Why Believe in Paranormal Fraud?

I don’t know if you guys are aware of TED talks, but I am a huge fan. I find the website and the talks incredibly thought stimulating, like nothing else.

I recently watched this talk (posted above), by James Randi, a former stage magician and now a paranormal skeptic ( a cool career title, huh?). Since we just had a topic of supernatural activity in contemporary horror, I found it useful in relation to some of the movies we watched and topics we discussed. However, this is a little different, since Randi is not talking about a fiction world of the movies, he is talking about real facts and real people, who actually truly believe in supernatural forces and pay their very real money to come in contact with this make-believe world. And why are there so many people around the world convinced that this works? As Andy suggests, it’s because the paranormal activity is highly publicized to please sponsors.

If you think about it, there is sense in it. We watched all these movies like The Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity and the Sixth Sense. Well, just tell me you are not a least a little nervous to go get some water in your house at night in the dark now? Ok maybe you are not like me, maybe you are more sane. But really, would you travel to the woods at night after watching Blair Witch?? And now imagine that the next day after watching this movie you see a talk show, a documentary and read a magazine article about similar supernatural occurrences.In such a case, it’s all around, from different sources, must be somewhat more credible.

This is how psychics work, psychics just like legendary Sylvia Browne. They are publicized all over the place, they are talked about, and most importantly they play on people’s feelings. Just like Randi says, they take advantage of “innocent, naive and grieving” . Unlike movies made for entertainment, these frauds are not fun, he is right. They not only convince vulnerable people that what psychics are doing is true, but they also take fairly earned money for it, for fiction. So where is the line between fiction and reality? Why is it that people are having such a hard time distinguishing this line? Can it be that such movies as Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity work not only to entertain and scare people, but also to deceive and create more room for the multi million-dollar psychic industry?

Whether you believe in supernatural or not, watch the clip, you would not regret it. (James Randi also talks about homeopathy.)

South Park’s Take on Paranoia

After seeing the clip from The Simpsons in class, I was curious about other popular cartoons poke fun at widespread ideas about fear, paranoia, and anxiety. I decided to search for South Park episodes that might relate to these topics, partly because the show is so well known for providing humorous social commentary on just about everything, and also because it’s one of my favorite things to watch. I found some clips from an episode in season 6 entitled “Child Abduction is Not Funny.” The clips focus on one of the already rather spastic character Tweek, and his reaction to what he sees in the media and is told by his parents about the safety of children in society.



In the first clip, Tweek can’t escape from news reports that basically send the message that he’s not safe anywhere. When his parents bring him into the kitchen to talk about the recent abductions his mother states, “you can’t trust anybody.” The clip is funny for its exaggerated commentary on the influence of the media in everday life, but it also rings true. The public is very much dependent on the media, but often fails to take into account that the actual danger outside of their homes might not be so severe as they are led to believe. I think it’s interesting how society has made itself a paranoid place. Granted, a lot of crimes happen, a lot of positive things happen that are not reported in the news, and so a certain sense of fear and general lack of trust seems to be prevalent in today’s world.
In the second clip, Tweek’s anxiety is caused by his own father who conducts a “drill” in the middle of the night. He tells Tweek not to open the door even for the police because they may just be pretending to be the police. This instills more paranoia in him, and he ultimately reaches a point where he is suspicious of everyone he encounters. It’s funny how one incident can create so much anxiety in a large group of people. An isolated incident can become incredibly influential, because of how people choose to react to it. The humor in these clips, I think, speaks to a major reality. Though we can’t trust everyone in the world, believing everything the media says to the point where we feel as though everyone around us is out to get us isn’t practical either.
The paranoid character of Tweek reminded me a lot of Harry Caul from “The Conversation.” He can’t even function in his day to day life because he is so unable to trust those around him. The third clip really shows how he becomes completely paranoid as he hears more and more about the “danger” around him. He runs away from the movie theater because he doesn’t know the man at the ticket booth, “what if he wants to kill me!?” he shouts as he runs off. This of course, pokes fun at the way parents tend to overemphasize the “don’t talk to strangers” rule to the point where it can create even more anxiety in children, when the primary goal is their safety. Even though Tweek is a funny character, he does make the viewer feel a little bit stressed out and anxious just because of his complete inability to relax. I think it’s funny how a show like South Park can so accurately represent themes like fear, paranoia, and anxiety that we see regularly in society. I think sometimes it takes humor for people to really step back and consider how effective their approach to the world around them really is.

The Final Girl

In class the other day we noted that often in the sub-genre of slasher films, the girl who survives is The Good Girl” the virgin, while all the more promiscuos girls are surely going to be killed. In this clip from Scream, we are taught some of the rules to survive a horror movie.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-q-AWD_8AY" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

From the first two rules layed out in this slasher film parody, we learn sinning (by either sex, drugs, or alcohol) is what get you killed. This might support the approach that the slasher film is preaching conservative ideals, and that the killer (much like Thursday’s group discussed about Michael Myers) is restoring order amongst the chaos.

However, there are many other
explanations that offer a different perspective in explaing the virgin survives phenomenom. One thing to note is that almost always, the lead of a slasher film is a female. In fact there is a phrase coined for the final survivor of horror flicks, as The Final Girl. Therefore, the female lead needs to be explained.

One popular explanation helps explain why the Final Girl is often a virgin. In horror films in order to deepen the anxiety and terror of the film (which is the point of horror films, either that or to laugh at them but thats a different story) the main charachter has to show terror, fear, and essentially scream; which a man lead can not do (as men are never allowed to be afraid even when chased by an axe bearing lunatic). However, as this genre is more male orientended, and the lead at the end has to portray some characteristics more often associated with males, such as the bravery and aggression to use violence and weaponry, it is important for the lead to not to be too feminine. Therefore, her sexuality is mininimized and she often is made into virgin , often with a unisex name, so the male viewer can view her as a somewhat more masculated hero. That is why the more feminine characters are killed off. (This idea is somewhat derived from Carol Clover theory on the Final Girl, the term she coined).

I also found this song on youtube that is written about the Final Girl of horror flicks from 70s and 80s. Doesn’t offer much content but thought I’d share it.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/sP8nT2QQp5k" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Presidential Campaign Ads

In our last class, we watched the famous LBJ “Peace, Little Girl” commerical, where fear was used to collect votes. This was still during the time in the Cold War, when the American people were afraid of a nuclear holocaust. It is intresting to compare this ad with another Presidential  campaign ad, that of (the great) Ronald Reagan.

Remember that the bear is the symbol for Russia.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/NpwdcmjBgNA" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
  It is interesting to see these ads reflected each ones respective time period, within the cold war.  LBJ – fear of the USSR, Reagan – prepared for peace.

Those “Bull”headed Americans…

After the presentation on Thursday, I was inspired to ask my Ukrainian born mother if she too remembered encountering any pro-communist, anti-American cartoons while she was growing up. She seemed a little dazed by the question, as if she had never even considered before that there were such cartoons. Of course I forgot the name of the cartoon we watched in class and therefore had no hard evidence to present to her. However, I continued to press on. Did she really not remember any propaganda filled cartoons filled with innocent looking, communist dancing/singing happy go lucky creatures facing some horrible, gun blasting, cruel American soldier looking monsters? She affirmed that she did not.
Three possibilities occurred to me. A: My mother really never watched such cartoons. Considering that TV time was limited and my mother was a scholastic over achiever, this is definitely possible. B: My mother has Americanized herself to a point that she actually has forgotten certain memorable animated features of her youth – also possible. Or, C: Russian filmmakers/cartoonists were exceptionally gifted at hiding their true intentions and thus able to make the common public believe that they were in fact watching an innocent cartoon and not partaking in a political ploy to control the masses. For the benefit of this blog entry, I decided to go with C. A & B really don’t leave much to talk about.
Naturally, even my mother had to agree that there was strong political backlash against America during the Cold War years. There were military parades throughout the Soviet Union, sending a message out to the world of “Don’t mess. We got guns.” Stalin would regularly entertain passionate monologues spurring anti-American sentiments on the radio. Americans were usually perceived as ungrateful, uneducated, and ignorant. However, all this did not surprise me. I wanted the real dirty stuff – the cartoons!
In my quest for animated truth, I stumbled upon possibly the most blatantly anti-American media item I have ever encountered.

So for those of you who will not watch the full 10 minute cartoon, though I STRONGLY suggest you do since it’s really actually funny, this animated feature tells a most remarkable tale. The story itself is based on a poem by Sergei Mihalkov, a Russian author of children’s literature. Basically, an old rich American woman dies. Her intense greediness and impracticalness leads her to leave a million dollars to her bulldog. (Leona Helmsley anyone?!!!) This dog essentially buys his way into power and becomes a member of Congress. The moral of the story is that in America money can buy everything and government officials don’t require a very high intelligence.
So after my initial crack up at the cartoon, I began to ponder if people took this stuff seriously. Ok, sometimes I too feel certain Congressmen aren’t the brightest of people. After all, my favorite quote is Mark Twain’s “Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” But deep down I have respect for the system. However, Russians during the cold war era probably did not. Thus, cartoons such as this one must have left them with a very odd impression of Americans. While back home, we were thinking communists were anti-family, anti-business, etc…, they were thinking we were rich, lazy, and mentally handicapped. We thought we were fighting dangerous villains and they thought they were arguing with developmentally challenged Westerners. No wonder nobody won!

P.S. Before I end off, I would like to let you all know that I found the cartoon we watched in class and showed it to my mother. She had in fact never watched it. Moreover, the dark people we thought were Americans she actually identified as Germans. America was depicted in one scene but very briefly.

Obamaism- taking away our freedoms

After Thursday’s class discussion, I got thinking about socialism and Obama.  Being politically conservative myself (dare I publish that?), I heard all the talk about Obama being a socialist and turning this country into a Communist state.  I won’t say that there is zero truth in that, but I do recognize it as typical conservative anti-Obama propaganda (aka Obama trash talk).

I decided to do a couple of Google searches on “Obama” and “socialist”, expecting quite a number of wacky websites to pop up…which it did.  On one of them ( http://obamaism.blogspot.com/ if you’re interested) I found a couple of videos which eventually led me to this:

Interestingly, this video was not made for the McCain campaign.  It was made before anyone even knew who Obama was…in fact, before he was even born.  It was made in 1948 by Harding College, a conservative Christian college in Arkansas.  In 1948, they saw the spreading Communism as a threat to the “American way” and the values we share.  They responded by creating this captivating cartoon to convince the American people to think critically about the way of life they have now and how it can change for the worse with the introduction of Communism.

(As an interesting sidenote, one of the main proofs they use as an American capitalistic success is the thriving automobile industry in the US that has created many jobs and boosted the economy at large.  60 years later, the US government had to save the ailing industry and until today it’s seen as a main drag on the economy.)

The Red Scare and the Hollywood Blacklist: For Tuesday

As you’ll see on the calendar page, our viewing for Tuesday is The Front, a 1976 comedy starring Woody Allen about McCarthyism’s impact on the entertainment industry and Trumbo, a 2007 documentary about Dalton Trumbo, a well known screenwriter who was blacklisted but continued to write and and win awards under psuedonyms. Both are available for streaming on Netflix.

Also, please take a look the following films. Together, they’ll give you some additional context for the two films as well as our reading from Whitfield’s The Culture of the Cold War. Most of these are already in our Delicious feed.

“Hollywood ‘Red’ Probe Begins, 1947/10/20 (1947)” A newsreel on the beginning of HUAC’s probe of alleged communist activity and influence in Hollywood.
I Married a Communist(a.k.a. The Woman on Pier 13)(1949). An RKO feature starring Robert Ryan and an exemplary red scare propaganda film along with My Son John and I Was A Communist for the FBI.

“The Hollywood Ten” (1950), a 16mm short critical of McCarthyism and the blacklist. The director, John Berry, was blacklisted after the film’s release and fled to France where he worked until his return to the US in the 1970s.

“Make Mine Freedom” (1948). A propaganda cartoon on the virtues of democracy and what Americans stand to lose if communism should prevail.
“Communism,” a 1952 educational film about the threat of Soviet Communism.

Draculas

For our discussion today, here’s the trailer for the 1938 rerelease of Universal’s Dracula (1931) directed by Tod Browning. The whole film is available in parts on Youtube and for instant streaming in Netflix.

Here is a trailer for Francis Ford Coppola‘s 1992 Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Note how this trailer emphasizes the truly supernatural qualities of the vampire that Phillips says made the 1931 version particularly terrifying to contemporary audiences.

And here is the full version of Murnau’s 1922 expressionist take on the famous vampire, Nosferatu (1922), which was discussed in some detail in our reading:

Note the difference in appearance between . . .

Max Schreck’s Dracula in Murnau’s film and

Bela Lugosi’s dapper aristocratic Dracula in Browning’s. We’ll discuss Phillips’ take on this difference in class.