Pop Culture Wins the War

Kultur Kampf– a struggle between two or more sets of conflicting cultural values

During the Cold War, writers and artists were faced with a huge challenge. In the Soviet world, they were expected to turn out works that glorified militancy, struggle and relentless optimism. In the West, freedom of expression was vaunted as liberal democracy’s most cherished possession.

In this war the biggest weapons weren’t the massive missiles or nuclear attacks, but the soft power that was spread through art, music and liberal ideas.

Media has always had a strong impact in forming public opinion and the United states has acted upon this through planting starbucks or Mcdonalds around the world.

The U.S wants the rest of the world to know that the single chicken mcnugget, has been deep fried in a pool of freedom of expression and liberty for all oil.During the cold war, this idea remained the same. This time it was the C-I-A who took charge.

Should we thank the C-I-A for developing american culture?

Image of American Expressionism

The world has never seen the United states of America as the beacon of culture.This idea certainly did not change at the begining of the Cold War, the war against communism. In 1947 just after the C-I-A was created, the Propaganda assets inventory was founded which influenced magazines, newspapers and public information organizations to change this opinion of culture-less america.

The C-I-A promoted american abstract Expressionist painting around the world “for more then 20 years”, according to the article Modern Art was a CIA weapon. If president Trumann commented on the art of the time with ” If that’s art, then I am a Huttentot”, then how did the U.S convince the rest of the world on the magnificence of American Expressionism?

The International Organisation division or ( IOD ) played a very large role.The IOD sponsored american jazz, opera recitals as well as the Boston Symphony.

Agents for the IOD were used as preachers placed in Publishing houses or the film industry. Anywhere where culture could be sprouted. Sprouted and spread

The CIA’s strategy was to gather European intellectuals and artists from the non-Communist Left, including former Communists like Arthur Koestler, in order to create a cultural bulwark against Soviet Russia. This type of art was supported by the CIA because it displayed a type of creativity and freedom of expression that was not allowed in Soviet Russia.

The art that was found In Russia during the cold war era was one that was very confined and straight , a complete opposite of what American expressionism displayed.

The CIA knew it had to spread a message, but all done in secret.

“In order to encourage openness we had to be secret”

Liberal thoughts . A message promoted by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, where a group of intellectual elite posed as a front to covert interest in abstract expressionism.

This campaign , the Congress for Cultural Freedom(CCF) had offices in 35 countries and published more then two dozen magazines including touring european cities with “The new American Painting tour”.

Certain magazines such as Der Monat (1948-1971) and The encounter were CIA backed magazines. Behind the scenes at Encounter lurked the egregious British intelligence agent and broadcaster, Malcolm Muggeridge, whose face was so ubiquitous on the BBC in the Sixties. In reality, Muggeridge worked for the largely unexamined Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, set up by Attlee in 1948 as a sister organisation to the CIA to counteract the spread of Communism as said in an article in History Today.

The CCF was on fire.

Money was pumped into foundations by the C-I-A. Foundations which promoted and advertised this type of abstract artwork that displayed a non communist society in which everyone should live in. When paintings were backed with the world’s wealthiest saying “ooo” and “aaah”, the world had to love this type of art.

But..Mission : Accomplished ? not quite…

Bond. James bond. Fighting commies by day, sleeping with Russian beauties by night. Our friend Bond has more to do with winning the war then one may assume. According to the article by Dominic Sandbrook, “How Pop Culture helped with the cold war”, The role of Bond as well as other pop culture had a huge part in fighing off communism .

Around 1917, Russia dominated the world with artistic talent. From Eisenstein to Sergei Prokofiev, the Soviet- Union had it all. “All” a word that evaporated too quickly as Russia’s culture was forced into a box of cut off and censored ideas.

But those who werent told what to read, write , or create where found somewhere else.

The U.S and western europe was a fertile bed of uncensored ideas.. waiting to grow. The people under communist rule began to take notice.

Just what the CIA had intended

“Western Capitalism had become a beacon to the oppressed people of Eastern Europe”

Bond, the charming handsome man always had a fresh suit and multiple bombshells on his arm played a character who had it all. While the youth in soviet Russia were standing in lines to receive a stale piece of bread, bond was traveling the world freely, expressing himself freely and simultaneously living in luxuries that Soviet Russia couldn’t offer their population.

According to the article by Sandbrook, the life-style shown in the Bond movies, represented an “astounding advance towards comfort and prosperity-something the sclerotic, debt-fuelled Communist economies could never provide”

During the cold war, television as a medium for communication also had a large impact on it’s viewers. George Orwell played a large role in showing people how terrible life under a soviet dictatoriship was.With grey and depressing scenes , Animal Farm and 1984 were blasted on screens to confirm peoples thinking that communism was indeed the enemy.

The cold war was also being fought through the ears..with music.

For all the young soviets who were hungry for a better life, pop music soothed the soul and brought in glimpses of what life on the other side of the iron curtain was like. During the three day concert to mark the city’s (Berlin )750th anniversary, hundreds of east berliners climbed trees to get a sneak peek at their idols. It is no wonder that Soviet authorities hated pop music, it showed their youth a more promising life. Judas priest were said to be “anticommunist, racist” and pinkfloyed was accused of “distortion of Soviet foreign policy”

“British music represented not just freedom and fun, but modernity and self expression”.

It is because of the spread of these ideas that one can say that pop culture had a bigger influence then originally thought.

The article who caused the end of the cold war gives the reader a deeper insight into the events that eventually helped bring an end to the war.The author argues that it wasn’t just military power or Reagan’s rhetoric that played a role, but also through economic and soft power.

I do find that the cold war was ended due to the spread of liberal ideas from the west.

If you consume media and ideas from a society which allows for basic human rights and freedom , you are bound to want to reach that goal. People living under soviet regime noticed just how bad the standard of living was under soviet regime and as mentioned in the article ” Who Caused the End of the Cold War”, health care began to decline and the mortality rate increased.. something that no member of society wants to live in.

I also believe that the economy of the soviet union during the cold war had a large impact on the end of the soviet union. During the early period of the war, communism and the Soviet Union had a great deal of “soft power” but began to crumble with the decline of communist ideology and the failure of the soviet economy.

Band members which people idolized everywhere had a great impact on youth living under soviet regime. The ideas spread in their songs, depicted a type of life that was so foreighn to fans listening to the songs and certainly created a large motivational factor . The book “Who Paid the Piper” by Francis stauners shows just how each writer, director, or artist was used as an instrument to spread liberal ideas and how soft power reached across borders.

“we wanted to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement… without any rigid barriers as to what you must say, what you must do, or what you must write”

Tom Braden, first chief of the IOD.

This demonstration to the Soviet Union and rest of the world, ultimately blocked communism and stopped it.
For the people livng in Russia during the cold war period, one thing was clear: Their standard of living was significantly lower then that in the west. People began to loose faith in the system.

The cold war was based on psychological fear, whoch is why the spread of soft power and ideas , also psychologically based had such a strong impact. Paintings were meant to emphasize how much of a liberal idealogy the us had. Television , a form of communication that was beginning to catch on in every household used the television a s amedium to portray just how horrible and drepressing, dark and grey life in a totaltairan society was.

Soft power has to do with a nation’s ability to influence through attraction which is why the U.S turned to the media to portray images that represented an attractive United states free of communist thought.

The cold war wasn’t ended because of threatening missiles or strong leaders. The cold war ended because of Pop culture and turning on the lights for a better world, in a room full of dark communist ideas . Using ‘soft power’ a country need not make concessions: it simply gets its way – softly.

Exaggeration, Exaggeration read all about it!

Exaggeration is the strong insidious enemy of Truth

Yellow Journalism is a form of reporting that was bred through the competition of two major New York News Paper’s of the time, the New York Journal and New York World. Both Newspapers engaged in heavy exaggeration in order to gain readers. Through yellow journalism these newspapers created their own cartoon version of the “Yellow Kid”, which was a cartoon started by the comic of “Hogan’s Alley”.

Yellow Kid. Yellow Journalism
There we have it

But was Yellow Journalism merely a color chosen for the article font?

The basis and root of this form of Journalism was exaggeration. Lies, Lies, and more Lies. There wasn’t just one cow, but a field of cows. Yellow Journalism exaggerated real life accounts in order to create a response from the nation and attract readers. After all, who wants to read about one wounded soldier when you can read about the wounded soldier plus his young wife, shot down next to their three year old son and his four year old sister. The readers were drawn to the helpless women and children that were being targeted and emphasized by the media.

It was media that invented facts, which in turn created propaganda to unite and Nationalize the United States against the tapas eating “Enemy”…Espana.

The peak of the Yellow Journalism ice berg hit the empathy in readers-Titanic with the way the sinking of the Maine was reported. According to the first story in Pulitzer’s New York World, the News Paper carried a banner headline that left little doubt about who was responsible: ”Maine Explosion Caused by Bomb or Torpedo?”. The reporting of the Maine caused outrage.

This type of information tugged at the hearts of families all across the nation and created a response. Exactly what the head of these News Papers wanted.

The two News Paper editors, Pulitzer and Hearst were hungry for attention and filed with lust to fabricate any event in order to have the scoop on something that everyone wanted to know. This drive to beat one another was the main basis in a decision that changed the lives of many Americans.

Yellow Journalism is most fondly remembered for the creation of a war. The Spanish American War.

In one article written at the time, a Spanish woman became the victim when the newspaper twisted the truth by allowing the readers believe that the Spanish soldiers had undressed and abused her. The Journal’s headline read: ”Does Our Flag Shield Women?

But with yellow Journalism , it seems as though the the only thing the flag shielded was the truth.

“You furnish the pictures and I will furnish the war” Said Hearst in the New York Times article, “Remember Yellow Journalism”.

The competition was intense and these News paper gods failed in making sure the events and information being printed was accurate. Po-tay-to… P-oh-ta-toh, I guess.

Datelines were faked. Events were faked. Ethics were being drowned in the rum given to bribe officials.

Yellow journalism was the seed that sprouted hate towards the Spanish in the heads of the American’s who purchased these newspapers. Any minor account that had happened or was committed by the Spanish was immediately blown up. The perfect formula for instant outrage.

“Nothing in our news report – words, photos, graphics, sound or video – may be fabricated”- Associated Press News Values and Principles

These are the words of the Journalism bible that are meant to be strictly followed. But are they?

It is no lie to say that Journalism has come very far from the days of “Yellow Journalism”. Reporters(for teh most part) follow ethical guidelines to make sure that the public is in fact receiving first hand accounts on world wide issues. Datelines are honored and video isn’t edited to make it seem like there is a new Victoria’s Secret that opened up on Mars. International Correspondents report from the scene of conflict and bring back authentic interviews and photos.
Integrity in Journalism is a strong ideal but not everyone follows it to the extent that it should be followed. Recently, many reports have been submerging on Journalists who have twisted the truth. The articles have not falsified and exaggerated events as strongly as in the Spanish-American War.. but it cannot be said that lies in journalism are non present.

The excitement of reporting a war is one that Journalists rush to. Sometimes, the journalist wants to have the importance of having been on the front without having to actually be at the front.

War is a topic that tends to be exaggerated in today’s day and age as well as during the time of “Yellow Journalism”.

In the name of truth, 2003 wasn’t the best year for many journalists.

The accounts reported by Brian Williams in the war on Iraq in 2003, are sprinkled with lies and exaggeration. Williams, an NBC news anchor was not in a helicopter brought down by a grenade in the midst of War. This story may have gotten him into the beds of many ladies but not into the hearts of Millions of Americans watching him. The unveiling of deceit encouraged him to step down.

In a 2003 scandal, a New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, 27, routinely faked articles. Quotes were faked as well as datelines. Houses next to corn fields which he had never even been to, were described with so much detail. His Articles, only a canvas of his imagination. Blair was living the life by publishing articles “written” in New-Delhi or Venice when all along he was sitting in the comfort of his own couch.

The New Republic newspaper also suffered with fake accounts in their reports when their Journalist, Stephen Glass was caught in 1998.

We extended normal human trust to someone who basically lacked a conscience… We busy, friendly folks, were no match for such a willful deceiver… We thought Glass was interested in our personal lives, or our struggles with work, and we thought it was because he cared. Actually, it was all about sizing us up and searching for vulnerabilities. What we saw as concern was actually

Although “Yellow Journalism” has mostly evaporated in the journalism color spectrum, other forms of journalism have also appeared. One being: Tabloid Journalism.

The exaggeration of truth found in tabloid media is one to be for the most part expected. Katie Holmes giving birth to Alien baby doesn’t seem too plausible, but still emphasizes the point that lies continue to be found in journalism. Accounts of exaggeration on the cover of media sells, and this is why some forms of media continue to do so.

Yellow Journalism can also be seen as the result of greed. In developed nations, the thirst to climb the career ladder can drive journalists to exaggerate claims in order to have their story distributed. Many channels and their anchors have resorted to stereotyping, snarky interviewing and sly editing to manipulate their viewers. “Such anchors, engage in “character assassination” and “rank propaganda” to manipulate viewers have completely ruined the credibility of journalists” according to an article in the Oslo Times.

So what are the reasons behind this tendency towards melodrama and exaggeration? The first is old-fashioned sensationalism. We journalists are apt to invest events with that extra degree of importance, and the television camera, which lingers on the dead body and the burnt-out tank, aids that process. But war and reporting real live events is such a serious business that all journalists should strive to be as accurate and unsensational as possible.

For the most part one can agree that “Yellow Journalism” is gone, but traces can still be found. Viewers as well as fellow Journalists must always have their guard up against lies and exaggeration of the truth.

Not So Honest Abe

President Abraham Lincoln used the Media to get what he wanted and climb the political ladder. In a world without facebook, twitter, or television , Lincoln knew how to manipulate the one form of media that was used to get into the heads the people: The Newspaper.

In the article by Wills, on how “Lincoln Played The Press”, the reader can clearly see just how Abraham Lincoln manipulated the press and was a self publicist in order to rise on the political rankings. There were five main stages in Lincolns career and mission to control the press. The first one was infiltration. Abe used the power of infiltration by writing articles for the Whig party. He used his fiancé to write articles posing as “Rebecca” in order to critizise the opposing candidate of the democratic party, James shields.Even though Lincolns position rose, Abe never really stopped contributing anonymous articles. Through co-opting,the second point, Lincoln was able to actually be a part of a newspaper and not just contribute anonymous articles. He helped finance a german newspaper when he noticed that many votes were coming from a German community. The article also states how Lincoln would create debates with his opposing party in order to receive more advertisement. Lincoln created many favors in return for positive press by buying off which is Wills third idea in “How lincoln Played The Press”.Repression of News to be printed was what Will’s mentions as the fourth tactic of Playing the Press. Lincoln created and “leaked”…

oops!

letters and held public speaches in order to have those be printed in the press and distributed. With this method, he cut out the intermediary, Will’s last point in the article.

According to the commentary on “Lincoln’s War With the Press”, written by Fredd Hiatt, politicians in the time of the civil War created tension by subjecting their oponents in order to attract coverage. Lincoln knew that public sentiment was everything and acted upon this idea by creating his own anonymous articles and “drama” to be reported on by the newspapers in which he funded or showered with favours. “With his dramatic letters of 1862 and 1863 . . . Lincoln in some ways wrote the big three New York editors out of the equation when it came to molding public opinion,” Holzer writes

Prior to the civil war, journalists found it difficult to find and secure a job.Journalists also faced shockingly low wages, just another reason for accepting bribes. The article “ How The Civil War Gave Birth to Journalism in the Nation’s Captial” written by Paul Fahri, explains how all of the drama and excitemenet created by the war, gave young journalists something to write about. War was exciting and reporting it made journalists feel important. The journalists who acted as correspondents during the war, even chose to remain in the nation after the war.

News at the time seemed like it should have been on ABC’s show Desperate Housewives,a television series filled with lies and gossip. The article written by Fahri shows one how some of the information printed by news papers wasn’t the most honest of news . “They printed almost every rumor you can imagine,” says Mark J. Stegmaier, a historian at Cameron University in Oklahoma.

What was interesting at the time, and would be seen as very innapropriate in today’s press was the relationship that political figures had with the news… the people in charge , that would eventually be writing stories about these figures. “They courted and wrote flattering accounts of political players”

People working in the press were continuously bribed and offered stake holidings in the government as well as better jobs. Its only obvious that the newspapers then had to write favourable accounts of their leaders. Afterall, you can’t bite the hand that feeds you now can you.

What also did not help in keeping news “true” and unbiased, was the fact that news was censored through telegraphs operated by war censors. These war censors would make sure that the news favored the North even causing journalists writing for democratic newspapers to give up home seeing as their articles probably would have landed in the trash bin.

I do think that the relationship between political figures and the Press has changed in comparison to when Abraham Lincoln was in the White house.A good thing.

The media is not as biased as it once once. There are too many different forms of media and different sources for it to be so. The newspaper, the sole form of “mass communication” was easy to control since it was only one form of media. Anyone is allowed to have an opinion nowadays. Just imagine having to control facebook, television, radio, print, etc. That would be like living in North Korea.. and we see how well that has played out. There are also many more rules that have been set especially by the Associated Press that have instilled morals into journalism. Gifts over 25 euro cannot be accepted according to the rules and guidelines of the Associated press ( so Abe’s tactic of inviting journalists over for tea and offering jobs to poorly paid Journalists would NOT have worked) and most importantly, anyone working in a campaighn or running for a political figure cannot work as a journalist.

The reporters, naturally, repaid their sponsors with favorable coverage, leading one senator, James Doolittle of Wisconsin, to complain that “great men and heroes are manufactured here” by blatant press bribery. What Gill stated in his article that “Editors ran their own candidates—in fact they ran for office themselves, and often continued in their post at the paper while holding office” would never have occurred in today’s day and age. Journalists for leading newspapers are meant to report the news that is happening without putting their own personal opinion in the article and they are not meant to praise or bad mouth a certain political figure.

Truth and trust in Journalism is the most important thing. Newspapers around the time of the Civil War seemed like a bible for exaggerations and gossip. Nowadays, a Journalist cannot just sit back and lie to media consumers. This is apparent with what is happening with Nbc’s Brian Williams. One cannot fluff up one’s feathers and fake journalistic war accounts only to sit back and enjoy the ride.

Poor, Poor Brian.

What was very similar with today and back then is the power of the Media. Certain things shown on media such as the interview with George W. H Bush which was shown on national TV can either make or break someones political career.

How many times to people say things with a specific purpose? A lot.

Another aspect that was similar to today is that Lincoln created certain scenarious for the press… as they say all publicity is good publicity, political figures now and then created certain stunts just so that the gossip would be spread. This is evident through lincoln’s creation of the “scrapbook” published by the Chicago times and Chicago Tribune.

There are many things that can be said that are similar between how the press was run during the Civil War and how the press runs today. For the most part,we can say and be thankful that there are enough laws to make sure that the press stays unbiased and honest.But… As in the case of everything, there are exceptions.

The future of Television, is it going to be watching a show.. about a show.. about a show?

 

 

Where is the future of Television bringing us? What exactly should we expect to be seeing grazing our Tv and computer screens in the upcoming years?. The article, “The New Water Cooler is a TV Show” by Rachel Dodes explains to us just how social media is affecting the way we will consume media in the years to come.

 

Nowadays, viewers are not turning off their television after finishing their series and continuing on with their lives, instead they want to further discuss and analyze what they just saw before their very own eyes. How exactly do they plan on doing this? Twitter is the answer.

 

One specific social media site : Twitter, has allowed viewers to send millions of “tweets” on the Television shows that they have just watched in order to discuss the drama that has just happened. These tweets have been the base for new television talk shows that are cost effective and easy to produce. A Television producers dream.

 

These new “After Party” talk shows are truly interactive and allow for users to interact directly with the talk show host such as Andy Cohen, who then incorporates the tweets he receives into his live show making this an interactive , fun type of after TV show party. After all, who doesn’t love a little after party. His own show “Watch What Happens” for example, promotes several different Bravo shows and sometimes even racks in more viewers then E! Chelsea lately.

 

The article goes on to mention another talk show called “The Talking Dead” which is supposed to be the “After Party” show for the “Walking Dead”. Hosted by Chris Hardwick, this show is a midnight talk show which airs as soon as “The Walking dead” is over and even receives more then one million viewers. This is a huge amount when you think about the fact that it airs at midnight when usually every human is tucked fast away in his or her own beds. Even though, it is zombies we are talking about this show is the third most tweeted drama on television.

The changes in television do not stop here. The article “From YouTube to Vice – 10 trends that are changing how we watch TV”gives 10 ideas that are changing the way we have come to know and love television. These trends have only started to emerge recently and have only really erupted because of new technologies that were not yet invented in years before.

The first trend is one that also ties into the first article that I read. It mentions that there is an ongoing competition between social media sites . These sites want viewers to discuss the shows they watch on Facebook and Twitter because there discussions are they base for inexpensive new television talk shows

Another trend is seen in the rise of the stars that are found on YouTube. There are more and more people who are becoming “famous” on the internet by creating their own little segment and then airing it on YouTube just like the gamer Joseph Gerrit who has s little over 2 million viewers for his site on YouTube. I can understand how people can become famous through the internet because I know that I have caught myself once or twice watching some funny segments created by YouTube celebrities.

Some of these trends are very exciting like the fact that one does not have to “phone-in” votes from a phone any longer and can use Google or other technology to place a vote.

I personally can see many new trends emerging in the way we consume television. I think that these trends and changes must come in order to keep the audience intrigued and as a loyal customer to the television instead of downloading shows and episodes on a laptop. One trend I can really see becoming very popular is the interactive television. Once technology becomes more developed, I think it will be easy to create shows where we can maybe interact with the actors or have an app that lets us directly participate in the series. Like the article by Stuart Dredge mentions, there are already concepts starting to develop where the viewer can help with the clues in a crime scene. I know that if this were the norm for all television series , it would keep television highly entertaining seeing as we would have the opportunity to not just be a couch potato, but to actually do something

I also see the rise of the YouTube star becoming more and more popular as it is becoming increasingly popular and socially accepted to find your talent and somehow get it unto social media and upload it. I know I have many friends back in the states when as soon as they think they can sing a song properly or recite a poem well they immediately mention uploading it unto a social media platform such as YouTube. After all, who says we can’t find the next Justin Bieber on YouTube.

Want french food? grab a French fry… How Americans Change International Shows to Suit Their Tastes.

The article “who’s afraid of a few subtitles?The rise of International Television” by Allison Willmore is trying to show us how International TV shows are starting to be watched globally even though they do contain aspect that may turn many people off : subtitles. Subtitles, which are found on many international television shows are a huge deal breaker for the general population. Subtitles tend to distract the viewer from taking in certain parts of the show since the viewer has to focus on reading words on screen. Think about it, if you were coming home from a long day at work sitting at your 9-5 job all day, the last thing you would feel like doing is reading the television screen in order to understand the plot. Willmore goes on to include that it is indeed difficult to come across international television series on normal television even if one wants to consume this form of media. Since Television is based at home, viewers want to indulge in culturally specific television that brings us closer to our surroundings and that does not transport us to a different country. When the U.S chooses to create a Television show based on a foreign plot, the producers usually have to change it in order for it to appeal to a U.S based audience. For example, in changing “Prisoners of War” into “Homeland,”, creator Gidean Raff noted that the original series focused more on aspects happening in Israel and he wanted to change that to aspects happening and affecting the U.S to keep American’s interested. Charlotte Koh, Hulu’s head of content mentions that Americans are so used to exporting all of their goods including media that they find it odd to consume media coming from somewhere that isn’t “Home”. The This article also goes on to mention how there are many more options available now for those who wish to view foreign television shows.

 

“The International Language of Tube” by June Thomas explains to us just how popular international television series actually are. For the most part, American’s steer clear from international series . But , for those who want to open up their media horizons, there is hope. There are plenty of channels and online options to watch international television series such as Hulu and Netflix that do a great job in keeping up to date with the latest international and even Korean episodes. It seems to be that these two media providers truly help Americans open up to new international television consumption. The Danish drama, “Borgen” is also mentioned in both articles article as being an extremely popular show. A very large reason as to why Americans do not prefer to watch international series is that Americans do tend to reach towards their puritan roots when it comes to media consumption. Many series contain too much foul language or “adult scenes” for it to appear on national television which is why when the series are remade, they are usually toned down a bit.

 

Personally, I do not think that international television series will gain the same type of popularity that American television series have. Americans for example enjoy consuming things that have to do with the U.S. They enjoy sitting down and watching American type of humor and being able to relate to the characters in the series. Also the way the characters act in series and what they do and the places they frequent are very relatable to American culture. While other cultures are open to foreign cultures, I have a feeling that Americans only enjoy watching their own type of culture on television. American television shows show the “ American Dream” and type of lifestyle that people living in different countries aspire to have or enjoy watching. For example, The series “Sex and the city” depicts the American carefree lifestyle based in the city of lights that so many people around the world wish they could live. Take a look at ABC’s hit series, “Desperate Housewives” , about five women surrounded by lies, cheating and gossip living their lives in the seemingly perfect suburbs. These types of series have characters that all classes of people can relate to and can enjoy.

 

I also think that American television series are filmed in a more professional way then let’s say a South African soap opera or German comedy show on the relationships between a Turkish boy and German girl. The American actors also seem to act better and look better as well. American series are more asthetically pleasing, with all characters having perfectly white and straightened teeth and the men being typical pretty boys with fake tans. Whenever I watch European series, I can tell that the characters look more “Natural” over all.

 

Most importantly, the American television series will always be more popular because of the language. English is the most widely spoken language around the world making the series widely understandable in many different countries. These series can globalize immediately due to them not having such a strong language barrier. Europeans are used to consuming media in English and do not seem to have an issue with consuming dubbed media or media with under-titles. I know so many people who would prefer to watch shows in English just because there are so many things that cannot be directly translated but Americans would never appreciate watching things in the original languages.

Remember to recycle -yours truly, Hollywood

It seems as if every time I walk into the movie theatre, there is a trailer or advert on the newest super hero movie or the 30th version of a movie that first came out 5 years ago. Is this a case of Hollywood De Ja Vu or could it really be that Hollywood has fallen into a pattern of movie “leftovers” , re-using and re-using film ideas. The article, “Is Hollywood a blockbuster trap and won’t break free anytime soon” by Anita Elberse gives us a pretty good idea at what is happening within the movie industry in Hollywood.

Hollywood is all about making money right? since so many movies cost so much money to create, the movie industry wants to make sure that they will be receiving large enough revenue. In order to make these safe bets, the studio executives release NEW films that are all based on past hits. This is a fool proof way to create a successful movie because it is obvious that if the customer liked it once, he or she will definitely be coming back for more. In the past decade, almost 45 percent of the movies that brought in the most revenue were based off of old ideas. Since creative movies are a dying species over in the hills of Hollywood it is no wonder that the studios are also releasing movies that are based on comic books and super hero characters. It seems as if everyone cannot get enough of Spiderman and ridiculously good looking vampires on screen.

Is this Hollywood mentality a good mentality to have? Some film aficionados argue that if Hollywood keeps on re-using books and comic heroes for their films, the creativity of new films will run out and the audience will almost always be expecting the plot of their movie instead of enjoying something that they have never heard of before. This type of “Hollywood trap” as Anita Elberse mentions ,also drives up the production costs because it creates competition for actors that can provide the popular vampire or super hero role on screen. For large companies such as Disney and marvel, this “Hollywood” trap can be very rewarding. Since studios know that their characters and super heroes will become blockbuster hits, they end up paying very high fees in order to secure these characters. But, this is very risky for the studios and if one movie fails, it can cause them to loose very much just because of this one big bet. Being successful in the movie industry nowadays means to create movies with characters that the audience wants to see which in this case means super heroes and movies based on best selling authors etc. Advertisement is also an extremely effective tool at creating revenue along with when an screening is released and on what specific weekend. Anita Elberse also goes on to say that it is the viewers fault for creating this type of redundancy in films in Hollywood because we are showing Hollywood what it is we want to pay for by viewing movies that are based on previous stories

It is well understood now that many of the films in Hollywood are based of popular comic books and heroes. The article : “The Rise of the Comic Book Movie”, goes into detail on how many of the films that are now being produced are based on comic books, with a touch of a“noir” twist. These films aren’t portraying the comic book characters in a happy colorful light, instead they are being portrayed in a dark and serious setting. This article also states that these comic stories have changed from only focusing on the good vs. evil to now focusing on the more moral aspect of the story especially after the 2001 terrorist attacks. There is a philosophical underlying theme in many of these comic stories .

Personally, I can understand Hollywood’s strategy to re use film ideas and to create movies based on comic superheroes and villains. This is a fool proof way for Hollywood to bring in a safe amount of money without worrying if their movie is going to be a flop or not. Wouldn’t you stick to selling a certain color of shoes per say if you knew that most of the general population loves that specific color? I also think that this allows Hollywood’s producers to spend copious amounts of money on creating a really good film with amazing special effects and etc because they know that these efforts will not go to waste. Some producers may be hesitant to spend so much on actors and special effects if they aren’t exactly sure if their movie will be a hit or not. Hollywood knows that these types of movies can globalize efficiently and easily making them generate huge revenue sums from all around the world. Characters like Spiderman Batman can easily cater to many different cultures globally. Also, if Lets say the Titanic was such a hit, there is no reason why Titanic 1, 2 and 3 wouldn’t be hits ( this is perfectly shown by the fact that they have now made 6 fast and furious movies, all earning millions of dollars)

 

I personally do enjoy the fact that Hollywood focuses on blockbusters as their main form of movies because I like entering a movie knowing that I will most likely enjoy it and that it will be done well since it was previously a bestselling book or comic , etc. On the contrary when I look at the cover of a European movie or advert for a non blockbuster Hollywood movie, I instantly assume that it will be more complicated for me to understand and that I wont have as much “fun” as watching it as a blockbuster based on a “true story”.

 

At the same time, it is also a little bit sad that Hollywood is solely focused on making remakes of old movies because it takes away the challenge that producers may have to create an “interesting” or “unique” movie. I guess we will have to see if this is only a temporary fad or if hollywood will go back to producing movies that are not based on Comic books and Blockbusters but, Seeing as Hollywood is all about money, I doubt it.

A Dig Into What MakesThrillers So Popular

Nowadays there seems to be just about every genre playing in the cinema. From action flicks to comedies or even Sci-fis, Hollywood offers us a continuous platter of options to consume from. But what exactly sets all of these movies apart? what is it that gives one the right to call “Spider man” an action movie Vs. “Mean girls” a chick flick? Well, to start with we can thank code and convictions that are found in the movies.

My favorite genre of movies is the Psychological thriller genre. No, you wont find me hovering over a bowl of pop corn with my girlfriends drooling over Ryan Gosling in the latest romantic comedy. Why? oh don’t worry i’ll explain why. I just love thrillers. I love everything about them, in fact you could say i obsess over them .I enjoy the plot, the twist, and the blood but most of all I enjoy the suspense that these movies create. In psychological thrillers you are always going to have a cliffhanger or a “thrill” that will keep you at your edge. At the beginning of the film you might be confused as to why the characters are saying or doing certain things and that is exactly why I love psychological thrillers. They are like a little workout for your brain. No , not a fast paced walk that watching a action movie may cause, but a nice 10km per hour jog. Psychological thrillers make you think. They make you confused, make you THINK you understand the plot and then they make you think again. Lets take “Shutter Island” for instance. Upon leaving the cinema did you say “gosh Leo is so cute” or did you ponder and think into the psychological aspect of was Leo actually crazy all along or did the people at the hospital make him believe he was crazy. The main focus of psychological thrillers is the character and the inner psychological conflict that the character is battling with. This type of genre usually uses  time disorientation such as  flashbacks, dreams or premonitions in order to give the viewer a better understanding of the characters past. It also uses dark colors and dark lighting causing a mysterious setting not making it a vibrant movie. The music is also dark and eerie  also using silence in order to let you focus on what the character is going through/ thinking. Many of the times the characters have a troubled past or have troubling issues of their own which is something that is usually not portrayed in other types of genres. A psychological thriller is very much a puzzle for the mind. The characters( especially main character) are usually dealing with death or some sort of violence, torture and life itself is usually threatened because the main character is innocent and unsuspecting of the conditions around him/her. There are also many psychotic characters in the film that are dealing with mental issues.

All in all, people love psychological thrillers because things are never what they seem to be and I think that there are enough genres out there where we know exactly what we are going to get as soon as the ticket boy rips off the stub of our “admit I ” ticket. Psychological thrillers have very much mystery involved in them as well as the violence and crime involved in normal thrillers. At the end of the plot, psychological thrillers usually always have a twist that makes you re-think the way you were previously thinking during the whole movie. It is often very normal to watch a movie twice in order  to really understand what is happening. People also enjoy the experience one gets when watching this type of genre because In a way you are also dealing with the psychological issues that the characters are facing as you try and understand the movie. Psychological thrillers are much more emotional and mental rather then physical.There are many psychological thrillers that I absolutely adore but my two favorite would have to be “Shutter Island” and “Side Effects” ( I attached a link to the trailer). Side effects shares many of the codes and conventions that a true psychological thriller has. For example, it has the seemingly happy couple where at the BEGINING of the film we think eveything is just amazing between them. We then go on to see that one of the main characters has deep rooted psychological issues as she is clinically depressed and Her husband is the typical code of this genre ; a character that is innocent yet gets sucked into a darker world. There are many flashbacks that show just how happy the couple once was. No one expects nor understands why she would kill her husband as she seems to be deeply in love. It is also very clear that even less people expect to see her kissing her former psychologist. I mean, who would have known that she murdered some one, pretended to be depressed, and blackmailed her psychologist  just so she could run off with her lesbian lover. A very strange twist indeed. One of the classics in this genre is “American psycho”. A seemingly normal, handsome, and successful man turns unexpectadly “psycho” at night , killing almost evey woman he comes across.  The characters in the film are all lured in my his wall street talk and fortune yet what they cant see is that he is actually a sick man with odd sexual fantasies and taste for blood. the movie , with its special thrilling music and play with death has viewers on the edge as they wait and see the fate of each women that goes to his apartment. The viewers also try and understand the psychological reasoning as to why a man who has it all would perform such disgusting crimes.

 

 

Beauty is in The Eye of Photoshop

It is very obvious what kind of women the magazine companies such as Elle, Vogue and Vanity Fair are portraying on the covers of their magazines. Beautiful, flawless women or so we think. It is extremely rare to come across a magazine , even one that is not focused on the beauty industry and see a volumptuous woman on the cover let alone a face with acne or crooked teeth or “natural” features. The problem with this is that the women that are on these covers are actually not real women at all. They have been severlely altered to make them more attractive to the consumer. After all, who wants to buy a picture of an everyday woman that we get to see everywhere for free anyway.

The article by Jezebel featuring Lena Dunham’s shoot for Vogue shows us just how the beauty industry works. The unaltered image was pretty much perfect to begin with. In the images of Dunham we see a attractive woman who could benefit from some lighting but not any altering, yet Vogue still has managed to find a way to change the photo and make her look even more “attractive”. The hips have been pulled in along with making her neck look longer and a different jawline. All these things are what vogue thinks is necesary to be found attractive. The second article on Lena Dunham by the New York Times,  is explaining to us what exactly went on in the minds of the people when they saw the unretouched photos. The article goes on to explain that Dunham was barely retouched and that compared to the other magazine photoshoots, covers and etc, this one is actually quite “real” . Vogue is being defended

What is actually real about a image composed of three different images all taken at a different time and then blended to produce a natural look like the one with a piegon on the head? Personally, I do agree with Jezebels article. I do not think that the images of Dunham had to be altered. What we can see from the unretouched photos is a beautiful young woman who is already naturally pretty and does not need photoshop to suck in one inch of her stomache in order to recreate a divine godess fit for the cover of vogue. I can understand the opion of the The New York Times and how compared to other models , she does seem quite natural. But the thing is, what are we comparing the image to? We should not be comparing that image to one of a model who has been altered every way shape and form. Instead,we should be comparing Dunham’s image to that of a natural woman with curves and under eye circles vs someone that is not real. And when we do that, it is clear that the image should not have been altered to begin with.

The other magazine under attack is Elle’s cover with Melissa McCarthy. Here, the magazine shows a plus size woman on the front cover of a world famous magazine. So whats the catch? she’s fully clothed. Not just fully clothed, but as the article states, “she could hide her Mike and Molly co-star Billy Gardel underneath”.  Slate goes on to say that the magazine also decided to cover her face with a large amount of hair in oder to cover the roundness of her cheeks. Poor, Melissa. Its almost as if Elle wishes they had Harry Potter’s disappearing cloak so that they could dress Melissa with that and make her disappear. The article by the Huffington post explains to us what Elle was thinking when they decided to cover up McCarthy’s curves with an unflattering potato sack. According to Elle magazine, Melissa chose the outfit herself with help from fashion stylists and was very happy with the results. They also go on to mention just how luxurious and pretty the jacket actually is almost as if they want McCarthy to feel honored for wearing such an fashionable item.

I think that McCarthy should have had a more figure flaunting clothing article to wear for the cover and not the shapeless potato sack that she was given. I understand that sometimes women who are bigger look worse if they are wearing something body hugging but I would have suggested a dress perhaps that was more revealing in terms of legs or arms. I think that it seems like Elle is embarrassed of her figure and just wants to hide it as much as they can.

All in all, I guess I do not agree with the Fashion/ Magazine industry and how they only portray extremely skinny and attractive woman and if they do not fit their mold they make them that way through photoshop. This way of thinking must make many girls feel horribly self conscience. I know that when I go to the make up counters of Clinique, Lancome, etc and see how my face looks in the mirror versus how the models look in the adverts I feel ugly. very ugly. And its not that I am ugly in any way but when you see these ” fake ” images of perfect woman , you really cant help but to look into the mirror and compare. My personal trainer at the gym told me that he gets so many girls who come up to him with magazine cut outs and say that they want to look like those girls in the magazine. “Impossible, he says”. Even celebrities do not look like that, it is all thanks to photoshop. So, I wish we lived in a society where images where actually real and not where guys look at woman on the front cover and think that that is the kind of girl that they should date. It is not going to happen and is just making society live in a shallow and unrealistic world.