Skip to content

Archive for

Feb 27

Who Needs Board Games?

In an attempt to make up for the lost profits in the fourth quarter of 2011, and stay with the evolving times, popular toy companies like Mattel and Hasbro are adding technology into recent editions of classic toys.  In an article from the New York Times entitled “Go Directly, Digitally to Jail? Classic Toys Learn New Clicks,” Stephanie Clifford, documents the integration of technology into the most historically loved toys.

Hot Wheels no longer need to travel along tracks of small pieces that that children slaved away putting together, instead the newest cars have sensors and move across an iPad screen.  Remember the game of Life, and the spinner that went up to ten instead of the traditional six on dice? Remember the excitement that would come across a child’s face as the ticking sound slowed before the coveted ten space spin? Well that can now be done on the iPad too! Who needs to physically spin the wheel?  Better yet, remember the kid who cheats and lies about how much money he had accumulated during a game of Monopoly? That won’t happen anymore because now the virtual monopoly counts your money for you! When I was growing up Barbie and her plethora of outfits was enough to occupy my time for hours, but perhaps watching their parents’ excessive use of technology has taught kids that imagination and dolls are not enough.  Mattel has now inserted a digital camera onto Barbie’s stomach with software to upload the photos and videos onto a computer.

While it is hard to say what Stephanie Clifford thinks of this parallel evolution of toys with technology, as it is more of an informative piece and less of an editorial, it is easy to see that the benefits technology brings, also brings significant problems. Just as we discussed in class after reading the Rad Bradbury short story “The Veldt,” children who become dependent on technology for entertainment lose out on the imagination and play that is essential to what we think of when we think of a child.  Monopoly wasn’t just a game to see who could collect the most money, but it also taught basic mathematic skills that are eliminated when the child no longer has to count their own money.  Additionally Monopoly was a social game, a family game, and now who needs family or friends when you can play against a computer! Remember how boring it would be when you had to wait for someone else to take his or her turn?  That too can be eliminated while playing with a computer! You can fast forward through their turn!

You definitely lose out not having board games be the way they used to, it is amazing how young kids can use the technology so efficiently.  The father in the YouTube video below seems to think the benefits and educational games that iPads and technology offer, could outweigh the loss of mathematics and socialization.

Video from YouTube of a 2 year old efficiently using an iPad and playing an educational game

Feb 27

Are Celebrities Parenting Our Children?

Chris Brown and Rihanna at the 2012 Grammy's - Much controversy over Brown performing at Grammy's

Most often, when we hear people criticizing the entertainment world, they are usually accusing celebrities or certain TV shows for not “setting a good example” or being a negative influence in children’s lives. However, in an article I found on Huffington Post, Chidubem Nwabufo claims that the fault really lies with the parents. The writer wrote the article in response to all of the media attention centered on the controversial Chris Brown and Rihanna relationship. Apparently, there have been many Facebook and Twitter posts commenting on their new song together that have all been along the lines of, “What kind of message is this supposed to send to our children?” Nwabufo argues that the problem is not the example that the celebrities are setting, but rather, the problem is that the parents are now relying so heavily on letting celebrities set the example for their children in the first place.

I found it extremely interesting to find an article written from this point of view. Most of the articles we have read and discussed in class have been a critique of the entertainment world and the effects it has on American children. Nwabufo claims that the celebrities are just doing their job, and it is the parents’ jobs (not the celebrities’) to teach their children right from wrong. In response to the writer’s claims, I would argue that he is correct when he says that it is a parent’s job to teach their children what is or is not appropriate, but, nevertheless, the children are always going to idolize Hollywood stars no matter what their parents try to tell them. I don’t believe parents are relying on celebrities at all to set a good example, but there is no way to ignore the fact these stars ARE influencing the youth of America. In a perfect world, parents would do such a great job of teaching their children right from wrong that the children would know who is an appropriate role model.

Feb 27

What Kids, or People, Should NOT Be Watching

With all the parents organizations and committees telling other parents what is appropriate for their kids to watch, the kids are stuck watching some really dumb shows.  According to the Parents Television Council the number one show that kids should be allowed to watch is Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.  Parents are always concerned with the content of shows, but this show, I believe has absolutely no educational value and barely any entertaining content, unless you think a grown man [Ty Pennington] crying and acting like a fool every five seconds is entertainment.  The show focuses on the carpenter Ty Pennington, who builds houses for the less fortunate.  The premise of the show seems as if it would be teaching kids good moral values such as giving to those who are less fortunate which is good and all but many of those people end up losing the house within the year because they cannot afford the house payments and the cost to maintain the houses are extremely high.  The dialogue of the show is also poorly written, if at all, and it comes out sounding very cheesy.  I believe shows like this cause people to become less intelligent and I would rather have my kids watch The Simpsons or Family Guy especially if I had to watch the shows with them.

The show deemed worst for kids to watch was Family Guy.  I do believe that some of the content of the show is somewhat inappropriate, but a lot of it goes over the kid’s heads anyway, and the dialogue is actually entertaining.  The show might make fun of pop culture in a sometimes vulgar way but they usually do it cleverly.  Family Guy can be pretty witty at times compared to Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.  The writers for Family Guy at least seem intelligent and I would rather have my kids watch a show written well.  I watched this show when I was younger with my brother and I know that I was never affected negatively by what I was seeing and hearing.

Spigel states in Welcome to the Dreamhouse that “mass media have been seen as a threatening force that circulates forbidden secrets to children,” but parents cannot shield their kids from everything they consider to be inappropriate all the time, they will learn these “secrets” eventually and when they do it does not mean that the kids will becomes delinquents, chances are most kids will turn out completely fine.  I do not advocate passive parenting, but with all the shows that are seen as inappropriate by overprotective parents, kids will eventually have nothing to watch.

Family Guy from google images

Feb 27

Modern Family goes too Far?

Cast of Modern Family

Huffington Post writer Ann Brenoff states that she is a big fan of “Modern Family” and that she loves the shows, “smart humor and characters”.  But in this article she rips the show and the Writers Guild of America, for letting a particular episode of “Modern Family” air.  The episode as she describes it is titled, “Virgin Territory” and deals with the sex life of the high school senior Haley who apparently has been sexually active for a while now with her boyfriend.  Then the father, Phil, says that he is the cool dad and should be more ok with his daughter being sexually active.  Brenoff takes offense to this statement and the rest of her article writes about how kids aren’t having sex as much as they used to be and that this show shouldn’t be showing lies to the youth of the country.  Brenoff then states that she knows that teens aren’t ready to be having sex by stating, “Seventeen-year-olds may be physically ready to have intercourse, but emotionally they are far from being able to handle it.”  Then she ends her article by stating that the writers of “Modern Family” should have had Haley hold out from sex with her boyfriend and that she has to wait until college.  Brenoff has a clear stance on what children/teens should see on T.V, and that is that T.V. is way to inappropriate for minds of our youth.

 

This article defienetly relates to fear in parenting that Chudacoff talks about in “The Commercialization and Co-optation of Children’s Play”.  Chudacoff commonly talked about the idea that T.V and videogames shaped the minds of young and inspired them in some way.  He states, “Oppurtunities for fantasy play mushroomed, but at the same time character and story lines shaped children’s amusements in a way that, at least in some fashion, overrode independent imagination” (pg. 185).  To me, this quote means that the imagination of a children’s mind is corrupted by some of what they see on T.V and that their imagination is based on some of the plots and characters they see.  So, a child instead of dreaming about powder-puff girls and cupcakes are now dreaming about the sex life of Haley on “Modern Family”.

 

Another relation to a reading from class, is the idea of who is the filter between the kid and what they see on T.V.  Spigel and her piece titled “Welcome to the Dreamhouse” argue that the parents, more specifically the mother, are the filter to their child’s T.V schedule.  Brenoff from the Huffington Post says something different in that, “The most-powerful lobbying group in America is the Writers guild of America.”  She then goes on and rips the writers of “Modern Family” and the guild for letting this air, but according to Spigel she has no business doing so and that is because this should be the mothers job not to let her child see it.  So overall, the ideas Brenoff talks about n her article and what we have been dealing with in class are very similar.  Why are parents scared of T.V?  Well according to Brenoff it is because of shows like this.  But with what we have discussed, there is still no way to tell how a teen or child would take in this information about sex, but somebody must relegate it, but we have to figure out How and who must relegate the television?

Feb 27

1 Comment

Grease Lightnin’

As a child, Grease was one of my most watched movie, mostly because it was one my grandma’s favorites, so I’d see it every time I went over to her house.   The film was produced by Paramount Pictures and released in 1978.  A PG13 film due to sexual content and references, teen smoking, and drinking, Grease exemplified many of the fears that were present in the delinquency and rebellion of the generation of adolescents. The film, although released in the late 70s is set in 50s America, traces the lives of a couple rebellious high school seniors, the T-Bird boys and the Pink Lady girls.  Throughout the movie, the T-Bird boys are seen pushing their masculine and rebellious role, spending their time working in the school auto shop, chasing girls, and causing trouble along the way. The Pink Lady girls, on the other hand, are shying away from some of the more typically female characteristics, within the realm of maintaining their womanhood.

In the back, Sandra D sits in the pink skirt, before her rebellion; in the front, smoking, is the new Sandra D after the influences of modern pop culture have influenced her. Created by a Grease fan at fanpop.com

Most notably, Rizzo spends her time trying to act like one of the guys; chasing guys instead of letting them chase her, and promoting the “sexualization” of the teenager through her actions and dress.  By the end, Rizzo has not only exemplified a change in the meaning of womanhood, but she has also transformed good-girl Sandra D into a rebellious girl like herself.  The growing movement of female gender roles expresses the clear change that was occurring in the 50s.  Parents were no longer able to restrict the pop culture of the generation’s adolescents.  In addition to the importance of changing gender roles, the film expresses some clear moral panics of the ages through the story.  The rebellious girls are able to take in Sandra D and transform her from a feminine ideal girl to a rebellious, sex-driven teenager, which exemplifies the fears of the previous generation of parents.  Even the most feminine and traditional of girls could lose their way in modern pop culture. The film clearly shows the moral panics of the previous generation of parents and the ever changing gender roles of the newer generation in the 1950s.

Feb 27

Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni Ni Nick NICKELODEON!

Growing up in the 1990’s, I spent countless hours glued to a television that was seemingly stuck on one channel, Nickelodeon.  Nickelodeon is a network aimed at children and preteens; its shows vary from animated, educational programs directed at younger children (2-5 y.o.), to animated, entertaining programs for the grade school child, and also to programs with teenage actors who deal with friendships, relationships, school, and other issues, primarily for the preteen/teen audience.  After a few years of minimal success, Nickelodeon hit it big in the ’90s and the beginning of the 21st century.  It opened an attraction at Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida, and created a series of animated shows, referred to as Nicktoons, that shaped pop culture for the “’90s kid” generation; my favorites included Rugrats, Doug, and Hey Arnold!  (And as I got a little older, All That and Clarissa Explains It All became quick favorites.)

Nickelodeon Promo.  1996.  From Youtube.com.

Because Nickelodeon was a network for kids, all of their commercials and advertisements were for the latest toys and newest kid’s meals at this and that fast-food joints.  There was even a promo after every live taping of All That that told young viewers that the show was taped in front of a live studio audience at Nickelodeon Studios Orlando, Florida, somewhere I would’ve loved to visit as much as any other kid wanted to go to Disneyland.  With all the time I spent watching Nick shows, I was probably exposed to just as much, if not more, commercialization.  Unknowingly, I had become a child consumer.

In The Commercialization and Co-optation of Children’s Play, Chudacoff mentions Nickelodeon as a contributor to the development of children’s culture.  He states that “Nickelodeon and Disney, as well as national networks, opened new opportunities for program producers, retailers, manufacturers, and, especially, marketers to shape children’s tastes and desires” (pg. 178).  As a child consumer, I was completely mesmerized by all sorts of advertisements for new Barbie dolls, Polly Pocket, and entertaining board games like Mouse Trap.  Most, if not all, of the toys I was given as a child were a direct result of my exposure to these products via commercials seen while watching Nickelodeon.  Some of the animated shows also began to promote their own products, offering “a ‘backstory’ of fantasy with [its] product to create a meaningful relationship between toy and child,” as stated by Chudacoff (pg. 180).  Even today, if you were to flip to the Nickelodeon channel it would be highly obvious that all commercials are made for children exclusively.

Nickelodeon's signature orange splatter logo.

Apart from the entertainment I found through Nickelodeon, I also had easy access to a medium that displayed objects I desired; commercials on Nickelodeon were sort of short video representations of most toys in a Toys “R” Us catalog, I even derived many of my birthday and Christmas lists from such advertisements.  However, despite the excessive advertisements that were thrown my way at each and every commercial break, I fully enjoyed what I was engaging in, t.v. shows that I could relate to and discuss with my peers (even if we were all just kids).

Feb 27

“A Separation” Foreign troubles with Child Actors

Movie poster of Best Foreign Oscar Winning Film, "A Separation" (2011). Directed by Asghar Farhardi

In the national news section of Houston’s official news website in an article entitled “Oscar Foreign Directors not Daunted by Kid Actors”, an award-winning director of Iranian films, Asghar Farhadi, talks on the troubles of working with his daughter in his current Oscar-nominated film, “A Separation.” Eleven year old Sarin Farhadi plays “an estranged Iranian couples child.” Sarin’s father Asghar says his daughter “was the most difficult person to work with on the film.” The article described Sarin to be “the biggest diva on the set.” While Farhadi humorously talked on the troubles of working with his daughter he also gave some insight when working with child actors. The article explained that he “doesn’t completely explain the plots of his movies to child actors “and believes the less they know the better they do. This, he explained, was probably why it was difficult working with his daughter. She was already too engrossed in the story of the film. In other words, she knew too much to be natural.

I chose this national news article particularly because of the director’s quotes on his experience working with child actors and the approach he takes when they are involved in his films. When reading this, I immediately thought of the Shirley Temple reading “Behind Shirley Temple’s Smile: Children, Emotional Labor, and the Great Depression.” There seems to be an overarching agreement between movie producers, directors, and those involved in film making in their belief that children are better on the big screen when they are “natural” and “innocent.” In the reading, Kasson includes a statement from Shirley Temple’s mother in which she states, “I want her (Shirley) to be natural, innocent, sweet. If she ceases to be that I shall have lost her-and motion pictures will have lost her too” (136). It seems likely that Asghar Farhadi would concur with this theory. With his daughter being an important child actor within his Oscar-nominated foreign film, his opinions, and that of Gertrude Temple seem closely connected. Just as the directors in Kasson’s article argue of the dangers of Shirley becoming “spoiled” and resulting in her innocence wiped from her smile, Farhadi seemed to be stuck in the same situation when his daughter became the “diva” on set.

Not only does this news article present a current view of a director’s approach and experience with child acting, but it creates a correlation between past and present ideals on children in film. It also bridges the borders between America and foreign countries when relating viewpoints of child acting.

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »