Publicity Stunt?... or Something Admirable?

Lately the media has been drowning in coverage on gay men and women coming out. Bring in the parades! Bring in the confetti! We have got a real shocker this time! I mean, come on, acting like every expression of sexuality is front-page news is getting real old. In my opinion, these twisted, celebratory headlines are prolonging the progressive movement to attain equal rights. If the media continues to sardonically deliver these stories as incredible, landmark, and influential, then the beauty of unprovoked sexual expression will undoubtedly collapse. America doesn't need to throw a party every time a celebrity, musician, athlete, etc. comes out. The idea of being gay shouldn't even be shocking to our psyches, in this day and age. Anyways, I was compelled to spark this topic after noting that every media outlet I watched or visited today had a story on Jason Collins, an NBA player, coming out. His face is plastered on every news site and show. Here's The Washington Post's article. Oh, and here's USA Today's article. The story is everywhere. So why, now, did Collins decide to make this a public affair? I guess I can't help but mention that the player is set to become a free agent this summer. Now my sweeping assumption may seem to demean the whole process, but I have continuously seen a pattern in the timing of celebrities coming out. I'm sure everyone remembers Frank Ocean last year? He came out through a blog post... six days prior to the release of his album Channel Orange. Coincidence?! I think not! But really, I'm not trying to denote either of these gentlemen (this guy, however... he's pissed.) I simply do not see the necessity in having dramatic media coverage on every person, with the faintest amount of fame, that decides to come out. We get it already! It's not surprising anymore, it's just sexuality.

This week...

It's May Day week. This is one of the most wonderful classic horror films ever made, suspenseful and weird and beautiful. It has had a cult following for many years and Cinefantastique Magazine calls it the CITIZEN KANE of horror films. It is THE WICKER MAN, made in 1973. Very bad remake in 2006 stars Nicolas Cage--it bears little resemblance to the original, which is a musical!) Check out this clip which ends with an important classroom lesson on symbolism...

Technology Over Safety? Is This Proving Beneficial?

After all the recent events that have occurred in the news these past couple of weeks, I began to think about  how relevant and important technology has been. We have seen throughout the semester and through several presentations that we are members of a technological age. We rely on technology for everything. We use it to socialize, to be productive, to multitask, etc. but, to fight crime is a new addition. Technology is now allowing everyday citizens, without police uniforms and fancy credentials, to take a part in crime fighting. We saw how relevant this has been over the past few weeks. Media users are not going out of their way to try to fight crime and solve mysteries, they are just using their technological devices like they always have. Is our technology addiction actually turning out to be beneficial?? At what costs?

        

We recently experienced the Boston bombings. We began on April 15^th without any leads what-so-ever. This continued on for a day or two until we realized that we had some very reliable sources. These sources were videos and photos taken from peoples camera, video recorders, and phones. People were eager to take pictures of their loved ones running in the marathon, and consequently they may have snapped photos of the bombers. An example of an instance where our technological addictions are proving beneficial.

        

Another very intriguing point to make is that not only are we addicted to technology, but we are intrigued by chaos (and therefore like to make sure we capture the moment via technology). One of the very first videos released on news channels of the bombings was taken by a spectator/reporter. The bomb went off, and he immediately ran towards the wreckage with his video camera still rolling. In the video you see police officers and other people attempting to break through the rubble and assist the injured people, but this man just kind of watches in shock. You repeatedly here him saying, “oh my god,” on the camera, but yet he still went towards the wreck to capture it on film. When interviewed later he was asked why he went towards the bomb, and why he wasn’t concerned about a third bomb. He replied by saying he wasn’t thinking of a third bomb at all. Are we that caught up by chaos that we just feel the need to capture it? Even if it risks our safety or the safety of others? However, in this case, his video ended up being extremely helpful. It was the first video released on news sites. VIDEO  (I'm sure everyone has seen the link, if it is too upsetting feel free not to watch! However you cannot see anything graphic).  What about the gentleman who ignored the order to stay at home, and went outside to his car TWICE. Both times he captured media evidence, and the second time he videotaped the car chase that ended in the death of one of the bombers. Where do we draw the line?

A couple days later there was a horrible explosion at a fertilizer plant in Waco, Texas. I heard about this explosion from a youtube video that was sent to my phone via text message. The video was of a guy filming the explosion from his car. All of the sudden, there is another blast and the camera falls. The guy is panicked, along with the other passengers in the car. You hear a lot of loud noise, and the people are extremely emotional. Why would they go anywhere near a plant that is on fire? Why do they feel the need to record what they were seeing? Did they call 911 before turning on their video camera? Technology has become our addiction, but do we allow it to take precedent over personal safety or over the safety of others? I think so.  But how do we justify this if their videos are turning out to be beneficial? VIDEO #2 (same deal with this video! Again you cannot see anything graphic)

These videos are not meant to be graphic in any way, just using them to make a point! Does anyone else feel the same way!?  

Ricin-filled letters!

(by Lauren KIrshner)

On Saturday April 27, a man named Everett Dutschke form Tupelo, Mississippi was arrested for sending ricin-filled letters through the mail, addressed to President Obama, Senator Roger Wicker, and a local judge, Sadie Holland. Dutschke had been arguing with a man online named Kevin Curtis over different issues. Originally, he was thought to be the criminal, only for the FBI to realize that he was framed by Dutschke. Dutschke said, "I guess Kevin got desperate. I feel like he's getting away with the perfect crime. It has made my family incredibly unsafe. It has put a target on us, and it was reckless and irresponsible." Continuing to deny his offense, he announced, "I'm a patriotic American. I don't have any grudges against anybody...I did not send the letters.” However, the FBI did not find any ricin in Curtis’ home or car, and so they began a search of Dutschke’s home. 

And, after Curtis was free from any criminal act, his attorney, Christi McCoy said, “We are relieved but also saddened. This crime is nothing short of diabolical. I have seen a lot of meanness in the past two decades, but this stops me in my tracks.”

The letters to President Obama and Wicker never reached Dutschke’s planned recipient because they were retrieved at an off-site mail facility, rather than being directly sent to the president and the senator. However, Judge Holland received his letter. He smelled the poisonous ricin with no harmful affects. 

Dutschke has also committed other crimes before this. He was arrested for sexually molesting girls and vulgar exposure involving a minor. For his recent crime, the hearing is Monday in Oxford, Mississippi. He may be sentenced to life in prison if he is found guilty on all charges. Do you think he should be sentenced to life in prison? Personally, I think he should be sentenced to life because he, knowingly, made and possessed a poisonous substance to use as a weapon. 

You can view a video about the offense and read more about it here.

Controversial ad?

"In advertising, the media exist primarily as the means to gather an audience.  However, audiences will not gather if the content is not interesting, useful, or entertaining to them in some way," (McIntosh & Pavlik, 2013).  Here is an advertisement for the fashion brand Sisley.  Sisley was established in Paris, France in 1968.  The best way to describe this advertisement is definitely risque.  Upon looking at other ads by this brand, it is clear to see that their goal is to shock and draw in an audience.  This ad is meant to invoke a strong reaction from the audience and spark up their emotions.  They wanted to cross the line and grab your attention in order to get their name out.  Sisley knew that this ad would generate anger and controversy around their name, but people would still be talking about them.  It seems as though they were successful in their goal, in respect to this ad.  This ad is not new but it definitely was an ad that I always remembered.  When I first say this, I heard much debate on whether this ad was successful and ethical.  What do you think.  Is this ad successful?  Is it ethical?

http://blogs.longwood.edu/advertising3/2012/09/21/fashion-junkie-by-sisely/  (Amanda Deeter)

Nick Drake in New Paltz!

I saw this picture today in town and thought you would appreciate it, Nick Drake still seems to be a success!

Interesting documentary on the impact of digital and film on the movie industry...

If you have the chance and a subscription to Netflix, the documentary narrated by Keanu Reeves, Side by Side, explores the discussions we've been having in class about the changes from film to digital cinematography. Keanu Reeves interviews a selection of prolific film directors who are first hand experiencing the transition to digitization  Some prominent directors include; James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar), David Fincher (Benjamin Button, Fight Club), George Lucas (Star Wars), David Lynch (Blue Velvet), Martin Scorsese( Gangs of New York), and Steven Soderbergh (Ocean’s 11, Magic Mike). The documentary, although simple enough for a lay person to understand, is really engaging for all types of audiences because the movement of the two mediums as two separate historical, social, cultural, and technological entities is reconciled by accepting that even though change is inevitable, vintage film isn't going anywhere. Film hasn't had its final hurrah in just the “indie” market. Many directors, such as Christopher Nolan, are very committed to still using film to produce blockbuster films that can compete with highly  computer generated films such as James Cameron’s Avatar. The choice to use digital or film is a matter of personal preference and professional style, not competence, as both film and digital advocates like to remind us. One thing to remember after watching Side by Side, is that celluloid film isn't a dated medium being replaced by digital film, the two are still very much operating side by side.

Pink Moon tonight...

Tonight's full moon is known as the Pink Moon...

Nick Drake approves.

Rachel Maddow on fire!

The Rachel Maddow show had a fascinating opening segment last night; be sure to watch the whole thing! I was blown away and I hope she covers this story again.

Google Glass

This article from the UK says this new innovation is not attracting investors....

Zero TV?

Growing trend: TV-less households that nevertheless contain people who watch plenty of TV. How is this possible? Will it continue? Will the loss of cable revenue affect programming? Read more here.