Modern Family??

How “modern” is the Modern Family? I started thinking about this question after we viewed one of the episodes in class. Something really stood out to me in the episode: None of the “mothers,” Claire, Gloria or Cam, actually have jobs outside of the home. This is really annoying to me because it does not represent reality, and for a show that is supposed to be “pushing the envelope;” it completely fails to convey the reality of the “modern” woman. After sharing this thought with a classmate, he pointed out that while the show represent “modern” forms of families: gay couple and an older divorced man with a younger woman, it still portrays stereotypes and the more “acceptable” form of alternative families. What if Gloria was an older woman and Jay was a younger man with a son? How would that change the series and would the show be as popular? I think shows like Modern Family are trying to being “modern,” but unfortunately are continuing to perpetuate stereotypes, albeit the modern versions of the stereotype.

Music in the Classroom

Hello, everyone!

I wanted to take some time to discuss using music in the classroom. I don't feel like we talked about this at all in class, but Emily's Wiki-page made me think, so I figured I'd share some ways that I've found effective.

My purpose in using music in the classroom is that students automatically connect to music and lyrics more than they connect to poetry. I've used the comparison in my Brit Lit class when we do a lot of Romantic poetry. Students have a hard time working through ALL of the poetry that we have to work through at the end of the semester, but I always tell them that poems are just songs without the background music. For some reason, it works to refresh their point of view.

I also have something in my class called "Lyrics as Lit". On Thursdays, my students bring in a song and lyrics (of course, it must be appropriate). I usually ask them to bring in a song that is specifically important to them. Then, we deconstruct and analyze the song. We talk about what the song is saying, who the audience is, and finally why they feel a specific connection to the song. I always ask students to hand in a paper explaining all of these things with the song, as well (only about a page). Students really get into this, as well.

Finally, I have used songs like "Lovers on a Hotel Bed" by Death Cab for Cutie to discuss tone/mood. Students have trouble identifying this in a text, but really enjoy dissecting songs that they already know.

Has anyone else used music effectively in their classes?

Video Games in the classroom

Today, I sat down with the new head of my department to discuss how I can better implement media literacy into my classroom and curriculum.

We talked for quite a bit about a lot of different things, but one thing that we discussed was video games in the classroom. I'll back-track (if I may) and explain that I feel like for the majority of the class, I re-evaluated how to approach using media in the classroom with the major concept of looking at the overall purpose for using the film/tv show/technology/etc. I've decided that many of the things that we talked about regarding video games were about looking at literary elements, in particular looking at plot, theme, conflict, setting, etc. All of these things can be achieved by using a film, so what is the ultimate purpose for using a video game? If one would use a video game in the classroom, would it be like using technology for technology's sake? If the same objective can be achieved and achieved as well by NOT using technology, then what is the purpose for using it? There is such a thing as using too much technology.   Another thing that I discovered while thinking about it more in depth was that using the opening story for a video game can be useful, but I don't think that using the actual video game is appropriate. Any thoughts?

Emmy Nominated Commercials

You may not be aware of this, but the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences actually has an Emmy category for Outstanding Commercial. This year’s nominees are:

Outstanding Commercial
Baby, TBWA\Chiat\Day New York, Ad Agency; MJZ, Production Company
Baby Driver, Carmichael Lynch, Ad Agency; RSA Films, Production Company
Born Of Fire, Wieden+Kennedy, Ad Agency; Serial Pictures, Production Company
Conan, Ogilvy New York, Ad Agency; Hungry Man, Production Company
Polar Bear, TBWA\Chiat\Day, Ad Agency; Epoch Films, Production Company
Questions,Wieden+Kennedy, Ad Agency; MJZ, Production Company

All six are compiled in the following website for your viewing pleasure:

http://ryanseacrest.com/2011/07/14/watch-the-6-outstanding-tv-commercials-nominated-for-an-emmy-video/

My question, fellow bloggers, is which, if any, of these commercials qualifies as art in your opinion?

Also, is it surprising that an ad that so clearly promotes a specific ideal of masculinity (Old Spice) is nominated for such a prestigious award? Doesn’t this mean that the Emmy folks are, in effect, valuing the perpetuation of gender stereotypes?

Ads that Poke Fun

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/got-controversy-milk-campaign-helps-men-deal-pms-214103675.html

According to this Yahoo! article, some people are up in arms about the new milk campaign. The campaign suggests that milk helps men “deal with PMS.” That is, the calcium in milk helps reduce the symptoms of PMS, so if men get their women to drink it, they reap benefits such as not being blamed for everything when their women are premenstrual.

I don’t know about you all, but as a milk drinker, I don’t want to think about menstruation when I’m enjoying one of my favorite beverages. Regardless of the fact that some people, particularly women, will take offense to this ad campaign—and rightfully so—it just doesn’t strike me as an effective strategy in the least.

I’d love to know your thoughts on this particular campaign. Also, if you can recall any ads that you found offensive (current or old) please share them. I’m sure they’ll generate some excellent conversation. (Maybe that’s all advertisers ultimately care about: if people talk about their ads, they talk about their products and more people probably then buy the products!) Uh oh, is my post giving advertisers what they want?!

CopyRIGHT?

I was thinking a lot about our class discussion on Tuesday, specifically the concerns that arise with copyrighted materials and how confusion about them is affecting the quality of lessons. Not being a teacher myself, however, I must admit: it's sometimes hard to understand the constraints school districts put upon our teachers. I can't imagine someone asking me to do something... and not having what I needed in order to do it. These concerns were so apparent in our discussion, as a number of you noted that you are required to teach something, like a certain book, but are not given the proper supplies. One person noted there were only enough books for one class of students, one complete set---yet the book/teaching was a requirement for three different teachers. This seems like a common, sticky situation that's flat out unfair. You are torn between obeying copyright rules and pleading with the administration for more materials ... and breaking the rules, surreptitiously, and pleasing the administration. So what's the remedy?

I do agree with Dr. Shea that this would be the perfect time to get creative with lesson planning, perhaps using parts of a book, rotating usage, or using other materials (like films!) to teach the story. We now know that we have the tools to do lessons like these and they are possible.

But, on the flip side, this too can be difficult. To me this almost seems like another case of in theory vs. reality... Just like our video games that we'd love to somehow include into curriculum, in reality there are so many constraints upon teachers that make their doing job much harder than it needs to be.

Commercials and Tough Guise

Hey, I saw an interesting commercial today that brought a couple things to mind. It was a commercial for men's clothing (Sears). It featured a split screen because, as they explained, we know that guys get bored hearing about clothes, so we'll have something interesting for you to watch when you get bored. Something interesting was a boxing match--how manly!--and the volume was up on it, too, as men's clothing was quietly displayed on the other part of the screen.

This commercial reenforced the tough image of guys, as it also implied that no real man would focus a full 30-60 seconds on his clothing, shopping, etc., but it does something else, as well. When I watched the documentary "Merchants of Cool," I was intrigued by a lengthy discussion of something Sprite was successful with a while back. Sprite had a campaign in which famous athletes would hold up a Sprite and say things like, "Yeh, you're gonna be real cool and everything in your life will be perfect if you just run out and get yourself some Sprite because I tell you to." In other words the advertising made fun of itself and at the same time said to the consumer, "we know you're too smart to fall for that kind of marketing." The narrator referred to it as a "we get you" technique ("get" as in understand): we understand you so much better and respect you so much more than those traditional advertisers. But---of course that in itself is a marketing technique and it was wildly successful until, the narrator suggests, people started to see it for what it was.

Has anyone else noticed similar ads?