MM#8: 'Kindle' commercial misses it's mark?

AMAZON held a contest - "Your Amazon Ad Contest" - that pulled in hundreds of entries and tens of thousands of votes to choose the ad that would air for their product the Amazon Kindle. The winner, Angela Kohler, created a whimsical stop-motion film along with Ithyle Griffiths starring Annie Little (who also sings the song).

In a blurb featured on Amazon.com, Angela discusses the inspiration and process behind her video:

"My boyfriend, Ithyle Griffiths, and I had just purchased Kindles and were doing a lot of traveling when we got the e-mail about the contest. We were constantly approached in airports with questions about them. The best thing about the Kindle was that we no longer had to each pack five books in our luggage, and could pick and choose what book to open every time we boarded a flight. We wanted our commercial to reflect all the different books you can carry around in one device. On a plane from Japan to Thailand, we brainstormed ideas and sketched out little stories that our character could fall into following different literary genres. We scribbled out pictures on napkins and made a flip-book, putting the little scenes in different orders. The day of the shoot, we gutted a pillow to make clouds and smoke (a last-minute addition) and did the commercial in one seven-hour take. Our friend Annie Little starred in the spot, Sharon Williams was in charge of the wardrobe, Rachel DeSimone did the hair and makeup and we all worked together moving the scene inch by inch between shots. After we assembled the 300 or so frames, Ithyle wrote some music to accompany the clip, and that same day Annie sent over some lyrics that just happened to fit perfectly. They recorded it together the next day. We are so thrilled to have won both prizes because it means our film resonates with both Amazon corporate and their customers. We are really looking forward to attending the Gen Art Film Festival, and having our video recognized at the event is definitely icing on the cake."




The commercial itself confused me at first. I appreciated it for what it was - I love stop-motion videos generally. But I was confused as to how this related to the Amazon Kindle. Sure, they show it at the beginning and end of the spot, but otherwise I didn't quite make the connection. I see now that it's meant to show how it can whisk you away to different places and stories, but isn't that what a book does, too? The commercial doesn't show how the different format from a physical book to an electronic library changes the experience. It doesn't, in fact, differentiate at all between the two formats. Perhaps this would be more effective if it illustrated the technological and aesthetic shifts that this product makes, instead of just showing a cute and entertaining commercial.

This is a beautifully executed short, but an irrelevant advertisement.

MM#7: What'd you wear today?

One of my favorite sites on the internet is FLICKR, where users can upload photos and artwork. A lot of subgroups have formed with site-wide projects, such as the 365 one where users take a photo portrait of themselves every day for a year, and the "What I Wore Today" project, where users draw sketches of themselves and label what it is that they're wearing. (Danny Brito featured on the left)

I especially enjoy the latter because it combines fashion with drawing, two things I'm interested in. Sometimes humor is brought into it, sometimes a sense of gravity, but they're always really interesting. They range from different styles of drawing, and it's interesting to see the different personalities come through.

There's a small revolution on YOUTUBE as well, where users take photos of themselves every day for 365 days and then montage it in a video. The results are interesting, showing how people gradually change day-by-day. One of them tracks a man's progress during his exercise routine:

The images represent an epistemological shift, a shift from word to image. They take a simple dialogue - a description of what the person wears - and translates it into a drawing. Some of them are simple doodles, others are more elaborate, but all of them are beautiful and telling. They not only provide entertainment and an exercise in self-indulgence, but they also give a glimpse of what the artist may think of themselves:

^ Vivienne Strauss

 

^ Mique M

^ Anne Panda

^ Scary Ballerina

^ Jérôme Mireault

 

^ Little Doodles  

 

^ Gemma Correll

I think these images are beautiful in their own sweet little way. I like how they're all unique and seem to communicate the artist's emotions of the day, inviting you into their mind - even just for today.

MM#6: The Seduction of Maury

Since it first went on air in 1991, "The Maury Povich Show" - now simply "MAURY" - has been captivating its daytime viewers by exploiting what seems to be the scraps of humanity. His most common themes include "Who's My Baby's Daddy?", out of control teenagers, lie detector tests, and "Is This a Man or Woman?". 

So why is this program so popular?

It's simple: it's because it is so different from our own lives. It's like the fascination with watching train wrecks or bad accidents. It's the allure of the extreme. On Maury, a new reality is constructed where viewers get to see disfigured people exposed, along with family sex secrets and abusive relationships. Mothers weep when they find out their twelve year old daughter is a closet slut, and men weep when they find out that they are, in fact, the father of eight-month old Vanessa. It gives people a chance to feel that they're more capable people than the ones featured on Maury.

The show has been criticized as sensationalizing the absolute worst aspects of American society and culture, and for exploiting groups such as minorities and the poor. Maury has been described as showing "insincere sympathy" towards the guests and their problems, trivializing them for the sake of entertainment and humor. So, although the show is less violent and raunchy than "THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW", it is, in some ways, considered worse. The theme of overweight babies, for example, was discontinued after receiving a host of criticisms from the mainstream media. Mothers appearing on the show were sometimes proud of their child's diet, and Maury brought back the topic for the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

However, Maury seems to enjoy exploiting people's problems, and sometimes even aggrevates them for more drama - a trait that's been parodied in the TV series "South Park". Maury's formulaic shows are over-exaggerated and outrageous, but I can't deny that he's by far one of my favorite day time television shows for exactly that reason!

MM#5: Convergence of Missed Connections

A beautiful example of convergent media is evidenced by illustrator Sophie Blackall’s “MISSED CONNECTIONS” PROJECT. She reads the ads in newspapers and missed connections website such as CRAIGSLIST, and then interprets them into delicate ink and watercolor drawings.

She was attracted right away to the short messages, and felt that they spoke to her, begging to be drawn: “I got completely sucked in,” she said in a NEW YORK TIMES article. “I lost about two hours of my life reading them and thought this is just an extraordinary mine of material, ranging from the lyrical, poetic to unintentionally hilarious. Many of them threw out ideas for images to me right away.”

A short, five minute film was made about her wonderful work. Blackall discusses why she picked missed connections and what they mean to her, as well as her process of creating the pieces themselves.

Her pieces are captivating, providing quick glimpses into the depths of human yearning. I’m especially drawn to her blog because I, too, am a people-watcher. I like to observe people and their interactions with other people, and this blog allows me to indulge that particular habit of mine. In my junior year of high school, I did a similar project to Blackall’s – albeit on a much smaller scale – when I made a zine called “Eavesdropper”. For a period of a few months I eavesdropped on conversations and then interpreted them into caricatures. They reveal a lot about people, even though they’re out of context, and convey a certain bittersweet quality.

The illustrations are a discursive shift, a move from word to image. They also take the objective text from the ads and instead make them a more subjective experience. I think everybody who looks at the pieces takes their own message from them.

Blackall’s work is available for about $40 each on her ETSY STORE. She’s also currently negotiating a book deal, which is slated to come out in the next twelve to eighteen months.

MM#4: Leaping to Conclusions over Disney's "Princess and the Frog"

This Christmas, Disney is releasing its latest film The Princess and the Frog. Set in the French Quarter of New Orleans, the film tells the story of a girl (Tiana) who is mistaken as a princess and kisses a frog prince. The kiss doesn't break the spell, but instead transforms her into a frog, as well. The two frogs must then find the voodoo priestess to change them back, but, like any animated family film, they have adventures along the way.

One of the things that makes this film so cool is that it uses a couple of the old Disney traditions, such as hand drawn animation and a Broadway-style musical. Randy Newman will be in charge of the music, which should prove to be an interesting choice as the film is set duing the 1920s Jazz era. The soundtrack is a mixture of jazz, zydeco, blues, and gospel styles. I'm excited to see the results, as writing and directing this film are two directors, Ron Clements and John Musker, who were involved with other successful 2D Disney classics such as The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Hercules.

Some of the backgrounds and other visual effects will be computer generated, but overall the film will be done in the old Disney style. In an article for ANIMATION WORLD NETWORK, Andreas Deja, an animator for Disney, said, "I always thought that maybe we should distinguish ourselves to go back to what 2D is good at, which is focusing on what the line can do rather than volume, which is a CG kind of thing." He says that he wanted to "aim for the Disney sculptural and dimensional look of the '50s".

 

Aside from the exciting return to the more traditional styles of animation, the film has caused a lot of uproar - and it hasn't even been released yet! The controversy mostly spotlights issues of race, as the main character Tiana will be the first ever African American Disney princess. As far as positive reaction goes, a lot of people see Tiana as a good thing. "Finally, here is something that all little girls, especially young black girls, can embrace," said Cori Murray, an entertainment director at Essence magazine, in a NEW YORK TIMES article. Marketing for the movie has been phenomenal - the main marketing push wasn't set to begin until late November, but word of mouth created a demand for merchandise before the film was even released. Halloween costumes, hair care products, and cookbooks have sold out on various websites and stores.

So what's wrong?

Well, a lot of people wonder whether or not this film will dispel stereotypes... or promote them.

One of the issues deals with the prince, Prince Naveen of the fictional country of Maldonia. His skin tone is relatively light, and the character himself is voiced by a Brazilian actor. Angela Bronner Helm, a writer on a website called Black Voices, finds much issue with the not-so-black prince. She was quoted by the New York Times, raving, “Disney obviously doesn’t think a black man is worthy of the title of prince. His hair and features are decidedly non-black. This has left many in the community shaking their head in befuddlement and even rage.” Several people have issue with him being "non-black", but then that raises the issue of why, exactly, is that not okay? Why can't it be an interracial couple? I think Disney is just trying to show that love doesn't have racial boundaries, as seen in the film Pocahontas. During most of the movie the main characters are frogs, so race isn't even evident throughout the film. Another argument being used against the Prince is that young African-American boys need someone to look up to, which to me is ridiculous, because since when has a young boy idolized a Disney Prince?

There's a character named Ray - a firefly - who has been criticized as sounding too much like a stereotypical uneducated Southerner. He's missing a lot of teeth, and sings the blues. But an article on MOVIEFONE points out that "since when have Disney sidekicks not been over the top?" They point out the exaggeratedly French candlestick Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, the flatulent warthog Pumbaa, and the scantily clad pixie Tinker Bell.

William Blackburn, a former columnist at The Charlotte Observer, criticized the choice of setting as being racially insensitive. "Disney should be ashamed. This princess story is set in New Orleans, the setting of one of the most devastating tragedies to beset a black community. And then they throw in the voodoo theme and an alligator sidekick. When you put New Orleans, alligators and voodoo together, there's no beauty there." In contrast, people commenting on a post on the blog FILM SCHOOL REJECTS say, "I'd like it if people stopped thinking about Hurricane Katrina and started thinking about how historical the place is. Yes, we can't ignore the fact that the city was destroyed. But, its history wasn't. Aren't we working on rebuilding and bringing it back? If that's the case, we shouldn't be complaining about it getting recognition in a movie." Another user counters the offensive use of voodoo magic: "The "voodoo thing" really? like every other Disney movie hasn't blown up the little characteristics of the princesses hometown? [Read: Fairy Godmother's magic in Cinderella, sea witch magic in The Little Mermaid, the witches in Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, etc etc] You can't ignore that New Orleans makes a big deal out of the voodoo scene, just because Disney doesn't get all historic and delve into the Diaspora. Come on its a kids movie." So, instead of jumping on the setting as being insensitive, maybe one can consider that perhaps this movie could help boost New Orleans tourism?

 

And then there's the problem with Tiana herself. Originally, she was to be named Maddy, short for Madeleine. This was changed, because critics said it sounded too much like "Mammy", or that it wasn't "ethnic enough", or that it was a "slave name". According to IMDB, the film's title was also switched from "The Frog Princess" to "The Princess and the Frog" so as not to send the implication that the first African American Disney princess was somehow "ugly or animal".

What I don't understand is where's the line between historically correct and racist? Previously Princess Tiana was slated to be a chambermaid to a white woman, but that was criticized as too much like slavery. Well?? It seems like if it can't be historically correct, it has to be politically correct. And anyway, think of all the other rags-to-riches stories Disney has done featuring white characters treated as subordinates: Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora, Belle... I don't believe Disney is trying to make any sort of social commentary or anything like that with this film, nor are they trying to be racist. The nature of animation itself is, in a sense, based on caricatures. Yes, Disney has had some brushes in the past with racism, most notably in Dumbo, The Jungle Book, and more recently Aladdin, but most of those were done when there was barely a Civil Rights Act in America. Since then, Disney has made movies highlighting many different races, and was even praised for the film Mulan because it featured Asians with "realistic eyes" when most animated films (including Japanese films) Westernized their depictions of Asian people.

Perhaps people are forgetting that this is an animated movie for children - an audience who will most likely not be sitting there taking notes on the various insensitivities. If anything, they will see it as the fun, enjoyable movie that it's intended to be. Little girls will be focusing more on the dancing and music, and a new Princess to look up to. Children don't focus on race, at least not in a negative way. They take their cues from their parents, so if the parents embrace Tiana and her story, the children will, too.

In closing, the New York Times quotes a Los Angeles African-American Web designer and mother of two named Donna Farmer, who applauds Disney's efforts to add diversity: "I don't know how important having a black princess is to little girls - my daughter loves Ariel and I see nothing wrong with that - but I think it's important to moms." Upon watching a couple previews, I think this looks like a delightful film that will quickly become a favorite amongst a lot of girls, regardless of age or race.

 

MM#3: America's Pornographers

In Jean Kilbourne's film "Killing Us Softly", she mentions the idea that advertising has become America's pornographer. Ads have gotten increasingly and overtly sexual over the years, to the point where sex seems to be objectified and taken out of context - no longer is it an intimate act between people, but instead a vehicle with which to sell products by. This is not only inappropriate, but it sends the wrong message to American youth about sex on so many different levels. As Kilbourne outlines in her film, the ads present sex as a dichotomy - it is both important yet casual, it is violent yet sensual. I feel like this presentation and saturation of sex in the media is definitely in correlation with the rise of teen pregnancies and promiscuity, because when kids don't want to listen to their parents, they usually listen to the media. And the media is telling them to have sex - it will get you what you want.

The advertisements I'd like to look at in detail are the ones for American Apparel. Their minimalist, raw style makes them look more like 70s soft-porn than a clothing ad. Most of the ads feature women in sexually suggestive positions from a voyeuristic or even intrusive point-of-view. The women look detached, indifferent, as they're photographed in blatantly sexual poses. In most of the ads, it's hard to tell what it is they're even trying to sell. They show excerpts of the human body, a crotch or a pair of breasts, a torso or a pair of buttocks, accompanied with a sexually suggestive copy text. There's not much clothing being seen, mostly flesh. Dov Charney, the founder and CEO of American Apparel, blurs the line between sex and business. Most of the photos in the ads are taken by Charney himself, often using company employees or women he finds on the street as models. Some are actual porn stars. These have raised a lot of controversy. An American Apparel billboard in New York City featured a woman bent over, legs spread, and only wearing tights. It was defaced with the phrase, "Gee, I wonder why women get raped?". Some of the contributors on JEZEBEL.COM initially thought this a misogynist statement until they realized, after further consideration, that this was actually a valid social commentary. I myself cannot believe that a majority of these ads are even approved to be printed:

Controversy has surrounded the ads and the company itself. Charney has been the center of several sexual harassment lawsuits. According to an article on GREENLAGIRL.COM, in one of the lawsuits, a woman claimed that Charney asked her to hire young women he could have sex with, "Asians preferred". He denies the charges, responding that he's "never done anything sexual that wasn't consensual", but the GreenLAGirl.com writer questions what Charney terms as "consensual" - as in, perhaps sexual favors were done in exchange for promotions? According to a BUSINESSWEEK article, senior managers at American Apparel rewarded their favorites with promotions, company cars, and even apartments. He conducts meetings from his LA home, wearing very little clothing and using foul, demeaning language. Some of the women who initiated lawsuits have claimed that Charney has exposed himself to them, and even invited them to masturbate with him. However, Charney continues to defend the "consensual sexual relationships" with his staff, as he believes "it's a First Amendment right to pursue one's affection for another human being."

American Apparel's advertisements have been lauded as the most successful garment ads. They are seen as honest and provocative, without the use of airbrushing or professional models. The company itself is "sweatshop free" and even has a line of sustainable clothing. According to Business Week, the company is pro-labor, and pays their mostly Latino factory workers nearly twice the minimum wage, as well as health insurance, subsidized lunches, and paid time off to take English classes on the premises. But at what cost?

Former employees have said that they were offended by the highly sexual atmosphere, where senior managers have pursued sexual relationships with younger colleagues. A former stock person interviewed by BusinessWeek said that it "was a company built on lechery", and another employee said, "I thought it was a male contemporary perspective on feminism, but it turns out to be just a gimmick." It's true - the ads portray women as objects, being photographed during intimate moments, as evidenced in the picture below, where the woman is orally servicing the photographer. They are photographed in poses that are submissive, passive even, as if they are offering themselves to the viewer in a very vulnerable and exploitative way. These ads aren't empowering to women, nor do they seem to triumph female sexuality. Instead, they are degrading and invasive. Why haven't more women employees spoken out? Charney seems to pick women that, although pretty, lack much direction, so having a well-paying job that doesn't require much work seems worth any uncomfortable situations or sexual harassment.

As images themselves, these are effective in being provocative and enticing. They use the same technique as Victoria's Secret, where they appeal to both men and women in that women know these ads turn on men, and therefore buy the clothing so that they, too, can be arousing. It's a mix between the "beautiful people" persuasive technique and the "plain folks" technique, as the women featured in the ads aren't models and also aren't airbrushed. Despite their blatant sexual nature, the ads are successful in promoting their products as well as a cultural ideal.

MM#2: Media Convergence in South Park

I love South Park - I like the subtleties of hiding social commentary within the crude and oftentimes controversial humor. After watching every episode of South Park at least twice, it takes a lot to shock me anymore, so I was surprised when I found myself shocked while watching last week's episode entitled "W.T.F."

To give a quick background summary: In this particular episode, the boys, after attending a professional wrestling match in Denver, want to become professional wrestlers themselves. They join the wrestling team at school, but are disappointed when the singlets and "wrasslin" moves are nothing like the flashy costumes and dramatized fights they saw in Denver. They then move on to start their own wrestling league, and the paradox here is that they interpret "real wrestling" as a glorified soap opera for rednecks, and that the actual sport of "wrassling" is considered (as they put it in the show) very, very gay. Gotta love the joke - by making fun of "wrasslin", the show's creators are actually making fun of professional wrestling and making a statement of how it's almost no different than a play or soap opera since it's so scripted. I love it. But anyway!

The school wrestling coach is incensed over this misinterpretation of the ancient sport of "wrasslin", so when he overhears some rednecks talking about the boys' wrestling federation, he can't help but interrupt and correct them.

"It isn't real! Don't you people understand - this stuff isn't real! None of it! How stupid are you?" he rants.
"Whatchu mean, 'it ain't real'?" an inquisitive redneck asks, scratching his chin.
"It's all made up! Fiction! Real wrassling is a serious and respectable sport! Why can't you people understand that that kind of wrestling isn't real!?" Another redneck challenges him, and then they all turn back to the bar, ignoring him and muttering, "sonuvabitch".

Not ready to give up, he shouts: "Look, look, look!" and he whips out his iPhone. "This is wrestling! This!"

 

He plays a clip of a wrassling match on his iPhone, and that's what really floored me. In the middle of a cartoon, they use an iPhone! How wild is that? It excited and unsettled me. I have never before seen an iPhone referenced in a cartoon - I don't think I've even seen it in a television show, now that I think about it. It truly shows how integrated a technology has become in our culture. This episode marks an aesthetic shift, of using an iPhone as a multimedia platform within another media platform (television). The iPhone itself is considered "a hub of convergence featuring phone, Internet, music, video, and gaming capabilities" (67), so can you imagine watching this clip on an iPhone? An iPhone playing a clip of an iPhone playing a clip - it would be like one of those fun house mirrors that seem to continue forever!

The rednecks' response to the wrassling clip? "Mister, you better take your gay porn and walk yourself right outta this bar."

Another example of media convergence in this episode was the inclusion of a current headline when showing a picture of a newspaper:

The Balloon Boy reference was subtle, but when I noticed it, I found it to be really cool but also a little unsettling again. Usually when shows like South Park reference current events, they're very upfront and obvious about it, and it's usually the subject of parody. They're usually not ones to slip in specific headlines without any fanfare like that, so I found it especially interesting.

I'm not sure why I found these references unsettling, but a part of me definitely felt weird when I saw them. I mean, I've seen Macs and iPods in television before, so why was the iPhone such a jolt? I guess it's because I wasn't expecting it. I feel like media tends to be around for a certain amount of time before it's used in television or movies. That could just be a comfort thing with me, though, and the fact that I nor many people I know own iPhones.

So... What does this mean for media in the media? Is it going to become more commonplace now to see iPhones and other electronics in television shows? What's next - will Cartman be using a Kindle?

The iPhone clip wouldn't embed properly, but it can be seen here!