If you're a bird, I'm a bird shot

The famous 'chick flick' The Notebook has many different aspects that make it interesting other than excessive melodrama. But, this movie uses effective camera angles to achieve an exacerbated melodramatic effect. Instead of analyzing the heart-tugging scenes, I will analyze the famous scene where Noah tells Allie, "if you're a bird I'm a bird."

The shot follows the familiar long shot, medium shot, close up progression. It starts with a long shot showing that Noah and Allie are in the beach. Instead of being an isolating shot, we can see how both of them are interacting with each other. The waves and birds around them help create a sense comfort in nature. Of course, trying to achieve a generally sympathetic relation to the public, the scene is shot for the most part in an eye level angle. We can see how Noah and Allie are in love, and the way that the audience feels is like an outsider looking into their relationship. This forms a sort of bond between the lovers and the audience, because we can see their interaction.

Progressing through a variations of long shots and middle shots, we can see how Allie and Noah start getting closer to each other physically. These shots are all shots at eye level, once again solidifying the relationship between them and the audience. The camera zooms in and out slightly, but not enough to go back to a panoramic shot. We don't feel that the characters have an established power, nor do we feel that they are destitute. These shots are meant to show how 'normal' of a couple they are, having a date in the beach. 

Finally, to close the scene, Allie jumps and Noah catches her. After she asks him if she could have been a bird and he responds yes, she tells them that he should say he is a bird too; after that he says "if you're a bird I'm a bird" and all the girls in the movie theatre go "aw." All of this is shot in a close up shot leading up to a kiss. Here, their love is perpetuated and we can feel very connected and sympathetic towards them because we as an audience feel that we have been with them and seen their relationship develop, even though it's only been one short scene. After the kiss, the camera zooms out into a long shot, showing the two lovers hugging. Again, the audience feels even more connected because it is as if they were one figure in the frame. Who can resist that?

Here is the link to the scene in youtube: If you're a bird I'm a bird.

Studio system

During the 1920's and all through the 1940's, the studio system took control of Hollywood. The studio system was characterized by a the total vertical integration of the industry, with five major studios controlling it. The studios however were still tied to a major aspect of the system, the stars. More than the content of the film, studios realized that actors and actresses were a major magnet for audiences. Being under contract, stars were tied to one studio, but studios were tied to the stars' popularity among the public. This was a major driving force in the industry, because it shaped the way studios, films, and genres developed. 

Stars were a cornerstone in the creation of genres and films. At first, certain characteristics of films were very much tied to the stars' characters, and therefore to the star. Stars would often play characters with similar personalities or circumstances even in completely unrelated films. Characters were very much defined by the stars who would eventually play them, because previous characters' characteristics became stigmatic for many stars. The adherence to star conventionality was so strong that it sometimes even created discrepancies in films. Characters played by stars who often appeared in musicals would sing in the middle of films that were anything but musicals. It also affected the films made by studios. Since these stars were tied to a specific archetypical character, all the movies with this star would follow the plot or setting that fit with the archetype. So, the studios with stars that played musicals' characters would produce musicals.

This is true for stars such as Judy Garland. Judy Garland started her career extremely young, and as a young girl in films, she often sang and performed. Many roles were playful or meant to be entertaining, and this became true of most of her younger years. Signed by MGM, many of her films were turned into semi-musicals. For example, The Wizard of Oz, where characters often performed throughout the film. Later, her roles became increasingly dramatic, and so did the films, like Meet Me in  St. Louis. This example shows how films, studios, and genres accompanied conventions created for stars.

All in the family? Maybe more so in a Modern Family.

All in the Family is a 70's family comedy that touched on various subjects that had been untouched before. Similarly now, the family comedy Modern Family has been bringing a new edge to comedy by approaching a family dynamic from new angles. However, there are still differences in how the shows took a stance on these issues. While Modern Family has a fresh approach on homosexuality, All in the Family demonstrates the judgmental views regarding homosexuality that pervaded the 1970's. The main character, Archie, shows his reluctance to believe that his masculine friend is a homosexual because he does not fit his 'fairy' stereotype. At the same time, he bashes his son-in-law's flamboyant friend. In Modern Family, homosexuality is viewed as a much more normal occurrence in culture. A couple has an adoptive daughter, and the show chronicles their interactions with the rest of the family. They are already assimilated into the culture as a pose to being judged.

Both shows have pioneered the views on homosexuality, though. At the time of All in the Family, homosexuality was a taboo topic; it was still aired and discussed in this show. Now, 'gay adoption' is very much a hot topic that provokes discussions and debates worldwide. All in the Family and Modern Family demonstrate that homosexuals do not necessarily fit a specific mold that society has imposed upon them. Archie's friend is masculine and athletic, and in Modern Family, Mitchell and Cameron are able to go around the system to adopt a girl, even though it is frowned upon by many. Both shows take on controversial issues that have been in American culture for a long time.

All in the Family does however show a more conservative view on homosexuality. Archie represents the dominant white male audience, reluctant to accept homosexuality as part of American culture. Modern Family shows a fresh perspective, handling more the integration of homosexuals into everyday life. Modern Family also tackles another contemporary issue, Latin American culture in the United States. Gloria is one of the main characters in Modern Family, and her culture and heritage are often depicted in the series, as well as her culture shock. All in the Family was not aired when Latin American culture made up such an important proportion of American culture. The two shows however have similarities in and differences that make them an important outlet for gatekeepers to extend a message to audiences.

The radio industry

I am going to be completely honest, I haven't listened to the radio in a long time. Sometimes I wonder whether people nowadays listen to the radio only if they have to. People listen to the radio in their cars on their way to work, but if they wished to, they would not have to. Radio has been steadily displaced over the years. Newer, more effective and much more customizable technologies have surfaced that make desired content more readily available than in the radio.

At first, radio grew from the telegraph technology used for imperative communication. It became a staple in American households, providing entertainment and information to families nationwide. Soap operas originated in the radio, as did many other programs. However, the radio suffered a downfall with the availability of technologies such as iPods and Satellite radio. iPods now allow people to listen only to what they want, skipping commercials and advertisements. These commercials and advertisements are the sustainment of radio stations, so losing audience makes them lose profit. Satellite radio provides a huge array of radio stations that appeal to every genre and niche. Users can filter down their radio experience to only what they think is necessary.

This new possibility of personalization has changed the radio industry in many ways. Ever since listeners know that they have more power, they have been reshaping and redefining what radio does. For example, Pandora is now the leader in web radio for a good reason. Using new technology, it matches listeners to what they are most likely to like. This way, the listener can discover new music that will probably fall into the niche that he or she already enjoys. On typical radio, there are many songs and extra content that the listener probably is not interested in. This shift of power and control over the radio and its content, as well as the growing availability of personalized content,  has changed the way the radio works.

"It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept."

We can't all interpret media in the same way. Everyone is different and therefore, everybody interprets media differently. Media can be edited, framed and manipulated in a way that controls what the audience receives, gatekeepers can even try to give it a specific meaning. However, it is very unlikely that people will all interpret the meaning that the gatekeepers intended due to selective processes.

Selective process is a limited media theory that relies on the assumption that people see what they wanna see in the media. Many people are exposed to a lot of different media, and sometimes, unwillingly. We have little control over billboards across highways and advertisements on the radio. However, a selective process is that in which the audience chooses what parts of the media to interpret, for the most part, in a way that is most beneficial. A democrat may watch a TV add bashing the latest presidential candidate, and instead of changing his or her mind about his political alignment, the ad would most likely validate his idea that the democratic party is better than the republican one since the republican one is doing the bashing. This way, we can be selective about how we use the content the media offers.

Once again I have to quote Perez Hilton as an example that helps me understand this concept. Perez is always publishing posts where he says that she uses drugs such as cocaine and marijuana, and that she is heavily addicted to medications such as ambien, adderall and vicodin. The image of a train wreck has-been star is one that the media has created completely. While Lindsay Lohan has done many things to allow the public to interpret her negatively, media such as Perez Hliton's blog choose to selectively process the information and make conclusions.

Other aspects of selective processes are selective exposure and retention. Selective exposure is when audiences are selective about the media they are exposed to. For example, I might choose not to read Perez Hilton's blog because he constantly insults and denigrates celebrities. Selective retention works in a semi-subconscious way, where we choose what to remember from what we are exposed to; I may choose to read Perez Hilton's blog, but not pay attention to or readily forget the insulting comments. This is how people interpret media differently and shape media in the way that better benefits them, their ideals, ideas or beliefs.

Media vs. Society

I just received an email from Jeremiah with the prompt for tonight's post. So, tonight I will explain what I consider is the importance of media in society's perception, escalating from the different aspects of media that allow it to influence society, to the changes i has caused.

Since media is ubiquitous and multifaceted, there are many factors and levels to these factors that affect how media shapes society. Newspaper, magazines, computers, internet, and many other mediums are how media transmit messages to society. It is very hard to get away from these messages because they are literally everywhere. Media has the power of controlling information to reach people the way 'gatekeepers' want it to; for example, editors for newspaper can cut out information, or make reporters rewrite articles to make them seem a certain way. The same way that the information can be edited and even omitted by editors, it can be used to determine important political and social issues. When gatekeepers decide what goes out into society through their mediums, they release the ideas that can become issues. If the gatekeepers decide to continue providing coverage, or not cover an issue at all, they can set an agenda of political or social issues as they are happening. Since most people rely on media for news, they depend on the information they are fed to develop ideas about current events and issues. Going back to the editorial power of gatekeepers, they can shape the way an opinion is developed by framing it in a certain manner. This framing can rely in the way images, words, characterizations and more are presented to the public. Newspapers' editors can use diction to make a certain issue look positive or negative, for instance.

The way I understand all this, is through the concept of hegemony. Hegemony is how certain ideas are ingrained in a society and an individual, composing the conventions of that particular society or individual. Gatekeepers, agenda-setting and framing are the tools that media uses to create and maintain hegemony. For example, during the 9/11 terrorist attack, media coverage swarmed with images of middle eastern men that were responsible for the attacks. Naturally, the nation went into a patriotic and nationalistic frenzy against middle eastern men. Ever since, security in airports and border cities has increased greatly, but a social convention that changed is the way that middle eastern people are perceived by America. Middle eastern countries have been demonized as being all terrorists that only want to see the U.S. flag burn. This is an inaccurate generalization of a minority population aggravated by the extensive negative coverage given to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 

This article from the New York Times relates the difficulties that middle easterners have suffered after the coverage of 9/11. 

This political cartoon demonstrates the generalization as well.