The Academy Awards Shake Things Up: Oscars Go Green

Tonight is the biggest night of the year for entertainment. Just hours from now at the Kodak Theater, Hollywood will celebrate the culmination of a year of talent, hard work, and great films. The Academy Awards (official poster shown to the left) brings together actors, directors, costume designers, musicians, and the best of the industry for one special night. A highly coveted spot on this red carpet is reserved for the biggest stars only. For months now everyone has had Oscar fever on the mind, and the blogosphere has reflected this. This week I decided to look into the buzz surrounding this year's awards and share my thoughts with other bloggers. While navigating through everyone’s winning predictions, I found two very interesting blogs that reflect a transition the Academy Awards are undergoing. This year, the Oscars are going green promoting economy friendly cars and organic foods. Blogger Xtrmius writes in Oscars go Golden Green, how much of the hype this year is surrounding not what the stars will wear, but what they will arrive in. While the traditional answer would be a limo, this year as stars are becoming more environmentally aware, many are rumored to be arriving in smart cars. Blogger Nicole Weston, in Oscar goes organic at the Governor’s Ball, also picked up on this new trend and describes how this year the Governors Ball, known as the official after party of the awards, is changing the look of the event serving all organic food with a much more relaxed feel. The Academy Awards (preparations for the awards in the Kodak Theater shown on left) are always sure to impress and epitomize Hollywood glamour and this year it seems celebrities are promoting the glamour of a healthy lifestyle.

My comment on Oscars go Golden Green: Well the arrival scene will certainly look very different this year. This is a very interesting trend that you have brought to light of celebrities really being the frontrunners in promoting protection of the environment. Celebrities have great power to promote change because people follow their trends and choices religiously; so when someone sees Leonardo DiCaprio (shown here in his hybrid) or Penelope Cruz in one of these cars, having a smart car suddenly becomes very fashionable. I think Matt Peterson chose the perfect time to really gear up his Global Green campaign because the majority of people are just now familiar enough with the idea of smart cars that they will pick up on their presence during the arrival broadcast. I think up until recently a major hesitancy to invest in a green car has been the look of the car and lack of style variety, but now with the hot Tesla (new model shown below) and ZAP, people will see that these really are the cars of the future. However, while celebrities do have the power to push new trends I think you make a very accurate point when you quote Orlando Bloom as saying “ that it’s up to those in power and governments to create the greatest change.” Saving the environment is a very large battle, and no matter how many people drive smart cars and build green houses, we really need big business and government on board to make a real difference.

My comment on Oscar goes organic at the Governor’s Ball: First of all, the menu looks delicious and Wolfgang Puck has once again done an incredible job. The Governors Ball is really making a push to become more hip and shed its reputation of being a bit stiff and merely a filler between the awards and the real parties. (Pictured here is the Tuscan countryside themed Ball set up more like a lounge than with the traditional tables.) This is a reflection of the Academy Awards in general revamping small details of the ceremony to make this night not only the most prestigious and important, but also young and fun. As you say, “The Ball is not going to be a sit-down affair, but an elegant/casual cocktail-type of party, and the overriding theme this year will be ‘Oscar goes organic.’” Hollywood is famously known for being on the top of every trend, so it makes sense in our country of growing organic lovers that the stars eat in style. All this hype and preparation really demonstrate the time and commitment that goes into the Oscars every year. This is not just a night of awards and great fashion, but also a night where people get a peak into the glamorous life of celebrities. Aside from the grueling hours of hard work, the invasive paparazzi, and all other difficulties that accompany stardom, this a night that reminds everyone what is wonderful about being a star and the magic of film.

Child Star Controversy: No More Make Believe, But It's Still Only Acting

People love controversy; just look at the media hype surrounding Anna Nicole’s sudden death and quest for the father of the baby or Britney spears recent delve into insanity which culminated in shaving her head and checking herself into rehab. One can’t escape from the myriad of coverage both of these events are receiving because in the entertainment field a quick recipe for instant media hype is to add one part controversial subject matter and one part big star and instantly; guaranteed success. Think Boys Don’t Cry, Monster, and Pretty Baby, which were all controversial films that gained each respective actor acclaim. However, when the actor in question is a child and the subject matter is sexually risqué, it leads to a whole other controversy. Two Hollywood tots currently creating quite a stir are Dakota Fanning and Danielle Radcliffe. Fanning’s film Hounddog which recently opened in Sundance (this years logo depicted above) contains a brief rape scene which sent conservatives all over the country into a tizzy and Radcliffe who is set to appear in London’s West End Stage production of “Equus,” opening February 27 has parents everywhere in shock. These provocative performances have created quite a debate, begging the question when it comes to child actors, what is too much?

America’s sweetheart Dakota Fanning charmed audiences in Dreamer and Charlotte’s Web (family friendly film poster shown below to the right)and warmed hearts in I am Sam, making a name and an résumé many actors five times her age would admire. She is cute and likeable, yet it is her intellect and maturity people often remark on, making it difficult to remember that she is still very young; young and acting out a rape scene, which is why there is such animosity surrounding the film. Hounddog tells the story of a young motherless girl living in Alabama in the 1950s (Fanning shown with co-star Robin Wright Penn below to the left). Filmmaker Deborah Kampmeier explains that she did not set out to make a controversial film, there were just “so many stories I needed to tell in Hounddog, about motherlessness, the cycle of abuse, the triumph of this girl’s spirit, and the power of female sexuality,” which by nature can be quite controversial subjects. However, conservatives have been outraged with the film claiming not only is the depiction disturbing and encouraging child-rape, but also that acting in this will have a very strong emotional impact on Fanning. Critic Kevin Jackson of the Christian Post claims that depicting child rape is “taking the worst parts of human behavior and putting them up on the big screen and desensitizing the general population to them.” However as the scene was never shot from start to finish, but in pieces, where Fanning was in a body suit the whole time, it was never an environment that simulated an actual rape, explains Kampmeier. In regards to the second concern that Fanning might suffer mental distress, there is some validity to this claim. “Pretending leads to reality. Intellectually, kids feel it, live it, express it. Children can’t shrug it off,” explains Paul Peterson, former child actor an active advocate in the rape debate. However, regardless of whether it will affect the young starlet or not, it is a decision for Fanning, her parents, and managers alone, not everybody else in this country who has an opinion. It is Dakota’s life and it is not as if she is going out and telling anybody else how to live theirs. People need some perspective as they get all wrapped up in this issue, because Hounddog is just a film, one person’s artistic vision on screen, so if someone does not like it, luckily America is a country where no one is being forced to watch it. Yet the controversy does not end in Park City but continues to the other side of the Atlantic, where another beloved child star is making waves in London.

Harry Potter’s Danielle Radcliffe will appear nude on stage in ‘Equus” and racy promotional photos (one promo shown to the right) have popped up everywhere making it very clear that Harry has grown up. Parents are in outrage that a character their children look up to will appear nude in a sexual encounter on stage and want the risky advertising photos taken down. This just seems completely ludicrous, as Radcliffe is a 17-year-old more than capable and mature of handling a nude scene. The play deals with very deep and dark issues where the “script requires Radcliffe’s character to strip to the buff in one pivotal scene.” It is not as if the director just wanted some extra publicity and decided it would really make people go crazy to see Radcliffe nude; it is an important and crucial part of the role, just as Fanning’s character’s rape was. Critics of Radcliffe’s role are complaining that while movies have ratings, theaters do not, and children who want to see their idol live will be able to even with this questionable material. However, it is not up to the London stages to keep children from inappropriate content, but up to the parents. Furthermore, with all the violence and language children see in the media every day, why are people getting so worked up over a little nudity; the natural human form? The whole situation seems ridiculous and brave young actors like Radcliffe should not have to bear the brunt of culture’s taboo around s-e-x.

Another thing to consider is that these young actors are not choosing roles to create debate, but to further their careers. However controversial the roles may be, they are roles that will push Fanning and Radcliffe’s career to the next level. Many childhood actors have gained great acclaim from risky roles including Brooke Shield’s in Pretty Baby (shown first on the left in the film and below currently with her two children) and Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver. Both seemed to come off the movies with little emotional damage, and had skyrocketing careers after the films. In regards to Fanning, Cindy Osbrink, Fanning’s agent says that Hounddog was, “Something that really challenged her talent. Hounddog was one of the best experiences of her life, a story that needs to be told, and she tells it with her soul as no one else can.” This role will show producers and directors that Fanning is more than just a cute filler, that she wants more challenging material, and can handle it. Radcliffe is also in the midst of a transition. He will soon be done with Harry Potter movies and needs a career after that, one that does not involve brooms or wizards, so showcasing his ability in a radically different way will help people start to see him as more than just Harry. West End Stage is “London’s equivalent to Broadway” and it is incredible that Radcliffe has gotten this part. He must be nervous enough about his much-awaited performance without having to worry about upset parents and alienating his fan base. It is a fantastic move for his career and real fans should support him.

Reflecting on all this mess, one has to ask themselves why people care so much about the decisions these young people are making for their own lives? I think that people see that by banning these very public depictions, it somehow sends a message or makes them believe they have helped to stop the real issue. Stopping Fanning and Hounddog from playing is not going to stop child sexual abuse, and if someone wants to make a movie about it, it is a story that deserves to be told just as much as any. Are parents really against a 17-year-old actor doing a nude scene for a very prestigious play, or is it that they are afraid to realize that their own children are growing up and will soon be having sex too. Getting mad at Radcliffe or at Fanning’s team is much easier than simply dealing with these realizations. People need to remember at the end of the day, it is these actor’s lives and decisions, and they are in fact acting. Instead of worrying about the effects of such performances, maybe people should be more concerned with the issues in real life more than what is being performed on some small stage in London or screen in Park City.

Lite-Brite Advertisements Spark a Fire: Or in this Case a Resignation

This week, instead of sharing some of my own thoughts, I decided to look into the blogosphere and see what people were buzzing about. A big story in the media field that just broke, was the resignation of Jim Samples, head of the Cartoon Network, over the marketing ploy that caused chaos in Boston last week. The story began when Boston authorities mistook the guerilla marketing campaign for a bomb threat on January 31. The Lite-Brite-like advertisements (shown in day time to the left and below at night) were promoting the Adult Swim show Aqua Teen Hunger Force but the blinking electronic devices and circuit boards with wires sparked fear and the city nearly came to a standstill. Turner Broadcasting agreed to pay two million dollars in compensation for the problems they caused in Boston. Bloggers were all over the story, some arguing that Boston’s hysterics were unmerited as the same ads were placed in ten other cities without any problems, while others took the position that in a post 9/11 world, the advertisers had to know the ads could spark controversy and deserve all the bad publicity. However, when Jim Samples stepped down just days ago, the whole controversy exploded again. Wading through all the commentary, I found two very interesting blogs on this subject that offer interesting insight. In Hang Right Politics, blogger Kathy argues that it was Sample’s responsibility for approving such a stupid advertising campaign and he should take the heat of the fall. Other bloggers, like Justin Gardner on Donkelephant, claim that Samples should not have had to resign for this paranoid mistake on the part of Boston and that he is taking the brunt of the fallout when there are others more at fault. What follows are the comments I left in response to these two blogs, offering my insight into the situation.

My comments to Hang Right Politics: Well, I’m not sure that nobody is laughing, but Sample sure isn’t. Any smart advertiser or head of a network should have foreseen that these devices could be mistaken for bombs and spark concern. Black boxes with wires and circuits are not a typical advertising outlet, and in fact do resemble bombs. This coupled with the state of terrorism paranoia in this country is a recipe for disaster and someone should have foreseen what could happen. Samples approved the ads and as head on the network, it is his duty to assume full responsibility. His resignation was a strategic and effective move because Mayor Menino and the people of Boston feel that Turner has now taken full responsibility for their actions and Boston authorities will not continue to make a big deal out of this creating more negative publicity. This case is interesting to consider from a publicity perspective and begs the classic question; is there such a thing as bad publicity? In this case it has yet to be determined. While Turner Broadcasting and Cartoon Network may suffer from some fallout with investors, stockholders, and gain a public image of stupidity and irresponsible advertising, I think a lot of consumers see this as a case of corporate America trying to shut out creativity and will support Cartoon Networks bold choice. In any case, Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the Adult Swim program is sure to get a few more viewers just curious about the show that sparked this all.

My comments to Donkelephant: I think you make a very good point in asserting that Samples stepped down because Turner saw an easy way to make this whole issue fade away. Scapegoating is the quick way to make a “we” mistake into a “he” mistake. However, I have to disagree with your statement that Samples should have stayed to send the message that Boston was in the wrong, even if they did receive millions for compensation. Regardless of the fact that this was just one city of twenty, or that the ads went unnoticed for quite some time, the only fact that matters is that they did create problems in Boston. (Left is a police officer shown removing one of the ads). The question is not whether Boston overreacted or if the concern was even warranted, because it does not matter. The reality is that the lite-brite characters did cause widespread panic and a major city came to a screeching halt because of some stupid advertisements. So the real question becomes what to do to clean up the mess. The company needed to take full responsibility for damage control and image management. Samples resignation showed people that the company was seriously sorry for the trouble it caused. During crisis management, only one head has to go to the chopping block to take the public blame, unfortunately for Sample it was his.

Must See TV: What Lies Behind the Addiction?

Everyone has that one hour, one night a week, where all plans are halted and people find themselves curled up on the couch, eyes glued to the screen. If someone tries to interrupt this focused viewer, a quick reply and a dirty look say, “Shh. My show is on!” It is an interesting phenomenon; people form very strong emotional attachments to the fictional world of television and talk about characters as they talk about close friends. A lot of people explain this phenomenon by diving into the human psyche, while others argue people just get caught up in the hype and routine. When it comes to television, all shows try to create the perfect blend of beautiful people, hot hookups, and exciting plot lines, yet only a select few become a huge success. What is it that makes a show must see TV?

In the midst of awards season, shows like House (logo shown to the upper left), Grey’s Anatomy, and Heroes are proving to be this year’s favorite picks. Not only do critics and actors love the shows, but also so do millions of viewers which increasing ratings prove every week. Popular drama House draws in about 17.5 million, hot new show Heroes (cast shown below) pulls in 15 million, and favorite Grey’s consistently comes in third in the Neilson ratings with 21.5 million every Thursday. These are clearly impressive figures and while there is no one formula to create a smash hit, communication theorists and entertainment experts believe it has something to do with psychological aspects of identification and bonding.

A widely held belief in the communications field is that people watch television because of wishful identification that Cynthia Hoffner and Martha Buchanan define in their article in Media Psychology “as the desire to be like or act like the character.” As people watch loveable and screwed up Meredith on Grey’s Anatomy, or sarcastic and biting Dr. Gregory House from House they recognize these people from their own lives and form attachments. Everyone can probably remember a show or character where they felt this: I can remember growing up watching Saved by the Bell and wanting to be just like Kelly Kapowski, pretty and popular. I had her bangs and wore my overalls one shoulder unclipped to emulate her style. As I got a little older, it was Rachel Green on Friends, and I copied everything from what she wore, to what she said, and of course followed her hair trends (a popular cut style of Aniston's is shown on the left). If any character is living proof that wishful identification exists it is Jennifer Aniston’s character Rachel, just ask any hairdresser. It makes sense that people want to associate themselves with characters that are smart, funny, successful, and attractive, but it goes deeper than that. Hoffner and Buchanan explain, “people have a fundamental need to form connections with other people, and television offers audience members access to a wide range of other human beings.” Clearly, likeable characters are a major component.

Another key ingredient for success seems to be blood, quick-wit, and characters that can make scrubs look good. Medical dramas have and still prove to be the most popular shows on TV. Scrubs, Grey’s Anatomy, House, Nip/Tuck, and long running ER are all network favorites. While the shows are not always accurate depictions, in “Anatomy of a Real Medical Career” a medical student claims House is ‘an excellent show with some really fun diagnoses. The way they go about determining the final diagnosis, in theory, is the way we are taught in school.” Medical shows draw people in not only because of the exciting illnesses and surgeries, but people like to see that other side of medicine and see that these powerful surgeons and doctors are just as scared and screwed up as anybody. Many people like the fact that while watching an episode they can see a whole drama enfold and be resolved by the end of the hour. No matter how much blood or gore each show depicts, in general the audience is left with a hopeful feeling about medicine and life, and people love to hold onto this hope.

As for cult show phenomenons like Lost and Heroes, a key part of their universal success is the appeal to a wide audience. Children as young as seven or eight to people as old as eighty love the mystery and action-filled series. Television watching becomes family time and a tradition that brings busy people together; common ground for a father and his adolescent daughter to bond over. People love the ever deepening, unsolved mysteries, and to form their own theories about the “truth.” As TV critic Scott Pierce writes, “"There seems to be a big segment of the audience, especially younger audiences, that wants a show to be less spelled-out for them." Ask any viewer of either of these shows and they will give a long explanation of what they think the keys are to the big mysteries, and actively engaging in the show like this creates a stronger bond.

While it may be true that some people simply tune into Lost to have something to talk about on Thursdays at work, or fane interest in a medical saga to fill that hour before going out on a Thursday night in college, for the majority of people watching television it is way more than that. Putting aside psychological explanations and logistical reasons, the reason people watch television can be boiled down into simply wanting to believe in something. Heroes preaches that there are people out there with special powers to help save humanity and on Grey’s Anatomy (a scene from last year's season finale shown on right) people are given hope that their loved ones will make it through a difficult surgery and at the end of the day their will be smiles and a fitting song playing in the background. While some criticize these shows for these very reasons, people do not watch television week after week for reality, but for an escape into a world where for that short time, it is not about their worries or problems, but watching someone else’s life unfold. People essentially love TV for one reason; escape, and some shows have created the perfect haven.