The Art of the Essay

The Kardashians. Snooki. Spencer Pratt. Honey Boo Boo. Just to mention a few of today’s “stars” who’ve risen to fame with little more than a part in reality TV. Over the years, reality TV has gained its fair (or maybe more than fair) share of followers. Reality TV is rumored to have started as early as 1948 with a show called “Candid Camera” that put hidden cameras in unexpected places and filmed pranks and people’s reactions to them. But, it wasn’t until MTV’s “The Real World” premiered in the 1990’s that reality TV really took off. Since then, reality TV has spanned to fulfill almost any interest. We tune in once a week to see who can lose the most weight. We text and call in votes for our favorite singers or dancers across various TV networks. We might even cry in happiness when someone finds her perfect wedding dress. But what once started as a fun, light-hearted way of entertainment has now become a dangerous trap.

Americans now spend almost a quarter of their leisure time watching some sort of reality TV; we as a society have become captured in its captivating vortex. In 2000, more people tuned in to watch the premiere season of “Survivor” than those watching Barack Obama’s inauguration (27 million vs. 20.6 million). In recent decades, reality shows have virtually surpassed all else, revealing some pretty shocking consequences. Nowadays we tune in for two hours to watch the newest Bachelor meet his potential suitors for the first time. We watch highschoolers bring their children into the world. We even watch a bunch of twenty-something-year-olds get drunk, go to bars, and do stupid things. What started as funny pranks and talent searches became a spotlight on behavior that is detrimental to our youth.

Studies have shown that watching reality TV has some startling negative effects on its faithful watchers; reality TV promotes bad behavior and poor social skills in its viewers. Of the girls who participated in the recent Girl Scout Research Institute’s survey, 86% felt that reality shows pit girls against each other to be more interesting and 70% felt that reality TV leads people to think it’s acceptable to treat other people badly. Also, alarmingly more reality-TV-watchers than non-watchers agreed that “you have to lie to get what you want,” “being mean earns you more respect than being nice,” and “you have to be mean to others to get what you want.” And that’s just the start.

Reality TV has also been shown to expose youth to a high volume of extreme violence. In one hour of prime time, there are more than 5 violent scenes found in reality TV shows. Unfortunately, such scenes are what boost these shows’ ratings and therefore nothing it being done to stop them. From a bar brawl on Jersey Shore (that led to countless assault charges, might I add) to a lovers’ quarrel on Teen Mom (that led to felony charges of domestic violence), it’s all over reality TV. Such high occurrences of publicized violence give young watchers the impression that these behaviors are much more acceptable than they really are. But it doesn’t even stop there.

Even more concerning, reality TV has been shown to have a detrimental effect on its watchers’ self-images. The Girl Scout survey revealed more reality-TV-watching girls say they spend a lot of time on their appearance and 10% more of them said they’d rather be recognized for their outer beauty rather than inner beauty. Medical Procedure News released a study revealing that 9.2 million cosmetic procedures have been performed as a result of people watching reality TV shows. And, another study showed that eating disorders in teenage girls have tripled since the boom of reality TV at the turn of the century.

Even though there could be other factors contributing to the results of these disturbing studies, they do reveal some startling consequences that may be severely overlooked by our contemporary society. These reality TV shows that are supposed to be portraying relatable, real-life scenarios are actually just altering the general public’s perception of reality. These things that are seen too often and taken too lightly may one day be the reason for our youth’s decline. What once started off as innocent entertainment has now potentially become the start of some bad life lessons. What happens next is up to us.

Sources:

http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/tcom/faculty/ha/tcom103spring2002/gp8/

http://anhoward.wordpress.com/the-effect-reality-tv-is-having-on-us-shocking-statistics/

http://www.jobmonkey.com/realitytv/reality-tv-statistics.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/14/news/la-heb-girl-scouts-reality-tv-20111014

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/presidential-inauguration-draws-20-6-million-viewers.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/reality-tv-show-violence-real-life-consequences-teen/story?id=13256971

As you walk out of a movie theatre, you notice a young woman with a broken ankle struggling to pick up her crutches. Would you help her? This question seems heavily dependent on the individual being asked this question, but recent evidence shows that it may actually depend on the type of movie that the individual just watched in the theatre. However, the discussion of media should not remain within just the realm of film. Television also affects people significantly. Although the role of media in our lives may seem minimal, it changes us in a variety of ways.

Forms of media possibly responsible for altering behavior are television and film. Before discussing the effects of violence in television and film sources, it is important to analyze how the violence is portrayed. With regards to violence, a couple of trends illustrate the potential problems. Data shows that over half of television programs (58%-61%) feature violence while almost 90% of movies depict violence.[1] In addition, this violence is likely to become glamorized. Attractive perpetrators make up over a third of all violent confrontations and around 55% of all violence results in no pain to the victim. Having an attractive perpetrator is significant because it could possibly lead to a role-model situation for children. Also, with most of violent scenes being painless, the illusion of a “clean” and painless altercation forms in the viewers’ minds. This characterization of violence is dangerous due to the harsh reality of violence. Shooting someone with a gun will be painful and it will be bloody. When media removes this gruesome side of violence, the deterrent for violence removes itself from the equation. Another detrimental trend is that around 75% of violent scenes show no remorse, criticism, or penalty. With no repercussions for characters committing acts of violence, children may conclude that violence is okay. This is especially problematic because around 40% of violent scenes include humor with the aggressive actions. If violence has no negative consequences and other people see it as funny, then it is hard to see why violence is so bad. The trends with how violence is portrayed play a considerable role in how violence in media affects us.

The effect of violence in media is fairly obvious—exposure to violence contributes to aggressive behavior. This has been the conclusion of many professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, and the US Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee. However, increased aggressive behavior is not the only harmful effect. Increased exposure to violence also creates another harmful effect called desensitization. This refers to a decreased emotional response from repeated exposure to a negative stimulus. In this case, the stimulus is violence. Studies reveal that men that were shown a short violent film clip were less aroused by a video of real life violence than men that were shown a short sports clip. This shows that desensitization can occur even in a short amount of time. Another study demonstrated that not only are people desensitized to violence, but their attitudes for violence also change. In this instance, people have a decreased emotional response to violence, but they are also more likely to believe that violence was an acceptable response to the situation. This finding indicates that exposure to violence in media transform our attitudes and behaviors in the real world.

The earlier scenario depicting a young woman with a hurt ankle tested the time it took for the moviegoers to help her. There were four cases tested for this experiment. The first two consisted of introducing the woman before and after watching a nonviolent movie. The last two introduced the woman before and after watching a violent movie. Out of all four cases, the people that had just watched a violent movie took the longest time to help the woman.[2] These findings indicate that violent media make people “numb to the pain and suffering of others.” As shown in this study, violent media leads to the desensitization of the pain of others. This finding paints a bleak picture for the future if this trend were to continue. If people were no longer able to empathize with the suffering of others, then the world would surely become a less hospitable place. However, there are still opportunities for positive effects in media. Since media has been shown to be an influential source for learning, this could be used for educational learning. For example, Sesame Street has been shown to improve literacy of children.[3] In disadvantaged populations, educational television shows could be used as a teaching tool. The most important lesson to take away from this is that television and movies exhibit huge influences on people, especially children. While this influence could have beneficial effects, it could also contribute negatively to behaviors and attitudes. Television and film are relatively new phenomenon and future generations could have longer exposure to this media. If most of the films and television programs happen to be violent, then the future may not be a happy place. An empathetic population transforms a gathering of individuals into a community of people. Indifference towards the suffering of the people next to us only serves to break down the bonds of humanity. Unless we reduce our exposure to violent media, we may be headed down a dark road with only ourselves to keep us company.

Nate looked at me and exclaimed, “Wow I have so much adrenaline, I want to fight the next person I see. “ I agreed, “me too,” knowing we wouldn’t actually do it, but excited at the thought, nonetheless.  We had just watched 300: Rise of an Empire at a crowded movie theatre in Boulder, Colorado.  I’m sure many others have experienced the thrill Nate and I felt after watching an intense movie such as 300.

Whether it is racing expensive cars at dangerous speeds, shooting guns at bad guys, or having sex with supermodels, movies allow us to experience all the things we truly want to do but can’t because reality gets in the way.  When I was little my Dad and I would watch lots of action movies where shootouts were constant.  I would always tell my dad how I wanted to be in a shootout.  He would always reply, “If you got into a real shootout you would shit your pants.”  I might shit my pants, but I still think it would give me a cool adrenaline rush.  In fact, for most of my childhood, my friends and I would try to act like the characters we saw on the big screens and replicate what we saw.  We all had violent childhoods.  Growing up we saw men get gunned down everyday – in the movies and on television.  Naturally, by 4^th grade we each had an air soft gun (a gun that shoots a plastic bullet that hurts but won’t cause long term damage.)  Some of us had 20 and body armor.  And everyday after elementary school we would dress up in camo and shoot each other with plastic bullets.

A few times, air soft guns were used for more than just “friendly wars.”  There were these 2 kids from a nearby private school who lived in our town who did not get along my peers and I.  One time, our feud got especially heated.  Once my friend and I were walking when those two kids pulled up on bikes armed with air soft guns and began shooting at us.  We were hit multiple times and we ran into the forest.  An hour later, we had regrouped with more of our friends and all our guns.  We went by this kids house, and saw them playing basketball in the driveway.  We shot them multiple times and they ran into their house.  We returned to our friend’s house full of adrenaline and pride: feeling like we just killed the 2 of the most evil people in the world, when in reality, we just left a couple red marks on neighborhood kids.    Our replication of movies also included a pyro phase involving tiki oil and axe spray cans.  Also, I’m pretty sure in middle school I dropped lines I heard from movies on a number of girls.

Why did we enjoy movies so much and then try to replicate them in our actual lives?  It is because movies allow us to go beyond our reality, to escape constraints of our reality.  All of us have deep primal instincts that we cannot satisfy in reality.  I know my friend Nate would love to be a Spartan and fight a crazy battle like the one in 300.  But unfortunately, if Nate dressed up in armor and walked around wielding a sword he would either be arrested or forcefully mentally evaluated.  I would love to race expensive cars recklessly through the streets of Nashville, but reality doesn’t let me.  Getting chased by Metro PD would probably put my ambitions on hold.

As humans we have primal instincts that go unsatisfied.  We have fantasies that we cannot fulfill in reality.  Movies allow us to live these fantasies out –only if for a meager two hours.  We love movies because they allow us to escape our mundane and monotonous lives.  The man who is a fighter deep down, can be a fighter when he watches Fight Club.  The inner Ricky Bobby in my brother comes out for the 90 minutes when he watches Talladega Nights.  Movies are so essential to American life because they represent us.  At least versions of us that we are not able to live out in our normal lives.

I, like many of the audience’s members, was captivated by Jordan Belfort’s outrageous actions in one of this year’s most popular films The Wolf of Wallstreet. I was honestly impressed by his ability to make millions of dollars effortlessly albeit illegally. I mentally pleaded with him to stop abusing so many illicit drugs for the sake of his children. And I sat wide-eyed as he sank his seventy-foot yacht off of the Mediterranean Coast. However I, unlike many audience members, was not enthralled with the big screen production of this fast-paced tale, but rather by the paperback autobiography written by Jordan Belfort himself.

Simply put, books tell better stories than movies. For five hundred pages Jordan Belfort was able to fascinate me with his outrageous life. Through my own imagination I was able to hear the voice of The Wolf, of Nadine the Duchess, of his children Chandler and Carter by how I thought they should sound. I sat with the Strattonites as they watched one of their bosses eat a live fish in the middle of the boardroom and felt the shock with them. Books allow the reader to engage in the story and emotion in ways impossible for movies to simply show.  (Something I really struggle with is making my thesis clear, in my mind it’s “books tell better stories than movies”… was that clear to you guys?)

Something seems to always get lost in the movies. The transfer from imagination to expression is different for everyone. I find myself watching a movie adaptation of a book that I have resonated with thinking that is not how I imagined it. Something is lost in translation. (I was thinking about putting an example of how Daisy from The Great Gatsby was not how I imagined her to be. Do you guys think that is a good idea? Or do you think that more than one example would make the essay confusing?) There are two main elements to books: the story and the reader. It is a direct relationship where the reaction to the story depends entirely on the reader. Director preferences, acting abilities, set and production—all of these are variables could affect how the viewer receives the stories.

Movies also limit the time you can spend with the story. I can start a book whenever I want and spend as much time on it as I want. If something confuses me I can go back and reread it. When I am not physically with the book I can still think about the details, the characters, and most important, the story.

So why do we turn books into movies anyways? Books already have a fan base, so they’re easy to get excited about. According to Entertainment Weekly, nine out of the ten most anticipated movies in 2012 were adaptations of novels or comic books. This is most likely because books are able to tell such great stories. When a story is so great, on some level it makes sense to turn it into a movie. The story can reach a greater audience. The main risk here is that we forget where the story started. The crisp pages of a new book, the way your mind and imagination grow, and how a story resonates with you is something that can never be replaced by a film real. (Here I was trying to show the opposite side of the argument as well, does it seem like I am giving too much support to the “opposing” side to a point where it makes my essay not credible?)

http://bookriot.com/2012/01/05/why-books-make-the-best-movies/

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/6-reasons-the-book-is-almost-always-better-than-the-movie/

Daniel Weinfeld

“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution.”

Rustin Cohle, True Detective

HBO’s latest installment in its seemingly dynastic control of the greatest-show-ever conversation has left a huge viewership aching for more following the last of eight episodes last Sunday evening. True Detective’s synthesis of literary genius, an award-winning cast, and a touch of cosmic horror form an unforgettable series begging many questions even after its conclusion. A tremendous narrative of character development and complexly intertwined plot by novelist Nic Pizzolatto brings to life detectives Rustin Cohle (Matthew Mcconaughey) and Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson) as they investigate a series of murders that prove to run deeper in the culture of rural Louisiana than anyone involved could have imagined. Despite all the speculation and conspiracy theories that came as a result of the themes and events portrayed throughout the series, perhaps the greatest lesson learned from True Detective is that honesty and literary integrity, not shock-value and wild twists, are what make for great television.

The network drummed up quite a buzz upon announcing the tandem of renowned leading men Matthew Mcconaughey and Woody Harrelson as co-stars of the series. The two generate tremendous chemistry on screen despite the irreconcilable differences between their characters persistent throughout the season. Mcconaughey, in particular, has rejuvenated his career with a number of moving roles, straying drastically from his failsafe romantic-comedy repertoire, namely his performance in Dallas Buyers Club which earned him an Academy Award for Best Actor. With his critically acclaimed performance in True Detective, Mcconaughey has a good chance to become the first ever to receive the Academy Award and Primetime Emmy for Best Actor in the same year. The two are supported by a tremendous ensemble cast, but it is Mcconaughey and Harrelson who command attention and draw intrigue in every scene, alongside each other as well as individually.

What truly sets the series apart, though, is the work of writer Nic Pizzolatto. The screenplay reads like a novel, touching on the intricacies of each character as well as broader allegorical themes to a degree that few television shows can. The philosophical themes as well as the presence of inextricably bound occult references and psychedelic drugs fueled the internet craze of conspiracy theories and case-solving speculation. References to supernatural and cosmic horror literature such as Robert W. Chambers’ “The King in Yellow” and the work of H.P. Lovecraft only gave speculators further evidence to draw from. Despite the density and complexity of the concepts presented by Pizzolatto, the story translates to the screen seamlessly. Director Cary Fukunaga, winner of the 2009 Sundance Film Festival’s Best Director award, transforms Pizzolatto’s prose into striking cinematography that rivals any major motion picture. In a way, the eight-part series largely resembles a feature film. And, as in many films, the ending is what the audience remembers most.

The anticipation of the finale episode grew as more and more clues were uncovered and greater detail of the characters lives exposed as the show forced its viewers to develop their own ideas of what was coming next. In Pizzolatto’s words, though, an unforeseen plot twist at the show’s conclusion “would be terrible, obvious writing” [1]. Instead, the series stays true to its purpose and concludes in a largely methodical and even predictable fashion. Critics like Ross Douthat from the New York Times were not satisfied with resolution, offering that “there are plenty of stories out there if you want to feel good about how the show finished up” [2]. But the first season of True Detective was much more than a typical crime-drama. It held great truths about life, death, good, and evil; as Detective Cohle mystically preached, “time is a flat circle”. So, from the point of view of an audience member accepting the story for what it is and nothing more, the ending, though it will not be disclosed here, could not have been more appropriate.

HBO has renewed the show for a second season, as expected for programming with such widely touted critical acclaim and successful ratings. The catch, though, is that the cast and plot of the first season will not carry over. HBO did not renew the contracts of Mcconaughey and Harrelson for the second season, and in Pizzolatto’s words, “I need to keep being strange… don’t play the next one straight” [3]. The tale of Detectives Cohle and Hart is over, along with a masterful season that seemed to end as quickly as it began. All those true detectives out there are forced to satisfaction with the eight episodes and cultural reaction they were privileged to be a part of.

[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/true-detective-creator-debunks-fan-theories-20140306

[2] http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/the-failure-of-true-detective/

[3] http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/true-detective-season-2-to-tackle-transit-systems-occult-history-20140310

Click here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk. It has 143 million views…just saying.

My roommates and I watched frozen three times in 24 hours. And yes, this could mean we have way too much time on our hands, but I like to blame the movie itself. The writers shouldn’t have made such an intriguing plotline, the songwriters shouldn’t have penned such infectious songs (see above), and whoever voiced Olaf just should never have been born. Maybe then we would have back that entire day we spent camped out in front of the TV. Maybe then I wouldn’t spend even more time watching reinterpretations of the songs on YouTube. And maybe then Margaux and I wouldn’t have had a full-fledged “Let It Go” sing-off yesterday, entirely missing all the high notes.

What I’m trying to say is if you haven’t seen it (do you live under a rock?) then you absolutely must. Don’t worry, they have sing-along versions in theaters now. Usually around 2:30 pm in the Green Hills theater. You can dream about summer with Olaf (the snowman who doesn’t quite understand the concept of melting), sympathize with Elsa (having uncontrollable magical powers to create snow and ice would really put a damper on your social life), and root for Anna (Yes, I do want to build a snowman!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntRSopUllV4

I’ve tried to figure out what makes Frozen so great many times. Why do I (along with like…everybody on the planet) mention it in conversation at least once a day? Why are countless articles, blog posts, and videos being made about a movie that came out months and months ago? And why do grown adults irrationally really want a reindeer now? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-kVksX_c7A Has the ever-elusive formula for a perfect movie finally been discovered? I’m gonna go ahead and say yes.

First, there’s the slightly damaged, yet powerful, heroine with the largest eyes you’ve ever seen. Then there’s the adorably awkward younger sister who steals the show (younger siblings everywhere rejoice!). There’s the overly handsome guy with a really prissy name who you love to hate. And the funny guy who’s a little rough around the edges, but you still wish would just step out of the screen and take you away on his reindeer-pulled sled. Or is that just me? Don’t worry, there’s also two (lucky us!) sidekicks. One doesn’t exactly speak English and neither are technically human, but it still counts. If you don’t want to build a snowman by the end of the movie you might want to make sure you still have a heart. There are songs that you will simultaneously love and hate because you literally will not be able to get them out of your brain. Finally, in true Disney fashion, there’s a happy ending that makes you want to hug someone. Which my roommates and I all did briefly before sitting back down for round two.

So yeah, you need to watch it. Let go (get it?) of all your preconceived notions of animated Disney movies. Frozen is completely different. It even admits to it. After Anna gets engaged to Hans after one night Elsa utters the line “You can’t marry someone you just met.” Remember how Ariel risked her voice for Prince Eric after only seeing him? Frozen veers in the opposite direction. It’s not just a movie for ignorantly blissful kids who believe that lobsters sing and baboons possess wise words of wisdom. It appeals to the reality of sibling fights, lying men, and rock trolls? Okay, maybe not the last one. However, if you open your mind for two hours and take a leap of faith you most likely wont regret it. No one is too cool for pure, unadulterated joy…and a talking snowman.

“Everything comes in circles,” Sherlock Holmes, maybe the most famous frictional detective, once observed. “The old wheel turns and the same spoke comes up. It has all been done’ before and will be done again.”  Ironically, the detective himself appears in more than twenty versions of movies.  In Hollywood, up to today, almost every classic movie of all genres has been remade, even more than once for some of them.  A film producer Wilbur Stark explains this ongoing death rattle for creativity in mainstream Hollywood, “doing a remake is easier and cheaper than writing an original.  You have the story.  You have the characters.  All you have to do is contemporize them.”  For a remake film, it has name recognition even before it’s released, and some audiences are willing to watch it regardless of the quality of the film itself.  Furthermore, the discussion about how the remake version compares to its origin, either criticism or praise, will push the newly released movie into people’s attention.  Are remakes a way to give audience a fresh taste of classics or are they simply a perfect way for Hollywood to make money using minimal creativity in exchange for maximum profit?

In 2012, the 100th anniversary of ship’s sinking, the 3D conversion of James Cameron’s Titanic was released and earned the movie an additional $343.6 million worldwide.  The new version follows exactly the same storyline, but after all, it’s just a 3D conversion.  Audiences should not expect anything new besides special effect.  The film itself indeed deserves to be rediscovered and presented to younger generation on the big screen.  However, for many audiences who have already seen the movie, the 3D technology failed to add anything to it.  Does any film really need to be converted like this?  We buy ticket to watch a movie for its original plot, actors’ performance, and director’s way to tell a story, not merely for its 3D effect.  It’s not worth to replicate a movie just to prove what we have achieved in technology.

Different from the new Titanic’s simply improvement in special effect, many remakes did shift their focus and change their point of view.  However, many filmmakers seem to suddenly lose confidence in audiences’ intellect and sensibility.   They have become too careful about public’s response and decided that it’s better to concentrate on something that everyone of any educational level can understand, love, for example.  Pulse, a Japanese horror film which imagined a world in which the social isolation and loneliness created by technology such as cell phones and emails literally transform people into ghosts and leads to breakdown of society.  In recent American remake, the problem is not technology itself, but merely that humans tapped into a frequency they were never meant to find.  While the original version criticizes the current state of society using imaginary means, the remake has no problem with the way the world is.  As long as people don’t find that freaky frequency, which no audience knows if it exists anyway, they are safe.  This tendency toward shrinking a movie’s purview to concentrate only on non-controversial topic can also be seen in Solaris. In the original, the main character dealt with his feelings about his feelings about his dead wife, but also his commitment to his parents and his place in the larger society.  The remake is all about love, cutting his parents out of the equation entirely.  More and more remake movies tend to run away from overarching ideas, and certainly from ideas that bring social criticism, toward events that happen for mysterious reason, even no reason.

Some filmmakers’ attitude that they try to earn money by simply reproducing a classic movie while in the same time avoid social criticism toward the movie’s thesis has irritated audiences.  Therefore, now many of them attempt to come up with something new and squeeze their “innovations” into remakes.  Van Sant, the director of Psycho remake, emphasized that his version will be very different from Hitchcock’s because now it has colors.  But one effect he uses too much is exactly color.  Many audiences find it’s hard to immerse into the scary movie when they see the bright yellow envelope containing the money, or the way Marion’s bathroom at the Bates motel is now a brilliant, overexposed white.

However, despite so many criticism against movie remakes, there are still some successful examples.  Hitchcock himself remade his The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1956 using his original 1934’s version as a blueprint.  He dropped scenes that didn’t work, added more subtle humor and improved on the main set piece: the assassination attempt at London’s Albert Hall. As Hitchcock himself put it in 1967, “Let’s say the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional.”  Unfortunately, in contemporary society, many filmmakers lose their patience to use creativity; even if they do not, the audiences may lose their patience to admire it.

When you search up the word “Kardashians” on Google, two main things pop up. The first is their television show, “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”, a reality TV show that documents the Kardashian family members’ lifestyles and the drama their family goes through. Then, there are the many webpages in which people devoted the time and energy to hate on the Kardashians. Yes, people apparently hate them so much that they actually wrote essays on essays about how the Kardashian family “sucks”. Some say that they’re fake and attention seeking. Others claim that they are talentless and have done nothing to give themselves credibility and are already richer than most of America, let alone the world.

So first off, who are the Kardashians? I would hope you know by now, but just in case: Originally, Kris was married to Robert Kardashian, and they had Kourtney (married to Scott Disick), Kim (who is marrying Kanye West), Khloe, and Rob. Then, Kris married Bruce Jenner, who brought in Burton, Brandon (married to Leah Felder-Jenner), Brody, and Casey Jenner from a previous marriage, and together Kris and Bruce had Kendall and Kylie Jenner. You probably were just like, “wow that is a lot of people”. Personally, I watch the TV show and LOVE the Kardashians. They definitely have their flaws. Everyone does. But they also have their cool sides. First of all, despite popular opinion, they do work! Kourtney, Kim, and Khloe started a clothing line called “Kardashian Kollection”, a designer fashion boutique called DASH, the online footwear site “ShoeDazzle”, among other products such as signature fragrances, self-tanners, and accessories. Kendall and Kylie have their own clothing line, “Kendall and Kylie for Pacsun”; Kris runs her own production company, “Jenner Communications”; and Rob started his own sock line, “Arthur George”. To be honest, if I could create a clothing line and make millions off of it, I would in a heartbeat. The Kardashians are extremely entrepreneurial and successful at their work, and many people continually buy their products and watch their television show.

The second thing I love about the Kardashians is that they are not afraid to be themselves. In today’s world, with so many people spreading hate, the Kardashians have stayed true to themselves. They are entertaining, stylish, and love to have a good time. Despite the criticisms people say about them, the Kardashians keep their cool (Kool?). They know they are not perfect and strive to be the best they can be. Physically, they all struggle to keep their bodies in shape and maintain a fashionable appearance (remember this?). Emotionally, they all have had problems to struggle with. Kourtney has had her fair share of problems (her mother’s open affair, her father’s death from cancer, her husband’s drinking and behavior problems) and has understandably shut down emotionally. Khloe has gone through her difficulties as well, such as growing up on camera, getting criticized for her weight, dealing with her past husband’s drug problems, and getting accused of not being a “real Kardashian”. The Kardashians have gone through so much turmoil, but have largely remained true to themselves and even thrived off of overcoming their obstacles and making their own business ventures.

Finally, the thing that stuck out most to me about the Kardashians, which I believe is one of their most admirable qualities, is their pack mentality and ability to stay together as a functioning family. When you watch the show, you see how the family functions together and supports each other through the ups and downs of life. They spend a lot of time together, and it is rare to see an entire extended family remain so physically and emotionally involved as the Kardashians are in this day and age. And somehow, the Kardashian clan (Klan?) has been able to stay united and connected with each other. As someone who comes from a rather small and disconnected family, I wish that someday my family would be as close as the Kardashians are, and I am not the only one. As E! President Suzanne Kolb told The Wrap, “At their core, the Kardashians are an incredibly bonded, loving, large family who live an incredibly large life. And if you look at the history of television, there’s a pretty large number of families with that blend that resonate with viewers…I think there’s something emotionally aspirational around that family dynamic and visually aspiration about the way that family lives.” Kolb even added that from every piece of research she’s seen about the Kardashians, viewers “aspire to be them or to befriend them”.

In essence, while it seems that the Kardashians are “suck”, they are quite the awesome family. Nobody is perfect, and that includes the Kardashians. However, they are able to take their imperfections and make something out of them. The Kardashians have started multiple business ventures and have been extremely successful. They stay true to their Kardashian name despite the media criticisms and personal struggles they have all been through. And lastly, they are a clan (Klan); they stick together, support each other, and stay involved in each other’s lives. The Kardashians love each other and live life how they want to. So, by now, if you still don’t like the Kardashians, then that’s fine. There will always be differing opinions about them. But the one thing that will remain constant is that the Kardashians will always be the Kardashians.

Darwin famously declared that through natural selection, only the animals most suited for their environment would survive.  This belief in the evolution of plants and animals due to survival of the fittest is widely accepted today.  In the past 88 years the television has undergone significant evolution from simple black and white pictures, to the stunning HD and 3D televisions made today.  With the significant advancement of the television came the development of company advertisements broadcasted directly into people’s homes through the television.  Through similar methods of evolution as plants and animals, advertising has coevolved with the developments of the television in order to adapt to the various technologies that have entered every day household.  The transformation of the TV industry has been increasingly minimizing the role of advertising leading companies to develop new ways of broadcasting their products into people’s homes.

For the first half of my childhood, commercials were simply something that people deal with. Growing up, commercials were able to reach vast audiences, and people had little choice to avoid boring commercials.  You could either change the channel, or simply watch them.  Thus, until the beginning of the 21^st century, commercials went hand in hand with watching TV.  However, new inventions would allow people to skip commercials.

With the invention of DVR’s in 1999 the television world underwent a profound change.  No longer do people have to be in front of their TV at the same time every week to watch their favorite show.  Even more notable, people are now able to fast foreword through commercials.  When this happened many advertising agencies panicked thinking that commercials would become useless.  However, the DVR did not have as profound an impact on commercials as many thought (1).  Many companies decreased their ad spending in 2001 as a response to the DVR, but commercial spending has significantly increased to all time high levels since then (2).  Although commercials were able to make it through the rise of DVR’s without significant decline, a new age of technology has once again made companies wary to the effectiveness of commercial advertising.

The rise of Netflix, HBO and other TV outlets where people can watch a show without commercials has began to alter how we watch TV. Now, someone can sit in their dorm room and watch, for example, 5 seasons on Breaking Bad on Netflix.  This is 62 episodes, or roughly 46 hours and 30 minutes of television, without ever having to watch one commercial.  Because of this convenience, more and more people are turning to Netflix every day to watch their TV shows.  Instead of panicking, some companies have begun to figure out how they can evolve along with the change in how people watch TV shows.

Surprisingly, one of the advertising responses to the new commercial-less TV outlets has its origins with the beginning of television. In the early 1950’s the most prevalent form of advertising came in the form of companies “sponsoring entire programs that showcased their products” (3).  Companies such as General Electric paid money to have their products placed in television shows and used by people in the shows.  This was an initial way for TV shows to gain money before the idea of set commercial breaks was invented.  This product placement would remain in television but would become less impactful as more companies dedicated their advertising efforts towards commercials.   However, product placement has once again risen as a major form of advertising for companies.

Product placement has become a major form of advertising in today’s media outlets.  Product placement expenses for companies have grown from $190 million in 1974, to 3.458 billion in 2004 (5).  While there are no exact figures on the spending in 2013, the new Super Man movie, “Man of Steel” received $150 million for product placement alone (7).  And the best part of product placement—if done correctly—it seems natural in a TV or movie setting, yet also makes people desire the product.  For example, when its not mere coincidence that James Bond has frequently drives Ashton Martin cars.  Ashton Martin reportedly paid $35 million to have Bond drive their car in the 2002, “Die Another Day” (6).  This paying for product placement has great benefits for TV and movie producers because it allows them to cover significant portions of their budget, while companies also benefit from having their products displayed.  This mutually beneficial relationship has been in movies for a long time, and will only continue to present itself in TV shows.

My prediction is that product placement is the future of advertising in the television market as more and more people turn to watching TV on Netflix and TV channels without commercials. Although product placement is not as direct as commercials, it still places products directly into the homes of viewers.  Furthermore, people cant just skip over product placement, rather it is integrated seamlessly into a show.  Perhaps viewers receive the less direct form of advertising better, especially if someone on TV they admire is using a product.

1. http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/tv-and-culture/effects-of-dvr-on-advertising1.htm

2. http://blog.stonestreetadvisors.com/2011/04/17/tv-v-internet-ad-spending-2000-present/

3. http://www.qualitylogoproducts.com/lib/history-of-tv-ads.htm

5. http://www.slideshare.net/nagz428/product-placement-252709

6. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-james-bonds-relationship-with-product-placement-has-changed-2012-10?op=1

7. http://news.moviefone.com/2013/06/05/man-of-steel-product-placement/

I absolutely hate advertisements. They take up so much time and I never feel as though they are benefitting me – the casual viewer, just sitting on the couch eating ice cream and trying to have a somewhat enjoyable time. When I was younger, before I had really begun to appreciate the subtle effects that happenings in our environment have on us, I didn’t really think that I could, or should, in any way be persuaded by them. Nor did I place any value in them or appreciate the intricate way they are designed. Fundamentally, I didn’t realize until recently, just how profound of an effect, various commercials have on the choices we make, how commercials are actually based largely on “brain” science, and how combining just the right elements into a short TV commercial can change a product from an unknown to a household staple.

Commercials work because they are based strictly on science. Charles Duhigg recently published a mind blowing book, “The Power of Habit.” I first purchased the book on recommendation from my dad, who probably thought that his first year college student should make better habits. A large part of it focuses on the key to turning any bad habit around, whether it be drug addition, overeating, or smoking. For me, however, the book was so intriguing largely because it illuminated the scientific basis underlying the commercials that we see every day. And as I continued to read, it became clear to me just how well marketing strategy and advertising can work. I learned, for example, that the early toothpaste commercials which eventually made brushing a daily routine for all Americans, were created by an insightful genius, Claude C. Hopkins, who had the sharpness to realize that simple “triggers” can initiate a repeatable and predictable neuronal signaling pathway in the brain. And it was this rule, popularized by Hopkins that still stands today as the basic, “everyone in the advertising business knows this” rule that is the true culprit behind why every commercial that appears on TV is made the way it is.

These triggers, as Hopkins described them, are only the beginning. The triggers work because they initiate a predictable response in us. The commercial for Pepsodent, the toothpaste, claimed that the “film” on our teeth was what made them seem yellow or gray, and that tooth brushing would remove this film. What was ingenious about it was that it made this “film” on our teeth the trigger. We walk around with film on our teeth all the time. We move our tongues over our teeth all the time. As a result, we feel the film, which triggers the response – brushing our teeth with toothpaste. And in the 20^th century, brushing almost always involved Pepsodent – the lone standing toothpaste brand.

It was in this way that Hopkins got everyone to purchase and use Pepsodent all the time. It was almost as if he had them possessed. People were walking around, feeling the “film” on their teeth, and unconsciously, brushing more often. The constant film trigger, brushing response, and clean teeth reward, was what eventually turned tooth brushing into an American habit, which most of us have today.

As for me, TV commercials have changed, in my eyes, from being pieces of uninteresting garbage, to being little opportunities for me to think about how my own brain functions. I think back to the Bounty commercial with Shawn Johnson in it, and how Bounty commercials usually show the signature wipe of the table, leaving it clean, and showing a satisfyingly large stain on the paper towel. I wipe the table in the exact same manner. I look at the underside of the paper towel after I’m done. Seeing a little spill of liquid on the table triggers me to grab the paper towel, make a nice clean wipe, and check the paper towel to make sure that everything, indeed, turned out as it should.

The same thing goes for Subway, and Special K. My own hunger, in the mornings, is what triggers me to get a Special K cereal bar. Hunger at lunch time always causes me to get a sandwich that at least resembles the real one from Subway.

A look into the past, and consciousness of our own behaviors and thoughts today, reveal that commercials do work. They do have a profound impact on the things we purchase and the way in which we live our lives. Commercials are stealthy and smart. Their creators and the pioneers of commercial creation had a basic understanding of the way we think. They understood that we can train our brains to have automatic responses to certain triggers and that these habits are the key to selling any product. These habits become unconscious as they are repeated more frequently, and the rest is history. So commercials are worth paying attention too. Being conscious of the mechanism by which they operate may even make us just a little bit more aware of our own decisions.

Works Cited

Duhigg, Charles. The Power of Habit. New York: Random House, 2012. Print.