Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Along For The Ride


As a Campus Life director, I am always looking for media clips that will help illustrate a point. You know, that scene that makes the idea I'm speaking on come to life, and allows the students to identify more practically with the subject matter. Creating this connection between a thought being conveyed and the audience is key to any speaker.

There is a plethora of scenes that portray moral, heart-felt words that demonstrate virtuous characteristics and world views. I have a library of clips in my head, categorized by topical affiliation. It struck me, despite the total lapse in morality in today's movies, I can so easily find moments of moral integrity in almost any film. It seems so paradoxical.

I have stumbled upon some very sensitive material that Hollywood doesn't want you to realize. That's why I'm going to be writing a book called "Hollywood Insights 'They Don't Want You To Know About,'" seeing as how this format is working so well for Kevin Trudeau.

Movies take you for a ride, and they don't drop you off at the destination they promise. Here's a common layout for modern day comedy. Introduce the protagonist (or antagonist who gradually becomes a protagonist), who is currently living in a state that is obviously off from what is the proper way to live. The movie will make light of the character's lifestyle, but indirectly assume that there is something fundamentally superficial; enjoyable, yet ultimately unfulfilling about this person.

We embark on a journey that saturates us in immoral lies about actual life. The character lives in a greatly exaggerated state of how some actual less-than-righteous individuals might think or live. Since a major goal of cinema is to immerse the watcher into the movie, the audience member's reality becomes the movie for it's duration. Anytime you are immersed into anything, something is bound to stick (whether good, bad, or neutral). In most cases someones guard is not completely lifted, but softened during a movie; giving way to susceptibility.

You will notice that the bulk of iniquity is found near the beginning or middle of the movie, while the end has a twist of uprightness. It's about taste. A sweet morsel covers a bitter taste, so you forget it was ever there. As the movie ends and your mind is freed up to process what you have just taken in, you remember the good, and can deem it an acceptable film. But the quotable moments, or those you will laugh at and are embedded into your mind consist of the vulgar, the unrealistic, the stuff your grandmother would not approve of.

In the end, the protagonist has gained a compromised perspective of right and wrong. It's better than where they started, and it has relics of admirable qualities; however, the final product is only good in a relative sense to where they started. There is a great lack of true virtue. But because it is more easy to identify things in a relative fashion than a static way, guided by truth, faith, and philosophy, we are more likely to applaud the "moral of the story." And realize it or not, our understanding of right and wrong has been tweaked.

The ride is from a place of perversion to a place of middle ground. We pick up all the junk along the way and are fed a spoonful of compromised morality. Bravery, friendship, acceptance, education, maturity, and dedication are good things, but they are not inherently good. They are good when the are coupled with truth and love. Movie emphasize the former and neglect the latter. Thus we look for the right things in the wrong places and expect a Hollywood ending.

Media greatly determines what we will accept as our next reality. Remain skeptic of a movie's moral finish. Discern what is truly right, wrong, good, and bad... then hold everything up to that light. Don't just go along for the ride, have an intended destination.

Monday, October 6, 2008

How About A Straight Talker Who Can Actually Straight-Up Talk?



I don't know who of you watch SNL, but election year spoofs are certainly the show's bread and butter. And you can't deny that SNL has hit the jackpot with the Sarah Palin/Tina Fey look-alikes. Although obviously exaggerated, Fey certainly has a very spot-on portrayal of the governor, glasses, accent, mannerisms, and all.

The thing that I take note of, is that many times the exaggerations on SNL's part are not as great as one might think. For instance the Katie Couric interview spoof vs. the actual interview are not as dramatically different as one would think and expect. They expose Palin's cutesie talk, which reminds me often of a high school cheerleader discussing politics in their government class, as well as her reiteration of the question as an answer and her reliance on key words like Freedom, Democracy, and Terrorists to give an answer that says very little, even having word-for-word excepts of the actual interview in the sketch. Now this said, once again, SNL adds much to the report that is conjured from nowhere.

Then there was the recent VP Debate and the subsequent spoof. Certainly again, this was a mixture of pulling very true aspects from the debate, and fabricating comedy from nowhere. The winking, user of the word "maverick," denying to address questions asked for those she decided to talk about, her "zingers," and her reliance on appealing through "straight talk" were all very true in the essence of what her side of the debate incorporated. Not so fair or true were their depictions of overly overt religiosity, Israel, and homosexual marriage. Biden's constant declaration of respect for McCain followed by his criticizing of him had some truth but was over exaggerated a bit too much. Making fun of his stance on homosexual unions and his pointing to Scranton as his hometown were very correct in what they exposed. Taking a step back to look at these portrayals, the sketch is much harsher on Palin than Biden; however, at the same time Palin lends herself to mockery more than Biden.

The media's depiction of Palin lines up greatly with their depiction of George W. Bush. Bush has been labeled as unintelligent by media spoofs and clip choice. You cannot help but blame this partially on Bush's ability (or lack of) to speak publicly in a way to conveys intelligence. I do not doubt that Bush is a smart man, and able to do his job, but his pronunciation, word choice, and stumbling over himself during speeches promote a market for "poking fun," which in turns eventually makes people believe the joke is true.

Palin does the same thing, but in a slightly different way. She is folksie in a way that conveys naivete, unprofessionalism, and a sub-par education in foreign policy, economics, and government structure. Perhaps McCain, who is well experienced is smart to pick a candidate who is relatible to the general population in the way she speaks and how she interprets current happenings in the country and world. But from her interviews you can see that her rhetoric doesn't effectively cover he lack of knowledge, and if anything, often exposes it.

I fear Palin does not have a tight enough grasp on vast and varied segments that make up political and governmental current events, as well as historical events. Without being able to put all the pieces together and understand how one action will impose upon all the others in a domino effect, you cannot effectively make intelligent decisions. And also with history, we can see the past is cyclical, and thus without understanding it, we are doomed to repeat it. Palin brings a lot to the table, and would quite possibly make an excellent Vice President. My fear is her ability to make a capable President if the need arises.

Many of the questions I raise about Palin can definitely be asked of Obama. And it is more serious with him, since he is running for President and not Vice President. Strangely enough, the media is not painting Obama with the same brush as Palin. I would attribute this to how Obama carries himself, and not what he is actually made of, in the abilities and knowledge he possesses or does not possess.

You have to feel for Palin. If McCain is elected, I'm sure Bush's mantel will be handed down to Palin, labeling her "idiot," no matter what she does in her carreer to prove or disprove such a title... but at least Tina Fey will have job security.