Final Burbs

Oh MDIA 3110, how did I love thee.

I really enjoyed this as an online class. The structure is perfect for online learning. Some classes just shouldn’t be conducted online due to structure adherences, question or answer availability or project arrangement, but seeing that this class deals directly with media criticisms, then having the class conducted over the web really makes sense. I like that we had access to television shows on Hulu and that the content was very relatable for our professions. I’ve had plenty of classes that I feel were a waste of time, but this one was really well targeted and organized.

I also really liked the use of Blogger over Blackboard. It was nice to able to see what our classmates thought over a Blog rather than a stuffy discussion board.

I didn’t really not enjoy anything about this class other than the fact I took it along with 5 other online classes so sometimes I was overwhelmed with loads of other work. This class however offered a more relaxed vibe and I enjoyed it more overall.

I hope everyone has a great rest of the summer! I’m off to Lexington, KY to film a movie with Kevin Sorbo and Booboo Stewart (yes Hercules and that guy from Twilight). Wish me luck!

Reflect and Blog

After reviewing my list, I think the shows I love and the shows I not-so-love say a lot about my personality and my style. I am a very relaxed, yet hard working kind of girl who enjoys a broad variety of television shows, but mainly ones that have deep plot structures or interesting themes. I enjoy being challenged in daily life and I love being intellectually challenged when watching dramatic television shows, however I still enjoy a little mindless comedy like King of the Hill and Adventure Time, but one could argue that those shows do offer some intellectual clarity and themes when watched at a point more focused that at the surface. For example King of the Hill shows the journey of a propane salesman and his son attempting to bond in that ever-awkward Texan way. It’s heartwarming at the end of the series when Bobby and Hank finally get that moment of father-son love at Bobby’s Texas Tech meat indentifying competition. But if we take into account the module on reception analysis, then the ideas of polyvalence start to show when other people’s perceptions of the show differ. Some see King of the Hill at face value, others see Texan stereotyping, and some see the relationship metaphors through Bobby and Hank, Joseph and Dale, Bill, and Boomhower. When you think of King of the Hill as emotionally sympathetic, it kind of feels less guilty to like the silly drama.

A show I never feel guilty about and still don’t after thinking through criticisms, is Doctor Who. The fun loving Doctor and his eager companion(s) take on the universe, fighting evil dictators, earth hating species, and saving lives one planet at a time. In my opinion it’s the best show I’ve ever seen. Its story plots are deeply involved stemming back through time and season space to retell jokes, explain past episodes or to reveal plot developments that have been happening since season one episode one (that sadly was taped over by the BBC and no one “claims” to have a copy).  I feel like this show defines the actor who is playing the Doctor. If we examine the newest doctors, Eccelston, Tenant, and Smith and their life outside of Doctor Who you can really see how the role defined them as celebrities. Chris Eccelston plays the hard doctor. His dark leather jacket, his purple tee, and his charming yet hard spoken attitude, make you love him and yet see him as a planetary dignitary. He’s all business and only Rose Tyler can break down his heart. In Chris Eccelston’s real life during the filming of Doctor Who, he was having trouble with Steven Moffat due to disagreements about acting and the two rather just disliked each other. Eccelston did one hard-hitting season and then left to play other heard faced roles as this bad boy comeback actor. David Tenant took on a much more loveable Doctor. He played the role as enthusiastic, adorable, and fun loving and won the hearts of the new fans and a few of the old. While playing his role, David Tenant’s outside life showed him in much the same personality traits. He was married, attended Comic Cons, hardly ever took his blue suit off, and was the Doctor in real life and on the screen. It’s no wonder why as a boy he wanted to play the Doctor on television and of course his dream came true. Matt Smith also has the same home life as work life. As the Doctor he has gained our friendship and while he has made the fan girls swoon, Tenant still holds the love of Rose Tyler. Matt’s energetic and boyish nature takes his viewers on a journey with his friends the Ponds and the love of his life River Song. Matt Smith’s personality shows through his character. He also attends comic cons, wears funny t-shirts for the paparazzi and has plenty of quirky awkward moments caught by the media’s eye. These fun loving actors bring the story to life and the story does well to play off of their own character traits that help define them as celebrities.

After examining A, B, and C story lines I was interested in how other shows do this and the best I could really clearly see was another comedy The Office. I seriously love this show but still haven’t seen the final season or its finale so don’t break my heart with the news of Jim and Pam’s relationship or if Darrell never rises to the top, or if Andy and Erin never get married.  I’ll die a slow and painful disappointed death. Anyway back to story structures. In one episode in particular, Jim is trying to do a rundown, Dwight and Andy are fighting over Erin, and the Michael Scott Paper Company is enhancing their Cheetos catching skills and make their first sale. This episode seamlessly sews these story lines together using the technique of documentary style editing. It seems as if these stories just naturally flow together yet all of the members interact with each other during the day.  I’ve never really considered the intricateness of a show like the Office until examining shows like Modern Family. It’s interesting to see how both of these shows pull everything together flawlessly, while still having one big over arching story.

I love all three of these shows and none of them have seemed to lose my attention over their many years. I have noticed that shows I’ve liked and then hated, like How I met Your Mother or The Big Bang Theory have lost my enjoyment due to predictability in story structure. The episodes all happen the same way, the jokes are over used or stereotypical, and the characters aren’t easy to empathize with. It makes it very hard to enjoy these shows. I’ve also always had a disdain for reality television shows for the same reasons.

I really enjoy television, especially narrative comedy or dramedy. It’s the whole reason I’m in media studies. I want to make people laugh, cry, and fall in love.  I want to create a hit show and work with talented people. It’s the American Dream for me-success through what I love. I’m glad to have these analytical views in my arsenal now so that I know what works and what doesn’t, why people watch and why people don’t, and why actors work in some parts but don’t in others. It’s extremely valuable information. 

Also here's a cute Dalek so you can have an awesome day! :)

WEEK SIX: Reception Analysis Summary

Reception Analysis and Group Discussion:

The members in my group were Michael Beirhup and Brian Fong. (You can see their full blog by clicking on their names). The show we were required to watch as a group was an episode of American Pickers called “Pint Sized Picker.” You can experience the full episode here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/234775#i0,p0,d0

Upon watching the show I found myself enjoying the culture and history presented in the pieces that the men found in these old farm homes of people around the country. I am familiar with this show and have never really enjoyed its procedural style that is common to shows on the History Channel. While its predictability and common threading make it cheap and quick to produce, it does offer some form of mild education for those who take in its content.

The oddity of this show revolves around its stereotyping of the modern junk collector. Most of the homes they visit are in rural areas and many are Appalachians. While the show may do this unintentionally, it does seem to leave a stigma regarding rural individuals and Appalachians being hoarders or bearded hairy men. Maybe we just have all of the cool stuff. However, the stigma is there whether or not it is intentional.

Speaking within our group we all seemed to share similar ideas to the text with some variances that included: emphasis on American and family values rather than the values of American history and/or the clear depiction of American materialism (hoarding). Michael and I seemed to agree more that the show emphasized the rich historical culture that mankind has left behind in the form of objects. Brian thought the show emphasized the importance of family life and the economic structure of “a man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” I agree with Brian that these tones exist, I just feel that it isn’t the main influence.

Since each group member had different interpretations of the text, I can start to understand the idea Polysemy, or “the relative openness of media text to multiple interpretations.” However, we all seemed to hit along the same points of interpretation within the text, just with disagreement on the main idea within the show. Because of these disagreements we each think differently about the show, representing a form of polyvalence rather that polysemy.

I think for the most part we had a pretty negotiated reading of this text. I believe we all understood the dominant code being set by the producers and understood the oppositional code of it being another money making procedural show produced by the History Channel. However, while understanding theses codes we as a group were able to negotiate a more reasoned response to the show in which we read codes of materialism, hoarding, and stereotypes, giving us a more rich sense of the media at hand. 

Week 5: Cultural Analysis

For this post I chose to focus on women, homosexuals, and african americans in the media and how they are represented and affected by stereotypes.

Women in the media:

Women are all over the media these days. From magazines, to films, to the Miss America pageant that’s just around the corner, women are strutting their stuff right into the main stream. However, are women really being represented the way they should be? We see the gorgeous faces, the rockin’ bods, and increasingly in television and film, the move of women from modern housewife to crime fighting super heroes. One could say that women in the media have made a substantial leap from the 90’s stay at home mom image to the new independent woman image. However, women are still being positioned as theses sexual; objects in the media. We see the trends in fitness magazines, Sports Illustrated, Maxim, and even television shows like CSI and Burn Notice. Women are put on this pedestal, where men idolize their bodies and spunk rather than their brain and brawn.

Not only are women still objects of sex in the media, they are also still succumbed by stereotypes. Even the most independent woman is still seeking a man, suggesting that a woman’s life is incomplete without companionship. A great example is Liz Lemon in 30 Rock. Liz is a hardworking, 40-something, woman who has her own hit show on NBC, but at the end of the day she is still searching for a man who has a passion for sandwiches and a desolate sex life.  Another stereotype that exists for women in the media is the strive for the perfect body. My favorite example of this is Elliot in Scrubs. There is an episode where Elliot takes in a patient suffering from AIDS but Dr. Reid mistakenly thinks she is suffering from anorexia. The episode revolves around body image and Elliot realizes she is also underweight. We also see this in magazines where women are Photoshopped to look super thin. A final stereotype that is becoming more prevalent in the media today revolving around women is their roles as business people. Women are finding themselves in more independent roles in film now rather than those of a housewife or gossip (like the ever traditional 7^th Heaven or the gossipy Sex in the City).  Now women head the top strong characters like the gun-slinging Fiona in Burn Notice or Dr. Watson in the American version of Sherlock.

Women are pretty prevalent in the media. It’s odd how far we’ve actually come if you think back to Shakespeare’s plays that only allowed men to participate and then to a time when women were thought of as servants of men and not of equals to now being lead characters in films and television and being portrayed as more independent. It nice to have female role models in the media, like Tina Fey, Sarah Chalke, and Gabrielle Anwar, and there are plenty of others that deserve to make the list of influential role modes. As media changes, I think we will see the role of women change as well.

Homosexuals in the media:

Homosexuality is a strong topic running news headlines. The debate of equality, freedom of marriage, and DOMA are taking over the news outlets, but how are homosexual men and women being portrayed in fictional media such as film and television? I believe it is safe to say that homosexual men and women are under-represented. It’s still almost taboo to speak about (which I find odd). I say that they are under represented because there are hardly any fictional homosexual characters that get the attention that straight characters receive. However, I say this lightly because there are some shows that are proving me wrong and I’m quite happy about it.

As newcomers to the mainstream scene, homosexuals in the media are stereotyped to no end. Gay men are always very feminine. In Modern Family both men are portrayed as feminine and flamboyant, when in a lot of homosexual couples this not the case.  In Will and Grace, their friend Jack is the epitome of homosexual stereotype in all of his flamboyant glory ( I love Jack by the way). I don’t necessarily feel that these stereotypes are negative, I think that a free spirit is wonderful, I just think lumping all homosexual men together as very feminine isn’t very fair. Another stereotype is adoption. In every sitcom involving gay couples their main strive is to adopt a child.  I can see why this is important material. For every straight couple that has a baby in a sitcom there is a homosexual couple looking to adopt a baby in a sitcom. It’s a writer’s way of balancing the baby fever. Another stereotype that homosexuals in the media face is acceptance. In every case we have the character that doesn’t agree with homosexuality and the character that tries to change their mind. In Chuck and Larry for instance, the men (Adam Sandler and Kevin James) are met with hostility from the fire department, however they overcome their differences after a reassuring intervention and change the minds of the entire department.

I do feel that homosexuals are under-represented in the media, however shows like Will and Grace, Modern Family, Family Guy, and films like I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry are proving to become more prevalent in the media. The LGBT community is breaking through into film and television with pretty positive stereotypes (being loving parents, standing up for what’s right, and being liberalists) while negating the negative (oppression, intolerance).

African Americans in the Media:

I feel as though when discussing African Americans in the media, you have to tread lightly due to the misrepresentation that the media feeds off of. African Americans are usually portrayed with heavy stereotypes rather than in actuality, as is the case with Hispanics. While the group is represented in the media frequently, I don’t feel as though it is done so without stereotyping.

Stereotypes that surround African Americans in the media include them being synonymous with drug dealers and other “bad guys,” them escaping some form of hardship (gang life or home life) and their struggle to overcome some form of oppression. While not all of the stereotypes are negative they do have negative connotation. When you turn on the television and you watch a show that is say based in Miami, like Burn Notice, 8 out of 10 “bad guys” are black, Hispanic, or some other foreign race. The drug dealers, the car thieves, and the gangsters are typically kids who grew up in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong skin color. If the person is not involved as a bad guy, then the story is about said person escaping hardship. Like in The Blind Side with Sandra Bullock, she takes in an African American boy that is homeless and she shows him unconditional love and he goes on to play football and be successful. We also see this in films like Freedom Writers. Where there is escape there is the oppression to escape from. In more humorous films like Undercover Brother and Friday, African American men over come the hardship of their home and family life to lead lives that are successful. Humor tends o be at the forefront of more oppressive situations for comedic release of high tensioned issues.

African Americans are very prevalent in the media, however like I said mostly misrepresented. If they are represented as intellectual or against the stereotypes we see this odd phenomena happen where the character is joked at about being “white” or not apart of the culture. The most obvious example of this is in 30 Rock when Toofer doesn’t fit the racial stereotype of a black man. Tracy Morgan’s character laughs at him and the rest of the writer crew make fun of his Harvard education.  It’s very odd to me.

Shows and films that represent the African American group include:

Friday, Undercover Brother, Freedom Writers, Burn Notice, Tyler Perry’s films, and many others. 

Construction of a Celebrity: Writing Assignment Prompt #2

Construction of a Celebrity:
Amanda Bynes and the Internet

With all the attention Amanda Bynes has been receiving on the internet lately, it’s all too fitting to really analyze how this once all American girl has turned down a path much less emotionally stable. Relating Ms. Bynes’ social image with her career and media choices is very copasetic. As a young child Amanda’s hit show, “The Amanda Show,” depicted Ms. Bynes as a young comedienne and promised her a bright career. After numerous roles sparked from her hit Nickelodeon show, Amanda grew into a promising adult both through her films and in her own life. In her last film “Easy A,” Ms. Bynes’ is depicted as a devout Christian and wealthy high school girl. Her main reprise is to tease Emma Stone’s character about going to Hell for being the school “sleep around.” After the film’s release in 2009, Amanda Bynes’ fell off of the radar, doing what looked to be like working on her clothing line Dear. Recently however, she has immerged into the Twitter spectrum with a ranging variety of mood swing altered messages as well as making news headlines for narcotic possession and her alleged tossing of a bong out of her New York apartment.

Amanda Bynes’ biography on IMDB claims that Amanda first started acting at the age of three by saying her sister’s lines for school plays. However, her break out role would come much later in 1997 when Bynes takes the panelist seat on the hit Nickelodeon game show, “Figure it Out.” The young demographic of Nickelodeon received their first glance of Amanda Bynes. At the age of 11, she was one of them. She resonated with the audience with her quirky attitude and her young age. Soon after her launch on “Figure it Out,” she found her way into “All That” a Nickelodeon sketch comedy show. The show played off of Amanda’s skills as a young rising comedienne. Amanda quickly became a role model to the teenage public. Smart, witty, and charming Amanda Bynes was the all American girl and signifier of the young American dream.

As Bynes grew older so did her parts in films. Launched by her public acceptance in her young roles, Bynes found herself in quirky film roles, but more often as a supporting actor. In “Big Fat Liar” she acts alongside Frankie Muniz, another child star, gaining his popularity from the hit show, “Malcolm in the Middle.” In this film Amanda plays Muniz’s friend Kaylee, as they join forces to prove Jason (Muniz’s character) was the actual author of the essay “Big Fat Liar” and not Paul Giamatti. Once again Bynes is playing a role that up sells her role as an all American girl. She is adventurous, analytical and smart as she helps Muniz devise plans to oust Giamatti’s plagiarism. In the eyes of America, Bynes was growing up just fine and her roles corresponded with her daily appearances.  After the films release, Bynes appeared on numerous talk shows including Ellen and the Wayne Brady Show. The world was impressed with her success and her young age.

Bynes went on to have a pretty rounded acting career. She starred in roles that brought forth her quirky personality the most. Roles like “She’s the Man” allowed her to dress as a boy and join a soccer team, “Hairspray” gave her a musical debut, and her last film to date “Easy A” let her be a spoiled teenage bully using Christ as her anchor. However, 2010 took a turn for Bynes. She was found guilty in the hit and run of two cars in LA, as well as the hitting of a police vehicle while under the influence of drugs that landed her a $5,000-bail charge. More recently she was reported to have thrown a bong out of her New York apartment window.

The past three years of Bynes’ escapades with the police have been well documented and reported via the Internet and social media avenues like Facebook and Twitter. Recently via twitter, Bynes’ announced her retirement from acting. Her twitter account has also fallen to a large number of picture posts of the star’s ever changing appearance from wigs to plastic surgery. Bynes’ twitter posts hint towards a sense of bad self-image claiming she hates the press for posting “ugly” pictures of herself pre-reconstructive nose surgery.

Social media has played a huge part in the construction of Bynes’ recent celebrity status. Going from a very successful pre-teen only being seen on talk shows and magazine covers, to an “Internet sensation” in the last three years can be attributed to her recent increase in usage of social media. Bynes bares all in many of her uploaded photos and her promiscuous clothing and alluring tweets show the 27 year old starting to rebel to social standards. Amanda Bynes can suitably be compared to Lindsey Lohan as a child star turned drug addict. While Lohan’s drugs were more severe than Bynes marijuana and alcohol dependence, Bynes is still experiencing an adult hood that has direct results from her lack of typical childhood.

Social media has inflated Bynes’ celebrity hood by giving her an outlet to speak “truths” to her fans, post inappropriate images of her self, and the entire Internet community is seeing the whole charade. It is hard to not see some type of news swirling around Bynes’ name when surfing the web or scrolling through social media websites. The real question is; is the attention Bynes’ is receiving from these outlets adding to her obvious emotional instability by rocketing her back into the mainstream celebrity based on criminal activity rather than childhood stardom? I’m not sure if Bynes would still be in the celebrity scene without Twitter. I mean, there were those few years when everyone was wondering what had happened to Amanda Bynes before she resurfaced with the drug and alcohol charges.

Through the media we have seen Bynes rise to stardom, disappear from stardom, and then rise to a different kind of stardom, a stardom that feels kind of dirty and grimy, a kind of stardom that ruins your image. Bynes went from an American childhood star full of promise and ambition to an Internet star with a pornographic picture history and a lot of drug charges in a matter of just 14 years.

References:

Ablow, Keith. "Inside the Mind of Amanda Bynes." Fox News. FOX News Network, 05

June 2013. Web. 06 June 2013.

"Amanda Bynes." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 06 June 2013.

Blog Entry #3: Three Interesting Media Critics

Three Media Critics I love to read.

The first is Oliver Sava. He reviews television shows, comic books and movies for the A.V. Club on the Onion. I think he reads my mind. He reviews some of my favorite favorite cartoons, I love his comic reviews, and he recently co-wrote an article speaking on the new Arrested Development. I think I like his review styles so much because I'm a fan of these media just as much as he is. I like his brutal honesty and his knowledge of particular fandoms. I can read his reviews and find insightful opinions as well as stand at his level. Way to go Oliver.

http://www.avclub.com/authors/oliver-sava,34583/

My second choice isn't really a person but more of a conglomerative website that features articles from real-life girls and three-website co-owners that dive in a delve up juicy material all over the web and the cable wires.
www.hellogiggles.com is one of my favorite websites and the entertainment tab is by far the place to grab the best girly insights to favorite television shows. The site is ran by Zooey Deschanel and her two high school girlfriends. I like to read the reviews and throw back to a simpler time when being a girl was easy and pretened like being a girl in media isn't so damn hard.

Here is an example from Karen Belz a lover of all things Parks and Rec. and giver of information of what's continuing and what shows have been cancelled.

http://hellogiggles.com/parks-recreation-avoids-cancellation-other-shows-not-so-lucky

And finally my third media critic is Willa Paskin. She is head staff writer for Salon.com. Her awesome name precedes her awesome tone.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/the_offices_sugar_coated_finale/

In this article covering the finale of The Office, (spoliers if you haven't watched!), she passionately recounts the shows final moments and gives insights into the who's, whats, whens, and whys of the characters and their final decisions. I love her opinions and insights and reading her material always justifies show concepts and gives a new look on things that I may not have caught the first time through. Great stuff from a great gal.

Blog Entry #2: Media Profiles: Slate Article Responses

I really enjoyed reading the two Slate articles. I'm not too familiar with Alan Sepinwall, however I do enjoy reading the reviews from the A.V. Club at the Onion. The two Slate articles really brought to my attention the changes that have occurred in television criticism. Like Levin says, "Television criticism used to be like restaurant criticism," but it has definitely developed to a more show-by-show breakdown structure. I personally agree with this change in direction. I like the symbolic breakdown, the fanboy commentary, and the insightful opinions of others. I like to talk about television and read articles from others who like to talk about television.

I also found it interesting that Sepinwall had a cameo on Community. In the second article Sepinwall tells Levin that he regrets doing the cameo due to "the blurring of the line it caused." Levin said that it seemed odd that a critic would cameo on a television show he critiqued and that it imposed an ordeal if the critic were to give unkindly criticism if the show were to drop below his/her typical standards. Sepinwall seems to see the same concerns. 

For the two Hyperlinks I clicked on; one was: a fantastic A.V. Club dialogue about the state of TV criticism (hyperlink works if you're intrigued). I clicked on this link because it was written by Noel Murray and Scott Tobias from the A.V. Club. When I was redirected, I found it to be a more playful conversation between the two regarding their television watching habits and how the criticism executed couldn't be at near quality if either of them were to just drop into a serialized show (with emphasis on Murray doing such with Friday Night Lights). Murray disagreed with Tobias' idea that you had to see each episode in a serialized show in sequential order to be able to fully appreciate the later plots and events. He used the example of Jason's return to the game after his injury in the pilot. Tobias says that there wasn't anyway for Murray to appreciate the emphasis on that moment without having seen the intricate plot detail leading up to that moment, as with any other moments within the series. Murray thought that you could drop in at any episode and figure out who's who and what's what and still have  a clear idea of the show. 

The other hyperlink I clicked on was: an open letter to NBC executives. I clicked on this because I wanted to read Sepinwall's push to keep Chuck on the air. I've never taken the time to watch Chuck but seeing the passion Alan put into his pitch for its continuation, I may have to make the time. I agree fully with his ideas and reasonings behind keeping Chuck on air and I haven't even watched one episode! Product integration is real and it's heading fast. Sepinwall is right, DVRs are killing commercial advertisements, so why not make up the cash in ways that businesses are already chomping at the bit for? Consumers also want a show to escape to. I love mindless television, as long as it's done well and Sepinwall seems to think "Chuck" is there as refuge. I do enjoy "30 Rock" and "The Office" why kick a show off air if it's just as funny or as Sepinwall claims is better? I think it's wonderful that television critics like Sepinwall are on board for their favorite television shows. That kind of passion to keep a show running shows a passion for television. If Sepinwall likes the show enough to push for continuation, then his standards must be high enough to deliver tough criticism if the show were to drop below them. 

As for where this conversation has gone, it seems to be in the hands of the average Joe's, the self-proclaimed internet opinionated. At first the article was responded to by top critics, mainly those mentioned, such as Sepinwall himself, Murray, and others among the A.V. Club and Slate. Sepinwall agreed with a lot of the points Levin made as mentioned before (Community Cameo). James Poniewozik also responded to Levin's claims suggesting that Levin was more for the critical observation of reviewers rather than a more recap-like review, which Levin says was the complete opposite of his intentions, however there is a strength in objectivity. 

Now however, the comment section is full of interesting insights from the readers of these critics. Troy Patterson makes an interesting point asking in regards to Sepinwall, "He changed TV criticism. But can you be both a rabid fan and a thoughtful reviewer?" I think Levin asked the same question when speaking of Sepinwall's appearance on Community. But can a critic be a fan and thoughtful? Can you love a show and show it tough criticism? Are you more open to a shows flaws because you like it? Or should you review a show as a whole rather than weekly recaps? I believe that there is a more abstract answer to these questions. Judgement and opinions are delicate things. However, I feel that with precise reasoning and thoughtful insights any argument can be validated.