Shameless Plug February 28, 2007

Okay well, I know it’s pathetic but I’ve resorted to putting something with an “A” in the front of my blog name so that it, hopefully, shoots up to the top of the RSS list and people start reading it more. I know this may seem desperate but my witty jokes, fun cartoons, gold-mine of YouTube vids and thought provoking COLOUR pictures of people like Micheal Moore and Madonna have not yet helped. In that case, I shall keep trying but, like Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan, I will stop at nothing to get your attention! I will even talk about…
SEX!!!

Just joking, well sort of. I ended up watching Avril Lavigne’s new music video on YouTube the other day. From that statement, the first question is always WHY, why would anyone who is not a 13 year old girl with identity issues subject themselves to something like that? Well, simply because I could. I don’t have cable, in fact I would have to pay quite the satellite fee to get MTV or MuchMusic so I don’t come into contact with other music videos and heck, they’re free on YouTube. Secondly, because I knew it was going to be bad, I knew there would be something (or a few things) about it that would make me recoil at how I dressed up like Avril for Halloween when I was in junior high and she was still enjoying her debut (and, for the record, my halloween costume was ‘cool’ and no, I did not get beat up). Third, the last factor that pushed my clicking over the edge was the fact that it was on the ‘most viewed’ page for the day and so I am only as weak as the masses.

So all I have to say about the video itself is… rap. Rapping angsty ‘punk’ Avril. Yup. It’s like Fergie meets Green Day and it’s not good at all. I think Avril has pulled out all the stops and made herself into a conglomeration of what made her famous along with what has made every current female pop star famous these days. Ergh. When will it stop?!

For your viewing pleasure:

And frig, what did that guy’s girlfriend do to deserve that? lol Sad. And the greasy blonde hair is just.. um.. scary.

heh February 25, 2007

Bonding with Bond, James Bond February 25, 2007

Alright, here is my ‘extensive blog post’ assignment. It is in relation to this article by Russell Smith and about my own movie going experience (that was just to fill in anyone who may be reading this but is not in the class). I am going to take advantage of the fact that this is out in the open for anyone to read, quite different from other assignments, and ask that if anyone comes across spelling, grammar or any other type of error, please leave me a comment so I can further edit it. Thanks, I think it’s great to help people out.
Here goes:

People and Popcorn: A Look at Social Interaction and Movies

Movie watching is an experience that becomes habituated in people if they participate in it enough. Most of us have been going to the theatres since we were toddling around in flashing sneakers and crying about getting the Lion King popcorn bucket. Therefore, I find it fairly easy to settle into a semi-padded chair, lean back, and forget about the people around me whether they are unwashed or not. As a result, I decided to go to the Movie Mill for this assignment because if I was going to be repulsed by movie going it was most likely to happen there.

Being the cheap theatre, the Mill generally has preteens swarming around its entrance with the girls dressed like Fergie and the boys imitating gangsters. People speed through the parking lot, ignorant of any rows of cars, asking for a head-on collision. Even so, I was able to park safely, enter the building with a passive glance at the deviants, and emerge into the foyer with a loud, greasy pizza place on my right and screaming children playing mini-golf on the left. My friends and I strolled up to the ticket booth, pleased there was no line, and then noticed the sign stating “We are preparing for the next show, please buy your tickets at the concession.” As we proceeded on to the next area, lined with moss green carpet speckled with popcorn and accompanied by the din of arcade games, we took our place at the end of a line that was backed up almost to the empty booth where we had been. Five minutes later, tickets were again being sold in the foyer again and the line dispersed into chaotic groups of people moving back and forth, deciding where ticket buying was best, whether or not they wanted snacks and just how to direct their children to the their seats.

I nudged my boyfriend into one of the lines as he stared up at the giant signs. The two people we were with were getting antsy because of the crowd and told us, “Quick, get the jumbo combo, we’ll get the seats!” and it was as though they would stealthily outsmart the crowd to enhance their movie-going experience. We entered, not only with the giant sized, “free refills” pop and popcorn but also – upon request of our high-class friends – with extra cups and napkins for each of us to have a proper and tidy portion. As I convinced them to sit closer toward the back of the theatre for the sake of my people-watching experience, one exclaimed, “Well, at least there isn’t white stuff on these seats back here.”

I took a prompt pee break before the previews in a bathroom that was well over-due for renovations and compelled me to only touch things with papertowel between them and myself. I then returned, settled my feet into the sticky floor and proceeded to watch the film.

Is Russell Smith correct about there being negative aspects to attending a movie in a public theatre? Sure. Did I enjoy myself? Thoroughly.

There is more to the big picture than what Smith comments on. Movie going is a way of getting out of the house, especially in a city like Lethbridge where the nightlife is somewhat limited. It is an enjoyable outing that appeals to many different people; this was apparent from the diversity of age groups, gender, and ethnicities of people within the theatre (in fact, it was more diverse than a person would think for a James Bond flick). People have enough options that they can pick movie genres that suit them and in this way movie going can be somewhat personalized for increased consumer satisfaction. However, Smith may argue that people can bring home whichever movies they desire and then would not need to endure the masses. Therefore, it is primarily important to realize that movie going is a unique social activity.

First, it is a social activity between the people with whom you see the movie. No one at the Mill that evening entered the building, sat down, and stared at the screen like a robot. Rather, people generally sauntered through the ticket and concession areas holding lively conversations that, although they may not have been about anything deeply profound, were a form of bonding. Inside the theatre, five girls behind us passed the time before the movie by making plans for the next weekend and enjoyed commenting on the advertisements that were repeated on the screen, “Look! You could advertise your wedding, then random strangers can come, hah!” The couples put their arms around each other and the families shared popcorn with intricate methods of alternating the bag from one end of the row to the other. On top of these bonding components, films also serve to moderate intimacy between people who go to them. People who may not have a relationship conducive to talking for two hours or the level of intimacy required for renting a video at a person’s house, can go to a movie and feel as though they are putting in quality time without being uncomfortable. This is clear from the quips people often make to each other during the previews or feature film. The two teenage boys in front of us interacted the whole time by quietly exclaiming surprise at almost every action scene by whispering, “Whoa, that was awesome!”

Secondly, movie going is a collective social activity. From a Durkheimian point of view, it could be seen as consisting of many rituals, such as purchasing the sacred tickets, purchasing the snacks, and choosing a seat (Emirbayer, 2003). Such rituals and common actions build up a collective effervescence that ties people together through common emotions, such as anticipation of the film and the desire to enjoy this outing. As a result, a common conscience forms among the collective that shapes the norms of a movie going experience and punishes those who do not abide by them. This was very obvious when a woman’s cell phone went off twice during the movie. By the second time, one of the girls behind us muttered loudly, “I’m going to break that phone” and the boys in front of us glared intensely at the woman. There was a general rustling of condemnation, which died down after she turned off her phone. Thus, this protects the collective experience of movie going and, contrary to the picture Smith paints, keeps it from being an uncivilized feeding trough.

References
Emirbayer, M. (2003). Introduction – Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of modernity. In M. Emirbayer (Ed.), Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of modernity (pp. 1-29). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Live Blogging – Survivor February 15, 2007

Well, I stole this idea from someone who live blogged “Lost” last week. I thought it’s probably pretty fun and it’ll help me get another entry on here before the reading week craziness (you know I actually HAFTA read this year since I have so much work for my classes) starts.
However, my reception is starting to go…how bad is that, not only do I have four channels, when it’s windy I hardly get all four.

Alright, so you guys may know that this time they’ve split everyone into 2 tribes: one has everything to make it a vacation (shelter, food, comfortable furniture, etc) and the other has a knife and … I dunno a bucket. So one tribe is happy and one is miserable.

Eww the happy tribe is full of gross and annoying people, I think, someone just farted.

But the island is full of fruit, what are the guys with the knife complaining about? My mom just came in and interrupted me (yes I live at home and it’s great).

Rocky is really funny, he’s got that Boston type accent. I wonder if people like that are the equivalent of urban hicks. Oh, I shouldn’t label, that’s what the people who did the screening want me to do.

A guy just slashed his hand.. and then my reception went. Oh he’s the same guy who has the eye infection, man, he needs to go home. I wonder what kind of waiver these people need to sign before going on this show, how hurt can you really get before the TV crew has to interfere? Ah, I can’t believe this guy has gotten this hurt and he’s on the tribe that has everything provided.

Ahh, my dad came in and interrupted me, ok so living at home has it’s… yeah whatever. So now they’re trying to start a fire with glasses, come on, if that worked people would be combusting on sunny days while walking down the street.

Excellent, that guy went looking everywhere and then the woman just found a batch of pineapples! Awesome, who knew they grew together like that.

Wow what’s with all these products in the commercials coming with free movie coupons? Heh, did they figure out no one can afford to see movies anymore?

lol, yes of course they want to win for revenge. Duh. Argh, I dislike Sylvia just as must as the rest of them, how do they put up with her?

I enjoy Jeff’s cowboy hat, he has the best job in the world. The immunity idol looks so freaky this time.What’s with all the puzzles in these games? phphfft, brains, who needs em? Hah, I knew it, the underdogs are going to win… (Wait, why is one of the guys wearing a toque on a tropical island?) OH MAN! Moto, the guys what have been pampered won. GEEZ. Sylvia is going home…. goin home… yup, they picked Earl to go to exile island, Sylvia is gone.

Wow.. my hair can look like Chantel Kraviatzuk’s if I get that shampoo..

Look at this guy, throwing his knife at a “highly poisonous sea snake” … can they REALLY put people in this much danger without getting sued?

“If you have laundry just bring it to us” Really?! Sylvia just said this to one of the guys, way to enact gender roles. Jeez, I was wrong about the voting, they’re getting rid of Erika instead of Sylvia now because Erkia got all nervous and yelled a lot during the challenge. Dude, I learned that stress increases people’s neurotransmitters that make them fall in love and feel lovey feelings for others, I think this tribe is experiencing that. The people who want to vote off Sylvia are like “We were fine before she came, we went through stuff she didn’t go through, we’re tight, yo”

Tribal Counsel:
I wonder if Jeff has a background in counseling. Youman kicks ass, he’s basically the yoda of the island. Immunity idols are for wussies. … Does Sylvia have eyebrows? … Wow this voing process takes so long. Hmm they’re divided, I think it’ll be Sylvia still, she so crazy. She wants to lead. I love how Jeff has to tally the votes after like two have been read. OH MY GOSH, it was Erika, she totally didn’t need that, dude, like that was all Rocky’s fault, how could that happen? Stupid Sylvia, she’s the weakest link and I bet that’s why they kept her. Dude that tribe is screwed.

Whew, that’s the end of it, thank goodness, I felt like my brain was melting. But I like Survivor: it was one of the original Reality TV shows, therefore to me it sort of is the apitamy of the Reality TV genre, which I love/hate and might want to do my grad thesis on. But by the time I get to grad school maybe no one will be interested in it anymore. Also, Survivor’s pretty simple, it’s longstanding, and there are still people who watch it religiously so I can banter with them about it.
YESS! Deal or No Deal – Go Howie Go!!!!!!!

Quebecois and French Films February 14, 2007

I love Quebecors, and the only thing better than those loveable Francophones is their movies!!! I think the world still does not know this as much as it should so here, I shall share it with you!

If you only see one French film, see C.R.A.Z.Y.

It is a coming-of-age type of story about a homosexual boy growing up in a family with four brothers who are each unique. Not only does the movie have very interesting twists and turns, it takes you back to the 70s and the main character has awesome clothes and music tastes all throughout. I don’t want to give away the rest of the plot so just rent it and stick those subtitles on! Or borrow it from me, it was good enough that I bought it. Here’s the trailer (but it gives away a lot!!):

Secondly, there is Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain (The Fabulous Destiny of Amélie Poulain), which is now basically a classic. It is, in the end a love story (heck, it’s Valentine’s day, go rent it) but along the way there are lots of interesting characters, good laughs and a very interesting plot (something missing in many chick flicks). Here’s the trailer:

La Grande Seduction is about a doctor who ends up having to work at a small fishing village that does not have any doctors. The village goes to hilarious lengths to convince the doctor that it’s not such a bad place and he should stay. Here’s the trailer:

Les Invasions Barbares is a riveting, emotional film about accepting death and cherishing life. Here’s a trailer and it’s actually in English:

So if it sounds like my descriptions are really superficial it’s because I have trouble plugging just about anything. These are great movies and I don’t want to ruin the plot so I just wanted to share a bit about them. Don’t be afraid of subtitles, just plunge in with an open mind and you might enjoy Frenchies more than you expected.

Sensationalism February 14, 2007

NOTE: This post is pertaining to what we discussed a couple of classes ago and has been sitting in my “drafts” file because I ran out of time to finish it. If you’re looking for something more relevant to this week, keep going to the next post. Thanks!

Alright, well I’ve been meaning to get around to this all week but…you know how it goes. Here’s my post about that “To Catch a Predator” episode I heard about.
Just some background: Having grown up in Lethbridge, I am very familiar with the radio stations. I am also a very light sleeper and cannot think of anything more painful to start my day with than the BLEEP BLEEEP BLEEP of an alarm clock. So I set it to the radio and first I was waking up to Celine Dion all the time (courtesy of the River) then Nickelback (Rock 106) and Shakira (the Bee) and I did not even try stomaching the country station. So I have set the dial to CBC as one last, desparate attempt. This has had a strange byproduct. The morning show on CBC is The Current where they usually talk about very relevant, interesting issues. So now, instead of waking up and hitting snooze as fast as I can, I wake up and end up listing to the radio for 15+ minutes until I can drag myself out of bed. Sometimes this backfires; once I was in a deep sleep and woke up to a report on that serial killer guy in BC, no matter how fast I got to the snooze button, the next ten minute of my sleep was pretty gory! ugh. So yes, the day I heard this report on Dateline, my alarm had just gone off…
So the version I heard was that “To Catch a Predator” was tracking this guy who was the head of police in some city in the states. However, they only had records of inappropriate conversations that had been happen with someone using the computer in his house. So, since the show hadn’t really made any progress, they decided to actually come to this guy’s house and confront him there (let it be noted that at this point he had not physically done anything and all they had were records of his internet activity). When he wouldn’t come to the door, they called a SWAT team who broke into his house and just as they did, he shot himself.
There are two hypotheses: One is that he was really guilty of horrible things and could not stand being caught so he ended it. The other, proposed by his sister and other people who personally knew him, was that he was such an upstanding citizen he could not stand to have his good name tarnished like this.
Either way, two points were brought up on the radio show. One was that a show like this that makes such a spectacle violates the premise that somone is innocent until proven guilty. And the other was that, even if these people are guilty, such a sensationalized way of catching them really leaves no room for the possibility of rehabilitation.
Here is a news version of the story.
Here is a more involved and interesting article on the whole case and different factors.

Democracy – jks. February 14, 2007

Oh the news, I guess I should have saved my “News-vertisers” post for this week but you can always say more about those who inform the nations.

The Russ Kick article was very interesting but not unique. A lot of the time when I watch the news I feel like I’m being duped. I guess that’s why it doesn’t bother me to not have CNN or any exclusive news channel because flipping between The National, CTV National News and CityTV news (the absolute worst), I have come to learn that coverage barely differs. Everyone gets the same facts and they are all diluted and censored in the same way. Think about it, even if Bush isn’t tell the Americans everything about Iraq and the CBC News is critical of him for it, do Canadians really believe they are in on everything happening in Afghanistan? I don’t think so, I have a feeling that there is probably a lot of footage out there that would cause us to riot in the streets about bringing our troops home.
BUT that is just my very uninformed opinion. And while I cannot blame the news disseminators for my ignorant state, I would need a lot more time to sift through the surface-y news reports, find unbiased or two-sided information and form my opinion from that. Instead, since I only have enough time to watch the evening news and listen to the radio in my car, I have maybe less than one side of every situation and I am completely confused! However, I believe that I am not the only one. I think there are many people like me who feel they do not have suitable means to make sense of current events in our world. For example, who is the good guy/bad guy in the whole Palestine vs. Israel thing? The US influence has been so strong in that story that the limited information I have seems like a fog of random reports. Is Harper really doing something about the environment? Is North Korea going to start the next world war? Why are they building more nuclear reactors in Toronto? What IS happening in Afghanistan and Iraq? Does anyone know how the Americans will keep the next election fair? Was the last one really unfair? Is Michael Moore nothing but a celebrity? Is bird flu going away just like SARS did or should we still buy Tamiflu and prepare for a pandemic? And what about AIDS, I haven’t heard anything about that since the late 90s, does it mean the threat has been minimized or we’re just not thinking about it anymore?

One thing that drives me the most insane is that celebrities like George Clooney, Bradgelina, Madonna, etc keep trying to beef up their fame by picking an underreported news story (ex. Africa, Darfur, kids, bile harvesting, etc) and pointing it out as a major cause to be aware of and do something about. I completely agree that we should do something about these causes and that there is A LOT of stuff in the world we need to change, but I am really angry it took a celebrity to inform me and even angrier that they get more publicity than the cause. If it’s news, I should know about it, both sides of it, but that’s too much to ask because the celebrities would have to go back to acting and singing songs. … And Bush would be kicked out of the Whitehouse but we won’t go there today.

In our textbook, the mention of the “news hole” as the space left over for news after advertising has been purchased seems very relevant to our own local news. Since Lethbridge is not a large city with as much crime and traffic as Calgary, the local news often must resort to filler to top off the news hole. I have a love/hate relationship with this as a lot of the filler is feel-good stories like “today school kids watched for the groundhog and cheered when their principle came out dressed like one of the furry fiends” – these make me feel good, although I do get the sense they are wasting my time a bit. Other filler, such as “one day we may tear down the Alex Arms hotel and revitalize the downtown” or “I am reporting live from the Canadian Tire Christmas tree lot and speaking to Nancy, Nancy can you tell me why the trees everywhere are drier than usual this year?” or anything to do with Mark Campbell I could do without.

So that’s my ranting for today, I’m glad that people like Russ Kirk are pointing out what the rest of us are missing as a result of biased news coverage. I will leave you with an example of the kind of filler I wish CISA would include if it had to use any:

oh.. and yeah, Festivus for the rest of us. whoot.

Fun for Soc kids! February 6, 2007

*mutter, mutter, mutter* Oh why does no one post comments? I attempt to be entertaining!!! Well it’s because my posts are too long…probably, I mean it could never be anything to do with my infallible thinking and witty discourse. Anyhoo, here’s a short one, go to these links if you’re a sociology student (and you’ve absorbed at least one theory class):
Action Figures
Lego(TM)

Hah.

Wrestling in France?! February 4, 2007

Barthes’ article is an interesting one. Especially since my boyfriend and I were having a romantic dinner at a restaurant the other day only to become distracted from each other by the TV in the corner blaring WWE clips. A conversation about homophobia and models of maleness ensued. Barthes article caught me off guard simply because… Wrestling was like that even back in 1957?! And it was popular up till or into the 90s? Wow, that is one long-enduring form of entertainment.
Personally I hate wrestling. Probably because when I watched it as a little kid it was pretty scary. And then when I got older I thought it was cool but only boys were allowed to be into it (I got into Backstreet Boys instead) so I gradually did not watching it anymore. Barthes highlights the one thing I do wrong when I watch it these days and recoil with complete disgust: I forget that it is a “spectacle”, a performance, and actually expect everyone to play fair.
However, perhaps mainstream wrestling has eroded since Barthes took a look at it. Maybe now the small spectacles don’t do it anymore and people have to become more grotesque to be the “model bastard”. Even so, I think Barthes was right on about the “make him pay” justice mentality. I mean, why ever else would Austin 3:16 be so popular for laying the smack down (the Bible verse reference is a clear give-away). (Is it just me or does Austin seem to be lacking underwear in this poster? Maybe he’s just wearing a belt! Hence the theorizing about wrestling’s love/hate relationship with homoerotica and homophobia)
Alright, so Barthes explains wrestling pretty well, as far as I am concerned. But how about when he talks about characters as archetypes, like that “Thauvin” guy being the complete symbol of a bastard, is that not rampantly present in TV shows? Like the “Merchants of Cool” talked about, such archetypes like the “moog” (was it moog?) and the “midriff” symbolize the typical MTV style teenagers. Homer Simpson symbolizes the all-American dad, or maybe now it’s Peter from the Family Guy. Julie Cooper from the O.C. is the model of a conniving bitch (hey, if Barthes can say bastard, I can say bitch). And, just like in wrestling, TV shows take short cuts through giving the characters specific appearances to get these points across, such as too much make-up or a jiggly beer belly.
Perhaps the grandiosity and unreservedness of wrestling in the 50s led the way for television to introduce more extreme characters for the sake of entertainment. Who knows? I have a pet theory about reality TV leading the way for some of the fictional television trends we are seeing now but I will divulge it later and then all of you can steal my masters thesis idea.
Well, I was going to glean you all a gory clip of WWE off Youtube but I searched “French wrestling” and came up with these much more entertaining teens (and I think they are better than some of the creepy wrestlers):

It’s a long video though so I’d only watch it for a few minutes, gets repetitive.

Google: “intelligence” February 4, 2007

So really, WHY IS IT that when I’m on an important website, such as the government of Alberta, or the government of Canada, or the University of Lethbridge pages, if I search for something really easy it just brings up my search item as a keyword in articles that may have been posted to that page?! Forbid it could actually give me the link, which I know exists, to the actual page on that subject. For example, if I go on the Government of Canada website and search Environment Canada (meaning the department, silly) I only get articles such as “Quebec, New Brunswick and Environment Canada Wildlife Officers put a stop to”. However, if I go to google.ca and plunk in Environment Canada, I come up with the the frequently used Environment Canada weather office AND, *gasp* craziness, the actual Environment Canada department website. ooooooh. Applause. So why would stupid ‘official’ websites even bother putting in search engines anyways? And everyone talks about how google is so widespread, well I wonder why.
Apparently that is a “Funny Friends Google Trout” … just because.