Response Post: Gaga the Fame Monster

Ahh Lady Gaga, what a paradox she is. This confusion we feel when we think of her is exactly what she wants us to think yet I really don't believe she is as big of a conundrum as she tries to emulate.

Elona's post was spot on with the comparisons of Gaga and Christianity. She combines her fame with the images of monsters, which often have a religious meaning. What I found ironic was Elona's sentence where she said why Gaga relates her fame and fans to monsters, "Apparently, through interviews that I have seen of her, she hates fame and the horrible attachments that come with it. By calling her album the "Fame Monster" she is pointing to the monster quality in us humans to the materialism famous people enjoy and indulge in. “I find it ironic because only today as I was watching Fashion Television with Jeanne Beker did I see Lady Gaga attend a Marc Jacobs runway show. Now this is in and of itself ironic as the fashion industry can be seen as the epitome of materialism. Not only was Lady Gaga there dressed in one of her stranger ensembles but when Beker, a seasoned fashion journalist who has been working in the industry for longer than Lady Gaga has been alive, tried to get a comment from the "Fame Monster" she flippantly gave a response along the lines of "it was brilliant" and kept walking away. The lack of respect evident in her mannerisms were impossible to miss.

Yet what does she try to teach us? To respect all regardless of sexual orientation or background. To not judge one another based on looks or material aspects but on our minds and the amount of love we can give. I've talked about this before in my Justin Bieber post and I will have to mention it again. Lady Gaga uses religion in a way that simply draws attention to herself yet does not truly put forth the true meaning of what it encompasses.

She was born into a religious Italian family as Stephanie Germanotta and only turned into Lady Gaga a few years ago. The religious depictions she portrays (such as a nun in the Alejandro video) I believe are done to call out her strict(ish) upbringing and to create taboo subjects in her videos. What does the song even have to do with nuns? It's about a guy named Alejandro, not an ode to the Sister Act movies. Her actions are not done with the true meaning of religion in mind, it's a gimmick to get people talking about her. She may want to seem all accepting and understanding but I don't buy

Do Zombies Make Us More Relgious?

Zombies are an interesting bunch. They're dead but they run after you. Their hearts don't beat but they wish to eat your brains and they can no longer enunciate proper words but they want to create more of their kind by biting anyone they can get their hands on. They're kind of an enigma which further makes me think that in a certain light a zombie apocalypse would be kind of fun. No? Pretend you never read that.

It got me thinking though, if this happened and the world went 28 Days Later on us minus Danny Boyle directing everything would we change? I mean, of course we'd change in some ways. Canned beans would be a delicacy and we'd surely be a lot more independent but in a religious sense would be change? Would the truly pious lose all faith in their respective religions because of this ungodly event and would the former atheists suddenly develop an interest in saving grace of God?

     Television shows and movies rarely show us events happening in such a way. Usually the religious get more so while the ones who never had faith do not see how anyone could in the given circumstances. Obviously the reversal of roles would be more difficult to depict in what is probably an already complicated story yet it would make for some interesting analysis and progression of character.

     We did not see much talk of religion in the episode of "The Walking Dead" we watched in class yet as someone mentioned there are religious characters in the show and some seem to clearly have it be the furthest thing from their minds. In such a hectic time when survival from blood spewing, organ flailing wretched creatures is the most important thing does religion have a strong role anymore? It's interesting how the answer can go in both ways and be the reason for some people to even keep going and yet for others it is not even something they dream of (with rifle in hand in case one of those suckers gets near).

Response Post: Cartoon Violence

     Elona's belief that violent cartoons could easily influence young children is the notion that many if not most people have about media violence. As the article by Brown suggested however, the studies that are being done on this phenomenon may not be showing the correct results, as certain factors are not taken into consideration. Therefore, we do not really know what affects violent media has on children.

     Having been born in a communist country and moving to Canada when I was four years old I grew up watching older cartoons that the generation before me enjoyed. I'm sure we all know that older Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons featuring Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and the Road Runner (with his nemesis Wyle E. Cayote) were much more violent than most cartoons are now. I can't recall the last time I saw an anvil or box of TNTs used to catch one's foe in a children's show. In relative terms I believe I grew up fairly normal. I am against violence, not a fan of war and choose to be a vegetarian because of my respect of animals. (Which just proves I didn't take any of those cartoons of animals trying to kill other animals seriously). I strongly believe it is the role of the parent to instill the idea of right and wrong in children and teach them from an early age that what we see on television is not always real. In fact, very little of the time is there truth in entertainment. Cartoons are fantasy. I can understand that even if something is to be considered in a funny and light context blood and gore may not be the best way to get the message across yet those shows depict such an outlandish and nonsensical type of violence that it's almost an ironic commentary on how silly true violence can be.

     Furthermore, in regards to newer cartoons where superheroes are fighting one another, as Elona mention it does exhibit the case of the American monomyth as discuss in class. Yet this tale is one of bravery, justice and the restoration of peace. The hero comes into town in order to remove the evil which preys on the innocent. If there were nothing harming anyone there would be no need for violence. In my opinion violence in superhero shows is justified because the message coming across to children is to stand up and fight for what you believe in. Also, kids can't fly or shoot fire out of their eyes so I'm not too worried they'll be trying anything extreme. (Unless they're the kid from Superbad, then we may have something to worry about).

     I believe violence that is cartoonish in nature or that is justified such as the mighty and brave defending the good and innocent (in a non-gory comic book style way), is acceptable in children's cartoons as the kids watching them should be told the difference between what they are watching and real life.

Artists beware: Fans can take work much too literally

    In last week's class we watched Eminem's video for his song Stan. It is about a crazed fan who wants to be "just like" Eminem by way of his songs and videos. What he doesn't know is that Eminem is not truly himself in these songs but uses them as an artistic outlet to get his emotions out. In the end Stan kills himself and his pregnant girlfriend out of outrage that Eminem would not get back to his letters.

     With this song and video Eminem wanted to show the critics how he felt about people taking his work in a literal sense and thinking he was a violent person. He claims that any songs that have violent references either about wishing to kill his ex-wife, his mother or inflicting harm on anyone else are created so he can take his anger out through a creative medium while not actually doing anything illegal and harmful.

     While I think getting out your feelings and not harboring them inside of you is a good idea, the way he has done this may not be the best. When someone is famous and therefore in the public eye with many fans regardless of how they mean certain things they say or do their fans will take much of it to a literal sense. Surely Britney Spears did not wear schoolgirl outfits in her daily life yet many girls adopted the look because she wore it in a video. The same thing can go for Eminem's lyrics. In reality he may not want to hurt his ex-wife or mother and is only expressing the anger and pain they have caused him yet while listening to these songs they can strike emotions in people and their messages can unintentionally persuade fans to change the way they think.

     While Eminem nor any other celebrity is directly responsible for what their beliefs and emotions are, especially if they are not trying to get other people to act upon them they must come to the realization that some people take things to heart and much too seriously. Messages artists have can get misinterpreted and misconstrued by others and therefore it would be the most obvious thing to look to the creators of them for blame.

     I believe that artists such as Eminem who want to channel their emotions through their art should be able to do so yet since people are easily influenced and if the artists themselves do not want to undergo the inevitable blame others will place on them, certain songs or works should be created only for themselves. In this way the process of creating such works can still be therapeutic yet no one will take it the wrong way and act upon any illegal actions.

Response Post to: Athletes as God and God Helping Athletes

     Vanessa's points on the unjustified relationship between religion and sports rings very true to me. While many sports stars claim to be religious and say that they owe their talent to their beliefs, much of the time they do not portray these claims in their daily lives where it really counts.

     I really like the line where Vanessa states, "Did God really help them win? If so, did God want them to win over their opponents?" What makes one team's win more important than another? Did the losing team do something to upset God? Maybe they didn't pray hard or long enough? It's a very sticky situation and I don't think anyone can give a correct answer.

     Without pointing any fingers, in all truth sports players are known to cheat on their spouses. I'm sure it happens to all types of people all the time yet sports stars have the unlucky truth of having their mistakes portrayed all over the media. Moreover, much of these stars as previously explained claim they are religious and the last time I checked lust was definitely a sin. Athletes such as Tom Brady, Kobe Bryant and Brett Favre have all cheated on their significant others. Brady left his pregnant girlfriend, Bridget Moynahan for supermodel Gisele Bundchen. Favre, who has been known to retire, then call it off seems to be undecided on his marriage as well after cheating on his wife of many years. He even claims that he and his family are very religious and his wife has stayed with him through it all, stating religion as what has helped her get through the ordeal.

     How are these players (apparently not only on but off the field as well) justifying calling themselves pious men who ask for God's assistance to win the games they're playing (ultimately to make more money) if their personal lives are so riddled with blasphemy? It seems unfair that they should ask for such help from the almighty creator when really all they are asking for is more money. Should they not really on their skills that they attain through hard work and leave God to do his holy work on people who have much less?

     In my opinion all these athletes are selfish and tend to lie in order to keep their true images and secrets out of the public eye. It may sound a little harsh but in my humble opinion I really do think that asking God to help you kick around a ball is a ridiculous notion.

 

Response Post: JB as JC

     I strongly agree with what you are saying. Justin Bieber does not truly know what it is like to live as these children in third world countries do. The fact that he is using these images in his music video to solicit emotions within its viewers is controversial and also unfair. Think about...by using the images of these poverty-stricken children Bieber is making more money. How ironic.

     I wrote a similar post about Bieber. In mine however, I don't blame Bieber for his actions so much as his marketing and PR team. They are the true machines behind him. He is nothing more than a puppet for what they tell him to do and say in order to make money. Of course at his age one should know right from wrong but many people do not see what he is doing as wrong, especially him. He must think that if he is making money and that if anything, even a little of it is going towards those that need help then he must be doing something altruistic.

     Furthermore, you mentioned that he is donating proceeds from his ticket sails to a charity because "he knows what it's like to be poor". I understand that he grew up in a single parent home and he may not have had everything other middle class children had. Despite this, he was living in Canada at the time. Stratford, Ontario to be exact. While it is not pleasant having less than others around you, I'm sure he was nowhere near the level of poverty the kids in his video are at. Even if he were, Canada has many options for people to get help and support if they are in such a case, whereas the countries depicted in the video probably do not compare in this respect.

     Don't hate Bieber. He's a kid with newfound fame and doing what he's told. Many people would do the same in his situation. It could be worse. He could be the next Marilyn Manson. I doubt anyone would consider him Canada's sweetheart then.

Justin Bieber: A Safe Role Model for Kids

      As a child I listened to many artists whose music I may describe as "terrible" today. (Though I doubt I will ever say this of the Spice Girls, they forever will remain nothing short of amazing). I'd buy the CDs to the numerous one hit wonders I would hear about on television or on the radio and sing along to the chorus as that was the only part that I could remember. (Unless it was by the Spice Girls, then I'd know the entire song, including the lyrics to any unreleased version). While I liked these teenybopper bands and even admired some of the artists I do not remember any of them promoting any sort of religion, and if they did it clearly did not resonate strongly with me. Their job was to entertain audiences, make a quick buck and retire to Florida in their thirties.

     In class this week we learned about the different types of Christian bands. We also discussed Justin Bieber and his song, "Pray". Justin Bieber would fall into the Transformationist category as he proclaims his religious views and even has songs, which have religious connotations (though not specific to any one in general) yet he is a mainstream pop music artist.

     Whether Justin Bieber truly is religious or not, I don't know. Yet I do think that he, or should I say the people managing him have an agenda. Justin, (we're on a first name basis), is only seventeen years old, making him a minor. He's young and therefore people want to believe he is innocent, especially since he is a role model to many even younger children due to his career choice. Parents want to keep the innocence of their children intact for as long as possible and in turn, hope that the people their children look up to will be a good example so their children will mimic them and stay on the right path. This, of course, also leaves Charlie Sheen without the option of being a role model.

     Ask yourself, "What is the best example to follow in order to be good?" The age-old response would be to follow a religion. In most cases, people claim that religion keeps them on a straight track and makes them want to do good in the world.

     The people behind Justin, those making money off of his career such as managers, PR people, etc. wish to make as much money as possible. Therefore, they decide to take the fact (or possibly not in the case that Justin is not religious at all or is religious within a different faith than Christianity), and use it to market him. He is told to mention his faith in the Christian God in interviews, songs, music videos, etc. Parents see this and feel a sense of relief. Their children are listening to lyrics that mention love and dating yet the person behind them is a pious and honorable kid. The fact that most Americans are Christians is not a coincidence either. Justin is marketed towards the masses in order to make the most money. Then again, even if parents aren't Christians or religious at all they would prefer their kids to listen to Justin's music and look up to him rather than someone such as Katy Perry or Ke$ha who blatantly use their sexuality and lack of religion to market themselves. (Though Ke$ha should really think again about the former aspect).

     In conclusion, Justin Bieber may be a good Christian kid who is a safe bet when it comes to people's kids yet regardless of his true faith the ideas and image he puts out to the world are just as manufactured as any other celebrity's persona.