Speech and Class?

On November 30, the class had a brief discussion on the topic of language in relation to class. If I'm not mistaken it was concluded that the upper-middle class way of speaking is not as correct (or proper) in comparison to the average middle class (Petty- Bourgeois), because this class seems to be overconscientious of their grammar and way of speaking.

While I can see this argument- simply put; that they are trying too hard to be 'perfect' and do this so people think that they are at a higher societal level than they really are (as they try and associate themselves with the upper-middle class), is it really true, however?

I think that the way people speak and use proper English reflects the level of education they have and perhaps even the people they associate themselves with. It makes sense to me that the more contact a person has with a scholarly environment the higher the chance they will develop proper English and use it as they mature and develop. In fact, we have even had conversations about how the wealthy (upper-middle class) are the ones who dictate power and have control in our society, therefore wouldn't it make sense to say that they also have access to the highest levels of education. If they have access to high levels of education, then wouldn't they be the ones who have developed the skills to use proper English and grammar when they speak? I think so!

Truthfully, I havent seen to many upper-class educated people use terms like: 'proper!' aka for 'well done!' or 'nice job' or 'what are you saying tonight?' aka for 'what are your plans for the evening?' or even 'are you down to reach (or chill)?' aka for 'would you like to join us?'. It's more the middle-class, petty-bourgeois (or lower) that use these or the finding of an upper-middle class person trying to act 'cool' in order to fit into another class in society. Or it may even be that the lingo we use is slowly being altered top the point that this is how young people (upper middle class or middle class, academic or not) communicate among themselves- because I've definitely never heard someone address a professor like that....!

-Andrei

Japanese Reality Show

In the lecture of Nov 16, we have discussed about reality show. It reminded me of a Japanese reality show called ‘Ainori’, in which six ordinary male and female were picked up and travel around the world together with a small car, called ‘love wagon’. The purpose of this traveling is to find a destined partner though the stay, and participants are required to go out with someone every day, writing diary about their feeling to the members in the wagon. When they fell in love with someone, he or she has to ask the person to finish their travel, and go back to Japan together.

I think this program well dramatizes the reality of falling in love and drive audiences to sympathize with the member’s love affairs. As there are basically only three guys and three girls in the wagon, they often crush on a same person, creating a drama or huge regret of losing someone if they miss the chance to ask going home together in a right timing. In the meantime, audiences know who likes who, through their diary, which helps us entertain with someone’s supposedly, real love. There are also commentators who always make fun of the gap between what is happening there and the member’s own perception about their relationship, which highly characterize the shame part of the participants as Professor Kalmar mentioned in the class.

What I find it interesting is that there are always certain arranged roles of the characters that never happen by chance, such as person who never fell in love with in his life, or someone who is usually player but suddenly become so pure, or someone who have super technique to make person fell in love with.

People always argue who is the best girl/guy, as if they were real friends, though which the members will be half celebrities. There are always controversies if it is a real love or if the members are really ordinary people because some of them were actually possible singers, actors, or models. However, even though it is doubtful if it is real, this program was so popular and ran over ten years, and after an interval, they revived lately. Everyone accepted the lie part of the program, forgive the fake of it, and take it for granted without resisting it.

Also, there is a famous previous participant who became successful through the show. She was famous for her popularity among guys with cutest technique, and now she became one of the number one access gainer of her blog in Japan, getting lots of money though her photo essay, collaboration with fashion line, or their exposure in media. My point is, even though she got fame though the reality show, she sustained her fame though her common-woman qualities, compared with other celebrities. I think what her popularity reflects is that not only people expect the fame to be democratized, people even want celebrities to be common, close, friendly like positions which are not so different from their lives. Even celebrities who seem like the only class in recent world were expected to stay close with the middle class value, as this participant was.

Reality of Reality TV

A couple weeks ago, when we were discussing reality television, I think there was one type that we didn't really address very well: the celebrity reality television show. Other than Dancing with the Stars, I don't recall any others mentioned.

Specifically, I am curious about what a fellow student brought up in class, saying that ultimately, it doesn't matter what the voters say, but that rather the producer has the final say in who is voted out. I then come to think of how or what happens when the competitors are competing not for fortune, but instead for a charity that means something to them. For instance, I was thinking of the reality television show Battle of the Blades, which features ex-professional male ice hockey players skating with a professional female figure skater. The show follows their practices and training sessions and, of course, the performances, and like many other voting shows, there will be a pair voted off by the audience.

Now, these couples are not competing for the well-being of themselves, but for their respective charities. I wonder how much say the producer has in who is voted off in these types of shows. Do they really have any say? Is it in the form of votes, like the rest of the general public? Can they influence a certain win for a charity that hits close to home for them, or discourage a win for a charity which doesn't appeal to them?

Of course, this isn't the only celebrity style reality show, but it was just a thought that I had after our discussion in class about the idea of how much reality shows are reality.

The weird and the Real

Lately I've been thinking a lot of the performances of certain cultural figures, musicians who become celebrities. The way these individuals perform, both onstage and as versions of themselves (that is, a celebrity's public image) is subject to critique and deconstruction from the media. I think this in and of itself is fairly neutral, but I think the way the general populace reacts to media portrayal of cultural figures is sometimes insidious.

We usually divide the culture we consume into two categories: we distinguish between "high" and low" culture, creating a dichotomy of easily-digested pop and "real art". Of course, there is the idea that we discussed in class regarding "hierarchies of representation", where some cultural artifacts are considered more worthy of representation or note than others (for example, movies regarded as "film" versus, say, a summer blockbuster). However, it still seems that those pop stars who create an accessible product are more celebrated - and their products more consumed - than those who create more "challenging" products.

Further, we as a populace as easily bored. We want things that are new, exciting, and controversial. But I think we want our boundaries pushed only in very specific ways, and that we are afraid of getting too stretched. I think as much as we celebrate the unusual and the New and Exciting, we are afraid of things that move beyond the palatable pop glitter and flash and into the realm of the strange: because if they move too far away from what's accessible, they trigger our awareness of the Real, and that's too scary.

For the purposes of this post, I want to use two popular musicians who I feel represent this dichotomy: Lady Gaga and Björk. While one of these women is a relative newcomer to the music scene, and the other is a veteran of some thirty years, these two pop stars represent two sides of the same coin. They're both known to be weird, boundary-pushing, avant-garde artists. But Lady Gaga, in the two or so years that she's had hits on the radio, has become a mainstream superstar, surrounded by the trappings of weirdness with which she adorns herself. Björk, while lauded by the music press, is regarded by mainstream media and the general public as bizarre and incomprehensible. In fact, Björk is "defined" on urbandictionary.com as (v) To act in an outlandish manner; create a confusing spectacle. Everyone remembers her swan dress, which caused such a furor some ten years ago.

For Lady Gaga, "weirdness" is a tool she can use to remain relevant and exciting in the public eye. Her unchallenging mainstream sex-appeal ensures that she a) attains and retains fame and b) doesn't scare anyone. Björk, however, is uncompromising in her strangeness. Her music isn't to everyone's taste, her clothing choices are sometimes bizarre, and while she never hides or shies away from acknowledging her sexuality, her image and music are stubbornly and uniquely strange. To engage with Björk's work is to confront the Real, while listening to Gaga is more of an exercise in product placement than anything else.

Please follow the below links for an illustration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfRD33vGy9s&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mB0tP1I-14

Myth and Reality: How the Hegemony of Myth Creates our Reality

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Advertising Mythology of Marriage

Last week, our lecture on Barthes and mythologies reminded me of a particular social theory that is projected on society in everyday life. Many advertisements in which its theme is associated with prestige or happiness, the woman or man presented in it appear to be wearing a wedding band. Have you ever noticed this? I find it doubtful that the people these companies hire to personify their messages are all married or that they would even let the actors retain anything of themselves while conveying the ads’ specific imperative. Furthermore how is it that they so happen to always align with the camera so their left hand is visible - there must be more than meets the eye!

Although the sentiment is less powerful now than it was half a century ago, the majority of our society believes that the tradition of marriage is a rite of passage; that it is essential for the family structure; moreover, that it is fundamental to every ‘good’ life. Regardless of these notions being true or false for any individual, the fact of the matter is that advertisements portray marriage as the prescribed relationship for everyone. It is a myth being told by these endorsements, not subconsciously but rather additionally, about the story of the characters’ lives within the commercial. Perhaps advertisements that display actors with wedding rings are attempting to use the tradition of marriage to emotionalize their perspective.

Morality as Hegemony

In lecture on November 23, we discussed theories of hegemony presented by Antonio Gramsci and Roland Barthes. I was immediately reminded of a story I had read by Franz Kafka titled The Penal Colony, which tells of an explorer who visits a penal colony and, for the first time, encounters the vicious machine of morality. The process of justice with which the machine is associated does not constitute a defense on behalf of the condemned, who is therefore always immediately found guilty. As a result, the prisoner is strapped to a machine and whatever commandment he disobeyed is inscribed upon his body; the prisoner in the story, for instance, would have “HONOR THY SUPERIORS!” engraved on his body. This method was so powerful that future generations would find it “impossible to alter anything, at least for many years to come.”

            Kafka’s story offers a depiction of morality as something that is forced upon the prisoner without his being able to argue against it; similarly, hegemony presents us with things/images that we cannot argue with. By imposing a system of morality (i.e. conceptions of right and wrong) on society, the elite class has acquired a hidden source of control through which they can exercise their own interests at the expense of the lower classes’ liberty. When someone threatens the interests of the upper class, they are threatening the social order and therefore need to be punished. Morality was engraved upon society centuries ago by the privileged class, and has been evolving ever since; yet the fact that morality has changed over the years offers proof that it is not a fixed concept. In other words, morality is not a part of nature, and has only been naturalized by the elite to maintain the social hierarchy.

            At the end of Kafka’s story, the officer who explains the process of justice to the explorer decides to try the machine on himself. He programs it to engrave the words “BE JUST” on his body; however, the mechanism goes haywire and stabs the officer to death. The way I interpret this is as follows: because this process of justice was in fact incredibly unjust, it eventually became outdated and the machine stopped working. Perhaps, then, all systems of morality ultimately must come to an end because, in effect, they breach the rights of the majority of society so that the privileged can maintain their position. Does this mean that one day morality will be made to benefit the wider population? Or will the elite continue to find ways to conceal this method of hegemony?

I recommend reading the short story by Kafka, but here is a video I found on Youtube that portrays the story quite accurately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StwAGxbPxlU

A Life Well Lived on Facebook

Ironically, as I was browsing my facebook news feed, I came across an interesting link called “A Life Well Lived on Facebook” Unfortunately it was a while ago and I cannot find the link anymore. Hopefully some of you have seen it already because I found it really interesting, but also kind of eerie that we are the generation that this is basically happening to. The video shows this guy’s life unfolding on facebook from status updates of “being in a relationship” to being tagged in a video that shows him cheating on his gf, which is then followed by a “single” status. It also shows how he meets his future wife through a series of “pokes” and facebook private messages. I just thought this was interesting because I see it happening with my friends today. Personally I’m not the type to put my entire life’s story on facebook but that’s just me.

Continuing on with the discussion of facebook, my boyfriend tells me one night there is a hilarious South Park episode I just MUST see because it describes our "situation." Basically I deleted my boyfriend off of facebook one night after I got extremely angry that I couldn’t “stalk” (not literally but you all know what i mean) his page how it was meant to be stalked. It sounds really irrational and immature, but my boyfriend is Persian so a lot of his statuses and posts are in farsi and I do not speak or read farsi. Essentially, he was defeating the fundamental purpose of us being “friends” on facebook. Thus, I removed him as a friend to eliminate further anguish... problem solved. You may laugh, but I was furious at the time. Which brings me to the South Park episode entitled “You have 0 friends” Here’s the link you can watch it on the comedy network online for free (viewer discretion advised lol):

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/south-park/season-14/south-park-1401-sexual-healing/#clip287165

It was actually pretty funny. Basically one of the characters, Stan, gets made a facebook page by his friends. He is against facebook because he doesn’t want to get “sucked in” to it. A lot of events unfold that may be typical of any facebook user. Anyway, it was a good episode, and illustrates how Stan unwillingly becomes a victim of facebook as his profile becomes its own entity.

The moral of the story is that facebook can make people do irrational things (including myself) and act in strange ways. It's like having a window into our friends' lives, but one that is taken out of context which in my opinion can be troublesome especially for close relationships. My boyfriend and I make fun of it now, but we're still not friends on facebook ;)

How Far Will You Go?

So I've noticed that lately there are a lot of post about Reality TV show, but a few days ago I ran across this video that my friend posted on facebook and it started me thinking "How far are people willing to go to i) Get money or ii) Get their 15 minutes of fame?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUZ7hei5eA


This video shows a game show (sorry I have no idea which one!) where a person is strapped into a lie detector machine and is given money when she answers a personal question correctly. Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't really want my entire personal life out there for the world to know about just for a few thousand dollars.

In this particular episode, titled on youtube "Girl Ruins Marriage on Game Show", the questions start off as rather harmless, for example she's asked if "she would ever steal money from her job if she knew she wouldn't get caught?" However, things take a turn for the worst when they start asking her personal romantic questions, while her husband is in the audience...Questions include "Were you in love with another man on your weddings day?" - Yes, "Have you ever cheated on your husband?" - Yes
The real kicker of the episode is the last question she is asked "Do you think you are a good person?" and after doing all these horrible things to her husband, she actually has the audacity to answer YES! Really REALLY??? At least the machine actually detects that she is lying to herself/us.

In summary, Andy Warhol once said that fame will become democratize with everyone having the potential to be famous. On the other hand, I personally don't want to have a democracy where people are willing to ruin themselves and their relationships just to get their 15 minutes of fame - I don't think it's worth it. However, the society we live in nowadays almost pushes people to be on these reality TV shows, it's all we read about in magazines, all we can watch on TV. But answer me this, would you really want to watch a TV show that has the potential to ruin someone's life? I understand the audience's delight in someone's misfortune on shows like Survivor or Dancing with the Stars; but the contestants misfortune there only results in them going back to their normal life basically unscathed. On this game show, the contestant's misfortune can actually result in a drastic change in their life.

Thus, are there TV shows that just go to far? Is there a limit to the amount of destruction you can cause a contestant on a TV show? Stay tuned....

The Monkey Experiment

During today's lecture, while discussing how society makes rules and decides what is moral (even though it was brief), I was reminded of a story I read a while ago. You may have heard this story (it's sort of a joke) of monkeys and the spray bottle before.

Start with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him.

After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done round here.

And that, my friends, is how company policies are made.

This may show some insight on how we as humans have decided on various traditions, and maybe even morality. There could have been a direct effect long ago (such as spraying monkeys with cold water, or public shaming in the town square) that while we have no directly experienced, affects us all the time through the traditional values of society. In the monkeys' case, they never approach the banana again even though the reason for doing so is unknown to any of the monkeys. There are certain cultural practices or morals that we accept as human nature that have been socially conditioned in such a manner long ago. For example, why do some religion ban the eating of certain animals (like pigs in Judaism/Islam)? They may have been considered dirty animals back then, or maybe the people founding the religion didn't know how to BBQ properly. In any case, devout followers of religions still follow that rule even when others eat pork all the time and have no particular ill effects. It could be based on faith alone, but I believe it's mostly out of fear that they will be shunned by their social circle. (I'm not an expert on either religion so correct me if I am mistaken with the reasoning... and have my apologies)

By the way this was an actual experiment done in 1967...

Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.

mentioned in: Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976). Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates. In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place

(Not sure where this particular iteration of the story originates, but I copied it from http://www.jokesunlimited.com/jokes/why_things_work_this_way.html)

REALITY TV SHOW/DANCING WITH THE STARS

Based on last weeks topic Reality TV i just realized first hand how viewers can get totally caught up in these reality shows and develop emotion towards any particular out come or results of their favorite participants
I have been fallow the reality show Dancing with the Stars for quite some time since the start of the season to be exact. I chose my favorite couples based on their performances week after week as well as according to my judgment of good dancing. and based on the fact that i have a few years experience in dancing though not professionally.
On this weeks episode of the show to my surprise and much disappointment one of the most outstanding dancers Brandy who topped the competition week after week was eliminated off the show at the semi final level as she did not get enough votes form the viewers/ public. This came as a shock to me and other viewers also seemed to shocked judges and contestants as well.
On the other and Bristol who barely made it week ofter week, has no musicality and is for the most part help up by her partner who is a professional dancer as all the other partners is left n the competition to perform at the finals. This therefore leaves me to think and try to figure out what message this would send if Bristol should win the competition. Is it that she is a good dancer, best off all the contestant or did she win on and account of more people vote for her because of the popularity of her mother, because of her name,or out of pity as she is trying real hard? All of the above might be the case but at the end of the day the amount of vote could add up to more than that of the contestant who got votes just for their ability to dance alone with friends, fans and families.
Then this would mean she would walk away with the prize. but what was the prize for good dancing or popularity. If it neither or both why would it be necessary to have judges who are professional dancers on the show. As you can see from reading my blog i am fully caught up in this so called reality show which may very well be stage for the particular result. But not to worry as i didn't have just on couple as favourite as there are other excellent dancers left in the competition and my favorites are based on performance.

Reality Television

As emberrassing as this may be, I found yesterday's discussion in class pertaining to 'reality television' to be quite interesting, due to the fact that I am secretly hooked on a few reality shows myself (Jersey Shore, Real Housewives). A few of the groups, including my own, talked about the fact that although people are constantly scrutinizing these shows, there must be a reason that they are still around, right? I admit, the ones I can't get enough of are particularly vain and the character's can be rather pathetic more often than not, but why do I, along with millions of other people still manage to run home every Thursday night to catch the new episodes? I found the reasons we came up with in class to be rather insightful, and I can definitely relate. It is simply an extension, or embellishment of reality, whilst still containing very relatable situations that could happen to anyone. For example, who hasn't been jealous of a girlfriend/boyfriend in the past? It is almost a way to vent over issues we may be having but are too embaressed to admit, or simply a means of relating to the characters (with a little added drama of course!) Therefore, I have concluded that this is exactly the reason why I continue to watch these shows; as awful as they can be at times, they do still seem to confront and deal with everyday situations and portray them in a humorous manner, so as to lighten up and/or make fun of the situation, and in turn, making us all feel a little bit better about ourselves! Well, that is my conclusion at least, I am sure many of you would disagree.

Briah

Everyone will be famous for 15 seconds

This is a clip from Russia’s got talent. These men definitely have a talent for making me question whether they are exceptional actors or huge idiots. As Bianca mentioned in class, there preliminary auditions for most reality shows which determines who will be allowed to audition in front of a TV audience. Somehow these guys made it through; they are definitely the lowest spectrum on the hierarchy of taste.

I don’t think a person is mentally challenged if they believe what is happening in reality shows is reality. People have varying levels of media literacy. Watching this clip, I couldn’t turn away. I guess it appeals to the viewers feeling of shadenfreude. I admit, the first time seeing this I really did think the arrow went to the guy’s eye and that prevented me from enjoying what must be intended as humour. In response to youtube viewers comments that mirrored my own reaction, one viewer commented, “He is alive_ noobs, be calm :D” Watching it a second time, I can see the cracks in the act, how the camera angle widens making the view squint to see the arrow hit the man’s face. What do you think – is this all an act? Am I a “noob” for believing that I just witnessed a man seriously being hurt on TV? Is this an instance where the fragile masquerade of reality television is broken?

Tao- the real

Hello,
In research for one of my other classes I came across a definition of the Tao (an East Asian religion) that strikingly resembles many of our discussions on the real. From what I understand the Tao represents the underlying universal oneness and energy of the universe from which all other things are derived. The Tao is often said to be something that cannot be described in words or symbols and its ineffable qualities cannot be described, only experienced. All other things that can be named in our universe are simply manifestations that derive from this eternal oneness. The word Tao has a variety of translations but some of the most common are road, way, or path. The similarities with our understanding of the real are uncanny. The real is an indescribable phenomenon that we cannot describe in words from which all manifestations of reality derive. Professor Kalmar speaks often of how in this theory humans are said to have a desire to return to the real even though it can be frightening as it threatens our understanding of reality. I am pondering and I feel as though this desire to return to the real is much like the Path, road, or way through which we can experience the Tao. The experience of the Tao is often considered to be spiritual enlightenment in which one reunites with the entirety of the universe. I remember in our very first class one of our classmates mentioned that perhaps a way to escape the grasps of this liberal capitalist reality is through meditation. If abiding by the way of the Tao, I do believe that one could detach from this reality and experience the real through meditation without the aids of capitalist society, such as a book. all you need to experience enlightenment(the real) is your own self and your own path.


But this is simply my opinion, I would be very interested to hear what others have to say on this concept. In this realm of thought there will always be varying opinions and I'd like to see how aware any of us might be of our desire to return to the real.

Reality TV - My Experience

Hello All!

I spoke briefly in class about my experience on the reality TV show, Canadian Idol. Unfortunately time didn't allow as I have silly rehearsals first thing on Tuesdays and get to class always after 10:30. But I'm excited to share it here! It was certainly one of the most fascinating and eye opening experiences in my life as of yet.

As a participant on the show, I saw a true dividing line between reality and 'the real'. We had mentioned in class whether we thought that much of reality television was staged or not, and as a competitor on the show, I had an opportunity of seeing first hand, how staged it really is!

A friend of mine had participated two years prior, Michelle Madeira, and she told me that I had to go on the show just to see all of the real behind the scenes that go on. Since we had sung together a few places and participated in different events, I told her I'd take a stab at it, and peek into the vortex of the media's hocus-pocus.

I made it to the top 32 females in Canada, before I was eliminated for the peculiar reason of 'being too confident', as the judges had explained to me afterward. (Because I was eliminated before the final cut to go on the top 10 on the voting round of the show, the people who were eliminated on that day had the opportunity to speak with the judges after, without being on camera). I was sure to take advantage of this! In real, real, real life, the judges are normal people, and are basically actors. They take on personalities for the taping of the show. The season I had participated, the judges were Farley Flex (Randy Jackson personality), Sass Jordan (female judge: Paula Abdul personality), Jake Gold, and Zack Werner (Simon Cowell personality). You can see the show's set formula already, just by looking at the judges and how they are casted to 'match' what the public was familiar with from the well known American Idol show. And of course, since Simon Cowell wasn't going to be judging on Canadian Idol, they had to find an appropriate substitute (Zach Werner) to be the token 'asshole', and on camera, that he was.

It was Zach Werner that firmly stated that he disliked me as a performer, and at my very first audition for the TV segment, he made this clear. He had told me I was 'too confident' to perform on the show, and as a performer it wasn't good to be that confident. Of course when he said this on television (though this segment of mine wasn't aired), he used his rough and tough, ass personality to do so. Sass Jordan, who as of course encompassing Paula Abdul's empathetic aura, interjected and explained to me that it's great that I'm confident about myself and that it would get me places. Zach simply interjected, "yeah, but I don't like her. She's too confident". Alright Zach. lol.

Anyway, the story goes like this. From audition one to the last audition, we had practically zero sleep. Why? Because we would get out song for the next day, at sometimes as late as 3:00AM, to be performed at 7:30AM the next morning and ready to go. This pattern of receiving our material in the wee hours of the morning, and having to go back to the hotel (Royal York is where we stayed) and learn it for 7AM went on for the whole week. That's right. Competitors don't choose their song, and get no sleep. We receive a list of songs that we need to choose from because it is those songs which are allowed to be released. The station has the rights for these songs. So if you didn't know the song, basically you needed to learn one from the five given options, within less than 4 hours, which probably meant you weren't getting sleep. And there was a necessity to practice because they'd would tell us that "tomorrow is duet day" or "tomorrow is trio day", so we had to team up with other people and throw together three part harmonies and arrangements within 4 hours, and memorize lyrics. So when viewers at home are watching the show and laughing because people are forgetting lyrics, they don't realize that those people trying to sing have had little to no sleep in the past 4 days. It's pretty much music bootcamp, and the only thing fueling you is food, nerves and adrenaline. Which is a pretty weird feeling. In fact I remember hallucinating one of the last days just because your brain is trying so, so hard to shut down.

It was pretty sweet seeing how far you can push yourself as a human being though. It really showed me what the body is capable of.

Anyway my elimination day happened and both my partner and I were eliminated. Many extremely talented people were eliminated before us, which didn't surprise me, because many, were also very confident as performers, like myself, and the TV station's producers wanted them gone.

Speaking to the judges after, they told me (without acting and off camera) that what the meant when they angrily stated that I was too confident, was that on a show like that, they wanted people who look weak, who cry on camera, who get nervous, people who are 'entertaining' to watch, and not just talented. Because being just 'talented' is boring on TV.

So that's the big exciting joke of reality TV. Our sleep time was nil, we were memorizing off of no sleep (which really is impossible. I couldn't remember Howie Day's 'Collide' song's chorus by the fourth day...and how easy is that song! lol). This one time the camera men tried filming my coming out of my hotel room and asking me questions, but explained that I needed to take my Kit Kat bar I was eating, out of the shot because they can't show the chocolate bar on television, either that, or I had to eat it without the wrapper. lol. Crazy.

So I hope you enjoyed my story. I'd be happy to tell anyone some more about it. If any of you ever have the chance to participate in a 'reality' TV show--Do it! You won't regret it, and it'll be like nothing you've ever experienced. Sometimes, you really can't beleive how scripted it is. The contracts alone, were one heck of a read! I mean, who really wants to sign something that essentially says, 'we own you for the next three years'...uhhh... no thanks.

Bianca

Reality TV

Class discussion prompted me to mention another reality show that I feel is extremely fascinating and was not mentioned in class and that is The Real Housewives of New Jersey, Orange County and D.C.

This show focuses on the housewives of wealthy men and their lifestyle. I find it fascinating that the women act differently depending on where they live. In this reality series the wives are friends but at the same time argue and fight with each other. As mentioned in class, there are some things that can be thought of as real but in the end we all know that most of the drama and personalities are fake and influenced by the producers of the show for entertainment purposes. Therefore, the majority of the drama is exaggerated.

So have any of you watched this show? I would love to know what you all think of the show? Also, you can find many clips of the show on youtube if you haven't watched the show before.

Danielle

How clean are our houses?

In preparation for today's class, I've been watching a few episodes of BBC's reality show How Clean Is Your House? In all honesty, I've always enjoyed this show. It satisfies a craving for easily digestible reality tv fun, and is especially satisfying as you watch the show's two heroines Kim and Aggie clean up homes that often seem beyond help.

I think what people like about this show, besides the makeover aspect (who wouldn't enjoy seeing a house so horrible made liveable, and often lovely, again?) is the relief of knowing that at least we don't live like that- I mean, I may not have the most gorgeous home, but at least I don't live like those people.

Several episodes of the show are easily accessible on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_6k11x7W8Q&feature=related).

Reality TV

Reality TV is often defined as a TV genre that portrays unscripted events that occur in the lives of certain individuals. These individuals are often celebrities and socialites, involved in the fields of acting, dancing, playing sports, singing, or just having a lot of money. To me, it's funny how the term reality can be given to a genre that involves less than 1% of the mass population.

Anyways, I just thought I would share a clip of an upcoming reality TV show, which happens to be a gross misrepresentation of Toronto.

Let me know what you guys think!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSG3LXU60Vc

Manushi

Babies

“Have you seen the film Babies?”, my friends asked one evening over dinner? Of course I had not. I have just never been one of those people who likes babies. You know the kind that plays peak-a-boo with stranger’s babies on the buses or exclaims, “that is the most beautiful baby I have ever seen”, to every baby. I was apprehensive of my friend’s judgment when they enthusiastically recommended Babies, a feature length film following four babies in different countries, from their birth to their first birthday, with no dialogue. NO dialogue!

But, I watched the film. I sat in front of the TV transfixed by the four pudgy babies as they go about the first year of their lives. How did this happen? Did the chemical balance in my brain change? Have I reached some kind of fertile peak? Then in Tuesdays class the answer came to me. Babies is about what Lacan called the real. I was transfixed because I was watching natural human experiences – the wide eyed curiosity that only babies have, learning to walk, not having the use of language – yet, it was something I cannot remember or even image. The real is not only a source of fright; it is the object of our desires. As the babies explore their world, the movie exemplifies the early childhood realization that we are separate from the objects around us. Language slices up our experience; it convinces us that the world can be separated into different units. Without language, the babies are all equal. Their sense of self is not developed, yet cinematography and the human nature to make connections imposes on each baby personality. Despite the lack of dialogue and their different environments, the cinematography creates a plot as the babies almost simultaneously goes through the stages of life - being fed, taking a bath, learning to crawl, having a fit. Watching Babies, we are faced with the loss of the real. The real is impossible, and though it is lost, it still as an incredible power over our emotions. The transfixing power of Babies demonstrates how much power the real has over my emotions. I highly recommend watching Babies.

REALITY

Have a look at this video....especially fifty seconds in when the phrase "reality is a prison" is displayed. the movie comes out march 2011 and centres around a girl who escapes her reality through her imagination where she lives in a hyperreality. while kind of off-putting at first, i think this movie is a great introduction (while not a television show) towards reality tv, especially in the instance of the reading for november 16th in which it discusses domination. i really think the trailer suggests these girls render a rebellious type of domination by moving outside of a world which has subverted them through a specific power hierarchy. but it makes me wonder if, with a tag line of reality is a prison, if those who enter this hyperreality will never be able to escape this type of power because every world needs a hierarchy so it isn't chaotic.....(similar to the unfortunate lessons learned in Lord of the Flies)..... i don't know....it's the first time i've seen this trailer....so it's just an opinion...comments are appreciated!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrIiYSdEe4E

Fascination with Crime

During the November 2^nd class, we discussed relishing crime. This reminded me of Walter Benjamin’s theory of deriving aesthetic pleasure from violence, and Marinetti’s idea of beautiful war. The premise of horrible crimes has become a billion dollar industry. There are numerous television shows, books and movies due to people’s fascination. By experiencing horrible crimes indirectly, the real infringes on reality in a controlled manner, without imposing a chaotic threat to our lives. While a show like Law and Order may be premised on fictional examples, interest in the real case of Russell Williams increased dramatically when recording tapes of his confession began to air on the nightly news. Because the human behind the gruesome crimes is a completely average, unremarkable looking middle-aged man, our sense of reality is momentarily disturbed and an existential concern over our sense of safety, shaken. The rarity of cases like Williams guarantees a spectacle. The heightened, exaggerated real (the premise of fictionalizing crime) has violated our boundaries of reality, and society is simultaneously scared and captivated.

Emma Z.

"Escape" From Reality

Nowadays, the inherent need for a diversion from our reality is increasing. People are looking for an escape from the unpleasant aspects of their daily life - to leave reality to indulge in the real. Escapism is defined as a way of refocusing one’s attention on things pleasant or enjoyable, as opposed to the hard realities of the everyday world.

While escapism can sometimes be productive, a way of reducing stress, it can become a dangerous habit. Escapism can be compared to an addiction in the sense that it prevents you from taking care of everyday business, situations, and issues. People begin to engage themselves in a fabricated reality which does not actually exist. Some examples of escapism include:

• THE INTERNET: In Internet addiction, people spend a huge amount of their day/night surfing the web. They prefer to be on the computer than interacting with people in the real world. Examples include: Facebook, Chat Rooms, Internet Gambling.
  
  
• DIE HARD FAN: People who get excessively involved of fans of TV shows or movies are heading towards a unhealthy level of escapism. Examples of such people are "Trekkies" or "Twihards". These fans devote much of their time to their franchise, trying to escape into a desired world that seems to them as an improvement of their own reality
  
  
• EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES: If someone pursues any activity to a point where it begins to consume their entire reality it can have severe consequences. An example are eating disorders: A person might begin to eat to little or to much to gain confidence in their altered version of reality, because they feel very insecure about their image in the real world. Another example is oversleeping - some people will spend over half their day in bed as a way to escape from a reality that is filled with emotional or physical pain.

Any form of escapism can technically be healthy as long as it is consumed in moderation. Any over consumption of an activity can lead to a slippery slope ending in the inability to survive in reality.

Considering that we will be discussing horrible crimes tomorrow, I was doing a little internet research and found the following piece on unsolved crimes:
http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/23002/12-grisly-unsolved-murder-cases