If you eat something that you have not tried before and immediately get sick, you will probably assume there's a direct relationship between the two. And if at some later date you forget about your first experience and eat the same thing again, and immediately get sick again, you can be fairly sure that whatever you ate makes you sick. No rocket science here, just clear cause and effect. Unfortunately, the cause and effect in many other areas of life are not as readily apparent". The problem with this whole debate is the simple fact there is no real bad guy to blame, just endless theories. Millions of people view media violence daily and have been doing so since they were children, many are unscathed by it, except for that small percentage which a lot of people seem to be focusing on. I’m not saying that people aren’t influenced by media violence, im not saying or denying that crimes weren't committed because of it. I’m simply saying that there's always going to be two groups of people in every problem (the affected and unaffected) and fortunately the percentage of affected is small. We cant blame TV. violence only. because that’s a small part of everyone's life people go through many things in their life that make them who they are, living conditions, parents, friends, education etc. not media violence. Everyone is capable of thinking before they act, the problem is people just need something to blame, so ask yourself now who's responsible the media or the individual?.
In closing I would like to say that i hate television I rarely watch it, we just couldn’t flourish together.
The end
where im up to
so far im still sticking to my claim that media is not responsible for the increase in violence. and im currently researching the relationship between the two so far its a work in progress.
Blog 10
what i've done
in my claim i stated that i do not believe television is responsible for the increase of violence. then I went to go and research the relevance between violence and television, and here's what i found out...in the end of the day it all comes down to theory many psychologist cant really agree in the same thing. i found one quote that appealed to me.
Sigmund Freud agreed with this idea, and said that
"Unless people were allowed to express themselves aggressively, the
aggressive energy would be dammed up, pressure would build, and the
aggressive energy would seek an outlet, either exploding into acts of
extreme violence or manifesting itself as symptoms of mental illness
.... But there is no direct evidence for this conclusion"
(Aronson, 1995, p.258).
to be continued....
(because the service in this room is acting funny)
Posted by GuN
in my claim i stated that i do not believe television is responsible for the increase of violence. then I went to go and research the relevance between violence and television, and here's what i found out...in the end of the day it all comes down to theory many psychologist cant really agree in the same thing. i found one quote that appealed to me.
Sigmund Freud agreed with this idea, and said that
"Unless people were allowed to express themselves aggressively, the
aggressive energy would be dammed up, pressure would build, and the
aggressive energy would seek an outlet, either exploding into acts of
extreme violence or manifesting itself as symptoms of mental illness
.... But there is no direct evidence for this conclusion"
(Aronson, 1995, p.258).
to be continued....
(because the service in this room is acting funny)
Posted by GuN
blog 9
Thesis / Thesis Statement- a thesis statement is meant to show what you believe and what you intend to prove to your reader. (source cited at www.sdst.org)
Research-basically when one searches for infromation on a topic of interest to gain more knowledge and understanding.
Argument- an argument is a discussion (sometimes aggressive) where two or more people are trying to explain and support their indivdual opinions with an opposing one.
Claim-to make a statement you believe is true.
Reasons - an explanation for the happening of something, (pertaining to way of thinking) or backround information that supports and explains your thoughts
Evidence- something factual that proves your point.
MLA Citation Style- another form of citing your sources.(simply put)
(all of them were in my own words the first one was the only one i searched up but it's still in my own words so yeah...)
(upon reading the mid term assignment)
i think lou is asking us to argue whether or not if kids who watch any form of television are likely to become violent as opposed to children who dont. and if the theory can be proven how do they differ?. Im of the opinion that a bad person is meant to be and not just crafted by out of the blue by television. mainly because i remember in sociology there was a lesson on kids who are just born bad, so if they gonna be bad they're gonna be bad it's not the television's fault alone. but i also feel there are people who are easily influenced so at the end of the day (to not contadict myself) research must be done, but thats a rough draft of my opinion. if i were to find any evidence i would start with my book on society, maybe search for something on influence and inherited genes.
Research-basically when one searches for infromation on a topic of interest to gain more knowledge and understanding.
Argument- an argument is a discussion (sometimes aggressive) where two or more people are trying to explain and support their indivdual opinions with an opposing one.
Claim-to make a statement you believe is true.
Reasons - an explanation for the happening of something, (pertaining to way of thinking) or backround information that supports and explains your thoughts
Evidence- something factual that proves your point.
MLA Citation Style- another form of citing your sources.(simply put)
(all of them were in my own words the first one was the only one i searched up but it's still in my own words so yeah...)
(upon reading the mid term assignment)
i think lou is asking us to argue whether or not if kids who watch any form of television are likely to become violent as opposed to children who dont. and if the theory can be proven how do they differ?. Im of the opinion that a bad person is meant to be and not just crafted by out of the blue by television. mainly because i remember in sociology there was a lesson on kids who are just born bad, so if they gonna be bad they're gonna be bad it's not the television's fault alone. but i also feel there are people who are easily influenced so at the end of the day (to not contadict myself) research must be done, but thats a rough draft of my opinion. if i were to find any evidence i would start with my book on society, maybe search for something on influence and inherited genes.
Blog 8 (the museum of the moving image)
I found the museum of the moving image to be a very interesting place. despite its small size it had enough to offer. I learned how the sound directors added sound into films, how to pick music that captures the emotion of a scene,how to make animations from still images,and the illusion of movement on film. what i found interesting the most was the sound directing i have love for music especially in films so it was simply valuable information. I would visit the museum again but only to show it other people who are interested in film. It was fun for the most part.
jose pena- The matrix (blog 6)
(in the order of things to think about)
Upon watching the matrix (for like the fifth time) i noticed some things i didnt before (mainly because i was actually looking for something to notice). throughout the film we are told the matrix is a dream world, an illusion created by machines in which the mind lives accordingly. every fantasy we feel is actually lived out in the matrix. i noticed that everybody had a sense of fashion even the main characters, almost everyone looked presentable, women were good looking (the woman in the red dress) dressed up, and in shape (i dont ever recall seeing one fat person minus the oracle who was more average at best). so in that sense i suppose you could say the body is important in the matrix as they appeal to the standards our society believes in. Race played a big role in the movie as well the whole world seemed to be full of white people the cops, neos co-workers, the agents no other ethnicity in sight as far as i saw (minus the oracle and morpheus). and they were portrayed as wise saviors, im sure there are reasons for this but im not sure what they're referencing, other than the fact that it truely was a "white man's" world.
As i answered in my other blog if given the option to take the red or blue pill i would take the red pill. Simply because this world is bullshit and im tired of lies, i've lived for twenty years and im still not sure what to believe in. It's like George carlin said "It's nothing but a big stroke job in this country. The government strokes you every day of your life. Religion never stops stroking you. Big business gives you a good stroke. And it's one big, transcontinental, cross-country, red, white and blue stroke job... Do you know what the national emblem for this country ought to be? Forget that bald eagle. The national emblem of this country ought to be Uncle Sam standing naked at attention saluting, and seated on a chair next to him, the Statue of Liberty jerking him off. That would be a good symbol for the United Strokes of America".
I feel that things are too convenient its sort of suspicious,and it feels like theres alot missing. living in a world of truth even if it's an ugly truth would give me a new perspective, save me time and unecessary effort, and grant me the clarity im searching for. The convenience i mentioned earlier relates to the technology we use. Dont get me wrong it's amazing but i feel people are losing themselves in all these distractions and its all to keep us happy and we're becoming very dependent on it , so when it comes down to our relationship with technology in one word i can describe it as "dangerous". One thing technology and humans have in common is that in a way we are both dependent on each other. As mentioned in the matrix the machines needed an alternative source of energy (humans), in todays day and age technology just needs us to use it, so that we can enjoy it review it and constantly upgrade...
Upon watching the matrix (for like the fifth time) i noticed some things i didnt before (mainly because i was actually looking for something to notice). throughout the film we are told the matrix is a dream world, an illusion created by machines in which the mind lives accordingly. every fantasy we feel is actually lived out in the matrix. i noticed that everybody had a sense of fashion even the main characters, almost everyone looked presentable, women were good looking (the woman in the red dress) dressed up, and in shape (i dont ever recall seeing one fat person minus the oracle who was more average at best). so in that sense i suppose you could say the body is important in the matrix as they appeal to the standards our society believes in. Race played a big role in the movie as well the whole world seemed to be full of white people the cops, neos co-workers, the agents no other ethnicity in sight as far as i saw (minus the oracle and morpheus). and they were portrayed as wise saviors, im sure there are reasons for this but im not sure what they're referencing, other than the fact that it truely was a "white man's" world.
As i answered in my other blog if given the option to take the red or blue pill i would take the red pill. Simply because this world is bullshit and im tired of lies, i've lived for twenty years and im still not sure what to believe in. It's like George carlin said "It's nothing but a big stroke job in this country. The government strokes you every day of your life. Religion never stops stroking you. Big business gives you a good stroke. And it's one big, transcontinental, cross-country, red, white and blue stroke job... Do you know what the national emblem for this country ought to be? Forget that bald eagle. The national emblem of this country ought to be Uncle Sam standing naked at attention saluting, and seated on a chair next to him, the Statue of Liberty jerking him off. That would be a good symbol for the United Strokes of America".
I feel that things are too convenient its sort of suspicious,and it feels like theres alot missing. living in a world of truth even if it's an ugly truth would give me a new perspective, save me time and unecessary effort, and grant me the clarity im searching for. The convenience i mentioned earlier relates to the technology we use. Dont get me wrong it's amazing but i feel people are losing themselves in all these distractions and its all to keep us happy and we're becoming very dependent on it , so when it comes down to our relationship with technology in one word i can describe it as "dangerous". One thing technology and humans have in common is that in a way we are both dependent on each other. As mentioned in the matrix the machines needed an alternative source of energy (humans), in todays day and age technology just needs us to use it, so that we can enjoy it review it and constantly upgrade...
Red pill....
When it comes down to the description of each pill, the blue pill is the pill you would take if you wish to continue living in the dream world, the world you know now. The red pill is the pill you would take if you were curious about the truth, and were willing to sacrifice all you know for actuality. Maybe im overanalyzing it all just a wee bit but i feel the colors signify some sort of meaning. the blue pill, the color blue to me reminds me of relaxation, a scenario thats pure chill, and laid back. The red pill, the color red has a more intense meaning, i feel it represents power, the pill is offering you knowledge, knowledge is power. when it comes down to choosing which pill i would take i would take the red pill, simply because im tired of lies i've lived for twenty years and im still not sure what to believe in. living in a world with truth even if its an ugly truth would (in my opinion) save me time unecessary effort and give me the clarity im searching for.
Blog 4
I think the reason people may feel like they are on t.v. is because of the sites most people visit such as facebook, twitter, and myspace. On these websites people literally broadcast what they are doing or whats going on in their life sometimes a simple broadcast is just as good as a visual presentation. In this scenario i would say its not safe to trust these sites but we do trust them without realizing, we're so fast to give our personal information to the owners of these sites, and explain so much about ourselves and show our faces on our pages it almost becomes hypercritical
"The way the world should be"
3) During an interview, christof states the following: "i have given truman the chance lead a normal life. the world, the place you live in is the sick place. seahaven is the way the world should be." is Christof correct. what, if any, would be the benefits of living in seahaven as opposed to the real world?
The difference between seahaven and the real world is that seahaven is a utopia. and if anybody knows, utopias have a way of never working out. not because they are ideal, or perfect, but mainly because they arent real. what are the benefits of living in a utopia? well utopias are a sanctuary much like seahaven theres peace, prosperity, everybody's happy, flourishing, families are together the world is safe point blank there are no problems. Thats great but in my opinion (maybe im biast because i live a different world) it takes away the substance the real world has. now this may be fine for people who dont mind living in fiction but there's always going to be that one person with questions, that one person who feels different, and eventually other people are going to question and all the cards are going to come crashing down much like in the movie "pleasantville". But to get to the point living in seahaven would be amazing, in another life with another state of mind and without the knowledge i possess. and even if that were possible, if i were born into a world like that i feel me and the people around me wouldnt feel incomplete something in our guts would make us curious and as truman presented curiousity and determination go a long way.
The difference between seahaven and the real world is that seahaven is a utopia. and if anybody knows, utopias have a way of never working out. not because they are ideal, or perfect, but mainly because they arent real. what are the benefits of living in a utopia? well utopias are a sanctuary much like seahaven theres peace, prosperity, everybody's happy, flourishing, families are together the world is safe point blank there are no problems. Thats great but in my opinion (maybe im biast because i live a different world) it takes away the substance the real world has. now this may be fine for people who dont mind living in fiction but there's always going to be that one person with questions, that one person who feels different, and eventually other people are going to question and all the cards are going to come crashing down much like in the movie "pleasantville". But to get to the point living in seahaven would be amazing, in another life with another state of mind and without the knowledge i possess. and even if that were possible, if i were born into a world like that i feel me and the people around me wouldnt feel incomplete something in our guts would make us curious and as truman presented curiousity and determination go a long way.
so here's what i think
"Allegory of the cave"
is a metaphor for our early lives. as children we start off as "prisoners" knowing nothing and believing everything we see. the shadows represent all that is unreal (television, entertainment, etc.) an image that is cast by the fire is the truth behind it all and the cave is what shields us from reality. socrates was basically saying that we're programmed stuck, dazed and amazed by the illusion we perceive as reality. reality is right next us the fire behind the prisoners is a mockery of our inability to truely see. he questions that if one had the ability to be freed from his chains (which are an illusion too by the way) and look behind ourself to see the truth, to see that the image itself is an illusion itself created by something greater would they recognize it?. how could we know if all we been doing is staring at a shadow? its by this moment we take the illusion in as reality. but what if we were released what if we turned our heads and stared at the fire? we would be blinded by the truth and see it as if it were unreal.
is a metaphor for our early lives. as children we start off as "prisoners" knowing nothing and believing everything we see. the shadows represent all that is unreal (television, entertainment, etc.) an image that is cast by the fire is the truth behind it all and the cave is what shields us from reality. socrates was basically saying that we're programmed stuck, dazed and amazed by the illusion we perceive as reality. reality is right next us the fire behind the prisoners is a mockery of our inability to truely see. he questions that if one had the ability to be freed from his chains (which are an illusion too by the way) and look behind ourself to see the truth, to see that the image itself is an illusion itself created by something greater would they recognize it?. how could we know if all we been doing is staring at a shadow? its by this moment we take the illusion in as reality. but what if we were released what if we turned our heads and stared at the fire? we would be blinded by the truth and see it as if it were unreal.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
In today’s day and age it’s hard to say no to technology. You’re immediately given this ultimatum to Move along with the times, or literally get nowhere. Everywhere you turn technology is present and you depend on it, whether it comes to making a simple text or phone call, or checking your email the line between necessity and addiction is thin.“I am not a cyborg”, I am a slave and so are you. You can’t help it and it’s not your fault since birth we are programmed with many ideals what we learn, what we watch it all develops us into who we are. A cyborg is a human that has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by electronic or mechanical devices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
