Media Studies Blog

The Yes Men Fix The World review

By: Sam Caldarone

In The Yes Men Fix the World, world-renowned pranksters Mike Bonanno and Andy Bichlbaum attempt to ‘fix the world’ through their creative hoaxes. The whole theme of this movie, and of the ‘Yes Men’ is to show good and evil, and how any evil can be good if they just put in some effort. The film does not follow a particular structure: although it does show many flashbacks to accentuate just how bad some of the companies are, it never follows a real, solid structure. However, the way they set up the structure is effective in the film, and it helps to have the aforementioned flashbacks.

The Yes Men Fix The World is, for the most part, an expository documentary. It does share some elements with reflexive documentaries, but it is mostly expository. The film is mostly shown through Andy and Mike’s perspectives. Although, their identity is constantly changing, which allows other people’s perspectives to be shown. For example, the journalist who knew of the impending Bhopal disaster, or even the man who lived and grew up in Bhopal. The film was a little biased, but it was biased against the bad companies, who deserved all the bad karma they got.

I thought that one of the main strengths of the film was the way it was set up. I thought that the cinematography was great (in particular, I liked the scenes where Andy and Mike went swimming in their suits, and got out and went to their ‘headquarters’). I enjoyed all those breaks they had in the film. They lightened up a pretty dark documentary.

The Yes Men Fix The World is important in our society because it plays the role of the everyman rising up against a cruel corporation. Obviously, the negative components of the film were DOW losing a ridiculously large amount of money in stocks, and even when the people of Bhopal had falsely believed that DOW had actually apologized for the incident. It is unfortunate that they had gotten their hopes up just to be shot down like that. However, the positives are great: it shows that anyone can do what Andy and Mike did, which is very inspirational to some. All things considered, it was a great documentary.

TED talk questions

1) What does Deborah Scranton mean by the “disconnect” she hopes to “bridge” with her documentary?

Deborah Scranton is referring to the disconnect between the people at home and the soldiers who are in the line of duty. She hopes to bridge that gap by showing exactly what it's like to be in the army by giving them the cameras. This will give the public a much better idea of what it's like to be in the war. She is posting the raw footage, and connecting that with the emotional toll the soldiers feel. The emotional toll is shown through various methods: the soldiers' reading their diaries', the soldiers' calling home, and even showing how they adjust to normal life when they get back from the war.

2) How does media (television, news, documentaries, film) contribute to creating this disconnect?

The news contributes to creating this disconnect via their reporting. It's not that it's bad reporting, but the grisly images that they show create this idea that Iraq is a dystopian wasteland, so when soldiers first arrive in Iraq, this is what the expect. It also gives the public this idea, and they will tend to act differently towards war veterans. This definitely adds to the disconnect between the soldiers and the public.

3) How can a documentary like "War Tapes" help remedy or bridge this disconnect?

It can help through the raw footage. This will show the public just what it's like in the war. It should show that these soldiers won't always change all that much. Most of the time the reason soldiers act stranger when they return from the war is only because that everyone else is acting so much stranger to them

A moveable feast blog

A Moveable Feast Blog

By Sam Caldarone

In Ernest Hemingway’s timeless classic A Moveable Feast, we are introduced to a plethora of interesting characters that have withstood the test of time. Of those, one of the more interesting characters is Scott Fitzgerald. He is the well-known author of many classic stories, the most famous being The Great Gatsby. It is interesting to have a first-hand account of what it is like to spend time with Scott Fitzgerald. However, I doubt that Hemingway enjoyed his time with Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald isn’t that much fun to spend time with. Fitzgerald is depressed, mostly because of his mentally ill wife pecking away at his confidence. To top it all off, he is a hypochondriac (“There was nothing wrong with me at the Dingo.” This is after he gets taken to the hospital for having too much to drink; pg. 152.). Despite Fitzgerald’s flaws, it is still interesting to see two of the best writers of the 20^th century enjoying small talk.

" If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for all of Paris is a moveable feast.”

The above quote is where I want to go. I have been to Paris once before, but I went years ago, and I don’t think I got the full experience I had hoped. I would love to have the opportunity to go again; only with my good friends and family and during a time where I could remember it. I don’t necessarily want to live there, but I would be perfectly content with a visit. I don’t think any visit could match the beauty of Paris in the 1920’s, but I wish to visit Paris nonetheless. The allure of Paris is incomparable, and I wish to be able to go there; specifically to the Café on St-Michael. I would love to be able to drink white wine with oysters, while being served by a beautiful women with black hair. The place itself seems like a great place to spend an afternoon, or even a day. Of course I would love to be able to visit other places (Eiffel tower, L’arc de triomphe), but that just seems like one of the best ways to let a day pass you by.

We Live in Public Review

By Sam Caldarone

In We Live in Public, filmmaker Ondi Timoner takes the audience on a journey to explore a side of media many people have not considered before. With all the positives to all the new media that’s being created, it’s easy to overlook the downsides of media. That is the theme that this explores, and it is done through the eyes of Josh Harris. Josh Harris was a media prodigy, but, through an increasing series of bad investments, eventually wound up losing all his money. The film starts off with a shot of Josh Harris saying good-bye to his mother (who has terminal cancer). This is done to show just how heartless Josh Harris is. He doesn’t break a tear in the video, and won’t even talk to her in person. Timoner then goes back in time, and, in a chronological sequence, shows how Harris came to be what he has become. It’s not defending Harris or accusing him of anything, but showing his life and how he predicts that the media will take over our day-to-day life. I liked Timoner’s idea of showing one recent shot, and then going back in time to explain how they got to that point. I thought it was effective in conveying the point of the film.

Although the narrator is almost never seen (except one scene near the end of the film where Timoner finally tracks down Harris in Ethiopia), she is still present, and providing the occasional voiceover. Voiceovers are very uncommon in this documentary, but are still present, making this documentary a hybrid of expository and performative. The film includes a lot of archival footage, and features many interviews with some of Josh Harris’ past acquaintances. It was filmed with an unbiased approach, and let the audience draw their own conclusions. I believe that Harris is an insane genius, who has become so heartless because of a bad childhood. He was the youngest child, and it sometimes seemed as though his mother had no time for him. He claims that he was ‘raised by television’.

The strength of the story was within the main character, Josh Harris. His fascinating story is what made this documentary a great one. I enjoyed hearing a story that I had never heard of before. I thought the way the documentary was started (Josh Harris saying his good-bye’s to his mother) was brilliant, and was a great foreshadowing to the rest of the film. My favorite scene would have to be the scene where Timoner finally finds Josh Harris in Ethiopia. It ends the story somewhat of a good note, since Josh has become successful there, but he does get his comeuppance for being somewhat of a bad person (he goes bankrupt for a while). It was a genius way to end the film.

Even though Josh Harris wasn’t exactly a great guy, he was very smart. He made intelligent and accurate guesses as to where the future of media was going, and he made a lot of money off of this. When he created the ‘We live in public’ building, despite the disastrous end results, it was asking citizens to re-examine the situation they were in. Do people want to wind up like these people, being watched all the time? It clearly did not work out for the members of the ‘We live in public’ building. The building was asking us to be more careful, and to not let us get overrun by cameras all around us. I doubt that this is the type of future that we are headed towards, but nevertheless, we still must be careful. All things considered, We Live in Public is a great documentary, that explored some very interesting concepts.

Rip: A Remix Manifesto review

The documentary Rip: A Remix Manifesto is designed to change the way we think about the remixing phenomenon. It is defending remixes, and claims that the copyright laws have gotten out of control, and if we do nothing about these laws then we will soon be living in a dystopian future where the government regulates everything we do. The documentary was created in mostly a chronological structure, as filmmaker Brett Gaylor occasionally references instances in the past to accentuate his point. The film follows Gaylor, as he attempts to find reasoning for the current copyrighting laws.

It is told from the perspective of Brett Gaylor, and it draws on some of his own experiences, and also references some major events in the history of mass media (examples include but are not limited to: the invention of the printing press, the creation of Napster, etc.). In the documentary, audiences watch Gaylor travel to Disneyland, Stanford University, and many other places to meet with media literate people to try to find a plausible solution to this media dilemma we have. The people he meets with, including author Lawrence Lessig; provide valuable insight into this conundrum. This factor, along with many others, classifies this documentary as a reflexive one.

Many of his arguments involve the fact that if you aren’t able to take samples from other artists, Brett Gaylor should be jailed for including some samples of artists in his documentary. He also uses some clips from other TV shows and movies, and argues that the same penalty inflicted on artists such as Girl Talk, should be used on him. It’s a risky argument, but he is not just referring to himself here. He’s saying that many prominent TV shows use samples of other shows or movies on a daily basis. Examples of this include The Daily Show, or The Colbert Report, or even, albeit rarely, shows on CNN, or Fox News. Gaylor has a valid argument here, and this leads back to the ultimate question: Where does the copyright law draw the line? Why can a show like CNN Newsroom use clips of past events, but Girl Talk get sued whenever he uses a loop from an old Elvis Presley song? It all seems very reasonable, and Brett Gaylor, along with many other fans, are anxiously waiting for a feasible, equitable answer to this problem that will keep everyone happy. But, until that answer is found, there will be many arguments over this issue.

One thing that I didn’t particularly enjoy about Brett Gaylor’s documentary was his official ‘remix manifesto’ list. It bugged me because it makes Gaylor sound a little bit conceded; in the sense that only he knows what is wrong with the copyright laws. Also, he seems to take this belief he has to some extremes (for example, the fines handed out to those who used Napster). I realize his intent is to shock the audience, but it bugs me because I don’t like that whole philosophy of shocking someone into agreeing with you. While I didn’t really like the genre of music being defended, I do have to tip my hat off to Brett Gaylor for making a compelling documentary that is sure to be a turning point of his budding career as a filmmaker.

John Fogerty vs. CCR

John Fogerty vs. CCR

By Sam Caldarone

Creedence Clearwater Revival was one of the biggest bands of the 1960’s. They were led by frontman John Fogerty, who was the lead guitarist, singer, and lyricist. The band had some early success; their remake of the 1956 song ‘Suzie Q’ reached #11 nationally. However, they reached their prime in 1969 with the album ‘Bayou Country’. This album produced hits like ‘Proud Mary’ and ‘Born On the Bayou’. Despite all this success, there was a lot of turmoil in the band.

The rest of the band was very irritated by John Fogerty’s lack of business sense. John Fogerty’s older brother, Tom (also a guitarist in the band), wound up leaving the band multiple times, only to be coaxed back into joining the band. Tom Fogerty left for good in 1972, and the rest of the band didn’t search for a replacement. The band officially split up later that year.

While with Creedence Clearwater Revival, the younger Fogerty had signed a massive 14-album deal to Fantasy records. When CCR broke up, they had only made 6 albums. However Fogerty simply refused to work for Fantasy records any longer. The dispute was resolved when Fantasy records bought the rights to all of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s songs. John Fogerty now has to pay a royalty tax every time he performs a CCR song live

John Fogerty went on have a moderately successful solo career while signed with Warner Bros., but his biggest success came in 1985 with the album Centerfield. The song ‘The Old Man Down the Road’ spent 3 weeks at #1 on the billboard charts. This caught the eye of Saul Zaentz, owner of Fantasy Records, who had worked with Fogerty during his CCR years. Zaentz claimed that this song was a copy of the CCR hit ‘Run Through the Jungle’. Fantasy records sued Fogerty for copyrighting his own song, and Zaentz sued Fogerty on accounts of defamation for the songs ‘Zantz Kant Danz’, and ‘Mr. Greed’. The court ruled in favor of Fogerty in the copyright case, but ruled in favor Zaentz on the accounts of defamation.

This case shows just how murky the law can get – it’s absurd that John Fogerty can be sued for infringing on his own music. Fantasy records had a solid case (the songs do have a striking similarity), but the whole case just sounds to ridiculous. The only reason this case hasn’t received more notoriety is because that the court ruled in favour of Fogerty. It is conceivable that they ignored the similarities between the songs and just wanted to avoid controversy.

Although Fogerty is partially to blame (his bad business skills got him into this situation), the court made the right decision to side with Fogerty. If they had sided with Fantasy records, there would have been a massive uproar amongst CCR and Fogerty fans. The courts decision was a smart, calculated one, because, although Fogerty had to pay defamation fees, he didn't have to pay the massive copyrighting suit, and the suit didn't stop him from having a successful career as a solo artist.

Boy in the moon blog

Independent reading blog

Sam Caldarone

When Ian Brown first visits the L’arche community in Montreal, he immediately realizes what a beneficial and special place it was. He was a little daunted by the severity of some of the disabilities when he first arrived (‘I had no idea where we were going, what to expect and what was expected of me’ p. 190.) But those feelings of intimidation soon disappeared, and he realized what a wonderful place L’arche is. It is at these communities that he realizes how beautiful and fulfilling having a disabled child is (‘the purpose of intellectually disabled people like Walker might be to free us from the stark emptiness of the survival of the fittest’ p. 234). This shows just how valuable Walker is to Ian, even if Ian sometimes forgets that lesson.

Reading The Boy in the Moon has taught me about the hardships of having a disabled relative, and the daily battles you must endure. The severity of Walker’s condition is beyond belief; it is a task I hope I never have to withstand. Seeing the tribulations Ian Brown has to go through to keep his son alive and healthy is astounding, and it has given me some perspective on life. On top of the realization of the difficulties of raising a disabled child, I’ve also realized how ignorant our society is towards families like the Brown’s. Walker’s story has also taught me that disabilities are nothing to make fun of and that using offensive terms are never okay, regardless of the circumstance. Society needs to donate to communities like L’arche, and to the doctors who are working on ways to prevent CFC.

QUESTIONS:

1. If you could have one conversation with Walker, what would you want to talk about?

2. Has there been a major increase in researching CFC since the release of this book?

3. What is your favorite trait of Walker’s?