Marxism Post #3

Since this class, I have noticed that the way shows portray characters and the way everything is designed and how everything looks is completely not coincidental. Knowing this, makes me wonder what these shows are really trying to tell us and why do they usually have the same kind of elements in them? From what I have inferred from the two different shows we have watched, who have come out at two different decades. The elements in the newer show, Sherlock, are a little more dynamic than those in the older show, Freaks and Geeks. I also think that this is why, because they are two types of shows, Sherlock being mystery and Freaks and Geeks being comedy. Even though one is a little more complex than the other, they both generally have the same elements, which leads me to my next topic. I feel that no matter what type of show is on the air, you will still have indexes put out and icons. There will always be two characters that are paradynamic and always fighting against each other. There will also always be some kind of hierarchy status between the characters. I feel that these things will never change, because no matter what show you watch from any timeline, there will always be these things in them.
I feel like I can pick and pull things out of any show now and that these things pop out to me more. I think that knowing these different elements is good, so that you know the show just a little more in depth.

Blog Post 3

Having gone through all the AP English classes in high school, I had become accustomed to analyzing text. I could pick apart paragraphs and chapters to find the deeper meanings behind them, but I didn’t ever try to analyze visual media, especially not movies and TV. After learning about semiotics, I have been picking apart what I’m watching. I now take more time to think of the many choices that are made to make the entertainment. I’ve always known the music behind a TV show or movie is conveying the emotion that they want you to feel, but I never thought about paying closer attention to it, or even omitting it altogether. I look at how scenes are lit in a different way. The shadows or brightness can really say a lot about the characters, setting, scene. In one show I saw recently, I noticed a character’s face half covered in shadow after they had made a decision for ‘the greater good’ that would end up killing some people. All the other scene’s this character was in were lit where we could see her face. Before this class, I wouldn’t think deeper into why they would do such a thing in the TV show. I would be more annoyed that I couldn’t see her face, rather than realizing it was hinting at the terrible thing she was letting happen. I’m excited to learn even more in this class to improve my skills at analyzing media, now that I can already see my view changing.

Blog Post—Yu

Blog Post 

Before this class, I think Marxism as a conflict between labor and Wealth based on condition of people relate to political issue developed by Karl Marx.His ideal with social and economic power relationships and have been influential in economics, politics and sociology. If we talk about Marxism in media, the concept would be almost based on same idea of Marx's. The storytelling in media is reflection of our ture society. “Art are come from life and higher than life”. If Marxism can analysis the real society, it would be applied in media either. Conflict is always the most attractive part in a story.

 The first step in understanding the media in a dialectical manner is to understand the content itself. Marxism is really useful if it is used to analyse media text. Marxism in media is really often,like movie Roman Holiday, Ann,the crown princess fall in love with a poor American reporter.We can using Marxism to analysis the social conflict between princess and repertor and the exception of this society.Ann should be marry with a royal family instead of a poor American reporter.when they meet again while back in their respective roles and Princess Ann learns that Joe is a reporter – he conveys that her secrets are safe with him and then Irving gives the princess the pictures he’d surreptitiously taken as mementos of her holiday.And Television series Gossip Girl:"Whoever said that money doesn't buy happiness didn't know where to shop." Leighton Meester said this as Blair Waldorf. According to "TVLoop," it is the most memorable line from "Gossip Girl"—and one of the many reasons fans love the Blair character.

Blog Post #2

The first episode of Sherlock is dense. It faces a number of challenges, not only as a pilot, but also to meet (and hopefully exceed) expectations that are bound to come with recreating something as heavy as “Sherlock”. Its plot has to hook the audience enough to keep them coming back episode after episode, as well as introduce a new version of something already created and make us fall in love with it.

Personally, I think one of the strongest pulls of interest the show has is the beauty and intricacy of Holmes’ mind and life. The show does an excellent job in helping us understanding how it works despite our inability to relate to it. It uses Holmes’ flat as a perfect metaphor for this. The flat is a disaster. Everything is so scattered that there appears to be no room to fit anything else, even if you wanted to. Yet Holmes is as able function perfectly within it. He knows where everything is, and is able to recognize immediately if even one thing is missing, like the skull. In the same way, his mind is seemingly just as scattered. It is so full of knowledge and observations, yet he is able to string together everything he needs to in order to come to his ingenious conclusions. However it is too full, just like his flat. This parallels his absent social life. He has allowed his work to consume his life to the point that it can’t “fit” friends.

            The second pull is that against all odds, Watson somehow fits. At first he seems too “black and white” to fit into the inherent grey life Holmes lives. His gun, clean-cut look, and more quiet nature are all signifiers to his military background. With that comes the expectation that he is rule follower. Yet is whenever he is indulging with Holmes in his schemes that he doesn’t need his cane. It is clear then that his cane actually symbolizes the emotional crutch he needed to endure the mundane life outside of what he truly craves: danger.

Blog Post #1

This ad is multifaceted even within the symbols it uses. The purpose is for viewers to consider every aspect that comes into play with reckless driving. It is broken up into 3 sections: the man about to get hit, the child in the rear-view mirror, and the couple within the car.

The man.

The first thing the eye is drawn to is the most common thought of issue when people think of reckless driving: whatever the car hits. It is placed in the center of the image, which draws focus straight to it. His mouth is obviously exclaiming in fear and possibly pain as the car is approaching.

The child.

Next the eye is drawn to the child in the backseat, pointing to the thought that you also put the lives of the people within the car at risk when driving recklessly. Here the image employs pathos by using a young child to draw out a much more emotional reaction. A child losing his or her life is a much harsher consequence in our society.

The couple.

The first thing you notice about the couple is that they seem completely at peace. In fact, the woman has a smile on her face. This indicates they are completely ignorant to what is happening in front of them. The ignorance highlights the issue that reckless driving is a choice. It is within our control whether or not we choose to pay attention when we drive. Also, here is where the double meaning falls within the bolded words “Both Sides”. The first meaning is the much more obvious: that reckless driving affects both the thing it collides with, as well as the people within the car. However the “both” also refers to both sides within the car. Not only is the man on the phone, but also his full attention is directed towards the woman. Personally I think the message is that both seats, driver and passenger, are responsible for the safety of the car. Not only should the driver pay attention, but also the person in the passenger seat shouldn’t be a distraction.

Blog Post #3: Media Consumption & Marxism

After reading over this week’s chapter concerning Marxism and the way in which it may be applied to the media, I’ve begun to consume media, whether news or entertainment, as a conscious reader rather than as part of a  passive audience. Although, as a media student, I’ve been taught to interpret bias as an all-encompassing entity that governs the cycle and creation of news, even while trying to balance my news sources I’ve found myself looking for the intent that drove the way each topic was framed and each source was presented. It has been made evident that, oftentimes consumers may be aware of the author’s polarized stance on a certain topic, but not necessarily the tendency of that stance to be incorporated into the larger “substructure” that weaves its way into societal norms, as well as individual thinking in a certain society. Studying Marxism has also made me more aware of how heavily influenced the media is by class structure, and how an understanding of the differences between certain classes serves as a hegemony in that, while class structure is seldom blatantly acknowledged in media, it is a concept that everyone is expected to understand that provides the context for the way in which the world functions. While delving into more entertainment-based media, the grid-group analysis of the main characters in shows is something that has been made more prevalent to me in the light of Marxism. Despite the fact that most archetypal characters in most shows are easily identifiable, I’ve come to apply the Marxist idea of these characteristics binding the group and balancing it out in a way that I never noticed before. This has led to me making many parallels between shows that I would have never made a connection between before studying Marxism, and understanding that the Semiotic idea of syntagmatic structure also overlaps into the idea of the same grid-group methods being ubiquitous in mainstream entertainment over many decades.

Blog Post 2

     

      It's quite interesting how this modern day Sherlock pays homage to the late 18th century character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. When the audience is first introduced to Sherlock, the camera angel is facing upward, so that it looks like he’s looking down at the audience. In contrast, when the audience is introduced to Watson, the camera angle is looking down on him. These specific angles are able to demonstrate to the audience the kind of personality Sherlock has. He believes he’s better than his counterparts, so he’s always looking down on them. A major signifier presented in this modern Sherlock is his overcoat. Most detectives are known for wearing their overcoats and smoking a pipe. When the audience first witnesses Sherlock's incredible deductive skills, he is seen putting on his overcoat. It's as if this symbolizes him putting on his detective persona. As for the pipe, this modern Sherlock is seen wearing a nicotine patch. The intertextuality of the nicotine patch pays homage to the smoking habits of the 18th century Sherlock.  During the first episode, the audience is also introduced to Sherlock's house. In contrast to Watson's house, Sherlock's is a mess. It's as if a tornado ran through his house, and the audience is left looking at the aftermath. But while it looks like a mess, for Sherlock, everything has its place. This same principle applies to Sherlock’s mind. He always seems to have a lot going on in his mind, but Sherlock is able to sift through all the information quickly, allowing him to make connections and come to conclusions much faster than his counterparts. The mess in Sherlock’s house works as a metaphor and visual representation of what the inside of his mind probably looks like.

            In conclusion, the creators of this modern day Sherlock have carefully crafted a character that well represents the one created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. From his addictions to his house, the audience can easily recognize the 18^th century Sherlock in a modern world.