Around campus, it seems as if everyone’s talking about the same thing: College. With mere minutes before the May 1st decision deadline, I find myself feeling a bit nostalgic. The college process isn’t easy by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, for an entire year (and maybe more for particularly motivated students), the senior class of 2009 has written application after application, waited for decisions, faced disappointments and victories, all while trying to find the perfect “fit.”
It’s an impossible task, really. The monumental pressure we put on ourselves to go to the best school is enough to make even the brightest of minds break.
As Phillips Academy students, we actively go into the college process knowing that it’s a lot of work, knowing that it’s one huge potshot, knowing that it’s just a numbers game for admissions officers. And yet, many kids seek the Ivy League acceptances with a fierce determination and a focused gaze. In fact, at Phillips Academy, many kids apply to terrific schools they don’t even like; they just want to see if they can get in.
How do Andover students choose which schools to apply to? Is it based on a generic formula where kids only apply to the colleges or universities that are right for them?
Call me cynical, but I’m sure it’s not. High achieving students are sold from the time they complete first grade that the best schools are in the Ivy League or in U.S. News and World Report’s Top 25 colleges. They’re gift wrapped and packaged as the places where the best of the best attend. People are told they have the best facilities and the best teachers. Graduates supposedly lead the best lives and have the best jobs. Right?
Not necessarily. But this is the idea that is generated by the Ivy League hype machine. Through brochures and packets and artfully designed websites, we’re fed an image and a name rather than any substantial information about a specific college. Everything on these college websites has a glossy, plastic feel. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual college experience is nothing like what the brochures tell you about.
You don’t have to look at colleges to see the advertising of education in action. In fact, examples are close to home. Just visit andover.edu.
The redesign of Phillips Academy’s website features a faux-parchment heading and student spotlights reveling “insightful” comments into life at Andover. As an actual Andover student, the entire site reeks of inaccuracies; life on Andover Hill is nothing like the descriptions on andover.edu that have an eerie, “Stepford” quality about them. In fact, I know many of the featured students on Andover’s website, and they aren’t nearly as perfect or content as that website might make them seem.
But the thing is, schools aren’t trying to accurately portray campus life. They’re trying to sell a prepackaged, processed, homogenized product.
When we fall in love with a school, are we attracted to the actual experience or are we hypnotized by the rose-colored ads? Probably the latter of the two. After all, wouldn’t it be nice to believe that the ads depict the campus in its actuality?
With May 1st almost here, I wonder if my own college choice was based on truth or a mirage that ad companies have created over the years. I feel that I’ve done my homework. I’ve emailed people, read reports and reviews, watched videos on each school’s programs. But I could have just scratched the surface, missing the actual essence of a school.
But that’s the beauty of these ads. How could you ever know?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Stay tuned to Current (.com)
While the newspaper as we know it is dying and television news channels are controlled by large media empires with special interests, it’s hard to find a “free” press source. Indeed, Herman and Chomsky would argue that their probably is no such thing as unfiltered new. That could very well be true, but current.com tries to defy that reasoning.
Chaired by politician and activist, Al Gore, Current News is an online news network that works with young viewers to create reports and shows on a variety of subjects. From hard news to movies, from music to technology, Current has something for everyone while allowing anyone to interact with its news.
On current.com, one can upload different video segments about almost anything. There are three different types of videos Current hopes one will make: TV, Pods or Ads.
TV, current says, is the easiest video to make. Using average equipment, one can film, edit and upload a TV segment in less than 10 minutes. It’s a quick and easy process, but honestly, how much quality can one produce in less than 10 minutes? A rushed project usually comes out jarring and hard to follow. Plus, the content is almost always sub-par. If Current is trying to promote the creation of “legitimate” news, they probably shouldn't be endorsing a “produce-it-quick” method towards media programing.
The next segment available to aspiring filmmakers and news anchors is the creation of “pods.” Pods are part of Current’s VC2 initiative (viewer created content). In less than seven minutes, pods tell stories and give a more focused look at a particular subject. Whereas TV is a content creation free-for-all, pods are generally of a high quality. Indeed, Current rewards well made pods with cold hard cash, giving people the impetus to create the best quality videos they can. And, if a pod is particularly good, it might be broadcast into homes around America. Enticed by the prospect of money and momentary fame, people around the world are producing better and better pods on a daily basis.
While both TV and pods give viewers the option to create whatever they want, Current News’ most brilliant idea, Ads, operates a bit differently. Sponsors make a deal with Current TV and create contests in which viewers are challenged to make the best ad for the sponsor as they possibly can. And, if a sponsor likes a particular ad, the creators are awarded anywhere from $2,500 to upwards of $60,000 depending on where the ad airs. Essentially, Current is asking its users to create good, cheap ads that promote anything from ALMAY to McDonald's. What a brilliant idea! People around the world can film their own creative and innovative ads with their friends and family, promoting the product on a local and a global level. Think of the exposure that one sponsor could get from using Current’s advertising method? It has endless possibilities.
Current.com is the definition of participatory culture. Average everyday viewers can create their own news, their own pods, even their own ads. And some pretty amazing content has come from this creative media free-for-all. Vanguard is a weekly TV show that goes in-depth into a variety of topics, anywhere from the political situation in Myanmar to the illegal gun market in the Middle East. With high production values, Vanguard comes out with some fascinating topics that are the pinnacle of Current’s potential quality.
While Vanguard and Current’s other news stories are the foundation of the project, comedy acts and entertainment review shows are also popular. Because of its YouTube-esque nature, Current has something to offer everyone.
With media changing so quickly and so drastically, it’s important to look at media projects like current.com for the future. Who knows? Companies might start following the Current model, giving more control and money to the viewers that ultimately bring in revenue. Hey, participatory culture has lifted American Idol to international success. Who’s to say it can’t help Current?
Chaired by politician and activist, Al Gore, Current News is an online news network that works with young viewers to create reports and shows on a variety of subjects. From hard news to movies, from music to technology, Current has something for everyone while allowing anyone to interact with its news.
On current.com, one can upload different video segments about almost anything. There are three different types of videos Current hopes one will make: TV, Pods or Ads.
TV, current says, is the easiest video to make. Using average equipment, one can film, edit and upload a TV segment in less than 10 minutes. It’s a quick and easy process, but honestly, how much quality can one produce in less than 10 minutes? A rushed project usually comes out jarring and hard to follow. Plus, the content is almost always sub-par. If Current is trying to promote the creation of “legitimate” news, they probably shouldn't be endorsing a “produce-it-quick” method towards media programing.
The next segment available to aspiring filmmakers and news anchors is the creation of “pods.” Pods are part of Current’s VC2 initiative (viewer created content). In less than seven minutes, pods tell stories and give a more focused look at a particular subject. Whereas TV is a content creation free-for-all, pods are generally of a high quality. Indeed, Current rewards well made pods with cold hard cash, giving people the impetus to create the best quality videos they can. And, if a pod is particularly good, it might be broadcast into homes around America. Enticed by the prospect of money and momentary fame, people around the world are producing better and better pods on a daily basis.
While both TV and pods give viewers the option to create whatever they want, Current News’ most brilliant idea, Ads, operates a bit differently. Sponsors make a deal with Current TV and create contests in which viewers are challenged to make the best ad for the sponsor as they possibly can. And, if a sponsor likes a particular ad, the creators are awarded anywhere from $2,500 to upwards of $60,000 depending on where the ad airs. Essentially, Current is asking its users to create good, cheap ads that promote anything from ALMAY to McDonald's. What a brilliant idea! People around the world can film their own creative and innovative ads with their friends and family, promoting the product on a local and a global level. Think of the exposure that one sponsor could get from using Current’s advertising method? It has endless possibilities.
Current.com is the definition of participatory culture. Average everyday viewers can create their own news, their own pods, even their own ads. And some pretty amazing content has come from this creative media free-for-all. Vanguard is a weekly TV show that goes in-depth into a variety of topics, anywhere from the political situation in Myanmar to the illegal gun market in the Middle East. With high production values, Vanguard comes out with some fascinating topics that are the pinnacle of Current’s potential quality.
While Vanguard and Current’s other news stories are the foundation of the project, comedy acts and entertainment review shows are also popular. Because of its YouTube-esque nature, Current has something to offer everyone.
With media changing so quickly and so drastically, it’s important to look at media projects like current.com for the future. Who knows? Companies might start following the Current model, giving more control and money to the viewers that ultimately bring in revenue. Hey, participatory culture has lifted American Idol to international success. Who’s to say it can’t help Current?
Friday, April 24, 2009
The First Great Twitter War
I’m more than a week late on the uptake of this story, but I can’t help but comment on it.
On April 13, 2009, television and movie actor Aston Kutcher released a YouTube video challenging famed news network, CNN, to see who could be the first to gain 1,000,000 Twitter followers. At first glance, it might seem like a silly, trivial act. However, Kutcher started the first ever Twitter War.
So here we have two opponents:
In one corner, there’s Kutcher. Young and famous. Representing the youth of America and the power of the Internet.
And in the other corner stands CNN. Long time media mogul. Serious news source. A icon of the antediluvian form of television entertainment (well, antediluvian for technology, that is).
And who steps up to be the face of this television media behemoth? None other than the equally ancient Larry King.
In a video response to Kutcher, King scoffs at the idea that this newfangled Internet could ever upset the balance of power that a major news source like CNN has over the public. It’s ridiculous, he claims. How could a celebrity really hope to one-up a company like CNN?
Why, through grassroots movements of course! Kutcher went online and streamed homemade videos, asking members of the Internet community to follow his Twitter account. And, while CNN used the likes of Larry King and Anderson Cooper to promote the CNN Twitter account on their respective shows, Kutcher was ultimately able to rally his young, tech-savvy fan base on a 24/7 basis, all from the comfort of his living room couch.
On April 16, 2009, Kutcher’s Twitter account reached 1,000,000 followers, only thirty minutes before CNN achieved its million member milestone. In a way, this proves that the Internet is the new media superhero, taking power from the corporations and giving it to the individual.
There’s much more going on here than just a friendly challenge between a media movie star and a media news corporation. The fact is that the public would rather support Kutcher, the goofy creator of Punk’d, over the respectable news source, CNN. It’s mind-blowing, really. And all it took was a cultural war on Twitter to make this fact painfully obvious.
Does this mean that we’ve become completely obsessed with the idea of the celebrity? Has celebrity news really taken priority over news on international policy and sweeping economic reforms?
I certainly hope not.
However, what’s equally shocking to me is that CNN decided to play Kutcher’s silly game. They wanted to take the unnecessary risk and ended up paying a price. While this "war" may be free publicity for it and its Twitter accounts, think about how embarrassing the loss truly is. CNN was beaten by Ashton Kutcher in what is essentially a popularity contest. How supremely disappointing in CNN and the population of Twitter.
Meanwhile, the managers of Twitter certainly aren’t complaining. With the introduction of celebrity Twitter-ers like Ashton Kutcher and Oprah Winfrey, Twitter is gaining more media attention and subscribers than ever before. In the month of March alone, Twitter witnessed at 131 percent growth in accounts. As Twitter becomes more and more popular, these celebrity “tweets” will undoubtedly gain the attention of millions of people worldwide. Kutcher has already proved that.
As for Larry King, it looks like he was wrong. Television and big media are losing their touch. Faster and more interactive, the Internet has revolutionized media as we know it, and in the process, has made television a second-ranked form of communication.
This might be a win for Kutcher and the power of the individual on the World Wide Web.
However, it’s a huge loss for television and respectable news as a whole.
On April 13, 2009, television and movie actor Aston Kutcher released a YouTube video challenging famed news network, CNN, to see who could be the first to gain 1,000,000 Twitter followers. At first glance, it might seem like a silly, trivial act. However, Kutcher started the first ever Twitter War.
So here we have two opponents:
In one corner, there’s Kutcher. Young and famous. Representing the youth of America and the power of the Internet.
And in the other corner stands CNN. Long time media mogul. Serious news source. A icon of the antediluvian form of television entertainment (well, antediluvian for technology, that is).
And who steps up to be the face of this television media behemoth? None other than the equally ancient Larry King.
In a video response to Kutcher, King scoffs at the idea that this newfangled Internet could ever upset the balance of power that a major news source like CNN has over the public. It’s ridiculous, he claims. How could a celebrity really hope to one-up a company like CNN?
Why, through grassroots movements of course! Kutcher went online and streamed homemade videos, asking members of the Internet community to follow his Twitter account. And, while CNN used the likes of Larry King and Anderson Cooper to promote the CNN Twitter account on their respective shows, Kutcher was ultimately able to rally his young, tech-savvy fan base on a 24/7 basis, all from the comfort of his living room couch.
On April 16, 2009, Kutcher’s Twitter account reached 1,000,000 followers, only thirty minutes before CNN achieved its million member milestone. In a way, this proves that the Internet is the new media superhero, taking power from the corporations and giving it to the individual.
There’s much more going on here than just a friendly challenge between a media movie star and a media news corporation. The fact is that the public would rather support Kutcher, the goofy creator of Punk’d, over the respectable news source, CNN. It’s mind-blowing, really. And all it took was a cultural war on Twitter to make this fact painfully obvious.
Does this mean that we’ve become completely obsessed with the idea of the celebrity? Has celebrity news really taken priority over news on international policy and sweeping economic reforms?
I certainly hope not.
However, what’s equally shocking to me is that CNN decided to play Kutcher’s silly game. They wanted to take the unnecessary risk and ended up paying a price. While this "war" may be free publicity for it and its Twitter accounts, think about how embarrassing the loss truly is. CNN was beaten by Ashton Kutcher in what is essentially a popularity contest. How supremely disappointing in CNN and the population of Twitter.
Meanwhile, the managers of Twitter certainly aren’t complaining. With the introduction of celebrity Twitter-ers like Ashton Kutcher and Oprah Winfrey, Twitter is gaining more media attention and subscribers than ever before. In the month of March alone, Twitter witnessed at 131 percent growth in accounts. As Twitter becomes more and more popular, these celebrity “tweets” will undoubtedly gain the attention of millions of people worldwide. Kutcher has already proved that.
As for Larry King, it looks like he was wrong. Television and big media are losing their touch. Faster and more interactive, the Internet has revolutionized media as we know it, and in the process, has made television a second-ranked form of communication.
This might be a win for Kutcher and the power of the individual on the World Wide Web.
However, it’s a huge loss for television and respectable news as a whole.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
This is PrettyMuchAmazing.
Welcome to the new artistic renaissance.
All around the world, filmmakers, musicians, artists and performers are congregating on the Internet to create the world’s largest photo album, the world’s largest mix tape, the world’s largest canvas. And everyone is welcoming the next big “thing” to add his or her handprint to the mix.
In the fringes of this artistic work-in-progress lies a tiny up-and-coming blog:
prettymuchamazing.com
PrettyMuchAmazing has the freshest, trendiest information on the indie music scene, posting reviews, previews and general insights into this hipster music.
But what makes PrettyMuchAmazing so intriguing is the type of music that is regularly placed on the front page. Music aficionados and artists come to this blog to dump remixes and samples for all to enjoy; only the best are chosen to appear as a posting.
These songs are usually covers of current pop sensations, banging club remixes of the Hot 100 or new creations using the samples of older songs. The music at PMA is the ultimate arts-and-crafts project. This is a blog where the old meets the new, and, let me tell you, the new music is consistently unique, fresh and totally entertaining.
The vast majority of featured artists and remixers on PMA aren’t well-known. So, they’re using this website as their own personal mix tape, allowing anyone around the world to stream or download the MP3s of this blended music.
Of course, record companies wouldn’t like the music on prettymuchamazing.com. Artists are stealing old beats and lyrics, creating new songs from the pieces and distributing them on the Internet for free. It’s the ultimate form of culture jamming and a prime example of participatory culture. People are interacting with their music in completely new ways, using programs the likes of GarageBand to twist and warp popular music into underground creations.
From a corporate standpoint, this is all bad. But think of all the talent that’s just hiding in the folds of the Internet, even at prettymuchamazing.com, waiting to be snatched up by companies with multimillion dollar contracts. This is the future of music; the record industry could use PMA for talent scouting and promotional content.
People have long wondered when the record industry would finally fail; CD sales are declining steadily while digital downloads become the consumer norm. The music business needs some life support, and they might just find it in the blogs and remixers that they are trying to stop through lawsuits. Underground music could add the breath of fresh air the industry so desperately needs.
After all, PMA’s name says it all. What’s happening in the Internet’s artistic communities is simply amazing.
All around the world, filmmakers, musicians, artists and performers are congregating on the Internet to create the world’s largest photo album, the world’s largest mix tape, the world’s largest canvas. And everyone is welcoming the next big “thing” to add his or her handprint to the mix.
In the fringes of this artistic work-in-progress lies a tiny up-and-coming blog:
prettymuchamazing.com
PrettyMuchAmazing has the freshest, trendiest information on the indie music scene, posting reviews, previews and general insights into this hipster music.
But what makes PrettyMuchAmazing so intriguing is the type of music that is regularly placed on the front page. Music aficionados and artists come to this blog to dump remixes and samples for all to enjoy; only the best are chosen to appear as a posting.
These songs are usually covers of current pop sensations, banging club remixes of the Hot 100 or new creations using the samples of older songs. The music at PMA is the ultimate arts-and-crafts project. This is a blog where the old meets the new, and, let me tell you, the new music is consistently unique, fresh and totally entertaining.
The vast majority of featured artists and remixers on PMA aren’t well-known. So, they’re using this website as their own personal mix tape, allowing anyone around the world to stream or download the MP3s of this blended music.
Of course, record companies wouldn’t like the music on prettymuchamazing.com. Artists are stealing old beats and lyrics, creating new songs from the pieces and distributing them on the Internet for free. It’s the ultimate form of culture jamming and a prime example of participatory culture. People are interacting with their music in completely new ways, using programs the likes of GarageBand to twist and warp popular music into underground creations.
From a corporate standpoint, this is all bad. But think of all the talent that’s just hiding in the folds of the Internet, even at prettymuchamazing.com, waiting to be snatched up by companies with multimillion dollar contracts. This is the future of music; the record industry could use PMA for talent scouting and promotional content.
People have long wondered when the record industry would finally fail; CD sales are declining steadily while digital downloads become the consumer norm. The music business needs some life support, and they might just find it in the blogs and remixers that they are trying to stop through lawsuits. Underground music could add the breath of fresh air the industry so desperately needs.
After all, PMA’s name says it all. What’s happening in the Internet’s artistic communities is simply amazing.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Susan Boyle Effect
By now, it would be hard to have not heard about Britain’s Got Talent’s Susan Boyle. Already interviewed on The Today Show, Good Morning America and Larry King Live, Susan Boyle is the media’s latest darling due to a single, amazing video. For a woman who’s never been kissed, Boyle has certainly captured the hearts of millions worldwide.
Of course, the media has a tendency to focus in on feel-good fluff stories to fill in the gaps of their often depressing news coverage; just look at the media’s fascination with the Obama dog, Bo. But, there’s something special about Boyle that separates her from the usual overnight sensations. What could it be?
From the moment Boyle stepped onto that stage to audition for Britain’s Got Talent, it seemed like all the odds were stacked against her. People snickered; judges looked skeptical; eyes rolled. Then Boyle opened her mouth and, in an instant, there was no disputing the raw talent that this woman possesses.
At 47 years old, with bushy eyebrows, crazy curly hair and a less-than-perfect physique, Boyle’s image can kindly be described as amazingly average. She certainly doesn’t look like the typical media sensation. But that might be why so many people love her. We took one look at Boyle and immediately lowered our expectations. And, in just a few minutes, Boyle shattered those expectations, reminding us that you don’t have to be pencil thin or have perfect skin to wow an audience.
The truth is that the general public has more in common with Susan Boyle than with any manufactured pop star. We connect with Boyle’s charm, her innocence and her courage to stand in front of an audience of vultures, all waiting to see her fail. Susan Boyle is more than just the feel-good news story of the week. She’s an inspiration to millions, all thanks to a fantastic voice and the power of YouTube.
Will Susan Boyle continue to draw the attention of people worldwide?
Who knows? But for the moment, Boyle’s left her mark on the media landscape. And, after watching Boyle, maybe we’ll redefine the meaning of a star.
Of course, the media has a tendency to focus in on feel-good fluff stories to fill in the gaps of their often depressing news coverage; just look at the media’s fascination with the Obama dog, Bo. But, there’s something special about Boyle that separates her from the usual overnight sensations. What could it be?
From the moment Boyle stepped onto that stage to audition for Britain’s Got Talent, it seemed like all the odds were stacked against her. People snickered; judges looked skeptical; eyes rolled. Then Boyle opened her mouth and, in an instant, there was no disputing the raw talent that this woman possesses.
At 47 years old, with bushy eyebrows, crazy curly hair and a less-than-perfect physique, Boyle’s image can kindly be described as amazingly average. She certainly doesn’t look like the typical media sensation. But that might be why so many people love her. We took one look at Boyle and immediately lowered our expectations. And, in just a few minutes, Boyle shattered those expectations, reminding us that you don’t have to be pencil thin or have perfect skin to wow an audience.
The truth is that the general public has more in common with Susan Boyle than with any manufactured pop star. We connect with Boyle’s charm, her innocence and her courage to stand in front of an audience of vultures, all waiting to see her fail. Susan Boyle is more than just the feel-good news story of the week. She’s an inspiration to millions, all thanks to a fantastic voice and the power of YouTube.
Will Susan Boyle continue to draw the attention of people worldwide?
Who knows? But for the moment, Boyle’s left her mark on the media landscape. And, after watching Boyle, maybe we’ll redefine the meaning of a star.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Crossover
A couple days ago, while catching up on many summer movie trailers, I stumbled upon a curious trailer for a fairly unknown film called “Every Little Step.” At first glance, “Every Little Step” seems like your typical documentary. However, this movie is a prime example of what’s happening to media today.
You see, “Every Little Step” follows the casting process of the Broadway revival of “A Chorus Line,” one of the most beloved musicals of all-time. The trailer promises viewers singing and dancing, as well as deep, introspective discussions on the difficulties of being a performer in the cutthroat entertainment world. This subject material might not be something new and revolutionary. In fact, just by watching the brief 3 minute and 26 second long trailer, I noticed that “Every Little Step” seems to follow a generic formula for a documentary studying the competitive performing arts world.
However, from a business standpoint, “Every Little Step” is a brilliant idea and a perfect example of “the crossover.” In all forms of media today, stories are being swapped between mediums and told time and time again with slight variations. Musical artists are appearing in movies to promote their new albums (i.e. “8 Mile” and “Hannah Montana: The Movie”). Video games are being produced to coincide with the release of the major motion pictures they’re based on. And, movies are being created with Broadway adaptations in mind while Tony winning shows slowly become Hollywood blockbuster films.
In many ways, this trend of the media crossover is a perfect example of Henry Jenkins’ idea of convergence culture and the comingling of various forms of media. Now more than ever, producers are ripping story ideas from other sources and adapting them to suit their specialties.
In a way, one has to wonder what this is doing to the creation of new stories. With so many stories being carried from one medium to another, we aren’t writing books with just the intention of publishing a novel; we’re writing books with the notion that we’re creating a book, a future movie with a big soundtrack and possibly a series that continues on for years. The same stories are being used to the point where new stories are considered huge business risks; it’s much easier to adapt a Broadway show to a film (i.e. “Doubt” or “The History Boys”) than to come up with a new and engaging plot that might totally tank.
However, we shouldn’t be afraid to take risks on new creative material. After all, breakthroughs in art require new thought, not rehashed leftovers of old, used ideas. We need to continue to strive to make something completely new, no matter how impossible that task may seem.
You see, “Every Little Step” follows the casting process of the Broadway revival of “A Chorus Line,” one of the most beloved musicals of all-time. The trailer promises viewers singing and dancing, as well as deep, introspective discussions on the difficulties of being a performer in the cutthroat entertainment world. This subject material might not be something new and revolutionary. In fact, just by watching the brief 3 minute and 26 second long trailer, I noticed that “Every Little Step” seems to follow a generic formula for a documentary studying the competitive performing arts world.
However, from a business standpoint, “Every Little Step” is a brilliant idea and a perfect example of “the crossover.” In all forms of media today, stories are being swapped between mediums and told time and time again with slight variations. Musical artists are appearing in movies to promote their new albums (i.e. “8 Mile” and “Hannah Montana: The Movie”). Video games are being produced to coincide with the release of the major motion pictures they’re based on. And, movies are being created with Broadway adaptations in mind while Tony winning shows slowly become Hollywood blockbuster films.
In many ways, this trend of the media crossover is a perfect example of Henry Jenkins’ idea of convergence culture and the comingling of various forms of media. Now more than ever, producers are ripping story ideas from other sources and adapting them to suit their specialties.
In a way, one has to wonder what this is doing to the creation of new stories. With so many stories being carried from one medium to another, we aren’t writing books with just the intention of publishing a novel; we’re writing books with the notion that we’re creating a book, a future movie with a big soundtrack and possibly a series that continues on for years. The same stories are being used to the point where new stories are considered huge business risks; it’s much easier to adapt a Broadway show to a film (i.e. “Doubt” or “The History Boys”) than to come up with a new and engaging plot that might totally tank.
However, we shouldn’t be afraid to take risks on new creative material. After all, breakthroughs in art require new thought, not rehashed leftovers of old, used ideas. We need to continue to strive to make something completely new, no matter how impossible that task may seem.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Violent America
As Americans, how do we define ourselves? Do we identify with the local communities that we grow up in? Or do we have a national self-image that “true Americans” must subscribe to?
The answers to these questions are constantly being written and re-written, evolving with the times and with our understanding of the world. However, when looking at American media over time, a disturbing notion comes to the surface.
We are a violent nation.
For decades, the popular media we have produced has shown images of violence without consequences.
From brutal westerns (like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) to gritty crime films (like Dirty Harry), cinema is filled with images of hyper-masculine men running about, guns a-blazing, shooting down bad guys one shot at a time. Fast-paced action films follow such a typical formula that explosions and car chases have become expected in the summer blockbusters that fill our multiplexes.
And then there’s popular music. While film is filled with images of violence, many musical artists fuse violent imagery into their lyrics, singing about gang raping and drive-by shootings. These themes have found themselves on our radio airwaves and have become a part of the American pop cultural image.
With movies and music so steeped in this violent mentality, it’s not surprising that video game companies have been releasing more and more games featuring graphic violence. In the Grand Theft Auto series, players can beat up prostitutes with baseball bats and run over pedestrians with cars. Playing these video games is a way of living out the violent images we see in other forms of popular American media.
What affect are these violent forms of media having on our perception of masculinity? If you were to solely look at popular media, it would seem as if the dominant American male is a hyper-masculine, hyper-heterosexual figure who has no qualms about instigating violence. When characters like Dirty Harry and Niko Bellic are the figures we grow up seeing in the media, they must have some affect on the predominantly male audience that watches and studies these characters.
But, this isn't just a male phenomenon. Popular media has defined women as being passive and fragile, awaiting the help and support of a strong male figure. As much as "entertainment violence" helps support a masculine stereotype, it reinforces long withstanding stereotypes of women as well.
Let me be clear; I’m not advocating the censorship of popular media. That would be counter to creative development. However, when this excessive violence becomes commonplace, I believe that it is important to look at the music we’re listening to, the movies we’re watching, the games we’re playing and realize the social significance of these forms of “entertainment.” Only then can we see our media for what it truly is.
Why, how and when did we start down this path towards media violence? I can’t begin to answer that. However, one thing is for certain.
We live in a violent America. And it doesn’t look like we’re going to pacify our media anytime soon.
The answers to these questions are constantly being written and re-written, evolving with the times and with our understanding of the world. However, when looking at American media over time, a disturbing notion comes to the surface.
We are a violent nation.
For decades, the popular media we have produced has shown images of violence without consequences.
From brutal westerns (like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) to gritty crime films (like Dirty Harry), cinema is filled with images of hyper-masculine men running about, guns a-blazing, shooting down bad guys one shot at a time. Fast-paced action films follow such a typical formula that explosions and car chases have become expected in the summer blockbusters that fill our multiplexes.
And then there’s popular music. While film is filled with images of violence, many musical artists fuse violent imagery into their lyrics, singing about gang raping and drive-by shootings. These themes have found themselves on our radio airwaves and have become a part of the American pop cultural image.
With movies and music so steeped in this violent mentality, it’s not surprising that video game companies have been releasing more and more games featuring graphic violence. In the Grand Theft Auto series, players can beat up prostitutes with baseball bats and run over pedestrians with cars. Playing these video games is a way of living out the violent images we see in other forms of popular American media.
What affect are these violent forms of media having on our perception of masculinity? If you were to solely look at popular media, it would seem as if the dominant American male is a hyper-masculine, hyper-heterosexual figure who has no qualms about instigating violence. When characters like Dirty Harry and Niko Bellic are the figures we grow up seeing in the media, they must have some affect on the predominantly male audience that watches and studies these characters.
But, this isn't just a male phenomenon. Popular media has defined women as being passive and fragile, awaiting the help and support of a strong male figure. As much as "entertainment violence" helps support a masculine stereotype, it reinforces long withstanding stereotypes of women as well.
Let me be clear; I’m not advocating the censorship of popular media. That would be counter to creative development. However, when this excessive violence becomes commonplace, I believe that it is important to look at the music we’re listening to, the movies we’re watching, the games we’re playing and realize the social significance of these forms of “entertainment.” Only then can we see our media for what it truly is.
Why, how and when did we start down this path towards media violence? I can’t begin to answer that. However, one thing is for certain.
We live in a violent America. And it doesn’t look like we’re going to pacify our media anytime soon.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Rise of Comedy News
Watch out, CNN and MSNBC. Satire is aiming to take over the news.
With shows like SNL’s “Weekend Update,” “The Daily Show” and "The Colbert Report,” the entertainment business’s funny people are bringing the masses a healthy mix of news headlines and sarcastic, dry humor.
Of course, this style of humor isn’t new to the entertainment world. But more and more young (and old) folks are tuning into Comedy Central for their daily dose of current news. In fact, I’ve met quite a few people who readily admit that “The Daily Show” is their main source of news information.
It could be easy to dismiss satirical news as being “illegitimate news.” However, this form of sarcastic reporting definitely has its benefits. It’s funny and up-to-date. It forces its viewers to have some knowledge of the world around them. And, through clever humor, shows like “The Colbert Report” are opening people’s eyes to some of the more ridiculous trends in the world today.
Indeed, these shows don’t dumb down their jokes. They assume that one will be well-informed and knowledgeable about world events before turning on these late-night programs. And, for the most part, the audience members are following through.
Strange as it may be, satirical news may have rejuvenated news media for the YouTube generation. It’s comforting to think that kids are now watching Fox News and MSNBC, if only so that they will understand that night’s punch line on “The Daily Show.”
Since these shows’ influence has grown over the past couple of years, they’re starting to bring in big names for interviews. The political and entertainment worlds are giving more respect to these sarcastic shows, in turn bringing in more viewers.
It’s good that these shows are getting the respect they deserve. On a nightly basis, these programs present the biggest day-to-day headlines while providing a few good laughs. Now, if you ask me, that’s entertainment.
With shows like SNL’s “Weekend Update,” “The Daily Show” and "The Colbert Report,” the entertainment business’s funny people are bringing the masses a healthy mix of news headlines and sarcastic, dry humor.
Of course, this style of humor isn’t new to the entertainment world. But more and more young (and old) folks are tuning into Comedy Central for their daily dose of current news. In fact, I’ve met quite a few people who readily admit that “The Daily Show” is their main source of news information.
It could be easy to dismiss satirical news as being “illegitimate news.” However, this form of sarcastic reporting definitely has its benefits. It’s funny and up-to-date. It forces its viewers to have some knowledge of the world around them. And, through clever humor, shows like “The Colbert Report” are opening people’s eyes to some of the more ridiculous trends in the world today.
Indeed, these shows don’t dumb down their jokes. They assume that one will be well-informed and knowledgeable about world events before turning on these late-night programs. And, for the most part, the audience members are following through.
Strange as it may be, satirical news may have rejuvenated news media for the YouTube generation. It’s comforting to think that kids are now watching Fox News and MSNBC, if only so that they will understand that night’s punch line on “The Daily Show.”
Since these shows’ influence has grown over the past couple of years, they’re starting to bring in big names for interviews. The political and entertainment worlds are giving more respect to these sarcastic shows, in turn bringing in more viewers.
It’s good that these shows are getting the respect they deserve. On a nightly basis, these programs present the biggest day-to-day headlines while providing a few good laughs. Now, if you ask me, that’s entertainment.
Friday, April 10, 2009
“I’m too busy to read a newspaper.”
Concerned with the fall of the newspaper empire, I’ve made it a point in the past few days to talk about news sources with my friends and family members. And, after asking simple questions like “What’s your favorite newspaper?” and “How often do you read a newspaper?,” I’ve heard the same response over and over again.
“I’m too busy to read a newspaper.”
Too busy? Are we really too busy to take ten minutes out of our day to sit down and read the latest front page articles in The New York Times?
Apparently we are, and this “busyness” could be one of the many reasons why newspapers are remaining in newsstand piles, unsold and collecting dust.
While newspapers are beginning to die out completely, websites like Google News are doing quite well by presenting a broad array of news headlines without all of the extra article text attached to it. In essence, Google News thrives by showing short, time-friendly, up-to-date news blurbs that can “inform” readers without the hassle of much reading time or extra thought.
Other news sources have begun to catch on to this style of reporting. On cnn.com, major news articles have a section right next to their headlines called “Story Highlights.” By reading these highlights, one can get a general overview of what the following story is about.
That’s what these news sources are now starting to offer – a gist. And, when news articles are condensed into three short sentences, all the nuance of a finely written news article is lost in translation. For the sake of saving a few minutes, we’re reading the shortest possible text looking for the greatest possible return. And this attitude is cheapening the news media experience.
But, is this “busyness” I’ve been hearing about really the cause of our inability to commit to reading a daily or even weekly paper? Are we really too busy or are we just not motivated? After all, reading a newspaper on even a semi-regular basis requires dedication.
It could be that we’re simply a part of an A. D. D. culture that’s constantly looking for shortcuts. Or we could simply be losing interest in the dated newspaper format.
Either way, our interest in newspapers seems to be slowly dying, right along with the newspapers themselves.
I’d like to think that we’d be able to make time for something as important as the daily newspapers. However, with the rapidly declining newspaper business, we might not have a chance to reevaluate the attention we give to these print news sources. After all, it could be just a few more months before we realize that we’ve completely lost one of the biggest cultural trends in American history – the daily newspaper.
“I’m too busy to read a newspaper.”
Too busy? Are we really too busy to take ten minutes out of our day to sit down and read the latest front page articles in The New York Times?
Apparently we are, and this “busyness” could be one of the many reasons why newspapers are remaining in newsstand piles, unsold and collecting dust.
While newspapers are beginning to die out completely, websites like Google News are doing quite well by presenting a broad array of news headlines without all of the extra article text attached to it. In essence, Google News thrives by showing short, time-friendly, up-to-date news blurbs that can “inform” readers without the hassle of much reading time or extra thought.
Other news sources have begun to catch on to this style of reporting. On cnn.com, major news articles have a section right next to their headlines called “Story Highlights.” By reading these highlights, one can get a general overview of what the following story is about.
That’s what these news sources are now starting to offer – a gist. And, when news articles are condensed into three short sentences, all the nuance of a finely written news article is lost in translation. For the sake of saving a few minutes, we’re reading the shortest possible text looking for the greatest possible return. And this attitude is cheapening the news media experience.
But, is this “busyness” I’ve been hearing about really the cause of our inability to commit to reading a daily or even weekly paper? Are we really too busy or are we just not motivated? After all, reading a newspaper on even a semi-regular basis requires dedication.
It could be that we’re simply a part of an A. D. D. culture that’s constantly looking for shortcuts. Or we could simply be losing interest in the dated newspaper format.
Either way, our interest in newspapers seems to be slowly dying, right along with the newspapers themselves.
I’d like to think that we’d be able to make time for something as important as the daily newspapers. However, with the rapidly declining newspaper business, we might not have a chance to reevaluate the attention we give to these print news sources. After all, it could be just a few more months before we realize that we’ve completely lost one of the biggest cultural trends in American history – the daily newspaper.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Gaga for Gaga
It only takes a single glance at the Billboard Hot 100 to know who the newest princess of pop is. Unseating Britney and Beyoncé at the throne of pop royalty, Lady Gaga has swept the nation with two singles from her debut album, “The Fame.” Indeed, if you haven’t heard of “Just Dance” and “Poker Face” by now, you must be living under a rock.
This past week, Lady Gaga became the first musical artist in nearly ten years to have two number one hits from her two debut singles on the Billboard Hot 100. Gaga is the music industry’s smoking hot item as of late, and it doesn’t seem like her infectious beats will be cooling off any time soon.
Inspired by music legends Queen and David Bowie, Lady Gaga is an outrageous pop star. With funky electro-beats, a unique and defining fashion style and a playgirl attitude, Lady Gaga is bringing back performance pop.
However, while her flamboyant nature might raise some eyebrows, what’s really interesting about Gaga is her unabashed adoration of a materialistic lifestyle.
When talking about her first album, Lady Gaga explained that “’The Fame’ is about how anyone can feel famous. Pop culture is art. It doesn’t make you cool to hate pop culture, so I embraced it and you hear it all over The Fame. But, it’s a sharable fame. I want to invite you all to the party. I want people to feel a part of this lifestyle.”
Lady Gaga basks in the lifestyles of the rich and the famous. Actually, the song before “Just Dance” that put her on the music industry’s map was none other than “Beautiful, Dirty, Rich,” an anthem for those looking for the easy path to the life of exorbitant wealth and all the perks that come along with it.
Take a look at some of the lyrics:
Our hair is perfect
While we're all getting shit wrecked
It's automatic, honey
But we got no money
Daddy I'm so sorry, I'm so s-s-sorry yeah
We just like to party, like to p-p-party yeah
Bang bang, we're beautiful and dirty rich
The song depicts a life of no worries, no cares where "we" can get wasted in the morning and party all night. It’s a life where pleasure comes solely from money, honey. And Lady Gaga's welcoming you to join in the fun.
The music video only supports Gaga’s materialistic message. Filmed in a posh mansion, Gaga and her friends sneak around like intruders in the aristocratic lifestyle, rolling on piles of money and lighting joints made of hundred dollar bills. It’s overtly sexual and money-oriented, and unashamedly so.
Contrasted with the current US economic crisis, Lady Gaga’s music is surprisingly popular. People simply can’t get enough of “the fame” that Gaga promises to deliver in the synthesizer heavy songs that dominate the airwaves today.
While these themes have long been present in American popular music, they have rarely been this obviously supported in such hard times. Plus, the fact that Gaga’s music is a huge success despite her somewhat eclectic style makes her popularity all the more impressive, if not baffling.
So, what does this say about Gaga’s main audience, the American youth? Is Gaga’s music nostalgic? A form of escapism? A way to connect with the times when money wasn’t the big issue it is today? Or does it say that we’ve learned nothing from the greedy actions that got us into this financial mess in the first place? Have we been taught to be so materialistic that we simply connect to Gaga’s message? Or do we wish that we were as carefree as Gaga presents herself to be?
Honestly, it’s probably a combination of all of this. But, as families struggle to pay mortgages and credit card debts, it’s ironic that this is what we choose to listen to. We’re helping to bring Lady Gaga, the music industry’s poster girl for materialism, the fame she so craves.
We’re gaga for Gaga. And that might not be a good thing.
“Beautiful, Dirty, Rich” Music Video:
http://www.ladygaga.com/player/default.aspx?mid=3133
All Quotes from:
Lady Gaga: Biography. “Bio.” Lady Gaga, http://www.ladygaga.com/bio/ (accessed on April 8, 2009).
Billboard Facts:
“Lady Gaga Scores Hot 100 Milestone with ‘Poker Face’.” Billboard, 2 April 2009, http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/lady-gaga-scores-hot-100-milestone-with-1003958324.story (accessed on April 8, 2009)
Reception of “The Fame” (Aggregate scores of reviews):
“The Fame by Lady Gaga.” Metacritic, http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/ladygaga/fame?q=lady%20gaga (accessed on April 8, 2009)
This past week, Lady Gaga became the first musical artist in nearly ten years to have two number one hits from her two debut singles on the Billboard Hot 100. Gaga is the music industry’s smoking hot item as of late, and it doesn’t seem like her infectious beats will be cooling off any time soon.
Inspired by music legends Queen and David Bowie, Lady Gaga is an outrageous pop star. With funky electro-beats, a unique and defining fashion style and a playgirl attitude, Lady Gaga is bringing back performance pop.
However, while her flamboyant nature might raise some eyebrows, what’s really interesting about Gaga is her unabashed adoration of a materialistic lifestyle.
When talking about her first album, Lady Gaga explained that “’The Fame’ is about how anyone can feel famous. Pop culture is art. It doesn’t make you cool to hate pop culture, so I embraced it and you hear it all over The Fame. But, it’s a sharable fame. I want to invite you all to the party. I want people to feel a part of this lifestyle.”
Lady Gaga basks in the lifestyles of the rich and the famous. Actually, the song before “Just Dance” that put her on the music industry’s map was none other than “Beautiful, Dirty, Rich,” an anthem for those looking for the easy path to the life of exorbitant wealth and all the perks that come along with it.
Take a look at some of the lyrics:
Our hair is perfect
While we're all getting shit wrecked
It's automatic, honey
But we got no money
Daddy I'm so sorry, I'm so s-s-sorry yeah
We just like to party, like to p-p-party yeah
Bang bang, we're beautiful and dirty rich
The song depicts a life of no worries, no cares where "we" can get wasted in the morning and party all night. It’s a life where pleasure comes solely from money, honey. And Lady Gaga's welcoming you to join in the fun.
The music video only supports Gaga’s materialistic message. Filmed in a posh mansion, Gaga and her friends sneak around like intruders in the aristocratic lifestyle, rolling on piles of money and lighting joints made of hundred dollar bills. It’s overtly sexual and money-oriented, and unashamedly so.
Contrasted with the current US economic crisis, Lady Gaga’s music is surprisingly popular. People simply can’t get enough of “the fame” that Gaga promises to deliver in the synthesizer heavy songs that dominate the airwaves today.
While these themes have long been present in American popular music, they have rarely been this obviously supported in such hard times. Plus, the fact that Gaga’s music is a huge success despite her somewhat eclectic style makes her popularity all the more impressive, if not baffling.
So, what does this say about Gaga’s main audience, the American youth? Is Gaga’s music nostalgic? A form of escapism? A way to connect with the times when money wasn’t the big issue it is today? Or does it say that we’ve learned nothing from the greedy actions that got us into this financial mess in the first place? Have we been taught to be so materialistic that we simply connect to Gaga’s message? Or do we wish that we were as carefree as Gaga presents herself to be?
Honestly, it’s probably a combination of all of this. But, as families struggle to pay mortgages and credit card debts, it’s ironic that this is what we choose to listen to. We’re helping to bring Lady Gaga, the music industry’s poster girl for materialism, the fame she so craves.
We’re gaga for Gaga. And that might not be a good thing.
“Beautiful, Dirty, Rich” Music Video:
http://www.ladygaga.com/player/default.aspx?mid=3133
All Quotes from:
Lady Gaga: Biography. “Bio.” Lady Gaga, http://www.ladygaga.com/bio/ (accessed on April 8, 2009).
Billboard Facts:
“Lady Gaga Scores Hot 100 Milestone with ‘Poker Face’.” Billboard, 2 April 2009, http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/lady-gaga-scores-hot-100-milestone-with-1003958324.story (accessed on April 8, 2009)
Reception of “The Fame” (Aggregate scores of reviews):
“The Fame by Lady Gaga.” Metacritic, http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/ladygaga/fame?q=lady%20gaga (accessed on April 8, 2009)
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The New Security Blanket
They’re expensive. They’re insanely multifunctional. And we use them every day.
That’s right. They’re cell phone and now, you can buy them in every shape, color and flavor. You can even buy ones that play music or store photos. They’re portable gaming devices and GPS machines all one, tight machine.
Oh. They make calls too.
Over the past couple of years, cell phones have become the latest must-have product. And, with companies like LG and Motorola putting out new phones (with sleek looking ads) on a monthly basis, they’re always something newer and cooler to buy.
Cell phones aren’t just phones anymore. They’re fashion statements. And we cling to them and use them as a social crutch.
For long, social scientists have bemoaned the death of physical socialization; after all, kids these days would rather chat over AIM or text their friends than leave their couches at home. It’s amazing how much my generation relies on our phones to keep us company when we’re alone for even a second.
Next time you’re at Starbucks or on the paths between classes, look up and see the number of kids texting their friends. When given one moment of spare time, teens tend to pull out their iPhones and Razors to keep them company for a few minutes. It’s pathetic, really.
And, now that phones aren’t just for making calls, I can’t help but see this obsession with our technology growing. We’ll continue to play games and read the news from 2 X 3 inch screens instead of picking up newspapers or looking at the foliage while we walk to class.
However, it would be unfair to only call out Generation Y for their cellular addictions. Our parents and role models are just as infatuated with this technology as we are. In fact, the USA has become a cell phone nation, completely reliant on these mobile devices.
They’re our technological security blankets and it doesn’t look like we’ll be giving them up any time soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7amxE3RLAzQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-am-bored.com%2Fbored_link.cfm%3Flink_id%3D37183&feature=player_embedded
That’s right. They’re cell phone and now, you can buy them in every shape, color and flavor. You can even buy ones that play music or store photos. They’re portable gaming devices and GPS machines all one, tight machine.
Oh. They make calls too.
Over the past couple of years, cell phones have become the latest must-have product. And, with companies like LG and Motorola putting out new phones (with sleek looking ads) on a monthly basis, they’re always something newer and cooler to buy.
Cell phones aren’t just phones anymore. They’re fashion statements. And we cling to them and use them as a social crutch.
For long, social scientists have bemoaned the death of physical socialization; after all, kids these days would rather chat over AIM or text their friends than leave their couches at home. It’s amazing how much my generation relies on our phones to keep us company when we’re alone for even a second.
Next time you’re at Starbucks or on the paths between classes, look up and see the number of kids texting their friends. When given one moment of spare time, teens tend to pull out their iPhones and Razors to keep them company for a few minutes. It’s pathetic, really.
And, now that phones aren’t just for making calls, I can’t help but see this obsession with our technology growing. We’ll continue to play games and read the news from 2 X 3 inch screens instead of picking up newspapers or looking at the foliage while we walk to class.
However, it would be unfair to only call out Generation Y for their cellular addictions. Our parents and role models are just as infatuated with this technology as we are. In fact, the USA has become a cell phone nation, completely reliant on these mobile devices.
They’re our technological security blankets and it doesn’t look like we’ll be giving them up any time soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7amxE3RLAzQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-am-bored.com%2Fbored_link.cfm%3Flink_id%3D37183&feature=player_embedded
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ending ER
Last night, by the time 11:00 pm came rolling around, people across the nation had witnessed the end of an era – that is, the final episode of “ER,” the second longest running drama of all time.
Over the course of 15 seasons, “ER” has introduced viewers to more characters and more story lines than you could possibly imagine. And, with fifteen years of entertaining, “ER” has become a staple in so many people’s lives. Indeed, fanatical viewers have kept their Thursdays at 10:00 pm free since the show’s revolutionary pilot episode.
Since its inception, “ER” has defied typical television trends, treading new ground and making the medical drama into what it is today. With scripts that felt more tailored to movie audiences (Fun Fact: The pilot was originally written as a movie script and was later adapted for the small screen), close-up, right-in-the-action camera work and multiple character plot lines for viewers to follow, “ER” was ambitious -- so ambitious that most people thought it would be an utter failure.
Now, no one challenges “ER’s” worth and merit as one the world’s most influential television series of all time.
“ER” has adapted and changed with the real world times. After all, a series cannot last by repeating the same, tired themes and storylines. So, characters have come and gone. Plots have developed and mimicked real world issues. Episodes have shown the best and worst moments that define American life. Because of “ER’s” devotion to changing with the times, a remarkable thing has happened. Now, to so many people, “ER” is real.
So, when analogue clocks in living rooms flashed to show 11:00 pm last night, people across the nation couldn’t believe it was over. I couldn’t believe it was over. Because, no matter how many times you tell yourself that it’s fiction, “ER” has become a part of so many people’s lives, so many people’s routines. It’s hard to give up something you’ve lived with for fifteen years.
(Warning: spoiler alert)
In the final minutes of the final show of “ER’s” final season, an explosion sent many injured people to that now iconic (but fictitious) Chicago hospital. And then, there was a familiar scene. Doctors ran around, trying to deal with the craziness in the hospital, moving along like it was every other day.
On that note, “ER” signed off.
Even though there will be no more episodes to look forward to, the finale was a perfect homage to what “ER” is all about. Life changes, but we fight on. And, just as the doctors in “ER” move on with their daily lives, so must we.
If you want more, check out:
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/04/er-finale.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_(TV_series)
Over the course of 15 seasons, “ER” has introduced viewers to more characters and more story lines than you could possibly imagine. And, with fifteen years of entertaining, “ER” has become a staple in so many people’s lives. Indeed, fanatical viewers have kept their Thursdays at 10:00 pm free since the show’s revolutionary pilot episode.
Since its inception, “ER” has defied typical television trends, treading new ground and making the medical drama into what it is today. With scripts that felt more tailored to movie audiences (Fun Fact: The pilot was originally written as a movie script and was later adapted for the small screen), close-up, right-in-the-action camera work and multiple character plot lines for viewers to follow, “ER” was ambitious -- so ambitious that most people thought it would be an utter failure.
Now, no one challenges “ER’s” worth and merit as one the world’s most influential television series of all time.
“ER” has adapted and changed with the real world times. After all, a series cannot last by repeating the same, tired themes and storylines. So, characters have come and gone. Plots have developed and mimicked real world issues. Episodes have shown the best and worst moments that define American life. Because of “ER’s” devotion to changing with the times, a remarkable thing has happened. Now, to so many people, “ER” is real.
So, when analogue clocks in living rooms flashed to show 11:00 pm last night, people across the nation couldn’t believe it was over. I couldn’t believe it was over. Because, no matter how many times you tell yourself that it’s fiction, “ER” has become a part of so many people’s lives, so many people’s routines. It’s hard to give up something you’ve lived with for fifteen years.
(Warning: spoiler alert)
In the final minutes of the final show of “ER’s” final season, an explosion sent many injured people to that now iconic (but fictitious) Chicago hospital. And then, there was a familiar scene. Doctors ran around, trying to deal with the craziness in the hospital, moving along like it was every other day.
On that note, “ER” signed off.
Even though there will be no more episodes to look forward to, the finale was a perfect homage to what “ER” is all about. Life changes, but we fight on. And, just as the doctors in “ER” move on with their daily lives, so must we.
If you want more, check out:
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/04/er-finale.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_(TV_series)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)