It is really interesting that this is the topic of our blog post today. Over Thanksgiving break, I discovered that my mother had purchased seasons 6-10 of the television show Friends. This was my absolute favorite show growing up, and I was heartbroken when it ended. Thus, naturally I brought the seasons back with me to watch during my super busy ending of the semester (smart, right?). Anyways, I am currently on season 9, and my viewing of this television show has been quite different than it was when I was in high school. Literary Theory has RUINED Friends for me! I began after the break mindlessly watching the show, but found after the first couple of episodes that I have been watching it with a more theoretical eye. I found myself watching the episodes through the gender lens, and would walk away completely offended at some of the comments made.
I think that television episodes are a great way for students to get acclimated with reading texts through literary lenses. For example Deborah Appleman came and spoke to our class this past Tuesday and showed us this commercial:
At first, the class laughed...and she too admitted that she found it hilarious the first time she watched it. However, after viewing it a couple of more times she said that it started to trouble her and asked us to answer why we thought it troubled her. Points that were brought up in class were the the idea of infidelity being taken lightly, male baby represented as a wolf, female baby being portrayed as needy, the other being represented as simple-minded and promiscuous, to name a few.
I think that the television show Friends is a great show to introduce literary theory to high school students. First of all, it is accessible to them. It's funny, modern, and the themes explored are relatable to the students' lives. The Marxist (Social Class) Theory would be a great way to look at this television show. Some questions to ponder would: be how does this series distinguish class relations, and one that I often think of is how do the characters in this show afford the lifestyle they are living (in an affluent city in a nice apartment) when their jobs (which are rarely mentioned) may not allow for them to realistically do this? We can also talk about class and race relations within the television show that are portrayed to the society as attainable and normal.
We could also talk about this show in terms of the gender lens. There are many situations (that unfortunately Youtube does not have examples of) where questions of sexuality are brought up in the show. For example, Ross and Rachel are talking about how they are going to bring the newborn child into Rachel's work so that her coworkers can see the baby. Because the sex of their baby has been misperceived before, Rachel decides to put a pink bow on the baby to clear up any misconceptions. Right before they leave for the office, Ross makes some comment about the the fashion designer that Rachel works for, Ralph Lauren, and the new line of clothing that is coming out. He then says something a long the lines of, "Maybe I should be wearing a blue bow," of "I swear I am not gay." In this instance, they have gendered fashion to be a female interest, and that guys who are interested in or talk about fashion are considered to be gay. There are other scenes in the show where the male characters need to assert their masculinity by going to football games or watching sports and pornography.
I think it would be interesting to watch this show through different lenses to teach the students that there is not ONE correct way of looking at a text, and that one text can be read many ways that introduce new issues.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Breaking Down Them Indie Bands
When I listen to music, I usually identify deeply with the meanings of songs, and am interested in the messages that they convey, and how it makes me feel. I CONSTANTLY ask my boyfriend what our song is (mature, I know), only to be dismayed at the choices he presents. This is because the aspects that he appreciates about a song are different than the ones that I do, as he is more interested in the auditory pleasures of a song, rather than what its lyrics convey. He once told me that our song was one that began with the lines, “girl, I know you got issues…” and I was like, "Uhhh....Really?!" However, the offense that I took was simply due to conflicts of interests since he chose the song to be ours because of the way it sounded (which is nice, I must add). I, on the other hand, could not believe that he picked a song about a man loving a woman despite the depressing issues she had. It is clear from my experience that in addition to the way a song sounds, I am also interested in what it has to say.
I guess if I had to be categorized into a certain type of genre of music that I enjoy, I would probably most identify with the Indie category; most specifically the indie folk/rock genre including artists such as Mumford and Sons, Avett Brothers, Iron and Wine, etc. and also artists that are more eclectic such as Yeasayer (although I swear Justin Timberlake will always have a place in my heart (marry me!?)). I am obviously a little more inclined to be interested in an artists production when I am at a show as opposed to simply listening to their music by myself. At these times I recognize that I do both appreciate an interesting production and a simplistic one. For example, I am totally down with the band Local Natives. I saw them at First Avenue, and not only did my debit card get stolen, but these wholesome hunks also stole my heart. Their music is beautiful, and the simplistic set up of the stage and their presence was a great addition. For them, it is not about the production. They find ways to get the crowd going that does not involve glitter, and mostly involves their music. As I look back on the shows I have seen, I recognize a trend that is sans a huge production. I went to 89.3’s Rock the Garden production 2 years ago (and not this past year because I was out of the country) and the atmosphere of the stage was more the same; simplistic, with the band, their instruments and some microphones. However, I do recognize some shows that I have seen that do involve a large production. I saw Phoenix and also Ratatat at First Ave and it was all about the light show that accompanied the music. I guess a good way to put it is that I appreciate a band whose production and music go hand and hand. When one outdoes the other it takes away from the focus of the music. To demonstrate both ends of the music spectrum that I enjoy I will show two videos: one with a more simplistic setting (simplistic setting only referring to the stage, not intricacy of the music), and one with a mind-blowing light show (that was better in person, obviously).
Since the above videos are live performances, I will also look at some music videos by the same artists, and try to come to some sort of conclusion about indie music videos. I think one thing that I most frequently notice about music videos of this genre is the high possibility that the artists are barely shown, if ever, in their music video, and are most definitely are not the focus. Videos like this, and also others by groups such as Animal Collective, and Ratatat present an obscure and abstract artistic music video, rather than a Lady Gagaesque type where she is the focus. Sometimes, the art also carries some sort of message, such as the one in the Ratatat video that portrays human destruction of Earth. Because indie music artist are the self-proclaimed anti-christ of corporate record labels, they generally enjoy more freedom in their artistic expression. In addition, videos included in this genre generally invite their viewers to become engulfed in some sort of trance, or so I've noticed.
Analyzing Documentaries: Food Inc.
In the documentary Food Inc., directed by Robert Kenner, the unsanitary, unethical and unjust routines of the food production corporations are unveiled in an eye-opening and shocking presentation. Since the demands of the fast food industry are growing, food production corporations are forced to come up with more effective means to supply the product that fast food industries desire. However, how this gets accomplished is by brushing aside the ethical and sanitary components in order to produce product more efficiently. The government institutions, such as the FDA and USDA that are supposed to protect Americans from the potentially harmful food look the other way in order to keep the profit afforded by production alive. The main message of this documentary is that the quality of the food produced, and treatment, safety of animals and consumers, and the preservation of environment through healthy means of production are at an all-time low due to the high demands of the product. These elements are over-looked by the greedy eye of the government and powerful companies that own the food industry in order to keep producing cheap, disgusting food for the unaware American. In addition, the food the American’s consume is genetically modified by science to achieve the goal of maximum production for the cheapest cost.
The way that this documentary makes this statement is by taking an inside view to the companies that fall below the standards. For example, viewers witness a Purdue Chicken company farmer unmask the maltreatment of the animals and also the unsanitary and unreasonable living conditions that are overlooked by the corporation. Subsequently, she looses her job for the bad reputation that she causes the industry. This documentary also makes viewers aware of the fact that the E Coli that some Americans are falling ill to has its origins with cattle. How, then, are Americans receiving this bacteria from vegetables such as spinach? The unsanitary conditions and close proximity of cattle farms to vegetable fields make it easy for runoff (feces) from the cattle to come in contact with the produce. The lack of urgency and agency that this problem deserves is reveled to the audience by showing how this bacterium has come to affect all of our food.
In order to preserve authenticity, directors of this documentary extended an offer to food corporations to share their side of the debate. This is done to give both sides an equal opportunity to share their story in order to avoid biases. However, this offer was generally turned down, most likely to maintain some sort of underserved dignity. Furthermore, large food corporations probably do not have a reason for the terrible conditions and means they use to produce food other than the efficiency and cheapness.
Teaching Idea:
I think one of the main issues with documentaries is the validity and authenticity of the material presented. Documentaries that attack a certain institution are oftentimes biased in the way they are presented to completely vilify the object of their dismay. Although I do feel that the information in Food Inc. is presented in a genuine manner, I feel it is near impossible to not have biases on the subject of the quality of our food produced in America. This documentary presents the shocking information, but also tries to allow big food corporations to have their say as well. I think it would be difficult to argue that there is not a problem with the food industry in this county even without watching the documentary. That being said, there are documentaries that do skew information to fit a certain purpose. To help students engage in a critical look at media, I could do an activity that asks them to analyze the validity of certain documentaries and note why or why not they are biased. We would then compare and contrast the components of authentic and inauthentic documentaries--the techniques they use and how information can be altered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)