THB: The film "Catfish" has done more harm than good.

"They used to tank cod from Alaska all the way to China. 

They'd keep them in vats in the ship. 

By the time the codfish reached China, the flesh was mush and tasteless. 

So this guy came up with the idea that if you put these cods in these big vats, 

put some catfish in with them

  that the catfish will keep the cod agile.

And there are those people who are catfish in life. 

And they keep you on your toes. 

They keep you guessing, 

they keep you thinking, 

they keep you fresh. 

And I thank god for the catfish 

because we would be droll, 

boring 

and dull 

if we didn't have somebody nipping at our fin."

- Vince Pierce

Poetry?  Perhaps.  Scripted?  Maybe. And that's why I like this "documentary," and chose it as a rare film that actually generates discussion.   We don't have to like "Catfish" to have an opinion on it, and I think there are clear debate motions we can deduce.

I've now watched this film at least 4 times, on my own and with all three debate classes, and every time I've noticed something new that causes me to doubt the legitimacy of it.  I think the filmmakers have performed some clever "sleight of hand" to magically manufacture what they claim as "100% true."  Ironically, I think Angela might be the most "real" thing in this story.  She was genuinely awkward, genuinely taken by surprise, and genuinely infatuated with Nev.  But how real was Nev?  Does this trailer do justice to the actual film, or simply mislead audiences to assume it would be "cyber horror"?  Already, we can see this film walks an uneven path.

Nev, along with his brother and Henry, are filmmakers.  Filmmakers make films - and this is something we have to keep in mind.  In Catfish, we meet Nev as a good looking, charismatic guy in his early 20's, who has an interest in the arts.  He lives in downtown New York, meets dancers on a regular basis, and probably has no problem attracting women in the real world.  So why on line?
Supposedly, he falls in love with "Meg" through Facebook, and communicates with her by phone and internet for 8 months.  She's only 19, lives in a small town on the other side of the country, and there really isn't much that SHOULD make this romance work.  So my question -  why pursue it?  In my opinion, the answer is simple - so he could make a film, be invited to Cannes film festival, and rake in thousands of dollars.  And all those things occurred (at least for the filmmakers).

If not entirely fake, I think the film was "reverse engineered" - rationalized and/or staged to fit the criteria of a great story.  It seems like a journey of illumination, when in fact it was always a hunt.  A hunt to exploit an obvious imposter who really just wanted to make her life more interesting.  

Some red flags that I don't think the filmmakers can explain: webcameras have been standard features on computers for more than a decade.  Wouldn't it be natural for this couple to use one?  Or at least a personal video from a camera?  Furthermore, Angela doesn't strike me as that effective a writer.  All her Facebook entities were too good to be true, and they all signed off from their messages similarly.  They all sounded the same.  Elaborate and creative - yes, but a genius liar?  Not at all.  I simply don't buy that Nev had no idea.  I think he and his brother and Henry knew very well they were dealing with a fake, and they invited her to expand her story.  It was never really a film to be made about Abby.

So I do think they crossed a line, and we can see that they, along with Universal Pictures, spent at least a couple of years hashing out the details - a long legal process of getting permission and tracking down the models Angela assembled in her story.  Despite the potential damage this film might have caused Angela's family, we can assume that all would be forgiven in the name of financial opportunity for everyone involved.  Clearly, Angela's art career has taken off a bit, as we can see from this YouTube video.  It's weird, and I have no idea why these people made it the way they did (because they are weird to?), but Angela actually DOES appear in person near the end.  Why Nev and "Megan" never exchanged this kind of thing is a big question mark for me:

To say the least, there is no shortage of discussion and intrigue for you to discuss in your next CR.  Your first stop should be Wikipedia, followed by IMDB, and even Rotten Tomatoes.   You can even visit Nev at Facebook, and see Angela's art site.  YouTube has tons of follow up, and Angela was even on 20/20. 

So, have some fun with this CR, and I'd like us all to debate this in class.  Lot's to work with!

Friday 11l1 - CR#6.5 from Youngsoo

A word from Garrioch:


This is probably one of the more accessible and immediately inspiring talks on TED that I've seen in a while, and I'm glad Youngsoo liked it.  He has some good thoughts on "real communication" below.  

Some background: Sherry Turkle was part of a team at MIT who conceptualized the "home computer" before they could actually fit inside a house.  So for her to say that today's technology has outstripped their wildest predictions, we are encouraged to put things into perspective.  What's next?  What will our kids classrooms look like?  Have we reached a plateau, or will we end up like The Veldt as Ray Bradbury predicted?

I was born in the 70's, and didn't get internet access until I was in high school.  You guys, born in the 90's, got wired in elementary school.  By middle school you probably began social networking, and will probably continue that trend until you're too old to see a screen.  Bits and pieces of your entire personal history will be online, and you'll be able to check what you had for lunch in 2010 when it's 2050. Which reminds me of the term "screenager."  Screen plus teen.  

But who isn't a screenager these days?  Screens are everywhere, and suddenly became interactive with iPhones and tablets.  We have screens in our pockets, in our cars, in our elevators, and in our schools.  So what's next?  When can we implant them under our eyelids?


Even at KMLA, we see an education system that hasn't adapted to students equipped with laptops.  We have rules for Only English, which we regulate religiously; but in my opinion it is computers  and sleep which have a far more negative impact on communication.    So do check out this video, and consider how we can link it to the movie, Catfish.

 CR#6.5 from Youngsoo:

Critical Response: Development in communication technology makes people more lonely.

     Now, this was a kind of clue given by Mr. Garrioch while I was still finding my way, and the fact is I really got into this speech. It's not a hard task, in fact, to see friends or family members or some other acquaintances so engrossed in text messages or some chatting apps in the iPhone. Seemingly, such a drastic development in communication technology tightened our relationships with each other; we can now talk more freely with our friends while comfortably lying on a bed, which is a blissful thing for a more convenient conversations. However, it actually brought some drawbacks as well, as the lecturer here, Sherry Turkle, mentions; we are also very prone to a new kind of loneliness created by this strange mood. What is the real conversation for? Isn't it that we are too obsessed with our own cell phones that we are so anxious about feeling lonely when they may disappear?

     I believe that this issue is not only concerend with cell phone text messages or e-mails, but also with social networking services such as Twitter or Facebook. I have worried a bit that whether those ways of communication are really used as online media of "real talks" or simply a place where you feel that you are commnunicating by simply "liking" somebody's photos and so on. I want you all to seriously think about if the communication technology today is really making people closer, or making them simply more vulnerable to loneliness.

11-C Tuesday: Critical Response #6

UPDATED - SCORES:

Great work 11C Tuesday.  You are a small group but your effort is most impressive.  This wasn't the easiest or most inspiring CR to respond to (no offense to JH) - but you all managed to write insightful posts and have a good in-class discussion (sometimes more effective and satisfying than a debate).  

Class 11C-Tuesday	C.R.#6
Scorsese	9.8/10
Spielberg	9.6/10
Hitchcock	9.3/10
Kubrick	9.3/10
Tarantino	9.7/10

NOTE - Only for 11-C Tuesday.  Other classes can comment as well and do extra CR's (that's great to see) but we should avoid confusion.  You MUST do the ones your class members come up with.  Extra ones are optional.   


From Joohyung:

The topic for my Critical Response, from TED.com, is "Johanna Blakley: Social media and the end of gender."

She is talking about the old network system and the influence of new social media on gender.
She argues that social media applications (that we all know and love, or love to hate) are actually going to help free us from some of the absurd assumptions that we have as a society about gender. Social media is actually going to help us dismantle some of these silly stereotypes.
It is good to see; however, I think it is highly biased toward women's roles only.  We should think about what causes the real end of intolerance between gender.

These are my brief notes.


1. On social networking sites, people tend to 'network' more with their peer group. So, if I am a college student there would be all sorts of college guys and girls in my friend list. Even if social media demographics continue (and will continue) to hold relevance. So, I don't agree with the broad premise of this talk - that aggregation would shift towards 'interest groups.'

2. It's an interesting observation for marketers that women spend more time on social media sites. Even my personal observation is aligned with this. Just spending more time, however, does not entail interaction with the adverts placed within social media. What is the likelihood of a person following an advert? Maybe this is something we can direct our research towards finding. In a way, the talk is contradicting. The speaker talks about the 'end of gender' and in the end establishes the importance to target females  - and how social media and affiliates should consider them.

______________________________________

Garrioch's Critical Response:

While I think her ideas are interesting, and she has identified some interesting trends regarding social networking and how media is responding to all these new possibilities (for better - which I can agree with), I think she's making some pretty big claims that sound more amazing than they actually are.  An end to gender?  Of course we can't take this literally, and we aren't meant to.  But does the foot of her research fit the shoe of her assumptions? 

In some cultures, her ideas might stand out and be more groundbreaking than others.  Maybe in Muslim countries. But in America, where the playing field is fairly equal for men and women, using the word "feminist" is sensitive and has to be reserved for when and where it is truly needed.   Feminism and Facebook in the same sentence? Maybe, but I'm not convinced by what she reveals (or nearly reveals) in her speech.  Maybe 7 minutes isn't long enough to set the table for what she really wants to say.

We don't have to argue the fact that women use Facebook more than men.  Women like to communicate more actively than men.  Women shop more online and pay more attention to new products than men.  But does that break down the stereotypical views a company might have about how to serve a target market? There are TV shows specifically geared towards genders, and that will never change.  And why should it?  At the end of the day is this going to impact the issues that really matter in society?  Not really.  

After watching this TED Talk, I didn't have any strong impression of what Blakely was saying. Compared to Robinson's message of creativity, this message of "women are going to dominate media" is not that groundbreaking.  Women have been strong players in media for a long time.  I'd be more interested if she was discussing a minority group.

Interested in hearing what others had to say about Blakley's views, I went to YouTube to see the comments for this same video.  The good and the bad regarding comments on YouTube:  lot's of stupidity but also a lot of candid insights - which are ranked with a "top comment" near the top.  I was happy to see someone agreed with me here:

Top Comments

• I believe that gender stereotypes are moving more and more towards being a thing of the past.
  Nevertheless, this talk is quite unpersuasive - Blakley only talks on how social media is changing our lives; then show a statistic that women use social media more than man (which btw doesn't have anything to do with her suggestion that women are driving the "social revolution").
  Bottomline: Blakley does little to defend her statement that social media will free us from assumptions about gender.
  parachucha 3 months ago 11
   
• @juditK2007 Do you think that everyone, who is critical of TEDwomen is a sexist reactionary?
  I gave this talk a thumbs down, because it was slightly incoherent. She loosely outlined some trends, which she interpreted a little poorly. For example, if women constitute 55% of the general population, they SHOULD comprise 55% of social networks. It doesn't demonstrate increased female influence. It just follows from the density of the population. She let her internal agenda color her conclusion.
  t3tsuyaguy1 3 months ago 9

So - please complete your CR's BEFORE next class, and see what you come up with.  This one is a bit tough.8) 

11-C Wednesday: Debate Feedback and CR#6

This was an okay debate, and it seems most of you had a pretty good base knowledge of the issue.  Here are the scores for this debate and for CR#6.  You can see Seungchol's and Daeun's flowsheets on their blogs.   If you were a judge and haven't done anything with those yet, please get those flowsheets emailed or posted much sooner than later please.

Above is a poster for another documentary made by Morgan Spurlock.  Kind of ironic.  I've never seen it, but would like to.  I thought some of you might be interested to know that this film does in face exist.

11C – Wednesday	Debate 6	CR#6
Zerus	8.9	9.0
Paralta	9.1	9.2
Tarsonis	9.3	9.7
Shakuras	*9.0	9.3
Albion
Terran	9.4	9.7
Halcyon	9.3	9.6
Aridas	*9.3	9.3
Cerebus		9.7
Maltair	9.3	9.4
Roxara	*9.2

 

MOTION: THB: The assassination of Osama Bin Laden was justified.
Date:6/19/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Seungmin		Changwoo
Delivery	8.9 /10	Posture and overall delivery needs to improve.  Need to prepare more.   Good clear speech.	9.0 /10	Pretty decent and very clear approach.
Arguments	8.9 /10	Some people believe Osama’s assassination can be justified for several reasons.  Osama = terrorist, who committed 9/11.  Assassination = killing without procedure. Arg 1 – Killing Osama protects human rights. Arg 2 – Sends message to other terrorists. Arg 3 – Prevents further terrorism under Bin Laden. Protection of human rights – Bin Laden destroys this notion.  Because of him, many have died. Saving lives by killing him. Secondly – sends strong message to the public.  9/11 created terror.  By assassinating him, we created awareness and prevention. Without this act, terrorism is reduced.  (Public in not aware about terror. (??? I’d say they are.))  TIME: 4:33	9.1 /10	Humans are social animals…. (??? Odd intro). So we believe the assassination is not justified.  Rebuttal 1 – protecting human rights?  But even killers have the right to be heard by the law.  Rebuttal 2 – Strong message to the people? Tread on a worm and it will turn.  Even when a strong thing attacks a weaker one, the wheel of revenge is set in motion.  (Rebuttals undernourished – need more.  But really the Leader of the Opp should not be rebutting – but instead clarifying or objecting to certain claims made towards the motion by the PM.  Let the deputy handle initial rebuttal.) Arg 1 – Disobeys international laws. Arg 2- Against morality. Arg 3 – Creates more terrorism. Arg 1 – US government did not alert Pakistan.  Obvious abuse of law.  Innocent until proven guilty – even for Bin Laden.  Nazis and Hussein were heard – why not Bin Laden?  Arg 2 – Loss of morality.  Mission was to kill him, not capture him.  This is not justified.  Bin Laden was not armed.  Almost no resistance according the US government.  So it was not essential to kill him.  The US government is committing a crime. TIME: 4:59
Notes	Tot 16.9 /20		Tot 18.1 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jegug	Pts	Wonhyuk
Delivery	9.3 /10	Good work and effective calm delivery.  Just one weak area in the arguments.	9.3 /10	Excellent.  Good delivery.  Good arguments.
Arguments	9.2 /10	First rebuttal – Terrorists have rights?  Yes they do, but civilians do as well – and we have to respect these above those of terrorists.  Second rebuttal – This assassination will create more terrorists?  But we are being strong against them.  That sends a message.  NYT Article – security has been tripled at airports.  This makes things more safe.  Argument – This is WAR against terrorists.  In times of war we kill our opponents.  We can’t stop and think too much.  We can’t trust Pakistan’s government, so why alert them?  You say Bin Laden has a right to trial – but look at the videos where Bin Laden admits to his actions?  We are beyond a need for a trial. (Good arguments here).  HE was not unnamred.  He had guards etc., and this was an offensive against US troops.  So this does mean he was unnarmed in essence. Argument – We need speedy action to do what we need to do.  Scenario – what if Bin Laden escapes?  He was able to create 9/11, so we can’t underestimate him.  He’s dangerous.  We don’t know what could have happened.  Scenario 2 – he creates more terror EVEN while under custody.  IF he is dead, the possibilities are reduced for further actions.  These trials take time – maybe 4 years?  Advocates of Bin Laden might have gathered to a cause, him becoming a symbol.  What if he was set free??? (I don’t think that’s a fathomable scenario or risk – not effective for this debate).  Prompt action was necessary and justified. TIME: 6:00	9.3 /10	We on the opp. disagree.  Mistakes that GOV just made.  Human rights – murders and criminals still have rights.  We make these promises, so we should keep them.  Rebuttal – Sending a message to terrorists.  Like capital punishment – we say this sends a message.  But is it effective?  We believe murdering terrorists is not effective to reducing them as a risk.  If anything, it creates anger among them and cause for revenge.  SEUNGCHAN – POI – We didn’t have to kill him Arg – Assassination was without purpose.  Taking down a symbol of terrorism to send a message.  Murdering Bin Laden has only created revenge mission.  We could have used him for information, so killing him makes no sense.  Unlawful, and also ineffective. Why did they kill him?  If we see the emotional outcry of favor and celebration, we see the real reasons they did it.  To become popular.  Even our vision trips are at risk.  What the US has done is foolish.  TIME: 5:20
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20		Tot 18.6 /20
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Seungchan	Pts	Sumin
Delivery	9.3 /10	Nice work, but a bit repetitive to what was already stated by Jegug.	9.4 /10	Good as always.  Preamble a good idea but analogy not so strong.  Time management issues – way too long.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Today the OPP stood up for terrorism and human rights of them.  (Interesting emotional appeal).  First clash – human rights of these criminals.  WE are in a WAR – in this case we have the right to kill the enemy.  Human rights must not be protected as they have already abused those of others.  The US has no obligation to care about these terrorists. Not the same as a simple murder or incident that lacks clear details.  The US did not get permission?  Because we can’t trust the Pakistan government.  Do we really have to let Bin Laden have his say?  That’s is not helpful.  Even if he is disarmed, we can’t consider this.  When the US troops moved in, they were confronted with gunfire.  We can’t actually capture these individuals. Need for speedy action – court process does not help.  Escape is possible.  What if terrorists help him escape?  Clearly Bin Laden has continued to plan terror – so we can’t risk this process of judicial decision. You say we instigate more terrorism – but if we allow a court date we would even create MORE anger.  Assassination is justified. TIME: 5:30	9.3 /10	Let’s say that a kid is sick in bed with a cold.  So you give him ice and cool him down.  But you won’t cure his cold.  This is a short term remedy, and like this the GOV is arguing a short term remedy to terrorism.  TWO main clashes – efficiency and righteous cause. Efficiency – GOV has agreed that Osama is a symbol.  Perhaps killing him will create a short term dilemma for terrorists – BUT in the long term chaos will result.  Laws not followed, and revenge incurred.  Terrorists will retaliate.  In Pakistan, things have already started – destruction.  If you make friends with a bully, you should hit him back, right? Not in this case.  The international community should agree to these things.  Prop has also argued this.  Osama will only be replaced.  Killing him won’t really hurt the terrorists.  It will only fan the flames.  Proper proceedings – NOT followed.  Yes, he confessed to 9/11.  Regardless, we assume he is innocent until proven guilty.  We still have to obey this.  The law says all must be put on a trial.  Justice can’t be achieved like this in an eye for an eye sense. Disorder has only been created from this.  Second Clash – US just does what I wants selectively.
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20		Tot 18.7 /20