Society for the most part makes decisions based however the media depicts it. That’s what we discussed in class. People have a hard time differencing what they see in a movie or on the news for how things go about in real life. We watched a documentary in class about how power can be used for good, but ultimately for manipulation and self-use as well. The Stanford Prison Experiment was a social psychology experiment conducted back in 1971, to see psychological effects of perceived power.  The experiment was conducted between people playing roles as prison guards and prisoners. At first, the experiment didn’t really seem to startle anyone. The guards tried to get into character by trying to mess with the prisoners but most of the prisoners took it as a joke right away. However, as days went on, the prison guards found their roll and started to get inside the prisoners’ heads. Torture tactics started to increase, and prisoners started to feel like they didn’t want to be their anymore. Prisoners started asking if they could get out of the experiment, but it seemed as though the more power the guards gained, the more intense and real the experiment was. We can’t really say if its good or bad.

Another thing is how news is reported and depicted. There are cases of people who watch tv that have violence or experience any violence on media are more subject to violence going forward, however there is no real case for it. People have different viewpoints towards certain issues along with different ways that their mind processes events. We watched a Jon Stewart talk show clip in our last class and the news anchor and reporter went from talking about government surveillance and spying to a breaking news case regarding popular singer, Justin Bieber. You would think the government surveillance topic would get more attention, but Hollywood has a large impact on media consumers. Most people I bet didn’t even blink an eye when the breaking news came on because it was more interesting already to them than the government topic. Why is that?

Hollywood has a crazy impact on society between shows, movies, celebrities and more. There is so much media that one cannot focus on everything on the media, but still have focus over certain aspects which still gives Hollywood an upper hand. Scandals drive up the ratings for sure. When the news of a celebrity doing something wrong breaks the Internet, everyone is invested because one way or another they feel a connection towards them. That’s why catching scandals is so good for the news because this one big topic will drive in viewers.

Jason Berardicurti

Scandals running rampant. In the 1920’s Hollywood was running ramped. The news media loved they found so many scandals that this was the main news for years. One actor was in some senses of the word sacrificed to this. Phatty arbuckle was a beloved actor who lost everything due to some legal trouble.

The actors were not the only ones under fire. The movies themselves were being attacked so much so that a fund to see what the impacts of movies were on children. Even though Chicago refused to do so because it was a biased search but one nonetheless. This created a production code that would change the rules of Hollywood forever.One actor that was destroyed due to these new restrictions was an actress called Vamp. Many of her movies were rated harshly and really hurt her career. Even after these scandals los Angeles grew eight times its size.

One thing that I am going to argue help people try to make the argument that movies influence people. The effectiveness of actress and actors selling war bonds. They were very effective in getting individuals to buy into them in order to help with the First World War. Overall about 20 billion dollars in war bonds were sold overall. A large portion of this can be contributed to the actors selling these bonds.

We have no evidence that people are more violent due to watching violence on TV or playing video games. We do have evidence that the news can have an impact on how people see the world. Even though crime rates have been declining since the 1970’s people in the United States thinks that the world is more dangerous than in the past. This is strange because many people don’t believe that movies have an impact on how people act but the news does. This is part of agenda setting. The news puts up these topics in order to get more ratings and it makes things seem differently than the way things truly are.

In society we are ruled by the idea of mob mentality and higher powers. In the years after WWII people had no idea how the Nazi soldiers were able to go through with the terrible acts they did. So people went to test this. In one study that was done people were to shock people for getting wrong answers. They would do this even after they believed someone died because they were told to.

This week in class we watched Why Be Good? Colleen Moore stars as Pert Kelly, a business young lady in a retail chain by day and a jazz child around evening time. One night she meets a person who happens to be the son of the department store owner. They hit it off, yet when she’s late for work the next morning, she’s called into his office and they find what their identity is. She’s terminated by the storekeeper, yet she figures the son did it. Rich daddy attempts to shield his child from that sort of young lady and convinces him to test her by taking her to an inn to perceive how she responds. Is it true that she is a decent young lady? Does it make a difference? All things considered, for what reason be great? Moore is staggering as the move crazed flapper, who still lives at home with mother and father. With her mark hair-do and scanty dresses, she the very image of the quiet flapper. Hamilton is additionally great as the credulous child. Co-stars incorporate Jack Norton as the smashed sweetheart. The film features in a well-delegated and flawlessly bundled way the discussions about the role of women at the time. Objecting her dad’s strictures about clothing standard and relaxation exercises, Moore contends that on the off chance that she attempts to add to family unit upkeep, at that point she has an option to seem as though she needs and do what she needs. These contentions had been worked through in endless movies.

https://www.classicflix.com/products/why-be-good-warner-archive-888574128418-1929-2014/reviews/2441

We also watched a documentary called The Mean World Syndrome. This was a very interesting documentary to me. “The Mean World Syndrome”, represents Gerbner’s development hypothesis by the strife between impression of rising viciousness and rising weapon deals, and real falling wrongdoing rates. The fourth and fifth segments, “Mean People” and “The Fallout”, investigate further ramifications of the development speculation, for example, the media’s proclamation of contrary generalizations of African Americans, Latinos and Muslims, and the residential governmental issues and international strategy associated with it. As indicated by Cultivation Theory, high introduction to “television wrongdoing world” may cause the Mean World Syndrome, as such, watchers discovers that the vast majority aren’t dependable and wrongdoing is uncontrolled in each road. For instance, individuals believe that wrongdoing rate is higher than the past, in spite of the fact that it’s not valid. Another impact is over the top nervousness about wrongdoing.

https://shop.mediaed.org/the-mean-world-syndrome-p143.aspx

In the first half of the week, we talked about media’s effects and the theories that go along with this. We began by watching a film called Why Be Good. This film depicted the tensions that could be felt between film makers and censorship makers. Censorship makers were deeming what was appropriate or not to be shown on film. This soon led to the question of what is appropriate? In the early 1900’s, women really did not have much of a say in the film industry. However, that would soon change as actress Mary Pickford would soon become the most powerful woman in Hollywood. Pickford started her career as a well known actress. She soon began producing her own films and helped create the United Artists Studio, which gave her more control in the industry.

As this was going on, the United States had entered into World War I. With all of the men at war, women were given more responsibilities including some that men had. This soon began the rise to more rights for women, which included the right to vote. During the 20’s, women began to “test” authority. This gave rise to the “flapper,” which were women that wore skirts, bobbed their hair, and flaunted their disdain for what was then considered acceptable behavior.

Because of this shift, it was later okay for women to appear in art. It was considered “tasteful” and “beautiful.” This also gave rise to the first male and female sex symbols of this time. The first male sex symbol was Rudolph Valentino. Valentino was an Italian-born actor who starred in several well known silent films at that time. The first female sex symbol was Clara Bow. Bow was an American actress who also starred in several well known silent films, as well as “talky” films. These were simply films with sound.

We then shifted our discussions to major theories in media. The first theory mentioned was the Cultivation Theory, which was founded by George Gerbner. This theory suggests that exposure to media, over time, subtly “cultivates” viewers perceptions of reality. As Gerbner puts it, “television is a medium of the socialization of most people into standardized roles and behaviors. Its function is in a word, enculturation.” This brings up the idea of the “mean world syndrome.” Heavy users of television would view the world as more “dangerous, mean, and violent” rather than light users of television.

The second theory mentioned was the Agenda Setting Theory, which was introduced by Dr. Maxwell McCombs. This theory describes the “ability” of the news and media to influence the importance placed on the topics of the public agenda. There are multiple phases involved in this theory. Some of the major phases include the public sphere (where society discusses issues that affect everyone), public agenda, and public policy.

For the next half of the week, we discussed human behavior to authority and the bystander effect. We began by watching a film called The Big Picture. This film was about human behavior experiments that were done by Stanley Milgram. Milgram used a shock generator that increased in voltage from left to right. The machine was hooked up to a person where the current would be sent to a person. This was controlled by the “test subject” using the shock generator. The idea was to see how far the person using the shock generator would proceed before they turned to the moderator to stop. When this happened, the moderator simply told that person to keep going. Because of this obedience to authority, 60-65% of these people went all the way to the end.

Another example of this obedience to authority could be seen with the strip searches at a McDonald’s in Kentucky. A man posing to be a fake police officer called a McDonald’s supposedly investigating a theft, which then turned into a drug complaint. The man ordered the people over phone to do whatever they were told. The employees were ordered to strip as well as perform sexual behaviors. Even though the people knew what they were doing was wrong, they still did it because they felt pressured to obey authority.

Along with behavior to authority, there is another concept of the bystander effect. This is a psychological claim that individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present; the greater number of bystanders, the less likely it is that one of them will help. An example of this can be seen with the death of Matthew Carrington. Carrington was a shy person who wanted to open up a little, so he wanted to join a fraternity at his college. In order to become a part of the fraternity, Matthew had to perform very physical tasks, which included intense exercise. The fraternity brothers then made him drink as much water as possible, which soon poisoned him. He later died right in front of four fraternity brothers. Because there were multiple people there, someone was waiting for the other person to act first and do something.

Another example of this bystander effect was seen with the stabbing of 28 year old Kitty Genovese in an apartment building. There were about 38 witnesses who saw the incident or heard it, but did nothing to stop it. By the time someone acted by calling the police it was already to late because she had died.

The last thing discussed was the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was created by Dr. Zimbardo. This was a social psychology experiment that attempted to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. A group of 24 students were divided into two groups of twelve. One group would be the officers and the other would be the prisoners. The officers were given a uniform, whistle, sunglasses, and billy club. These items represent authority and power. The prisoners were given a number in place of their name and were chained at the ankle. This represented the loss of their freedom and degradation. The prisoners tested the guards several times. In response the guards used their authority and power to stop this by harassing the prisoners and degrading them. Days after the start, there were legit emotional breakdowns by some of the prisoners, which resulted in them having to be removed from the experiment. The experiment would last only 6 days before Dr. Zimbardo had enough.

-Tyler Tanevski

So, why do people blindly follow authority with out questioning orders even when they know it’s wrong? Why is it that when someone needs help people stand around and kind of watch rather than help that poor soul? Well I hope to answer both of these questions with the use of some stone cold facts! Lets start with authority. One thing that installed in all of us as children is to respect your elders, or when you go to school your parents always tell you to listen and do what your teachers tell you to. You’re told to comply with officers and if not aggressive force may be used. There was an experiment that was called the Stanford Prison experiment and basically what happened was that people were randomly assigned to one of two groups. You were either a prison guard or a prisoner. To save you the details what they found was that these people ended up assuming the roles they were assigned, including the man who was in charge of it all Phillip Zimbardo. These prisoners were humiliated by the guards and they all did as they were told after the rebellion on day two. Even though this was an experiment these prisoners would comply until they had mental breakdowns and Zimbardo ended the experiment. Another experiment was when someone in a lab coat would tell people to give someone in a different room a shock if they had answer a question wrong. The volts would increase with every question answered wrong. The catch was the person receiving the shock was not a real person and no one was given shocks. With encouragement from the man in the lab coat 60 to 65% of all volunteers ended up reaching the highest voltage level they could administer, which would be lethal if anyone had been there.

The bystander effect is when people see some who needs help and doesn’t help them, because they are waiting for someone else to do so. For example someone being bullied and no one sticking up for him, or someone getting stabbed in the street and no one calls the police. In an experiment where one person had to help someone having a seizure they called the police. But, they did the same experiment with three people and no one did anything because they were all waiting for someone else to step up to the plate. This was all under question after a lady was stabbed in the streets of NYC and murdered in front of a building. Over 30 people watched this transpire but no one called the police when it was happening. When someone actually did call the police it was sadly too late and she had died. Or when 4 frat brothers saw one of their friends die. They thought he was ok and they had just put him to bed right when someone was about to call the police. They thought he was ok even though he had died from drinking too much water. People become bystanders because they’re waiting for someone else to do something about it. People also blindly follow authority because it was installed in us as children to follow authority. In my opinion i believe that people need to start asking questions when someone asks them to do something they don’t agree with. People need to start sticking up for each other rather than walk by if someone is being bullied. They could potentially save a life.

This week in class, we discussed many different things.

On Monday, we watched a documentary called “Why Be Good?: Sexuality & Censorship in Early Cinema.” This documentary reflected an overview of the portrayal and influence of sexuality on film, from the silent era until the administration of the Hays Code in 1934. We learned about the earlier days of film, and pre-censorship from state to state. We learned how scandals caused Hollywood to try and keep negative news out of the media. We also heard how stars such as Mary Pickford, Marlene Dietrich, Clara Bow, and Mae West gave others new attitudes and beliefs towards sex.

After the documentary, we talked about cultivation theory. Cultivation theory was proposed by George Gerbner, and is one of the main theories of media effects. According to the theory, people who watch television frequently are more likely to be influenced by the messages from the world of television. The influence goes to such an extent that their world view and perceptions start reflecting what they repeatedly see and hear on television. Television is, therefore, considered to contribute independently to the way people perceive social reality.

Cultivation theory has been widely used in the study of violence in television. The theory has been used to explain how children who watch violent cartoons become violent themselves. Repeated exposure to violence on television reinforces existing beliefs that the world is a dangerous and unsafe place. Exposure to television further strengthens the position that acts of violence are a natural response to situations of conflict.

During Wednesday’s class, we discussed another core theory of media effects, which is agenda setting. In media, agenda setting determines the agenda for which stories are considered important. When major news happens, the world’s mass media organizations take notice. Whether it is the President of the United States making an announcement or an incoming storm approaching, when it is a story that affects people, the news media is on alert to cover it, They provide viewers with the facts and information they need to understand what is happening. But sometimes it may seem, with so much media focus and scrutiny on a single event, that the mass media is missing or even ignoring other important stories. This is agenda-setting theory.

Another thing we discussed is the murder of Kitty Genovese. Genovese was a 28 year old woman who was murdered in her apartment building. There were about 38 witnesses who saw the incident, but did nothing to stop it. This is known as the bystander effect. Her killer was Winston Moseley.

            The film we watched in class this week, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”, depicted the world behind the screen and how much goes in to receiving a rating. The MPAA is this highly secret group of individuals that decide what kind of rating a certain film deserves based upon each of their ideals. During the movie, Kirby Dick and a private investigator search for these individuals to find the truth behind the MPAA. They worked together to track the members of the MPAA down and discover what makes them so special. They find out that the members of this secret association are supposed to be “average” adult parents with children.

            To be honest, I never knew how difficult it was to receive an appropriate rating. I did not think a small and secret group of parents made the decision for all films. I find it disturbing that these parents have so much power. They only see things through one perspective. There are certain films that will show a powerful message but show it in a different way to get their point across. These parents will only see the negative effects of how powerful messages will be shown. I think it’s important for films to freely show real world problems and spread awareness of certain cruel things that are really happening. The MPAA will give a NC-17 rating purely for sex standards rather than violence or crude language. I do not believe sex should be under strict surveillance. The MPAA restricts film makers to create sex scenes that are ridiculously exaggerated to prove a point to the audience.

            The MPAA should not have the ability to disband an entire movie just for crude scenes that depict realistic situations that happen every day. The world has changed but the MPAA has not. They are still following false ideals. A film is supposed to present something that people have never seen before. The MPAA wants to present films based on their own false ideals that are reductant in this day of age. I find it strange how secretive the MPAA really is. They would only be this secretive if they also believed that their system is constructed on ideals that are wrong. They remain in secrecy to avoid the board members being interrupted by their decision-making from any outside influence. I think it construes their decision-making even more because this just means they are only being allowed to see through one perspective. They should be able to here other perspectives to form their own fair and honest opinion.

-Noah Soriano

Motion pictures have been a very important part of people’s lives for many centuries. Dating back to the early 1900’s, motion pictures have evolved into a form of enjoyment for many families and individuals across the globe. Thomas Edison ultimately began the production of motion pictures in 1888. Edison and his assistant William Dickson created the first device that could record moving pictures. These motion pictures were only a few seconds long and did not contain sound. After Edison’s invention, the film and motion pictures industry took off. Fast forward some years, the motion pictures industry was booming in Hollywood. Hollywood was an ideal location for the industry due to land being sold for so cheap. Most of the people moving to Hollywood that were part of the industry were looking to get away from their parent companies and make a name for themselves. During this time, there were five major studios producing movies, known as the “Big Five”. These companies were succeeding due to the way that they ran their business. They produced, directed and premiered their movies on their own. Not having to rely on another company to help with a movie made them extremely successful. Hollywood became home to the industry and flourished while the motion pictures industry would continue to grow. 

            While the industry was growing, there were some setbacks that studios had to face. The most major issue that they faced was the supreme courts Paramount Decree. This was a nationwide issue in 1948. The “Big Five” companies were seen as a monopoly and the supreme court passed an antitrust act to decrease their power. This was done in order to help smaller, newer studios. Another issue they faced was the continuing growth of television. Watching television became more of a popular past time for Americans, rather than going to the movie theater. With these setbacks, studios had to work harder to survive and make a profit. 

            The film we watched in class called “This Film is Not Yet Rated” made me see how much actually goes into the rating of a movie. The MPAA works to rate each movie that is produced. I found it very interesting to see that the MPAA is so secretive and tries very hard to not reveal their identity. In the movie, the undercover investigators work very hard to figure out who is a part of the MPAA. It was surprising to see that the members were all very different and came from different backgrounds. Another part I found interesting was how many movies are rated as NC-17. The movies that were rated NC-17 were primarily for sex scenes instead of violence which really surprised me. I wouldn’t say that the MPAA is necessarily fair because it is made of a group of individuals that don’t represent the country as a whole. The MPAA seemed pretty stuck in their ways and that they were not extremely willing to change their mind once a decision was made. 

This week we viewed a very interesting documentary about the MPAA rating system of movies. To begin with I was very interested in the video because I’ve always wondered how movies were actually rated. As the documentary went on I realized the actual ratings were a bit skewed based on certain raters opinions. This documentary isn’t your ordinary documentary and that’s why I thought it was very intriguing. The producers completely put the Motion Picture Association of America on blast with this movie. They really went out of they’re way to expose the rating process of movies. They thoroughly explain why it isn’t fair that certain ratings are given to movies for certain scenes. In my mind I thought R and NC-17 movies were given their ratings based on incredible violence or minor sex scenes throughout the movie. After watching this I have realized that I was wrong, instead they are given these ratings strictly for the reason of sex scenes that the raters thought were a “bit too edgy for them.” Although certain sex scenes should be given a just rating based on the actual sex, I think they were way too invested in that and lost focus on the larger picture of the movie. These ratings would completely hurt the entire movie making process. These scenes would have to be edited in order to meet their view of an R or PG-13 movie, and their view is definitely a bit skewed. Any gay scenes in movies were instantly hit with an R rating or higher, but heterosexual content would rated much lower. This is because the raters were definitely frightened of the gay scenes and instantly slandered. The film making framework in this nation is represented by a strange board made by the significant film studios over 35 years ago. The MPAA board has worked as a sort of “black box” where the movie goes in one end and out comes a rating. Its unfair in a lot of situations because if a movie is unjustly given an NC-17 rating the picture can no longer be released. This ruins the entire movie making process. The reason behind the rating of certain sex scenes fear was that it would give the younger audience the wrong ideas and impressions. This rating is based off of what the parents would want they’re kids watching, and this is wrong. Its not just about the kids viewing the movie its about everyone else. I feel the rules of the ratings should be enhanced to focus more on actual violence rather than sex scenes.

This week in Comm we watched a very interesting documentary about the MPAA and how they basically screw over multiple directors yearly. The producer of “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”, is Kirby Dick. He interviewed many directors and set out to find a private investigator to solve the mystery: Who is in the MPAA and why is it such a big deal that the raters are kept private? The doc was to get to the bottom of the fine line between R and NC17 ratings. Directors were outraged by their films receiving NC17 ratings due to the sexual content in which it contained. For example, in the movie “Boys Don’t Cry” it received a NC17 rating due to a scene that included rape. The director was upset because there are plenty of other movies that contain content like this, but the director felt it was because of the transgender protagonist. A rating of NC17 can completely break a director, because if it is rated NC17, people may avoid seeing it because of disturbing rating. It is often fixed by the director/producers cutting scenes or making them of less quality in order to receive a better rating, which often makes the story/plot weaker.

The ladies that Kirby Dick hired were funny and took the matters quite personally. They often had to spy and even started going to the raters homes once they realized who the raters were. However, the directors were angry because a lot of the content in the movies which received a poor rating, they felt was comparable to movies that had an R rating. The movie with Maria Bello, where it received a NC17 rating because it showed a little too much, was not that big of a deal in her eyes. She felt offended, the movie was not portraying lust, it was the beauty of the love that she and the man in the scene felt. Later on in the doc, it was noted that the MPAA is more concerned about sex rather than violence, where in Europe it is the complete opposite.

Kirby Dick eventually submitted this documentary to the MPAA for rating. He received an NC17 rating due to strong and graphic sexual content. He decided that he would appeal, which led to a strange winding road of mystery and secrets as to who was on the board and what not. My personal opinion is that it is unfair that there is a small group of people who rate movies that decide who can view or not view. a man in the doc mentioned that there basically 2-3 companies who determine what can be seen by the US, controlling all media across the country. That does not seem fair. I feel bad for the directors who were black balled by the MPAA and maybe even had their careers ruined by them, because of a graphically depicted scene that was deemed “inappropriate”.