His: Movies
My wife and I regularly watch movies. When we got married, we decided that cable was too expensive to justify. We counted channels we would want, and didn't get past a single handful. I was onboard for only ESPN, Discovery and BBC. She only added Food Network and some other station with cooking. Despite that, we knew we still wanted a TV to watch the Colts play (and the Yankees world series run!) So what were we to do with our TV besides rewatch movies from my collection?
After dropping hints for a while, like "man, it would be so much easier to Netflix this than drive to a redbox..." and "I bet we could've found it on netflix!", we finally bought in. As a gift, my wife subscribed to Netflix for me. I've always loved movies and well done television series, and I've got to say: Best. Invention. EVAR. There's nothing quite like sitting on the couch browsing for something to watch, only to suddenly relive your childhood when you stumble accross "Rockadoodle" on demand.
It has revealed to me, however, that things aren't always as good as I remember them. As a kid I loveloveloved the Jetsons movie. It was every bit as awesome as the cartoon was, except feature length. I ran across it for streaming the other day and decided it was a good time to relive that movie as well. Unfortunately there's a big difference between 10 and 25. As a kid I never noticed how over-the-top the animations are. Silly eye rolls, exaggerated movements, really bad integration of computer graphics and traditional animation. We ran it for about fifteen minutes before we gave up.
It's nice to be reminded of things you loved as a kid, but I think from now on I'll just be excited that I found them and avoid watching them.
If you've been thinking about getting Netflix, let this stand as a strong recommendation for it. While there are certainly gaps in availability of titles and it's not the timeliest service for new movies, there is no beating the low subscription price and the unlimited access.
Now: Pay Attention Class:
Things have been crazy at the MakeSeriously headquarters lately (located, appropriately, inside my skull). But fret not, there will be content coming as well as a new feature I'm hoping to do monthly. The plan, anyway, is to do an artist profile and this month's will be featuring designer Dane Benton, who've I've mentioned before. So do stay tuned, and if you're interested in being profiled in future months, let me know. Now for the regularly scheduled programme:
There's a fellow in Britain by the name of Charlie Brooker. He writes for The Guardian and is one of those funny guys across the pond who can approach something very American and in a dry, curious way reveal that it's completely absurd. Of course, this is America so we have lots of the absurd. About 40% of the Stumbles I make are popular primarily because they are absurd. Sure, it's amusing and well worth seeing. But it's neither useful in any utilitarian way, nor is it practical. What's a bit frightening, however, is when people actually listen to the absurd as though it's sane or rational. Unfortunately, the prime-time American media fits the "absurd" category pretty well, and here's the humorous Mr. Brooker to raise an eyebrow at it:
It goes without saying that we should be paying some attention to the way things are presented to us as well as listening to the content. Marshall McLuhan is a name tossed around a lot lately because of his 1967 work "The Medium is the Message". One of the ideas of the medium being the message can be summed up like this: the way an idea is presented, the medium that it is messaged through, is more important than the actual content. It's something I think we all can understand in a visceral way, and that's part of what makes the media so absurd. And dangerous. Think about the most passionate speakers you've heard. As they get moving, you don't just hear and agree with them, nodding your head in silent assent. You begin to feel something. And that something is the result of the medium, the presentation itself rather than the words. To compare, it's like a religious experience where the devotee must enter a state of emotions through worship. The medium of worship helps create the connection, it develops the visceral reaction.
The danger is when we confuse the visceral reaction for reality. There are times when it is real, when the passion is good. When Dr. King gave his "I have a dream" speech, I think few would call it inappropriate to feel passion for that speech. But the thing to consider is that Hitler spoke with a similar passion. The difference in the two was the message, not the medium and the danger is to confuse those two. That's where Brooker's commentary should make us all pause: are we hearing the message or are we confusing it with the medium? It's called the news, but is that what they're actually presenting? Are they pulling on our emotional side in hopes of persuading us to do something for them? They are good questions to ask, especially as the increasingly absurd television news media becomes more profitable and popular despite a decrease in quality and content.
Oh, and Brooker is hilarious.