As a child of the 80's, I'm sure my parents are grateful that Internet safety wasn't a concern with my sister and I. The biggest technological dangers we faced were prank-calling the wrong person (Note: Do not answer the phone pretending to be Pizza Hut when Dad's boss calls) or dropping a plugged-in hairdryer into the bathtub. I think about my young nephews and am fairly terrified by the idea of them going online. I believe they'll receive adequate supervision and instruction, but will they know how to identify a potential predator, avoid clicking on an ad that will install a virus or, God forbid, deal with cyber-bullying?
Not being a parent myself, I don't know what the best course of action is for any age group. Certainly, children want some privacy and deserve increasing amounts as they become older and more responsible. I certainly wouldn't have wanted my parents reading the notes my friends and I passed in grade school. Harmless as they seem now, a lecture on why it isn't amusing to torment a substitute (when really, it's hilarious!) was something to avoid.
Some companies now provide games for children of varying ages. I tried some of these out and found them to be generally useful:
AT&T's Safety Land (http://www.att.com/Common/images/safety/game.html) presents an online town with several buildings. Children click on each building and answer a question, which helps the superhero to defeat the bad guy and offers a certificate to completers at the end. (Do kids now like certificates any more than Gen X'ers did?) The questions are good, and props to AT&T for showing some multiculturalism and diversity in the hero character, but overall the game is a bit short and is centered mostly around avoiding predators (primarily sexual, although never explicitly stated). While the game has some good information, it's brevity might mean retention of the information is low, and it only offers education on one facet of internet safety.
Microsoft and the Canadian province of Alberta teamed up to present Bad Guy Patrol (http://www.badguypatrol.ca/). This site has selections for 5-7 and 8-10 year olds, but the games for each age are very similar. Each has 4 parts, each hosted by a different member of the Bad Guy Patrol. Two include trivia questions, one includes idenfication of emoticons, and a fourth uses animals costumed as another species to reinforce the idea that people are not always who they seem online. The characters are entertaining (a punk porcupine, highbrow owl, semi-creepy buffalo and talkative ram) and the multiple games present a wider range of safety concepts, but they did tend to drag on. My attention span somewhat outlasts that of a 5 year old and I found myself asking "when is this going to end?" I can see kids enjoying this game, despite the certificate!
For a little more retro fun, Quia has an Internet Safety Hangman game (http://www.quia.com/hm/40647.html). It probably isn't the most well-rounded, but it's some entertainment for the few kids out there who might actually play pen-and-paper games when they're bored.
My favorite were a collection of games from OnguardOnline.gov (http://onguardonline.gov/media/). These cater more to older kids, teenagers, and even adults, and cover a much broader range of topics, from bullying and predators to spyware, ID theft, and hacking. Overall, these had the best graphics and most sophisticated concepts.
Games are, of course, no substitute for parental instruction and monitoring, but I'm sure any parent will agree that sometimes their children will pay more attention to someone other than Mom or Dad.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
It Goes Too Far
I've been sightly obsessed with Adele lately, so when "Rolling in the Deep" came on the radio last week, I turned it up and started to sing along (no fear...I was in the car alone!).
"Go ahead and sell me out and I'll lay your sqbzhhk bare..."
"What???" I thought, probably out loud. "It says SHIP! They bleeped SHIP?" Apparently, the reference to piracy was lost on someone.
My curiosity got the better of me and I emailed the station director:
Rolling in the Deep
"I'm curious as to why this song is censored. The line is actually, 'I'll lay your SHIP bare,' which is a reference to piracy. It's blanked out so it sounds like "I'll lay your sh-- bare.' Political correctness gone a bit far, no?"
Re: Rolling in the Deep
"Good question. You'd have to ask Columbia Records. We play the single version that they released."
Seriously, Columbia? Did someone actually think it said "sh-t"? Or did they fear calls from parents?
"Columbia Records"
"Yes, I thought songs containing four-letter words couldn't be played on the radio, but that Adele song says, well, the naughty version of 'shoot'. And now my daughter's singing along to it!"
"Ma'am, the song actually says 'ship,' 'laying a ship bare' is reference to piracy and pillaging. Tell your daughter to sing 'ship'. Have a nice day."
It isn't as if there aren't other, more indecent sounding songs out there? I mean, am I the only one who never really hears "deuce" in "Blinded By the Light?"
Even if a song did include sh-t, as Eric Cartman would say, what's the big f-cking deal? Are we really pretending that those words aren't heard by most people on a daily basis? ("Not my kids!" you say. Do they go to school, or worse, ride a school bus? Case closed.)
I remember it being a big deal in the mid-1990s when then-racy TV show NYPD Blue uttered the word sh-t. Oh, it made headlines. Never mind the fact that it had shown shootings, homicides, sex, and Dennis Franz's butt (why, oh why, did we get his posterior over Jimmy Smits'?), but sh-t was something to talk about.
Later, in its fifth season, a South Park episode titled "It Hits The Fan" sh-t was uttered 162 times and written 38 times, bringing the total number of sh-ts to 200, or roughly one every eight seconds. Of course, it caused uproar, but South Park thrives on this. (For anyone who agrees with Mrs. Broflovski that South Park is just foul language and toilet humor...give it a try, it really is a brilliant, satirical social commentary.)
So we said sh-t a few times on TV, we're still bleeping it out of songs, but why? Probably because the literal meaning is "feces," and the FCC has declared "any language that pertains to sexual or excretory functions" as indecent speech. We can't laugh about it or use it as a curse, yet there is no limit to laxative commercials on air. Wholesome grannies talk about "fiber regularity" as a euphemism for the fact that a healthy person sh-ts once a day and may need some diet adjustments if they don't. When TV or movie characters hire dog walkers, they're portrayed as taking Fido out for a stroll; never mind that the real goal is taking him outside so he doesn't sh-t in the house and then picking it up in a bag. Sh-tting is a normal function of a healthy animal of any sort, as regular as sleeping and eating, yet it's so taboo that it can't be referenced on TV. Very silly, indeed.
Yes, there are more words whose connotations are more overtly sexual and/or violent. Some cautions need to be put into place so children (and teenagers, and some adults) don't get the idea that it's OK to be obscene and indecent all the time.
Oh sh-t, never mind. They're watching Jersey Shore.
"Go ahead and sell me out and I'll lay your sqbzhhk bare..."
"What???" I thought, probably out loud. "It says SHIP! They bleeped SHIP?" Apparently, the reference to piracy was lost on someone.
My curiosity got the better of me and I emailed the station director:
Rolling in the Deep
"I'm curious as to why this song is censored. The line is actually, 'I'll lay your SHIP bare,' which is a reference to piracy. It's blanked out so it sounds like "I'll lay your sh-- bare.' Political correctness gone a bit far, no?"
Re: Rolling in the Deep
"Good question. You'd have to ask Columbia Records. We play the single version that they released."
Seriously, Columbia? Did someone actually think it said "sh-t"? Or did they fear calls from parents?
"Columbia Records"
"Yes, I thought songs containing four-letter words couldn't be played on the radio, but that Adele song says, well, the naughty version of 'shoot'. And now my daughter's singing along to it!"
"Ma'am, the song actually says 'ship,' 'laying a ship bare' is reference to piracy and pillaging. Tell your daughter to sing 'ship'. Have a nice day."
It isn't as if there aren't other, more indecent sounding songs out there? I mean, am I the only one who never really hears "deuce" in "Blinded By the Light?"
Even if a song did include sh-t, as Eric Cartman would say, what's the big f-cking deal? Are we really pretending that those words aren't heard by most people on a daily basis? ("Not my kids!" you say. Do they go to school, or worse, ride a school bus? Case closed.)
I remember it being a big deal in the mid-1990s when then-racy TV show NYPD Blue uttered the word sh-t. Oh, it made headlines. Never mind the fact that it had shown shootings, homicides, sex, and Dennis Franz's butt (why, oh why, did we get his posterior over Jimmy Smits'?), but sh-t was something to talk about.
Later, in its fifth season, a South Park episode titled "It Hits The Fan" sh-t was uttered 162 times and written 38 times, bringing the total number of sh-ts to 200, or roughly one every eight seconds. Of course, it caused uproar, but South Park thrives on this. (For anyone who agrees with Mrs. Broflovski that South Park is just foul language and toilet humor...give it a try, it really is a brilliant, satirical social commentary.)
So we said sh-t a few times on TV, we're still bleeping it out of songs, but why? Probably because the literal meaning is "feces," and the FCC has declared "any language that pertains to sexual or excretory functions" as indecent speech. We can't laugh about it or use it as a curse, yet there is no limit to laxative commercials on air. Wholesome grannies talk about "fiber regularity" as a euphemism for the fact that a healthy person sh-ts once a day and may need some diet adjustments if they don't. When TV or movie characters hire dog walkers, they're portrayed as taking Fido out for a stroll; never mind that the real goal is taking him outside so he doesn't sh-t in the house and then picking it up in a bag. Sh-tting is a normal function of a healthy animal of any sort, as regular as sleeping and eating, yet it's so taboo that it can't be referenced on TV. Very silly, indeed.
Yes, there are more words whose connotations are more overtly sexual and/or violent. Some cautions need to be put into place so children (and teenagers, and some adults) don't get the idea that it's OK to be obscene and indecent all the time.
Oh sh-t, never mind. They're watching Jersey Shore.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
A media "How Does It Work"
Have you ever wondered why the TV meteorologist doesn't always gesture at quite the right area during his broadcast? Actually, it's more remarkable that he gets close at all: there is no map behind him, just a blank colored screen.
Chroma key, also called green screen or blue screen, is a technology used to layer two images together, in this case, a human and a background. Besides weather reports, this techonology is used in special effects for TV and movies. Backgrounds can be changed, and people can even be dressed in blue or green suits and be rendered invisible. But how does it work?
The subject, usually a human, is filmed against a solid blue or green background. These colors were chosen because they are considered to be the furthest away from human skin tones. Color cameras read and output different proprotions of three different colors of light: red, green and blue (RGB). Do you remember, as a kid, getting verrrry close to the TV screen and realizing it was made up of tiny rectangles with red, green and blue? (No? Maybe that was just me.) Try it - turn on your TV and go to a channel that doesn't receive and gives you a blue screen. Get closer and you'll see that it isn't blue, but rather, tiny, tiny blue rectangles amid black. Now, turn the TV to an actual picture. You'll see the tiny red, green and blue bars. RGB.
The blue or green background can be filtered out during filming, as in a live weather broadcast; or during postproduction in a movie. This was originally done by camera settings, but is now done by computer software. Chromakey software is set to detect and erase a certain color, in this case blue or green. Blue was initially favored as it is farther from human skin tone on the color spectrum, but it posed difficulties with blue clothing and even blue eyes. Bright green is now the color of choice.
Once the color background has been removed, it can be replaced with anything: a weather map, the background of a tornado, or in the case of a movie, our hero hanging off a cliff!
This charismatic kid explains how green screen can be used. Make sure to click on some of his other movies...he gets a bit of an attitude if you don't!
Chroma key, also called green screen or blue screen, is a technology used to layer two images together, in this case, a human and a background. Besides weather reports, this techonology is used in special effects for TV and movies. Backgrounds can be changed, and people can even be dressed in blue or green suits and be rendered invisible. But how does it work?
The subject, usually a human, is filmed against a solid blue or green background. These colors were chosen because they are considered to be the furthest away from human skin tones. Color cameras read and output different proprotions of three different colors of light: red, green and blue (RGB). Do you remember, as a kid, getting verrrry close to the TV screen and realizing it was made up of tiny rectangles with red, green and blue? (No? Maybe that was just me.) Try it - turn on your TV and go to a channel that doesn't receive and gives you a blue screen. Get closer and you'll see that it isn't blue, but rather, tiny, tiny blue rectangles amid black. Now, turn the TV to an actual picture. You'll see the tiny red, green and blue bars. RGB.
The blue or green background can be filtered out during filming, as in a live weather broadcast; or during postproduction in a movie. This was originally done by camera settings, but is now done by computer software. Chromakey software is set to detect and erase a certain color, in this case blue or green. Blue was initially favored as it is farther from human skin tone on the color spectrum, but it posed difficulties with blue clothing and even blue eyes. Bright green is now the color of choice.
Once the color background has been removed, it can be replaced with anything: a weather map, the background of a tornado, or in the case of a movie, our hero hanging off a cliff!
This charismatic kid explains how green screen can be used. Make sure to click on some of his other movies...he gets a bit of an attitude if you don't!
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Great Train Robbery
For most of entertainment history, the only way audiences could see a story brought to life was on the stage. Plays were written to deal with some of the difficulties of such productions; namely the time and break in continuity necessary to change a setting. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, innovative directors saw the possibilities for more fluid, realistic action and storytelling and played on audiences' imaginations in an entirely different way: motion pictures.
In 1903, moving pictures were in their infancy. One of the early "movies" which solidified this new form of entertainment was Edwin S. Porter's The Great Train Robbery, an 11 minute silent Western portraying bandits robbing a rail car only to be chased down and killed by a sheriff's posse. At the first viewing, this film seems rather amateurish to modern audiences. The movements are jerky and exaggerated, the camera is stationary, and it hardly seems groundbreaking. But it was. Among other techniques, The Great Train Robbery was the first to pioneer a visual trick we take for granted: cross-cutting, which alternates between scenes to depict action taking place in two locations simultaneously.
To understand the significance of this movie, one has to remember that audiences who saw this had never before seen anything moving on a screen (except, perhaps, hand shadow puppets!). Stories were depicted in one of three ways: the written word, stationary pictures or artistic renderings, and onstage by live actors. People who watched this film had likely never before seen any motion that was not done by real people in real time. I can understand this to an extent; I cannot internalize it.
The film begins in a railroad telegraph office, where two bandits break in and order the operator to stop the train and give the engineer some orders. After the train starts again, the operator is knocked unconscious and tied up. The train continues on to the water tank where it stops to take on water, and as it starts up four bandits board it unnoticed. (Throughout the movie, a rather incongrous soundtrack plays. It sounds more like the track for a bear cub chasing butterflies through a meadow than a heist movie, and upon further research, I learned the movie originally had no backing music.)
They head for the express car. Hearing them coming, the messenger locks a trunk, throws a key out the open door, and hides in order to defend himself. It is useless, as he is shot, a death that seems almost funny to modern audiences as he stretches his arms upward and twirls halfway around before (carefully) falling lifeless. Not finding the key on his body, the robbers blow up the trunk. Through this scene, the camera is stationary but movement is perceived, not only by changing scenery through the train door, but the rocking of the car.
The next shot is probably the most thrilling and brutal. In a fight atop a moving car, the bandits grab and beat a man, continue to pummel him long after he stops resisting, and throw his body from the train car. It is obvious to us that the flying object is a dummy, but it is still strikingly callous. The bandits then stop the train and rob the passengers. One attempts to escape and is shot, perishing in the same melodramatic style as the messenger. The robbers re-board the now-uncoupled locomotive and order the engineer to take them farther up the track, then stop the engine and escape into the woods where they mount their horses (the original getaway car!) and ride away.
Meanwhile, the telegraph operator comes to and manages to tap out a message with his chin before collapsing again. A little girl enters and attempts to revive him, cutting his bonds, shaking him and eventually throwing a glass of water in his face. Hers is the best acting in the film, even in this short scene her timing and talent are obvious. The freed operator then runs to a dance hall where he summons the sheriff who mounts a posse to chase down the robbers. The film ends with another gun battle, in which all four bandits are killed and the loot is reclaimed by the law.
Thrilling and wondrous as this must have been to viewers, the final shot prompted the most startled reaction: one of the bandits appears, looks in the camera, aims his gun and fires repeatedly. Audiences reportedly believed they were about to be shot and took cover or fled. Some apparently drew guns and fired back at the screen.
It's easy for us to laugh at their naivete, but difficult to imagine that they had never seen anything like this. The human imagination is powerful and fills in gaps in our sensory experiences. I remember watching my first IMAX movie at the Cosmosphere and an announcer telling us that should we become dizzy or nauseous, to close our eyes. Indeed, I got a little queasy as I "rode" in a helicopter above the Great Barrier Reef, but the instant my eyelids dropped, it all went away. I'm sure someday 3D films will become the norm, and future audiences will be amused at our tendency to duck from objects flying our way.
In 1903, moving pictures were in their infancy. One of the early "movies" which solidified this new form of entertainment was Edwin S. Porter's The Great Train Robbery, an 11 minute silent Western portraying bandits robbing a rail car only to be chased down and killed by a sheriff's posse. At the first viewing, this film seems rather amateurish to modern audiences. The movements are jerky and exaggerated, the camera is stationary, and it hardly seems groundbreaking. But it was. Among other techniques, The Great Train Robbery was the first to pioneer a visual trick we take for granted: cross-cutting, which alternates between scenes to depict action taking place in two locations simultaneously.
To understand the significance of this movie, one has to remember that audiences who saw this had never before seen anything moving on a screen (except, perhaps, hand shadow puppets!). Stories were depicted in one of three ways: the written word, stationary pictures or artistic renderings, and onstage by live actors. People who watched this film had likely never before seen any motion that was not done by real people in real time. I can understand this to an extent; I cannot internalize it.
The film begins in a railroad telegraph office, where two bandits break in and order the operator to stop the train and give the engineer some orders. After the train starts again, the operator is knocked unconscious and tied up. The train continues on to the water tank where it stops to take on water, and as it starts up four bandits board it unnoticed. (Throughout the movie, a rather incongrous soundtrack plays. It sounds more like the track for a bear cub chasing butterflies through a meadow than a heist movie, and upon further research, I learned the movie originally had no backing music.)
They head for the express car. Hearing them coming, the messenger locks a trunk, throws a key out the open door, and hides in order to defend himself. It is useless, as he is shot, a death that seems almost funny to modern audiences as he stretches his arms upward and twirls halfway around before (carefully) falling lifeless. Not finding the key on his body, the robbers blow up the trunk. Through this scene, the camera is stationary but movement is perceived, not only by changing scenery through the train door, but the rocking of the car.
The next shot is probably the most thrilling and brutal. In a fight atop a moving car, the bandits grab and beat a man, continue to pummel him long after he stops resisting, and throw his body from the train car. It is obvious to us that the flying object is a dummy, but it is still strikingly callous. The bandits then stop the train and rob the passengers. One attempts to escape and is shot, perishing in the same melodramatic style as the messenger. The robbers re-board the now-uncoupled locomotive and order the engineer to take them farther up the track, then stop the engine and escape into the woods where they mount their horses (the original getaway car!) and ride away.
Meanwhile, the telegraph operator comes to and manages to tap out a message with his chin before collapsing again. A little girl enters and attempts to revive him, cutting his bonds, shaking him and eventually throwing a glass of water in his face. Hers is the best acting in the film, even in this short scene her timing and talent are obvious. The freed operator then runs to a dance hall where he summons the sheriff who mounts a posse to chase down the robbers. The film ends with another gun battle, in which all four bandits are killed and the loot is reclaimed by the law.
Thrilling and wondrous as this must have been to viewers, the final shot prompted the most startled reaction: one of the bandits appears, looks in the camera, aims his gun and fires repeatedly. Audiences reportedly believed they were about to be shot and took cover or fled. Some apparently drew guns and fired back at the screen.
It's easy for us to laugh at their naivete, but difficult to imagine that they had never seen anything like this. The human imagination is powerful and fills in gaps in our sensory experiences. I remember watching my first IMAX movie at the Cosmosphere and an announcer telling us that should we become dizzy or nauseous, to close our eyes. Indeed, I got a little queasy as I "rode" in a helicopter above the Great Barrier Reef, but the instant my eyelids dropped, it all went away. I'm sure someday 3D films will become the norm, and future audiences will be amused at our tendency to duck from objects flying our way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)