Have you ever began talking to someone and they began to physically grow closer to you as the conversation continues? Well, Seinfeld created an episode about the way people sometimes invade other people's personal comfort space when engaged in a conversation. Elaine has a boyfriend who is a close talker and of coarse, this is television so they take it to the extreme. He grows so close to character's faces that it almost appears they may touch lips.
Elaine's friends, Jerry, Kramer and George, all notice how close this man gets to them when he talks. When Kramer is first introduced to him, he actually falls down from leaning back to far. This raises the important question. How close is too close? Is there a certain measurement we should have established for talking distance and if there was, what would be consequences of violating this act? Thankfully, there was no issue with Elaine's boyfriend's breathe. I know this is something which everyone has encountered multiple times in their lives and I find it extremely hard to actually tell a nice person to step off a little bit. Later in the episode Jerry decides that he is not going to back down anymore. He is going to stand his ground and talk to him face to face from a distance that is uncomfortable to watch from my couch. The plan sort of backfires though. Jerry expects to gain respect and the man might back off, but he did not. It is just his nature to be a close talker and there's nothing they could do about it. Clearly, Elaine's shallow behavior lead to their breakup which in their opinion was inevitable.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Analyzing Movies
The readings for this week involved the audience's ability to properly analyze all the different aspects of a movie. Though we have not been able to discuss these articles in class yet, there is many things to be said about the readings. The two passages relate to one another but focus on slightly different areas. The second reading was about a man named Roger Ebert. He is an extremely famous movie reviewer.
He spoke of the fact that audience's watch movies based on their advertisement budgets. This means that people go to the movies which are broadcast on a large scale to them. People tend to neglect subtitle films and watching movies more as a witness than a collaborator as he stated in this passage. I agree that people do tend to witness a movie rather than stop the movie and discuss it with their peers. People try to grasp the overall plot of the movie more. I think Roger Ebert is trying to get the audience to focus on the director's intentions and critique things such as lighting or setting. The only problem I have with this is that stopping a film to discuss it ruins the flow and can take away from the suspense or emtions portrayed on screen. For example, if we are about to hit the climax in a movie and my friend stops to talk about the lighting, my mind is redirected off the subject and the movie's intentions of reaching a climax is lost.
In conclusion, Roger Ebert is a credible reviewer who makes excellent points when he speaks of people not watching enough movies that aren't broadcast often in advertising. We should become more active and expand our horizons. However, I think he may have gone into too much detail about what his job entails and not enough of about why expanding my horizons will be beneficial. His opinion is clear, but his justification does not appeal to me as the reader.
He spoke of the fact that audience's watch movies based on their advertisement budgets. This means that people go to the movies which are broadcast on a large scale to them. People tend to neglect subtitle films and watching movies more as a witness than a collaborator as he stated in this passage. I agree that people do tend to witness a movie rather than stop the movie and discuss it with their peers. People try to grasp the overall plot of the movie more. I think Roger Ebert is trying to get the audience to focus on the director's intentions and critique things such as lighting or setting. The only problem I have with this is that stopping a film to discuss it ruins the flow and can take away from the suspense or emtions portrayed on screen. For example, if we are about to hit the climax in a movie and my friend stops to talk about the lighting, my mind is redirected off the subject and the movie's intentions of reaching a climax is lost.
In conclusion, Roger Ebert is a credible reviewer who makes excellent points when he speaks of people not watching enough movies that aren't broadcast often in advertising. We should become more active and expand our horizons. However, I think he may have gone into too much detail about what his job entails and not enough of about why expanding my horizons will be beneficial. His opinion is clear, but his justification does not appeal to me as the reader.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
One Magic Luggi
Last night, Seinfeld viewed possibly their greatest episode ever. This episode featured, Jerry, Keith Hernandez, Kramer and Newman. The episode begins with Kramer and Newman expressing their hate for Keith because they thought he spit on them after a baseball game. After Keith gets the chance to explain he could not have spit on Kramer and make it do a U-turn to hit Newman, they forgive him. The part of this episode which was also in our reading was the relationship between Jerry and Keith.
The readings last week dealt with queerness and grabbed my attention immediately when Seinfeld was mentioned. I will admit to laughing at Jerry's ability to over analyze the situation. The show does indirectly make fun of the homosexual audience. Jerry tries to make it sound like when they go out its like a date but takes an adamant stand to not being gay. The situation could easily be replaced with a well known actress but instead, they use a male baseball player. I never noticed how much Seinfeld mentions little situations which they shoot down or poke fun at homosexuality. This was an obvious situation but there are punch lines now that I notice when I was the shows and they can be interpreted as insulting to a particular crowd.
I truly love the show for how it is able to analyze everyday situations. Now though, I realize how certain people could be offended with the way they portray women and gays. The problem is that Seinfeld is no longer around to make any changes in their show and these episodes will be around for a very long time.
The readings last week dealt with queerness and grabbed my attention immediately when Seinfeld was mentioned. I will admit to laughing at Jerry's ability to over analyze the situation. The show does indirectly make fun of the homosexual audience. Jerry tries to make it sound like when they go out its like a date but takes an adamant stand to not being gay. The situation could easily be replaced with a well known actress but instead, they use a male baseball player. I never noticed how much Seinfeld mentions little situations which they shoot down or poke fun at homosexuality. This was an obvious situation but there are punch lines now that I notice when I was the shows and they can be interpreted as insulting to a particular crowd.
I truly love the show for how it is able to analyze everyday situations. Now though, I realize how certain people could be offended with the way they portray women and gays. The problem is that Seinfeld is no longer around to make any changes in their show and these episodes will be around for a very long time.
Essay Number 2
This week we will be handing in our second essays. This essay was somewhat related to the advertising essay but focused on reality television. In both essays, there is the ability to analyze what writers, editors, and producers seem to be portraying to the public. My reality television essay was created to answer the question of if reality television is truly real.
The second essay I found to be more challenging than the first. The reason I say this is because this essay it was more difficult to not repeat what it was I was saying. I found myself continuous coming up with the same explanation to reasons why reality television is not real. However, this is a topic which once again I was passionate about. I too am sick of reality television doing so well in our society. It felt good to be able to put my thoughts about this subject on paper. I enjoy the brainstorming part where I was able to list reasons why something took place on Joe Millionaire for instance. I could say they were editing a sentence that was not there, or the producers were not showing the camera in hopes of letting the minds of the audiences wander. The show was able to fool a lot of people but as soon as I saw it, I knew something was up. There had been no contact of the kind between the two individuals other than kissing and it seemed odd that the girl would be alright with partiicipating in these actions in the middle of the woods. Overall, I enjoyed the essay once again. It is fun to put your thoughts on paper and not have to regurditate information like every other class.
The second essay I found to be more challenging than the first. The reason I say this is because this essay it was more difficult to not repeat what it was I was saying. I found myself continuous coming up with the same explanation to reasons why reality television is not real. However, this is a topic which once again I was passionate about. I too am sick of reality television doing so well in our society. It felt good to be able to put my thoughts about this subject on paper. I enjoy the brainstorming part where I was able to list reasons why something took place on Joe Millionaire for instance. I could say they were editing a sentence that was not there, or the producers were not showing the camera in hopes of letting the minds of the audiences wander. The show was able to fool a lot of people but as soon as I saw it, I knew something was up. There had been no contact of the kind between the two individuals other than kissing and it seemed odd that the girl would be alright with partiicipating in these actions in the middle of the woods. Overall, I enjoyed the essay once again. It is fun to put your thoughts on paper and not have to regurditate information like every other class.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tic Tac
Have you ever seen someone do something and that you could get away with it? Then later you see that their brilliant plan has backfired in your face. Well, this happened to Elaine this week on Seinfeld. This man in her office is a sidler. Seinfeld defines a sidler as a quiet person which can approach your side at anytime without you even knowing it. Elaine was watching how this man would come by her side and take credit for her work while they were in front of the boss.
Elaine decides to give him tic tac mints to monitor his position at all times. She then gets greedy and tries to sidle herself. She buys new tennis shoes which will minimize her noise when she walks. She sidles in Mr. Peterman's office, her boss, and tries to gain the credit that the sidler man deserves. The plan backfires when the work is unacceptable and she is punished for it. This is another Seinfeld situation which happens in everyday life but also shows the viewers a lesson. First off, you cannot really trust the work of someone else. By assuming you will reap the benefits of their work, you are gambling with your credibility. Next, karma has a way of coming around on you. Just because you are not caught the first time you do something wrong does not mean you will not be caught ever. Doing the right thing is not always the easy thing, but it's important to do the right thing as much as you can.
The brilliance of Seinfeld managed to make me laugh again with an everyday occurrence. I encourage the readers to continue doing the right thing and avoid plagiarism. Just remember, karma will come back to bite you if you don't.
Elaine decides to give him tic tac mints to monitor his position at all times. She then gets greedy and tries to sidle herself. She buys new tennis shoes which will minimize her noise when she walks. She sidles in Mr. Peterman's office, her boss, and tries to gain the credit that the sidler man deserves. The plan backfires when the work is unacceptable and she is punished for it. This is another Seinfeld situation which happens in everyday life but also shows the viewers a lesson. First off, you cannot really trust the work of someone else. By assuming you will reap the benefits of their work, you are gambling with your credibility. Next, karma has a way of coming around on you. Just because you are not caught the first time you do something wrong does not mean you will not be caught ever. Doing the right thing is not always the easy thing, but it's important to do the right thing as much as you can.
The brilliance of Seinfeld managed to make me laugh again with an everyday occurrence. I encourage the readers to continue doing the right thing and avoid plagiarism. Just remember, karma will come back to bite you if you don't.
Change In Perspective
This week in class we had readings and dicussions which dealt with sexual orientation. The clip of Dawson's Creek showed the preconceived notion that most people have for gay people. In the reading, there was a part which talked about Ellen's Show in comparison to friends. Television has presented the subject in a comical way and thus creates homophobia amongst the viewers.
On Monday, I spoke up and asked why shows are being rediculed. At least they are addressing the issue somewhat and trying to make some effort to reach a homosexual crowd. Well, that opinion was before I read the second reading and began to realize what exactly television is displaying. I was trying to give writers the benefit of the doubt and give them credit for addressing the issue. However, I did not realize how they are presenting it to the public. Television is a major means of communication that can drastically influence the opinions of it's viewers. For example, Friends has Susan and Carol make a shirt for their boy, Ben, which said "I love my mommies." That may be cute but to a homosexual this can be somewhat offensive that they are using this phrase to bash their lifestyle. Ellen came out of the closet and her ratings went down the drain. Friends addressed a homosexual issue as a comedy and kept their ratings the same. This just goes to show how the writers don't care who they are affending. As long as the profit continues to role, it does not matter what certain people think is offensive.
In conclusion, I did not realize what I was saying until I read the second essay and looked at it from a homosexuals perspective. Television should not be focused on making their lifestyle a comedy and it would be better off to not address the issue. They are not reaching out to a crowd. They are taking a topic and running with it in the wrong direction.
On Monday, I spoke up and asked why shows are being rediculed. At least they are addressing the issue somewhat and trying to make some effort to reach a homosexual crowd. Well, that opinion was before I read the second reading and began to realize what exactly television is displaying. I was trying to give writers the benefit of the doubt and give them credit for addressing the issue. However, I did not realize how they are presenting it to the public. Television is a major means of communication that can drastically influence the opinions of it's viewers. For example, Friends has Susan and Carol make a shirt for their boy, Ben, which said "I love my mommies." That may be cute but to a homosexual this can be somewhat offensive that they are using this phrase to bash their lifestyle. Ellen came out of the closet and her ratings went down the drain. Friends addressed a homosexual issue as a comedy and kept their ratings the same. This just goes to show how the writers don't care who they are affending. As long as the profit continues to role, it does not matter what certain people think is offensive.
In conclusion, I did not realize what I was saying until I read the second essay and looked at it from a homosexuals perspective. Television should not be focused on making their lifestyle a comedy and it would be better off to not address the issue. They are not reaching out to a crowd. They are taking a topic and running with it in the wrong direction.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Put It On The Tab...
It was just another Wednesday until Seinfeld came on. Once again the show is able to brighten my boring day. This episode is one of my favorites mostly because it features Kramer so much. Kramer always comes in Jerry's apartment and eats his food and uses his stuff. He vows, for his own pride, to start paying for everything he eats and keeping track of it. Seinfeld always seems to have these shows where u look at the story and can remember a time when you did that. I know I have borrowed a few things I intended to gave back but forgot.
The funny part about this story though is that he keeps track of the bites of ice cream he takes and all the small chunks taken out of the fruit. He would take a bite out of a fruit and count it for twenty cents and put it back where he found it. You have to love how television is able to make something like this a story line. As a class we are not beginning to work out of the advertising phase and work into television. I truly believe that Seinfeld has paved the way for shows about nothing and the fact that they can make it. Seinfeld has molded the sitcoms on prime time to be like it in many ways. People want something that they can relate to. Seinfeld features a blunt woman, a comedian, a short, wiry, bald guy and a big goof. There is no racial profiling on Seinfeld or sexual orientation reference that is able to be identified as crude.
Seinfeld takes such subjects and having black friends or being homosexual and makes an episode about how offended people get. There is such episodes that features homosexuality and after every single reference to it, they reply with, "not that there's anything wrong with that." This way no one is offended and it is made funny. The ability to take certain questionable subjects on television and transform then into comedy is an art. This show is the master of that art.
The funny part about this story though is that he keeps track of the bites of ice cream he takes and all the small chunks taken out of the fruit. He would take a bite out of a fruit and count it for twenty cents and put it back where he found it. You have to love how television is able to make something like this a story line. As a class we are not beginning to work out of the advertising phase and work into television. I truly believe that Seinfeld has paved the way for shows about nothing and the fact that they can make it. Seinfeld has molded the sitcoms on prime time to be like it in many ways. People want something that they can relate to. Seinfeld features a blunt woman, a comedian, a short, wiry, bald guy and a big goof. There is no racial profiling on Seinfeld or sexual orientation reference that is able to be identified as crude.
Seinfeld takes such subjects and having black friends or being homosexual and makes an episode about how offended people get. There is such episodes that features homosexuality and after every single reference to it, they reply with, "not that there's anything wrong with that." This way no one is offended and it is made funny. The ability to take certain questionable subjects on television and transform then into comedy is an art. This show is the master of that art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)