In his article “Reinventing Cinema: Movies in the Age of Media Convergence”, Tyron contends that the emergence and rise of popularity of digital special effects such as computer-generated imagery (CGI), which was popularized by Hollywood, resulted in the demise of movies’ ability to represent reality because of the technology to manipulate the filmed (Tyron 2009). However, I disagree with him on the basis that I believe at the very point at which reality ended in movies, fantasy replaced this void and edged out, to an extent, the ability of viewers to discern between fantasy and reality. I attribute this loss of ability to discern between fantasy and reality to the extending effects that movies have on the audience. First and foremost, where …show more content…
We become mere consumers of the capitalist system, without the ability to exercise our critical thinking. Accordingly, McLuhan also highlights the danger of an overly consumerist society, contending that the media industry creates a society of “mass man”, referring to man as the masses because there is a loss of private identity or autonomy (McLuhan 2001). When individuals lose the ability to understand the text critically and reflect on it, there is a loss of private identity because we cannot re-appropriate the text to our preferences and instead just consume what has been placed on the plate for …show more content…
This global village would cause the rise of the phenomenon of mass man and the loss of private identity. McLuhan attributes this to the new media forms connecting our senses to the world in new ways - “Media as extensions of ourselves”. In this sense, films become faculties of humans, which act as extensions of our senses, as can be perceived from our disposition to consume and celebrate the lifestyle and ideas that film producers bring across the screen. (McLuhan 2001). Through such a way, film restructures our consciousness, allowing for the ruling consciousness – that of the dominant group – to triumph over self-consciousness of man (Enzesberger). This occurs when we become uncritical receivers of the culture industry, which has been shaped by capitalist producers, and we accept and ingest the ideas and ideologies brought to us through a film without queries. For example, in our quest for a “celebrity lifestyle”, we are unconscious to the power dynamics behind the exaggeration of our needs and desires; the capacity of culture or film producers to beguile us to fall into an entangled trap of
A new edition to the course lineup, this week's film classic, Sunset Boulevard. This film will focus on the culture and environment of the Hollywood studio system that produces the kind of motion pictures that the whole world recognizes as "Hollywood movies." There have been many movies from the silent era to the present that either glamorize or vilify the culture of Hollywood, typically focusing on the celebrities (both in front of and behind the camera) who populate the "dream factories" of Hollywood. But we cannot completely understand the culture of Hollywood unless we recognize that motion pictures are big business as well as entertainment, and that Hollywood necessarily includes both creative and commercial
One could easily dismiss movies as superficial, unnecessarily violent spectacles, although such a viewpoint is distressingly pessimistic and myopic. In a given year, several films are released which have long-lasting effects on large numbers of individuals. These pictures speak
In recent times, such stereotyped categorizations of films are becoming inapplicable. ‘Blockbusters’ with celebrity-studded casts may have plots in which characters explore the depths of the human psyche, or avant-garde film techniques. Titles like ‘American Beauty’ (1999), ‘Fight Club’ (1999) and ‘Kill Bill 2’ (2004) come readily into mind. Hollywood perhaps could be gradually losing its stigma as a money-hungry machine churning out predictable, unintelligent flicks for mass consumption. While whether this image of Hollywood is justified remains open to debate, earlier films in the 60’s and 70’s like ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ (1967) and ‘Taxi Driver’ (1976) already revealed signs of depth and avant-garde film techniques. These films were successful as not only did they appeal to the mass audience, but they managed to communicate alternate messages to select groups who understood subtleties within them.
Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.
Neill, Alex. “Empathy and (Film) Fiction.” Philosophy of film and motion pictures : an anthology. Ed. Noel Carrol and Jinhee Choi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 247-259. Print.
The issue of the relationship between the mass media and the popular culture has always been a controversial issue in social sciences. The political economists insist on the role of the media industry in the creation of this phenomenon of the twentieth century. Though, advocates such as John Fiske, argue that popular culture is actually the creation of the populous itself, and is independent of the capitalist production process of the communication sector. Basing his argument on the immense interpretive power of the people, Fiske believes that the audience is able to break all the indented meanings within a media message. He also believes- by giving new meanings to that specific message they can oppose the power block that is trying to impose its ideology to the public. Consequently, this anarchistic activity of the audience creates the popular culture as a defence mechanism. Even when we accept Fiske’s ideas, we can not disregard the manipulative power of the media and its effects on cultural and social life.
Most of the fantasy stories that were produced made use of film as a tool to expose the shows. Study proved that the world of film has a various capacity in persuading and changing the perspectives of a viewer. A film functions as an int...
In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, he proposed that we focus on the way each medium changes cultures and traditions and reshapes social life, rather than the content. He describes the content of the medium as a “juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.” (McLuhan, 32). To him, focusing on the medium was important because he believed that different types of media change the balance of our senses. We start isolating and highlighting different senses.
As society becomes more engrossed in the capitalist side of the culture industry, the use value is taken over the exchange value of the particular item. People can become isolated within society and unable to make successful decisions for themselves. Through standardization of production, distribution and sales, people are treated as a commodity. People begin to lose the aesthetic appeal of cultural events and people become consumed by the fact their attendance to an event gives them status. Adorno and Horkheimer successfully show what will happen to society if the culture industry takeover of mass media continues.
... as well as a socially important idea. The theory art imitates life and life imitates art reveals important connections between literary structures and cultural beliefs. Media literature is mirroring important parts of American life and selling the images back with a product attached. However, the cultural and social myths that are being promoted are not always evident on the surface of the text. A new movement to read media literature critically has begun. As the emerging way to view texts is reading them deconstructively, we must promote other critical approaches that allow a more open translation of literature and provide balance to the political act of reading.
The postmodern cinema emerged in the 80s and 90s as a powerfully creative force in Hollywood film-making, helping to form the historic convergence of technology, media culture and consumerism. Departing from the modernist cultural tradition grounded in the faith in historical progress, the norms of industrial society and the Enlightenment, the postmodern film is defined by its disjointed narratives, images of chaos, random violence, a dark view of the human state, death of the hero and the emphasis on technique over content. The postmodernist film accomplishes that by acquiring forms and styles from the traditional methods and mixing them together or decorating them. Thus, the postmodern film challenges the “modern” and the modernist cinema along with its inclinations. It also attempts to transform the mainstream conventions of characterization, narrative and suppresses the audience suspension of disbelief. The postmodern cinema often rejects modernist conventions by manipulating and maneuvering with conventions such as space, time and story-telling. Furthermore, it rejects the traditional “grand-narratives” and totalizing forms such as war, history, love and utopian visions of reality. Instead, it is heavily aimed to create constructed fictions and subjective idealisms.
Many people fail to realise the importance of our economy, how diverse and interactive it is to our daily lives and the distinct role it plays in our constantly evolving economic climate. My initial interest stemmed from my lack of knowledge about the UK economy; resulting in the research about our recent financial crisis and from there it grew tenfold. I began to observe the situations around me from a different perspective, and with the help of micro and macroeconomic objectives, which are the fundamental foundations; I have been able to pursue this social science in far greater depth and understanding. It is a growing ambition of mine to explore what effect daily transactions and the conduct of millions of people like me has on our future in a domestic and global aspect. Further developing my study of economics will ensure I am able to explore such views to a higher level.
It is increasingly clear that media and culture today are of central importance to the maintenance and reproduction of contemporary societies. Cultures expose society to different personalities, provide models, which display various forms of societal life and cultivate various ways to introduce people into dominant forms of thought and action. These are the types of activities integrate people into society and create our public sphere. Media and technology surround our society; engrained into the fabric of our existence so much so, that it has become hard to find an aspect of life not influenced by its effects. For this reason, media controllers, wield extreme power and influence over the lives of everyday people. Although, they increasingly continue to feed the audience trash, despite their authority as the creator of our social/cultural interactions, and justify their actions by calling themselves industries. Reducing themselves to just businesses whose sole purpose is to create a profit. This admittance of what they feel to be their true purpose however does not hinder their control and power but instead adds to it. Creating a need for there to be some way to analyze and discuss whether they are using their position and power wisely. Filling this void, scholars have theorized ways for individuals to be critical of the media that they intake. One of these critical theories is the “Culture Industry” theory. Using Cultural Theory, as well as other complementary neo Marxist theories, it is possible to determine how Stacy Peralta, once urban youth culture advocate, became incorporated into the superstructure through media use, thus making him a tool for the continued commoditization of society, and a youth marketer for industries l...
Many people don’t think about it so much, but movies (or just film in general) have become such a big part of our lives that we don’t think much of it because it just feels like a usual part of living. But have you ever wondered why this is, and how far back film started? Movies and film have been around for a long time, have developed in big ways throughout time, and has advanced in such a big and new way to this day.
Movie stars. They are celebrated. They are perfect. They are larger than life. The ideas that we have formed in our minds centered on the stars that we idolize make these people seem inhuman. We know everything about them and we know nothing about them; it is this conflicting concept that leaves audiences thirsty for a drink of insight into the lifestyles of the icons that dominate movie theater screens across the nation. This fascination and desire for connection with celebrities whom we have never met stems from a concept elaborated on by Richard Dyer. He speculates about stardom in terms of appearances; those that are representations of reality, and those that are manufactured constructs. Stardom is a result of these appearances—we actually know nothing about them beyond what we see and hear from the information presented to us. The media’s construction of stars encourages us to question these appearances in terms of “really”—what is that actor really like (Dyer, 2)? This enduring query is what keeps audiences coming back for more, in an attempt to decipher which construction of a star is “real”. Is it the character he played in his most recent film? Is it the version of him that graced the latest tabloid cover? Is it a hidden self that we do not know about? Each of these varied and fluctuating presentations of stars that we are forced to analyze create different meanings and effects that frame audience’s opinions about a star and ignite cultural conversations.