Wee 3/4 Earthsea

In what ways does Tax (2002) suggest Earthsea may still be relevant today? Tax (2002) provides a synopsis for each of the books written by Le Guinn in the Earthsea series. There are a number of themes that are comparable and timely with life today in each of the volumes. Concentrating on A Wizard of EarthSea (1986), we find the main character Ged facing his Shadow, his own demon which he must face in order to defeat. This is very symbolic of ‘real’ world living, where everyone must face the reality of themselves on a regular basis, be it learning their family history, dealing with their feelings for another person or struggling with the thoughts in their mind. The Shadow is representative of the human struggle between good and evil. In the second volume, The Tombs of Atuan (1970), a theme of struggle between ones beliefs and their passion to do what is right is presented when Tenar the priestess has the chance to help Ged the Wizard in his quest to save Earthsea. Tenar faces a difficult decision between what she has been raised to believe, and what she must do to save Earthsea. This is very symbolic of moralist clashes that occur in the modern day, such as the pull that people in relationships might feel between their partner or friends, and their family.

Week 11/12 "Reality TV" infoteinment and it's audience

In recent years we have witnessed how television has been invaded by a new television format that despite of its great worldwide popularity brings some negative elements, which overshadow the image of this new television genre, ‘reality TV”.

 If it is fair to say that one of the characteristics of today's television is the protagonism given to common people, there are a wide range of programs that show a reconstruction of a reality that combines elements of drama, curiosity, intimacy, hipper-emotively, which are proven to gather a large audience. It presents reality from the point of view of the unusual, the striking, the odd, the intimate details, and the fascinating emotions; in short, It presents reality from the most sensational and shocking.

The name usually given to these programs are; reality show, talk show, games show, docu-show, late night show, etc.  The word “show” highlights its character; the show is what is meant to be shown, to draw attention. This does the job; to capture the viewer's attention and keeping them constantly entertain in front of the screen. For sure the audience is who ultimately ensures the survival of a program. Do not forget that in the current television anyone’s product which doesn't meet the expectations of the audience is destined to disappear.

Hill (2005) explains that in the early nineties, television networks are forced to adapt, with low-cost programs that minimize risks, the competition for the advertising market was tough. It takes them to import and create a new program format that generates new audiences interest, not so much in the content of the program, as in the social discussion and debate created around them.

The reality shows include a broad set of programs, no easy categorized within a specific genre, which have evolved and transformed throughout time. Thus, traditionally there have been two separate areas that have resulted in two major television types of programs; information and entertainment.

Currently, the emergence and consolidation of these new formats that mix of hybrid elements, information with entertainment, has definitely question the validity of the concept ‘classic genre’, since, every day become more blurred and difficult to specify the boundaries separating the fact from fiction.

The public knows that there is a script, but they go ahead and watch anyway because they want to keep the uncertainty until the end. It is a kind of self-deception that at the end will keep them entertain.

Week 9/10 An overview of Buffy

This time the responsibility of saving the world does not lie in the superhero archetype, but in a normal looking teenage girl. In fact, Whedon goes a step further and instead of just giving strength to its protagonist, he gives strength to most of the female characters, while the males fulfill the role of simple companions. The roles are reversed and men take a role until then, reserved to the opposite sex; to influence with words the decisions of those who take the lead.

What really sets Buffy apart from the rest of the other TV series is the large attention it pays to its characters.  Instead of opting for giving priority to the plot, Whedon chooses to create evolving characters. This is especially visible in the inseparable trio; Buffy, Willow and Xander.  Teens who suddenly face a supernatural world that constantly threaten them, and it forces them to change very quickly. In fact, it seems that most of the situations they face are but a simple excuse, a metaphor, to dig into their personal development. It is extremely difficult to find characters so well defined.  I can say that Buffy sets the stage for the golden age of “series” on television.

Buffy's achievements do not end there. To analyze the whole theme of “Buffyverse” could take us hundreds of pages, from general matters such as death, redemption and sacrifice or the conflict between good and evil, even more specific  the struggle between heroes and gods, the myth of Frankenstein or the sacrifice of individualism in pursuit of a common benefit. There are more philosophical content in any Buffy episode than in a whole season of many other pretentious series. As Rose (2002) says; “the creators of Buffy use a popular imaginative genre to address complex philosophical and ethical questions” (p. 133).  

Week 7/8 P.K.D "Drugs, Hallucinations, and the Quest for Reality"

Doubt the reality of the material world, the solid world we experience every day and in which we construct as individual entities apparently independent of one another, may be considered for many people a hallucination. Things do not disintegrate or disappear, and yet it can be touch and it changes in accordance with established laws that are predictable and consistent. But consider the possibility that this is so precisely because we or someone else has establish that this is “the reality”.

Phillip K. Dick actually defined reality as "it which persists even when we stop believing in it." Things; the table, the tree, the car… it persist in our common experience.  McKee (2004) explains that Phillip K. Dick had a fascination with questioning the nature of reality. Perhaps this shows a kind of rejection of the world.

He shows us alterations of reality or the perception of it, through different ways; using drugs, brainwashing, implantation of false memories, alien abductions, etc...  I would like to talk about a particular one, "A Scanner Darkly", in which the alteration of reality is due to drug use and abuse, and the plot revolves around narcotics agent Fred, who is in charge of investigating the dangerous drug dealer Bob Arctor.  We follow the "adventures" of both, along with his group of relatives, friends, co-workers, etc... We also witness the damage that the drug is doing to the different characters, and the alteration of the reality in their minds, but at the same time this reality is confusing, the author manages to make us question our perception of it, especially when we approach the end.

Philip K. Dick wrote this novel in memory and in honor of his friends and colleagues affected by drug use, but as he says at the end, the story has no moral, doesn't apologize or accuses anyone; only it limits itself to tell the consequences. Finally, he dedicates his love to all of them, makes a list, accompanying that list are the consequences suffered by each of them (death, massive and permanent brain damage, permanent psychosis, etc.), he includes himself in that list. What I liked about the movie, was the fact that P.D.K didn't have to go far to show us other face of reality, it is here among us in our contemporary world.

The film's title is a technological gloss on 'For now we see through a glass, darkly' in Chapter 13 of St Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians. 

Week 5/6 Miyasaki's representation of a princess

Miyazaki gives us a film that is an epic struggle for survival, an environmentalist argument and a critique of a patriarchal and industrialized society.The director shows that Japan is capable of putting the animation a step above to the point of making the viewer forget they are watching a movie in which the characters are drawn on paper and aren't flesh and bone actors.

Miyazaki’s representation of a princess is shown in the scene where Ashitaka, the protagonist, sees her for the first time, with a bloodied face, she cleans the wound of her mother, a wolf goddess, sucking the blood and spitting it away. Napier (2005) explains that Miyazaki changes the female stereotypes from Japanese culture and even from the anime world, accentuating masculine power and authority. 

The role of women in the Western has historically been very strong, while the role of women in Japan has been submissive and passive. Interestingly, the opposite happens with this animation. Western movies show princesses that are submissive whose aim is to marry the prince, while Miyazaki shows independent heroines.

Another aspect that stands out when comparing typical princesses with Miyazaki’s is the physical appearance. Usually princesses are drawing beautifully in detail, with bodies of Barbie and whose beauty was envied by other women. Miyazaki by contrast, draws a more human princess, who is young and with a realistic body, and her beauty has nothing to do with her physical appearance, but with her interior.

The matriarchal organization seen in the film is quite different of what you would expect from a Japanese director.  it shows an advanced society where there is equality for all regardless of gender or social status.

Week 3/4 'A Wizard of Earthsea' 100% pure fantasy

A Wizard of Earthsea’, tell us the story of Ged, one of the legendary wizards in the fantasy word of Earthsea, In this world, Magic exist and coincidentally Ged is very good at it. After a few adventures Ged end up at the magic school, well it looks like another “Harry Potter”, but no, in my opinion this story is a little deeper.  Narrated in an uncomplicated style, it distances us from the story, narrating it as something remote that happened in another time, in another place, in an imaginary world.

The definition of fantasy according to Attebery (1980) is; “Any narrative which includes as a significant part of its make-up some violation of what the author clearly believes to be natural law—that is fantasy.”(p. 3).  Le Guin seems to convey that this is just a story, its fantasy. She seems to focus on the moral of her story, with no apparent interest in make it believable. This is a story of overcoming obstacles and of facing fears, what I think is the most important element of the book not the possibility that it could ever be true.

In Earthsea everything has its “true name” and it isn't the same as the one we give it in real life, it is the name that the creator of Earthsea has given it.  I liked this story because it is 100% fantasy, without compromise. Other stories seem to strive for some reality, in showing a believable world and even a touch of magic historical background.  Here Le Guin presents fantasy from the first page to the last.  

Week 11/12: The Real Reality TV?

An attempt to define something, anything, implies that the meaning is permanent, however in the case of Reality TV and other forms of modern entertainment (music) genres and definitions are continually redefined, being influenced by an ever changing society and their demands.  Hills (2005) notes that there is a range of popular factual programming and ways of creating a ‘reality’ – through non-professional actors, unscripted dialogue, surveillance footage, hand held cameras and others – however, over time the treatment and adaption of reality on TV has changed. One just has to look at the context and social commentary of Cathy Come Home compared to the likes of The Kardashians, The Hills or most recently, The Rydges. Which although both are of a ‘documentary’ reality genre, are not really comparable.

Drawing in the research that Hills has done, it seems that each TV network categorises reality TV/popular factual entertainment according to what suits their needs in terms of ratings. He defines popular factual as anything with facts and learning and therefore can include but is not limited to history, crimes, arts and culture, current affairs, sports and people profiles – which E! Television capitilises on, amongst other things.

As Grierson defined the documentary as ‘the creative treatment of actuality’ and created such in reaction to the industry obsession with dramatic cliché and glamour at the time, it seems that Reality TV (coined in the 1980s) came about as an appeal of the ‘raw’, unedited aspects of life as opposed to the ‘staged’ and set nature of TV and filming prior to this.  And, as the ratings increase for reality shows, so did the number of reality shows on air. Hill notes that TV cannabalises on successful genres – for another modern example, talent shows started with Idols, then there was America’s Got Talent, then The Voice, The XFactor, the XFactor Australia, New Zealand’s Got Talent and so the growth of the genre will continue to redefine and attempt to reinvent itself as long as society buys into the formatted reality. As Bazalgette (quoted in Hill) said, some shows are more factual and some are more formatted but the question that remains is how real is the reality presented.

Roscoe and Hight (2001) states that the documentary does not provide an ‘unmediated view of the world, nor can it claim to be a mirror on society. Rather, like any fictional text, it is constructed with a view to producing certain versions of the social world’. Audiences also judge the ‘reality’ of reality TV using a fact/fiction continuum but the truth remains that at some point, what is aired is formatted, edited, cut out, rehearsed and staged and therefore the show has been tailored to increase the show’s ratings as opposed to represent some form of human reality.  

Concluding the chapter, Hills says that there is no definition of reality programming – and I doubt there ever will be as it is bent and adapted as networks see fit. The fact that reality TV has dedicated channels evidences the fact that networks capitalise on the broad definitions of popular factual/factual entertainment.  

Personally, I don’t find any of it realistic at all and the mention of The Voice, or New Zealand’s Got Talent, The Kardashians or any other popular factual show annoys me. It is all, simply entertainment and the level of society’s involvement of such shows also leads me to question society itself (it also makes me wonder what Philip K. Dick’s view of reality shows would be).