Month: May 2016

Week 12 – Workshop: Victim Culture

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

Yes, another post on this topic. You’re sick of it, I get it. But we actually spoke about it in our Workshop, so hey, why not.

I don’t feel I need to explain my views on victim culture because I’ve already talked about it at length on 90% my blog posts. You know why? Because it has taken over literally even single facet of life. But I probably will anyway…

The grand stage for victim culture is the reality television show, more specifically, one that is competitive-based. In our workshops, we discussed how shows such as The Voice, Masterchef, etc exploit contestants for their own ideological gain. But today, it isn’t just the shows, it’s also the contestants who always want their sob story acknowledged.

Any reality television competition:
Presenter/Judge: You’ve had a rough time haven’t you?
Contestant: Yeah, when I was 6 my father/mother/brother/sister died from cancer/a car accident/etc
OR
Yeah, I’ve had depression/cancer/etc for the last few years.
Presenter/Judge: You’re brave, you know that right?
*Contestant sings/cooks and defies the odds*
*Audience goes crazy*
*Judges start crying*
This is the greatest story of mankind.

So there are two questions to consider. One, as a culture, how did we get here? And two, why do we glorify this idea of victimisation? The former is quite simple. Gen X’ers coddled their millennial children during their upbringing. They didn’t say no. With this came a generational shift of ‘feeling’ rather than ‘thinking’. Can you name the greatest thinkers of the last 10-15 years? No. Because we don’t value critical thought anymore, and as a result we live in a society where art is terrible and we reward morons. The second is because millennials are narcissists. Now, allow me to distinguish the two types of narcissism; one is the celebration of grand achievement, which I have no problem with, and the other is a gross glorification of one’s own thought, meaning that one believes their own ideas are factual and the refusal to engage with differing viewpoints is justified. 99% of millennials have the latter. Victim culture gives these people an excuse to make a tragedy their tragedy, which allows their self-aggrandisement to flourish under the pretense that they themselves have somehow helped a cause with their disingenuous sympathy.

Knock Knock Appreciation Blog

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

My 4th favourite film of last year was Eli Roth’s ‘Knock Knock’. Eli Roth is an under-appreciated filmmaker. He is not trying to make the next Shining. His films are a lot deeper than people give him credit for, and this is because he (intentionally) masks his themes with hilariously excessive violence and a cheesy script delivered by terrible actors.

Knock Knock was Roth’s second film released last year, after The Green Inferno (a brilliant social satire). A remake of Peter Traynor’s 1977 film ‘Death Game’, Knock Knock follows father-of-two Evan Webber (Keanu Reeves), who spends Father’s Day weekend alone while his family go away to the beach. Two beautiful women knock-knockity-knock on his door, and all hell breaks loose.

There are a few aspects that make Knock Knock the gem that it is. One is the acting. Keanu Reeves performance is so brilliantly over-the-top that you can liken it to peak Nicolas Cage. The two girls, played by Lorenza Izzo and Ana de Armas, have the amazing ability to be both your fantasy and worst nightmare. Aaron Burns and Colleen Camp also put in memorable performances. If you hate the film, you will at least find the performances entertaining (and that’s a Ryan Rosenberg Guarantee™). Two is how refreshingly perverse it is; Knock Knock is bold and unforgiving, which is rare in today’s safe, politically-correct world of cinema. And three is Antonio Quercia’s cinematography, which is terribly underrated.

I work as a delivery driver, and thus have a lot of time where I am at work with nothing to do. During this time I tend to re-watch Knock Knock, and I think I’ve probably watched it 40 times by now. The greatest thing about this is that I enjoy each viewing as much as the last.

This film is pure sensationalism and I LOVE IT.

Week 11 – Workshop: PB4 Update

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

This week’s Workshop involved presenting our group’s audio-essay rough-cut to Louise. It went okay, but the main problem identified was that I spoke too fast during my opening monologue.

Treating the audio-essay like a Podcast, I spoke fast because a) that’s how I speak/present information and b) the Podcasts I listed to (namely the Bret Easton Ellis Podcast (which may I add is back this week – if you’re interested in film reviews/cultural critiques LISTEN)) are delivered at a high speed.

After reviewing/reflecting on the feedback, I have decided that I will re-write most of the introduction to both allow me to speak slower and save time for other the interviews to blossom.

Week 11 – Lecture: Technological Determinism

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

This week’s lecture allowed me to revisit certain communication theories I studied in Year 12. One that I didn’t study was ‘technological determinism’, which is “a reductionist theory that presumes that a society’s technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values.”

It all sounds a bit communistic, so it was no surprise to find out from further research that thy lord and saviour Karl Marx brought this idea to prominence. In a more contemporary setting, writer Nicolas Carr explores technological determinism in his 2008 essay ‘Is Google Making Us Stupid’

Carr basically says technology leads to deception. The rise of the digital age has resulted in a shift in the way we think, and thus, has changed the way society and culture develops. Here’s an excerpt:

“Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going – so far as I can tell – but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.”

Week 10 – Workshop: Impartiality & Q&A

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

This week we used the oh-so controversial Zaky Mallah on Q&A as a case study for Institutions. Personally, for context, I find Q&A insufferable. It’s incredibly unbalanced, and the discussion generally results in nothing. However, on this particular issue, I think the ABC did nothing wrong.

The actual event was controversial, which shouldn’t (but does) mean anything. People can say whatever the hell the want. It was the subsequent reaction was handled terribly. Malcolm Turnbull questioned the ABC’s impartiality, the very impartiality the ABC prides itself on. And while Q&A is generally far from impartial, having Mallah speak was actually a rare example of their impartiality. Mallah posited his view, however ignorant it may be, towards Liberal MP Steve Ciobo, which he can then respond to. This is a conversation. This is impartiality. This is balance. Tony Abbott changing this into an us vs them narrative is unhelpful. You can question the Mallah’s views and the audience’s reaction, but you can’t question the ABC’s impartiality in this circumstance, especially considering host Tony Jones disavowed his comments. It would be impartial if the panel all shared Mallah’s views.

Week 9 – Workshop: The Stalinist Audience

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

During this workshop, we discussed how social media has brought more power to the audience, or as I like to see it, how social media has allowed the audience to become Stalinists who abuse their power. It seems everyday someone is either forced to apologise or losing their job because of an innocuous comment they made that was deemed offensive by delicate snowflakes. The formula is generally: comment –> outrage –> apology/resignation/firing –> justice.

We watched The Chasers infamous ‘Make A Realistic Wish Foundation’ sketch as a case study. Because of the outrage, ABC’s Head Of Comedy (COMEDY PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, JOKES?) Amanda Duthie was fired because of her scandalous choice to air the skit. This was seven years ago, where this type of action was considered a rarity compared to today’s ultra conservative corporatised culture where everyone is a victim and justice must be served. Although, now you may not have done anything wrong for you to be in hot water, because today everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

This is an issue of free speech. It’s also an issue of the audience being unable to put things into context. The Chasers are a satirical comedy group, what do people expect? Louise mentioned that nobody will hire Ms. Duthie. This is disgraceful. I’m sick to death of people’s lives being ruined because others deem what they do “offensive”. And this is only getting worse. What’s next?

Week 9 – Reading: The Consequences Of ‘The People Formerly Known As The Audience’

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

I first read Jay Rosen’s ‘The People Formerly Known as the Audience‘ two years ago in a Journalism course. Its relevance seems to grow each day; todays audiences are no longer the passive observers of yesterday. And this seems to be a positive; the audience is now involved in the conversation. But what does this really mean?

“Now we understand that met with ringing statements like these many media people want to cry out in the name of reason herself: If all would speak who shall be left to listen? Can you at least tell us that. The people formerly known as the audience do not believe this problem—too many speakers!—is our problem” – In the words of Heisenberg, you’re goddamn right. And this is a serious problem. Everybody has a voice, and its very annoying. Largely because this culture rewards the stupid and gives them a platform to preach their stupidity. And if you criticise them for perfectly legitimate reasons, this is often taken out of context. If you think this is anti-free speech, it’s not. Let them speak. But don’t demand that I respect them.

“You were once (exclusively) the editors of the news, choosing what ran on the front page. Now we can edit the news, and our choices send items to our own front pages.” – Because this isn’t an issue at all…. Today there has never been a bigger problem with the authenticity of news. Every secondary news organisation has an agenda and their content is highly politicised.

“The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable.” – Not sure about this. The shift to a more ‘active’ audience allows for greater flexibility when users are consciously constructing their ‘perfect’ image. Less predictable, sure, but why is that a good thing?

Project Brief 4 – Annotated Bibliography (Sample)

Posted on by ryanrosenberg

Easton Ellis, B, (2015), ‘The Gonzo Vision Of Quentin Tarantino’, New York Times, T Magazine’s Oct. 25 Greats issue

Famed writer Bret Easton Ellis wrote a character piece about Quentin Tarantino for the New York Times’s inaugural Greats issue in October 2015. The piece explores Tarantino’s (then) upcoming film, The Hateful Eight, and his incredibly successful career, before both Ellis and Tarantino rejoice on their shared love of film. The discussion of the latter was particularly interesting; they unpack how cinema has evolved, and the politics behind a film’s narrative.

This article is quite useful when trying to understand how the Oscars reward films through a moral lens rather than a cinematic one. Tarantino is an auteur filmmaker who has been the victim of the Academy’s political decision making; his films are seen as too politically incorrect to warrant a reward. Ellis and Tarantino’s love of film also serve as a reminder that we sometimes forget that films are primarily created to entertain and impress.

This article clearly supports our groups idea of how the status of certain ‘prestige films’ (films that have been created just to win an Oscar) are elevated purely because of their self-righteous and sanctimonious subject matter, rather than the actual aesthetic or cinema behind it. Tarantino believing “Selma should have won an Emmy” plays into this idea; despite the film looking like a TV movie, it was nominated because of its ideological-driven narrative. This type of opinion, specifically from an auteur filmmaker, is useful when building our group’s angle.