Gone But Never Forgotten

     

A still from Theda Bara's lost 1917 film "Cleopatra"

    The biggest thing that incurs sadness in me as far as cinema goes is the issue of lost films. It's sad to imagine how people poured their creative efforts into a piece of celluloid, hoping to imbue it with a life of its own; a life that will carry on beyond their own. They thought to grant their work of art immortality. But mankind in its recurring shortsightedness has often withstood the force of immortality itself, destroying all in its path. Most films from 1984 to the 1930s are lost, with director Martin Scorsese estimating that 90 percent of films from that era are lost. 

    Admittedly, some of those films were lost due to the nitrate film they were printed on, through no fault of mankind. Any film shot before 1952 was printed on that sort of film, which proved to be highly flammable. These nitrate films were prone to quick deterioration and, if stored in a hot place, were also prone to spontaneous combustion. As they were often times stored in vaults with poor air conditioning, the film material turned decrepit quickly, spreading like an epidemic. Furthermore, in 1967, MGM's vault caught fire, resulting in the further loss of hundreds of films from the early era of cinema. In addition, some early sound films
   However, mankind's was the biggest predator to those films, dead and gone. Hollywood executives during that time did not foresee a future where advanced technology could again air films beyond their date of release. They did not foresee the fruits of royalties, home videos, companies such as Netflix or the advent of television in becoming a tool to re-air films. Furthermore, those executives viewed silent films as having lost their commercial appeal since the introduction of sound cinema. Hollywood has always been about making a profit. Thus, silent films were cleared from the vaults to make space for the new sound films or Technicolor extravaganza films. The silent films were either sold for cheap or completely destroyed. Some early sound films also had their prints and sound printed separately. Thus, a film's sound may be discovered, while the actual image print of the film is lost, or vice versa.

The Lady From Shanghai, Welles' severely cut thriller

   Sometimes, films were cut because the studios opposed the vision of their directors. Such a fate notably befell directors Orson Welles and Eric von Stroheim, with many of their films being butchered. The cut portions of their films remain lost. In those days, there were no Director's cut. A footage once excised was usually gone forever. What remains of Welles' 1942 The Magnificent Ambersons and von Stroheim's 1924 Greed promise to be nothing sort of masterpieces; yet, those promises can unfortunately not be kept.

Greed, von Stroheim's severely cut masterpiece

    Films from the 1894 to early 30s era sometimes survive in fragmented forms, fossil oddities from a bygone time. The stars of the lost films, such as Theda Bara, have become nearly mythical given that few of the works on the resume have survived into the modern age. Is it better to be a myth than a legend? Often times, some films previously considered lost are rediscovered. This is the case with Fritz Lang's 1927 Metropolis with most of its negatives having been found over the years. Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation also continues efforts to relocate and preserve lost films. You never know, you might even have one in your garage.

Metropolis, 1927

Mo' Money, Mo' Problems

     

The music conglomerates crashing down on the masses

     This chapter filled me with a sense of nostalgia for the good old days of music gone by; a time when I wasn’t even alive. Before the 90s existed an era of music like none that my generation has ever experienced. It’s termed the Golden Age of Music; the Golden Age of Rock, Jazz, Folk, Pop, and many of the music genres that our society is currently familiar with/fixated with or that have died down shortly before our times. This decline in music is not due to a likewise decline in the number of artists. In fact, now more than ever live artists who have become more experimental and more risqué than days past. However, to counterbalance those raw talents is a new flock of “talents” whose appeal resides solely within pop culture; these new “talents” do not generate an authentic music fandom. They shine, they sell, and then they dissipate to give way to their successors. No, the decline in music is due to the people in charge of the music industry. It is due to a situation that has been plaguing the media world as of late: conglomerates.

     It seems futile now to constantly harp on the negative consequences engendered by media conglomerates. Many of my blogs and essays since the last year have spoken out about the very danger they present to creativity and freedom. Yet, I cannot stray away from the same speech for media conglomerates are the ones that have rendered our modern music industry formulaic. In the video that we watched in Dr. Wilson’s Intro to Mass Media and Mass Communication class, it was pointed out by one of the interviewees that a company in the music business could own more than 1200 radio stations, whereas as recently as the 90s there was a limit of 45 on the amount of radio stations that one company could own. This is a staggering difference in numbers and is evident that at present there exists an oligopoly of sorts. A few parents companies own all of the radio music media that is available to us, each trying to outdo the others; each trying to steal audiences from the others. The only way for them to continue holding as many subsidiaries as they do is to generate more income for their accounts. The only way they know how to get the money is to give the public what they think it wants. Thus, a certain “star system” has gained prominence in the modern music industry.

     Whereas in the past music was far more authentic and focused solely on itself, nowadays videos have made such a concept obsolete. As stated in the video the video age has killed radio. Nowadays, it’s not solely about the music. It’s about the look of the star as well. The visuals have become part of the package, which begs the question “How can music or sound be about a picture?” When the two forms combine, they form films, feature or short. Thus, it can be said in truth that there is no longer a large market for the music industry; in fact, has it not gone extinct? Its carcass on the radio is evidence of its former glory, its living days. The media conglomerates have reverted to the star system mostly attributed to Old Hollywood cinema. They manufacture stars, forge their image, and then sell their souls to the masses. Is it any wonder then that fame can easily go to the head of a young singer who has been exploited by the powers that be? Justin Bieber has become the source of public fodder. People constantly harp about his wild behavior and antics. Fame has changed him for the worst. Like Erykah Badu said in the video, our music “legends” nowadays are a whole bunch of teeny boppers who have not truly experienced life. Their “lives” are written for them by music executives and then sold to the public who buys that this is who the stars truly are; that through the overly-manufactured music and the overly-photoshopped image on the CD they are taking a glimpse at the real soul of the star.

   Sadly, the manufactured music in existence has become increasingly similar to each other. When we hear something on the radio, we immediately know who sings that song by having watched the accompanying video beforehand. Nothing is new; nothing is original. Originality has given way to album sales, to charting, and to dollar signs. The conglomerates refuse to take risks on authentic talents because of their fear that their music won’t sell or appeal to the public. Hence, the Bob Dylans and Janis Joplins of this generation remain obscure underground figures never to receive their big break. Two decades of such flash-in-the-pan music has had a negative effect on the public itself. The public is no longer interested in being challenged by music, in connecting with it and giving it an interpretation. The masses now just want the latest hit that they can bop their heads to on the way to work or at school. Stars fade and with them their ephemeral music. Music no longer inspires. The conglomerates have made sure of that in their blind belief that inspiring music does not sell. They don’t look at the prospective longevity of a star and his legacy. Several stars of old never had a hit during their lifetime, yet are now recognized as being legends and having forged a path for others. Their estate now earns a lot of income. Still, the media conglomerates want to reap the benefits now. They are parasites that look for the next hot young thing to attach themselves to. Music has been bled dry.

Originality and Uniqueness

The Issue With Journalism

Media Company Holding

News Corp. currently owns 27 television stations (FOX TV Stations, Inc., 16 July 2008) most of which are recognizable under the name FOX. Some popular networks/channels that it currently owns are: FOX News, National Geographic, ESPN, SPEED, STAR, and FOX Business Channel. I remember that back in high school, my history teacher once stated that when you watch the National Geographic channel, especially when Africa is being showcased, only the poorer parts of a nation are highlighted. This helps enforce the perception of Africa as an all-around impoverished nation. Finding out that News Corp. owned the aforementioned National Geographic channel was revelatory. I find that the masses are indeed gullible. My family and friends often mention Africa’s impoverishment when food is being wasted, or Africa’s primitiveness concerning women’s rights. I am quick to point out to them that not all of Africa is as poor or as primitive as the channel demonstrates. Perhaps, my being a Communications major and media literate have prevented my views on Africa from being manipulated so by National Geographic and News Corp. Even some of the shows I watch on FOX (Family Guy, New Girl) fail to impact me in the same way they’ve seemed to influence my peers. I recognize Family Guy for the satire that it is, a brand of humor often wasted on the masses. This has led to outcries of insensitiveness, misogyny or racism towards Family Guy, when the goal of the show is not to perpetuate those shallow morals but to poke fun at them (“Did Family Guy’s 9/11 Satire Go Too Far For A Laugh?”, Newsfeed, 04 Feb 2013). I can recognize how overly dramatized Hell’s Kitchen is and that a real restaurant probably does not have a tyrant chef spewing spit over the food while ranting at his employees. Thus, I can definitely denote News Corp.’s influence in the television medium. However, I find its influence in the movie medium, Internet and publishing medium most fascinating.

   News Corp. owns 20^th Century Fox, arguably the biggest American studio. Being a cinephile, I am aware of the major influence that studios had over their stars and the general population prior to their deconstruction in the 60s and 70s. They manufactured their star’s stories and hushed any of their wrongdoings in the papers. The public then fell in love with a star’s image and not the actual person behind such an image. A major example is Marilyn Monroe, one of 20^th Century Fox’s most bankable stars and reigning celebrity throughout the 50s. During her last award appearance, she was reportedly drunk and quite visibly so. Yet, the story was never reported because 20^th Century Fox fought to keep the image of their star intact. While with the advent of television, hushing such a story nowadays would be impossible (also due to the fact that the studios no longer contractually own their stars), I could see News Corp. finding a similar way to manipulate the media in its favor. After all, News Corp. also owns publications like the Daily News, New York Post, the Times, and Wall Street Journal. News Corp. certainly is not going to place anything detrimental to itself in such publications or in the movies that 20^th Century Fox produce, not even satirically as the TV show 30 Rock did with its producer NBC. News Corp. caters to what its audience’s wants and not its need for factual information or other forms of entertainment. Celebrities’ feuds or personal lives are over-sensationalized in their publications; blockbuster film franchises such as Star Wars and X-Men prosper, eclipsing other film genres. This ties in with the lack of diversity that critics often reprimand media conglomerations for. One of News Corp.’s other studios, Blue Sky Studios, specializes in animated films targeted at children and families. A third studio, Fox Searchlight Pictures, produces mostly independent cinema. Hence, News Corp., while indeed suffering from a lack of diversity and from biases, does own other subsidiaries in a bid to appeal to other parts of the population. I’ll have to say it is successful in that bid, for I am a major fan of some of Fox Searchlight’s movies: Little Miss Sunshine, Black Swan, The Descendants, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno, 127 Hours, 28 Days Later and The Tree Of Life. News Corp. also owns IGN and holds a significant amount of shares in Hulu, two very popular Internet websites. I frequent both websites, most of all IGN. IGN features a forum where people from across the world are able to comment on music, video games, film and other media. Some of the posters on these forums have recommended movies, music and even games which I now cherish. Thus, News Corp. has had a major impact on what I value through IGN. Another way that News Corp. has been able to reach me as an audience is through their ownership of HarperCollins, a publishing company whose books I devour endlessly. I find News Corp. quite satisfying in this department than the other media because HarperCollins is diverse. It has an entire sector devoted to children’s books. Its main sector publishes novels that are very different from each other. Therefore, this investigation into News Corp.’s IGN and HarperCollins helped me realize that media conglomeration may have its upsides.

Effects Of The Media: Studies & Findings

 
   According to Campbell, media effects research is the method by which researchers understand, explain and predict the effects of mass media on individuals and society. The main objective of such research is to uncover whether there is a relationship between aggressive behavior and violence in the media. Meanwhile, cultural studies focus on how people make meaning, understand reality, and form values through their use of cultural symbols.

Internet Privacy & Sycophants

   

    The issue of Internet privacy has been a source of concern for many since the dawn of the web's invention. Would it become a tool by which the entirety of our lives could be tracked online?With the advancement in recent software technology, the issue is more relevant now, in our times, than ever before. Past generations did not have to worry about their personal information being shopped around online via data collection or subtle breaches in privacy. In this new information age, it is quite ironic that the masses at large are largely uninformed about the eerie availability of their and others' personal details. With every electronic signature or checkbox agreement, we sign away our rights to privacy.

The Truman Show: An Analysis

 

            Released in 1998 to critical and financial success, The Truman Show carries a legacy that, in hindsight, betells much about our future relations with the media. By being able to influence the media, one is wielding power that can affect lives not only locally, but around the globe; whether it is a single status on Facebook that alerts people of your upcoming trip to Cancun and leads to your house being robbed during your absence; whether it is a gossip magazine that prints falsehood about a celebrity contributing to a false representation of that celebrity's image; or whether it is something much greater like Orson Welles' infamous War Of The Worlds radio broadcast that could send the masses into hysteria. The media has a lot of power and, in our modern days, has begun to slip through our grasp and assume an identity of its own. The media is becoming a god.