Reality TV isn’t real. It’s also not completely staged. its an enhanced reality that doesn’t resemble either component. the so called stars of the programs are not actors. they are simply people who act ridiculous while a camera is filming them. and most of the scripts are just set up situations designed to create drama. They aren’t narratives. They are just snippets of “life”. why do people watch reality TV if it isn’t real or thought provoking? its because regular people love to watch people be humiliated. plain and simple. Reality TV is mindless entertainment that requires no thought or even for the audience to pay attention. you can flip to a reality show and not know what is happening and still get the full affect of people’s idiocy. I hate reality TV. its terrible. it has no use in intelligent society. 

There is a point in Nick Salvato’s article that states that amateurs and professionals need to be critiqued differently. I wholeheartedly agree. the professional approaches his work with many different technical eyes before actually working on it. The amateur will simply try anything and see if it works. they have nothing to lose. anything goes. Crazy viral videos pop up all the time, but do we tolerate repeats from these amateurs? No! We usually just scoff at the idea that this mindless youtube entertainment could warrant a revisiting. Professionals must control themselves and create works of art that will hopefully get them another job. Amateurs live without that stipulation. They just throw it out there and if it sticks, it sticks. Professionals and amateurs are two entirely different animals. Not so say one is simply better than the other, rather that they are two separate worlds that must be judged independently of one another. 

Music videos play by their own rules. Some tell a narrative that has something to do with the song itself, while others may simply tell a completely new narrative that has nothing to do with the song at all. Holy Diver has nothing to do with the song. The video involves Ronnie James Dio creeping around a church with a sword, killing people. the video is awesome, but it makes little sense. music videos are pretty much a blank slate. Artistic license can be taken to the extreme. It’s a media that has limitless amounts of potential. Anything goes. It’s unique in the fact that no one cares how weird a music video is. Tigers could be flying around while licking lady Gaga’s face and no one would bat an eye. I hope music videos will continue to be made even though they don’t have a channel devoted to them anymore. They create a visual representation of a song. It’s an interesting way to look at a song and adds whole new dimensions to an artists work.  

Louie is a comedy. It may have elements of drama, but at its heart its a comedy. The fact that Louie has real problems and is a depressed individual just adds to the hilarity. Its a very realistic comedy so it gives the impression of being a drama or a dramedy. i believe genres exist to categorize the intentions of a specific piece of work. A Horror movie is defined as a horror movie because its intent is to scare or disturb people. A comedy is defined as its intent to make people laugh or create a humorous situation that people can relate to. Dramas are dramas because the creator wanted to elicit certain emotions. The article says that genres are created only because so many things have been created that we have found similarities in said created material. While that may be true, genres have become clearly defined and are an essential part of deciding what type of media you are creating. They are so ingrained in the television culture that they are now inescapable. Audiences have specific expectations of genres and making drastic changes could possibly excite or alienate audiences.  

TV comedies have evolved over the years. From Dick Van Dyke’s wholesome family vibe all the way to the depravity that is It’s Always Sunny, television has always tried to be edgy. From the perspective of a modern desensitized television viewer, The Dick Van Dyke show seems extraordinarily tame. Back in the day it was cutting edge comedy. Not so much nowadays. The middle ground is All in the Family. It was trying to send a message about how the world was changing. Archie Bunker is a relic from the past trying to keep things the way they used to be. Gloria and Michael represent the future of America. It isn’t clear if we are supposed to side with Archie Bunker. He is clearly the main character, but his views are offensive and outdated. Are we supposed to hate Archie Bunker, all the while laughing hysterically at him? I believe it puts him in the forefront to have a strong juxtaposition against the sensible way of looking at things. He is the fool in the show. It was trying to be progressive by showing how ridiculous the old ways actually are.

I found these articles very interesting. I agree that television is extremely cyclical. Every now and then people’s taste will completely change. for a time the big thing could be TV Dramas and then sitcoms will make a huge comeback. cable may be better at the moment, but network programming will inevitably strike oil and become top dog again. Cable has the upper hand based on the fact that censorship isn’t as strict. Profanity and more adult situations can be shown, thus people will naturally be drawn to that. Less restrictions on content means less restrictions on story and plot. Network programming has the advantage of widespread advertisements which means more revenue. With that revenue they can hire better talent and have higher budgets. The problem is that networks must narrow their scope to stay mainstream. Cable does not have that issue. For my dollar i would take cable anyday. recently the programming has become stellar and I see no reason why they should dip in quality.

So the question here is, are soap operas still relevant? I don’t think so, but I don’t think they should be phased out. They are some of the longest running shows on television. They need to be preserved as an example of the long lost melodrama. the music creates an odd mood that makes the scene almost ethereal. I’ve never been able to discern why a soap opera seems fake. All the people just seem like lifeless dolls who can’t act. But thats ok. Thats what they are and aren’t ashamed of that fact. I have an appreciation for really dramatic television. Soap Operas totally fit that bill. If only they were better acted.

Seriously, I do not enjoy this genre. Its one of my least favorite things. I appreciate the hard work and expertise that goes into making movies watchable. I didn’t think this movie was watchable. there was no hook, nothing that grabbed me. It was like watching a bunch of dull versions of my friends with zero laughs. At least my friends make me laugh. Maybe its because I am a wandering 20 something, but It was just not interesting to me. too close to home perhaps. The problem may have been the fact that I just hate Mumblecore. I think its self indulgent. Without the training that goes into making movies it just felt flat and boring.

  It did have one positive impact on me. I love the movie Cloverfield. I now love it even more because i see now that it starts as a mumblecore film and then takes a sharp left turn into awesome monster land. every indie movie needs giant monsters. just to make them more interesting.

I enjoyed the hell out of that movie. It was quite different and some of the conventions they used were odd to my American sensibility. The movie worked as a whole for me because of the incredible likability of the two main characters. I was entranced with the silliness and the shrewd way of avoiding talking about important subjects. Even the infidelity at the end was ok to me because they truly loved each other, but their personalities are just so clashing. I felt for their predicament, but I was clamoring for them to actually just talk in a real way to each other. that was one of the draws of the movie, however; and it worked beautifully. The musical aspect as confusing because they only sang when the music wasn’t playing. It was like an anti musical. to that end I don’t think it worked as a musical, but as a romantic comedy with some serious overtones it worked great. 7/10

I believe that the most successful directors in hollywood today are the ones that would be classified as autuer. They are the ones that get accolades because of a distinct style that they have honed over the years. This isn’t to say that all auter directors nowadays are super successful. And even the ones who are most notable (Nolan, Fincher, Anderson) put out some bad movies from time to time. One director that comes to mind that has a distinct style and zero success is Uwe Boll. His style is prevalent when you watch his movies, yet they suck so very badly. he loves video game adaptions that have zero connection to the video games. He is the worst kind of director. the kind that keeps making movies his way even though everyone is telling him they are god awful. It’s as if he likes being told how bad his movies are.

I believe Auteur film making is making a major resurgance, but that doesn’t mean that is a good thing. When we use the term Autuer we are automatically giving all the credit to the director. no one else is getting the credit they deserve. Subsequently all the blame is on the director when its bad. is this how film making should be? live and die by the director? a movie does need a unifying vision so one could argue they deserve most of the credit. one could also argue that a director doesn’t really do a whole lot. they just oversee a team of creative people making a movie. are movies better with less collaboration or more? you decide.