I refer to the movie Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Premiered recently here to massive first day earnings
In particular, i want to shift the focus away from the actions to the jokes. Now in my opinion most of the humour in the movie is what i might call "dirty humor". Not that it uses "naughty" words but it banks on sexual references to draw a laugh out of the audience. An absolutely random scene, of two dogs having sex, thrown into the middle of a dialogue scene between the protagonist and his parents is just one example. Jokes are laden with sexual innuendo. Ranging from "fuel injection system" to a transformer's scrotum made up of wrecking balls. Aside from that, many of the in jokes are very deeply steeped in american culture.
Amazingly, the local audience were able to relate to those jokes and references to american colleges, the civil war and american military procedures even though we in singapore had never had first hand experience with those.
This seriously begs the question, "why do so many locals like, or can relate to, such foreign things?".Of course there are many factors but one important among them is due to the result of US cultural imperialism.
That is due to all the American TV programs that feature American life that we have been broadcasting over the years. Their culture is so familiar to us now, causing the ever present tension between our traditional Asian cultures and the "western" culture. Whats more, through movies like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, liberal American values are being spread worldwide. Soon every child would think that only sexual jokes are good jokes since people laugh along.
But all this begs one question. Is it because we are so westernized here in Singapore that we relate better to American movies, thus encouraging them to keep flooding local cinemas?? Or is it because we show so many American movies that we become westernized? Is this a vicious cycle then?
Actually, It is more our own fault. Our Asian movies just cannot match up to the sheer "power" of American movies. Over the years, American movies have always found a way to beat the Asian movies. If it was not in terms of storyline, it was due to the famous actors or the humongous budget and spectacular special effects.
I realize one thing about Singapore cinemas when it comes to non-USA films. Local cinemas tend to take in only the "cream of the crop". As in they do not just import any old foreign film, but only the best foreign films. Usually those that have won awards at film festivals or are highly regarded by critics.
Why is this treatment not given to American films then? Instead of just taking in almost every film produced in America, why do the local cinemas not just take in the best among them? And mind you, Transformers is far from being the "best".
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Week 7: Down with The Sickness
H1N1, the disease that has been making headlines since it was identified back in April this year. Up till today, articles about the infection are still on the front pages of newspapers. Be it developments to counter the pandemic, or a new string of infection related deaths, the lingering presence of "swine flu" articles, and the way they are presented, world definitely stir up some anti-germ paranoia. So much as sneeze while in a crowded train and all of a sudden people treat you like you are the leaper of the new century. They will do whatever it takes to stay away from you, especially if that sneeze was followed by another or a bad case of sniffles. Gone are the good old days when a sneeze would not even cause a single head to turn in your direction. If that is not a sign of the growing paranoia about infection, I do not know what is.
First, "Hand foot and mouth disease" then "SARS" then the common cold and now this. This is called "Agenda setting" in which the media drums up the importance of the flu pandemic, which in my opinion, is blown up a little bit too big. If you thought that only the newspapers are responsible for fanning flames of the paranoia, I would gladly direct you attention over to many bus stops inSingapore
Anyone notice a pattern forming? Flu pandemic leads to increase attention paid to hygiene. To further help in the overall "hygiene campaign" and to bank on the increasing number of people growing paranoid about hygiene, the media drums it up further. But wait, a more sinister reason why the media might want to drum up the paranoia about germs is because they are paid to do so. Their sponsors, in the form of the advertisers of said sanitation and anti bacterial products would stand to gain if more people grew paranoid and bought more of their products. It is a cycle of conspiracy here!
The topic of "germs" is quite an unobtrusive one. Who has actually had first hand experience of getting a swab sample from a door knob and isolating the micro-organisms in a laboratory aside from biology students? And with the stringent control of laboratory equipment in various tertiary institutions, one is not allowed to use the equipment to "satisfy curiosity" only to do what the lesson for the day requires of you. Hence, very few people actually have first hand experience dealing with the actual number of germs found on a door knob. Most of the information about how unhygienic a door knob or a sand pit is comes from top scientists only anyway, hence people will believe anything the "experts” say.
Those of us who lived long enough would know that this growing over blown obsession with hygiene was not present back in the "good old days". Today, you get the impression that a child would die of infection if he were to as much as crawl through a puddle. Back then, children played in drains and wallowed in swamp lands yet they were just as healthy as children nowadays. In fact, based on basic biology alone, exposure to germs is required for the body to build its own immune system. We can thus see that this germ paranoia was cultivated indirectly, and was cumulative over time.
Now the conspiracy comes full circle. The media messages, funded by their sponsors, make people paranoid about hygiene. This increases sales of the products the sponsors are selling. The over reliance on those disinfectants and anti bacterial liquids will, in theory, indirectly create a generation of children with a weaker immunity system. Sooner or later, this new generation will become dependent on the anti bacterial products thus ensuring an enduring clientele for the marketers of the products. The media companies benefit, and so do their sponsors.
First, "Hand foot and mouth disease" then "SARS" then the common cold and now this. This is called "Agenda setting" in which the media drums up the importance of the flu pandemic, which in my opinion, is blown up a little bit too big. If you thought that only the newspapers are responsible for fanning flames of the paranoia, I would gladly direct you attention over to many bus stops in
Anyone notice a pattern forming? Flu pandemic leads to increase attention paid to hygiene. To further help in the overall "hygiene campaign" and to bank on the increasing number of people growing paranoid about hygiene, the media drums it up further. But wait, a more sinister reason why the media might want to drum up the paranoia about germs is because they are paid to do so. Their sponsors, in the form of the advertisers of said sanitation and anti bacterial products would stand to gain if more people grew paranoid and bought more of their products. It is a cycle of conspiracy here!
The topic of "germs" is quite an unobtrusive one. Who has actually had first hand experience of getting a swab sample from a door knob and isolating the micro-organisms in a laboratory aside from biology students? And with the stringent control of laboratory equipment in various tertiary institutions, one is not allowed to use the equipment to "satisfy curiosity" only to do what the lesson for the day requires of you. Hence, very few people actually have first hand experience dealing with the actual number of germs found on a door knob. Most of the information about how unhygienic a door knob or a sand pit is comes from top scientists only anyway, hence people will believe anything the "experts” say.
Those of us who lived long enough would know that this growing over blown obsession with hygiene was not present back in the "good old days". Today, you get the impression that a child would die of infection if he were to as much as crawl through a puddle. Back then, children played in drains and wallowed in swamp lands yet they were just as healthy as children nowadays. In fact, based on basic biology alone, exposure to germs is required for the body to build its own immune system. We can thus see that this germ paranoia was cultivated indirectly, and was cumulative over time.
Now the conspiracy comes full circle. The media messages, funded by their sponsors, make people paranoid about hygiene. This increases sales of the products the sponsors are selling. The over reliance on those disinfectants and anti bacterial liquids will, in theory, indirectly create a generation of children with a weaker immunity system. Sooner or later, this new generation will become dependent on the anti bacterial products thus ensuring an enduring clientele for the marketers of the products. The media companies benefit, and so do their sponsors.
Get down with the sickness ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the new age of paranoia.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Week 6: Un-cultured?
I would like to refer to the article in the Straits Times published on Saturday May 23 2009 entitled "Sex Education: Experts identify 2 'weak links'. "
The article speaks of the Singapore government's efforts to conduct sexuality education programs and why there is such a need in Singapore. The main reason cited was that many parents are simply not comfortable with discussing such matters with their children, and hence transfer the responsibility of sexual education to the education system and the teachers. Not only that, experts went on to say that it may be because the parents are not fully equipped to pass on "the right information and values" to the children.
The reason why the parents may not be comfortable about discussing such issues about sexuality boils down to our culture, more specifically the traditional Asian culture. What distinguishes the traditional Singaporean from most westerners is the more conservative mindset passed down from generation to generation.
Also, culture dictates what the "right information and values" about sexuality are. The problem rises when cultures clash, especially in a multicultural country like Singapore. Where the older generation still stick to the traditional Asian cultural mindset, the newer generatrion are developing a culture of their own, greatly influenced by the "big media powers" of the world. Most specifically America, Japan and to a smaller extent, other Asian countries like Taiwan. This so called "modern" culture is a lot less conservative.
So where does the conflict fit in? Traditional cultural values regarding sexual relationship was very straight forward. Abstinence until marriage, hence leading sex and discussion of sex being labeled a taboo by our culture. However the culture that the young ones are exposed to are in direct contradiction of the traditional Singaporean culture. For with a more liberal mindset when it comes to discussing sex, there would naturally follow a more liberal mindset concerning the act of having sex. In the long run many would argue that social degradation of values would be the end result. The counter argument is that the whole world is adopting this new culture and it is only right to follow suit.
Values are part of culture, they are the building blocks of culture. They provide the context within which society's norms are established and justified.
What then should happen when two cultures collide? Culture is passed on from generation to generation, yet it is ever changing. Do we stick to old adage of "everyone is allowed their say" thus acknowledging the subjectivity of the very concept culture? Or do we fall back on objective truths about right and wrong?
The article speaks of the Singapore government's efforts to conduct sexuality education programs and why there is such a need in Singapore. The main reason cited was that many parents are simply not comfortable with discussing such matters with their children, and hence transfer the responsibility of sexual education to the education system and the teachers. Not only that, experts went on to say that it may be because the parents are not fully equipped to pass on "the right information and values" to the children.
The reason why the parents may not be comfortable about discussing such issues about sexuality boils down to our culture, more specifically the traditional Asian culture. What distinguishes the traditional Singaporean from most westerners is the more conservative mindset passed down from generation to generation.
Also, culture dictates what the "right information and values" about sexuality are. The problem rises when cultures clash, especially in a multicultural country like Singapore. Where the older generation still stick to the traditional Asian cultural mindset, the newer generatrion are developing a culture of their own, greatly influenced by the "big media powers" of the world. Most specifically America, Japan and to a smaller extent, other Asian countries like Taiwan. This so called "modern" culture is a lot less conservative.
So where does the conflict fit in? Traditional cultural values regarding sexual relationship was very straight forward. Abstinence until marriage, hence leading sex and discussion of sex being labeled a taboo by our culture. However the culture that the young ones are exposed to are in direct contradiction of the traditional Singaporean culture. For with a more liberal mindset when it comes to discussing sex, there would naturally follow a more liberal mindset concerning the act of having sex. In the long run many would argue that social degradation of values would be the end result. The counter argument is that the whole world is adopting this new culture and it is only right to follow suit.
Values are part of culture, they are the building blocks of culture. They provide the context within which society's norms are established and justified.
What then should happen when two cultures collide? Culture is passed on from generation to generation, yet it is ever changing. Do we stick to old adage of "everyone is allowed their say" thus acknowledging the subjectivity of the very concept culture? Or do we fall back on objective truths about right and wrong?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Week 5:
After premiering on May 21 2009, the movie "Terminator: Salvation" was met with a generally positive audience response and successfully continues that long running "Terminator" franchise that started in 1984. My review on how i felt about the film, its philosophical themes or its shaky cinematography would not be the focus of this post. However, I would like to bring your attention to one of the sub plots of the movie that involves the chain of command of the Resistance army that are waging a guerrilla war against a self-aware Artificial intelligence(A.I) program bent on total destruction of humankind.
A little bit of back history of the movie for those unfamiliar with its premise.
In the early 21s century, a military A.I program called "Skynet" became self-aware and logically concluded that humans were a threat to it. It managed to cause a global nuclear war that decimated three quarters of the earth. Fast forward to the year 2018 and a fully functional human Resistance movement has been formed. Among its soldiers is one John Connor; a lowly platoon commander rapidly gaining a loyal underground following among the human population. He exhibits a uncanny knowledge of the machine's tactics and weaknesses, thanks to past experience with time-traveling cyborgs, making many of the survivors perceive him as some sort of "prophet" or "savior". He reached out to the scattered pockets of resistance via nightly radio broadcasts, in a way reducing temporal proximity and allowing him to form relationships with the various scattered groups.
Need for support and synergy was the core factor that most likely brought the Resistance movement together. It was established in the movie that there were many different pockets of guerrilla fighters at first, and that they came together to form the Resistance movement under a central command. The benefits of coming together as one cohesive unit instead of a bunch of scattered squads are the same with any group coming together in the first place. To benefit from each other(group synergy), to gain support from each other and to meet interpersonal needs like companionship in a post apocalyptic world ruled by machines. As for the five generals who make up the Resistance central command, they got together as it is easier to tackle complex decisions as a group and it was easier to coordinate their individual armies.
In the film, the decision is made by the Resistance commanders to launch a full scale attack on Skynet installations following the discovery of an electronic frequency that may shut down the machines.
However, despite knowing that there are thousands of human captives in such installation, the generals all agree to launch the attacks.
There is evidence of "Group think" at play in making that decision. For one thing, the generals believed strongly in the applied morality of their group, in that it was right to destroy the captives along with Skynet, so long as the goal of victory is met. They collectively rationalized that the ends justified the means and that the deaths of the captives was an acceptable loss.
One general was reluctant, a dissenter, at first but had to give in to the decision due to group pressure, leading to the illusion that the decision was unanimous.
Connor objected; he blatantly went against the decision of the group as the group's needs were not the same as his needs, which was to rescue the captives before the attack was launched, thus preserving human lives.
This led to a breakdown in the group communication as Connor did not conform to the ideals of the other leaders. However, due to his reaching out and establishing relationships with the majority of the world-wide human resistance, the majority of the soldiers went with Connor's decision and assisted in the rescue of the captives.
I am certain many of us face this sort of situation in life. When the group we are in makes a decision that you do not agree with but are forced to agree since you are part of that group. How far would one be willing to conform despite knowing that what one is conforming to is not entirely right? For example, the unanimous decision to try drugs among a group of friends. Would the one among them who disagrees be willing to rebel? Or will he or she give in to group pressure?
For myself, I believe strongly in a sense of right and wrong. Should the group i am affiliated with challenge my values, I would not hesitate in disassociating myself from them. Sacrificing my values is too high a price for too little a reciprocation to me. What about yourself? How far would you go to stand up for your own values in group context should those values be challenged?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)