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.

Response Post: Art is wonderful no matter how many times you've Googled it

     I believe Arianna has valid points to her argument that the availability of having artwork viewable online at anytime can take away from the surprise of seeing it in person, yet I do think  that the ability to view such work in the comfort of one's own home is more of a benefit than a disadvantage.

     For many people it is difficult to take off time from work and school to travel extensively. The cost can also be a factor holding some people back. There are so many beautiful works in the world however and while we may never be able to see all of them online or not, it is definitely an aid to be able to view and study them over a computer. If it were not for this easy access we would be lacking in what the world of art has to offer. Not only would many people not be able to see such works, yet so many would be ignored or not even known about.

     Personally, I am grateful for the information I am exposed to because I know that many of these pieces I will never see and while in an ideal situation I could have these works up in my living room (or maybe see them in their habitats), the fact that I can type in "Mona Lisa" into Google and see her in all her glory makes me feel alright about the sad but harsh truth. (Though for the record I have seen the Mona Lisa in reality and she's very popular. It was hard to get near her).

     When it comes to the element of surprise, I have to say that no matter how many times you see something on a computer screen, whether it is a photo or a video if you really desire to see something in person it will be amazing nonetheless. The best example I can give of this is when I saw my favourite band for the first time. I had liked them for about three years and had watched and viewed possibly every photo in existence and made available to the public of them. Despite that they didn't play many shows I always knew I would see them perform live. Call it a delusion or wishful thinking but my interest in them was so great that I could not fathom never seeing them. Finally when the day that I went to their show came and the lead singer walked on stage I was in shock. I didn't think it would hit me so hard but I was awestruck for a few seconds and then I simply enjoyed the music.

     Despite teenage me searching, reading and viewing this band many times, when I had the opportunity to do it in person it was unlike any other experience I previously had in relation to them and their music. It was simply the best, and no amount of Google or Youtube searching took away any of the luster from the experience.

Television can help cultivate a child's mind

     We were given a list of words which were used as metaphors for television in Detweiller and Taylor's article. Many of these words resonated with me as I spent much of my childhood watching television. Most people would think this would be detrimental to a child yet I believe that many of the shows shaped my personality into who I am today. (I am not a carbon copy of Sesame Street, and my idols are not Samurai Pizza Cats if that's what you're thinking). Instead, many of the shows I watched were funny, educational and age appropriate which are all very important factors. From watching shows like Lamb Chop's Play Along and Recess I got my sense of humor, learned right from wrong and attained an imagination that I wouldn't give up for the world.

     Of course my parents and school had a large impact on me as well but these shows gave me something that they couldn't. They were constant companions that I could turn on when the former were not available. Also, I don't think my parents or teachers would have been able to make up daily stories of the adventures to be had by a boy football shaped head in the middle of New York City or what evil forces a beautiful warrior princess had to save the world from. I mean, that would have been tiring!

     The stories I watched and absorbed helped me create my own. My imagination grew and became rich. I could make up stories instantly when we had creative writing assignments and playing with my Barbies turned into three-act plays.

     The negative connotations people attribute to television and children such as it being a replacement baby-sitter, taking away from the responsibility of parents and acting as a sedative are false. If the children are watching the right programs that teach them things it helps their minds flourish which later in life will allow them to create beautiful things. Parents allowing their children to watch the right kids' shows is a healthy and important aspect which will help a child's mind develop to a creative and intelligent adult mind.

Advertising within shows

     Commercials seem redundant to me nowadays. I rarely pay attention to them, instead opting to change the channel when they come and tune back in when the show I was watching returns. If on the rare occasion the remote is too far for me to reach and I do somewhat register the products that are shamelessly trying to be sold to me I laugh at the idea that I would be interested in purchasing Bounty instead of the other leading brand of paper towel because it's quilted and can be use to clean the entire kitchen. First of all, that's gross; I don't want to use one piece of soggy paper towel to clean the spills on my counter, stove top and kitchen table. Secondly, I wouldn't purchase either brand because I buy the no name paper towels that get the job done and are half the cost of the fancy quilted cloud like ones. True, I may not be the target market for this product but when a perfume commercial plays which I definitely am the target for I still feel nothing. In fact, I think it's a little ridiculous how most perfume commercials have nothing to do with the scent of the product and instead feature a celebrity running through a city such as Paris or Barcelona wearing a flowy gown while a male model chases them. This must mean the perfume smells like daffodils!

     Since commercials tend to have a lackluster effect on many people, advertisers have turned to television shows and movies to sell their products. They clearly have a target audience and the resulting products featured in these films and shows are directed at selling to them. I remember even at the young age of eleven when I went to see Josie and the Pussycats in theatres I realized that the entire film was loaded with ads from Target to Coca-Cola. I can't remember if it necessarily made me crave an ice cold coke or beg my parents to take me on a Buffalo shopping trip so I could buy some items at Target but it stuck with me to this day at how crowded the movie seemed due to the product placements.

     The most popular shows today feature advertising. Modern Family, 30 Rock and The Office all do it and while some more subtly than others it's still there and something is definitely trying to be sold to us. Obviously advertisers are paying big bucks to get their products featured and how well the writers ad in the products in completely up to them but viewers are smart and not much gets by them.

     This form of advertising is more effective as it is done within a story line and can add humor, or help move the story along if even in a slight way. It's also not as in your face as commercials tend to be which strongly helps the cause, as a softer approach in marketing is more popular now

     I think that the most important factor in this newer advertising format is to be conscious of it. Advertising is always there even if not always apparent and we are always seen as consumers. If we can be smart about what we choose to purchase and we do so for the right reasons then I believe we, along with the ad agencies are winning.

Women as Jesus and Christ-like figures

     The class in which we spoke about Jesus films and Christ figures was extremely interesting. I am going to be declaring my major next year and I'm planning to choose cinema studies. I enjoy not only watching films but also studying the way in which they were made, the messages they are trying to convey and the way in which viewers interpret those messages. Listening to all the different depictions of Jesus and Christ like figures depicted in films started to worry me. I mean, almost none of those depictions included any women. Kozlovic does mention superheroes and among them Batgirl and Wonderwoman are Christ-like figures. Also written about is the character of Bess in Breaking The Waves, (though her Christ-like mission is controversial as she prostitutes herself in hopes of saving her husband). Lastly, one of the attributes Kozlovic talks about is a Mary Magdalene. She is "a sexually tagged woman who is related to him in some close way, but who does not know how properly to

express her sexuality with him." It seems as though almost all the women who are associated with Jesus or Christ-like figures have one thing in common; their sexuality.

     Why is it that the only way women can have a Christ-like effect is by using their looks or promises of sexual interaction to do good? Do scholars not see women as being able to help others and do good in the way men do? It is surprising to read that men and women are seen so differently and that the main difference is how they can help people. I believe it is putting humanity on the whole many steps back to suggest that women can only aid others with sex and not with their minds or hearts.

     I have mentioned this before, but one of the only films I have seen a Christ-like figure and a God figure represented by women is Kevin Smith's Dogma, where a woman is the descendant of Christ and must save the world without seducing anyone and Alanis Morisette plays God. An additional film (though originally a book) that includes a Christ-like figure who does not have to show off her sexuality is The Davinci Code, where Audrey Tautou is the descendant of Jesus.

     It would be nice to see more women in Christ-like roles. Understandably most of the time it is men featured as such because Jesus was of course, male. Yet his journey and attributes can easily be contributed to a woman who does not have to dangle her sexuality in front of a man to make a difference in the lives of others.

Response Post: Jesus' many looks

   

Eric's post on the different depictions of Jesus were very interesting. It's funny how one man whose story is the same to everyone can look so differently within cultures. I always picture Jesus not as a baby nor wearing a tuxedo t-shirt as some might. I see him as a Caucasian man with long brown hair, brown eyes and a beard. This is probably the most depicted of all Jesus but most certainly not the only one.

From Kozlovic's article I realized that many of the attributes that constitute Jesus' identity are not merely physical aspects. Jesus can be personified within an object as the house which he mentions in Woddy Allen's September and even animals! If they have those qualities about them such as kindness, the want for change and the ability for salvation then anything or anyone can be Christ-like.

Most people don't think of Jesus as a woman, yet Kozlovic mentions numerous films where the female protagonists are very Christ-like. One he doesn't talk about yet I have before is Kevin Smith's film Dogma. He depicts God as a woman, (as played by Alanis Morisette). Even though it isn't Jesus being portrayed, it is still someone very close to him (or her) and the ultimate religious figure which few people would consider female.

In fact, many times a Christ-like figure is depicted in films, books, and even comics. This can strongly shape the way people think of Jesus because of all the allusions made to him via Superheroes, cute animals and even architecture.

In conclusion, Jesus can look like anything you imagine as long as it follows the characteristics that Kozlovic explains and the outcome is always a redeeming one.

Response Post to Kanye West blog: Using God as an escape route

I agree with Riley's post on Kanye West's wayward religious following. Many rappers, not just Kanye, claim to follow the teachings of Christianity and have immense faith in Jesus yet their actions in their everyday lives would tell us a different story.

     How many times have we watched an awards show where when a rapper won they would thank God first and foremost? How many rappers wear chains around their necks with symbols of crosses? It's ironic then when we're invited into their houses while watching MTV cribs and these same celebrities own the most ridiculous and over the top things...have they not heard of the seven deadly sins? All that Vitamin Water in the fridge definitely would fall under "gluttony".

     This does not only happen with rappers however. Country music stars, pop stars, and even rock stars all seem to be ungrateful while claiming to be devoted Christians. (Three examples would be Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears and Kings Of Leon.) All of these celebrities at one point have claimed to be Christians yet all have been connected to negative things such as drugs one time or another.

     One could think that they're just following the religion in their own way as Riley mentioned yet what I believe is really going on is that they're using the idea of religion as a cover up. They believe...or should I say their publicists tell them to say they believe in Christianity to the media so they seem like good, devoted and honest people. While all the artists I mentioned were raised in Christian households and the teachings of the bible were surely ingrained in them at a young age they have clearly changed their ways over time.

     It's also an escape. If they do something such as smoke salvia and are careless enough to get caught doing it on camera (I won't mention any names) they can claim the old "God" excuse. That's where they say that it was a slip up and that really deep down they're good Christians and in the end it doesn't even really matter what we think because only God can judge them. (Maybe they should get that last one tattooed on them and save themselves the time).

     Basically, artists use religion as a safety net. They think they will be forgiven if they claim to have faith and want to make amends for their mistakes because of God. In the end though should they not want to make things right for the fans? After all, it is us buying their albums.

Advertising at a new low: The empty promises of Benny Hinn

     Twitchell's article on advertising within religion was very interesting this week. It made me realize just how much the two go hand in hand. One of the most obvious forms of marketing within religion would have to be Evangelical programs featuring pastors who not only sell products pertaining to their service yet also their ideas.

    A very prevalent idea, especially that of famed Evangelist Benny Hinn is "saving" people from their ailments. Now while it's completely someone's prerogative if they want to preach to people and theirs if they choose to listen, I believe Mr. Hinn goes way out of bounds with his freedoms. He claims to heal people of illnesses yet there have been several reports; including an HBO documentary and a CBC Fifth Estate show detailing his false promises.

     Most of us know by now that we shouldn't believe everything we read or see on television. Ads often "glamorize" their products so people will buy into them. Yet Benny Hinn has been proven to blatantly lie to his devoted followers. According to the CBC report, he refuses seeing people with visible ailments and gets his screeners who find afflicted people to turn those with diseases that render them in wheel chairs or other clear disabilities away. Additionally he has been accused of asking for donations for a $36 million jet and his ministry is not a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which is an organization that ensures the validity of ministries that qualify for tax-exempt status.

     While marketing in religion isn't a new idea and advertising itself is not always telling the whole truth (and nothing but it) the length of pure fabrication and deceit that someone such as Benny Hinn amounts to makes me think that there should be more stringent laws put against his "services". In the end it will only protect the faithful and would portray the person making the promises as valid if they can deliver them.

Response Post: Jersey Shore, ironic and hypocritical

I agree with Elona’s post in which she proved that can be seen as a social benefit. All the points were proven with fair and intelligent answers. While reading her blog, it made me realize how ironic Jersey Shore really is however. I mean, I do believe that MTV realizes the irony and likes poke fun at it while the cast members may not fully be aware yet the degree to which these people rate on the hypocrisy scale is nauseating. As mentioned, “guidos” and “guidettes” are typically people of Italian decent now living in North America, (though not all the cast members are…Jwoww I’m talking to you). Historically, Italians are Catholics which many of the people on the show claim to be by way of their large crucifix chains and religious iconographic tattoos, yet they go prowling on a nightly basis for girls who are willing to sleep with them after knowing them for about an hour and intoxicated. Numerous times has one character, Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino taken girls back to the house and when they said they would not like to engage in any sexual activity he literally threw them out.

Finding someone of a similar background to be in a relationship (or lack of judging by their track record) is also important to these characters. “Snooki” often talks about how she would like to find an “Italian juicehead”. One would think this would be because she would share the same tradition and culture as someone raised in a similar way, yet what it mostly comes down to is looks and style.

Finally, the cast of the show like to engage in a tradition called “Sunday dinner” where, yep, you guessed it all of them come together, cook dinner and sit down to a nice "family dinner”. While they claim to be close and have dinner together on the most sacred of days the other days of the week the guys and more recently the girls of the show can be seen getting into physical altercations with one another, bad mouthing the members of the cast they don’t like and stealing one another’s sexual prospects.

I’m not Italian yet something tells me that these factors have nothing to do with having said cultural background. It’s a shame that the cast of the show associate themselves so closely with this heritage when the two have really nothing in common.

Jesus Christ: Super Star

     Today's class was particularly interesting to me because Professor Harris spoke to us about film and the different ways it can relate to religion. We then proceeded to fill out a shot-by-shot analysis of David Fincher's, Fight Club. As a cinema studies major I found this exercise very enjoyable as it was mixing SMC305H1l's material with many things I have learned in my intro to film class.

     The exercise and the entire topic surrounding film and religion got me thinking of just how many movies use religious ideas, iconography and even religious humor. There are  obvious films such as Mel Gibson's, The Passion of the Christ, which strives to be as historically accurate as possible. This movie tells the plight of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and is a guaranteed tear jerker. Then there are movies such as Kevin Smith’s Dogma which has a much lighter and comedic air about it. The movie tells the story of two angels who have been expelled from heaven and wish to re-enter via a loophole they have discovered. A woman who is unknowingly the descendant of Christ must stop them. I know it doesn’t sound like a knee-slapper, but trust me, like any Kevin Smith film it’s very funny. The beauty of this film (besides the hilarious script), is the fact that while being so funny in no way does it demean religion. In fact, after watching this one would come to believe that Kevin Smith is a devout Christian with a great sense of humor. The amount of research and pure knowledge of the Christian religion required of a person to have written this film is not on the light side. Not bad for a guy who created the characters Jay and Silent Bob (who I actually quite like).

    

     Basically, films depicting religion come in many forms. They can be serious and precise to the biblical stories or they can revamp the tales and modernize them. Either way it’s entertaining to watch and viewers can learn about Christianity in whichever version.