Do Trailers Spoil Movies?

Posted on October 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm

My friend and fellow critic Kevin McCarthy has a blog post about a woman who filed a lawsuit accusing the “Drive” trailer of false advertising.  She claims the studio, FilmDistrict, misled her into thinking that it would be a car chase movie like “Fast Five.”  Does this trailer say that to you?

There’s more talking in it than racing.  And while the movie does not have a lot of driving, it certainly plays an important role and it is not like the movie fails to provide action.

In any event, trailers have one purpose, and it is not to provide an accurate summary of the movie.  It is to get you to buy a ticket.  Like Kevin, I find that while I do not like it when trailers misrepresent the movie, the bigger problem is when they give away too much.  So, like Kevin, I recommend skipping them, though I often can’t resist them myself.

Related Tags:

 

Commentary Understanding Media and Pop Culture
The Pediatricians Really Mean It: No TV, Movies, or Computers for Under-Twos

The Pediatricians Really Mean It: No TV, Movies, or Computers for Under-Twos

Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:00 am

The American Academy of Pediatrics has said it again.  They do not recommend any screen time for children under two.  They first issued this recommendation in 1999.  But in the last 12 years, family media use has skyrocketed.

The temptation to rely on media screens to entertain babies and toddlers is more appealing than ever, with screens surrounding families at home, in the car, and even at the grocery store. And there is no shortage of media products and programming targeted to little ones….In a recent survey, 90 percent of parents said their children under age 2 watch some form of electronic media.  On average, children this age watch televised programs one to two hours per day. By age 3, almost one third of children have a television in their bedroom. Parents who believe that educational television is “very important for healthy development” are twice as likely to keep the television on all or most of the time.

The new report finds:

  • Many video programs for infants and toddlers are marketed as “educational,” yet evidence does not support this. Quality programs are educational for children only if they understand the content and context of the video. Studies consistently find that children over 2 typically have this understanding.
  • Unstructured play time is more valuable for the developing brain than electronic media. Children learn to think creatively, problem solve, and develop reasoning and motor skills at early ages through unstructured, unplugged play. Free play also teaches them how to entertain themselves.
  • Young children learn best from—and need—interaction with humans, not screens.
  • Parents who watch TV or videos with their child may add to the child’s understanding, but children learn more from live presentations than from televised ones.
  • When parents are watching their own programs, this is “background media” for their children. It distracts the parent and decreases parent-child interaction. Its presence may also interfere with a young child’s learning from play and activities.
  • Television viewing around bedtime can cause poor sleep habits and irregular sleep schedules, which can
  • adversely affect mood, behavior and learning.
  • Young children with heavy media use are at risk for delays in language development once they start
  • school, but more research is needed as to the reasons.

The report recommends that parents and caregivers:

  • Set media limits for their children before age 2, bearing in mind that the AAP discourages media use for this age group. Have a strategy for managing electronic media if they choose to engage their children with it;
  • Instead of screens, opt for supervised independent play for infants and young children during times that a parent cannot sit down and actively engage in play with the child. For example, have the child play with nesting cups on the floor nearby while a parent prepares dinner;
  • Avoid placing a television set in the child’s bedroom; and
  • Recognize that their own media use can have a negative effect on children.

My own recommendations: no television in children’s bedrooms, during meals, or in car rides under two hours, no earphones in the car, no television as background noise or for adults to watch while children are around.  Set an example by letting your children, even the toddlers, see you talking, playing, exercising, reading, listening to music, and sitting down on the floor to help them play with blocks and toys.  One of the most important lessons they will learn is how we decide what is important.

Related Tags:

 

Parenting Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Tide Commercial Gets It Wrong About Moms, Daughters, and Gender Roles

Posted on October 7, 2011 at 3:42 pm

I try to maintain a sense of humor about ads, but I really do not like the new series of commercials for Tide with people explaining how they get their clothes dirty.  I know they are intended to be funny but I find them annoying and the one with the “girly” mom complaining about her cargo-pants-wearing daughter really bugged me.  So I was very pleased to see a very thoughtful commentary on the Tide ad from Lauren R. of Representing America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9LTRbWsGOI&feature=player_embedded

Tide may be making fun of this stereotypical perfectionist housewife. The elaborately decorated living room, the pink cardigan, sensible haircut; it all fits. Is this commercial trying to present satire? If so, I don’t think that they were obvious enough about doing so.

The satire presented is also sexist in its own way. The mother is portrayed as uptight, reserved, and repressed to the point of (maybe?) being humorous….Either way you look at it, this ad is probably sending the wrong message.

Who are they making fun of here?  The little girl in the cargo pants who likes to get dirty or the mother who wants her to wear pink?  Either way, it is definitely sending the wrong message.

Related Tags:

 

Advertising Commentary Understanding Media and Pop Culture
Reality TV: Pro and Con

Reality TV: Pro and Con

Posted on October 4, 2011 at 8:00 am

“Does Reality Television Do More Harm Than Good?”

Fans and foes of reality television and fans of the art of argument and persuasion of all kinds will want to tune in as the debate teams from Harvard and Columbia rev up that long-time Boston/New York competition when they take on reality television in what is being billed as “a war of words and wit” (and a form of reality television as well).  Many of these programs, like shallow voyeurism, mesmerize and inspire shameless curiosity. It is a genre replete with confrontations and the dramatic, ranging from the breakup of friendships to the implosion of marriages.

Some exceptions seem to have risen from the clutter, finding favor with fans and critics alike with uplifting content. Yet the entire genre continues to spark controversy, and generate questions. What is the real impact of reality television? Is it just a passing fad? And what does the fascination reveal about our society, and the people who watch?

Halogen TV, a network dedicated to socially-conscious entertainment, invites you to join the conversation and decide where you stand on the issue during “Does Reality Television Do More Harm Than Good?”– a debate between team members from The Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society and The Parliamentary Debate Society of Columbia University. The event provides an opportunity for some of the finest minds in America to consider all sides of the issue, and, in the process, reflect on television in general, and its potential to shape our worldview.

Those in the New York area can join them tonight.  “Cocktails + Conversation” begins at 7:30pm on Tuesday, October 4th at The Crosby Street Hotel in New York City.  The debate will be available for viewing on the Halogen website by Friday.

Related Tags:

 

Television Understanding Media and Pop Culture
Mindy Kaling on Women in Movies

Mindy Kaling on Women in Movies

Posted on September 28, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Producer/writer/actress Mindy Kaling of “The Office” has a great piece in the New Yorker about women characters in movies.

hat I’d really like to write is a romantic comedy. This is my favorite kind of movie. I feel almost embarrassed revealing this, because the genre has been so degraded in the past twenty years that saying you like romantic comedies is essentially an admission of mild stupidity. But that has not stopped me from enjoying them.

I like watching people fall in love onscreen so much that I can suspend my disbelief in the contrived situations that occur only in the heightened world of romantic comedies. I have come to enjoy the moment when the male lead, say, slips and falls right on top of the expensive wedding cake. I actually feel robbed when the female lead’s dress doesn’t get torn open at a baseball game while the JumboTron camera is on her. I regard romantic comedies as a subgenre of sci-fi, in which the world operates according to different rules than my regular human world. For me, there is no difference between Ripley from “Alien” and any Katherine Heigl character. They are equally implausible. They’re all participating in a similar level of fakey razzle-dazzle, and I enjoy every second of it.

Kaling describes some of the outlandish categories assigned to women characters from the clumsy klutz (“When a beautiful actress is cast in a movie, executives rack their brains to find some kind of flaw in the character she plays that will still allow her to be palatable. She can’t be overweight or not perfect-looking, because who would pay to see that? A female who is not one hundred per cent perfect-looking in every way? You might as well film a dead squid decaying on a beach somewhere for two hours.  So they make her a Klutz.”) to the ethereal weirdo, the career-obsessed no-fun girl, the skinny beautiful woman who eats all the time, the “mother” of the young actor who is only a few years older than he is (Jessie Royce Landis was actually the same age as Cary Grant when she played his mother in “North by Northwest”), and the girl who works in an art gallery because “It’s in the same realm as kindergarten teacher or children’s-book illustrator in terms of accessibility: guys don’t really get it, but it is likable and nonthreatening.”

Read the piece to see what the guy-equivalent of art gallery worker is and why it is just as unrealistic.

Related Tags:

 

Understanding Media and Pop Culture
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik