Review

So class is over for the year! Yeah! I can't wait till summer begins and I get to enjoy the weather! But first, review for the exam.

The theme that has really circled each unit studied in this course would be Canada's struggle for identity. Because Canada is so close to America, and America owns so many businesses and enterprises in Canada, we struggle to be different from the United States. Canadians identify with American music, movies, magazines and tons of other products including food and household items. An issue that Canada struggles with is media consumption. At least 90% of TV, movies and music listened to by Canadians is American owned and made. Although Canada can identify with a few Canadian actors and musicians, they all have to travel to the United States in order to become super stars and make a lot of money.

Because of the age of technology, Canada no longer wants to identify with the wilderness and our Canadian symbol of the beaver for example. Canada wants to be like America in this technological age. America identifies with their popular culture or entertainment industry. America has the biggest english speaking entertainment industry in the world. Canada wants this identity. Canada wants to identify with the media and entertainment. They no longer want to identify with the country, they want to identify with American popular culture.

The problem with Canadian Popular Culture is that, as a Canadian, we have lost sight of our nationality. It seems that the borders between America and Canada have blurred and we all consume the same products. Canada needs to fight to be individual and we need to take control of our own nation. It seems pathetic that Canada relies so much on American popular culture.

Personally I think there should be a nice in between. Canadians should be allowed to consume American products (including movies) but Canada needs to come up with their own to support our own economy. Being a film student and a future filmmaker for this country, I'm concerned about the film industry in this country. Because all theatre enterprises in Canada are American owned Canadian films can't get distribution. None of the exhibitors have faith in the Canadian film which is rightly believed after the disaster with One Week, but they need to give other films a chance. And Canada has to figure out some way to be able to put more money in their films if they are ever to compete with American big budget films. The least the American exhibitors could do would be have an evening once a week to play a featured Canadian film. At least give Canada the opportunity to see their own nations films.

So this is my final blog and all I can say is... it has been......... interesting.

Shania Twain

"Inside every Canadian, whether she or he knows it or not, there is, in fact, an American. The magnitude and effect of this American presence is us all varies considerably from person to person, but it ubiquitous and inescapable" - John Meisel

-I somewhat agree with this statement. I do agree that everyone has a little of American spirit in them whether they want to or not. I mean it's hard not to in Canada. America is our neighbour and they have taken over so many industries in Canada and influence us like crazy! Each individual person is influenced by America.

-However I'm not sure I agree that the film viewed in class: Shania Twain: A Life in Eight Albums, reverses this statement. When viewing her childhood I guess I could agree with this statement because they included scenes with her Native Grandfather and Mom's Husband which takes us back to the roots of Canada when the Natives ruled the land. And her home was very Canadian-esque, or what I would think to be Canadian. There is one scene in the film where Eileen (Shania) talks to her mom about the moose meat they had sent her and how it was killed after being hit with a truck. That to me seems very Canadian. I could be uneducated in this manner but does America even have moose? And even though I HATE moose meat, my Grandfather and Uncle are hunters and I share a similar story involving a moose being hit and then cut up for meat. Totally gross and I wish I didn't have a similar story but I do. Anyways back to my point. The movie definitely shows her Canadian culture but I don't agree that she has been Americanized. In the film she tired country music but didn't like it so she wanted to sing in a rock band, and when I think of rock bands I think of America. So maybe she wanted to be American. Yes she didn't do well in Nashville but I don't think that had anything to do with her nationality. She was just young and inexperienced and no producers were interested. But after working more and trying new things, she finally got a record deal and it was with an American Country producer in Nashville. So yes in a sense she became American because she signed with an American producer, but I don't think she ever lost sight of her origins in Canada. Just because she was/is an International success does not mean she gave into the 'American presence'

-Overall I think yes the movie brought our her Canadian origins with the references to her Native family but I disagree that Shania has even been obscured as being Americanized. She's famous. So are you stating that if you are famous you have to be American. If a Canadian becomes famous in America does that make them American? If an American becomes famous in Canada does that make them Canadian? most definitely not!

-I think the intended audience for this film would be her fans. People always want to know about how stars got to where they wanted to be. In terms of nationality, it could be for both nationalities, maybe more American just because American's are more unfamiliar with Shania's Native-Canadian background, and Canadians know more about her. Or at least I do. I grew up listening to Shania Twain and I love her. My family told me all about her life story when I was a child, like how she was Canadian and lived in Timmons which is a smaller town then where I am from, and how her story is SO successful because she was from such a small town and became very famous.

-The film could connect Canadians together because it shows the real life that most Canadians lived back in the 80s/90s, struggling to survive during the tough times. The film would connect the most with Natives I supposed, since it shows more of their struggles. But I'm really unsure of how the film really connects with Canadians other then the fact that it is a Canadian film about a Canadian star.

-I think the more Shania grows up the more glitzy and glamourous she becomes but thats necessary to become success and be noticed by the people that matter in the industry. I don't think the film becomes more glitzy in order to be more connected with Canada because that wouldn't make sense. When we think of glitz and glamour we think of America, do we not? Canada is boring to Canadians, which is why all Canadian's have a piece of America in them because they think their life would be boring if they were all Canadian.

Facebook

Facebook. We are learning about Facebook in University. Seriously? Is this for real? Did I really pay $1000 to learn about Facebook and a 'global village'? I'm starting to get concerned!! I mean it's easy which is good this time of year because of all these papers coming due but honestly I pay big dollars to exercise my brain at University and I just don't feel I'm learning anything worth learning, at least not this week. Maybe I just chose the wrong class to take but I don't think I need to know about Facebook and global connectedness.

I'm sorry, it's harsh but a blog is created to speak ones mind and that is on my mind.

So Questions for the week. No film, just tons of youtube videos that are irrelevant to this blog. The first question: When everybody becomes totally involved with everyone, how is one to establish identity?

This question is absolutely ridiculous! I think it is stating that because Facebook has status updates and pictures and wall posts etc. which allow us to know everything about all our Facebook friends that we cannot be individuals. This is VERY false. Just because we are able to know everything about everyone does not mean we can't still develop and become our own person. This question is saying that social networks stop us from establishing identity. Is this because we don't have face-to-face interaction? But we do. We only talk on Facebook when we are not able to have face-to-face interaction. So what does this question mean? We can't establish identity because we know everything about everyone? We become so involved with everyone else's lives on social networks that we forget to establish our own identity? I don't believe that. I use Facebook as my social network and I have an identity. Just because I can be updated with all my friends whereabouts and feelings does not mean I don't know my own feelings or whereabouts. Maybe I am reading this question wrong but this is what I get from the question and I do not agree with the assumption.

Second question: Discuss McLuhan's 'global village' as related to digital media like the internet. What are the implications - positive & negative - of this connectedness (of Canadians to one another & the rest of the world) on Canadian identity?

McLuhan's 'global village' is online social networks that connect the world. McLuhan uses the example of Facebook to discuss Canada's ability to stay connected with each other. I discovered in my seminar when covering the reading that the whole world does not use Facebook so therefore it is not a GLOBAL network. However, Facebook does connect a large part of the world together. Facebook is available to 75 different languages, however Facebook is not the first choice for a social network in all countries. One of the students in my seminar is from Brazil and I don't recall what social network he uses in his home country but he said it was not Facebook, therefore Facebook cannot connect the entire global world together.

The positive aspects of Facebook for Canadians only - we can connect to friends and family in different provinces or in different countries FOR FREE. People complain that Facebook is impersonal compared to the phone but it is free. Especially with the economy in the shitters and everyones bills going up in price, Facebook is the way to go in order to stay in touch with love ones that are at a distance.

The negative aspects of Facebook for Canadians only - when talking to friends and family wither on Facebook chat or on their walls, somethings can come out the wrong way and there could be a misunderstanding in the meaning of a message. Because Facebook is a way to stay connected in a written format, certain things a person can write can be taken the wrong way. For example I could write, as a joke, something rude on my friends wall and her friends would not understand my sarcasm and think I was rude. Or just talking to a friend in general in Facebook chat, I could say something and they might not understand what I mean. The problem with Facebook is that others cannot see your emotions and could misinterpret you.

But there is also social networks, like Skype which is like MSN only it is a webcam interaction, where emotion can be portrayed and the problem of misinterpretation can be avoided.

My personal thought is that Facebook is a great way to interact with friends when you are not able to have face-to-face interaction. Social Networks, life Facebook, allow friendships to blossom and grow whether the people live in the same neighbourhood or in a different country. With this economy, it is a blessing to have social networks like Facebook available to the public for free, in order for people to save money on phone bills or travel expenses etc.

Platinum - Bruce McDonald

So before watching Platinum (1997) I thought, "Oh Dear, another horrible film of McDonald's early years. It better be better then Dance Me Outside", but after watching almost the entire film, I can say "It wasn't that bad". It was WAY better then Dance Me Outside but it is still not as good as his newer films Pontypool (2008) or The Tracey Fragments (2007). Platinum did have some of the same effects (small screen in the screen of what the actor is looking at etc.) as The Tracey Fragments which made it interesting but the way McDonald used them in Platinum was amateur. The Tracey Fragments is a much better developed film and Bruce McDonald's skills have improved ten-fold.

I thought Platinum was useful to watch in class because of it's collaboration between American and Canadian culture. Although both record companies are Canadian, Platinum is supposed to represent the true Canadian label and the other recording company is supposed to be the label that has sold out like the American companies. The film is about a band that has to choose which company to sign with. They originally go with the Americanized record company because they had better sales and the most important feature in a label is their sales record. But after some consideration they go with Platinum because they know that they will be able to make the music they want to make and wont be OWNED by the record company.

So the questions of the week are "What are the implications of knowing and recognizing our own popular culture?"; "How does Platinum function as a metaphor of Canadian concerns by employing familiar codes of popular culture?"; "Does the film suggest to us that Canada actually does have a vibrant popular culture?"; and "How is the urban setting (Montreal) employed in relation to these issues?".

"What are the implications of knowing and recognizing our own popular culture?" - It is important to recognize our own popular culture in order to become our own nation and not depend so much on America and their culture. It's important to know who is Canadian because if we didn't it would be assumed they were American and the more American culture we have in our society, the more they have taken over. Canada needs to be independent and the best way to achieve that is to promote our own popular culture.

"How does Platinum function as a metaphor of Canadian concerns by employing familiar codes of popular culture?" - I kind of already explained this. Platinum is a metaphor of Canadian concerns because Canada is worried society will 'sell-out' and give up to American culture. The band in the film was going to sell out to the bigger record company because they made more sales, but they made more sales because they tried to be American and remix their songs to sound Americanized (if that makes any sense). Canada has a very distinct sound in music and Canada is worried that specific sound will diminish one day because people are greedy with money. Platinum is the Canadian record company who cares about their bands and are not all about the money. Canadians are supposed to be about the passion for music and not money starved Americans.

"Does the film suggest to us that Canada actually does have a vibrant popular culture?" - This film does suggest we have a vibrant popular culture in terms of music. The film focuses on Canadian record labels and musicians which a lot of people are reluctant to know about. The film informs the viewer that Canada is thriving in the music industry and becoming successful. The film is advertising that Canadian labels are not 'money-monsters" and care about their musicians. They want to make sure the musicians sound like they want to.

"How is the urban setting (Montreal) employed in relation to these issues?" - Well the urban setting I guess is giving in to Americanism since Canada consists of only 10% urban cities. When people think of Canada they think of the country which is right to assume since 90% of Canada is forests and open land. When thinking of Canadian music I think of the east coast sound (ex. Great Big Sea) or multi-cultural music like the Bollywood sound etc. If these groups can be successful without the urban city then why do these singers in the film need the urban city to become successful?

This film wasn't so bad, and I kinda wanna know what happens at the end. Not a bad choice of film Kennedy, but Bollywood/Hollywood (2002) might have been a more interesting film to show. Specially since you showed examples of Bollywood music and dancing in lecture. Just a suggestion.

Research Paper ideas

For my research paper I am going to write about a Canadian film because I am a film major and any opportunity that I can get to write about a film, I will. I haven't chosen an exact film yet but I am thinking about writing about Normal (Carl Bessai, 2007), Rude (Clement Virgo, 1995) or Atanarjuat (Zacharias Kunuk, 2001). I am leaning towards Normal because I like it the most, I have the film and I've seen it the most. I think I could talk about how the film is Canadian but very American by nature. The film's narrative has all the plot lines to make it popular like drugs, sex and violence which is common in an American film. However the film can be seen as Canadian because it is about three people's emotional journeys through life which Canadian films usually concerns themselves with. Canadian films are mostly about people trying to discover themselves similar to our country trying to discover who we are. This film is about three people trying to discover who they are and how to move on after being effected by a death.

In this paper I could use the Media Effect theory to discuss how America takes control of our entertainment industry with their own films as well as influencing Canadian films. I could also discuss Adorno and Horkheimer's theory of the Culture Industry which refers to the media, which in my case is film. Adorno and Horkheimer both argued that society is "in a state of false consciousness" (lecture). I could use this theory by discussing how we are consumers of the American world and they are deluding their image upon us. American films make Canadians want to be American because they paint a beautiful picture for us and tell us everything is better there in order for us to buy their products. Now Canadians think they have to be American or act American in order to be popular or make money. For example the film Normal is Canadian but has American tendencies in it like the sex, drugs and violence.

This is just the beginning of my analysis. I have to do a ton more research in order to make my point valid and appropriate for this course. I want to choose Normal because it is a Canadian film that thinks it has to conform to the style of an American film to be popular, which in a way I think is valid because society has gotten used to the American style that they can not accept Canadian film as it is behind in development. My argument in my paper will surround the notion of the Canadian and American film industry and how the American industry has taken over because they are more developed and the Canadian film only has a slight chance to over power the American industry if we try to copy their style.

Olympic Closing Ceremonies

Okay so I loved and hated the closing ceremonies. I would call it probably close to a 50/50 draw. I HATED the closing ceremonies because of some of the musicians *cough, Avril Lavigne, cough* not all, and I really could care less about the formalities of the ceremonies with speeches for ministers and all that, but that's what you got to go through during the ceremonies I guess, that's really the purpose of them right?

But I LOVED the ceremonies after they lowered the torches and started the big skit on making fun of ourselves, beginning with William Shatner. It was hilarious!! I'm not a fan of William Shatner but in the right context, he was pretty funny, and Catherine O'Hara's speech was soo true to heart! :D Michael J. Fox's speech was short and sweet and then they went on with the giant mounties, beavers, hockey players etc. to make fun of ourselves some more. I thought it was hilarious! I love to make fun of our own stereotypes! I love that Canadian's are known for being really polite, saying sorry, loving beer, and our cultural word eh! I love these because they are so easy and fun to mock, and the closing ceremony was the perfect time to tell the world that these stereotypes that other countries associate with us are jokes and we are comfortable enough with our country to make fun of them ourselves.

Now down to business. Encoding and Decoding: So Stuart Hall wrote a book about interpretation and how an encoder would make something to mean one thing but the decoder could interpret it to be completely different. To put this into context with the closing ceremonies we could talk about my favourite part. I'm not the encoder so I could be far off with this but I'm pretty certain that the encoder was trying to make fun of our own country. The encoder wanted other nations to see how polite and funny we are and how we are comfortable with ourselves to make jokes. The decoder: me and the rest of the world :P, can decode it in different ways. I decoded it the same way the encoder wanted me to interpret it (at least I think) but other people could be offended with it. Some people might not want other countries to think we are stupid, immature and cannot take anything seriously. BUT IT'S A JOKE PEOPLE!!

Another scenario we could look at would be the musicians that I hate. Obviously I decoded it in a negative manner. The encoder (i'm assuming once again) probably did not want Canada to hear the musicians in a negative manner, it just all depends on a person's musical preference.

Overall I would say, through Stuart Hall's 'active process of perception', that I am 'Negotiated' because I understand what the encoder is trying to portray, but because of my personal interests and preferences, I do not interpret everything correctly.

Dance Me Outside - Bruce McDonald

Bruce McDonald has recently made some good films... HOWEVER!!! this film was awful! The movie was boring, and not my cup of tea. McDonald what happened? I guess he was new then so I can forgive him, but honestly.... BRUTAL!

Yes the movie was a good portrayal of Native culture and how they defend their own, but in another way it makes them looks like thugs in a negative way. They want to get back at the white boy who killed one of their own and who only received a 2 year sentence, but they try to kill him with knifes in a bar. Very thug-like. They work in a pack with promotes community but also represents a gang.

And what about the Aboriginal girl with the white fiance? She agrees to her mothers wish and leaves her fiance for a night to have sex and produce a child with another Aboriginal person. That's so inappropriate!! Again it promotes their tight community, but if she is engaged to this white person, then she should be in love and not want to have sex with another man, no matter the race, and no matter the circumstance.

There is clearly a tossup. The film could be seen in a positive and negative way. The group of Aboriginal men defending their community could be seen as heroic or thugs, depending on the culture that views the film. And the Aboriginal girl's choice could be seen as disgusting or loyal to her people. The film's meaning can be manipulated depending on the culture watching.

I wonder if that was McDonald's purpose? I wonder if he planned to have different meanings? If he did, I might enjoy the movie better because its not just a boring film, it has more depth. I enjoy films that make me think and looking at the film from 2 different cultural perspectives the film offers a critical perspective.

McDonald... I forgive you

2010 Canadian Winter Olympics

I'd love to say that I am a devoted viewer of the Olympics but I would be lying to you. Don't get me wrong I take pride in my country, especially during the Olympics, but I always have something better to do. I love being Canadian, especially during the winter Olympics because we are so amazing at all the sports. Hockey is obviously the best part of the Olympics because that is our national sport and we always give the other countries a run for the gold. I love that womans hockey has won like what, the last 3 years of winter Olympics right? I love that! Especially since I am a woman and not only does it give our country pride, but it gives woman pride in our nation.

The advertisements for these winter Olympics are, in my opinion, pretty good but a little over the top. The "Believe" commercials all try to give the stereotypical Canadian feel but make it look magical and the athletes look heroic. The "Believe" commercials are funded by CTV which is the official broadcaster of the Olympics.

CTV wants Canada to take pride in our country and to show the rest of the world how amazing Canada is. CTV wants "Canada to embrace and fall in love with our Olympic heroes". CTV wants Canada to believe in our athletes and take pride in our country.

I watched Jan Judec http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEFmfgXtJ08&fmt=18, Melissa Hollingsworth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b24IZi0lGBI&fmt=18, and Patrick Chan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MU1ICfPULY&fmt=18.

Each "Believe" commercial gives information about the athlete's life and why they are so amazing. These commercials try to make each athlete seem like a hero and that we should fall in love with Canada because they are Canadian athletes that are going to bring home the gold for Canada.

In Jan Judec's commercial, the narrator Donald Sutherland (a Canadian actor), tells the viewer of Judec's rough history and how his family escaped Chezklesavakia in a wooden boat. Judec says in the commercial "if I hadn't of come to Canada I wouldn't of had the same opportunities", giving the view a sense of how much better Canada is then other countries. Sutherland follows by telling the view how devoted Judec is to his athleticism since he trains 8 hours a day, 11 months out of the year. The viewer should take pride in his devotion and love him for being Canadian.

In Melissa Hollingsworth's commercial, it opens with Hollingsworth alone in a dressing room, representing the dedication and the specific mindset she has prepared herself in to win the first Canadian gold medal on Canadian soil. She walks out of the room with a strong and confident strut and Sutherland tells the viewers how dangerous her sport is. Sutherland describes the sport as being one of the fastest sports in the world where Hollingsworth with sled head first down a track of ice going 120km/hr with no steering wheel or brakes. The Canadian viewer should be honored to be Canadian with Hollingworth and have Hollingsworth fight for our gold medal. Hollingsworth is risking her life to be our hero in the Olympics.

In Patrick Chan's commercial, the focus is on his young age. Chan is 18 years old who still attends school. The commercial shows him studying in front of a piano, making him multitalented. Chan is a figure skater that combines athleticism with artistry. The viewer embraces his talents and falls in love with his dedication to the sport while he still goes to school.

All three of these commercials give symbolic imagery of Canadian but not in the stereotypical manner. The commercials want to viewer to take pride in being Canadian so the symbolic imagery is shown in a peaceful and heroic manner. And each athlete is shown as a hero. In Judec's commercial he is shown in the dark with a bright light shining behind him, with Hollingsworth she is shown doing her very dangerous sport, and Chan is shown figure skating one moment and studying the next.

I think these commercials do help Canadians "embrace and fall in love" with their country because they make the athletes look heroic and everyone wants a hero. These commercials are also a great tactic to get the viewer interested in watching the Olympics because they inform the viewer of information about the athletes that is never addressed during the Olympic games. These commercials give the viewer an opportunity to choose a favourite and watch that athlete throughout the Olympic games.

Degrassi

Wow flashbacks to the 80s. I love it! Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi The Next Generation are very similar because they have the same actors playing their same characters, only all grown up. Both episodes we watched in lecture are very similar because they focus on the situations of the original cast. The episode we watched of Degrassi The Next Generation focused a lot on where all the characters had gone after Degrassi High, instead of focusing on the new generation of Degrassi.

The difference between the two shows would be the use of technology. Degrassi The Next Generation (or DNG) was produced in the 90s which was the decade for technology. The computer was invented in the 90s and therefore the new generation of Degrassi is introduced with the technology. Emma, the daughter of Spike who is from the old generation of Degrassi, is introduced to the show during a scene where her friend Manny and her are reading an e-mail from a boy that Emma likes but has never meet. Emma has a relationship with a boy over the computer which is DNG's way of catering to the new generation.

Apparently Degrassi Junior High (or DJH) was funded by an underlying educational mandate and DNG is on a private network. I don't believe this difference in funding makes a difference in content or style because both shows are about teenagers dealing with problems in high school. However I think that the first season of DNG and the 9th season of DNG are completely different and my argument would be different. If I was to compare DJH to DNG season 9 I would argue that the producers are trying to achieve a Hollywood look to their show in order to appeal to the next generation.

DNG season 1 and season 9 are completely different. In season 9 there is a girl at Degrassi that has a child and is a model who just got a job in Paris. This is an obvious example of how the show has now become Americanized. Season 1 would never address these topics because they were inappropriate to discuss or unreal. Season 1 was trying to relate to everyday kids, and season 9 is trying to be entertaining to the new generation. The entertainment that is easily accessible to the new generation is American therefore, in order for a Canadian television show to survive in the entertainment industry, they must conform to the American tone. The Canadian tone is about children or teenagers in real circumstances that all teenagers go through in high school, but the American tone that the new generation of DNG has overtaken is an entertainment factor. Season 9 is addressing situations that some teenagers have gone through but do not apply to most of the teenage population.

Personally I loved DNG when it was fairly new. The first couple of episodes I didn't like because it seemed to cater to the last generation that watched DJH or Degrassi High. DNG focused a lot on the characters of DJH and not on the new characters that I felt I could relate to because we were around the same age. The middle seasons were the best when the main characters of DNG were in high school like me going through the same things as my generation was going through, but now the show has gone down hill. After watching season 9 I feel that the show has become a talent show. One character is a model, another plays music etc. etc. The show no longer relates to normal high school students, and now focuses only on the entertainment factor. I guess this is necessary for the new generation to become interested but I feel the show has lost its realistic factor. I can no longer relate to the show but that could be just because I grew up and I am no longer in high school like the characters in the show.

Canada: A People's History

After watching two episodes of Canada: A People's History I became skeptical of their truth. I know there really isn't such a thing as truth but how can a person know so much detail about an event that occurred hundreds of years ago. Then I start thinking that if I don't believe the information given to me by this (I can't really call it a documentary) re-enactment, then I shouldn't believe what is written in textbooks because that is what the re-enactments are showing. They are showing the viewer the history of our land with visuals.

I'm a little wishy-washy when it comes to these re-enactments. They convey the same information in textbooks, but for some reason I believe textbooks and I have a hard time believing these re-enactments. It was discussed in class that the interviews portrayed in Canada: A People's History are the written word of the famous person's journal, but they could always be construing the facts of what actually happened.

Believe it or not I do enjoy watching Canada: A People's History because the new generation that I discussed last week are visual learners and it's easier for my generation to WANT to learn about history if they are shown by video. BUT I am also a university student and I rely on doctors and professors who are must more educated then me to teach me the facts. I feel that Canada: A People's History is not an academic source therefore I have a hard time accepting the "so-called" facts given.

In class we also watched clips from Canadian Aboriginal History: Olive Dickason's Story and I had a better time believing the story because I was told be an academic, Olive Dickason, the facts that she had researched and discovered.

As a film student, I know that a "so-called" documentary that uses the voice of god narrative (Canada: A People's History) wants the viewer to believe what they tell us. The narrator is telling us what to believe. The use of interviews by academics is much more believable because the academics are giving you the facts that they have researched and are allowing the viewer to come up with their own conclusions.

I think Canada: A People's History is a great source of information to give children in elementary schools and high schools, but for university students, we are more educated and understand that film can be fabricated to tell the positive side of our history. The films are a great way to visualize the future for children and get them excited about learning, but they are, in my opinion, construed and only used for entertainment.

I watched Canada: A People's History - Plains of Abraham which had no journal entries from actors, and was only a re-enactment of a war between the French and the British. If we are told that the information coming from the shorts are information found in the journals of important people, why are there no interviews? Where is there information coming from? I guess I don't believe the information shown because there is no proof and the source of their information is not given. In a textbook or academic book, the sources of their research are given to give the reader an idea of how academic the source is. With the shorts, there is no proof and I believe that the company that creates these re-enactments are just construing information to look entertaining to the viewer. Of course the films tell the moral of the story but the fine details given are hard to take into consideration when I don't know the source of the information.

I also watched Canada: A People's History - Jacques Cartier which could be taken into more consideration because they have interviews of the famous characters with words from their journals. The episode was about the French coming to barter with the Aboriginals of Canada (the name the Aboriginals gave their land). However I still don't believe what the episode is trying to make me believe. The episodes of Canada: A People's History do give the viewer the moral of the story but in order to show a video of history there has to be some invention of a story to re-enact. And maybe thats all they are trying to portray. Maybe the episodes are just trying to give us the moral of the story but in order to keep the viewer entertained they must build a story to re-enact. I would just rather read an academic book to get my information about my history.

A question asked my the instructor in class was: what role does popular history play in establishing Canadian identity? In my opinion popular history does give the population a sense of pride in being Canadian, and I'm not arguing that it is a false sense of pride because Canadians did win in the battle of Vimy Ridge and Canada should be proud that we are peace keepers and not fighters. I do believe that some documentaries do give a false sense of pride when it comes to the land ownership. Some documentaries make the white male look superior and manly when they take over the land but in actual fact, the white male is a disgrace to our nation because this land belonged to the Aboriginals before us and we stole it. But to show this information in a documentary is to insult Canada and crush their pride. All documentaries have to be careful when portraying this part of history to try and make sure they do not insult anyone but the real facts would insult people. The reality of the matter is, the taking over of the land was disrespectful and that is part of our history. But in order to reflect a certain amount of pride, the documentaries and re-enactments have to sugar coat certain facts.

Overall, I prefer to read textbooks and academic journals, but to get the younger generation interested, I can see the need for films about our history since the new generation are visual learners.

Until next time - Be Proud Canadian

Canadian Bacon

Canadian Bacon. Michael Moore, John Candy and Rhea Perlman. Wow. I can understand why this film would be shown in a Canadian Studies class, but it was awful. I'm not sure if it was awful because I am a film student and this film would be identified academically as a "stupid" film, or if this movie is just too much for the new generation to handle. I can see that this film would be funny for the 1990s when it was filmed, but todays generation can not identify with it. The two main actors John Candy and Rhea Perlman were at the top of their game when this film was released so the film had star status to help their sales, but I also think that in the 1990s, Canadians could identify with the stereotypes. Now, my generation is much different. Not everyone plays hockey or even likes hockey, not everyone is polite probably resulting from the increase in crime, and some stereotypes like the mountie or the country in general are insulting. Canada is trying to become more industrialized. Canada is entering a new age of technology and we no longer identify with stereotypes such as maple syrup, beer, and hockey. As an example, the new generation identifies with Blackberry cellphone because it was created in Canada and is new technology.

Okay so now that I have vented about the movie, my instructor has asked the class to analysis the film using theories discussed in class. The three theories I will apply to the film will be Semiotics, Cultural Identities and the Reception Analysis.

Semiotics is the study of signs. There are two different types of signs in Canadian Bacon. Signs to identify with Americans and signs to identify with Canadians. These signs are also known as the stereotypes that are identified with each culture. Americans can identify with their patriotism, military strength, drinking at the bar with friends and the fast food industry such as KFC. The Canadian symbols in the film include the game of hockey, mounties, the Canadian flag, being friendly to strangers, the CN tower of Toronto; known as the city of Canada, maple syrup and taking small crime seriously such as littering. Although these signs do not always apply to every person, the Canadians or Americans can relate to them and identify that the signs are part of their culture.

Cultural Identities was a term founded by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. The term refers to the media and their purpose. The media is a tool for social control and the mass public has a hard time distinguishing the real world with the world invented by the media. An example in the film would be the American Presidents ability to persuade the public. After watching the violent behaviour of the Canadians at a hockey game after their supposed culture was insulted (beer), the American President gave the public the notion that the Canadians were violent in order to distract his country from realizing he was a crappy President. The American media took this notion of violence and took it to the extreme, telling false stories about Canada's violent behaviour. The American public believed the media and could not distinguish the lies from the real world. John Candy's and Rhea Perlman's characters were very patriotic, like the stereotypical American, and tried to defend their country by attacking Canada.

Reception Analysis is similar to the Uses and Gratifications Theory which applies to how people use the media to get specific gratifications and challenges the idea of a passive audience. The Reception Analysis is the study of the way in which the public makes meanings of media messages. This theory also applies to the media and their ability to persuade their culture with lies. This theory also applies to the film in general. Americans and Canadians both accept their signs and think the film is funny because the signs are true. This film was a success at its time because the stereotypes were funny and entertaining. Most Canadians and Americans agreed with the stereotypes and could both take pride and joy in the film. The Reception Analysis theory is the study of how the viewer responds to the film, and since the film was popular in its time, the viewer must take pride in the stereotypes.

Overall I can understand why this film is a perfect way to start the course and address all the stereotypes associated with Canada, but I personally feel that because of the new technology age, the stereotypes have become outdated. Canada is becoming more and more industrial and soon enough, we will no longer be associated with such things as maple syrup and mounties.

I still think the movie sucked! :)

Until next week - Be Proud Canadians (but don't take pride in stereotypes. It only reinforces them)

First Blog

Seeming as this is my first blog, I should probably introduce myself. My name is Jes Clarke and I am a second year Film Student at Brock University. I go by "Jes" with one "s" and I spell my full name "Jessica" with two "s'". I always like to clarify that right off the bat because a lot of people spell my name wrong and I've been called "Jen" WAY TO MANY TIMES.

Okay so I have been assigned by my instructor in Canadian Popular Culture to blog about a certain topic each week. This weeks topic is an introduction and I am to blog about my opinion of the class and to discuss some of the Canadian television series or films that I'm familiar to. I've never blogged before in my life so lets see how this goes.

So I am taking Canadian Popular Culture because I really enjoyed last years Introduction to Popular Culture. It was taught by Dr. Gillespie who is a tough professor but I very much enjoyed the class. This is University after all and it is to be expected that our professors will want things done a certain way.

Looking at the syllabus I see subjects and readings that I assumed we would be discussing like the Aboriginals, the French Canadian division, our connection to America, music and the media. I'm excited to have Stephanie Smith as a TA because she is known as a film TA and I've had her before. I'm unfamiliar with my Instructor Tracy but she seems like a nice, fun, upbeat person. I LOVE how she posted the textbook and all other readings on a class site, saving me probably like $100! Thank you Tracy Kennedy!!

I am also taking this course because I want to be a filmmaker, and although I am Canadian, I think it would be beneficial to take a course that will inform me of unknown facts about my Canadian audience.

Last year I would not be able to tell you of any Canadian films or television series that I have seen before. But after taking a Canadian Film course last term I could tell you one of my favourite Canadian directors that I have seen so far would be Bruce McDonald and his films The Tracey Fragments and Pontypool. His narratives are very interesting and cleaver. Pontypool is about the national language. It's about a radio station set in a small town that has been informed of a virus affecting their city. At the end of the film, it's explained that the virus is caused by a certain word in the English language and in order to avoid the virus, people must speak another language. Being a Canadian film, the language of choice that saves the city at the end of the day is French. This film is sending a message about our bilingual country and the pride associated with the Quebec residences and their language. The radio station is also located in the country which sends the viewer a message about the isolated country of Canada and the wildlife attached to the stereotype. There is also a scene at the beginning of the film where the main character Grant Mazzy is driving to work in the early morning and there is a blizzard outside, which associates Canada to the cold and snowy outdoors.

Another Canadian film I watched in my Canadian Film course would be Littoral which is a Canadian film about multiculturalism. It is about a man of Lebanon descent whose parents have both died and he wishes to bury his recently deceased father in his homeland of Lebanon. When the man gets to Lebanon he is at first-sight greeted with respect, but as soon as he is spoken to in the Lebanon language, he proclaims he is Canadian. By stating he is Canadian it is assumed he does not speak Lebanon and only speaks French of English, and in his case, French. This film portrays our multicultural nation that has no one specific culture but does have two specific languages.

Does that about sum it up? I could go on to explain all the films we watching in class or discussed in class but we'd be here for a while. I think that is good for now.

Until next week - Be Proud Canadians