My dad can out dumb your dad.

The Simpson family formula works well for a lot of Fox's animated series.  That is, a dad, mom, son, daughter, baby, and pet of some sort.  It's worked for over twenty years for the Simpsons.  Family Guy uses it.  As far as I can tell (because I don't actually know), American Dad and the Cleveland Show also use it.  In my opinion, it's getting kinda boring - which is another reason to love Futurama!

Combine that with the fact that modern comedy's love to designate one or two stupid characters  (even Futurama) and we somehow get a growing stereotype of dumb dads on television.  The two most prominent are obvious - Homer Simpson and Peter Griffon.  However, the list goes on and on.  Ray Romano (Everybody loves him), Gob Bluth (Arrested Development), and Arthur Spooner (King of Queens) all make the list.

Whatever happened to the days of Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver?  Are fathers now portrayed as stupid because society gives them less credit or is it the other way around?  What do you think?

How would the "Prince of Persia" feel about the death of Osama Bin Laden?

Would the Prince of Persia support the Iraqi war? Some would lead us to beleive he would not.

You may have heard several people draw comparisons of the movie “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) with the Iraqi war. This article is not exactly about that, although it is not too far removed. To read more about the comparisons with the Iraqi war, you can go here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/28/james-p-pinkerton-prince-persia-conservative-islamic/

More obvious than the comparisons with the Iraqi war was the anti-government tone carried by the Hollywood film. I wasn’t even really looking for hidden messages; it was just there – one more side story that found its way into the movie between epic battle and time travelling daggers.

The character bringing the anti-government message was Sheik Amar, who was subtle about his message only in that he was a side character.

“The film’s greatest gem however is Alfred Molina as Sheik Amar, a self-described unscrupulous small businessman. He waxes moderately and eloquently about a great evil that plagues the empire: taxes. His exasperation over government attempts to control his business, and later over the secret government-run, tax-funded assassin organization that is after Dastan, left the audience I watched with laughing and even clapping.”

(http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dmiller/2010/06/05/prince-of-persia-recognizes-evils-of-taxation/)

His initial introduction to the movie is as a “thief” who turns out to actually be a self-described businessman who is doing everything he can to avoid paying taxes. He repeatedly brings up his conspiracy theories that echoed all too well with many conspiracy theories of today.

 Take this poorly constructed YouTube montage for example (I dislike the addition of background music).

 

After the assassination attempt on the group, Amar attributes it to the work of a secret government killing operation – which turns out to be exactly what it was in the movie’s plot.

I liked the movie, and I thought it was pretty good. What I want to know is if you think that these anti-government comparisons were intentional by the producers or not? Do you think that they carry anti-government tones for the sake of being anti-government, or is it a satirical attempt to poke fun at the conspiracy theories themselves?

Please let me know what you think!!

TNT Subtly Admits Exploitation.

This one isn’t so much a stereotype as a hidden message – only this time it wasn’t so hidden. Gerbners Cultivation theory proposed that violence on TV, although disproportionate to the actual amount of crime in the world, lead viewers to believe over time that TV depicted reality. This meant that viewers began to believe that crime was much higher in the real world than it actually was.

So this is my story – I will try to keep it short. I find myself finally on a plane after a 5 hour delay. Yeah, I know it’s a long delay – I was there. So I am finally on a plane and we all know what happens next (this was a three hour flight from Salt Lake City to Atlanta, by the way). I settle in my seat, take a quick nap, read some sky mall that tells me to buy things that nobody needs, and then I again have nothing to do for the rest of the two hours. It is at this point that I turn on the TV on the back seat of the chair in front of me (quite the luxury), and find myself watching an episode of “Bones” on TNT (Hey, don’t blame me, you know how airplane TV’s are). So the episode is starting and then the main character, “Bones,” (I confess I don’t know her character name) begins to argue with her counterpart about why she refuses to consume mainstream media. It is during this argument when she declares what soon became an epiphany to me:

Bones: “Or perhaps I should develop an interest in the mainstream media's exploitation of crimes for their entertainment value.”

            At first I merely think it’s funny because we just talked about the same thing in my communications class, but then it hits me: This is exactly what the series “Bones” does!

            I guess I wasn’t so surprised that TNT exploits the entertainment value of crime in order to drive success of the network, but I was surprised at the gaudiness of confessing the shows ploy during the show itself! Then, to make it worse, I realized that I almost didn’t make the connection myself, and I am sure that most people watching the show never thought twice about the casual statement.

            Really though.

            What I want to know is: What does this mean for our society? Are we really that naïve as to what these TV shows are doing or is it that we don’t care?

Which is worse?

(Please comment. I didn’t mean it as a rhetorical question.)

Have you forgotten?

 Darryl Worley got a little upset about American patriotism.  His song "Have You Forgotten?" reminds listeners about the September 11th terrorist attacks because apparently U.S. citizens have been complaining about the war in the middle east too much. Country songs are on the patriotic side but this one includes a few hidden messages.  The words send the message that we should be supporting governmental efforts in the middle east. Worley sings about the thousands that died in the towers but what about the thousands that have died since the war began?  The stereotypical american is illustrated through the song. We all know what we are fighting for...well some Americans may not share that same belief.

"This country is out looking for a fight...but after 9/11 man I'd have to say thats right."  

Congratulations, you're a racist!

Before you read this post, you better make sure you've watched ABC's Lost.  There are spoilers from the second season.  So, if you haven't seen it, go watch it, come back and thank me for introducing you to the best series to ever grace television, then read this entry.

As you can see from previous posts, TV and movies are full of subtle, subliminal, and secret messages.   It takes some skill to pick up on them.  It takes greater skill to realize that your audience has been brainwashed and use it to your advantage.  Guess what - the Lost writers have these skills.  Let me introduce you to a fairly minor character in the series.  Her name is Rose.  Here's a picture:

Just so we're clear, the guy sitting next to her is not hitting on her.  You see, these people's plane crashed and hard.  And by hard, I mean it split into three pieces while in the air and each of the three pieces landed in different places.  The plot follows the story of the people in the middle section.  In the pilot episode, they hunt down the cockpit and find the co-pilot.  Poor guy only lasted a couple lines of dialogue.  Anyway, no one knows where the tail section is.  This is a problem for Rose because her husband, Bernard, was in the bathroom at the back of the plane the moment things started breaking apart.  That's exactly why I don't like using public restrooms.

In the picture above, Rose is explaining how she believes Bernard is still alive.  Jack, the guy next to her, is trying to explain how big of an idiot she is, but in kinder terms.  It's super-NOT-effective.

Then things happen.  The castaways discover that they're not alone on the island.  The locals speak English, have clothes (fewf), kidnap pregnant people, then murder extras when their preggars escape.  (Lost is a drama.)  These people are quickly named "The Others", despite their lack of Nichole Kidman.

Begin season two.

A trio of main characters find themselves washed up on the other side of the island.  It's a long story that involves supernatural children - but that's not important.  Anyway, the three amigos (not the actual three amigos) get thrown into a pit by... (wait for it)... the others!:

Turns out, The Others aren't that friendly on this part of the island either.  Bummer.  As it also turns out, these aren't The Others.  After some off-screen interrogations (and possibly hop scotch), the two groups discover they both got to the island on the same plane. That's right, these are the survivors from the plane's tail section.  Bummer.

Now look at the above picture again.  Look at it.  Loooook aaaat iiiiit. LOOK AT IT.

Did you really look at it?

Is Bernard there?

Now, I don't fancy myself a racist.  In fact, I try not to be.  However, when I learned that the small group of tailies were not Others, I was sad because I thought Bernard was dead.  But he didn't die.  I'll show you:

Let me apologize for the picture of old people kissing.  I wanted to use something with shock value.  Anyway, don't tell me you assumed it was the black guy from the tail section.  That's racist.  Also, don't tell me you thought Bernard was dead because there was no old, black guy from the tail section.  That's racist.  It's also what I did.  Whoops.

So, thank you, Lost, for showing myself just how terrible of a person I can be.

Now I have a question for you: Did you pass racist test?

Alice is Wonderland is Not a Children's Story

As I reflect upon my childhood I remember many fairy tales and Disney movies that were shown to me but I distinctly remember that my mother never allowed to watch Alice in Wonderland. I was confused because society seemed to approach the delightful story as if it were a classic.  In reviewing Alice's adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll I discovered that the ideas presented in the novel are not meant for children at all.  

Many hidden messages are included in the tale.  The whole adventure seems to examine different aspects of a drug "trip."  The slowing down sensation of time and movement can be found in the rabbit hole scene as Alice has plenty of time to look around her and wonder as she falls.  The whole story includes imaginative visual experiences that can be compared to hallucinations.   



The caterpillar is another blatant example.  The insect is smoking a  hookah or water pipe that is a common way to inhale marijuana.  He not only shows poor Alice a bad example by taking drugs but also tells her to eat a mushroom.  As the mind can expand with drugs so did Alice's size.  

These are just a few obvious examples of drug uses.  The adventure is filled with comparisons. Rooms shrink, cats disappear, riddles do not make sense, Alice is called a weed and tears become an ocean.  Alice seems to partake of any substance that says "consume me" without thinking or caring about the consequences.  What a great lesson for children.  

   

While most children should not understand any of these ideas as Carroll alludes to drugs, we might want to take more caution in media that we expose to them.  Just because someone hands you a mushroom and tells you to eat it to become bigger, this does not mean that you should listen.  You might experience a whole new world.   

Which one shall I eat? After all that I have been through I don't even care!

Michael Bays Racist Robots

Part of the reason we wanted to start this blog was to point out a few of the hidden messages that are so prevalent in media of today. I really didn’t have to look too far.

Anybody remember “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (2009)?

Of course you do. You either loved it, or hated it. And most people would probably side with the latter.

Well, whether or not you loved it or hated it, you probably remember two distinct characters named Skids and Mudflap. Media had a wonderful time pegging them as racial stereotypes, and I am here to ask: what does it mean if they indeed are such racial stereotypes?

Does our society really condone such degrading material? Obviously there are two sides of the story and a lot of people brush it off as funny, or meaningless, but isn’t that exactly the problem? I don’t think it would be a problem if people saw the characters and said to themselves, “Wow. This depiction of black stereotypes is totally ridiculous.” The problem occurs when people see the characters and think, “Those black robots are funny.”

Oh, well. At least Skids and Mudflap were important characters, right? I mean they wouldn’t put those robots in merely so we could laugh at their “African American stereotypes,” would they?

Still, the characters serve no real purpose in the story, and when the action gets serious, they disappear entirely, notes Tasha Robinson, associate entertainment editor at The Onion.

"They don't really have any positive effect on the film," she said. "They only exist to talk in bad ebonics, beat each other up and talk about how stupid each other is."

-Associated Press, 2009

Whoa! Wait a second! So, do you mean to tell me that they didn’t have a major purpose? That doesn’t make too much sense to me. Why would there be such controversial characters in a movie if they didn’t need to be in the movie at all? Well, I don’t think we should get too riled up about this. Accidents happen, and it was probably a one-time thing that they didn’t foresee being a problem, so just back off, alright?!   

Hmmm… right?

Hollywood has a track record of using negative stereotypes of black characters for comic relief, said Todd Boyd, a professor of popular culture at the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts, who has not seen the Transformers sequel.

"There's a history of people getting laughs at the expense of African-Americans and African-American culture," Boyd said. "These images are not completely divorced from history even though it's a new movie and even though they're robots and not humans."

-AP, 2009

Oh, never mind. Not only has it happened before, but there is a history of it happening repeatedly over and over again.  Well at least most adults are knowledgeable enough to differentiate between portrayed stereotypes and what is reality.

Director Michael Bay insists that the bumbling 'bots are just good clean fun…

"I purely did it for kids," the director said. "Young kids love these robots, because it makes it more accessible to them."

AP, 2009

Wow. Thanks, Michael Bay. Skids and Mudflap may not have contributed much to the movie’s plot, but they sure did play a large part in helping  all of the kids who saw the movie to walk away from it thinking, “Those black robots are funny.”

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-06-24-transformers_N.htm

This is Not a Pipe

Not everything is as it appears