Labels

Monday, February 20, 2012

Killing me Softly


(For anyone that has not seen Killing me softly here is a link to it http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412#)
Killing me softly is a movie that goes out of its way to point out that women are being used to push products. They are not just used but broken down to simply parts and thus are being viewed as less than human. Now I have gone on about how I think that Jean Kilbourne does have some good points, but the way she starts the movie and the fact that she gives NO solution to the problem was off putting (not to mention I simply disagreed with some of her points.) But honestly, the biggest problems I had with this film was the way it make me second guess my criticisms. It made me feel like if I disagreed I was a womanizing jerk…and if you want open communication and dialogue (in my opinion, the cure to almost all problems if both sides are rational and open minded.) Jean has gone about this poorly. Even with that statement I feel will have people mad at me (and proves my point.) It’s all too sacred. It almost makes the problem untouchable unless you agree with it (a with us or your against us; which is a tactic people like Hitler, the KKK, and many others used.  A Little dramatic right? I feel she does the exact same thing in the movie.
 It starts with a good point like the unhealthy thin women used in advertising (16:03) and then makes a ridiculous claim that it meant to “silence them.” This is a real problem in our society, but she doesn’t really address it.  She finds an EXTREME ad about a watch on a woman’s arm but even then doesn’t really talk about what can be done to fix this problem. There is just an image that is only showed to brow beat you in to agreeing with her opinion and once she has that she moves on. The next image she uses is an ad for fingernail polish (16:59) in which the model has her hand in front of her face and looking shocked and makes the claim that the ad is meant to silence women, or maybe it’s simply an ad for fingernail polish and they wanted a sexy face to help sell it. The next was a box art for “Strange Lands”. This was a horror movie, a pretty good if I remember correctly, about exactly what the cover art was.  A man (played by Dee Snider) who kidnaps teenager and kills them and uses his hook to always sew their mouth shut. Is it scary, a little morbid, and yes, does it have naked ladies in it.  But then again so does EVERY horror movie in the past 20 years.  I not saying that it’s ok, I’m just saying it’s no different than any other horror flick.

In the end of this video, I feel that if Jean Kilbourne was trying to bring attention to the problem, a solution to the problem, or even change the public view of the problem, the film missed the mark. Her message was lost in the extreme images she chose. The brow beating tactics, and the black and white thinking she put into this film. I understand she wanted to prove a point by using the most negative but I found myself saying things like “never seen anything that extreme” or “those ads are in the minority.” It took away the power of her point. Without a safe place to talk about any issue in whatever way you want and not feel like you’re being judged you will not solve this problem we have with our media. That is my BIGGEST problem with this movie.  There is NO advice on how to fix the problem. The first time I saw in this film with in the first 20 minutes. I was ready to change the advertising world. I agreed with her that the problem was only getting bigger, but then she just ends the presentation. It was like she spends 30 minutes throwing the problem in our face and then accepted the fact she couldn’t change it and just walk away from the problem. I felt like she either didn’t really care if it changed or didn’t know how to. Her only advice was to “get involved in whatever way moves us.”  What does that even mean? This down right made me even more angry with the problem!  I will finish this blog post with a link of video game characters that are part of the problem.




Monday, February 13, 2012

Helvetica


Helvetica was an enjoyable and enlightening documentary about the most comment font known to mankind today. If I had to try and sum up the movie I would say it was an oral history about the creation and use of the font Helvetica. When I first read the description of this movie I can't say I was excited to watch. I couldn't believe that anyone would care enough about a font to make a movie about it. But as the movie began and they started to explain what Helvetica is and how it affects our everyday life. It started to dawn on me that I’m simply too close to Helvetica to realize it’s even being used.
           (This was the drink I was drinking during the film...Helvetica was right under my noise.)

In the movie they explain this amazing font as air or gravity. Meaning it’s something we take for granted and I personally know it is! I don’t think I would have ever pointed out that one that a font is being used by 80% of corporation and our government. I honestly found it interesting that Helvetica became so popular the design community literally went out of their way to stop using it because it began to have negative connotation.
                                   (corporations going out of there way NOT to use Helvetica)

But Helvetica is so strong of a font that designers can’t help but come back to it and utilize the amazing power of the emptiness of the font. It has a fairly open ended interpretation and the way it doesn't take attention away from whats being presented or advertised (its a corporations dream.)

(a great example of how advertisers use Helvetica)


1.       What do you feel is the message the director is trying to express in this movie?  Support your answer with examples.
The message of the film as a little lost to me. Honestly first I felt it was going to be about just the history of Helvetica and how it shaped the corporate face of America (in scene 27:12). But then it started to talk about how it affected graphical design (in scene46:38) and lastly it had several designers talk about how they view Helvetica (in scene 1:10:20, 51:53, 1:05:47, and 57:35.) So if I had to say what the feel of the move was I would say the celebration and damnation of the font Helvetica.
2.       If applicable, discuss if you think this movie has accurate depictions of minorities or if they are situational? Why or why not?
Not applicable.
3.       Explain if you think the director’s ethnic/cultural/professional background played a role in directing this film?
I feel this film was a true documentary. Meaning, as far as I could tell, they only wanted the story and no view was forced onto the viewer.
4.       What groups (people of color, nationality, culture, class,gender etc.) may be offended or misinterpret this movie and why?
Honestly I could tell you. As far as offensive movies go I would say it’s safer than a Disney movie. They built a movie about a font. Simply put I can’t think of a subset of any group that could POSSABLY find this movie offensive. Maybe if they feel the documentary is lying to them…maybe.
5.       What the movie added to your visual literacy?
How some times less is more. Over and over again they show Helvetica used in very creative ways to express complex ideas.
6.       What kind of artistic and/or visual means did the director use in the movie to focus our attention?
The director never let us stay static too long in one spot. We hear a short story and then see some examples of art or advertisements or both. It doesn’t let you rest with one person or another too long.