Just as its title implies, we are a digital nation now. Or even to be more specific, we are a digital world now. I found this documentary film is such a great project that actually recording down those details that us ourselves might not even realize yet. It’s so true that we see digital devices everywhere and all the time. No matter where you and what you are doing, you always can see many people around you are using cell phones, ipads, and laptops. This film was made to ask us the question, “What do those technologies mean to you”?

When internet first came out, people all admire how it works, considering it as the world most useful inventing. However, now when you ask about it again, some people might hesitate, it’s just that it is so powerful that it changed our way of living. It became a necessary item in our daily life, just like oxygen and water. But is it really good for us in this way? I do not like to totally negate what Internet has brought us, I think that is just too absolute and unwise. We should have the more objective perspective to consider it. Internet is helpful and with it, it has made our living so much easier and much more convenient. However, when it eventually took the main part of our lives and started blocking the real interaction between us and others, then it became a problem.

However, I believe this is a self-choice thing. Internet is a tool, the one makes the decision to use the tool is us. I think to fix this social phenomenon, we should start with ourselves.

Although the film was portraying Mark’s self-history, the introspection the film led to the audience may bring us to reflection towards Facebook. The process of Mark inventing Facebook seems implicitly revealing the change Facebook brought to the world. Mark might be one of the richest guy in the world now, and he might have more than millions of friends on Facebook; but in real life, his best friend back in college, his roommates, and Facebook’s very first CFO were all denouncing his betrayal. Even though everything was solved after he signed those checks, he is eventually lonely now. Then by introspecting ourselves, it’s not hard to notice that the social interaction on Facebook is no longer following its original intention, which once was looking for single boys and girls to date with. When we start to have more and more friends on Facebook, are we no longer lonely or even lonelier? It turned out to be that most of the time, the essence of every status or every sharing on the Facebook was just ex parte to exhibit our daily life to other. Or to be simpler, they were show-offs. The purpose of showing off was not to let people see and get to know our current condition, but to trigger comments and communications. Since very early, there were people pointing out that the social networks such as Facebook has made the interpersonal relationship turning superficial and shallow. Pure interpersonal communication has been replaced by inexplicable vanity, it’s because we cannot receive it in real life, or we can say it’s hard to achieve these psychological satisfaction in our daily life. Nevertheless, all these sums up to prove one fact, it’s that we are turning lonelier and lonelier, just like Mark.

Facebook is not only using the technology to make people’s interpersonal communications even more convenient, or simply enlarge people’s social hub, but also profoundly changing the way of communication. It’s just that these changes and influences may not be all positive. We may not be able to stop these changes, but what we can do is to constantly introspect and revise.

A depressed man, feeling so failed in every part of his life. At the lowest point of his life, he decided to do one last good thing for his family, that is to finish his life by some killer in order to get the money from insurance. However, life is unpredictable. Everything changed after his speech.

I have to say, that speech, the most sincere speech that drifted away all the political mouldiness was the trigger that brought him back. I would say, this is a sarcasm the director created, seems telling us the darkness of the politics and how different a person can be when he touches politics. I can’t help but to think those politicians, when they are standing in front of the camera and thousands of his supporters, how many percent of what he said was real?

In New York Times Movie Reviews, they describes this film as ”’Bulworth’, a crystal-clear reminder of what that statement means to American politics”. I guess it’s true. I found this article really helpful on understanding this film, hope you guys enjoy.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C02EFDE1330F936A25756C0A96E958260

It is such a hilarious film that stands out from other films. Idiocracy used its own way overturned public’s common belief that “The world is becoming better and better.” Who says human will be even stronger in the next hundreds of years? In this film, the director created a world that made human the dumbest creature, and the society is a mess. Everyone wears clothes full of advertising; the commercials are insane, people seems so no-brain that the protagonist even became the smartest guy in the nation after taking that extremely easy exam. The world seems degenerated to the ancient human generation. The point of this film is to break our acknowledged opinion, that the world is not going to make a revolution along with the time; but a backwards revolution. Moreover, overcommercialization is also another important element in the film.

I found an article from the New York Times, that provides us some backgrounds knowledge about this film. I found it useful to better understand the film.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/magazine/04wwln-consumed-t.html?_r=0

Two Questions:

1. What do you think about the ending of the film?

2. Why do you think the director created the world in this way?

The film “Broadcast News” has revealed some true facts about media industry in now world. The “New York Times” has described this film:

“Television news-as-entertainment is the very funny, occasionally satiric subtext of ”Broadcast News,” the bright new comedy written and directed by James L. Brooks, with three smashing star performances by William Hurt, Albert Brooks and Holly Hunter. ”Broadcast News” opens today at the Coronet.

In his first film since his Oscar-winning ”Terms of Endearment,” Mr. Brooks goes inside the offices and studios of the Washington bureau of a national television network to show us how things work. As exposes go, ”Broadcast News” is gentle. It’s far more amused than angry. Its wit is decently humane. It also says something about the pervasive nature of television that, although the subject is parochial, ”Broadcast News” is no more or less arcane than ”Miami Vice.”

I found this article quite helpful on further understanding this film. Hope you guys enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B0DE5DD113CF935A25751C1A961948260

Two Question: Which character in the film do you like the most? And How do you see the ending of this film? Is there any implicit meaning within it?

“Videodrome” is a film that did a great job on establishing a horror atmosphere for the viewers; and at the same time revealed a media-related social issue. The film director Cronenberg used this film to promote for media ethics. New York Times commented on this film and the director Cronenberg that,

“Mr. Cronenberg, who also directed ”Scanners,” is developing a real genius for this sort of thing; one measure of the innovativeness of ”Videodrome” is that it feels vaguely futuristic, even though it’s apparently set in the present.”

I also find another film review that deeply discussed the implicit meaning within the film. Hope you all enjoy it!

http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/videodrome.asp

Questions: 1. What is your opinion on the thrilling elements in the film? 2. What do you think is the problem of Max associated in the film? 3. As a media worker, what are the standards that we suppose to follow?

As a horror film from early 80’s, I think the film did a great job on creating the thriller atmosphere for the audiences; and at the same time, revealed the existing media issues in the society and promoted further works on media ethics. I found an article that deeply discussed the implicit meaning of the film. Hope you guys enjoy!

http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/videodrome.asp

Two questions: 1. What is your opinion on Cronenberg’s use of thrilling elements in the film? 2. What do you think is the problem of Max?

“Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song” is considered as the first film introduced for the rest of the following works of Blaxploitation. However, I found this article really nice and holds an interesting view on Blaxploitation. In the article, this one paragraph caught my attention, that I would like to use it as the conclusion.

“While Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song is ultimately set apart by its production, its politics and its innovative, expressive technique, it can be fully credited with having an influence on the genre that sprung up in its wake. Shaft may have had more of a hand in setting the template for what followed, but Van Peebles’ film also handily demonstrated the money making potential of courting the black movie-going public, being made for about $500,000 and generating more than $10 million. But again, it didn’t earn that sum for any fat cat exec (the New York Times called him “the first black man in show business to beat the white man at his own game”), nor was its success down to calculated pandering to a black audience, coming as it did from the very heart of the black struggle for liberation and self-determination. In the end, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song can’t be considered a blaxploitation film because neither the film nor the circumstances of its creation carry any trace of exploitation, just empowerment.”

http://networkawesome.com/mag/article/dont-call-it-blaxploitation-sweet-sweetbacks-baadasssss-song/

My two questions: What is your opinion on the sex scenes in the film “Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song”? What do you find in the film that make it not an Blaxploitation film?

Usually, a great film can be a mirror, both telling the story and reflecting the story into the viewers. I think “A Face in the Crowd” can be one really good example of mirror film. It’s true that among us, there are so many people using the power of media and trust of public to do things that might not be as positive as they said so. However, I think not only those people need to introspect their self behaviors, but also the public, because we are the one facilitated their actions and thoughts. The director did a great job on illustrating the social problems caused by media. I found an article about “A Face in the Crowd” that is very interesting, and specifically explained the key points of the film. Hope you guys enjoy!

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/74421/A-Face-in-the-Crowd/articles.html

My two questions: Is it true that the public never realize to introspect themselves? Is there any way to motivate the public introspect themselves?

Edward Murrow undoubtedly established a favorable role of how a media worker suppose to do, and fight for. He and his colleagues’ action educated millions of later media workers to propagandize justice and truth for the public with no fear to the authorities’ threat. Here is his speech, “This I Believe”.

Questions: As a media worker, what kind of apprehension might also come with your work? In order to fight with the vicious power, what other external help might be needed?