Do you know how much more time it took to actually manually take this picture, Mr. Starace???
Good thing I can now keep time, thanks to Rolex!
One question that I always had, was why anyone would spend $2,000-more than $100,000 on something that can keep time? I mean, its just a piece of metal on your wrist, right? We all have phones, that have a built-in clock in them. Heck, I can keep track of time by just using shadows and other methods if we really wanted to. Why would anybody want to buy such an expensive watch.
One of the reasons for this, are all the different messages that their advertisements makes us believe. This ad is a perfect example.
If the image isn't clear, the line of text below the logo reads, "Worth a second glance, even when you know the time." Just from this line of text, we already have a number of techniques and appeals being used.
We definitely see need for prominence and need for attention. The need for prominence makes us feel that we need to get people to look at us because we want to seem like we have a higher social status. "Only people of higher income and social status can afford this product," is a message that is being portrayed.
Another appeal that we see is the need for attention. The line "worth a second glance" makes us feel that if we buy this product, then we will be looked at; maybe even twice.
A technique that is used here is the "snob appeal." This ad, overall, makes us feel that the customer can be part of an elite group if they buy this product, which in a way, is true. Only the wealthy, (or the people stupid enough) can afford to burn so much cash on a watch.
Before you continue reading, first watch this video:
Mr. Starace, I was too lazy to check with you to see if this video was alright to use, because it is not American. My bad. In my defense, this video is not really aimed at a particular geographical region, right?
If you were too lazy to actually watch this video, I guess I just have to explain it to you. The video featured a number of young boys, probably no older than the age of ten, who were asked a bunch of questions about their first impressions about a girl. They were asked what they liked about her appearance. Among the many answers were "her eyes," "her smile," or "her hair." It was no secret that these young boys were infatuated by this girl. Then, they were asked to caress her, and they were even more happy. Just when the young boys were least expecting it, the maker of the video, told the boys to "SLAP HER!!!"
Of course, the boys were taken aback by the two words, and none of them actually committed the action. When asked why, the common response was, "because she is a girl," "because you're not supposed to hit girls," "because she is pretty and she is a girl," "as the saying goes, 'a girl should not be hit, not even with a flower.'" At the end of the video, in white words across the screen, reads, "In the kids' world, women don't get hit."
If you thought I was going to completely murder this video, I am not. I am just going to take a knife and stab it a little.
This video has a very positive intended message. It encourages people, especially boys and men to not hit women. Today, many women are subject to domestic violence, and this video is an attempt to tackle that issue. The explicit message of this video is that women should not be hit.
However, I had a mini-protest at my desk when I first watched this video. I was literally yelling at the screen, "DON'T HIT HER JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A GIRL. DON'T HIT HER BECAUSE HITTING PEOPLE IN GENERAL IS WRONG!" However, I'm not going to ignore the fact that some of the boys gave answers that did not include gender in their answer.
40% of domestic violence is suffered by men, but these issues go unsolved. We should be making an effort to end domestic violence in general, and not just that towards women.
If the makers of the video really wanted to get rid of the "single story" that we studied earlier in the semester, they should have made a video with those boys being told to hit another boy, or girls being told to hit a boy. Lucky for us, there was a response video that was released a few days after "Slap Her" was released.
Again, my bad for not being American media.
If you were too lazy to watch this video, too bad. I will not summarize this one for you. Continue reading once you've watched it.
Not what you were expecting? Exactly what you were expecting? I love the line at the end, in contrast with that of "Slap Her." It clearly states that we should work to end domestic violence as a whole, and not just that aimed at women.
Big question: What would happen if the media actually WAS American media? Would the children's reactions be different?
It was just another Sunday on August 30, 2015. School was not in session yet, and I had been waiting for this day for the longest time.
"But why, Ethan?"
Well, I'm glad you asked. On August 30, 2015, Justin Bieber released his music video for his single "What Do You Mean?"from his album "Purpose." Besides the terrible story line (he and the love interest get kidnapped by people that he hired, but it turns out that they get taken to a cool underground skateboard party) I noticed something almost immediately.
During the make out session (during 1:00 to 2:00) the camera angle kept shifting to one of two things: 1.) either the Calvin Klein jeans that Justin was wearing (during sex?) or 2.) Justin and the actress's (Xenia Deli) waist line, where in bold, was the label for Calvin Klein (1:20 and 1:26.) Once I noticed how the product placement was present, I re-watched this scene without the music, and it very much looked like a Calvin Klein ad (and it could, if the people at Calvin Klein ever got lazy.) When Justin and Xenia are kidnapped, they have their hands tied behind their backs, and you can clearly see that the director of this film tried to have a clear view of the jeans that Justin was wearing.
Just when you thought the shout outs for Calvin Klein was over, the end of the video comes rolling along. The skateboard party is full in motion, Justin is dancing and making out with the girl, and the girl completely forgets that she is making out with the same person that put her through so much trauma. When Justin is singing, you can make out the words spray-painted on the skateboard ramp behind him, #mycalvins (at 4:26.)
Recently, in a world cluttered with so many ads, brands have to come up with creative ways to reach different audiences to buy their products. Product placement, or as the advertisers like to call it, Madison and Vine, is a common way to do this. Having Justin Bieber as your spokesperson has its perks. This technique is becoming more and more common in modern television and films. Hawaii-Five-O only drives Chevrolet cars. iCarly gives Apple shoutouts, but instead using a parody company, Pear. The Internship film is all about google. As Deadpool would say, "This sh*t is all around us."
Just because a form of media takes on more uses and purposes than it was initially intended, it doesn't mean that its original purpose cannot stille be taken out.
Justin Bieber made a good music video, and Calvin Klein was able to get some advertising. I don't see the harm in that.
In honor of today's release of the anticipated movie, "Captain America: Civil War"...
About a month ago, on March 10, Marvel released this trailer for their movie "Captain America: Civil War," and the internet went crazy. Viewers went loco over the last part of the trailer, where an unanticipated Spider-man swooped in, took Captain America's shield, and said "hey everyone." These two words made the internet explode with a bunch of memes, reaction videos, and tweets, oozing with anticipation for the upcoming movie.
This is just one of the few instances where superhero movies had a huge impact on the internet, and the world itself. If you don't believe me, look at all these memes about the Civil War movie released today.
What makes this genre of movies so influential in our culture today? First, we must examine the original messages that these comic books and movies convey, then we may be able to see why our culture eats it up like watermelon on a hot summers day.
Superman first arrived from the planet Krypton in the 1930s during the gathering strorm before World War II. In the cartoons of those early days, he fought Nazis and avenged the attack on Pearl Harbor.
In some ways, Superman can be seen as a Jewish superhero. The two men who created superman were Jews. Same can even say that Superman can be a "metaphor for the Jewish immigrant experience."
"He's a strange visitor from another place. He's a stranger in a strange land. He has to adapt to being [in America.] He has to learn all the ways to be an American, the same way they did. You come to America, it's the land of opportunity, so you can become anything, even a 'super man.'"
Later, Vietnam and Watergate made us more cynical. Straight-up do-gooders became outdated. This may be why the Batman TV show of the 60s didn't take this superhero stuff too seriously. Admitting that you like men in tights during this time became as cool as...you get the picture. For the longest time, there was a feeling of disrespect towards comics. Pretty much, the events of the world affected our mindset, getting us to think that nobody has the potential to be good, and there was no place for superheroes at all, because it seemed so childish.
That changed on September 11, 2001, with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The world was once again divided into good and evil, but was still morally complicated, flawed, and vulnerable. Suddenly, superheroes came back in a big way.
Actual images made after 9/11
Captain America, who made a re-emergence in the 2000s, took on the 9/11 attacks (with the images above.) To see Captain America at Ground Zero, was a symbol of hope in a time of mourning, who sort of portrayed, "I know we're at a low point right now, but let's hold it all together, and make things better (different from a character like Batman--"Rahhh we'll get those terrorsists. do you know why? Because I'm Batman!!!")
The 2008 economic collapse doubled down on the chaos and uncertainty so that by the time "The Dark Knight Rises" was released in 2012, the story told of a troubled billionaire in a bat costume battling a villain who might as well be from Occupy Wall Street.
These are just a few of the many instances where our culture has influenced the superhero genre, and how the genre has influenced us. Despite the differences in these different examples, however, one element is present in each. Whether in the original Jewish Superman, the man-in-tights Batman in the 60s, or even the latest Captain America film, all the characters in these comics and films have the ability to overcome obstacles, have power over their lives, and also the lives around them, which are all things that we strive to do.
Super hero movies are a lot more important, than we give them credit for.
The heroes in these movies inspire people in all kinds of ways. Captain America inspires people to be morally better, Iron Man inspires people to create, build, and work on their comebacks, and Spider-man proves that you CAN balance school, a job, a hot girlfriend, all while fighting crime in NYC. Superhero moves give us "regular-folk" the inspiration to do great things, especially all the young kids that watch these movies. i mean, I watched Spider-man growing up, and learnig that "with great power, comes great responsibility."
If you were Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) in the movie "The Dark Knight," would you use the "super bat sonar computer" to 1.) help the Batman catch the joker, but while doing this, also 2.) invading the privacy of millions of people in Gotham City?
Privacy or security? Its one of the most controversial questions that is asked today. With the rise of terrorist attacks, the FBI has realized that one of the ways that terrorists communicate is through the internet, whether it is through private messages, emailing, or threatening through social media. In order to prevent more extensive attacks similar to recent one's, the FBI has proposed to have Apple create a software that would allow a "backdoor" into their technology. Of course, many people have issues with this--mainly because of the invasion of privacy.
One of the main reasons that this is an ongoing issue is because of the language that each side uses to deliver their message. In an article titled, "The Many Ways Terrorists Communicate Online," the point is made that "technology is often called the great disrupter [...] but we need to put the great disrupters to work in disrupting ISIS and stopping them from having this open platform for communicating with their dedicated fighters and their wannabees, like the people in San Barnardino." Pretty much, in this text, it is saying that technology is bad (by using the word disrupter), but can be used for good by preventing terrorists (by stating "stopping them from having this open platform for communicating with their dedicated fighters and their wannabees.") Doesn't sound bad,right?
In this simple news article: "Woman Ordered to Unlock iPhone with Fingerprint" its shows how people are forced to give up their privacy for the sake of better security. Essentially, the court used a 5th amendment "loophole" to force a women to unlock her phone. The opposing side would call this action "necessary" while those against heavy security would probably call this "invasion." The same action is taken, but different words are to describe it, each with a different emotional meaning behind it. This proves that language can be powerful, but it leaves us in a deeper hole than we were. Is there a happy medium? We many never know. Language. #powerfulthing
One of the most popular online videos today are prank videos, and I can understand why. Who doesn't like to watch a man get a garbage can thrown over his head and then kicked into a pool? There is just something satisfying about watching a person get fooled, having no idea what is going on, while everyone else around them knows exactly what is going to play out. But when is a prank no longer considered a prank? Recently, there has been so many of these videos on the internet that the people that make these types of videos have been forced to step up their game.
Whether they become more violent, more stupid, or more controversial, there is no doubt (if you keep up with these videos) that pranks are becoming closer and closer to the point where they are no longer pranks. The other day, I watched a "prank" video where a man pretends to be a Muslim and throws fake bombs at random people in the streets. If this is considered a prank, I guess terrorism and the Islamic religion (or any religion in general) is funny. Not only does this "prank" cause public unrest, (which is a crime) by making people thank that they might die, but he is using people's pre-conceived thoughts and ignorance of Muslims to cause terror in a completely way. If someone did this without calling it a prank, (or staging it?) he probably would have been arrested.
The problem with these videos is that when they are classified as "pranks" the line between crimes and jovial fun is blurred. Often, when the prankster is being attacked or threatened by the "prankee" a line that is always used is "its just a joke" or "its just a prank" which (according to the prankster) justifies their actions. I can safely say that one hundred percent of the times when they are attacked, they say something along these lines. In this video, a man pretends to steal gas from people's cars, and each person that is pranked, hits or threatens the prankster. At the end of the video, he looks worn out from the remarks, and he says "I'm done. This is NOT fun." What did he expect? For them to barf rainbows with joy? Just by calling his actions a "prank" it doesn't justify the out-of-line actions.
Eventually, pranksters blurred the lines further by using the the word "social experiment" instead of the word "prank." Don't get me wrong, many social experiment videos are extremely moving and powerful, like this, where male vs. female domestic violence is compared. But some people use the label "social experiment" because the word "prank" seem evil. If you didn't notice, my last blog post was a prank, to see how people would react to the title. In the actual blog post, I said that I was performing a "social experiment" rather than bluntly saying "I pranked you." By saying this, my actions probably (no guarantee) caused some of the people that read it to overlook my actions.
Why does any of this matter? Well, if things continue the way they are going, pranks will continue to go too far, maybe causing harm and disrupting public activity, but people will disregard these actions by putting a band-aid on it by saying "it was just a prank" or "it was a "social experiment."
So the other day I was scrolling through the Internet, and I came across a curious article on the New York Times' website. It was about feminism, and so being the little HISP boy that I am, I read it thoroughly. At first I thought it was in favor, but then it jumped into how feminism is a joke because females are not at all equal.
Just kidding.
Congratulations.
You played yourself.
This is a social experiment to see how you would react to the title.
For legal and ethical purposes, I must state that I lied about the anecdote about coming across the article on The New York Times' website. There is no article of the sort on the website (at least to my knowledge.)
For the record, the views of the fake NYT article does not reflect my views or opinions.
Women are wonderful human beings!
Please comment about how you immediately felt about the title when you read it!
Peace and love
