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.