Last Assignment

First, my avatar.....

I'm posting the link (I hope it works) after spending way too long trying to post the actual video.  Every time I try to share my video, my login fails.  I've tried every combination of username and password and it's just not happening.  So, once again, I'm sorry for my technological failures.....

http://www.gizmoz.com/newsite/presite/itemPage.jsp?partner=studio&scene=13632183

If it doesn't work and you really want to see my avatar, I did it this evening, so it's probably in the newest creations.  I titled it "Amys Avatar" 

Next my response to today's reading:

June 28, 2009

 

            I found the article by George Veletsianos, Cassandra Scharber, and Aaron Doering fascinating, if a bit dense.  To be honest, I had no idea that pedagogical agents were even a thing, let alone a thing worth writing a paper about.  As our assignment is to react in any way we care to, I’d like to focus on a very specific quotation from the paper.  The authors write:

 

“While examining such work we draw on theoretical notions of cyber sexuality, psychosocial development, anonymity, and online inhibition to illuminate why learners may abuse pedagogical agents.”

 

 

            This passage stuck with me as I read the rest of the article, and it got me thinking a lot about John Locke’s Social Contract.  When I teach ninth graders, who are new to our school (a 9-12 high school), I often spend some time talking about this idea with students.  I do this instead of ever really going through the “rules” of the classroom.  We talk about how there are just some things that we can expect when we live in a community—from being free of people snooping in our windows to expecting that we shouldn’t be interrupted.  We talk about how the classroom is a community and therefore there are some things that students should expect of me and there are some things that I will expect of them.  We talk about what happens when a member of a community does not know about the rules—which are often unspoken—in a community or when a member chooses not to adhere to those rules.   I feel like this can be a good way of making the “rules” an academic exercise and a way to build community rather than simply me dictating what they will need to do.

            So, introducing the idea of virtual agents really throws a wrench into any sort of social contract.  Basically it all boils down to feelings, and virtual agents don’t have feelings, right?  So why worry about what you say or how you say it?  Why consider tone of voice when you don’t really have a voice?  Why not say everything that pops into your head because when we interact in a virtual way, we get the benefit of anonymity?  These are all the kinds of habits we try to fight against by having the conversation in the first place. 

            I once heard an interview with Temple Grandin, a noted autism expert who is herself autistic.  She talked about how she had to learn, and to memorize, basic human interaction rules.  Things like facial expressions, tones of voice, body language, etc.  meant nothing to her in and of themselves.  So every interaction for her was an intellectual exercise.  I feel like existing—teaching and learning—in this virtual world might be a little like that. 

            Of course, I don’t think things like pedagogical agents are going away.  And I don’t think they should.  But it does seem to be becoming clear that as we begin to try to reconcile the virtual world with the real world, a new social contract might be in order.  Interactions with other agents (whether they are virtual or real) in a virtual setting will need to become more intellectual exercises.  I hope for our students’ sakes that these new developments don’t overshadow the existing Social Contract and don’t replace actual human to human contact.  It sounds exhausting. 

Thursday June 25th

Media Literacy Lesson One--The Image of Women in Advertising

 For my first lesson, I spent a lot of time looking at the Media Education Foundation’s website.  I have shown Killing Us Softly in the past, but to be honest I’ve done little with it beyond just showing it and having students talk about in their “gut reactions” sort of way.  The Media Education Foundation has a ton of resources on their website that I haven’t had a chance to look at in the past.  This assignment gave me the opportunity to do this. 

Day One: 

Post copies of the advertisements from the Media Education Foudation’s resources related to the video Killing Us Softly (http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/206/studyguidehandout_206.pdf) around the room.  Number each advertisement so that students can refer easily to advertisements. 

Students will do a “gallery walk” around the room, spending as much time as they like looking at each advertisement.  They should take a notebook with them, and for each advertisement, they should record a number based on the following scale:

 

            1.—I think this is a good ad

            2.—I find nothing wrong with this ad

            3.—I feel neutral about this ad

            4.—This ad troubles me somewhat

            5—This ad troubles me greatly

 

 

Note:  Do not give the students any clarification about the word “troubles”.  Let them define it for themselves.  You could also use “bothers” if you prefer, but try to refrain from leading them into any prescribed thought.

 

 

Day Two:

Solicit “gut reactions” from students—ask which ads they felt strongly about, either positively or negatively.  Spend only 10-15 minutes on this.  Then introduce the concept of the portrayal of women in advertisement.  Access prior knowledge by having students freewrite.  Some potential topics might be:

            --Do you think women are treated fairly in advertisements?

--What effects on culture do you attribute to the portrayal of women in advertisements?

--Do you think people overreact to the treatment of women in advertisements?

--Do you think women are treated differently than men in advertising?

 

Have students share their answers with a small group, and then have small groups share with the class. 

 

Day Three:

Show Jean Kilbourne’s Killing Us Softly to the class.  Begin with a few caveats:

--The purpose of this film is not to force you to think in any one direction but instead to be exposed to what some people feel are problems with the way womena re portrayed in the media

--You should watch the video with a critical eye, both toward the advertisements presented as well as toward the way they are presented and to the criticisms made by Kilnbourne.

As students are watching, have them respond to the following questions:

--Which advertisements were most striking to you?  What did you think about them?

--Were there advertisements into which you felt Kilbourne was reading too much?

--Have any ideas that you previously had about this topic been changed?  If so, why/how?

 

 

Day Four:

Have students return to the advertisements posted on the walls after having watched “Killing Us Softly”.  Students should rank them again and record any impressions about them.  They should note advertisements that they view differently now or advertisements that they feel Kilbourne would object to (and note why she would object to them).

 

Wrap the topic up with a final class discussion about specific ads, the video, other examples they have seen, etc.  Give students a chance to share their impressions on all sides of the issue.

 

Media Literacy Lesson Two--Literature Circles using Blogs or Wikis

 

            For my second lesson this week, I decided to take an activity that I already to in my English Nine Classroom and adapt it to use wiki technology or blogging.  One thing I wanted to be sure to do is to incorporate the technology not just for the sake of using technology but to actually improve the lesson.  I’m anxious to try it out to see if the technology actually enhances the learning experience or if it just adds “bells and whistles”.  The thing I like best about he potentials of the technology, though, is that it enables the students to do so much more with the text and with each other in creative ways. 

 

First, the lesson that I have already taught (briefly)…

           

After reading a year’s worth of assigned texts, students are ready at the end of the year for some choice in what they read.  I very much want to offer students the opportunity to choose what they want to read, but in the past I have found that so-called “Independent Novels” have not been successful.  Often students put together mediocre presentations or book reports, and I am often skeptical about whether they actually read the book.  To avoid these pitfalls, I have had some success with using a modified literature circle.  First, students nominate books to be among those available for reading.  After we have established a list, we whittle it down to five books based on student interest.  Each student then selects a group to be a part of.  He/she is responsible to get the book and read it independently.  Then, each group is allotted one hour of class time for a “fishbowl” discussion, in which they have a book group like discussion of their book with one open seat.  Students in the audience have the opportunity to jump in to ask questions or provide comments from an outsider’s point of view.  Audience members are also responsible for evaluating the discussants and the overall discussion.  Each student is also responsible to write an analytical paper on his/her book.

 

Next, the research I did…..

 

            I spent some time looking at the following lessons:

http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=1087

 

http://itmc.cesa5.k12.wi.us/digitaltools/Units/PodBlogWiki/Second%20Units/KD_2ndWikiPlan.pdf

 

            What I liked a lot about these lessons is that they focused on how writing for a blog or wiki is different than traditional writing; these types of writing allow for students to make connections to other texts through links to images, websites, other documents, etc. 

 

 

And the adaptation…..

 

            I’d keep the general idea of the lesson the same.  Students would select books and groups in the same way.  I think I’d like to keep the fishbowl discussion as well, if for no other reason than it gives the rest of the class some insight into four books that they did not read but might like to in the future.  However, I would add the requirement that each group needs to set up a blog or wiki for their book (for now, I’m going to choose to focus on blogs because I am less familiar with wikis.)  The primary purpose of this would be to have groups interact about the text as they are reading it rather than simply at the end in their fishbowls.  It could also provide a great way to have students discuss questions/ideas raised in the book that might not be directly about the book and that they probably wouldn’t get a chance to talk about in a one hour discussion in front of their peers who have not read the book--things like: What is the American Dream anyway? (related to The Great Gatsby)  Is death really the worst possible outcome for a character (after reading Ethan Frome) or What responsibility to mothers have to their children? (related to The Awakening).  I would expand this lesson so that it is more than simply reading a book and discussing it, adding some of the following assignments/requirements:

 

--Students must post to the blog at the end of each chapter (or section or certain number of pages).  They should post their reactions to what has happened as well as any questions they have.  Other group members should comment on others’ posts.  Each student will receive a participation grade for their posts and comments (perhaps weekly?).

--The group will meet on the first day of this project to create their blog.  They should do some research into the art and style of the time and create their blog in this style.  They should also post relevant photos or incorporate appropriate music or audio.

--Each student will be responsible to post background information about the author in a “25 Random Things about….” Format (thanks Facebook!).  As an added challenge, each student will need to post 25 things that haven’t already been posted, thus encouraging students to be the first to post but more importantly to dig beyond the obvious encyclopedic factoids.

--After reading the book, each student will find a scholarly article of literary criticism about their novel (this might have to be adjusted depending on the books chosen).  They will read the article, post a link to it and then give a bullet point summary of the main points.  Other students will read the article and respond to the ideas posted but the original student.

--Students will post a list of cultural allusions to their novel or in their novel (again, this might have to be adjusted based on the novels).  Example: Of Mice and Men is referred to in episodes of Friends, King of the Hill, the movie Shark Tale, etc.

 

And lots more…..

“Fake News” assignments

 

Justification #1

            This past fall, the students in my College Prep Writing class were working on argument analysis papers.  Their task was to choose a speech, editorial, or essay and write a paper in which they discussed the argumentative techniques as well as rhetorical strategies used by the author.  About a week after I assigned the paper, we did a quick “check in” in class in which students shared with each other what argument they would be analyzing, how they thought they would do it, and what challenges they had encountered or anticipated encountering.  One student had selected Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” for his argument.  He didn’t have much to say about it, so I pressed him a little and asked him what he thought so far.  It didn’t take too many questions before I realized that he had no idea that Swift’s argument that societal ills could be cured by eating children was not a literal argument.  He had no idea that “A Modest Proposal” was satire and didn’t pick up on it until I clued him in.  Similarly, about half of the students in my AP Language and Composition wrote a whole essay question analyzing a satirical argument as though it were literal.  So, it’s clear to me that students are not adept at identifying (and appreciating) satire.  From a literature teacher’s perspective, this is justification enough for teaching about Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show.  However, beyond just understanding satire so as a literary genre, I think it is important that students understand how satire works, why it is common, how it makes arguments, and why it is funny.  They will encounter satire in their lives, and the cultural literacy gained from a discussion of it is, I believe, as beneficial as the literary education.

 

Assignment #1

            First, we’ll watch an episode of The Daily Show (or part of one) to whet students’ appetites.  After it is over, we’ll discuss the following questions:

            --What about this is funny?

            --Why are those things funny?

            --What wasn’t funny?

            --Why not?

--What techniques does Stewart use in his humor (e.g. hyperbole, irony, deadpan, etc.)

--What assumptions does Stewart make about his audience?

 

            Next, we’ll take a look at some background on Satire.  Students will read a chapter from Writing: An Exercise in Rhetoric (it’s a book I used to use frequently in class—sorry I don’t have a bibliographic citation….it’s buried in a box packed away at school).  It gives some good background on different types of satire and common techniques used by satire.  Students will then try to identify these elements in the broadcast of TDS (from memory as best they can….I don’t want to spend too much time on this).  I’ll fill in gaps with examples they might not remember.

           

            Then, we’ll talk about the power of Satire to make an argument.  Students will read “A Modest Proposal” and an excerpt from William Hazlit’s “On the Want of Money”, paying attention to the argument made in each.  Students will then discuss these pieces as arguments and tease out how and why these authors use satire to make their arguments.

 

            Finally, students will try a bit of satire on their own.  Using the techniques studied and TDS as a model, students will pick a social issue they care about (could be a school/community, statewide, national, or international issue) and they will craft their own story for a Daily Show-esque broadcast.  Because their final product will be one segment in a ½ hour television show, they should keep it brief and tailor it to a particular viewing audience.  These may or may not be performed for the class (or recorded for the class to watch) depending on the make up of the class.

 

 

 

***Note for CI5472 audience—I realize that my justification for this assignment might be taking the easy way out, as it does not really address the questions raised in this week’s reading, but I do think this assignment is something I could use in my classes and that students really could use a more thorough discussion of satire.  I’d definitely consider following this up with more discussion about The Daily Show and its impact on public policy, elections, etc. 

 

 

Justification #2

            Thinking about Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly as humorists, as discussed in the “When Fake is More Real…” article was really eye opening for me.  In the interest of putting all of my cards on the table, I have to confess that I find just about everything Limbaugh or O’Reilly say to be despicable.  And I’ve never heard them call themselves comedians.  I think this title is too generous, as being a comedian implies that one is actually funny, but that’s a different issue.  I think lumping Limbaugh and O’Reilly in with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert presents some interesting questions that are important in being critical viewers/listeners of this information, especially when these voices are increasingly becoming players in the political scene (Rush Limbaugh is considered by many to be the voice of the Republican party, and Jon Stewart is, for many, a reasonable representative of liberal Democratic beliefs).  Having an understanding of these voices and their potential influences can help them to better participate in the democratic process. 

 

 

Assignment #2

 

            Students will listen to/watch clips from The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, The O’Reilly Factor, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.  As they are watching, students will record their reactions to the programs.  I will ask them to pay special attention to the techniques of each man and to not ignore the delivery of the messages as they are paying attention to the actual messages.  We’ll spend a day just watching these clips and then sharing our gut reactions to what we have seen.

 

            The next day, we will generate lists of similarities and differences among the four programs.  I imagine the differences will be obvious and numerous.  I will encourage students to consider also the things these programs have in common (beyond superficial statements like “They are very opinionated”).  Then we’ll spend some time discussing whether these four programs should even be classified as the same type of program.  If so, why?  If not, why not?  What difference does it make?  How should viewers approach these broadcasts?  I’ll encourage them to really move beyond their own biases (a challenge that I will have to deal with as well!) to discuss these in an academic forum.

 

           

            For our last day of discussion, we’ll consider some of the bigger questions here, like what influence media personalities such as these can have on audience’s perceptions of current events.  I think I’d like to conclude by having them do some sort of interview with someone they know who watches/listens to one of these programs, but I need to flesh this out a little more.  The last question I would like them to consider is “What is the value of this type of communication?”

 

**This one needs a little fleshing out, but I think the skeleton of questions could be a reasonable start…..

Homework for Thursday, June 18th (Part Two)

Local News Broadcast Log

Story/Summary Length Type

#1 Elderly woman struck and killed 45 seconds News--Local

by ambulance leaving the scene 

of an emergency

#2 Drowning at Lake Josephine 20 seconds News--Local/community

#3 18 year old shot in St. Paul-- 120 seconds News--Local/metro

appears to be gang related.  Story

also included interview with 

former gang member who is 

currently working with local

youth to encourage them to 

quit gangs

#4 Protests in Iran and Barack  90 seconds News--International

Obama's warning for the Iranian

government  

#5 Intruder in Moorhead shot 35 seconds News--Local/Greater by resident of apartment         Minnesota 

#6 Summer Camps closed by 30 seconds News/Human Interest

MDA because of H1N1

#7 Adopt a Highway Volunteers-- 120 seconds Human Interest/Health

        Group of friends gave their

friend "Tall Boy" two miles of 

highway for his 50th birthday.

They will be responsible for its 

upkeep for two years.

#8 "Hero Central" Kare11 food drive 15 seconds Community

Tease stories after break:

Refugees

Special Olympics

Grandma's Marathon

Weather

First Commercial Break

#9 Rock the Garden concert 15 seconds News/Community

#10 World Refugee Day 15 seconds News/Community

#11 Special Olympics Summer 45 seconds News/Human Interest

Games this weekend

#12 Grandma's Marathon 20 seconds News/Community/Sports

***Banter between anchor and meteorologist about Grandma's and the weather map (about 20 seconds)

#13 Weather 180 seconds Weather

Tease: Sports

Second Commercial Break

#14--Sports 300 seconds Sports

Box Scores (with music in background) 30 seconds

Golf--US Open 90 seconds

Twins 115 seconds

Football Camps for HS kids 35 seconds

Tease: Record at the Mall of America

Third Commercial Break

#15 Yo-Yo record at the Mall of America 25 seconds Human Interest

My Thoughts

In keeping with the suggestion that this need not be long, I'll try to be brief (but as an English teacher, I find that's sometimes easier said than done).  So, here are some general observations:

--I'm always struck by amount of time spent on weather in local news broadcasts.  Judging  by time alone, you'd think we were all farmers or that we lived in tents.

--I really noticed some of the things Beach mentioned in the reading for this week about  anchors making eye contact, verbal and visual cues, witty (?) banter, etc.  It's clear, and this shouldn't be surprising to any critical viewer, that the news is definitely produced as an entertainment broadcast.  From the music played during the sports scores to the meteorologist's reference to having been kayaking earlier suggests that the producers want viewers to feel involved in the broadcasts and to feel that it is an experience that is more/better than what a person could get by reading the paper or looking at news online.

--I always find it shameful how little time is spent on international news

--I was surprised to see that there were only 15 stories covered (if you count weather and sports each as a single story) and disappointed, though sadly not surprised, at the number of stories I would classify as "soft news".  It's hard for me to discern whether this is what viewers actually want or if is what producers think viewers want.  The reading this week claimed that polls show viewers want more community news.  I felt this broadcast was heavy on local and community news, which is not what I am looking for when I watch the news.

A final thought:  I'm not a big fan of local news.  I generally avoid watching it, largely because of the things covered in this week's reading.  I find the broadcasts to be heavy on style (or at least attempts at style) and light on substance.  I'm sure this bias causes me to look for the things that irritate me when I do watch the local news.  In planning to do this assignment, I spent some time looking at the Kare11 website (the same channel whose broadcast I watched).  I found some of the same elements as one would see in a broadcast ("breaking news" or "exclusive report") but finding my news online seems so much more democratic.  I like that I am not relying as much (certainly some, of course) on producers making the decisions for me about which stories I will see and which I won't  However, I do recognize that a broadcast "forces" me to view stories that I would not select on my own, and there is some benefit to this.  I wonder what the happy medium will be in years to come, if there is a way to give people the freedom to choose what they think is news but to also try to inject some variety so that we are not all existing in echo chambers and only looking at the news we want and ignoring the rest.

Not very successful in keeping this brief.....

I'm posting the second part of tomorrow's assignment now and hoping that I can track down a broadcast to watch before midnight tomorrow.  I'm at a family reunion in northern Minnesota and finding a television at the right time to watch a broadcast has proved to be something of a challenge.  Funny that I'm having no problem finding a Wi Fi connection but can't seem to track down a way to watch the 5:00 news!

Part II--Activity for teaching critical analysis of news

 

            Unlike film techniques or media types/phenomenon, this is one area where I feel like I have done some worthwhile things in my classroom.  Here is an activity that I have done in the past that I enjoy, students seem to like, and that sparks some interesting conversations. 

 

Here’s what I do before class:

            I comb through the issues from the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune for the same day (ideally the day before class).  I collect as many stories of as many different types as I can: International/National News, Local News, Features, Sports, Weather, etc.  I summarize each in a brief paragraph, trying to keep all of the paragraphs about the same length.  I put these paragraphs on 3X5 index cards so students can flip through them easily.

 

Here’s what happens in class:

 

·      I split students up into groups of 3-5.  They are responsible for putting together a 22 minute news broadcast (leaving eight minutes for commercials).  They need to sift through the index cards I have given them and make the following decisions:

            --Which stories will you cover (they will have too many to cover them all)?

--How much time will you spend on each?  (no story can be shorter than 15 seconds, but no story can be longer than 2.5 minutes.

--What order will you present the stories in?

--When will you break for commercials?

 

 

·      Groups make these decisions and then plan their news broadcast on a large piece of tag board (list the story using a “headline” and the length of time as well as the commercials)

·      Groups then pitch the broadcasts to the class.  They should view this more as presenting a plan for a broadcast to producers rather than presenting the actual broadcast to viewers.

 

·      After each group has presented, groups reconvene and discuss the following questions:

 

o   How did you decide what to cover and what not to cover?

o   How did your broadcast look/feel similar or different to other groups’?

o   If you were a viewer of your own broadcast, would you have a legitimate picture of the news?  What would be missing?  What about if you were a viewer of another group’s broadcast?

·      Then, as a class, we discuss those questions as well as other issues such as:

o   What do we consider newsworthy enough to cover? Why did we make similar or different choices?

o   Did you make choices based on the content of the story or the desires of the audience to have news broadcasts be entertaining?

o   What influence do the people who choose which stories will be covered (or won’t be covered) have over the worldview of viewers?

o   What are the benefits of getting news in 22 minute formats?  What are the drawbacks? 

o   Did you notice biases creeping into your decision making process?  Could you see how bias might creep into other people’s decision making process?

 

Other issues always come up, but the most important thing I think this activity does is to reinforce the idea that those who tell the stories control a culture.  Viewing producers of news broadcasts as the gatekeepers of information is often a new idea to students who have generally accepted the idea that what’s news is news and who ignore the fact that someone has decided what we viewers get to see and hear.  I often use this as an activity that precedes a detailed viewing of a news broadcast (similar to the activity we were assigned).  After they have made decisions about how to structure a broadcast, they often key into things in other broadcasts that they may have missed.

Sunday June 14

  Richard Beach, in Teachingmedialiteracy.com, (2007) makes the point that media representations re-present” our perceptions of groups or phenomena.  In this way, the media has the power not only to reflect the beliefs of a culture to craft them as well.  I believe this can be seen in the portrayals of young men in the media and the absence of attention given by the media to the transition from boyhood to mature manhood.  This can be seen by comparing some portrayals of boys in the media to some ideas seen in the fields of anthropology as well as literature.

            Let’s consider first some of the images of boys we currently see in the media.  There is the “slacker” type who is marked by his lack of ambition to do much of anything.  He does not do well in school and does not care to.  He often has a sense of humor and through his charm convinces viewers that his lack of ambition is just part of “boys being boys”.  Bart Simpson is the quintessential slacker boy.  Also, there is the “thug” whose claim to fame is his disdain for authority or the law.  His worldview is often misogyntistic and egocentric, characterized by his pursuit of beautiful women and material objects.  We often see this type portrayed in rap or hip hop music.  A third type we see is “The Nerd”.  He is the character that viewers laugh at rather than with.  He is the antithesis of the previous two types and is rarely the hero.  Viewers may feel sorry for him but they rarely care to emulate him.  “The Athlete” is the prototypical captain of the football team.  He is known only for his athletic talent; intelligence or ambition are unimportant.  There is the “Player” who, like the “thug” successfully pursued women, but the player often has a pleasant personality that causes viewers to ignore his dubious moral standards or doubtfully clean medical history.  Joey Tribianni from Friends or Barney from How I Met Your Mother are good, albeit older, examples.

            Of course there are other types, and there are plenty of regular boys as well.  However, the message that seems to be sent to boys is that society has low expectations of them.  It’s OK to be a slacker or a player or a thug because that’s what we expect of boys.  Leave achievement and good grades and morality up to the girls—boys are meant to have fun and look out for number one.

            There have always been boys who fit some of these types.  Tom Sawer comes to mind as a “slacker” character who loved to get away with bending the rules.  He was harmless and readers loved him for his impish charm.  George Gibbs from Thornton Wilder’s Our Town is an example of an athlete who didn’t care much for school.  So the phenomenon of “boys being boys” is nothing new.  However, a concerning trend has been occurring over the last fifty years.  Leonard Sax documents the trend of a lack of attention being paid in our society of the transition from boyhood to manhood in his book Boys Adrift.

Sax writes, ““Almost every culture of which we have detailed knowledge takes great care in managing this transition to adulthood.  One example: The !Kung bushmen of southwest Africa, who call themselves “the harmless people.”  Their culture is nonviolent: war is unknown.  They have no warriors and no tradition of combat.  “Yet even here, according to anthropologist David Gilmore, ‘In a culture that treasures gentleness and cooperation above all things, the boys must earn the right to be called a man by a test of skill and endurance.  They must single-handedly track and kill a sizable adult antelope, an act that requires courage and hardiness. Only after their first kill of such a buck are they considered men and permitted to marry” (Sax 2007, pg. 166).  Anthropologically, the transition from boy to man is something  that is treated with the utmost importance in cultures around the world, including in every subset of American culture.  Sax cites anthropologist David Gilmore in describing another example: “This heroic image of an achieved manhood…has been widely legitimized in U.S. cultural settings, ranging from Italian American gangster culture to Hollywood Westerns, private eye tales, Rambo imagoes, and children’s He-Man dolls and games” (Sax 2007, pg. 173).  We also see importance being given to this transition in literature, as manhood is something that is achieved through a trial or test, something that is earned.  We see this in mythology with the quest archetype and in the literature of Hemingway and Faulkner.  In films we can see this coming of age as well, such as in The Hustler, Rebel without a Cause, or On the Waterfront.  In all of these examples we see a boy go through a significant trial and come out on the other side a man.  

            But these images, according to Sax, have changed in the last fifty years.  In The Hustler, Rebel without a Cause, and On the Waterfront, we see ordinary boys become ordinary men.  They experience the death of a close friend, which challenges them to become men, and through this struggle, they become noble.  These stories are set in their own time, in locations where they could actually happen.  But stories like these are rare today.  Either we have superheores (Batman, Spiderman, etc) or stories like Braveheart and The Gladiator, Star Wars/Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings.  It seems like movie makers cannot find a plausible tale of a boy becoming a man that is set in contemporary society with real characters in a real place (Sax 2007, pg. 173).

            It is true that the current lack of representation of a transition to manhood is absent from the media, as it is absent from mainstream culture as well.  Observances of this transition are relegated to religious ritual or quaint anachronism.  Boys are expected to enter into manhood without society noticing or caring.  And the images they have to guide them are questionable at best.  This is one factor that has led Dr. Sax and others to be concerned about the trend of “underachieving and unmotivated young men”.  We set low expectations for boys and then make little to nothing of any transition to become men and we are left with a culture of slackers, thugs, and players who, as men, are unlikely to change much.  This is an example of what Richard Beach noted as he described the media’s power to represent as well as to “re-present” cultural ideas.

June 11, 2009—Assignment Three

**I posted this earlier but tried to reformat it....fingers crossed!

 

Shot by Shot Analysis of Coca-Cola Commercial

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4V6TUOVImg

 

 

Sorry, I can’t figure out how to capture still shots from youtube, so I’m posting the link to this commercial and will do my shot by shot analysis without visuals.  This is an old Coke commercial with a swimming elephant who takes a bottle of Coke from an unsuspecting sunbather and leaves a few peanuts as payment.

 

 

Establishing Shot                The commercial begins with a long shot that establishes the hazy,underwater focus and places the music at center stage.  Viewers get a calm yet whimsical feel right from the start.

 

Wide Shot, camera tilts      The camera tilts up to reveal something moving underwater.  At first a tilts viewer might think this is a person, but the camera lingers long enough for the viewer to realize it is, in fact, an elephant.

 

Low Angle Shot            The cameral continues to tilt upwards showing the elephant swimming from below, giving the viewer plenty of time to appreciate the swimming elephant and to place it as the focus of the commercial.  The music continues.  It’s grainy and lilting, which contributes to the whimsy of the visual.

 

Wide Shot            A person on a raft with a vibrant yellow umbrella.  The figure is definitely minimized; from a distance one cannot even tell if it is a man or woman.  Taking up the majority of the shot are two large rock formations on either side of the raft.  The scene is dominated by the aquamarine water,which is punctuated by the vibrant yellow umbrella.  Clearly the natural world is the focus here. 

 

Medium Shot             A woman drinking coca cola out of a bottle.  This is the first we see of the product.   Other than the previous shot, this is the first of the commercial that is in clear focus, not surprising for our first glimpse of the product and as a good way to demonstrate the woman’s enjoyment of her bottle of soda.

 

Wide Shot            Again emphasizes how small the raft is compared to the craggy rocks and expansive ocean.  Viewers haven’t seen the swimming elephant in a while and are curious to see how these two characters will interact.

 

Wide Shots, Low Angle      Back to the elephant swimming with wide angle shots, first a profile and then from below.  The elephant, like the other natural elements takes up a large proportion of the screen.

 

Subjective Shot             From the elephant’s perspective, with its trunk sticking up out of the water like a periscope.  The raft is in the distance and the reader can see that the two disparate elements will be coming together.  The  camera shot builds suspense, while the lilting music reminds the viewer that the scene is playful.  The elephant is approaching the woman and the camera angle is reminiscent of what we would see in a subjective shot looking out the scope of a gun.  Without the elephant’s trunk, this scene might feel ominous, as a confrontation seems imminent.

 

Wide Shot             Woman on the raft with the elephant’s trunk as periscope in the background.  Having just seen this from the elephants perspective brings out the humor in this scene.  Adding to the humor is the woman’s obliviousness to the bizarre goings on in the background.

 

Low Angle Shot             Again, looking up at the elephant underwater.  Curiosity continues to build in viewers as they are waiting for the encounter between the woman and the elephant.  The woman is unaware.

 

Medium, Subjective Shot    The elephant trunk deposits a few peanuts on the raft and takes a Coke.   The only part of the elephant we see is the trunk, making the subjective shot more humorous as we are used to seeing this from the perspective of a human (hand reaches down to open door knob, holds flowers out, etc.). Also, the fact that it is only the trunk allows the bottles of coca cola not to be dwarfed by the massive elephant.

 

Wide Shot             Elephant swimming away from the camera.  Once again, we see the whole, massive elephant.

 

Wide Shot             The woman on the raft.  She seems realizes something has happened but of course doesn’t know what.   She is a small part of the shot, clearly a minor character in this story.

 

Wide Shot              The elephant swimming out of view.  It becomes blurry, as it started the commercial and a school of fish follow.  This seems somewhat mundane, which presents a nice visual irony.

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Scenes from The Office

 

            For the first part of this assignment I chose to take a closer look at a few scenes from an episode of The Office.  I chose this show for a few reasons.  First, I love the show, and watching it for homework was too good of an opportunity to pass up.  Second, I had it at my disposal on DVR, and third, a lot has been made of the “faux documentary” style of filming and I was curious to watch the show with a more critical eye than what I typically do. 

            First, a few statements of the obvious.  Given the amateur documentary feel to this show, there are a lot of jerky camera shots and quick pans from subject to subject.  It feels like the show was shot with one camera, by a camera operator who was trying to capture as much action in each shot as possible.  The shot jumps from person to person quickly, following the dialogue.   Also, characters in scenes occasionally look directly at the camera; when doing this they rarely say anything but instead “share” a knowing look or a “verbal nudge” with the viewer.  Also, interspersed among scenes are brief confessionals with characters in which they talk directly to an unseen interviewer.

            I knew these things going into my critical viewing.  During my viewing of this episode, “Casual Fridays”, I noticed some other things as well.  Shots seem to be exclusively medium to close up shots.  This makes sense, given the style of filming; however, it is interesting to note that viewers never get a sense of the “big picture”.  There is always something happening in the background, but we never get more than passing glimpse.  Also, this heightens the immediacy of what is happening.  The sound is very clinical, again enhancing the amateur feel to it, as is the lighting, which never varies from the garish office fluorescent lights.  The dialogue is snappy, but characters frequently mumble; it frequently doesn’t matter, though, as little plot will be missed if one doesn’t hear every line.

            In one of the opening scenes of this episode, all of the previously discussed elements are present, as are several over the shoulder shots.  The setting of this scene is one of the frequent staff meetings, and the over the shoulder shots serve to make the viewer part of this meeting.  Also, the angle is low, giving Michael Scott, the boss, a prominent position.  This visual irony is the biggest gag of the show; Scott’s unrealistic perception of himself is constantly mocked not only by the characters but by the camera and, thus, the viewer as well.

            As a fan of this show, I am charmed by the characters and plots.  After the first few episodes, I really didn’t pay much attention to the documentary style.  The style, though, definitely enhances the humor, as this is such a mundane office that is hardly a worthy documentary subject.  It seems like such a haphazard way to film something, but of course it is a carefully crafted strategy that has made the show more than just a typical situation comedy.

 

 

How I will use this in my classroom

            I don’t anticipate teaching a film class or stand alone media class or unit any time soon.  However, in my Advanced Placement Language and Composition class, we spend quite a bit of our time discussing and analyzing arguments.  I have used the text Everything’s an Argument (2000) to structure the class and I ask students to look for arguments everywhere, to consider the statement they make by what they wear, what they drive, what they eat, etc. and to look for how others create arguments in everything they do.  We spend some time on visual argument, but mostly we look at things like the choice of models in a commercial, the positioning of products, the innuendo of a tag line, etc.  Having spent some time looking at the technical aspects of camera angles, lighting, sound, and other details, I am anxious to have students add these elements to their “argumentation vocabulary”.  In addition to the more obvious visual elements, I will encourage students to consider how a director might emphasize or de-emphasize something with camera angle, focus, lighting, and sound.  Furthermore, I would like them to consider the argument made by these choices.  Students are often reluctant to do these types of things, as they feel like sometimes I force them to read too much into things.  I think doing a shot by shot analysis of a commercial, though, is a good way for them to be cognizant of the fact that so many choices are made when putting these messages together.  I think having students consider why the choice was made in one direction and not another would be a good way to encourage them to be critical of all of the messages they take in, not to mention having them consider the choices they might have made.

A Learning Experience?

Argh!  The formatting of my last post looks even worse on the actual blog than it did on the preview screen.  Please take my word for the fact that my original in Word was much prettier than what I posted.  

June 11, 2009

June 11, 2009—Assignment Three

 

Shot by Shot Analysis of Coca-Cola Commercial

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4V6TUOVImg

 

 

Sorry, I can’t figure out how to capture still shots from youtube, so I’m posting the link to this commercial and will do my shot by shot analysis without visuals. I also seem to have screwed the formatting up and every time I try to fix it, I seem to make it worse.  This is an old Coke commercial with a swimming elephant who takes a bottle of Coke from an unsuspecting sunbather and leaves a few peanuts as payment.

 

 

--Establishing Shot           

 

The commercial begins with a long shot that establishes the hazy underwater focus and places the

music at center stage.  Viewers get a calm yet whimsical feel right from the start.

 

--Wide Shot, camera tilts upward           

 

The camera tilts up to reveal something moving underwater.  At first a viewer might think this is a person, but the camera lingers long enough for the viewer to realize it is, in fact, an elephant.

 

--Low Angle Shot           

 

The cameral continues to tilt upwards showing the elephant swimming from below, giving the

viewer plenty of time to appreciate the swimming elephant and to place it as the focus of the

commercial.  The music continues.  It’s grainy and lilting, which contributes to the whimsy of the

visual.

 

--Wide Shot           

A person on a raft with a vibrant yellow umbrella.  The figure is definitely minimized; from a

distance one cannot even tell if it is a man or woman.  Taking up the majority of the shot are two

large rock formations on either side of the raft.  The scene is dominated by the aquamarine water,

which is punctuated by the vibrant yellow umbrella.  Clearly the natural world is the focus here. 

 

--Medium Shot            

 

A woman drinking coca cola out of a bottle.  This is the first we see of the product.   Other than the

previous shot, this is the first of the commercial that is in clear focus, not surprising for our first

glimpse of the product and as a good way to demonstrate the woman’s enjoyment of her bottle of

soda.

 

--Wide Shot           

 

Again emphasizes how small the raft is compared to the craggy rocks and expansive ocean.

Viewers haven’t seen the swimming elephant in a while and are curious to see how these two

characters will interact.

 

--Wide Shots, Low Angle                       

 

Back to the elephant swimming with wide angle shots, first a profile and then from below.  The elephant, like the other natural elements takes up a large proportion of the screen.

 

--Subjective Shot            

 

From the elephant’s perspective, with its trunk sticking up out of the water like a periscope.  The

raft is in the distance and the reader can see that the two disparate elements will be coming

together.  The camera shot builds suspense, while the lilting music reminds the viewer that the

scene is playful.  The elephant is approaching the woman and the camera angle is reminiscent of

what we would see in a subjective shot looking out the scope of a gun.  Without the elephant’s

trunk, this scene might feel ominous, as a confrontation seems imminent.

 

--Wide Shot            

 

Woman on the raft with the elephant’s trunk as periscope in the background.  Having just seen this

from the elephants perspective brings out the humor in this scene.  Adding to the humor is the

woman’s obliviousness to the bizarre goings on in the background.

 

--Low Angle Shot            

 

Again, looking up at the elephant underwater.  Curiosity continues to build in viewers as they are

waiting for the encounter between the woman and the elephant.  The woman is unaware.

 

--Medium, Subjective Shot           

 

The elephant trunk deposits a few peanuts on the raft and takes a Coke.   The only part of the

elephant we see is the trunk, making the subjective shot more humorous as we are used to seeing

this from the perspective of a human (hand reaches down to open door knob, holds flowers out,

etc.). Also, the fact that it is only the trunk allows the bottles of coca cola not to be dwarfed by the

massive elephant.

 

--Wide Shot            

 

Elephant swimming away from the camera.  Once again, we see the whole, massive elephant.

 

--Wide Shot            

 

The woman on the raft.  She seems realizes something has happened but of course doesn’t know

what.   She is a small part of the shot, clearly a minor character in this story.

 

--Wide Shot             

The elephant swimming out of view.  It becomes blurry, as it started the commercial and a school

of fish follow.  This seems somewhat mundane, which presents a nice visual irony.

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Scenes from The Office

 

            For the first part of this assignment I chose to take a closer look at a few scenes from an episode of The Office.  I chose this show for a few reasons.  First, I love the show, and watching it for homework was too good of an opportunity to pass up.  Second, I had it at my disposal on DVR, and third, a lot has been made of the “faux documentary” style of filming and I was curious to watch the show with a more critical eye than what I typically do. 

            First, a few statements of the obvious.  Given the amateur documentary feel to this show, there are a lot of jerky camera shots and quick pans from subject to subject.  It feels like the show was shot with one camera, by a camera operator who was trying to capture as much action in each shot as possible.  The shot jumps from person to person quickly, following the dialogue.   Also, characters in scenes occasionally look directly at the camera; when doing this they rarely say anything but instead “share” a knowing look or a “verbal nudge” with the viewer.  Also, interspersed among scenes are brief confessionals with characters in which they talk directly to an unseen interviewer.

            I knew these things going into my critical viewing.  During my viewing of this episode, “Casual Fridays”, I noticed some other things as well.  Shots seem to be exclusively medium to close up shots.  This makes sense, given the style of filming; however, it is interesting to note that viewers never get a sense of the “big picture”.  There is always something happening in the background, but we never get more than passing glimpse.  Also, this heightens the immediacy of what is happening.  The sound is very clinical, again enhancing the amateur feel to it, as is the lighting, which never varies from the garish office fluorescent lights.  The dialogue is snappy, but characters frequently mumble; it frequently doesn’t matter, though, as little plot will be missed if one doesn’t hear every line.

            In one of the opening scenes of this episode, all of the previously discussed elements are present, as are several over the shoulder shots.  The setting of this scene is one of the frequent staff meetings, and the over the shoulder shots serve to make the viewer part of this meeting.  Also, the angle is low, giving Michael Scott, the boss, a prominent position.  This visual irony is the biggest gag of the show; Scott’s unrealistic perception of himself is constantly mocked not only by the characters but by the camera and, thus, the viewer as well.

            As a fan of this show, I am charmed by the characters and plots.  After the first few episodes, I really didn’t pay much attention to the documentary style.  The style, though, definitely enhances the humor, as this is such a mundane office that is hardly a worthy documentary subject.  It seems like such a haphazard way to film something, but of course it is a carefully crafted strategy that has made the show more than just a typical situation comedy.

 

 

How I will use this in my classroom

            I don’t anticipate teaching a film class or stand alone media class or unit any time soon.  However, in my Advanced Placement Language and Composition class, we spend quite a bit of our time discussing and analyzing arguments.  I have used the text Everything’s an Argument (2000) to structure the class and I ask students to look for arguments everywhere, to consider the statement they make by what they wear, what they drive, what they eat, etc. and to look for how others create arguments in everything they do.  We spend some time on visual argument, but mostly we look at things like the choice of models in a commercial, the positioning of products, the innuendo of a tag line, etc.  Having spent some time looking at the technical aspects of camera angles, lighting, sound, and other details, I am anxious to have students add these elements to their “argumentation vocabulary”.  In addition to the more obvious visual elements, I will encourage students to consider how a director might emphasize or de-emphasize something with camera angle, focus, lighting, and sound.  Furthermore, I would like them to consider the argument made by these choices.  Students are often reluctant to do these types of things, as they feel like sometimes I force them to read too much into things.  I think doing a shot by shot analysis of a commercial, though, is a good way for them to be cognizant of the fact that so many choices are made when putting these messages together.  I think having students consider why the choice was made in one direction and not another would be a good way to encourage them to be critical of all of the messages they take in, not to mention having them consider the choices they might have made.