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.