When Will My Reflection Show... - How My Critey Sense Has Been Dialed Up

          Did you see what I did there with the title?  How I played with the word "reflection" and its two meanings?  It was equivocation.  This is just one of the few examples of how critical thinking has managed to creep into my life without my knowing it. Ever since I have embarked on this second quarter of critical thinking, my awareness (of the techniques and fallacies) have been  dialed to 11.  Everywhere, especially in the media, I see techniques being used that we talk about in critical thinking.  From now on, I am going to reference "media awareness" as "critey sense," similar to Spiderman's "spidey sense."
          Based on other reflections I have read, it seems that many of my classmates think that they consume more media now than they did before.  This is where I differ.  I believe that I have always consumed a large amount of media, even before this project, but because of the tools that this class has given me, my critey sense has been heightened. I have become more sensitive to fallacies, and the techniques used by media outlets to get consumers to persuade themselves.  I have always consumed a large amount of media, but now, it is easier to notice where I have become a victim to advertisers.  Succumbing to advertising techniques does not even have to apply to an actual brand that is selling a product.  A perfect example of this can be found in Amos Karlsen's blog post about Lars Anderson and holes in his logic about archery.
          Knowing everything that I currently know about advertising techniques, I am now much more conscious of how advertisers are trying to get me to convince myself something.  One of the coffee shop discussions we had in the Latin America unit, was about identity.  A possible conclusion about identity that we came up with (if I remember correctly) is that identity first originates from what others think about you, and if you believe those things that are told about you.  This is where advertising and media comes in.  Advertisers can only do so much to convince consumers, but ultimately, the true convincing is how the consumer convinces themselves- if they convince themselves that the advertiser's claims are false and refuse to be persuaded, or if they convince themselves to consume to product (or idea) that is being portrayed.
          This is why being an educated consumer is very important.  It is easier to see through the (often) lies that advertisers feed us, thus weakening the voice of advertising and making it easier for us to convince ourselves if we really want to consume the product or idea.
          One of the most surprising things that I've learned from keeping this blog is that super heroes have way more messages that are being conveyed, you just have to dig a little bit into the history of the production, writers, and film makers.  A good portion of my media blogs were centered around superheroes and the message that are conveyed by them.  It just takes a little digging, and the messages are clear.
          Truthfully, I don't think any of us will remember the specific details of critical thinking.  Five years from now we will not watch a commercials and whisper to ourselves "red herring," or "glittering generalities." The only person that would actually still do that would probably be Mr. Starace.  However, if we remember the main points of this semester, on how to be better critical thinkers about our consuming.

When critical thinking, healthy skepticism is key

Abducting People for Fun!

          Since this is my last blog post besides the reflection, I am going to come around full circle and end how I started off.  My first official post was about prank videos and how they are getting more and more extreme, even to the point where they are illegal, but they rationalize this by calling it a "prank" or "social experiment."
          I just watched this video this past weekend, where a a man pretends to be an uber driver but "abducts" them.
          The prankster's intentions were correct, as all social experimenters' are. He wants people to be more careful about how they go about entering a stranger's car. Harmless, right? Wrong.

1. He takes advantage of how drunk and disoriented the passengers are.
          Before he starts his spree of abduction, he speaks into the camera and directly stated that "people are gonna be getting out of the clubs and and the bars, and they're gonna be a little tipsy." If we know these people's attention are not at their capacity, shouldn't we expect them to not be as careful? If we really wanted to test how safe a person would be when entering an uber car, there should also be tests during different times of the day, and in different areas.  Although many people who use ubers, usually take one at night during this setting, it is not impossible to find people who called an über that are not drunk.
          Logic aside, taking advantage of how drunk someone is breaks a few of the pillars of character;  respect, and Hobart for sure (I don't have my handout wth me at the moment, so I don't know if there are more, but I will know it for the final.

2.  The prankster breaks the law.
          This dude willingly admits that he abducted the people that got in his car, shown by what he titled the video.  Regardless of how long he kept them in his car, or whether or not he let them out, abduction is abduction.  He straight up broke the law to make a video that is entertaining. This directly breaks the "Uncle Ben" philosophy: "with great power comes great responsibility." If he has the power to distribute any message he wants, it should be the best massage possible, yet he is saying that breaking the law is fine, as long as you are filming it. Just because you're making a video, it doesn't mean that it is impossible to make one that is is entertaining AND follows the law.

3.  He puts a band-aid on a flesh wound.
          As in my previous post, many pranksters use the line "it's just a prank" or "it's a social experiment" when things get out of hand. They think that just by saying this, everything is better. This prankster is no different. After he scares his passengers for a good 5 minutes, he tells them it's a social experiment, thinking that they will instantly be healed from ther brief second of trauma. After he tells them, he asks the passengers if they want him to actually take them to their destination. It seems that he is expecting them to say yes, as if they are now instantly best friends. Also, he justifies his action of committing a crime (#2) by relabeling the crime by calling it a social experiment.

The Bipolarism in Macklemore's Songs

          In Latin America unit 1, we learned about the artists that played such a prevalent role in government; socially, economically, and politically.  The artists are the only ones that can fully represent the complicated Latin American identity, which is a contradictory relationship between two ancestries: conqueror and conquered. That got me thinking. Even though North America does not have the same identity crisis as Latin America, do we still have artists that play a large role in other aspects of life, specifically government?
          I immediately thought about my homeboy Ben Haggerty, otherwise known as Macklemore. I was introduced to this gem of a music artist in seventh grade, when Ethan Borg forced me an earbud and made me watch the music video for "Thrift Shop." Macklemore's songs can be really serious with a lasting message, such as "Same Love," "Other Side," and "Wing$." However he is also known for making songs about random stuff, such as "Thrift Shop," "White Walls," and his most recent, "Downtown."
          Unlike many rappers (if you can call him a rapper,)  the subjects that he raps about are not revolving around love, drugs, success, or anything else.  He tends to rap about very serious social and identity issues.  "Same Love" talks about gay pride. "Wing$" speaks of the problem with consumerism.  "Otherside" talks about drinking addiction. "Kevin" talks about his brother who died from drug abuse.  One song that caught my attention was "White Privilege II" which talks about the matter of black lives.  I guess what I'm trying to say, is that just how Drake differs from other rappers because his music revolves around love, Macklemore differs from other rappers because his music revolves around social issues.
          However, like I said earlier, Macklemore also has a bunch of songs that are about random stuff.  "Thriftshop" is literally about a shopping spree at a thrift store. "White Walls" is about Cadillacs, and how he always wanted one. "Downtown" is an anthem about mopeds.

          Musically, the un-serious songs are better.  I could/would definitely listen to "Downtown" for a solid straight four hours.  However, it is the serious songs that are going to make a bigger impact.
          Macklemore is shooting himself in the foot.  I can't be the only one who is unable to take his songs seriously; even with his songs that are supposed to be very serious.  Whenever I hear the name "Macklemore," I immediately think of "Thriftshop," not "Same Love," "White Privilege II," or the Kings player.
          Macklemore most likely does this because he doesn't want to be fully classified as a political artist or a protest artist.  For my term paper topic, I wrote about Fela Kuti, a Nigerian music artist that seemed like his efforts would succeed, but eventually failed in the end.  One of the factors that contributed to his failure, was that he was so invested in making politicized music and protest music, that his band members aBANDoned him because they were just tired of him going on and on.  This is probably what Macklemore is trying to avoid.  If he just releases music with serious messages, people with eventually stop listening to him, because they will see it as whining about the problem and not actually fixing it.  People sometimes just want to let their hair down, spread their Wing$, jump on their moped and cruise downtown towards the thriftshop.
          As confusing as it is that Macklemore releases songs that are pretty much opposites, it makes sense why he would do it.  He just needs to stay popular, so that when he does release the serious songs, there is still an audience.
  

          

       

Disney Played Me

         Monday was great.  I got to take an extra day to study for the Starace Latin America (that I probably screwed up anyway) and I also got some great deals at the Folsom outlets, thanks to the Memorial Day Weekend Sales.  One of the gems I found was this pair of Vans.
          JUNGLE BOOK VANS!!!  When I saw this, I immediately had to buy them.  Believe it or not, I actually have not watched the Jungle Book film; the original animation or the recent CGI film.  I bought the pair of shoes because this is my form of self-expression/rebellion/staying cool, or whatever you want to call it.
          In my opinion, I have a pretty solid line-up of shoes.  I have Star Wars, two animal prints, one with Selena Quintanilla, and now I have added a Jungle Book pair. I guess I'm not living with the "simple bare/bear necessities," but at least I have one for every day of the school week! *self high-five
          So what does this have to do with media and Merchants of Cool?  Disney, one of the major companies that controls air-time on TV, collaborated to create this pair of shoes and a whole line up (and also the Star Wars pair and line up.)  Vans feed off of teenagers or people that want to be "unique," so they collaborate with one of the major networking companies, to get what is considered "cool" on their shoes.
          Although it may seem nerdy to some, having Star Wars or Disney characters on your shoes is just another way that the major television networks influence our everyday life; if you purchase these items, or anything with their label.
          I also think it is interesting that whenever I slip on these Jungle Book shoes, I am in a way representing Kipling, the same man who wrote White Man's Burden.  #DisneyMadeKiplingCool
         

Why James Bond Shouldn't be Played by a Woman

*Whips out phone and sees article that Daniel Craig won't be returning as James Bond

*Cries to sleep

          I can't be the only one that is upset that Daniel Craig not returning as 007.  He's probably the best Bond of all time, or maybe that is just bias because he is the Bond that I grew up with.  However, it is too late, because he already rejected a $100 million deal to act in two movies.  With that already set in stone, it is time to look for a new Bond.

          Some actors said to be in the running are Tom Hiddleston (Loki from Avengers) and Jamie Bell (The Thing from 2015's Fantastic Four.)  However, something else caught my attention besides Loki being rumored to be 007: there were rumors that women were in the running to be cast as James Bond (or Jane Bond.)  Some actresses said to throw their name in the hat were Gillian Anderson and Emilia Clarke.  Not to mention, there is said to be a female director.

          If the rumors are true, and there is a fighting chance for a woman to be cast as Jane Bond, this could potentially change the depiction of women in media.  This is a chance for the stereotype of ditzy women to be broken, and show that women can do everything that a man can do, and even more.

          However, as much as I am all for the idea that women should have equal shots at playing characters who have traditionally been played by men for no particularly good reason, (like the new Ghostbusters,) James Bond is a different thing.  Women should get great spy and action roles. But they shouldn't play James Bond. 

          James Bond is not required to be a man because only a man can carry off a fantastic action sequence, or only a man can romance an army of beautiful women, or only a man can credibly represent the British Empire, or any other similar nonsense. Women can do all of those things in real life, and we certainly should be permitted to do them on screen.  We had definitely been proven this point time and time again with films and movies centered around strong female characters, such as Agent Carter, Jessica Jones, Black Widow, Katniss Everdeen, etc...

          Instead, James bond should be played by a man because the character is a sort of "study" of masculinity in a particular context.  Having a woman play the premier spy in the British secret service, a character who uses her sexuality to gain information and advantage without being judged for it, and goes to great lengths in defense of her country, would be fascinating. A performance like that could challenge assumptions for what men and women could do. But it would not explore the thing that James bond movies are designed to explore.

          On a random note, I also think that a female Bond can easily slip into the archetype of the "Fighting F***-Toy."

          Beyond the question of what James bond is for, I think it is worth asking serious questions about whether allowing women to occasionally step into roles that have previously been reserved for men is a significant step forward for gender equality in the entertainment industry.

          If our goal is for Hollywood to create action-oriented jobs for women that will be available for decades to come, the we need franchises that are BUILT aroud women in the first place.  We need roles like Bond's, or Jason Bourne's that are designed to be occupied by a rotating series of women.  Borrowing Bond's role might be a fun fantasy, but real power means a role that we don't have to give back to men (just like the WW2 jobs that women had to give back, once the soldiers returned.)

X-Men are Gay... Literally

          In a previous post, I talked about how superheroes have a great influence on our culture today, and because of this, they have a responsibility to give audiences the best message possible.  As Uncle Ben said, "with great power, comes great responsibility. Having this mindset, I watched and re-watched superhero movies, examining the messages that each one gives their audience.  The most curious message I found was when watching the X-Men movies.
         
          The X-Men and mutants are representative of the LGBT community.
         
          In this post, I am only going to address the X-Men films, and not the comics, because it is safe to say that way more people are viewers of X-Men movies, rather than the original comics.
          If you've ever wondered why the X-Men films get so caught up in the politics of mutant rights, that is because the issues facing these characters and how people treat them are meant to mirror the actual experiences of marginalized groups, particularly, the LGBT community.  The director of the series, Bryan Singer, is openly bi-sexual, and has stated that many of his films reflect issues that are close to him.
          I just watched X-Men: First Class yesterday, and a major plot line in the story was Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Beast's (Nicholas Hoult) acceptance of their powers.  These two mutants are both self-conscious about their abilities, and they try to hide them.  Mystique has the ability to transform her appearance, so she hides her natural blue form with a light-skinned Jennifer Lawrence. Beast, in the beginning of the story, has big feet, and tries to hide it. He doesn't even tell his colleague that he has known for years.  Near the end of the movie, Beast tried to attack his mutant cells so that he could look normal, but it hurt him more than he thought.  This situation of holding back one's natural feelings and abilities in order to fit into society is faced by the LGBT community.  If you accept your true self, then you will happy, just like Mystique, who embraced her natural form, and no longer had to hide.  But if you hold it in, then you will be like Beast, who ended up less satisfied than he originally was.
          In the X-Men universe, mutants are marginalized, so if a family member turns out to be mutant, then they will most likely be be ignored, feared, hated, or abandoned.  In X2, Bobby Drake, or Iceman, reveals to his parent that he is a mutant.  This meeting is very similar to someone from the LGBT community coming out of the closet.

          The parallels between mutants the LGBT community and continue.  I could go on. And I will.

Mutants tend to get their powers and natural abilities around puberty, similar to how LGBT member discover their feeling around this time.

Mutants can be born from regular humans, even the parents that hate mutants to the core. This is seen with Iceman (above) and Jason Stryker, the villain of  X2, hates villains, but his son is a mutant, so he exiles him.   This is similar to how often, straight couples have gay, lesbian, or bi children.

Magneto, a mutant, fights for worldwide mutant pride, and encourages mutants everywhere to embrace their powers, just how recent movements encourage people of the LGBT community to embrace their own feelings.

If you still don't believe me, here are some quotes from X-Men: First Class that I found interesting.

"I always knew I couldn't be the only one in the world.  The only one who was different."

"They'll fear us. And that fear will turn to hatred."

"I can't stop thinking about the others out there, all those minds that I touched.  i could feel them, their isolation, their hopes, their ambitions.  I tell you we can start something incredible, Erik.  We can help them."

"Can we? Identification, that's how it starts. And ends with being rounded up, experimented on, and eliminated."

*Raven transforms* CIA Agent - "Out. i want them out of my office. Now"

I Think Fant4stic is a Terrible Movie, and You Should Too

          Turns out the "Slap Her" video was not allowed because it was foreign. *sigh
          Making a film is a tough thing to do, so shouldn't reboots of original movies have an easier job at being successful. Our world is full of reboots, and the majority of them suck. Here are some reasons why.

1.  You have less talent than the original cast and crew

          I'm going to get rid of this one out of the way, because it is so obvious. "You're not as good as the first guy."  Often, actors draw their performance from previous interpretations of the character, and often try too hard to reproduce whatever the original reproduced.  However, some reboots have better talents to work with, but the original had a certain aspect to them that made them so successful.  And the same goes for directors. It is hard for directors to see, and to accept, that their film is worse than the original.

2.  You have nothing to add

         Remakes are supposed to be a fresh perspective on an old movie, but sometimes, the remake is the exact same perspective as the original.  One of the most recent instances of this, is 2012's The Amazing Spiderman, with Andrew Garfield.  The movie was pretty good, but the story was decades old. We already knew how Peter Parker would get bitten by a spider, his uncle would die, and that he would become Spider-man, so why recycle this story completely? The only difference was that instead of Parker Parker trying to game Mary Jane, the story revolves around him trying to find out more about his parents.

3.  You have something to add, but it sucks

       
          This is pretty self-explanatory. The director had good ideas, but the way they were portrayed just didn't work.  Whenever I think of this aspect, I think of last years disaster of a Fantastic Four movie.  The director tried to focus on the relationship between Reed Richards and Ben Grim.  He also tries to show audiences a different way on how the four got their powers, but he spends AN HOUR AND A HALF explaining this.  This left no room for an actual movie. BTW, this movie sucks and you shouldn't watch it.  I watched it so you guys didn't have to.

4.  The movie was a product of its time

       
          Some movies only work in the time that they were created. Take "The Breakfast Club" for example.  If they made a reboot that took place during our time, it wouldn't work. First of all, we don't have detention on weekends, which would screw up the whole plot line.  Also, the things that they do I. The movie would be unrealistic in a modern setting, like ours. Another example would be "Goonies," where it was more common for children to adventure and hang out with eachother, but today, this would be seen as terrible parenting.  I mean, how often do we see the parents in this movie, and when we do, are they actually good parents?

I could go on on how so many reboots have failed, but I'm on a bus right now, and I really want to sleep.

One thing I will say, however, is that reboots still make a lot of money, even if they are terrible as Fant4stic from last year.