Argument Clinic

Integrating Media Studies into the Language Arts Curriculum

If I were a teacher, I would make use of all the versions of “Hamlet” that are out there in the world. We’ve got versions with each of the following actors starring in the title role: Ethan Hawke, Mel Gibson, Kenneth Branagh, and Laurence Olivier (I suspect that there are still others. What’s interesting to me about having so many interpretations of the same text available, is that juxtaposing them really brings out the degree to which directors are interpreting the text through the use of setting, camera work, music, lighting, etc. I would present some basic film analysis lessons, and allow students to watch the same scene from “Hamlet” as portrayed in each of the film versions. They could be watch with the sound turned off, and write about the image work being done by each film maker: what kinds of shots are being used? What images are being juxtaposed? What time period is the film taking place in? What’s the cumulative visual effect/feel? Students could also listen to the music used by different directors for the same scene—I have soundtracks from the Branagh version and the Ethan Hawke version on CD. Students could talk about what kind of mood the music creates. They could then watch the different versions of the scene in their entirety. Maybe the final step in the process would be to integrate their “visual notes” and their “sound notes” into a larger piece of writing in which they describe how the meaning of a scene is changed by its filmic elements. We could also discuss the larger issue of how even though all of us are looking at the same text, we construct different meanings from it.

It might even be interesting to have students then film their own version of the same scene from Hamlet in their own unique way—maybe by this time they will have had too much of this scene and they’ll need to choose a different scene to film. By filming their own versions, they would be exercising the interpretive license that they had observed in the clips from the movies. Students could work in groups with each student playing a particular role on the “film team.” Casting director, sound person, costumer, camera person, director, editor.

We could also take the opportunity to read reviews of the different film versions of Hamlet from the newspapers (I can gather these of the net or at the library) and students could use them as models to write film reviews of their classmates’ films. The student authored film reviews (and the films themselves, via YouTube) could be posted in blogs so that students could comment on each other’s reviews. This might mean learning how to disagree with each other in a diplomatic way, and would surely mean students learning how to establish their opinion through careful argument—after all, their peers are going to read this.

I think a larger activity like this could in smaller pieces throughout a unit on “Hamlet,” or it could be used for another text that has been represented at least twice on film. It might also be interesting to add a radio drama version of the scene into the mix and talk about how radio directors use sound to shape meaning.

Ideally, the unit would end by going to a theater and viewing a version of “Hamlet” and examining the difference between the theater experience and the movie experience. It can never hurt to look at yet another interpretation of the same text and reinforce again the large degree of interpretation involved in re-presenting a written text.

From our exploration of media use to portray a “Classic,” we can then move to explorations of more contemporary texts: commercials, music, web content, games, comics…

Why do I like the Beatles? Why "Let it Be"?

I really like to listen to classic rock 'n roll: Eric Clapton, the Beatles, some Dylan. Actually, I don't listen to a whole lot of "band music" even in this genre. I don't listen to much anymore except National Public Radio, but in high school I put in a good many hours learning the Beatles catalogue in minute detail. I knew their music down to it's bass lines, drum licks, guitar solos, and harmonies.

My reasons for liking the Beatles? If someone were to ask me this outright, I would guess that they "just don't understand," maybe that's the way most people feel when asked to justify their music preference. But, let me try to justify my preference for the Beatles.

It's about the quality of the songwriting, the words, the way these four guys fit their instrumentation together, the George Martin orchestrations, the harmony, tensions between individual Beatles, the willingness to play many different styles and moods, the creativity, the reckless waste (witness "Revolution Number 9" from the White Album, "Hey Bulldog" from the Yellow Submarine--I have to throw up my hands and say, "They could do whatever they wanted, they didn't care what anybody thought, they just did whatever came into their minds and shared it with everyone.) I'm going to have to pull some of that out of parenthesis and examine it.

Maybe it was about the polished work of "Let it Be" (the song/not the album) as much as it was about their willingness to show the creative missteps. Listening to the Beatles is like listening to the whole creative process--it seems like the remaining Beatles have become more aware of this aspect of their appeal over time, what with the release of their Anthology which includes many raw recordings of songs they later polished.

There's a moment in the recording of "Let it Be" included in the Anthology that draws out this tension between what I might call the raw and the polished in the work of the Beatles. The story of the Let it Be album is that the Beatles set out to record a live album--no manipulation of the sound, no after the fact mixing. The version of "Let it Be" in the Anthology is the first time that John Lennon hears the song. After the final chord, Lennon laughs and shouts to Paul, "You cheat! You scoundrel!... Let's track it." Apparently, this songs too good to leave as is, to leave raw.

I still seem to be a bit too close to the subject on this. I think I'll just let it be.

The Gods Must be Crazy: Use of Documentary Style

Some people believe that the following clip represents the reality of life for bushmen in the Kalahari--trouble is that it doesn't. The documentary style--even when used in a film that is clearly fictional--still makes people believe that it represents reality.

Documentary Film: Zapruder and Interpretation

Above you will find a copy of the film Abraham Zapruder took of the assassination of JFK.

This can be used as a case study of the limits and possibilities of documentary film. Many people are convinced that somehow the "Truth" of the Kennedy assassination are somewhere in this footage.

What does this film show us? We could state this in detail: "First, we see a street lined on both sides with people (a single line on both sides of the street); a motor cycle carrying a police officer drives down the side of the street... a man is shot." My play-by-play is pretty elementary, but I hope it serves to show how much of the meaning of what happened is dependent on the context an interpretation. These images alone explain neither what happened, nor the meaning of the event. For that we would need to understand something of political reality, the motives and identities of any assassin(s), what the perspective was from the other side of the street, etc. Documentary film makers can begin to connect those dots into a coherent story, but their story is never complete.

How a Bill Becomes a Law: My Pitch for a Documentary

How many of you have seen the School House Rock version of "How a Bill Becomes a Law"?

I would like to create a documentary that follows a bill from its inception to the day it becomes a law (or the day that it dies). Maybe we would start by following a group of people who sit down with their congress person and really come up with a good idea for creating national health care (or some such thing).

In the documentary we would capture what happens on the floors of both houses and in the committees, the arguments, the dull procedure. This would be filled in with interviews of congresspeople who support and oppose the law. We will explore all of the amendments that get added to the bill as it goes along... you get the idea. I've often complained in the last couple of months as campaign ads have consumed the airwaves, that they make people so ignorant about how laws get made in this country, about how complicated the process really is.

I would want my audience to learn just how complicated the whole process is, and how convoluted. I want them to see that all kinds of sub-bills that are unrelated to the spirit of the original bill get attached to it. I want people to see that its often these attachments that lead to a bill's death, and not the original good idea. I want people to see the lobbyists going to work on the bill.

In interviewing members of congress, I would ask them to comment on the bill that the film is focusing on: their opinion of it, whether or not the original idea of it is a good one (and why), how it would have to change for them to vote for it, what would have to be added to it for them to vote for it.

Then I would ask them to tell me about the craziest attachment to a bill that they've ever heard of. Responses might be something like, "We were supposed to be working on a bill to pay for food for the military... an amendment was added that would have required all the packets of food to be labeled with the words, Brought to you by the Republican Majority. Well I just couldn't vote for that." Any good responses to this question could be used as vignettes throughout the documentary and could end with the line, "I'm just a bill, waiting here on capital hill" from "School House Rock."

I think what would be most difficult about making this documentary would be that congresspeople and lobbyists alike will probably not provide access--there isn't a whole lot of incentive to showing how a bill really becomes a law. If we knew "the truth" (or at least tasted the complexity), how would they run those commercials saying, "He voted against body armor for our troops"? They wouldn't be able to, because people would know that he really voted against something unreasonable that had been attached as an amendment...

For a spoof of the classic "School House Rock" see the "Simpson's" clip below--this one's about amendments to the constitution.

Looking at WCCO 6:00 News on the Day after the Election

Here's a break down of the Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:00 news on Channel 4 WCCO TV. I've kept a record of the content & type of each story, and the amount of time allowed for each story.

Introduction and preview of night's stories: Humble Mike Hatch after losing the race for governor of Minnesota; Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar's phone call from a former president; Walz wins congressional seat in the 1st district (32 seconds).

News: A review of the numbers from yesterday's gubernatorial election (32 seconds).

News: Reporter Pat Kessler reviews Gov. Pawlenty's acceptance speech and Mike Hatch's concession speech along with a speech given today by the new democratic leader of the Minnesota House (1:31).

News/Personal interest: Outgoing Speaker of the Minnesota House, Steve Svigum (R), shown choked up when talking about the end of his leadership (36 seconds).

News: Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnston lost yesterday (10 seconds).

News: Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense. People are angry about how the Iraq war has been handled. Sen. Norm Coleman talks about how the resignation is a good thing. Robert Gates has been nominated for the position (44 seconds).

News/Personal Profile: Amy Klobuchar is Minnesota's senator-elect. She is a "superstar." She promised to visit all Minnesota counties every year in her acceptance speech. Discussion about her daughter Abigail and where the Senator-elect and family will live. Where will Abigail go to school? Klobuchar says that being chosen senator is a "humbling experience." A University of Minnesota Poli-sci professor talks about what it means to have the first woman senator from Minnesota. Footage of Klobuchar greeting well-wishers in downtown Minneapolis. It is noted that Klobuchar's senior prom date called to wish her well as well as President Clinton. A WCCO reporter (?) asks Klobuchar who she will have on her staff (2: 40).

News: Keith Elison won the congressional seat from Minneapolis' 5th district. Footage of Elison thanking supporters. Question of what it means for Elison to be the first Muslim elected to the House (5o seconds).

Weather--it's 70 degrees right now! (40 seconds)

Segue to commercial/preview of upcoming stories:
Gopher basketball
State Epidemiologist Resigning
Walz wins in 1st District (21 seconds)

commercials (2:30)

Ads: Preview of CBS Primetime shows & 10:00 news (20 seconds)

Ads: Because of today's G.W. Bush press conference, "The Bold and the Beautiful" will be shown at 3:07 am tomorrow morning (10 seconds).

News: A "gang member" who killed a young boy as he walked home from a basketball game will get a lesser sentence (31 seconds).

News: Harry Hall, state epidemiologist is resigning to do work in international healthcare (31 seconds).

News/Human Interest: Walz beat 6 term incumbent in the 1st district. He's a social-studies teacher from Mankato West H.S. and a football coach that led his team to 2 state championships. His student helped him get elected--footage of him in a conference room thanking his students for their help (2:00).

Weather: Snow predicted by tomorrow night, 5 day forecast, radar... (3:21).

Segue to commercials/preview:
Vikings
Gopher basketball
"This portion of the broadcast brought to you by Treasure Island Resort and Casino" (30 seconds).

commercials (2:30)

Sports: In basketball, Gophers vs. Winona State--best division 2 team in the nation; two high school students have signed on to play for the Gophers next year (2:00).

Sports: Vikings vs. Green Bay on Sunday (1:15).

Sports: Twins' pitcher Johann Santana gets "Players' Choice" award (20 seconds).

Ad: Preview of stories for 10:00 news (40 seconds).

Weather/final anchor jabbering (45 seconds)

Ad: "This portion of the broadcast brought to you by Partners for Affordable Energy" (10 seconds).

The End.

A Few Comments

Why did WCCO show lame-duck speaker Svigum of the Minnesota House choked-up about not keeping his position? This was not news as much as it was about injecting some emotion into a tv program (this program just happened to be called "the news").

In the story about Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman was given a significant amount of time to explain to us why the resignation is a good thing. In some way, by airing this clip, WCCO tv is supporting Coleman's idea that the resignation is a good thing. We don't know that. Who is the new secretary of defense going to be? What do we know about him? What do people who like him say about him? What do people who don't like him say about him? What does someone who can speak with authority and yet is unbiased say about him? Is there anything wrong with having Rumsfeld resign?

In the story about Klobuchar, it seems to me that too much was made of Klobuchar being a woman and a mother. Discussions were had about where her daughter will go to school, and the fact that she's the first female elected to the Senate from Minnesota. These issues are interesting, but I want to know more about what she plans to do next--this was purely human interest.

Much was made of Elison being the first Muslim elected to congress--pictures were shown of Arab newspapers featuring stories about him today. Again, this is a human interest story and not really news. At the very least, we should hear what his next steps are. Elison, when asked about being a Muslim, redirects the reporter to his focus on serving the interests of his constituents.

Interesting for me to realize how much time is spent delivering the weather--about 5 minutes. Also interesting to note that the news is directly "sponsored" by particular organizations including Treasure Island Casino and "Partners for Affordable Energy" (by the looks of the ad that followed this 'official endorsement' this group is a front for coal-burning power companies...). I wonder how this effects the news that they put out?

Ad Spoof

On November 7th, vote Bob Smith.
Not a politician.
A hardworking guy down the street.
A guy you'd have a beer with.

"Cheap Gas, cheap guns, cheap government."
I'm Bob Smith and I'm too busy working hard to approve this message.

This guy endorsed by

Back to the Future: DeLorean Ad Analysis

It's hard to read the text on the right side of the page, so I'll give it to you here:

"John DeLorean was on the way to the presidency of General Motors when he quit to build his own car company. In his 17 years with GM he helped quadruple Pontiac sales, build Chevrolet into a 3-million seller and was awarded 44 automotive patents. While his bosses railed at him for wearing his hair too long.

Now his stainless steel DeLorean Sports Car is here. Designed to last rust-free for 20 years. And the first year's production is sold out.

John Delorean anticipates the needs and wants of car buyers. He does no less for the scotch-drinkers he invites home. That's why he selects and serves the impeccably smooth Cutty Sark."

Add this text to the banner at the top: "One out of every 100 new businesses succeeds. Here's to those who take the odds." And along the bottom edge of the frame the Cutty Sark logo, and the words, "The Scotch with a following of leaders."

Granted, I was mainly attracted to this ad because of the use of a DeLorean in the "Back to the Future" movies (shows what product placement can do). Cutty Sark are using an innovator, a risk-taking business man to sell their product. The appeal is being made to others working possibly for corporate America (others being hassled for wearing their hair "too long"), who want to strike out on their own. DeLorean's image stands for risk--this is emphasized by the banner at the top of the add. The ad isn't really selling the scotch at all, it's selling this image of risk that leads to success.

It strikes me that this ad is very much like the current series of beer commercial that ends with the line, "We salute you _____ man." Here the toast is made to those who will risk it all for success, complete with a raised glass of scotch in the bottom middle of the frame. The difference between this ad from 1981, and the contemporary version is that this ad is intended to be taken seriously, and the contemporary version is a joke.

In order to take this analysis further, I would have to see the types of publications that it appeared in. It strikes me that this is a lot text--current advertisements wouldn't run so many words. Although, I guess I have seen advertisements for investment or insurance companies that run this long.

I think the big lesson learned for me, is to begin to think more intentionally about what it is that an advertisement is really selling--risk/adventure, versus what it appears to be selling--scotch.