In 'Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs', Chuck Klosterman has a wonderful essay on the perils (and ease) of writing beyond what you know for the sake of a good story. Called 'All I Know Is What I Read in the Papers', he writes about a brief phone interview he once did - containing mostly small talk -and the subsequent article he wrote, full of vast and sweeping inferences about said artist.
I'm no friend of Pitchfork , so in some ways this feels pointless. But HOLY GOD did this make my brain explode to read. In his review of Broken Bells 'Meyrin Fields EP, Stephen Deusner makes many assumptions regarding the band and its members, and finishes off with this:
Still, this EP sounds like more than the sum of its parts. Maybe it's the realization that Gnarls Barkley will never top "Crazy" or that the Shins may never re-form, but there's an intriguing sense of desperation on these songs, as though both Mercer and Burton are realizing that this band could indeed be their lives.
Now, I don't know a hell of a lot about the Shins, or James Mercer. But I DO know something about Brian Burton aka. Danger Mouse.
Due to the strangeness of fame and popularity, it is likely true that Gnarls Barkley (one of Burton's projects) will never outsell their biggest selling single. It is also true that some of the tracks on Meyrin Fields could be described as sounding desperate. But here's where it gets really smelly. To imply that this 'desperation' that one reviewer perceives is a PERSONAL desperation on the part of the artists due to having no other professional prospects is flat-out fucking ridiculous.
Since the first Gnarls Barkley album, Brian 'Danger Mouse' Burton has produced the Black Keys 'Attack & Release', Beck's 'Modern Guilt', and done a collaboration with Sparklehorse that included Wayne Coyne, Iggy Pop and David Lynch (!). He has previously produced Gorillaz 'Demon Days' and did a side project with bizarro-rap extrordinaire MF DOOM. He is also the most recent Grammy winner for 'Producer of the Year' and is making U2's next record.
None of this is communicated in the review. The introduction does the very tired job of reminding us that Danger Mouse did the 'Grey Album' - and then by the end of the peice Danger Mouse is apparently desperate because he's without things on the horizon as if he's been squandering one-hit-wonder wealth for 5 years.
What makes Chuck Klosterman's article so compelling is that he doesn't do the usual "The Media is evil and stupid!!!", in fact, he directly denounces this. A lot of the error that people attribute to devious editing, he suggests, is often a result of: a) A lack of time, and b) Bad journalism can make for good writing. With this article, the final paragraph feels solid as a piece of writing. We're introduced to two characters at the start of the article, the album is discussed in relation to some of their earlier work, and the final paragraph ties everything together by attempting to explain the sound of the record while forecasting what future work might sound like.
Except these aren't characters. They are real people. With actual lives in which events happened that are now facts that mean something. Musical tastes are subjective, and so are reviews to a large degree - but facts are not subjective. If you think an album sounds 'desperate', just fucking say so. That's cool. I could even agree with that reading or the disc, but to draw these really tenuous (and in the case of Danger Mouse at least, untrue) connections between how you think it sounds, and what you think might be going on in the artist's head is hack journalism.
That's what's so risky about doing this kind of inferring. Stephen tells a good story and writes well, but his role here isn't to be a storyteller or a psycho-analyzer, it's to review music. Enticing writing shouldn't get in the way of that.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Google vs. Apple
After separately watching the Social Network, my father and I had a great conversation about 21st century companies, and what it means to be one (vs. a 20th century company).
It's waaaaay too late to be writing very much on this, but I wanted to quickly throw up some food for thought that I will elaborate on later. Without really going into specifics of what I think makes a company belong to either century, I stumbled upon what I think is a useful example that distinguishes the two:
Apple is a 20th Century Company, and Google is a 21st Century Company.
Apple creates new products based on old ideas. Google creates new products based on new ideas.
In many ways, Apple is still really ahead of the curve - it makes astonishingly intuitive products that people often don't know they want until they see firsthand. Apple creates markets for new devices in an extremely short period of time.
All of Apple's products however can be explained in terms that people 30 years ago could understand. Apple makes computers, Apple makes phones, and Apple makes music players. The fact that these devices are extremely well designed or stylish or use amazing technology to accomplish their aims is in some ways irrelevant. An ipod is thousands of times more useful than a portable cassette tape player - but playing mixtapes on a walkman and listening to your ipod on shuffle is not a fundamentally different activity. It's an evolution.
Television and YouTube are fundamentally different sources of media. The fact that huge amounts of YouTube server space is filled by what boils down to 'America's Funniest Home Videos' doesn't reflect on YouTube - it reflects on its users. People are still not adapted to something very, very different from what they're used to.
Go watch the Phillip DeFranco Show. I'm no huge PhillyD fan, but the format for his 'show' would not work on TV. It would not work on radio. The short, rapid-fire burst of entertainment, news and blogging is perfectly at home in framework that allows it to:
1) Be watched any time, and repeated multiple times quickly
2) Provide viewers instant access to related content and additional information about what was talked about
-------------
To summarize: Imagine doing what I remarked about earlier. You travel back in time, and are tasked with explaining Apple's latest - the ipad - to an average consumer in 1980.
The Apple II had come out in 1977, and although personal computer ownership was nothing like it is today, the average consumer would be aware of computers. If you told this consumer that thirty years in the future, handheld computers would exist, I don't think they would be shocked, and they might even expect it. The fact that it plays movies would likely not surprise anyone either. People in the 80s grew up on Star Trek, and computers playing movies instead of TVs just makes sense in an evolved future.
This is how things like touch screens mean perhaps less than we might imagine. A touchscreen is a useful interfacing tool, and a great way to make technology more accessible, but it's not a game changer.
Now imagine explaining another 21st Century Company - Facebook - to someone in 1980. Explain to them what exactly it does, and how it alters how you interact with people. Explain the idea of 'liking' things, and how ratings and comments can create 'buzz'. Explain how something on Facebook might become 'viral'. Explain why everyone from your Grandmother to your employer will be using Facebook for multiple hours every day of their lives.
It's waaaaay too late to be writing very much on this, but I wanted to quickly throw up some food for thought that I will elaborate on later. Without really going into specifics of what I think makes a company belong to either century, I stumbled upon what I think is a useful example that distinguishes the two:
Apple is a 20th Century Company, and Google is a 21st Century Company.
Apple creates new products based on old ideas. Google creates new products based on new ideas.
In many ways, Apple is still really ahead of the curve - it makes astonishingly intuitive products that people often don't know they want until they see firsthand. Apple creates markets for new devices in an extremely short period of time.
All of Apple's products however can be explained in terms that people 30 years ago could understand. Apple makes computers, Apple makes phones, and Apple makes music players. The fact that these devices are extremely well designed or stylish or use amazing technology to accomplish their aims is in some ways irrelevant. An ipod is thousands of times more useful than a portable cassette tape player - but playing mixtapes on a walkman and listening to your ipod on shuffle is not a fundamentally different activity. It's an evolution.
Television and YouTube are fundamentally different sources of media. The fact that huge amounts of YouTube server space is filled by what boils down to 'America's Funniest Home Videos' doesn't reflect on YouTube - it reflects on its users. People are still not adapted to something very, very different from what they're used to.
Go watch the Phillip DeFranco Show. I'm no huge PhillyD fan, but the format for his 'show' would not work on TV. It would not work on radio. The short, rapid-fire burst of entertainment, news and blogging is perfectly at home in framework that allows it to:
1) Be watched any time, and repeated multiple times quickly
2) Provide viewers instant access to related content and additional information about what was talked about
-------------
To summarize: Imagine doing what I remarked about earlier. You travel back in time, and are tasked with explaining Apple's latest - the ipad - to an average consumer in 1980.
The Apple II had come out in 1977, and although personal computer ownership was nothing like it is today, the average consumer would be aware of computers. If you told this consumer that thirty years in the future, handheld computers would exist, I don't think they would be shocked, and they might even expect it. The fact that it plays movies would likely not surprise anyone either. People in the 80s grew up on Star Trek, and computers playing movies instead of TVs just makes sense in an evolved future.
This is how things like touch screens mean perhaps less than we might imagine. A touchscreen is a useful interfacing tool, and a great way to make technology more accessible, but it's not a game changer.
Now imagine explaining another 21st Century Company - Facebook - to someone in 1980. Explain to them what exactly it does, and how it alters how you interact with people. Explain the idea of 'liking' things, and how ratings and comments can create 'buzz'. Explain how something on Facebook might become 'viral'. Explain why everyone from your Grandmother to your employer will be using Facebook for multiple hours every day of their lives.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Thoughts on a Feature Article in "The Gauntlet"
When I saw that The Gauntlet (The University of Calgary's student newspaper)was doing an article about sex and the media, I was stoked. This is a great topic with lots to speak on.
I ended up being very disappointed with how it came across. Below is my blow-by-blow critique of what I found problematic. Original text is Italicized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last summer, I was groped by a young boy.
The 42 degree Celsius day made New Delhi one of the hottest places on the planet last July. My hair was damp from sweat and my pounding headache made worse from the heavy cloth covering my head and trousers to my ankles. Dressed very modestly out of respect, I went into a Hindu temple to escape the heat, where I was approached by a group of young boys. Egged by his friends, one of the braver boys grabbed me. I was a little shocked, but also very curious to find out what provoked this.
Inquiring at my hotel later on, the receptionist said that this is a very regular occurrence for tourists. He explained this was because, most of the time, the only perceptions young people have about western women are formed by the promiscuous stereotypes on television and in movies.
Alright. This is an interesting note to start things off: It highlights an obvious problem (sexual harassment), and seems to set the reader up for an article about the perils of negative sexual portrayals in the media. Right off the top though, I don’t buy the premise. The idea here seems to be that because of terrible media-generated stereotypes, young men worldwide have no choice but to grope Western women, and this is a problem with the media.
Where’s the accountability on the part of the young man? Where is the discussion of differing cultural norms and inequality? India (along with Japan and Mexico) has seen rapid increase in the popularity of an all-women’s public transit system, a reaction to the blatant groping and sexual harassment some women face on mixed services. Many of the women that use the all-female transit are locals, and presumably the attacks they face are not a result of western media stereotypes.
Furthermore, even if groping was limited to western women as a result of ‘promiscuous stereotypes’, this is bullshit logic. Rather than take on culture that sees sex as something for the taking, and personal rights as subservient to individual whims, this view punishes open sexuality. The same line of thinking has, and is still used by people blaming rape-victims for the way they dress. Even if all ‘western media’ (is that European too?) portrayed all women as unrealistic, sex-crazed nymphos, this would not excuse real-life sexual harassment. Many ‘western’ action movies I see portray men as violent lunatics, but this defense would have zero credit were I to randomly assault people on the street. And rightly so.
It is very clear that people have different opinions when it comes to sex, not only internationally, but within our own culture as well. I know this statement is general, but it's something people don't take into consideration often. Society's perceptions of sex are almost wholly shaped through television and movies. Think about the last time you heard the word 'sex.' More often than not, it was during a television show, in a Ke$ha song, or some other form of media. This is the reason why, especially as university students, like the Salt 'n' Pepa song says, we need to talk about sex.
I actually find that people’s differing views on sexuality come up a lot – but this is not the issue here. Saying that society’s perception of sex (Western society? All societies?) is almost completely formed by the media is a huge thing to say, and almost certainly inaccurate. I have no doubt that media plays a large role in the formation of people’s sexual norms – an article of this kind was a great idea for exactly that reason – but are we to believe that religion, family and social hierarchy have little-to-no role in this as well? I would have to hear some research on this point to accept it, and none is provided.
Whether you have sex or not, it should be openly discussed. People hardly coil when the word 'intercourse' is brought up in a conversation, but it is a dogmatic topic among youth today. Some popular television shows legitimize images of sex that we don't often see in the real world. In an article in Parenting Teens, psychologist Rebecca Collins was quoted saying, "The impact of television viewing is so large that even a moderate shift in sexual content of adolescent TV watching could have a substantial effect on their sexual behaviour."
Studies show that two-thirds of television shows have some element of sexual content in it, and this largely determines individual attitudes towards sex. A Research and Development Corporation (RAND) study showed that adolescents who watch TV with sexual content are twice as likely to engage in a sexual activity the next year than adolescents who don't.
I don’t know what this section is trying to say, or how it contributes to the article overall. The author states (I think correctly) that media sex doesn’t reflect real-world sex – but she doesn’t provide any examples of what the differences are. I guess something to do with Ke$ha. There is a lot of variance in “unrealistic”, and even if I agree with you I want to know what you’re talking about.
The article then features a psychologist who tells us that television sex impacts teens sexual behavior, and a study follows that says media sex helps determine sexual attitudes. Potentially, this could be an effective bridge between what came before and what follows, but the way the article is written emphasizes the wrong elements.
What the reader should be seeing speakers and studies about is the point that’s actually being made – which seems to be that sex in the media is mostly unhealthily depicted. If this is the case, and it is well demonstrated, than it makes the article all the more relevant that the media apparently has a big influence. If visual media effects not only when teens will have sex, but also what they think about it, than negative sex portrayals could be highly damaging. This would be a strong case, but that’s not what the reader gets.
Instead, there is lots of evidence for the impact of media, but when it comes time to show the media is negative the article flounders. We are told that sex depictions are unrealistic. We are told that sex depictions are unhealthy. What evidence is provided? Oblique references to pop stars.
People often perceive the acts seen on TV to be indicative of their own culture. The line between reality and fiction regarding sexuality is often distorted by the media.
There’s really two separate things being said here, and I want to tackle the former one first. In talking about culture, either the author is talking about the differences between cultures (and implicitly referencing the Indian boys in her personal story), or she is talking about the differences within culture, and that some media doesn’t reflect all views or acceptable behaviours.
If we go with the first explanation, than I really don’t know what to think. Is she suggesting that the main problem is that norms are different between cultures? That Western women are indeed all hyper-sexual and Indian men just need to adapt? This doesn’t make sense to me, but neither does the alternative. If the author is saying that media portrayals shouldn’t be taken at face value, and don’t accurately show acceptable behavior, well, she says that much better in the sentence that immediately follows. Positing 'culture' as something removed from television and media doesn't make sense.
So I don't get it. With that first sentence, either the author is suggesting something weirdly ethnocentric (I don’t think this is the case), or she is failing to recognize that media is a cultural force – it transmits, reinforces and even creates culture. We should fight this if the representation is bad, but it’s definitely a part of us.
I mean, isn’t this a major premise of this article? I’m very confused.
---
Explaining Orientation
"Bisexual is a term that gay guys in high school use when they want to hold hands with girls and feel normal for a change."
-Kurt Hummel, Glee
The first use of the term "bi" to refer to sexual orientation was used in the 19th century, along with "hetero" and "homo." Many terms have been coined in an attempt to encapsulate all variations of the hetero-homo dichotomy which include "homoflexible" and "heteroflexible." But the truth is, bisexuality has been observed in nature throughout recorded history. It's not a new concept.
Labels are a drag through. Whatever your sexuality, embrace it.
It’s great that readers are advised to cast off labels, but phrasing bisexuality as a variation of the “hetero-homo dichotomy” isn’t very helpful. If people are really to try and live their own way, shouldn’t the whole point be to try and get outside of a dichotomous ‘straight/gay’ sexuality? In fact, isn’t that what’s being directly said in the very next line? “Bisexuality has been observed in nature…it’s not a new concept”.
I dunno, maybe the author was trying to give a historical account, noting that instead of casting-off our dichotomous gender and sex systems we’ve simply tried to bend them, and without success. I certainly didn’t get this from the writing though.
A 2007 study conducted by the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health shows that LGBTQ youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. It Gets Better, a video project launched in September by author and sex columnist Dan Savage, is just one of many programs launched to create a peer-based support system. In his Savage Love weekly podcast, he provides an inspirational story about persevering through ridicule because of his sexual orientation. Media can be a very positive outlet for engaging youth in LGBTQ issues. This isn't always the case, however.
This is all cool, but the way in flows into the next section is again, confusing.
There are many resources around campus that are directed towards creating an accepting environment for youth of all sexual orientations. Outlets like Qmunity, which opened last November on campus, are great places where no matter what, you can be you.
I popped into their cozy little room and talked with two volunteers, Zac Wierzbicki and Maureen Tang, about the hypersexual representation of the LGBTQ community in traditional media.
"It's an unrealistic image," said Tang. "It's normal if like Brad Pitt had sex with a co-star in a movie, but when it's with two people of the same gender, it's a huge deal. It's super hyped like in Black Swan or Brokeback Mountain. It's the only think people talk about."
These images proliferate throughout society to display the LGBTQ community in a negative or limited light.
The quote from Maureen Tang backs up the allegation that media can be harmful for LGBT youth, and this is nice to see – but it happens three paragraphs after the assertion is made. Immediately after talking about harmful media, Qmunity is brought up as an example of a positive and healthy place. It’s only after the coziness of the room is described that we get some weight lent to the argument being made.
This is a minor gripe, and certainly not the biggest problem in this article – but it’s an example of how convoluted the whole piece can be, even when it has a good point to make.
Furthermore, I know it’s someone else talking and not the author, but wasn’t a major premise of the article that sex is not ‘normal’ on screen, even for Brad and Angelina? Sure, sex is implied (in a T&A-non-genitalia sort of way), but Pitt and Jolie have an easier time with the ratings board when they throw grenades at each other than when they fuck.
It’s certainly true that LGBT sexuality is portrayed even worse, and indeed (as Tang identifies) becomes unfairly the focal point of anything it factors in. But any sex in media is blown completely out of proportion, gay or straight.
The author certainly didn’t need to contradict her speaker; Maureen Tang has a valid point. But to not broaden the issue and connect what was said to the article overall contradicts one of the central arguments of this paper: that media portrayals of sex are largely harmful. As it stands, the article strongly critiques unfair and negative portrayals of sex overall – until it gets to LGBT sex, where it suggests that the difference between straight and gay sexual portrayals is that gay sex is shown unfairly and in a negative light.
LGBT sex gets the worse end, no question, but if the premise is that almost no media-sex portrayals are good, than describing how terrible LGBT sexual portrayals are by comparing them to how well straight sex is portrayed weakens the paper considerably.
Shows like Will and Grace, Glee and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, to name a few, portray flamboyant homosexuals that are often sex-crazy and reduced to sources of shallow entertainment and humour.
Vito Russo, an LGBTQ activist and writer who died in 1990 and contributed immensely to the gay rights movement in America, summarized the issue well.
"Homosexuality has only rarely been depicted on the screen," he said. "When it did appear, it was there as something to laugh at or something to pity or even something to fear. These were fleeting images, but they were unforgettable and they left a lasting legacy. Hollywood, that great maker of myths, taught straight people what to think about gay people . . . and gay people what to think about themselves."
This is all really great stuff, but it still needs connection to the piece at large.
---
Popping The Cherry
Media's focus on sex spans more than just the LGBTQ community. There are a few different types of drama narrative about virginity loss. In each is a different emphasis on the amount of urgency characters have to lose their virginity. One of them, the abstinence script, emphasizes waiting for sex and is often associated with a religious ideal and negative repercussions for those who don't abstain.
7th Heaven is an example of the abstinence script. Ruthie, one of the main characters, was taught her whole life to wait until marriage to have sex. When she did not, it ended tearing the family apart with an unwanted pregnancy.
In Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrayal of First Sexual Experiences, psychologist Laura Carpenter said that in order to determine whether a virginity loss narrative has a profound effect on young viewers, one must first determine their original beliefs regarding the subject. Surprisingly, Carpenter found that the sexual beliefs one grows up with have less of a present-day impact than was originally thought.
"Many people remembered being influenced by materials that did not appear to reflect their own views about virginity," she said in her study.
Regardless of how much these narratives affect views of virginity, they are very prevalent in popular media.
What?!
We have:
1) A description of a way that virginity is negatively represented
2) An example of that negative representation
3) Someone that says representations of virginity don’t really affect how people think about it in their real lives
4) The point that regardless of whether media portrayals effect values… media portrayals exist.
If the media barely effects people’s conceptions of virginity at all, why is there an entire section of this article on Sex and Media devoted to virginity? I’m all for balanced journalism, but I don’t think that’s what is happening here. The very next speaker (below) says that fear and shame in sexuality has a “huge impact” on people’s growth, and refers to the “huge dissonance” that can be created.
The apparent conflict between these two back-to-back arguments isn’t framed as a ‘some experts disagree'. The reader is set up for a point they are told is invalid, and then two speakers directly contradict each other.
Or at least they seem to. Laura Carpenter (the first speaker) reached her conclusions by interviewing men and women about the moment they lost their virginity. She later divides those she interviewed into three categories, one of which she calls ‘The Stigmatized’, who feel they were burdened with virginity until they lost it. If a culture-creating source like visual media commonly shows negative virginal portrayals - couldn’t that create a sense of shame and fear that might lead someone to feel stigmatized?
Take it away, other speaker in this article:
"Whenever sexuality is presented in culture, including a religious community, in a fear or shame basis, it has a huge impact on people and their sexual growth," said Pam Krause, executive director of Calgary Sexual Health.
"Sex is everywhere in media, and with a negative look at it, people are bombarded with negative emotions which creates a huge amount of dissonance."
---
Birth control
"Birth control is a woman's problem."
- My ex
Thankfully, we are not dating anymore. Here is some news to anyone who feels the same way: it's not.
Nowwwwwww…I don’t like this approach. It seems crass. Her ex said something sexist and ignorant, and I think it’s great that she’s not with him, but the way she uses him as an example actually takes away from the good point she is trying to make. I’m cool with someone using an anecdote (and the article is already founded on one), but this is not the right time to show how much of an ass your ex is.
It could be argued that the author trying to show that the misogyny in reproductive responsibility is so prevalent that she has had firsthand experience with it. In this context though, it sounds like she is trying to clown her ex, which robs the argument of its broader social implications.
The problem isn’t really with her ex. If he was just a random asshole – and not indicative of many other men’s feelings – he would be no different from other random assholes who defy acceptable behavior worldwide. However by framing the entire thing as “My ex said this, which is stupid, and anyone who agrees with him is stupid” it makes it about her ex. She could have said something like: “sadly, his view is all-too common amongst men, even in Canada *Statistic*”, but the author goes for the “anyone who agrees with my ex is wrong.” The focus is on the man, and not the issue.
Last year was the 50th anniversary of the legalization of the oral contraceptive in North America, the most popular birth control method for young women. Before the sexual revolution empowered women all around the globe, birth control evolved through some less-than-successful ancient methods. Once upon a time, a sponge would be doused in lemon and inserted vaginally. Cotton was also inserted. Papayas eaten in copious amounts. I don't suggest trying any of these at home.
I got to “Before the sexual revolution empowered women around the globe” before my head exploded. Considering that I’m a middle-class white dude in Canada, I’ll save the excessive hand wringing. But c’mon now. Were women in North Korea empowered by the sexual revolution? Were women in South Korea? Are most women in the world really empowered, or able to make free decisions regarding their sexuality, and particularly birth control? The Catholic Church doesn’t even like condoms (unless you’re a gay male prostitute).
Compared to how often we see sex in the media, how much focuses on birth control? Often, the only time birth control is mentioned is when a condom breaks. For example, Rachel Green from Friends and Donna Pinciotti from That '70s Show both fell victim to birth control failure. Other than this, media does not seem to inform viewers, even implicitly, of birth control options.
"The kind of birth control young women use depends on their body type and physician," said Nanako Furuyama, programming coordinator of the U of C Women's Resource Centre.
Other forms of birth control that have recently gained popularity in the youth market are the NuvaRing, male condom and patch. All types have different effectiveness, but an important thing to keep in mind is that condom use is the only way to prevent spread of STIs, which, according to Furuyama, have increasingly spread in Alberta over the past few years.
This was all great until it said that the male condom has recently gained popularity. As in, the 1920s? As in, earlier than any of the other contraceptives that you mentioned?
The popular 2007 film Juno shows an independent teenager who takes a different route after finding out about her pregnancy by giving her child up for adoption. Furuyama said that a lot of women don't think there are other options than those most represented in the media: abortion or keeping the child.
One of the top inquiries the WRC has are "Plan B" options. There are inclusive options for after a night of unsafe sex or pregnancy, which include the morning after pill, pregnancy tests, abortions, adoption or even schooling options available for mothers.
I added the emphasis to the second paragraph, because I have no idea what ‘unsafe pregnancy’ is. I imagine the author means that the WRC offers Plan B medication, and also pregnancy care, childcare and access to both adoption and abortion services. Not like, giving birth while rock climbing.
---
Performing Gender
Philosopher Judith Butler claims that sexuality, sex and gender are all performative acts. That means that we act in a specific way which adheres to social norms. For example, a woman shaving her legs is a performative act, something that constantly needs to be done in order to be considered from the outside as feminine. In this same way, Butler thinks media is the biggest way to inform individuals how they are "supposed" to act according to their sexuality and gender. This, however, is not a positive way to live. Butler says as educated members of society, we need to realize and accept alternatives to media representations.
This is all we get on Gender. We are again told to challenge media stereotypes without having been given examples of these.
Krause said that negative portrayals of homosexuality and masturbation can lead individuals to hold an unhealthy view of sex. In order to eradicate our negative views of sexuality, we need to look at how media affects our view of it. An accepting attitude is the best one we can take. In order to prevent incidents like the one that happened to me last summer, we all need to break down some of the stereotypes that everyone faces because of media representation.
Yes – but no, no, no.
This paragraph sounds great on first glance, but it suffers from all of the problems of the very problematic article that precedes it. “In order to eradicate our negative views of sexuality…” – what negative views? I counted exactly three examples of negative views in this two-page feature article:
1) LGBT sex is overemphasized and stereotyped
2) Seventh Heaven has a damaging view of premarital sex
3) The author's ex has a shitty perspective on birth control and responsibility
Of those three examples, the third doesn’t even clearly demonstrate that his views came from, or are represented in the media. I know that they are, and have personally seen examples of this, but the author again and again makes bold assertions with no evidence, and tells the reader that they need to care about something for which she provides essentially no context. The primary context she does provide (a personal story) not only fails to show that media was responsible, but completely ducks the equally significant issues of personal and social accountability for the protection of personal rights.
I really, really wanted to like this article. I think it chose a great topic, picked fantastic resources (Qmunity, WRC) to back it up, and sequentially wasted every single one of them. I don’t want to bitch someone out for contributing to an issue, but the way this article was presented was not a conversation starter, it was an essay.
As confusing and contradictory as it came across, the article has a point to express, and makes assertions rather than suggestions. The piece may have been called “Let’s Talk About Sex”, but it centers around a series of arguments on why readers should work to break down media stereotypes. This is fine. I don’t have a problem with a well-argued op-ed piece. My beef is this:
If you want to talk about sex, and get people more comfortable addressing their fears and prejudices in a non-confrontational way – do that. If you want to lampoon some media sources for their unfair portrayals of sex – do that. I’m not going to put anyone down just for contributing without being perfect, and I think more people do need to talk about sex. But if you’re going to write an essay – do it properly. Do your research, figure out exactly what you want to say, and write it in a way that reads well. However well-intentioned, more noise, confusion and misinformation regarding sex and media is not helping.
I ended up being very disappointed with how it came across. Below is my blow-by-blow critique of what I found problematic. Original text is Italicized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last summer, I was groped by a young boy.
The 42 degree Celsius day made New Delhi one of the hottest places on the planet last July. My hair was damp from sweat and my pounding headache made worse from the heavy cloth covering my head and trousers to my ankles. Dressed very modestly out of respect, I went into a Hindu temple to escape the heat, where I was approached by a group of young boys. Egged by his friends, one of the braver boys grabbed me. I was a little shocked, but also very curious to find out what provoked this.
Inquiring at my hotel later on, the receptionist said that this is a very regular occurrence for tourists. He explained this was because, most of the time, the only perceptions young people have about western women are formed by the promiscuous stereotypes on television and in movies.
Alright. This is an interesting note to start things off: It highlights an obvious problem (sexual harassment), and seems to set the reader up for an article about the perils of negative sexual portrayals in the media. Right off the top though, I don’t buy the premise. The idea here seems to be that because of terrible media-generated stereotypes, young men worldwide have no choice but to grope Western women, and this is a problem with the media.
Where’s the accountability on the part of the young man? Where is the discussion of differing cultural norms and inequality? India (along with Japan and Mexico) has seen rapid increase in the popularity of an all-women’s public transit system, a reaction to the blatant groping and sexual harassment some women face on mixed services. Many of the women that use the all-female transit are locals, and presumably the attacks they face are not a result of western media stereotypes.
Furthermore, even if groping was limited to western women as a result of ‘promiscuous stereotypes’, this is bullshit logic. Rather than take on culture that sees sex as something for the taking, and personal rights as subservient to individual whims, this view punishes open sexuality. The same line of thinking has, and is still used by people blaming rape-victims for the way they dress. Even if all ‘western media’ (is that European too?) portrayed all women as unrealistic, sex-crazed nymphos, this would not excuse real-life sexual harassment. Many ‘western’ action movies I see portray men as violent lunatics, but this defense would have zero credit were I to randomly assault people on the street. And rightly so.
It is very clear that people have different opinions when it comes to sex, not only internationally, but within our own culture as well. I know this statement is general, but it's something people don't take into consideration often. Society's perceptions of sex are almost wholly shaped through television and movies. Think about the last time you heard the word 'sex.' More often than not, it was during a television show, in a Ke$ha song, or some other form of media. This is the reason why, especially as university students, like the Salt 'n' Pepa song says, we need to talk about sex.
I actually find that people’s differing views on sexuality come up a lot – but this is not the issue here. Saying that society’s perception of sex (Western society? All societies?) is almost completely formed by the media is a huge thing to say, and almost certainly inaccurate. I have no doubt that media plays a large role in the formation of people’s sexual norms – an article of this kind was a great idea for exactly that reason – but are we to believe that religion, family and social hierarchy have little-to-no role in this as well? I would have to hear some research on this point to accept it, and none is provided.
Whether you have sex or not, it should be openly discussed. People hardly coil when the word 'intercourse' is brought up in a conversation, but it is a dogmatic topic among youth today. Some popular television shows legitimize images of sex that we don't often see in the real world. In an article in Parenting Teens, psychologist Rebecca Collins was quoted saying, "The impact of television viewing is so large that even a moderate shift in sexual content of adolescent TV watching could have a substantial effect on their sexual behaviour."
Studies show that two-thirds of television shows have some element of sexual content in it, and this largely determines individual attitudes towards sex. A Research and Development Corporation (RAND) study showed that adolescents who watch TV with sexual content are twice as likely to engage in a sexual activity the next year than adolescents who don't.
I don’t know what this section is trying to say, or how it contributes to the article overall. The author states (I think correctly) that media sex doesn’t reflect real-world sex – but she doesn’t provide any examples of what the differences are. I guess something to do with Ke$ha. There is a lot of variance in “unrealistic”, and even if I agree with you I want to know what you’re talking about.
The article then features a psychologist who tells us that television sex impacts teens sexual behavior, and a study follows that says media sex helps determine sexual attitudes. Potentially, this could be an effective bridge between what came before and what follows, but the way the article is written emphasizes the wrong elements.
What the reader should be seeing speakers and studies about is the point that’s actually being made – which seems to be that sex in the media is mostly unhealthily depicted. If this is the case, and it is well demonstrated, than it makes the article all the more relevant that the media apparently has a big influence. If visual media effects not only when teens will have sex, but also what they think about it, than negative sex portrayals could be highly damaging. This would be a strong case, but that’s not what the reader gets.
Instead, there is lots of evidence for the impact of media, but when it comes time to show the media is negative the article flounders. We are told that sex depictions are unrealistic. We are told that sex depictions are unhealthy. What evidence is provided? Oblique references to pop stars.
People often perceive the acts seen on TV to be indicative of their own culture. The line between reality and fiction regarding sexuality is often distorted by the media.
There’s really two separate things being said here, and I want to tackle the former one first. In talking about culture, either the author is talking about the differences between cultures (and implicitly referencing the Indian boys in her personal story), or she is talking about the differences within culture, and that some media doesn’t reflect all views or acceptable behaviours.
If we go with the first explanation, than I really don’t know what to think. Is she suggesting that the main problem is that norms are different between cultures? That Western women are indeed all hyper-sexual and Indian men just need to adapt? This doesn’t make sense to me, but neither does the alternative. If the author is saying that media portrayals shouldn’t be taken at face value, and don’t accurately show acceptable behavior, well, she says that much better in the sentence that immediately follows. Positing 'culture' as something removed from television and media doesn't make sense.
So I don't get it. With that first sentence, either the author is suggesting something weirdly ethnocentric (I don’t think this is the case), or she is failing to recognize that media is a cultural force – it transmits, reinforces and even creates culture. We should fight this if the representation is bad, but it’s definitely a part of us.
I mean, isn’t this a major premise of this article? I’m very confused.
---
Explaining Orientation
"Bisexual is a term that gay guys in high school use when they want to hold hands with girls and feel normal for a change."
-Kurt Hummel, Glee
The first use of the term "bi" to refer to sexual orientation was used in the 19th century, along with "hetero" and "homo." Many terms have been coined in an attempt to encapsulate all variations of the hetero-homo dichotomy which include "homoflexible" and "heteroflexible." But the truth is, bisexuality has been observed in nature throughout recorded history. It's not a new concept.
Labels are a drag through. Whatever your sexuality, embrace it.
It’s great that readers are advised to cast off labels, but phrasing bisexuality as a variation of the “hetero-homo dichotomy” isn’t very helpful. If people are really to try and live their own way, shouldn’t the whole point be to try and get outside of a dichotomous ‘straight/gay’ sexuality? In fact, isn’t that what’s being directly said in the very next line? “Bisexuality has been observed in nature…it’s not a new concept”.
I dunno, maybe the author was trying to give a historical account, noting that instead of casting-off our dichotomous gender and sex systems we’ve simply tried to bend them, and without success. I certainly didn’t get this from the writing though.
A 2007 study conducted by the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health shows that LGBTQ youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. It Gets Better, a video project launched in September by author and sex columnist Dan Savage, is just one of many programs launched to create a peer-based support system. In his Savage Love weekly podcast, he provides an inspirational story about persevering through ridicule because of his sexual orientation. Media can be a very positive outlet for engaging youth in LGBTQ issues. This isn't always the case, however.
This is all cool, but the way in flows into the next section is again, confusing.
There are many resources around campus that are directed towards creating an accepting environment for youth of all sexual orientations. Outlets like Qmunity, which opened last November on campus, are great places where no matter what, you can be you.
I popped into their cozy little room and talked with two volunteers, Zac Wierzbicki and Maureen Tang, about the hypersexual representation of the LGBTQ community in traditional media.
"It's an unrealistic image," said Tang. "It's normal if like Brad Pitt had sex with a co-star in a movie, but when it's with two people of the same gender, it's a huge deal. It's super hyped like in Black Swan or Brokeback Mountain. It's the only think people talk about."
These images proliferate throughout society to display the LGBTQ community in a negative or limited light.
The quote from Maureen Tang backs up the allegation that media can be harmful for LGBT youth, and this is nice to see – but it happens three paragraphs after the assertion is made. Immediately after talking about harmful media, Qmunity is brought up as an example of a positive and healthy place. It’s only after the coziness of the room is described that we get some weight lent to the argument being made.
This is a minor gripe, and certainly not the biggest problem in this article – but it’s an example of how convoluted the whole piece can be, even when it has a good point to make.
Furthermore, I know it’s someone else talking and not the author, but wasn’t a major premise of the article that sex is not ‘normal’ on screen, even for Brad and Angelina? Sure, sex is implied (in a T&A-non-genitalia sort of way), but Pitt and Jolie have an easier time with the ratings board when they throw grenades at each other than when they fuck.
It’s certainly true that LGBT sexuality is portrayed even worse, and indeed (as Tang identifies) becomes unfairly the focal point of anything it factors in. But any sex in media is blown completely out of proportion, gay or straight.
The author certainly didn’t need to contradict her speaker; Maureen Tang has a valid point. But to not broaden the issue and connect what was said to the article overall contradicts one of the central arguments of this paper: that media portrayals of sex are largely harmful. As it stands, the article strongly critiques unfair and negative portrayals of sex overall – until it gets to LGBT sex, where it suggests that the difference between straight and gay sexual portrayals is that gay sex is shown unfairly and in a negative light.
LGBT sex gets the worse end, no question, but if the premise is that almost no media-sex portrayals are good, than describing how terrible LGBT sexual portrayals are by comparing them to how well straight sex is portrayed weakens the paper considerably.
Shows like Will and Grace, Glee and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, to name a few, portray flamboyant homosexuals that are often sex-crazy and reduced to sources of shallow entertainment and humour.
Vito Russo, an LGBTQ activist and writer who died in 1990 and contributed immensely to the gay rights movement in America, summarized the issue well.
"Homosexuality has only rarely been depicted on the screen," he said. "When it did appear, it was there as something to laugh at or something to pity or even something to fear. These were fleeting images, but they were unforgettable and they left a lasting legacy. Hollywood, that great maker of myths, taught straight people what to think about gay people . . . and gay people what to think about themselves."
This is all really great stuff, but it still needs connection to the piece at large.
---
Popping The Cherry
Media's focus on sex spans more than just the LGBTQ community. There are a few different types of drama narrative about virginity loss. In each is a different emphasis on the amount of urgency characters have to lose their virginity. One of them, the abstinence script, emphasizes waiting for sex and is often associated with a religious ideal and negative repercussions for those who don't abstain.
7th Heaven is an example of the abstinence script. Ruthie, one of the main characters, was taught her whole life to wait until marriage to have sex. When she did not, it ended tearing the family apart with an unwanted pregnancy.
In Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrayal of First Sexual Experiences, psychologist Laura Carpenter said that in order to determine whether a virginity loss narrative has a profound effect on young viewers, one must first determine their original beliefs regarding the subject. Surprisingly, Carpenter found that the sexual beliefs one grows up with have less of a present-day impact than was originally thought.
"Many people remembered being influenced by materials that did not appear to reflect their own views about virginity," she said in her study.
Regardless of how much these narratives affect views of virginity, they are very prevalent in popular media.
What?!
We have:
1) A description of a way that virginity is negatively represented
2) An example of that negative representation
3) Someone that says representations of virginity don’t really affect how people think about it in their real lives
4) The point that regardless of whether media portrayals effect values… media portrayals exist.
If the media barely effects people’s conceptions of virginity at all, why is there an entire section of this article on Sex and Media devoted to virginity? I’m all for balanced journalism, but I don’t think that’s what is happening here. The very next speaker (below) says that fear and shame in sexuality has a “huge impact” on people’s growth, and refers to the “huge dissonance” that can be created.
The apparent conflict between these two back-to-back arguments isn’t framed as a ‘some experts disagree'. The reader is set up for a point they are told is invalid, and then two speakers directly contradict each other.
Or at least they seem to. Laura Carpenter (the first speaker) reached her conclusions by interviewing men and women about the moment they lost their virginity. She later divides those she interviewed into three categories, one of which she calls ‘The Stigmatized’, who feel they were burdened with virginity until they lost it. If a culture-creating source like visual media commonly shows negative virginal portrayals - couldn’t that create a sense of shame and fear that might lead someone to feel stigmatized?
Take it away, other speaker in this article:
"Whenever sexuality is presented in culture, including a religious community, in a fear or shame basis, it has a huge impact on people and their sexual growth," said Pam Krause, executive director of Calgary Sexual Health.
"Sex is everywhere in media, and with a negative look at it, people are bombarded with negative emotions which creates a huge amount of dissonance."
---
Birth control
"Birth control is a woman's problem."
- My ex
Thankfully, we are not dating anymore. Here is some news to anyone who feels the same way: it's not.
Nowwwwwww…I don’t like this approach. It seems crass. Her ex said something sexist and ignorant, and I think it’s great that she’s not with him, but the way she uses him as an example actually takes away from the good point she is trying to make. I’m cool with someone using an anecdote (and the article is already founded on one), but this is not the right time to show how much of an ass your ex is.
It could be argued that the author trying to show that the misogyny in reproductive responsibility is so prevalent that she has had firsthand experience with it. In this context though, it sounds like she is trying to clown her ex, which robs the argument of its broader social implications.
The problem isn’t really with her ex. If he was just a random asshole – and not indicative of many other men’s feelings – he would be no different from other random assholes who defy acceptable behavior worldwide. However by framing the entire thing as “My ex said this, which is stupid, and anyone who agrees with him is stupid” it makes it about her ex. She could have said something like: “sadly, his view is all-too common amongst men, even in Canada *Statistic*”, but the author goes for the “anyone who agrees with my ex is wrong.” The focus is on the man, and not the issue.
Last year was the 50th anniversary of the legalization of the oral contraceptive in North America, the most popular birth control method for young women. Before the sexual revolution empowered women all around the globe, birth control evolved through some less-than-successful ancient methods. Once upon a time, a sponge would be doused in lemon and inserted vaginally. Cotton was also inserted. Papayas eaten in copious amounts. I don't suggest trying any of these at home.
I got to “Before the sexual revolution empowered women around the globe” before my head exploded. Considering that I’m a middle-class white dude in Canada, I’ll save the excessive hand wringing. But c’mon now. Were women in North Korea empowered by the sexual revolution? Were women in South Korea? Are most women in the world really empowered, or able to make free decisions regarding their sexuality, and particularly birth control? The Catholic Church doesn’t even like condoms (unless you’re a gay male prostitute).
Compared to how often we see sex in the media, how much focuses on birth control? Often, the only time birth control is mentioned is when a condom breaks. For example, Rachel Green from Friends and Donna Pinciotti from That '70s Show both fell victim to birth control failure. Other than this, media does not seem to inform viewers, even implicitly, of birth control options.
"The kind of birth control young women use depends on their body type and physician," said Nanako Furuyama, programming coordinator of the U of C Women's Resource Centre.
Other forms of birth control that have recently gained popularity in the youth market are the NuvaRing, male condom and patch. All types have different effectiveness, but an important thing to keep in mind is that condom use is the only way to prevent spread of STIs, which, according to Furuyama, have increasingly spread in Alberta over the past few years.
This was all great until it said that the male condom has recently gained popularity. As in, the 1920s? As in, earlier than any of the other contraceptives that you mentioned?
The popular 2007 film Juno shows an independent teenager who takes a different route after finding out about her pregnancy by giving her child up for adoption. Furuyama said that a lot of women don't think there are other options than those most represented in the media: abortion or keeping the child.
One of the top inquiries the WRC has are "Plan B" options. There are inclusive options for after a night of unsafe sex or pregnancy, which include the morning after pill, pregnancy tests, abortions, adoption or even schooling options available for mothers.
I added the emphasis to the second paragraph, because I have no idea what ‘unsafe pregnancy’ is. I imagine the author means that the WRC offers Plan B medication, and also pregnancy care, childcare and access to both adoption and abortion services. Not like, giving birth while rock climbing.
---
Performing Gender
Philosopher Judith Butler claims that sexuality, sex and gender are all performative acts. That means that we act in a specific way which adheres to social norms. For example, a woman shaving her legs is a performative act, something that constantly needs to be done in order to be considered from the outside as feminine. In this same way, Butler thinks media is the biggest way to inform individuals how they are "supposed" to act according to their sexuality and gender. This, however, is not a positive way to live. Butler says as educated members of society, we need to realize and accept alternatives to media representations.
This is all we get on Gender. We are again told to challenge media stereotypes without having been given examples of these.
Krause said that negative portrayals of homosexuality and masturbation can lead individuals to hold an unhealthy view of sex. In order to eradicate our negative views of sexuality, we need to look at how media affects our view of it. An accepting attitude is the best one we can take. In order to prevent incidents like the one that happened to me last summer, we all need to break down some of the stereotypes that everyone faces because of media representation.
Yes – but no, no, no.
This paragraph sounds great on first glance, but it suffers from all of the problems of the very problematic article that precedes it. “In order to eradicate our negative views of sexuality…” – what negative views? I counted exactly three examples of negative views in this two-page feature article:
1) LGBT sex is overemphasized and stereotyped
2) Seventh Heaven has a damaging view of premarital sex
3) The author's ex has a shitty perspective on birth control and responsibility
Of those three examples, the third doesn’t even clearly demonstrate that his views came from, or are represented in the media. I know that they are, and have personally seen examples of this, but the author again and again makes bold assertions with no evidence, and tells the reader that they need to care about something for which she provides essentially no context. The primary context she does provide (a personal story) not only fails to show that media was responsible, but completely ducks the equally significant issues of personal and social accountability for the protection of personal rights.
I really, really wanted to like this article. I think it chose a great topic, picked fantastic resources (Qmunity, WRC) to back it up, and sequentially wasted every single one of them. I don’t want to bitch someone out for contributing to an issue, but the way this article was presented was not a conversation starter, it was an essay.
As confusing and contradictory as it came across, the article has a point to express, and makes assertions rather than suggestions. The piece may have been called “Let’s Talk About Sex”, but it centers around a series of arguments on why readers should work to break down media stereotypes. This is fine. I don’t have a problem with a well-argued op-ed piece. My beef is this:
If you want to talk about sex, and get people more comfortable addressing their fears and prejudices in a non-confrontational way – do that. If you want to lampoon some media sources for their unfair portrayals of sex – do that. I’m not going to put anyone down just for contributing without being perfect, and I think more people do need to talk about sex. But if you’re going to write an essay – do it properly. Do your research, figure out exactly what you want to say, and write it in a way that reads well. However well-intentioned, more noise, confusion and misinformation regarding sex and media is not helping.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thoughts on a Video Game Tech Demo:
I watched this demo reel for some new graphics technology from Epic Games (the studio behind Unreal and Gears of War) featuring their upcoming game "Samaritan". The graphics were fine. Everything else was not fine.
Apparently the Future Video Games is the Past of Video Games
**********************************
INTRO
Camera pans from 'Epic' logo to reveal a street that could literally have been lifted, element for element, from Blade Runner.
Camera shifts again to show an 'Unreal' logo, with admittedly impressive lighting.
Cut to a blowtorch, cutting through a chain that locks...something. Pan back to reveal Bad-Ass Dude in a leather jacket wielding it.
Bad-Ass Dude needs to re-light his cigarette, and USES THE BLOWTORCH. HELL YEAH.
Closeup of Bad-Ass Dude's bad-ass face. Unshaven, with cuts and scars. ("Look at his face" Real-life announcer implores)
B.A.D. hears a siren, and walks over to the ledge of the building he is cutting chains on. Fortunately this door that had to be unlocked with a blowtorch for some reason was on a roof to provide for maximum cool angles.
Camera raises over B.A.D.'s shoulder to show fascist future-cops beating on a helpless citizen in the city streets below.
While looking disgusted in a non-emotional-bad-ass way, B.A.D.'s face CHANGES TO REVEAL HE IS ACTUALLY A ROBOT/ALIEN/MUTANT. Apparently this uses 'tessellation technology'. I'm pretty sure this is a new coding technique that allows up to four times as many cliches into a single frame of computer animation.
B.A.D. Takes one last drag of his cigarette, and THROW IT AT THE FASCIST COPS WITH HIS COOL ROBOT/ALIEN/MUTANT hand. Cigarette strikes fascist cop who exclaims "HEY, WHAT THE F-" in a deep robo-fascist voice that could easily have been a soundboard from Half-Life 2 (Or yaknow... any game).
B.A.D. LEAPS FROM BUILDING and PULVERIZES Fascist Cop #1 into the ground! Slo-Mo For cool action pose, and then AWESOME PUNCH that sends Fascist Cop #2 reeling into a conveniently placed billboard. Upon impact, this billboard ELECTROCUTES Fascist Cop #2 in case we forgot he just got punched into a pane of glass.
Fascist Cop #3 is then REPEATEDLY PUNCHED, including a punch that directly mimics the angle, slowed-time, and even blood-spit from Fight Night. He falls to the ground, defeated.
Camera shifts to ground level so we can see B.A.D. CURB-STOMP HIM. Fascist Cop #4 feebly shoots at his ever-shifting ROBOT/ALIEN/MUTANT face.
B.A.D. draws out a DIRTY HARRY STYLE MAGNUM, and using the laser sight, SCORES A DIRECT HEAD-SHOT BETWEEN THE EYES. BOOM. Camera pans behind Fascist Cop #4 so we can see the back of his head explode.
Camera switches to high-angle shot as B.A.D. stands alone amidst the carnage. Surely smoking will re-commence. Frame left reveals the nearest building to have a medical cross, and a sign that reads 'Arms, Legs, Torsos (?)'. Obvious ironic device, or obvious attempt at dystopian set-building?
...YOU DECIDE.
Then our hero smokes (surprise!) and a robot sneaks up on him, complete with the scene where we see the robot, and he doesn't. Then the robot says something lame about 'unacceptable', and B.A.D. throws his stupid cigarette AGAIN, and then B.A.D. lunges to punch this giant robot that is 20x his size.
*****************************************
I was completely struck by two things:
1) This is one of the premier game developers in the world. They have all the money they need to make something amazing and original that would stick in the viewer's mind, and they piece together a three minute demo reel that completely fails to feature a single original or interesting idea.
2) This is apparently the future of video games. That same square-jawed anti-hero robot that you've been strafing with for the last 15 years is exactly who you'll be playing for the next few. In the eyes of one of the most influential and wealthy game developers in the world, technology has advanced incredibly, and everything else has gone absolutely nowhere.
Apparently the Future Video Games is the Past of Video Games
**********************************
INTRO
Camera pans from 'Epic' logo to reveal a street that could literally have been lifted, element for element, from Blade Runner.
Camera shifts again to show an 'Unreal' logo, with admittedly impressive lighting.
Cut to a blowtorch, cutting through a chain that locks...something. Pan back to reveal Bad-Ass Dude in a leather jacket wielding it.
Bad-Ass Dude needs to re-light his cigarette, and USES THE BLOWTORCH. HELL YEAH.
Closeup of Bad-Ass Dude's bad-ass face. Unshaven, with cuts and scars. ("Look at his face" Real-life announcer implores)
B.A.D. hears a siren, and walks over to the ledge of the building he is cutting chains on. Fortunately this door that had to be unlocked with a blowtorch for some reason was on a roof to provide for maximum cool angles.
Camera raises over B.A.D.'s shoulder to show fascist future-cops beating on a helpless citizen in the city streets below.
While looking disgusted in a non-emotional-bad-ass way, B.A.D.'s face CHANGES TO REVEAL HE IS ACTUALLY A ROBOT/ALIEN/MUTANT. Apparently this uses 'tessellation technology'. I'm pretty sure this is a new coding technique that allows up to four times as many cliches into a single frame of computer animation.
B.A.D. Takes one last drag of his cigarette, and THROW IT AT THE FASCIST COPS WITH HIS COOL ROBOT/ALIEN/MUTANT hand. Cigarette strikes fascist cop who exclaims "HEY, WHAT THE F-" in a deep robo-fascist voice that could easily have been a soundboard from Half-Life 2 (Or yaknow... any game).
B.A.D. LEAPS FROM BUILDING and PULVERIZES Fascist Cop #1 into the ground! Slo-Mo For cool action pose, and then AWESOME PUNCH that sends Fascist Cop #2 reeling into a conveniently placed billboard. Upon impact, this billboard ELECTROCUTES Fascist Cop #2 in case we forgot he just got punched into a pane of glass.
Fascist Cop #3 is then REPEATEDLY PUNCHED, including a punch that directly mimics the angle, slowed-time, and even blood-spit from Fight Night. He falls to the ground, defeated.
Camera shifts to ground level so we can see B.A.D. CURB-STOMP HIM. Fascist Cop #4 feebly shoots at his ever-shifting ROBOT/ALIEN/MUTANT face.
B.A.D. draws out a DIRTY HARRY STYLE MAGNUM, and using the laser sight, SCORES A DIRECT HEAD-SHOT BETWEEN THE EYES. BOOM. Camera pans behind Fascist Cop #4 so we can see the back of his head explode.
Camera switches to high-angle shot as B.A.D. stands alone amidst the carnage. Surely smoking will re-commence. Frame left reveals the nearest building to have a medical cross, and a sign that reads 'Arms, Legs, Torsos (?)'. Obvious ironic device, or obvious attempt at dystopian set-building?
...YOU DECIDE.
Then our hero smokes (surprise!) and a robot sneaks up on him, complete with the scene where we see the robot, and he doesn't. Then the robot says something lame about 'unacceptable', and B.A.D. throws his stupid cigarette AGAIN, and then B.A.D. lunges to punch this giant robot that is 20x his size.
*****************************************
I was completely struck by two things:
1) This is one of the premier game developers in the world. They have all the money they need to make something amazing and original that would stick in the viewer's mind, and they piece together a three minute demo reel that completely fails to feature a single original or interesting idea.
2) This is apparently the future of video games. That same square-jawed anti-hero robot that you've been strafing with for the last 15 years is exactly who you'll be playing for the next few. In the eyes of one of the most influential and wealthy game developers in the world, technology has advanced incredibly, and everything else has gone absolutely nowhere.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Gay People Hate Rock & Roll, and Other Misconstrued Messages
My Girlfriend and I had a really good, intense discussion about the controversy surrounding the CRTC banning the unedited version of Dire Strait's 'Money for Nothing' from Canadian Radio. I argued that the song's message was clearly and effectively anti-ignorance, and that censorship robbed the song of power while patronizing the listening audience. She made the case that other artistic products are censored from radio for good reason (see: the n-word) and that the lyrics should be held to the same standard as other songs with potentially hurtful content. Mark Twain was invoked, lyrics were analyzed, and I was made aware of the alarming fact that Homosexuality was only dropped from the list of Mental Disorders in Alberta last year.
Unfortunately, I feel that discussions on the progress of gay rights and the nature of censorship (which could be really healthy for Canada and the world in 2011) are not what is going to come out of this whole incident. I think way too many people will, and have already taken away the message that gay people hate cool guitar riffs and have no sense of humor.
And to those people, I say this.
Unfortunately, I feel that discussions on the progress of gay rights and the nature of censorship (which could be really healthy for Canada and the world in 2011) are not what is going to come out of this whole incident. I think way too many people will, and have already taken away the message that gay people hate cool guitar riffs and have no sense of humor.
And to those people, I say this.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Musical Discoveries of 2010 pt. I
Ivory Tower – Gonzales (2010)
Via: Previously Followed
This was not the album I was expecting, but then again, I’m not sure what I was expecting. Gonzales’ career has gone from electro-rap to soft rock to last year’s Solo Piano – a quiet, haunting album that showed Gonzales as the first-rate composer and pianist he is in a very understated setting.
In some ways, Ivory Tower is a combination of all his sensibilities. About half of the album is very danceable, but the loops and melodies are created via (compressed) acoustic piano. Synths, pads and drum machines feature throughout, but the voice and sound of the record is Gonzales piano playing – sometimes soft and beautiful “Bittersuite”, sometimes driving and powerful “I Am Europe”.
Not all of it is to my liking. On the tracks in which he raps I alternate between liking it in a wry way and finding it flat-out annoying. I could actually write a whole bit on his strange pseudo-ironic joke-rap style and why it leaves me conflicted, but rapping is only a piece of a much larger work here.
I can honestly see some people quite disliking this record, and I really couldn't blame them too much. I can run to this album, I can study to this album, it was used in an iPad commercial and serves as a soundtrack to an accompanying 75 minute film about chess. By the time Feist comes in singing “Ivory Tower/the electro-ghetto universe”, you can be sure of it: There's nothing out there like this.
Timber Timbre – Timber Timbre (2009)
Via: Calgary Folkfest 2010
Timber Timbre is some seriously eerie shit. I have a soft spot for spooky music, but this is like no other spooky record I have ever heard. For starters, it's very, very minimal. I hear that term being slung a lot, but tracks like “Magic Arrow” are built around one single guitar riff for the entire six-minute song – and it's more the rule than the exception. In fact, many of the sounds used here are almost ambient noise. A single organ note, the hum of an electric guitar or the effected strum of an autoharp. The most consistent and present element is the lead-singer's voice – heavily echoed and alternately frightened and menacing. “Do your actions mention/your heart's intention?” He asks over muted snare hits. “We'll find out.”
The Budos Band III – The Budos Band (2010)
Via: Friends
The Budos Band is an all-instrumental group on Dap-Tone Records (Sharon Jones, Naomi Shelton) that makes music that could easily serve as the soundtrack to any great Blaxploitation film of the 70s. After watching 'Black Dynamite' at a party, I threw this disc on and the vibe could hardly have been more perfect.
What makes the Budos Band special however is that they go beyond the source material of Isaac Hayes and Curtis Mayfield and bring in some very unexpected influences. One can hear elements from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East blended seamlessly into deep grooves. There's even a hilarious minor-key cover of the Beatles 'Day Tripper' that works better than it has any right to.
Blazing horns, ghostly synths, an absolutely killer rhythm section – This is the kind of music that demands a 67 Impala. Sorry Budos Band. I'll keep rocking you in the RAV4.
Thistled Spring – The Horse Feathers (2010)
Via: iTunes Genius
Sometimes a band or artist creates a sound so beautiful and complete that they can do the same thing for an entire album (or two) without complaint. The Horse Feathers are such a band. Their unusual lineup has two of the four members playing string instruments full time, and the music swells and undulates in an almost cinematic fashion.
With a disc like this, I want to say as little as possible (challenging for me). It will likely be a bit too quiet and aching for some people's taste – but if it's for you, you'll know almost instantly.
Listen to the first 30 seconds of the album's opening track, and if you can feel the snow melting, and the first timid growth of the year braving from the ground, you're in for a treat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDLfb1xSAY4
God Willin' & the Creek Don't Rise – Ray LaMontagne (2010)
Via: Friends
Boy, this is a classic-sounding record. My knowledge of music in the 60s and 70s is pretty spotty compared to some people, and I still strongly hear Marvin Gayne, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young and Cat Stevens all throughout this record.
On one hand, who today is not influenced by those artists (particularly making roots music), but Ray LaMontagne wears them on his sleeve. The intro to “For the Summer” sounds so much like Neil Young's “Old Man” that I checked to see if it was a cover the first time I heard it.
With that said, I don't think that this works to his detriment. LaMontagne is a first-rate songwriter, and tracks like “Old Before Your Time” and the painfully gorgeous “Like Rock & Roll and the Radio” are arguably as good as the work of any of the musicians he evokes. The album also does a great job of balancing between LaMontagne's amazing voice and the very talented band (called the 'Pariah Dogs') he plays with. On the opening track he waits a full minute and thirty seconds before singing a note – and then totally kills it. It's restraint like that which puts Ray LaMontagne at the top of his class. Playing around with the classics is just fine if you sound this good doing it.
Via: Previously Followed
This was not the album I was expecting, but then again, I’m not sure what I was expecting. Gonzales’ career has gone from electro-rap to soft rock to last year’s Solo Piano – a quiet, haunting album that showed Gonzales as the first-rate composer and pianist he is in a very understated setting.
In some ways, Ivory Tower is a combination of all his sensibilities. About half of the album is very danceable, but the loops and melodies are created via (compressed) acoustic piano. Synths, pads and drum machines feature throughout, but the voice and sound of the record is Gonzales piano playing – sometimes soft and beautiful “Bittersuite”, sometimes driving and powerful “I Am Europe”.
Not all of it is to my liking. On the tracks in which he raps I alternate between liking it in a wry way and finding it flat-out annoying. I could actually write a whole bit on his strange pseudo-ironic joke-rap style and why it leaves me conflicted, but rapping is only a piece of a much larger work here.
I can honestly see some people quite disliking this record, and I really couldn't blame them too much. I can run to this album, I can study to this album, it was used in an iPad commercial and serves as a soundtrack to an accompanying 75 minute film about chess. By the time Feist comes in singing “Ivory Tower/the electro-ghetto universe”, you can be sure of it: There's nothing out there like this.
Timber Timbre – Timber Timbre (2009)
Via: Calgary Folkfest 2010
Timber Timbre is some seriously eerie shit. I have a soft spot for spooky music, but this is like no other spooky record I have ever heard. For starters, it's very, very minimal. I hear that term being slung a lot, but tracks like “Magic Arrow” are built around one single guitar riff for the entire six-minute song – and it's more the rule than the exception. In fact, many of the sounds used here are almost ambient noise. A single organ note, the hum of an electric guitar or the effected strum of an autoharp. The most consistent and present element is the lead-singer's voice – heavily echoed and alternately frightened and menacing. “Do your actions mention/your heart's intention?” He asks over muted snare hits. “We'll find out.”
The Budos Band III – The Budos Band (2010)
Via: Friends
The Budos Band is an all-instrumental group on Dap-Tone Records (Sharon Jones, Naomi Shelton) that makes music that could easily serve as the soundtrack to any great Blaxploitation film of the 70s. After watching 'Black Dynamite' at a party, I threw this disc on and the vibe could hardly have been more perfect.
What makes the Budos Band special however is that they go beyond the source material of Isaac Hayes and Curtis Mayfield and bring in some very unexpected influences. One can hear elements from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East blended seamlessly into deep grooves. There's even a hilarious minor-key cover of the Beatles 'Day Tripper' that works better than it has any right to.
Blazing horns, ghostly synths, an absolutely killer rhythm section – This is the kind of music that demands a 67 Impala. Sorry Budos Band. I'll keep rocking you in the RAV4.
Thistled Spring – The Horse Feathers (2010)
Via: iTunes Genius
Sometimes a band or artist creates a sound so beautiful and complete that they can do the same thing for an entire album (or two) without complaint. The Horse Feathers are such a band. Their unusual lineup has two of the four members playing string instruments full time, and the music swells and undulates in an almost cinematic fashion.
With a disc like this, I want to say as little as possible (challenging for me). It will likely be a bit too quiet and aching for some people's taste – but if it's for you, you'll know almost instantly.
Listen to the first 30 seconds of the album's opening track, and if you can feel the snow melting, and the first timid growth of the year braving from the ground, you're in for a treat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDLfb1xSAY4
God Willin' & the Creek Don't Rise – Ray LaMontagne (2010)
Via: Friends
Boy, this is a classic-sounding record. My knowledge of music in the 60s and 70s is pretty spotty compared to some people, and I still strongly hear Marvin Gayne, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young and Cat Stevens all throughout this record.
On one hand, who today is not influenced by those artists (particularly making roots music), but Ray LaMontagne wears them on his sleeve. The intro to “For the Summer” sounds so much like Neil Young's “Old Man” that I checked to see if it was a cover the first time I heard it.
With that said, I don't think that this works to his detriment. LaMontagne is a first-rate songwriter, and tracks like “Old Before Your Time” and the painfully gorgeous “Like Rock & Roll and the Radio” are arguably as good as the work of any of the musicians he evokes. The album also does a great job of balancing between LaMontagne's amazing voice and the very talented band (called the 'Pariah Dogs') he plays with. On the opening track he waits a full minute and thirty seconds before singing a note – and then totally kills it. It's restraint like that which puts Ray LaMontagne at the top of his class. Playing around with the classics is just fine if you sound this good doing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)