Skip to content

Posts from the ‘In the News’ Category

Feb 27

The Oscars

The Academy Awards were last night and the results were nothing short of exciting.  For the first time since 1929 a silent film won best picture.  The Artist took the film world by a storm this year, and rightfully so.   For those of you who have never seen a silent film, this is a perfect place to start.  The Artist takes us back to the beginning of Hollywood and the transition from silent films to talkies.  Sure sometimes we just want to watch robots beat the hell out of each other, but The Artist brings us back to why we fell in love with movies in the first place.  It is truly a work of art that has sadly been forsaken by the society that we live in today.  Martin Scorsese’s film Hugo also deals with this time period.   Taking a break from his traditional gangster films, Marty took us on a journey to Paris.  Hugo is a film about George Milies, who was a wonderful director, filmmaker, and visionary.   It was through this wonderful film that Marty reignited “movie magic” which has been lost for sometime now.    These two films made a huge, and significant, impact on the film industry this year.  The Artist left an impact on the Academy Awards winning three of the top awards which were best picture, best leading male actor, and best director.  Michel Hazanavicius, the director of The Artist, actually beat Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen for this award.  So hopefully the film industry will stop remaking movies from the 80’s and start making genuine films.

Feb 27

Nintendo Lazii

In an article originally appearing on HealthDay, Mary Marcus describes a surprising study on the Nintendo Wii and the effects it has on children being active. Despite the Nintendo Wii commonly being thought of as a healthy alternative to child video gaming, the study conducted by Dr. Tom Baranowski suggests this may not be the case.

Conducted by Dr. Baranowski of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, the study tracked the daily movements of 78 children who were given Nintendo Wiis by having them wear motion detector belts. Half of the children chose an “active” game, one that simulated dancing, boxing, etc., and the other half picked from “inactive” games, like Mario Kart Wii. After six weeks, the children were allowed to select a new game.

Dr. Baranowski expected that there would be an increase in physical activity from the children who were playing the “active” games at the beginning of the study, and then again at the midway point when the children were given a new game to play. But in contrast to his hyptothesis, Dr. Baranowski found, “there was no difference in the level of the activity between the treatment and control groups. What we detected at baseline, before playing active video games, was exactly the same in weeks one, six, seven and 12.” The results led the authors of the study to the conclusion that either the children were not playing the “active” games at the anticipated intensity level, or the children were compensating their expended energy by being less active throughout the day.

I believe that the findings of this study contradict the image of the Wii which Nintendo has created, one of fostering healthy and physically fit video game play for children. This puts the Wii in violation of the self-regulatory guidelines created in 2001 by the Children’s Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureaus which states that toy advertising must be truthful, as described by Howard Chudacoff in “The Commercialization and Co-optation of Children’s Play” (packet page 179).

“Lazy Wii Guy” from Comedy.com

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

“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 »