There has been a shift away from this in recent years where shows ask us to identify with, feel for, and even cheer for characters who are not so much morally questionable but in some cases completely morally bankrupt.

For Example:

Dexter: the story of a serial killer who upholds his own twisted form of justice (he only kills criminals)

Oz: the inner workings of a maximum security prison filled with offenders of some extremely heinous crimes (who then commit more horrific crimes while in jail)

The Wire: a cop show that shows both sides of the story (in which we often feel for the criminals)

Weeds: a widowed housewife begins to make money selling marijuana

Breaking Bad: a science teacher recently diagnosed with terminal cancer needs to make money to leave to his newly pregnant wife and disabled son after he has died. He does this by cooking and selling crystal meth.

Rescue Me: An alcoholic, drug abusing fireman who cheats on his wife and is often violent in numerous situations while he and his firefighter friends deal with the fallout of 9/11

The Shield: a crooked cop cleaning up the streets – in generally not very legal ways (in the first episode he shoots dead another cop). All this while also trying to stay one step ahead of the rest of the police force who are trying to catch him.

 And it’s not just dramas either

It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia: the morally questionable exploits of a group of self-centred friends who own an unsuccessful bar in Philadelphia.

Seinfeld: The questionable exploits of an apathetic comedian and his morally questionable friends

South Park: a group of boys in Colorado who get themselves into all sorts of mischief (including the extremely morally questionable Cartman)

The Life and Times of Tim: a guy who continually gets himself into compromising situations due to general omissions of truth or other questionable exploits.

Two and a Half Men: Charlie is a foul-mouthed, hard-drinking bachelor who generally mistreats women – some would categorise his behaviour as quite misogynistic.  As well as this he is also forever debasing his brother, deriding his mother, and skewing his nephew’s views on healthy relationships while involving him in adult situations he should be kept well clear of.

Arrested Development: the story of a materialistic, selfish and callous family who were formerly wealthy but lost everything due to the patriarch’s shading dealings and… as the credits inform us…. ”the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together”.

The list goes on and there are probably (definitely) a lot of shows i’ve missed.

Is there something about our society that has us heading this way? Do we now identify with these majorly flawed characters and their skewed morality?

Where do we draw the line? What kind of show is out of bounds? How long until we see a show about a bitter and abrasive husband who constantly berates his wife and threatens her with physical violence? Oh wait… we already had one of those.

It’s also interesting to note that these shows have attracted major critical acclaim; some are ratings winners while others are cult hits*.

* except Two and a Half Men – that show is terrible

 (check out the trailer here)

The Remixer’s Manifesto is this

1. Culture always builds on the past
2. The past always tried to control the future
3. Our future is becoming less free
4. To build free societies you must limit control of the past

Artist’s (in terms of painters and sculptures and the like) have been doing this for centuries – as have musicians (as you will see when you watch this film). All ideas build on those which are before them. You could only come up with a fresh completely new idea if you knew nothing of anything ever – otherwise you are interpreting things you have heard, read, seen, etc. etc.

This film looks at culture being used to comment on itself; where it has been or where it is going. In a world of youtube and other filesharing sites we can all be producers and consumers almost concurrently. It’s also got a lot of Girl Talk in it and that dude is amazing.

Anyway… this is an extremely interesting movie – if you’ve got some time give it a look. Brett Gaylor, the director, says at the end of the film “take this movie, rip it, and remix it”: after watching it you can recut the movie and post it back to him at www.opensourcecinema.org – he wants you to use what he has created to meld with your own ideas and build something new.

enjoy your holidays

Here’s an example of one a friend of mine from uni did when he though Beck made a terrible filmclip for his song Nausea - he’s not the only person who thought this and there are quite a few remixes of this out there.

 Tom: http://evilmonkeysdoexist.wordpress.com/

 Tyana: http://teaface.wordpress.com/

Jenny:  http://www.jt-media2010.blogspot.com

Maureen: maurz45.wordpress.com

Vicky: vickstahs.wordpress.com

Sarah: smarahsmarah.wordpress.com 

make sure you read each other’s blogs and respond respond respond

Lavery

Jonze’s vision was at odds with a variety of forces from the financial and distribution sides of the project to Sendak’s own vision of how the book should be adapted.

As well as this there is the question of who the audience is for a film such as this; is it for those of us who grew up loving this book or is it for a new generation of children? This debate was well and truly brought to a head when test screenings showed the characters to be a little too frightening for children and consequently changes were made. How far is too far to stray from a text? Terry Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote added a little bit of time travel to the tale of a 17^th century folk hero. It also never made it past a couple of months of filming.

But… it all worked out in the end. Warner Bros. who ended up distributing the film gave Spike all the time and money he needed and Maurice Sendak, despite his original misgivings about Spike’s vision, loved it.

1. To give you a chance to interact with each other, me and the wide world of media through an avenue of the media

2. To give you a place to explore your thoughts and views of the media saturated world in which we live

There are a few simple things to keep in mind:

* you have to blog at least once a week (from today November 23 2009 until the end of the year next year – sometime in early November)

* you have to respond to another class member’s blog at least once a week (in a positive way)

* you can blog about anything that relates to media:

• changes in technology
• changes in methods of presentation or messages in a variety of different media
• foreign media (i always find it interesting to see how television shows and films are adapted in different countries – for example The Nanny VS. Dadi, Infernal Affairs VS. The Departed  [or any number of American remakes - especially the horrid failures]: this is especially interesting if the cultures are very different)
• aspects of the media you love
• aspects of the media you take issue with
• cool stuff
• a response to the work we are doing in class
• things you have created
• media laws (both foreign and domestic)

Basically anything that relates to media (and this course). Anything you have any view about whatsoever. 

You need to blog at least 100 words (but feel free to go way over that) – obviously this changes with the use of images you have created yourself.

You can make your blog as basic or complicated as you like – change the appearance and whatever else to personalise it to what you are about and how you relate to the media.

Be sure to tag your blogs so you can categorise your musings and make your blog easier to navigate.

Don’t be shy – state your opinions (make sure they are informed)

Provide links to things you find interesting – here is an article on the same topic as we have already talked about today to do with representations

Add images to help demonstrate your points:

Have fun!

Once you have created your blog send me the address and i’ll provide links to everyone’s blogs

Lavery