I know this is a little late but I just came across these quizlets with the terms we have been studying for the exam — thought I would share! If you have a quizlet account, you can check yourself to see the other ones that are available to help you (I only pasted a few below but there is more!)
“Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which has existed throughout history by means of photography…the proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance yet that very idea has motivated me. For me the strength of photography lies in its ability to evoke a sense of humanity, if war is an attempt to negate humanity, then photography can be perceived as the opposite form and if used well it can b e a powerful ingredient in the antidote to war.” This quote sounds like the most powerful thing I have heard in quite some time. It embodies why someone would be willing to risk their life for the greater good. James Natcheway just became an idol of mine.
PRESS.PAUSE.PLAY Response…June 26,2016, by Ahmed Malik Braxton
Directors David Dworsky and Victor Kohl documents the transformation of media due to the rampant increase in accessibility in the interrogative film documentary âPress.Pause.Playâ (2011). The directors allowed for well-known media makers and those involved in the market for media creation to give their view on what the evolving technology and its increase in accessibility means, assessing whether or not this could lead to an artistic cultural revolution or on the opposite end of the spectrum if this means the demise of the arts as the cultural producer that it has proven to be. Essentially, the question underlying the film is does mass accessibility equate to the destruction of culture.
Throughout the film, I kept thinking about the concept of the subjective vs the objective such as that we discussed in class; as a sub-theme one could say was the notion of âtalentâ. One quote near the introduction during the panning of the library scene along the lines of what was considered good media (or excellent) has historically been dictated by those in power and historically from the manner in which we typically analyze (that of Euro-centricity) has been at the helm of white men. For this reason, a terrible loss has been affronted to those who do not have access to the circles, they must hide their identity to become a part of the âcanonâ or not be seen as great producers of media. This idea is why there are a great bit of talented people who are not archived and/or awarded. Take for example the Oscars and Grammys, in the history of the Oscars only 32 media engagers won some form of award, four of those thirty-two were lead actors and one of those thirty-two were lead actresses, this isnât to complain about the situation merely to point out that certain folks are marginalized within the ranks of consolidated media. The beauty and power of media now is that anyone has access to it and being that anyone has access to it, more pools of judges can get to it. This allows for more creativity to not only blossom but to flourish, for the next Scorsese filmmaker (in terms of acknowledgement granted) to come from someone who doesnât represent the dominant face of America. What mass media does is decentralize the media marketplace.
What I found an overwhelming amount of, was criticism of media evolution by those who feel that they are experts or who are current members of the industry. They spoke as if they had some sort of supreme authority over the media creating processes and the arts. Their main thing was that the mass access to technology essentially has the potential to disrupt the canon and it is my belief that this is exactly what needs to be done. In terms of media and entertainment accessibility (at least here in the States) has been one of privilege and/or pure fortune especially when it came to music. Also, in terms of music it has been severe limitations to who and what gets heard through the mass commercialization of music. Technology has the ability to fragment the sounds of what exists and create something new, destabilizing existing categories. Technology without mass access is what has made it impossible for a new cultural innovator as it has standardized the sound of tons of music. The same can be said of film, the blockbuster in American film is simply who can do the best of about six different narratives. The interference to the marketplace through mass technology has proven to create great music and films. It is that which its outside the norm which characterizes the mold for greatness. In consolidation of technology and thus media creation both creative processes and artistic ability has been perverted into a distasteful science.
We can only attempt to guess the true meaning behind a lot of the occurrences in the film. If you research the meaning behind the film’s title, Magnolia, you while uncover a ton of theories (and lies). One person said the director Paul Thomas Anderson named the movie Magnolia because the characters kept blossoming like the characters… one person said it was because a lot of the movie was filmed on some street called Magnolia.. and the most interesting one I read about said that the title Magnolia came from the title of a ship called Magnolia (or something similar).
What, according to the film, is the nature and role of media?
I think the nature and role of media, based on this movie is to “put on a show” and entertain. However, if you look behind the curtain you see there is a much different story going on. I think the book The Influencing Machine touches upon some of the same lessons that this film teaches about media.
I honestly thought I knew how the movie would resolve itself… but I definitely was not expecting the raining frogs and the absurdity that happened at the end. I think the element of surprise that was presented in this film, after all that suspense, shows what media is really for as well. Surprising the audience and “putting on a show”/
The movie “Magnolia” happens to be one of the most unique/ odd movie I have ever seen and stylistically reminds me of Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulpfiction” (1994). Much respect is due to filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson for this work. Due to its lengthy nature (3 hours and non-movies), it is able to give a very detailed account of the characters’ lives through the use of the mosaic. Anderson does an impressively detailed account of the history of individuals and connects them with other characters, this is my favorite aspect of the movie. Through the development of character relationships, Anderson is able to thematically analyze the terminal nature of life as well as the importance of healing.
In some facet of life, all of the characters encounter death. In the earlier moments, Officer Jim Kurring (John C. Riley) finds a dead body in an older woman’s home. A few scenes later his character is partnered with a young boy named Dixon (Emmanuel Johnson) who claims to know the answer to the murder and who committed it. Due to his youth, perceived arrogance, and associated vulgarity; he is quickly dismissed by Officer Jim Kurring.
Another character relationship which develops is the relationship between the two boy geniuses. Quiz Boy Donnie Smith and Stanley Spector while having never have met are related through their participation in child genius related television shows. Donnie Smith somewhat encounters death as his supposed intelligence is dead (due to being struck by lightning) as well as his fame. His relationship with his parents are also dead. Stanley Spector’s mom isn’t around it can be assumed that she is dead and his possibly abusive and overtly aggressive father kills their relationship as well.
Frank Mackey and Earl Partridge are characters who are literally related. Throughout the majority of the movie we see a Frank Mackey who is living with the distress of childhood abandonment by his adulterous father, however we do not know this. Frank Mackey portrayed in this movie by Tom Cruise is the extreme embodiment of male adultery, extremely misogynistic and making a living on the idea of the dominant male taking a bestial approach in sex and its pursuit toward women. Earl Partridge is an ailing man on his deathbed with one last wish to see his son who declared him as dead long ago.Partridge it turns out left Mackey with his then ailing mom and ironically calls on his son in the final hours.
Youth and The Character Relationships.
In each of these relationships, the younger one seemingly atones or solves the problems of the older one’s past or current situation.
With Dixon and Officer Jim Kurring, Dixon serves as the Aaron to the Israelites and guides him to the solution to the murder case with this quote, “When the sunshine don’t work, the good Lord bring the rain in”, dubbing himself THE PROPHET and giving the truth to the Israelites. Kurring reflects the Israelites, who seems to be hard-headed because the word isn’t coming from Moses.
As similar scenario is presented for Quiz Boy Donnie Smith, by  Stanley Specter, who doesn’t claim to be a prophet but has a vast array of wisdom and embodies Moses. In the scene which can be seen as the apex of the movie, Specter is on the set of the game show and states this”This isn’t funny. This isn’t cute. See the way we’re looked at? Because I’m not a toy. I’m not a doll. The way we’re looked at because you think we’re cute? Because, what? I’m made to feel like a freak if I answer questions? Or I’m smart? Or I have to go to the bathroom? What is that, Jimmy? What is that? I’m asking you that.” This is when the frogs begin to fall and the Exodus from the chaos of all of the characters’ lives are repaired.
Magnolia was an engaging movie through and through. Particular elements of the film keep the reader yearning for more and the reader’s never want to just stop watching the movie. But of course, the raining frogs as to be one of the most intriguing scenes I have ever seen. Originally I imagined that there was some sort of plane malfunction high and above, and then the storm comes and we obviously know that it is not the case. The first frog to drop however, sent me out of my chair. The crash on the windshield came at a quiet moment, changing the sound of the film almost immediately. Something such as frogs should not make a scene so intense so immediately, but it did just that. After our further discussions we learned that the frogs are directly linked to religion and the Exodus. Exodus 8:2 particularly, and through more research and discussion we learned that PT Anderson kept subtle 8 and 2 references throughout  the movie.
For no particular reason, I also found a very thorough list of the references, though  coupe could possibly be missing.
The first weather forecast is 82% chance of rain.
The gambler in the prologue needs a 2 in blackjack, but instead gets an 8.
The coil of rope on the roof when Sydney commits suicide.
One of the posters held up in the âWhat Do Kids Knowâ audience.
The movie poster at the bus stop on Magnolia Blvd.
The placard on the third hanged convict.
Jim Kurringâs box number at the date hot line.
Sydney Barringerâs mother and fatherâs apartment number is 682.
The forensic science convention starts at 8:20.
Delmer Darion flips over a stack of cards to reveal the 8 through 2 of diamonds.
Right after Jim Kurring sees Donnie Smith climbing up the building, you can see a flash of a sign on the side of the road that says âExodus 8:2â (itâs visible again when the frogs fall and hit Kurringâs car)
The number on the fire fighterâs plane.
In Marcyâs mug shots, her criminal record number is 82082082082.
In the Smiling Peanut bar, there is a chalkboard visible with two teams, the frogs and the clouds, and the score is 8 to 2.
Spray painted on the cement as graffiti next to Dixon.
The kids were two days away from entering their eighth week as champions.
The first two numbers of the Seduce and Destroy Hotline (1-877-TAME-HER) are 82.
At the police station in the beginning of the movie, the clock says 8:02.
When Jim Kurring notices Quiz Kid Donnie Smith climbing on the Solomon & Solomon building he drives past a luminous sign saying âExodus 8:2â
After watching The Rope, and not picking up on any of the indirect/hidden gay references… I was interested to know of any other old movies that may have done the same thing. I found this online and thought it was interesting.
Citizen Kane Rosebud: âI always gagged on the silver spoonâ
âCitizen Kaneâ,a somewhat fictional adaptation of famed publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst, uses the protagonist Charles Foster Kane as a barometer to navigate the dysfunctional public image and private person. The movie opens with the portrayal of another short film examining the death of one of Americaâs greatest media tycoon, Kane, and his final word âRosebudâ. The entire film of âCitizen Kaneâ, a journalist for the âNational Enquirerâ was sent by the corporation to get to the bottom of these last words. After interviewing just about anyone who had ever gotten close to Kane, the journalist recognizes that for someone like Kane who had everything, the little things donât matter so he gives up on the venture. Ironically, in the ending of the movie right after the journalist gives up, the camera picks up on an object with the word âRosebudâ engraved.
âRosebudâ is significant because it recognizes the internal conflict within Charles Foster Kane. The one who he presented to everyone else and who he felt he was. In both his eyes and in the early publicsâ, he wanted to be that little boy in Oregon which though lived in poverty lived with his true family and was able to be a happy young kid. His childhood is quickly interrupted by his sending away, as it is written in a family membersâ will to do so for him. His mother in order to receive the benefits of the estate sends him off to the Northeast where her son will reap the benefits of an urbanized environment and an affluent education. During his time in the North where he is ushered into the family magnate business and is supposed to be groomed to success he works his hardest to destroy the money. Getting kicked out about seven top-rated universities and refusing to join the family business and instead choosing to establish an empire within the realm of honest newspaper creation. With establishing the âDaily Enquirerâ, he creates a standard of principles to abide by. Over the course of building his empire, Kane loses track of these principles and succumbs to the lifestyle of celebrity. Cheating on his first wife, abandoning the people and spending frivolously to get whatever he deems necessary and believing he has ownership over the people he invests in. He treats his personal relationships as if they are business relationships, three times repeated are statements on love by two people who Kane deeply valued on a personal value; by Susan Alexander Kane âLove! You don’t love anybody! Me or anybody else! You want to be loved -that’s all you want! I’m Charles Foster Kane. Whatever you want – just name it and it’s yours! Only love me! Don’t expect me to love you!â, Jedediah Leland, âThat’s all he ever wanted out of life… was love. That’s the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane. You see, he just didn’t have any to giveâ and âYou don’t care about anything except you. You just want to persuade people that you love ’em so much that they ought to love you back. Only you want love on your own terms. Something to be played your way, according to your rules.â
Jerry Thompson:â No, I don’t think so; no. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn’t have explained anything… I don’t think any word can explain a man’s life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a… piece in a jigsaw puzzle… a missing piece.â As for âRosebudâ, it represented his past his ability to actually love. See Rosebud was the sled he tried to use to resist Mr. Thatcher taking him to live in affluence. In his death, as they raid his palace which he created and his dying words being âRosebudâ suggests the inability to recreate such an environment. When things began to fall apart with the departing of his second wife he uttered those same words. It seems to be when his luck falls and the literal chips are measure against him he reflects back on his youth. The missing piece was the sanity he left back in Oregon.
Reading through The Influencing Machine I found the objectivity and bias pieces most interesting in the book. I immediately though of the War on Terror and the surfacing of a lot of feminist commercials showing girls in a different light than mainstream media is used to. I wasn’t quite sure which bias (Visual, Narrative, Status Quo, Commercial) these commercials follow but I thought I’d show everyone some of the commercials I had in mind. The first  highlights what it means to be a girl and how people tend to use girl as an insult when doing something related to sports or power positions.
The second one, which happens to be one of my favorite, shows women bleeding from being active outside. It’s very different from normal tampon and pad commercial that make me feel uncomfortable. I remember watching Fantastic Four with the commentary on and actors were expressing how much they didn’t like the final scenes because Jessica Alba’s character, Susan Storm, was shown bleeding while holding up a force field. I recall her counter arguing that it was nice, because it showed her being strong. It also proved that women superheroes could get just as dirty as the men and elude the same amount of strength. I think that this commercial is awesome because every woman looks strong with their blood and are not shying away from it. Personally, I think every tampon commercial should look like this, or make a woman feel powerful. Instead, it shows us ways to hide our periods and woman are only confident if it is a secret.
Bringing Up Baby (1938) is a great example of the type of film that became possible once sound came to movies. This movie is considered a screwball comedy, which is known for witty dialogue, fast talking, and independent heroines. Susan Vance’s baby is a leopard in the film
Bringing Up Baby, as classical Hollywood film, also represents an increasingly dominant form of narrative that existed in the 1930s and 1940s. There structure includes 3 basic features (which we see in Bringing Up Baby) .. 1) the narrative focuses on one or two central characters. 2) these characters move a linear plot forward.. and 3) the action develops according to a releastic cause and effect logic.
Overall we can see that Bringing Up Baby shows some of the new advancements Hollywood made in film in the late 1930s and 1940s.
