Welcome to the Oscars, an awards ceremony highlighting middle aged white men for their work in films this year. Just kidding...but not really. It's 2015, and females are still scarce in categories that are not Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, or Best Dressed. Kathyrn Bigelow won the award for best director in 2010, which was the first and only time a women has won that category. This year marked the 87th Oscars, yet there has only been one female ever to take home the Oscar. Is it because there hasn't been female directors worthy of the title?
Although Selma was up for best picture, most critics say it got snubbed for the other categories, including best director. The director of Selma was Ana DuVernay, an African American female. The problem isn't that there weren't enough "Oscar winning movies" directed by females, clearly, so what is it? I can't say I know why this is still happening in 2015, but I can guess a few reasons, one being that the majority of the Academy's Board of Governors (the people who chose who gets to vote) are male. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is 94% white, as of 2012, and 77% male. Do they believe that females aren't intelligent enough to vote on the best films of the year? In my opinion, this may be the case.
However, I noticed a couple of empowering moments for women during the awards show. During Patricia Arquette's acceptance speech for supporting actress, she said (regarding women), "It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America." She received backlash for this quote, and responded by saying she "doesn't care if people are pissed. The truth is that wage inequality adversely effects women". I think this was an important message to spread, and even though some think it might not have been the right time for this speech, it did reach millions of people. I wonder if most of her critics are females or males, because I think there would be a different reaction depending on the gender of critics.
Reese Witherspoon, an actress nominated in the Best Actress category, also shed light on how women are perceived at the awards show. While she was interviewed on the Red Carpet (social media's favorite part), she told viewers to #AskHerMore. Instead of just being asked who she was wearing and details about her appearance, she wanted to be asked about her work in her latest movie. Although I had never thought of this before she brought it up, I soon after realized how true it was. Women are always praised and questioned about what they are wearing on Red Carpets as well as tabloids and television shows (Fashion Police is dedicated to criticizing celebrities fashion). For male celebrities on red carpets, reporters might ask who they are wearing, but it's not as big of a conversation topic. They are more interested on their work in films and life outside of the wardrobe.
In the future, I hope that we look past what women are wearing and focus more on what really matters, on the inside (I know, cheesy). Hopefully Arquette and Witherspoon are just the beginning to a new kind of awards show.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Fighting Fire with Fire
While thinking about my upcoming college visit next weekend, I found an article about college campuses and guns. When I first saw the title of the article, I was a little startled; I don't usually think of those two things in the same sentence. As I read on, I was even more surprised to see that colleges are considering allowing students to carry guns on campus for self protection.
Certain colleges have been exploring the idea of allowing guns on campus as a solution to rape and other sexual assaults. The article argues that guns won't help against these crimes at all, really, because most assaults happen in social situations. I think I agree with this statement. I don't think that any student would bring their handheld gun to a party just in case they're in a bad situation--having a gun could get really bad, really fast. In my opinion, the gun is only effective if you have it physically on you at all times; you can't just leave your gun in your coat at the door. I don't think this would be a solution to sexual assault at all, even though it may intimidate sexual predators.
Carrying a gun on a college campus is banned in 41 states, however some have been pushing to change this law. There are currently eight states that allow concealed weapons on campus. I wonder why these specific states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin) allow guns on campuses, while the majority of states don't allow it. In addition to possibly preventing sexual assault, supporters believe that it may prevent mass shootings on college campuses as well. By prevent, I mean that carrying a gun may help teachers and students to defend themselves in case of attack. Lawmakers have been discussing this bill in 10 states this year. I understand why college campuses feel like they need to ensure the safety and protection of both their students and staff, but I don't think they should use guns to solve the problem of guns. I think that colleges should first think about the kind of security they have at their school, then discuss different, less harmful and potentially very dangerous ways to help their students. For example, maybe colleges could create a mandatory self defense class for all freshman entering the school. They could also train teachers of what to do in case of danger and attack, if the school was worried about another possible school shooting. I think in order to solve the problem, we need to step away from the guns.
Do we need to fight fire with fire?
Certain colleges have been exploring the idea of allowing guns on campus as a solution to rape and other sexual assaults. The article argues that guns won't help against these crimes at all, really, because most assaults happen in social situations. I think I agree with this statement. I don't think that any student would bring their handheld gun to a party just in case they're in a bad situation--having a gun could get really bad, really fast. In my opinion, the gun is only effective if you have it physically on you at all times; you can't just leave your gun in your coat at the door. I don't think this would be a solution to sexual assault at all, even though it may intimidate sexual predators.
Carrying a gun on a college campus is banned in 41 states, however some have been pushing to change this law. There are currently eight states that allow concealed weapons on campus. I wonder why these specific states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin) allow guns on campuses, while the majority of states don't allow it. In addition to possibly preventing sexual assault, supporters believe that it may prevent mass shootings on college campuses as well. By prevent, I mean that carrying a gun may help teachers and students to defend themselves in case of attack. Lawmakers have been discussing this bill in 10 states this year. I understand why college campuses feel like they need to ensure the safety and protection of both their students and staff, but I don't think they should use guns to solve the problem of guns. I think that colleges should first think about the kind of security they have at their school, then discuss different, less harmful and potentially very dangerous ways to help their students. For example, maybe colleges could create a mandatory self defense class for all freshman entering the school. They could also train teachers of what to do in case of danger and attack, if the school was worried about another possible school shooting. I think in order to solve the problem, we need to step away from the guns.
Do we need to fight fire with fire?
Sunday, February 8, 2015
The Lying Anchorman
What happens when the man of nightly news suddenly becomes the news? Brian Williams, arguably one of the medias best known news anchors, is faced with this problem. Recently Williams has been in the news for reporting false information about himself and his reporting in Iraq.
While in Iraq in 2003, Williams reported that he had been in a helicopter that was fired at during the war. He claimed that his helicopter had to make a crash landing after taking enemy fire, when in reality, he was not on the helicopter that had been fired at. On Wednesday, Williams apologized publicly on the news for his lie, but it was a weak apology, in my opinion. NBC has declared that they will be investigating more reports in Iraq as well as some of Williams' other work. The network will also look at his work on Hurricane Katrina, specifically.
When Americans think of the nightly news, I think the anchorman that would come to mind to most is Brian Williams. He is the man. So, I can see why there has been a lot of criticism and backlash regarding this news. Some have even questioned whether or not he should resign from the nightly news, which is a fair question in my opinion. What do we do when the man we trust to tell us the truth lies to our faces? No one knows for sure, but I guarantee every American who watches Williams feels disappointed and misguided. By making up an elaborate story to make himself look better and get more ratings, it shows that he is not the trusted news anchor we thought he was. He's not reporting for the sake of the viewers; he's doing it for the sake of his paycheck. If Williams were to resign, or get fired, it would have a huge impact on NBC. NBC averages 9.3 million viewers for the nightly broadcast, almost 1 million over ABC and 2 million for CBS. NBC has been pretty quiet regarding the issue, and I don't think they would ever fire Williams, despite the bad press. Like I said before, he is the face of the nightly news, and responsible for 9.3 million viewers, so what would they do without him?
As we all know, the media plays a huge role in our lives today. It's no wonder that viewers are so upset; they feel betrayed by someone they trusted to tell them what's going on in the world. Does this "news" change the way we might look and trust the news?
While in Iraq in 2003, Williams reported that he had been in a helicopter that was fired at during the war. He claimed that his helicopter had to make a crash landing after taking enemy fire, when in reality, he was not on the helicopter that had been fired at. On Wednesday, Williams apologized publicly on the news for his lie, but it was a weak apology, in my opinion. NBC has declared that they will be investigating more reports in Iraq as well as some of Williams' other work. The network will also look at his work on Hurricane Katrina, specifically.
When Americans think of the nightly news, I think the anchorman that would come to mind to most is Brian Williams. He is the man. So, I can see why there has been a lot of criticism and backlash regarding this news. Some have even questioned whether or not he should resign from the nightly news, which is a fair question in my opinion. What do we do when the man we trust to tell us the truth lies to our faces? No one knows for sure, but I guarantee every American who watches Williams feels disappointed and misguided. By making up an elaborate story to make himself look better and get more ratings, it shows that he is not the trusted news anchor we thought he was. He's not reporting for the sake of the viewers; he's doing it for the sake of his paycheck. If Williams were to resign, or get fired, it would have a huge impact on NBC. NBC averages 9.3 million viewers for the nightly broadcast, almost 1 million over ABC and 2 million for CBS. NBC has been pretty quiet regarding the issue, and I don't think they would ever fire Williams, despite the bad press. Like I said before, he is the face of the nightly news, and responsible for 9.3 million viewers, so what would they do without him?
As we all know, the media plays a huge role in our lives today. It's no wonder that viewers are so upset; they feel betrayed by someone they trusted to tell them what's going on in the world. Does this "news" change the way we might look and trust the news?
Monday, February 2, 2015
The Commercials: Almost as Unexpected as the Game
In my last blog post, I discussed the types of commercials I expected to see air during the Super Bowl last night. However, to my surprise, I was very wrong with my predictions to what we would see from advertisers. Although there were still some commercials about cute animals and partying, I did not see many commercials using women to sell a product. Instead of seeing the usual entertaining commercials viewers look forward to during the game, there were many serious commercials as well. Is this a step in the right direction for commercials?
Some companies, like Nationwide and NFL, decided to try and convey an important message to viewers about societal problems. Nationwide's commercial about the young boy who will never grow up took a turn for the worse when he exclaimed the reason was because he died in an accident. Many viewers found this commercial extremely upsetting and dark for the Super Bowl, and Nationwide responded to the comments by saying, "We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us--the safety and well being of our children." Preventable injuries in the home are the leading cause of death for young children in America, which is surprising to me. I didn't really think of household accidents as being such a problem for youths, so I guess Nationwide did it's job in raising awareness for a cause for me at least. However, I agree with others in that it is a dark commercial for what should be a fun evening. I think they are raising an important point and discussion, especially since over 114.4 million viewers tuned in last night (a new record), but I'm just not sure if the Super Bowl was the right time for the commercial.
The NFL also decided to air a commercial raising awareness to domestic violence. To me, this was really surprising and ironic. The league has been criticized for its handling of the Ray Rice case earlier in the season, especially for it's lack in punishment, so they decided it would be good publicity for their league to make a commercial preventing domestic violence. I have nothing wrong with a commercial raising awareness to a problem that has been very prevalent in our society recently, but I don't think the NFL made it for the right reasons. I think the league was trying to enhance their image instead of really try to make a commercial for stopping domestic violence.
As I mentioned earlier, I really did not see many commercials using women to sell a product, which I believe is a step in the right direction for advertisers. I think the advertisers did a lot of things right, even if the commercials weren't as funny as usual. The commercial "Like A Girl" by Always was in my opinion the best one aired. I think the company conveyed an important message and it made me really think about the phrase "like a girl". Overall, I think this was a surprising Super Bowl for all viewers, at least in the commercial department.
Some companies, like Nationwide and NFL, decided to try and convey an important message to viewers about societal problems. Nationwide's commercial about the young boy who will never grow up took a turn for the worse when he exclaimed the reason was because he died in an accident. Many viewers found this commercial extremely upsetting and dark for the Super Bowl, and Nationwide responded to the comments by saying, "We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us--the safety and well being of our children." Preventable injuries in the home are the leading cause of death for young children in America, which is surprising to me. I didn't really think of household accidents as being such a problem for youths, so I guess Nationwide did it's job in raising awareness for a cause for me at least. However, I agree with others in that it is a dark commercial for what should be a fun evening. I think they are raising an important point and discussion, especially since over 114.4 million viewers tuned in last night (a new record), but I'm just not sure if the Super Bowl was the right time for the commercial.
The NFL also decided to air a commercial raising awareness to domestic violence. To me, this was really surprising and ironic. The league has been criticized for its handling of the Ray Rice case earlier in the season, especially for it's lack in punishment, so they decided it would be good publicity for their league to make a commercial preventing domestic violence. I have nothing wrong with a commercial raising awareness to a problem that has been very prevalent in our society recently, but I don't think the NFL made it for the right reasons. I think the league was trying to enhance their image instead of really try to make a commercial for stopping domestic violence.
As I mentioned earlier, I really did not see many commercials using women to sell a product, which I believe is a step in the right direction for advertisers. I think the advertisers did a lot of things right, even if the commercials weren't as funny as usual. The commercial "Like A Girl" by Always was in my opinion the best one aired. I think the company conveyed an important message and it made me really think about the phrase "like a girl". Overall, I think this was a surprising Super Bowl for all viewers, at least in the commercial department.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
#CommercialBowlSunday
It's every sports fan's favorite day of the year: Super Bowl Sunday. Even if you don't watch football games every week, like my brothers do, this special sunday is still an event that even non-football fans enjoy. Whether it's the half-time show, the puppy bowl, or the actual game itself, there is one thing that almost everyone loves--the commercials. While the majority of television viewers would complain about commercials interrupting their favorite shows every other day of the year, viewers can't wait to watch them today. And why is that? Maybe because commercials are priced at the low cost of $4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds.
$4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds of an advertisement equals $150,000 per second of airtime. That's much more than the average salary one makes per year. Granted, these are huge industries that are airing these commercials, but that is still a lot of money for one ad. Why do companies pay this much for such a little amount of time? Easy answer: the viewers. Over 100 million Americans tune in to watch the game, and without fast forward options available while watching live, viewers are forced to watch.
With lots of money comes lots of power for these advertisers. How they chose to use their airtime, however, is disappointing. We all know the types of commercials that will be on this year: the cute kids and animals, the partying, the cameos from famous actors, and of course the sexual ones. Women are used to sell products in media constantly, as we see on television everyday, and the commercials during the super bowl are no exception. In fact, numerous commercials get banned before they even air! Companies spend huge amounts of money making these elaborate and inappropriate ads, pushing the limits, yet the commercials don't even make it because they are "too sexual". So, some advertisers go the different role, the opposite role for women: the wife. We see them in the kitchen, cooking or cleaning, getting ready for their husband's football party. In an SNL clip recently aired, they spoof on these types of commercials.
This clip obviously takes it to a new level, but I still think it is relevant to commercials we see today. It startles me how even in 2015 we still have commercials where women are either being used as sexual objects or house keepers. Will we ever find a new role for women in commercials?
$4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds of an advertisement equals $150,000 per second of airtime. That's much more than the average salary one makes per year. Granted, these are huge industries that are airing these commercials, but that is still a lot of money for one ad. Why do companies pay this much for such a little amount of time? Easy answer: the viewers. Over 100 million Americans tune in to watch the game, and without fast forward options available while watching live, viewers are forced to watch.
With lots of money comes lots of power for these advertisers. How they chose to use their airtime, however, is disappointing. We all know the types of commercials that will be on this year: the cute kids and animals, the partying, the cameos from famous actors, and of course the sexual ones. Women are used to sell products in media constantly, as we see on television everyday, and the commercials during the super bowl are no exception. In fact, numerous commercials get banned before they even air! Companies spend huge amounts of money making these elaborate and inappropriate ads, pushing the limits, yet the commercials don't even make it because they are "too sexual". So, some advertisers go the different role, the opposite role for women: the wife. We see them in the kitchen, cooking or cleaning, getting ready for their husband's football party. In an SNL clip recently aired, they spoof on these types of commercials.
This clip obviously takes it to a new level, but I still think it is relevant to commercials we see today. It startles me how even in 2015 we still have commercials where women are either being used as sexual objects or house keepers. Will we ever find a new role for women in commercials?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)