Response to "Killing us Softly"

In the film, Killing us Softly, Jean Kilbourne says that,

“The impossible, ideal image presented by advertisers wouldn’t matter so much if it didn’t connect with the core belief of American and Canadian culture that such transformation is possible; that we can look like this if we just try hard enough, buy the right products. If we’re not beautiful, or thin, or rich, or successful, it’s because we’re just not trying hard enough.”

I think there is a connection through human rights. Human rights are an increasingly prevalent issue these days and there are so many people pushing very hard for rights in all different kinds of fields. I think that now, being able to decide how you look and change yourself has almost become a “right”. You have the right to do it, and if you don’t your just not trying hard enough. Of course this is not the case but sometimes this is what it seems like. The fact is that it is very hard to change very much of how you look. Making it look so easy in the media, and with the immense pressure to try from society its amazing most of us have any self-confidence left at all. People are constantly bombarded with subliminal messages when exposed to the media (look like this, feel like this etc.). When you see these images and ideas you assume these things are normal. Being normal is a common aspiration so people try to fit into these stereotypes. Everyone is different. Stereotypes make people the same. These are two opposite ideas and they are trying to mesh and there is just no way it can work. Society needs to figure out a way to advertise without such brutal stereotypes. I can see how this would be a problem for advertisers. Their job is to appeal to as many people as possible. Using stereotypes accomplishes this; they are generally stereotypes in the first place for a reason. They just need to find a healthy medium; at the moment it is at such an extreme in some cases that it is almost dangerous. For example, young girls are almost literally killing themselves trying desperately to be thin because that is what the media and society are telling them is how they should look; and that that is how they should want to look. For any of these ideas about change and stereotypes to change will take a huge change in society. It is not something you can simply put into law and over night things will start to get better, it’s part of our mentality. Overtime it is definitely possible for things to change. More and more now films like, Killing us Softly and opening peoples eyes and provide a great start.

Copyright Infringement Case Study

James Bond: MGM and Sony

The James Bond series is extremely popular world wide. The author of the Bond series, Ian Flemming, sold the movies rights to Metro-Goldwym-Mayer over 40 years ago. Since then, MGM has had a monopoly on James Bond on the silver screen. In 1997, Sony tried to release its own Bond film. They claimed that they got material from one of Flemmings old business partners. This partner, Kevin McClory, claimed that he was responsible for lots of the material in the Bond series. This resulted in the release of Never Say Never Again. MGM claims that McClory did not have the rights to turn what he may have contributed, into a feature film, although they do admit he did have some limited rights. They also claimed the McClory had been trying to sell his James Bond around Hollywood for sev

eral years, and finally, Sony fell for it. In 1998, Sony filed a lawsuit against MGM, on terms of copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unfair competition. Sony was trying to weaken MGM and it was hoped the MGM would settle with Sony.

In 1999 MGM strongly won in court and Sony renounced any plans for further Bond films. Never Say Never Again, is considered an unofficial bond film. It is considered almost a direct remake of Thunderball. The traditional Bond opening credit sequence was not allowed to be used and neither was the name “Q”. These were both thought up with no influence from McClory. After the case with Sony, M

cClory still tried to sell his movie rights. MGM realized he did not renew his rights properly and swiped them from him. When Sony eventually bought MGM in 2004 all the lasting disputes were forgotten.

There are so many different aspects to this case as McClory has been involved with James Bond from the beginning and has been peddling around Hollywood for decades. The fact that Sony bought MGM and now has the rights anyways also complicated the case. To me it seems like McClory really didn’t have any business

selling James Bond. It was always Flemmings’ creativity that was responsible for Bond, McClory just helped turn it into a movie script. It seems like McClory was just trying to make a few extra bucks.

"The Yes Men" Documentary Review

The Yes Men

By Mike Bonanno & Andy Bichlbaum

The point of the film was to try and show the dark side of globalization and world trade, focusing on the World Trade Organization. The film tries to show what huge international companies do to exploit trade and make profits for themselves while they don’t care what happens in the countries they have been outsourcing too. Mike and Andy show that anyone, with very little money, can make a difference. People need to learn about what is going on and they need to know how they can make a difference. The structure is very effective. It shows how they successfully take steps to show the injustices of the WTO.

It could be a blend of a few different documentary types but it is mostly reflexive and interactive, with bits of expository. There were many conventions that the film employed. They had interviews, archival footage, jiggly camera and some narration. They had many interviews of themselves and others involved with them, and some people from the conference in Australia. They had archival footage of different news stories where they were featured and even a clip of the Canadian government discussing the disbanding of the WTO. It is from the perspective of the filmmakers.

There were many strengths in this film. I liked the interactive part of the documentary. It showed them actually setting up and planning the things they were going to do and makes it seem more realistic. The most enjoyable parts of the movie was definitely when they were doing their presentations. It was really entertaining to see what kinds of things they could get away with in front of a well educated audience and what kind of reaction they got. One scene I found particularly interesting was the presentation in front of the college class. It was refreshing to see people actually argue about what they were saying and how wrong it obviously was.

A film like “The Yes Men” has great value in our culture. People don’t ask enough about questionable activities undertaken by world corporations. This film helps to expose some of the shady dealing that are going on. It shows that steps can be taken and people need to want to change what’s going on. This film will have a positive affect because it will inspire more people to do something. There is one negative effect it could have. It may make some people want to do thing like the Yes Men, but Mike and Andy have a lot of experience and lots of good connections. Someone without their skills could get into a lot of trouble by doing similar things a bit differently.

Zeitgeist Critical Viewing Questions

1) Even if you have seen films like "Loose Change", did the film segment make you question or challenge your beliefs about 9/11? Explain.

This film definitely challenged my beliefs about 911. However, for some reason I find that I really want to believe it, but I can not. There are just too many things to take in to account and I think I need to see a movie just like this one, but for the conventional thinking of the attacks before I make any kind of final thoughts.

2) What documentary conventions did this film employ?

This film included many documentary conventions. These conventions included, archival footage and photographs, talking heads, (although they weren’t really talking to him) jiggly camera, narration, and real people.

3) What aspects of the film make its assertions seem true? List three facts that support their claim that 9/11 was authored by the US.

Parts of the film does seem true and the filmmakers has a few very interesting points. Part of the reason it seemed more truthful was because he was using clips and pictures from actually news reports and it’s not just him talking. There were three main facts that stood out for me. First the part about the buildings collapsing. It did look an awful lot like a controlled demolitions and it is hard to imagine how a plane crashing into the top would make it collapse from the bottom “pancake style”. Another interesting point was all the meetings with the Bush’s and the Bin Laden’s and their involvement with the Carlyle Group. A third point was how they got the money for the operation, it came through Pakistan, which is an ally of he U.S, and the official report of 911 said it wasn’t important where the money came from. I think that would be one of the most important parts about the investigation.

4) What would make you think that the film's assertions are false?

For one thing we don’t actually know anything about who made the film so right off the bat it seems a bit unofficial. Also there are always parts of a theory you can pick apart. One thing I found strange was his arguments about the planes crashing in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Was he suggesting that the planes didn’t actually crash there? That doesn’t make sense because there were many people that would have seen the planes crash. And if they didn’t crash then where did they go?

5) Why are critical thinking and research skills important when viewing a film like Zeitgeist?

Films like “Zeitgeist” are out there to try to convince you of something that goes against the conventional way people think about a topic. They are not called “conspiracy” theories for nothing. Critical thinking and research skill are important for picking out how much truth there actually is in the film. There is a reason that most people think the same way about what happened, because it’s quiet possibly what did happen.

Deborah Scranton "War Tapes" Ted Lecture

What does Deborah Scranton mean by the “disconnect” she hopes to “bridge” with her documentary?

There are many American and Canadians living normal lives at home and the war in Iraq feels very distant. It accomplishes what many feature films try to do, it creates it’s own world. These events seem happen in a different world and it is hard for the average citizen to relate. Deborah wants to bridge this gap. See tries to accomplish this by getting very personal stories. Instead of just facts its shows more of the emotional side and that is what humans can relate too.

How does media (television, news, documentaries, film) contribute to creating this disconnect?

The media adds to the feeling that it is happening in a different world form ours. It does not focus on personal feelings. It is very broad and just lists facts such as, “A car blew up”, and doesn’t talk at all about some one who may have actually been in the car.

How can a documentary like "War Tapes" help remedy or bridge this disconnect?

“War Tapes” uses real stories of real people who experienced real things. It sent video cameras with soldiers out into the field. This leads to showing more personal elements on screen. The audience can relate and see how human everyone was in those situations.

Hearts of Darkness Review

Hearts of Darkness

By: Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper and Eleanor Copola

The title of the film for this review is “Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse”. This documentary was written and directed by Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper, and Eleanor Copola. The documentary was made to show the magic and madness of making the film “Apocalypse Now” which was directed by Francis Ford Copola, Eleanor’s husband. This film explores everything that went into the making of academy award winning, “Apocalypse Now”. It shows everything from minor inconveniences like going over production time, to real disasters like Martin Sheen having a heart attack or Copola considering suicide. This film is structured in chronological order and this helps to emphasize how crucial things were when they went wrong. We all know now that “Apocalypse Now” went on to win two Oscars, but this film tries to show what it was like to feel almost certain failure and showing it in chronological order helps to build up all the different problems.

This documentary was an expository documentary. There were many different aspects of expository documentaries that were used in this film. The film was from the perspective of Eleanor Copola. She shot hours of footage during the production of “Apocalypse Now”, then many years later, with the help of Fax and George, made it into a documentary. Some of the things that they added later which made it an expository documentary were, lots of narration, archival footage and interviews.

I thought this film had many strengths. Since we are enrolled in a media studies class, we are all generally interested in Media. One thing I really like about the movie was that it gave great insight into how movies are made and what a complex and frustrating process it can be. It was also pretty entertaining and it made me want to see “Apocalypse Now”. One of the scenes I found particularly interesting was the one with Willard (Martin Sheen) in the hotel room. The clips it showed from this scene were very intense and Sheen wasn’t really following any script. The line between actor and character was broken many times during the film and this is one of the scenes were Sheen and Willard are pretty much the same person and the amount of actual acting is at a minimum. I also enjoyed the scenes with Copola and Dennis Hopper. Hopper has no idea what is going on and isn’t making any sense at all. Copola is trying to explain what he needs to do in the scene but Dennis isn’t even hearing what he is saying. These scenes demonstrate one of the many trials that Copola and all filmmakers have to deal with while making a film.

I thought the film was great, but it did have a few weaknesses. One of its problems that most documentaries share is that it is not extremely entertaining, however entertainment is not the main goal of a documentary. Documentaries set out to inform, teach or express and “Hearts of Darkness” definitely accomplished that. Also, there may have been too many clips from the actual movie. Eleanor apparently shot hours and hours of footage so there must have been many important clips that were not included. However, many of the clips were there for good reason, to show what the film ended up as even with everything that went wrong so that was necessary. They also added to the entertainment factor, which isn’t necessary, but it doesn’t hurt.

The movie “Hearts of Darkness was very good and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who has seen “Apocalypse Now”, or is interested in the film industry.