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