I didn't understand film until photography.

Praise God for my high school photography class. I understood what Andrew Rudd was talking about in the sense that you can play with the depth of field or have an open frame image. Okay, this was a big deal for me because I do not watch a lot of movies or visual media in general so I was sort of stressed about the whole idea of having to critically analyze film, but I understand photography, so I am not as far behind as I once feared I was. Anyway onto the important part of the post... Photography is such an important form of art that has been effectively used in many forms of media, but especially newspapers and magazines. Certain images have captured the hearts and minds of many in America...I think of the images after 9/11 and the firemen raising a flag above the rubbish, the pictures of the firemen in the Oklahoma City bombing carrying wounded children, Martin Luther King Jr. Standing behind a podium in Washington DC with great strength and dignity, and a young Vietnamese girl running down the road naked after a US napalm strike on Vietnam. It is phenomenal how these images can have such a great effect on society. These images seep into our collective memory and can revolutionize the way we think depending on how the image is constructed. When people in the US think of the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attacks they tend to automatically pull up those images of heroic firemen in their heads; there might have been a million other things going on around that site but we automatically key in on the firemen. When we think about Martin Luther King Jr. We think of him behind a podium giving a speech; we don't think of him sitting in his living room or drinking coffee because there are no famous images that show him doing either of those things. When we think of napalm strikes we think of the young Vietnamese girl (Kim Phuc) just because that image is so pervasive in our society. All of this to say, that still shots are hugely important in modern media.

The Cross

The idea of second level signification is pretty sweet, and when I was sitting in class I was thinking about how really cool it is when we think about the symbol of the cross. So, to the Romans the cross was a symbol of capital punishment- a tool used by the state to brutally murder those who step out of line, not much unlike the modern day electric chair. Small little event called "the crucifixion" happened; fastforward a few hundred years and all of the sudden the cross becomes a symbol of unconditional love and forgiveness. Its sort of amazing how that happens, but the wierder thing is the cross has also changed a few more times. Now we have crosses made out of chains to show how Christ can break any bondage you are in. We also have crosses made of palm branches so you can remember the whole Palm Sunday and Easter story all in one handy cross. We also have the cross of nails variety, the ornate Greek cross and celtic cross. Come to think about it, if you look many of the Christian symbols, they have changed from their original meaning, anointing with oil, baptism, communion, etc. So that is my story about second level signification and slipage.

Gaza Makes Back Page...Again

I have determined that I should not be allowed to read the newspaper, ever; it makes me far too irritable. For my journalism class I am required to subscribe to and read the Canton Repository. It makes me smile that college students are being forced in a small way to keep up with current events, but the newspaper is not making it easy by putting huge, world altering stories on the back page. There are World Summits, elections in Afghanistan, hundreds dying a day in Iraq, Israelis leaving the Gaza strip, Iran developing/maintaining nuclear reactors, children dying of curable diseases in phenomenal numbers all across Africa, North Korea agreeing to 'dismantle' their nuclear program, and so much more. But what makes the front page of the Repository, oh right--Bulldog football (you know that all important, earth shattering topic). What does this say about American culture? I would like to think this says nothing about Americans, that the newspapers are getting it all wrong, that Americans really do want to hear about global events, but the newspapers are just being stubborn and pushing their own agenda which happens to be McKinley football. Unfortunately, I fear I'm wrong. It was suggested in Merchants of Cool, that the media just reflects what it sees its audience doing. This principle could probably also be translated into the news sector--the news just reflects what people are talking about. But to what extent do the news reporters influence what people are talking about? Probably more than we think. I would be curious to see if the Israeli pull out of the Gaza Strip would be talked about more if we were daily updated about the happenings in the region on the front page.

Semiotic Domains

So just after eighth grade I went on a missions trip to Jamaica. The mission of the trip was to provide the man power to put on a vacation Bible school for the area children (the church had about 15 kids to every one adult who attended and not all the adults could help with VBS). Anyway, I am teaching a lesson to five and six year olds and trying to explain Jesus's cleansing power over sin in our lives so far so good. Unfortunately, I was at first unable to effectively communicate the message. I told the children that "Jesus would wash their hearts as white as snow." When I was growing up, a child of the Midwest where snow was something I was very familiar with this analogy worked quite well; however, in Jamaica, where the children have never seen snow this analogy did relatively little to explain what Jesus could do for them. Lucky for me one of the brave children stopped me and asked what snow was, at that point I was able to reword what I said to something more culturally sensitive. This is like what the author was talking about in the video game piece. I was speaking as a protestant Midwesterner; everything I said made sense to those who were also protestant Midwesterners. The Jamaican children who were also being raised in a protestant tradition were unfamiliar with the other part of my group (Midwest). This is just a fun story I thought of while reading.

Cool Hunting is not a science

I don't know if anyone else enjoyed the part of the movie in which the speaker said, "cool hunting is not a science," but I really did. So, (here is where the higher level thinking comes in Andrew Rudd) this quote made me think of an idea that was discussed in one of my other classes (see, making the connection between ideas). It is the idea that everything does not have to be looked at in a scientific manner. We are living in a time where the dominant way of finding out about 'things' is the scientific method. We observe, we quantify, we create formulas and test hypothesis and eventually we come up with one, concrete, right answer. But this way of thinking unfortunately does not work for everything because situations and circumstances arise in which there are multiple ways to learn and find out, and--here comes the shocker--there is more than just one right answer. (Please don't stop listening to me here, I am not trying to say there are multiple ways to God and heaven or whatever) But don't lose heart because there is an alternative way of learning that allows one to find out about 'stuff'. We can learn by talking to people and finding out their stories, and the cool thing is we don't have to put what they say into a neat formula and quantify it. This is what the researchers in the movie were doing; they were listening to stories and taking to heart what the kids were saying. The researchers understood that 'cool' was not something that they would be able to quantify or rationalize; it is just something that is known intuitively. Also there are multiple right answers to the question "what is cool?" Okay, so I'm not going to lie...a lot of this post was to write my way through some of the things that were discussed in my other class so I could understand them better, but it seemed to relate well to what I heard in the movie :)

The end of class on Friday. It was one of those "ah-hah" moments where all of the philosophical ideas were brought back to how Christians could respond to the "outside world" and the various groups that the people we are trying to minister to are in. For those of you who might not remember what was said in class, I will try to jog your memory. We had been discussing whether or not as Christians we should attempt to learn the symbolic grammar of another group that is in direct opposition to the absolute truth that we have embraced. The class debated this idea for a while and the point was made that by learning the other group's symbolic grammar we may be better able to express the gospel in terms that the other group would understand. The point was also made that it could hurt our own faith if we entertain the thoughts and ideas of the group that is in opposition to our absolute truth. Then the point was made (I would love to give credit to someone for this thought because I know this wasn't my brain that thought of this but I can't remember who it was) that it was the individuals who are a part of all the groups that we need to understand. This idea hit me and I was very impressed with the speaker's thoughts. I ultimately agree with this; however, I think that sometimes God calls specific people to be ambassadors to entire groups. I believe that God raises up people to fully understand another group and their symbolic grammar for the purpose of ministering to that group. In this case I believe that God will deliver the strength to become immersed in the group that might be in direct opposition to His absolute truth. For example I met a Christian man who had fully educated himself on Satanic worship. I would not advise most people to read the literature that this specific group of people publish , but for this man God had called him into understanding this group. Long story short, I think God calls us into understanding groups that oppose Him in order to glorify Him. ...I hope my rambling makes sense ~julianna

I love the movie, Tommy Boy. Since my first viewing of the movie my life has been revolutionized...well...maybe not my life, but at least my vocabulary. I know many others can relate to this because as soon as I mentioned Tommy Boy I would venture to say many in my viewing audience immediately thought of the memorable one-liners like, "Shut-up Richard" and "brothers don't shake hands, brothers gotta hug." Until class today the one-liners were really all I could recall from the movie, but there was more to the movie than just a "fat guy in a little coat" delivering comical lines. That movie was full of contemporary myths. The first myth that I noticed in the plot was 'wisdom of the rustic.' The movie writers go to great lengths to show that all the knowledge gained in college does not mean anything in the business world unless basic, backwoods people skills accompany it. (If you are familiar with the movie and its characters this is seen through Tom Sr. being able to sell car parts, but the highly qualified however not as social, Richard being unable to sell car parts.) The film also shows that if one works hard enough anything can happen (or 'possibility of success') , even saving a distressed car part factory in Sandusky, Ohio. There is also a strong 'coming of the Messiah' theme in which everyone places their hope and future in Tom Jr.'s hands after the company first shows signs of going under. The 'presence of conspiracy' can be seen with Tom Jr.'s step-family working against the factory and the only one who knows of the plot against the factory is one young woman in the shipping department. So, this brings us to myth 5 which is the 'value of challenge'. Tommy had to first overcome the challenges of meeting with each individual purchaser before he could overcome the enormous challenge at the end--taking on a large industry single handedly. So, in all Tommy Boy can be looked at for the many contemporary myths in our culture. This is not to say that it embodies one of these myths incredibly well, but a piece of each myth can be seen in the movie. Now, for some higher level thinking-- I think the question begs being asked, are these myths common just in the United States or do they have a global impact? Would "the possibility of success" be shown in an Indian equivalent to Tommy Boy? My guess would be 'no.' The possibility of success probably only shows up in movies that value "moving up the economic ladder" or bettering your place in society. I can't imagine that a culture with a caste system would show in their media a myth like 'possibility of success'. I have to wonder if these myths are western myths or global myths.
Disclaimer: Sorry for the disjointed writing--as I write I think and my ideas just grow and sometimes the connection cannot be seen in my unedited free writing. ~Julianna

Julianna's Thoughts on Family, Media and Future Career Choices

Isn't it amazing how much one's family influences the choices that person makes in terms of what they view, listen to or read. I am truly a product of both of my parents media interests. My parents consume news like its their job. I recall as a child being placed in front of the TV to watch PBS's "The McLaughlin Group" every Friday night. (For those of you who do not know what the McLaughlin Group is it is a group of political analysts who discus the weeks political events and occasionally get into shouting matches). This is not typical programming for elementary school children, but in my household it was a Friday night staple. Surprisingly, I grew into the show that I watched religiously while living at home (even though it was by force as a youngster). Now, when I am at home with my family on Friday nights, we still watch the show together. If it had not been for my parents forcing for many years I would have never developed an appreciation and later a fondness for the show. This brings me to another thought--if someone is exposed to a certain form of media over an extended period of time is it normal to develop an appreciation for it? It could be argued in my case that this exposure to news programming contributed to my choice of study in college (political science). Because I was made to watch the news against my will, I eventually realized I should make the best of it and then decided to enjoy it. Is this the case with other people? Are children who are forced to watch the history channels later in life historians? Are children who are made to watch star trek astronauts later in life? Can the media have a direct affect on future career choices? ~Julianna Smith

Interpretive Communities

Last week in class we discussed the idea of interpretable communities and how the group in which a particular text is read maybe more important than the text itself. I began to think about this concept and realized how true it is. In the United States there seems to be a heavy influence in the church on the importance of the individual. During the last presidential election one could see the church adopting the platform and the ideals of the Republican Party. Church leaders and church goers could be heard saying on the streets, "It is not fair that we have to support those around us through tax dollars," and "why should I be made to pay because that person couldn't keep his or her job." I know I experienced this in my community and maybe I am being a bit presumptuous to assume everyone else experienced the same thing. I found it troubling because looking at the Bible it seems to me that there is a great emphasis on community, taking care of each other, and most importantly taking care of the poor among us, but why all of the sudden were Christians forsaking these ideals that they had been taught in Sunday School for years and adopting a doctrine of individuality. I think the answer could lie in the fact that the text, in this case the Bible, was not as important as the community, the United States, in which it was being read. But, the more I began to ponder this I wondered what else in the Bible is being reinterpreted by the community in which it is being read? Currently, I am trying to wrestle with this idea and my own interpretation of scripture. I suppose it is important to not forget that as we do read scripture we have access to the Holy Spirit which guides our reading and interpretations...I hope to update later on what I am discovering. ~Julianna Smith