Hey guys,

I wanted to start this off and say that I thought everybody’s presentations were really interesting. The variety of topics addressed and researched were pretty cool. I learned a lot about student athletes, social media literacy, the pervasive nature of sex in advertisement, and the effect of various movie trailer styles.

The topic I wanted to address specifically was the “sex sells” conversation. I thought that commercial illuminating the widespread influence of ideal body image advertising (the one with the young red haired girl) to be particularly powerful. How much do you guys think sex in advertising, specifically television commercial advertising adds to the societal pressure felt by women, specifically young women, to adhere to what society has defined as the “ideal body image”.? Probably a run on sentence, but an interesting question to ponder regardless.

On that note, I think this form of body-altering pressure stemming from television advertising is not the main contributor to this issue, but certainly a significant component. Furthermore, I think the issue is bigger than advertisements, posters, fashion shows, and clothing size inventory values in retailers. I think the influence of television shows, not particularly commercials to be a larger contributor to this issue of body image adherence. We see hundreds of attractive men and women alike in television shows as actors and actresses. Of course there are not strictly actors and actresses categorized as “beautiful” on television, but largely in part these entertainment employees are made to match these standards society has structured. We watch our favorite shows, talk about them with our friends, even watch them socially. We talk about how attractive a particular actor or actress is, or how they look in a particular outfit, or the opposite. We are identifying and comparing their body images to the “ideal” archetype culture and society has prescribed. It is from this that we are able to use words defining in any way physical traits. If we did not have this foundation, we would have no basis from which to form and then express our own opinions. This is interesting to think about. What then, would we call beautiful or inversely unattractive (physically) without an initial example or basis?

As pertinent as this foundation is to have, it is also severely damaging to individuals, as they strive through methods ranging in severity to adhere to these body image ideals as closely as possible. This “Barbie-Doll figure” for young women is the catalyst for so much stress and social hierarchical structuring throughout much of their social development (ages 6-22) vis-a-vis institutionalized education. (*Note, I am largely in part talking about America, as that is the culture I find myself within, but large portions of my arguments apply internationally) It is damaging to men and women of all ages, yet we cannot escape it. How then, can we reduce the negative social impact this pervasive body image ideal has on society?

I am sure I am not alone when I say that I left viewing of the Hunting Ground angered at the institutionalized higher education system. Placing the rights of the aggregate above the rights of one person has some merit in a bigger picture type of setting. But in a case of sexual assault, a blatant, terrifying, violent and emotionally burdening infraction of basic human privilege…this policy has absolutely no merit here. The safety and rights of an individual and their respective sexual identity must be upheld and taken seriously, from both preventative and reactionary platforms.

Preventative in the sense that the campus policies and laws enforced, with ample staff and campus culture to effectively enforce them, prevent the occurrence of sexual violence to the best degree possible. All colleges can to an extent claim this first effort in the fight against sexual violence. They have laws and policies in place which illuminate the expected response if a situation of sexual violence does occur.

The part of this discussion that infuriated me was the second platform I highlighted. The reactionary part of policy placement which places a degree of responsibility on the college and their safety staffing to actively manage and take action against knowing and unknowing violators of these policies. The cover up efforts of the schools Kirby Dick includes within his documentary are abominable. Placing the blame on the victim, urging them not to report, and giving them doubt about their respective incident instead of resourceful support and reassurance is a poor message to deliver to their student body.

A potent example which was given at one point during the film is one I believe deserves recapitulation here.

“If the university of your dreams said that your daughter or son has a 1 in 4 chance of being murdered due to a drive by shooting, what parent could ever send their daughter or son there”

While one stance of this quote may be that the situation exists, and it exists outright so the only positive solution to the issue the school has is to cover it up. Clearly this is not the moral or legal action plan to take, and the institutions have a right of transparency regarding the safety of their campuses.

Morgan Spurlock…..man what an engaging narration style and documentary topic he has created here. The main element of the documentary that got my thoughts all twisted up was the muti-tiered structure it had. It had the effect of two mirrors placed directly across from each other, containing elements within elements within elements within….you get the point. So he is making a documentary with the goal of examining and analyzing product placement and product marketing within film, by making a film doing just that. Because he is doing exactly what he is examining, he is receiving funding from these companies to do just that. Because he is receiving funding from these companies, and because they are advertising within his documentary analyzing just that, he is subject to specifications and contracts obligating him to introduce their topics a certain number of times, in certain ways etc…the genius is that this is exactly what he’s examining, yet his very own documentary is purposefully bound by the contracts  he has agreed to.

At this point I’m not sure which way is up and I have no clue what’s going on, but I know that I like it, he has my full attention, and I sure wouldn’t mind a nice cold bottle of Pom Wonderful. I will say, and with the purpose of demonstrating the power of advertising, after class I did in fact go to lower and purchase a Pom 100% pomegranate juice drink (a little bitter, but overall delicious).

The ingenuity with which this documentary was made astounds me. Its such an interesting topic to address, and has incredible depth while examining a very relevant topic to modern capitalism.

For someone who is publicly labeled as a traitor, a spy, communist (not my personal opinion of course)..etc…I could not help but resonate and connect with the guy. Never having heard him speak prior to this movie, I was quite surprised at how human and personable he was. I thought the humanization of Edward Snowden created doubt and even sympathy in the eyes of the audience. I felt bad for him, and even experienced empathetic responses to certain sections of the film. This is in tune with our discussion of separating the person from the situation, and how I am able to fully understand the gravity of the situation and his actions, yet simultaneously feel sympathy for him as a person.

I know this is a little outdated for our class currently, but I wanted to refer back to the Psycho shower scene we viewed in class, with the purpose of evaluating a particular instance of graphic matching. After the actress is murdered, and lies bleeding in the shower, the camera pans down to rest upon the empty drain whole, as the woman’s blood, her “life force” disappear into the dark abyss. Hitchcock’s cinematic genius ignites in this instance, as he implements a graphic match dissolve, creating a connection between the circular drain opening and the lifeless eyes of the actress. Furthermore, the drain is an inanimate, and therefore lifeless object, which can be said of the now inanimate, and recently lifeless corpse the murderer left behind. What is such a subtle moment in a film can have such a profound impact on its viewers.

The time period which fostered the emergence of homosexual imagery and themes within cinema in a way fueled the movement (of homosexuality in cinema, not so much the emergence of homosexuals within society), encouraging film produces and directors to incorporate homosexual characters, such as The Sissy character personality, or subtly homo-erotic suggestive themes within cinema circa 1920-1930. At this time in history it was not acceptable by society to openly announce one’s own homosexuality. But this very real, yet closeted demographic became a subtle contributor to movie revenue, on the basis that they would pay to see and view films containing homosexual personalities or themes. This increase in demand opened a previously closeted market which gave way to an increased presence of homosexual or lesbian personalities within (time relevant) “modern” films. This movement then created significant media presence which purported acceptance and tolerance for a culture which was previously only included within cinema to inhibit pity, fear, or comedic emotional response from the audience. It is interested to view the increased footprint of homosexual and lesbian media from a slight economics standpoint.

I thought the music added special emotion to a few scenes, especially because it is a black and white film. Throughout the film, the music helped to add to each scene, conveying great sadness, as is the case for the scene after the bomb set by the police went off and you saw the children’s bodies. Or when the women were doing their makeup and the fast paced battle march set your teeth on edge and got your heart pumping faster. The effect of these various musical scores added to the movie in a very potent manner, and played a large role in the films emotional takeaway. Think of how you felt when the carefree dance music was playing in the parlor, all the while knowing the happiness in the scene was going to come to a grinding halt at any moment.

I found the technique of including the viewer in the movie to be a particularly effective way to deliver his message. This is seen when the camera rushes up to each individual as if it was a child running up to talk to somebody, only to hear very exaggerated and overblown racism from each diversified minority present in the movie. This method of speaking directly to the camera, is accentuated by the lack of visual effect in the frame while each character is talking. Where other scenes showed the same settings with a lot happening in the background or a multitude of visual variety, these “call-out scenes” did not boast any of the same visual appeal. They were made so the viewer was focused on the slurs and anger directed from one character toward the others.

I wanted to discuss a point that was not brought up in class concerning the first scene in Apocalypse Now.  I think it is important in analyzing film to be conscious of the identity of the camera. I always enjoy asking myself, what role does the director wish the viewer to play in the movie? The camera angle, shot length, composition, and other aspects is the lens through which a viewing audience is allowed to interpret a scene. Often for point of view scenes or shots featuring a character delivering a monologue, it is effective for the viewer to think of the camera as another person, as you are indeed the listener of the monologue. In the hotel room scene, specifically when Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is sitting on a chair, talking about his life.  I interpreted the camera choices made here as the directors way of maintaining Willard’s abstraction from reality, but in a way that makes it seem as though he is conversing with someone. Notice his active listening body language and forward facing posture, the way he is looking up as well, as if he is giving his full attention to the person he is talking to (the viewer).