Untitled

[classtingz]

final blog

Looking back on this semester, one of the biggest things I’ve learned is that media does not only reflect reality but it actually shapes how we understand it. One idea that connects a lot of what we covered is Marshall McLuhan’s idea that “the medium is the message.” The main point is that how something is shown matters just as much as what is being shown. Film and media control what we see and how we interpret it, so the format itself changes the message without us always realizing it.This connects to the idea of spectacle that came up throughout the course. A lot of media turns real situations into something people watch for entertainment. When that happens, the meaning can get lost and everything becomes more about the image than what is actually going on.

This also ties into representation, since we looked at how different groups are shown in media and how those portrayals are not always fair or accurate.The films from the last few weeks helped connect all of this. For example, “Nope” shows how people become focused on capturing things on camera even when it is dangerous. It shows how the image itself can become more important than reality, which connects back to McLuhan’s idea. It also connects to the larger idea of media turning real situations into something to consume and how it can often consume us.

This also connects to readings like bell hooks, who talks about how Black people and Black experiences have often been turned into something to be watched instead of fully understood. Even though media has changed, some of those patterns are still present in different forms today.Overall, this class has changed how I think about media. I pay more attention now to what is being shown, who is telling the story, and what might be left out.

[classtingz]

Week 13 blog

Bell Hooks' "Selling Black Pussy" and Vershawn Ashanti Young's "Your Average Nigga relate to each other in the way of they both critique how the black community is shaped, but in different areas. Hooks' writing focuses on how the media and visual cultures depict black women's bodies, reducing them to sexual stereo types or for consumption. Young on the other hand focuses on language and how "proper" speech reinforces a sort of racial hierarchy which limits natural black expression. Ultimately both are about control and show how black culture can be judged from an outside standard and looked down on.... Very interesting to me. In regards to the films "Birth of a Nation" and "Nope" , these films make these ideas more concrete. "Birth of a Nation" uses film as a tool that constructs racist images of black people that makes them seem as less than, which directly aligns with Hooks argument of black bodies being used as a spectacle for white audiences to reinforce stereotypes. "Nope" displays the same history of there being a sort of obsession with trying to capture and control and profit from black culture which can be they are saying can distort reality in a way and reinforce hurtful ideas. These stories are all really deep and challenged me to think.... However I don't see anything ever changing.

[classtingz]

week 12 blog

I found the movie "Nope" very interesting and I am surprised I hadn't seen it sooner. The movie displays the dangers of wanting to look at or capture something that people may not fully understand. In the movie Jordan Peele is arguing that "looking" is not innocent. People in the film try to control or capture extraordinary events (the UFO, Gordy, and the family's history) however the obsession with trying to record these events leads to harm. The film connects this idea to Hollywood and the history of entertainment as a whole especially in the aspect of people and even animals being used as tools for performance and profit. Overall the film argues that the act of watching is never neutral and it carries a power that can be exploitative.

[classtingz]

week 10 blog

John Waters’ Multiple Maniacs is honestly just wild, and was a lot to watch but that’s the point. The movie is meant to shock people, and it definitely does, but that shock actually helps get its message across. Instead of being subtle, Waters goes all in with weird, uncomfortable, and over the top scenes that make you react.

I think stuff like this works because it forces people to pay attention. If the movie was more normal, it probably wouldn’t stand out. But since it’s so extreme, you can’t ignore it. Even if parts feel like too much, you’re still thinking about it after, which is what makes it persuasive.

The characters are super exaggerated, and sometimes it’s so ridiculous it’s actually funny. That mix of humor and shock keeps it interesting and makes the message hit harder.

Overall, the movie shows that being shocking can actually make people think. Even if it’s uncomfortable, it sticks with you, and that’s what makes it effective.

[classtingz]

blog post #9

“Bowling for Columbine” and “Sixth Part of the World” both show how graphics alone can make a movie compelling. They obviously push concepts even though they don't rely on conventional reasoning.

Fast paced montage is used in Sixth Part of the World to depict laborers, machinery, and various Soviet Union locations. Together, the pictures provide the impression that everything is related and moving toward a common objective. It is really simple and appears to be propaganda due to its strong endorsement of the Soviet regime.

Bowling for columbine is more contemporary and intimate. Michael Moore discusses gun violence with a combination of humor, real footage, and interviews. He employs irony and contrast to provoke thought in the audience, making the message seem more accessible while maintaining its persuasiveness. Overall I enjoyed both. I will add that though I had heard of columbine I was unaware of the facts of the tragic incident. However it was very interesting to hear the story through a more social and political lens.

[classtingz]

week 7 blog

Watching Q: Into the Storm in comparison to WarGames I can definitively see how there are similar themes. In WarGames, a teenager thinks he’s just playing a game on a computer, but it ends up almost starting a nuclear war. The system makes everything feel distant and harmless, even though the consequences are very real. In Q: Into the Storm, something similar happens, but on a much larger scale. Instead of one person, it’s a whole group of people interacting online posts, looking for hidden meanings, and building off each other’s ideas. It starts to feel like a game or puzzle, where people are trying to “figure something out,” but those beliefs don’t stay online. They begin to affect how people think and act in real life. What connects both is how the structure of these systems pulls people in. In WarGames, the computer runs on rules that treat war like a series of moves. In Q: Into the Storm, there’s also a kind of pattern people follow, even if it’s not officially programmed. The process of decoding and sharing keeps people engaged and reinforces what they believe. Overall, both show how easy it is for something that feels like a simulation or game to turn into something real. They blur the line between entertainment, information, and reality, which makes them both kind of unsettling.

[classtingz]

week 6 blog

“They Live” was very interesting and fit well with everything we’ve been learning this semester. Kenneth Burke uses sunglasses as an example of what he calls “ terministic screens.” This was a perfect analogy because he suggest that the language and symbols we use everyday effect how we see reality without us realizing it. When the main character puts them on he suddenly sees the world differently. Advertisements he looks at say things like “OBEY” and “CONSUME.” The world becomes black and white and he begins to see the “truth” behind advertising, without the glasses everything looks normal. The sunglasses are not just a plot device they display the idea that our perception of reality is shaped by the systems around us like media and language.

[classtingz]

week 5 blog

Videodrome and eXistenZ make the argument that media doesn’t just reflect reality but it produces it. The technology itself reshapes perception, identity, and even the body. Both films show characters who think that they are in control but are actually shaped by the systems they engage with. The narrative structure in each film mirrors this confusion. We don’t get stable grounding. Instead, Cronenberg uses disorientation as rhetoric, so we can feel what the characters feel.Ultimately, the argument seems less about specific devices (TV vs. gaming) and more about mediation itself. Once media becomes indistinguishable from experience, reality turns into just another layer of the game.

[classtingz]

The concept introduced by McLuhan is very interesting to me and its kind of crazy to think of how correct he has become. For me initially it was a little difficult to understand but in simple terms he was saying that the type of media we consume can change us more than the content inside of it. This idea is shown in the movie videodrome. Max finds a broadcast that contains violence and torture but over the course of the movie it is shown that it isnt the content that is changes him rather it is the signal, the diegesis becomes unstable and it becomes harder to truly depict what is real. Max is having hallucinations and it becomes clear that's the point. Through the disturbing mise-en-scene and blends of technology and the human body, it is showing that his body is becoming a storage device. This is basically what McLuhan warned of, that media would be sort of an extension of senses and in the movie this goes too far and perception as well as maxs consciousness are rewritten.

[classtingz]

week 3 blog

This week I enjoyed getting a chance to re watch Wizard of OZ, it’s been years since I’ve seen it so it was interesting to watch again but through a different lens. Relating to Plato’s Phaedrus, where his belief is true rhetoric must be grounded in trough vs just persuasive speaking, which can closely turn into manipulation. The wizard in the movie has authority built through the mise en scene, the floating head, scary voice, dramatic fire etc- it’s all made to create fear and belief. There is no logic used only performance or rhetoric aside for truth. In short, Plato worried that some forms of communicating can create an illusion of wisdom. The wizard appears all knowing but once the curtain is pulled back we are shown there is no real knowledge behind it. The gap between appearance and reality is shown!

[classtingz]

week #2 blog

Watching WarGames, especially in 2026 felt like a movie I needed to see earlier lol. The movie shows how dangerous technology can really be if we rely on it too much. This movie put in perspective for me how valuable it is to think and operate as a human. One thing that stood out to me was the mise-en-scene. The tension in the control rooms and the way characters react to the computer’s decisions made it obvious that the stakes were real for people even if the machine treated it like a game. This connects to Plato’s Phaedrus and the idea that having information is not the same as having real understanding. WOPR knows a lot, but it does not have morals or responsibility. On the other hand the humans trust the computer because they want to avoid human error, but the movie shows how dangerous that way of thinking can be. The editing also helped build that argument, with the quick cuts between the worried faces of people, and sequences running on the computer, it put emphasis on the difference between human fear and machine logic. When the movie shifts between shots like that, it builds a kind of  sense of urgency I could almost feel.By the end, when the computer figures out that the only winning move is not to play, it felt like the film’s main point. The movie shows through its shots, mise-en-scene, and editing that wisdom comes from understanding consequences and being part of the world, not just calculating outcomes. Overall great movie, one I feel like everyone should watch TODAY.

Dark Territory review – how WarGames and Reagan shaped US cyberwar battle

Slate columnist Fred Kaplan’s new book details – exhaustingly as well as exhaustively – the alarms and innovations that made mass surveillan

[classtingz]

Holy Motors- Blog #1

Watching Holy Motors honestly felt really confusing at first. The film doesn’t tell a normal story at all. Instead, the plot is made up of different scene sequences where Monsieur Oscar keeps becoming someone else. I kept waiting for the movie to explain who he really was, but it never does and by the end, I realized it doesn’t want to.

From an auteur perspective, it feels like Leos Carax is using the film to think out loud about cinema and identity. The opening scene in the movie theater immediately pulled me out of passive watching and made me aware of myself as a viewer. It set the tone for a movie that’s constantly reminding you that everything onscreen is staged.

The diegesis feels unstable the entire time. Every scene seems like it belongs to a different genre, and none of them ever fully connect. The limousine became the most important space for me. It is  where Oscar changes costumes, wipes off makeup, and prepares for the next role. It feels like a backstage area, which made me think about how much of real life can feel like moving from one performance to another.

The editing is abrupt and kind of jarring, jumping between scenes with no explanation. There are no flashbacks or flashforwards to ground Oscar in a real past or future, which made the movie feel intentionally empty at its center. The mise-en-scène does most of the storytelling instead, especially the makeup and costumes, which makes identity feel like something you put on and take off.

The motion-capture scene really stuck with me because it connects so clearly to Baudrillard’s idea of simulation. Oscar’s body stops being human and turns into data, which made me think about how disconnected images can be from real experience. By the end, Holy Motors felt less like a movie with answers and more like a reflection on how performing has replaced being.