The History of Comic Book Adaptations to Film: Part Fifteen (2011)

THOR

Two new additions the Marvel Cinematic Universe were churned out in 2011. The first was Thor, based on the longtime Avenger. Thor was first seen in Marvel Comics in 1962, adapted from Norse mythology by Stan Lee, scripter Larry Lieber, and penciller Jack Kirby.

Thor was originally considered as a project by Sam Raimi in the early 1990s. This fell through and nothing more transpired on it until the early 2000s. Other directors considered were David S. Goyer and Matthew Vaughn.

Eventually, Marvel Studios chose Kenneth Branagh. Branagh is noted for having directed and starred in several well-received Shakespeare adaptations. To portray Thor, they chose relative newcomer Chris Hemsworth, surrounding him with big names such as Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, and Rene Russo.

Thor connects to the greater MCU in multiple ways. It features a cameo by Hawkeye in his first cinematic appearance. Of course, Hawkeye would go on to play a large role in The Avengers. Then there's Agent Coulson, who appears here after being established in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. He even has a comment directed towards him asking if the Asgardian Destroyer armor is "one of Stark's".  At one point, Dr, Selvig refers to a colleague that studied gamma radiation, AKA Bruce Banner AKA, The Hulk. There's also an after credit scene  that sets up The Avengers.

The film stays generally faithful to the comic Thor but it sort of combines elements of the 616 and Ultimate versions. Thor doesn’t have his alter ego of Donald Blake, although this is briefly referred to when it is used as a false identity to break him out of SHIELD custody.

Thor did quite well. The budget was a moderate $150 million, and it totaled over $449 million in B.O. by the time everything was said and done. It was a critical success as well, earning itself a 77 percent on the good ol' Tomatometer.

Many comic fans consider it somewhat mediocre, but I think it's one of the best superhero films ever made. The visuals are amazing and Loki is easily in the top 5 villains from comic movies.

A sequel, Thor: The Dark World was released in November 2013. A third film is likely, hopefully featuring Surtur as the villain.


CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

The next entry in the MCU was Captain America: The First Avenger. Captain America was created in 1941 and the film stays true to his roots as a WWII-era character that gets frozen until modern times.

The First Avenger stars Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, and Toby Jones. It was directed by Joe Johnston, who also made Jumanji, The Rocketeer, and Jurassic Park III.

Evans had plenty of experience in comic adaptations prior to this. He appeared in the two Fantastic Four films, as well as The Losers and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

As with Thor, Marvel Studios decided to take aspects of the character from both the 616 and Ultimate continuities. The personality is similar to the 616 version (as opposed to the racist, jingoistic Ultimate version), but his appearance takes cues from the Ultimate Captain America.

Captain America's most famous nemesis, Red Skull was picked as the villain. As with many comic book movies, his code name isn't really used. The term "Red Skull" is only used once, and as an insult.

This was the last MCU film before The Avengers. Joss Whedon, the director of The Avengers, rewrote the script the include more references to the greater universe. The final product has a lot of connective tissue to the MCU. For example, this film introduces the Cosmic Cube, which is crucial to the plot of The Avengers.

Furthermore, Howard Stark, Tony's father, is a pretty significant character in CA: TFA. Thor is also referenced and Nick Fury appears at the end when the film skips ahead to the present.

The Marvel Studios effort was decently successful. It raked in over $370 million all told on a budget of only $140 million. It ended up being the third highest grossing movie that was set in World War Two. The critical reaction wasn't bad either. CA: TFA has a 79% at Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 66 on Metacritic.

A sequel is being released on April 4, 2014, titled Captain America: The Winter Solider. It will feature the return of Sebastian Stan. His character, Bucky Barnes, appeared to die in the first film. However, as in the comics, he survived to come back as the brainwashed villain known as the Winter Soldier.

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS

After mixed reactions to X-Men 3 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, FOX was looking breathe fresh air into the franchise. To achieve this, they would go with a prequel that also could be seen as somewhat of a reboot. Most of the main characters from the main trilogy, like Storm, Jean Grey, Cyclops, and Rogue would not appear at all. Wolverine only had a quick cameo.

Instead the story would focus on the younger versions of Professor X (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender). The story-line has some issues with previously established backstory of the original films, but it's clear these are supposed to be younger versions of McKellen and Stewart. A younger  Mystique also appears, played by Jennifer Lawrence.

Director Matthew Vaughn reportedly only referred to the first two films in terms of continuity. Many issues seem to arise when comparing First Class to X-Men 3 or Origins. In The Last Stand, Magneto and a bald, able-bodied Charles Xavier meet Jean Grey as a child. However, in this film, they have their falling out in the 1960s before Jean is even born and Xavier gets his injury as a younger man who still has hair.

Furthermore, we have Emma Frost, who appeared as a teenager in Origins, which is set decades after First Class where she shows up as an adult woman played by January Jones.

Quality-wise, the film is one of the better entries in the X-Men franchise. Fassbender and McAvoy are both really good in the leads. First Class was a modest success at the box office, making over $350 million. Decent, but perhaps not the massive success FOX was looking for.

The cast of this film will be in the same movie as the original actors next spring in X-Men: Days of Future Past.

GREEN LANTERN

The biggest comic book movie misstep of 2011 came from DC. When it came to movies, DC was known for being reliant on Superman and Batman, and still is in some respects. The only live action film that was based on a DC character before 1997 besides the big two was Swamp Thing, and that was pretty low budget. 1997 saw the release of Steel, which was a massive failure. There were no DC movies until 2004's Catwoman, which was also terrible. The only other DC characters to get film adaptations were Watchmen (kind of an exception as it was based on the famed Alan Moore graphic novel) and Jonah Hex, a minor character that flopped at the box office.

DC still hadn't made a film out of most of its major characters, such as Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Green Lantern. Marvel was a bit slower out of the gate than DC, but by 2011, many major Marvel characters had films (Spider Man had 3, X-Men had 5, the Fantastic Four and the Hulk each had 2). Even many minor characters had been adapted. Blade had a trilogy, Iron Man had 2 movies, Thor had one, hell even Elektra and Ghost Rider had big screen versions.

DC needed to catch up, and fast. So they went with one of their heavy hitters that had never been seen on screen, Green Lantern. Green Lantern was supposed to start a DC cinematic universe the way that Iron Man did for Marvel films. Sadly, Green Lantern flopped and this didn't take place. The role of the kickstarter for the shared universe went to the 2013 film Man of Steel.

Green Lantern had been one of the major players in the DC universe for decades. The original Green Lantern was Alan Scott, but Hal Jordan became more well known. The character of Green Lantern became known partly through his animated appearances. Hal appeared in the 1960s cartoon, The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure. Another Green Lantern, John Stewart had a very significant role in the animated Justice League and Justice League Unlimited shows.

COWBOYS AND ALIENS

Finally we come to Cowboys and Aliens, based on the 2006 graphic novel of the same name. It was written by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, Fred Van Lente, and Andrew Foley, and illustrated by Dennis Calero.

The movie version was made by Iron Man and Iron Man 2 director Jon Favreau. The cast included Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, and Daniel Craig. It was somewhat of a flop, barely making more than the budget at the box office.



Follow me on Twitter at @KinoPravdaBlog or Facebook

The Wolf of Wall Street (9/10)

The Wolf of Wall Street is yet another amazing film from one of the best directors of all-time, Martin Scorsese.  I'd say it's easily his best since the 2006 flick The Departed.

The Wolf of Wall Street is the fifth collaboration between Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio and DiCaprio's performance in this film is nothing short of astounding. He plays Jordan Belfort, a stockbroker who made millions but eventually served time in prison for fraud. Belfort is a real person and the film is based on his memoir. Terence Winter, who worked with Scorsese on Boardwalk Empire, wrote the script.

DiCaprio carries the movie on his shoulders, but the supporting performances are all solid as well. Jonah Hill is great as Belfort's right hand man and Matthew McConaughey is surprisingly effective in a role that basically amounts to an extended cameo.

Scorsese doesn't shy away from showing the sexual and drug-related excesses that went along with Belfort's riches and this had led many to complain that the film is glorifying criminal behavior. However, this seems to be missing the point.

Firstly, no one should be surprised at this point that a Scorsese film features immoral acts shown in an entertaining way. Also, the very final shot of the film showing an enraptured audience at one of Belfort's motivational talks seems to be indicting the film's viewers for this kind of thinking. And there are several moments that make it clear that Belfort is not that sympathetic of a character.

There's also been a fair amount of controversy of the sexual content. Some have felt that the film should have been rated NC-17. There are quite a bit of sexual scenes, but none of them really go past what could be acceptable in an R-Rated movie. Undoubtedly, Scorsese also has some pull with the MPAA and got away with more than an up and coming filmmaker could. Reportedly he did have to make some cuts in order to avoid the NC-17 rating, which would have severely hurt the box office take.

The Wolf of Wall Street also features 506 uses of the word "fuck". According to Wikipedia, this is by far the most uses of that word in a non-documentary, non-pornographic film.

So far, the movie has made over $34 million worldwide since its release on Christmas Day. The reviews have been mostly positive; the Rotten Tomatoes score is currently at 76% and the Metacritic rating is a similar 75 out of 100.

RATING: 9/10



Follow me on Twitter at @KinoPravdaBlog or Facebook

American Hustle is David O. Russell's best

The newest film from director David O. Russell, American Hustle, is easily his most mature work. Russell also directed Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees, The Fighter, and Silver Linings Playbook. Most of his previous films were solid, but none reached the heights of Hustle.

As usual with David O. Russell, there's a strong ensemble cast. The main character is con-man Irving Rosenfeld, played by a transformed Christian Bale. Bale gained what looked to be a decent amount of weight for the role and has an obnoxious comb-over. He does an excellent job of creating sympathy for what might otherwise have been an alienating character. This is Bale's second collaboration with Russell, after starring in The Fighter. Rosenfeld's wife Rosalyn is played effectively by Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams portrays his partner/lover Sydney. 

They con people out of thousands using the promise of loan for more, until they get caught by an FBI agent, played by Bradley Cooper with a perm. His boss is comedian Louis C.K. who does very well in a small role. Cooper's agent forces Rosenfeld and Sydney to assist him in taking down other con men and corrupt politicians. Jeremy Renner appears as the politician they're trying to take down. There's even a small surprise cameo from none other than Robert Deniro, who was uncredited and not mentioned in any of the advertising.

The movie is based on a true story, but many details have been altered, including the names of the characters. As onscreen text indicates at the very beginning, "Some of this actually happened."

As previously mentioned, American Hustle is more mature than Russell previous works, and has a distinct style. The cinematography is excellent, and a bit slower than usual for Russell. He seems to be taking cues from P.T. Anderson. Russell also strikes an interesting tone; the film can be quite funny, but I wouldn't call it a comedy. Hustle is definitely one of the best of the year. It deserves, and will probably garner, a Best Picture nomination. However, it's not quite as good as the absolute best of the year, such as 12 Years a Slave or Gravity.

American Hustle is getting excellent reviews and currently has a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. At the box office, it's made slightly over $20 million.

RATING: 9/10


Follow me on Twitter at @KinoPravdaBlog or Facebook

Please follow me on instagram at lordofthewalri

Hey, please take a second to follow my instagram account at http://instagram.com/lordofthewalri

Here's some examples of pics you'll find:

Cable News Networks and Bias (Part 2)

          What about CNN? There are plenty of examples of bias on that network as well. According to First Things, when CNN reported on a Tea Party event that actually had hundreds, if not thousands, of attendees, they said that there were only, “at least dozens of people” (Hoft, 2010). The Tea Party is closely associated with conservatives, so this supports the notion that CNN has a liberal bias.

            A Harvard study found that during the primaries for the 2008 election, “The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one.” (“Invisible Primary”, 2007) It also stated that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards got slightly better coverage, but still mostly negative, “almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama.” CNN seems to be in the same pro-Obama camp as MSNBC.

            In 2009, a former CNN correspondent named Chris Plante that conservative commentator Lou Dobbs left because of CNN's liberal bias and that “his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media” (“Former CNN”, 2009.). Plante also claimed that the last “conservative voice on the channel is gone.” since Glenn Beck and Dobbs left.

            The website Rightpundits.com gave an example that they feel proves that CNN is left-leaning.(“Jill Zimon”, 2008). CNN presented a blogger named Jill Zimon, who is an admitted liberal, as a moderate. The site produced an email that showed that Zimon told CNN that she “leaned left”.

            An article from the Business and Media Institute examines CNN”s coverage of global warming (Gainor and Menefee, 2005). It claimed that a special from March 2005, “cited almost every one of the left-wing environmental movement's hot buttons about climate change: claiming it's already a fact; preaching an apocalyptic threat; blaming mankind for temperature fluctuations...”

            However, some liberals have pointed out examples of a conservative bias on CNN. Media Matters ran an article demonstrating how the media, including CNN, “advanced the false talking point that oil drilling is environmentally safe because "not one drop of oil was spilled" during Hurricane Katrina.” (“Flashback”, 2010). CNN's Ali Velshi stated that oil rigs were sealed to stop oil leakage during storms, and that this worked during Hurricane Katrina. Then there was a “massive oil spill discharging 5,000 barrels/day into Gulf of Mexico.” CNN, just like every other network, is controlled by corporate interests. Therefore, the stations are unlikely to present ideas that may cause large corporations to lose money.

            During the Iraq War, the media was supportive of the Bush administration and didn't ask too many difficult questions. As quoted in Socialist Worker Online, CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour referred to the press as being “self-muzzled” and said, “Television was intimidated by the Bush administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News” (Selfa, 2003). No one, even liberals, wanted to be seen as unpatriotic after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For a couple of years, the Bush administration had a free pass in the media.

            Democracy Now quoted Michael Moore, who criticized CNN's coverage of the Iraq War (“Michael Moore”, 2007). He claimed that they wrote off his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie stated that the war would end up becoming a “quagmire” and that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Moore said that CNN made it seem like none of these things could be true; reality ended up vindicating Moore. He also claims that CNN misleads its viewers when it comes to healthcare.

            Fox News consistently gets better ratings than MSNBC or CNN. In an article for TV Week, Sergio Ibarra said, “Fox News averaged 2.3 million viewers during primetime in the first quarter [of 2008), according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN averaged 1.1 million viewers, while MSNBC had about 950,000” (Ibarra, 2009). This shows that Fox News is popular, possibly because it goes for the lowest common denominator. The article also states that Fox News did the best in the age 25-54 demographic, which is one of the most important demographics to advertisers. The O'Reilly Factor, as well as Hannity's and Beck's shows were the most popular programs. They are also the programs that contain lots of opinion statements.

            When it comes down to it, none of the stations are going to present ideas that are highly controversial or challenging to the status quo. There's just not enough profit in it. Many people think that the media is liberally biased because many journalists are left-wing. However, media editors and owners, who have much more power, are more likely to be conservative.

            The lower-level employees often try to bring their views in line with their superiors in order to help their career. Making money is more important to media companies than presenting any particular point of view. It just so happens that conservatives viewpoints often benefit large corporations.

            Republicans are usually in favor of deregulation of business and the free market. Liberals often want some checks on corporations. Which perspective is going to be presented in the corporate-owned media? Obviously the one that supports the bottom line. Additionally, stations receive pressure from advertisers to tow the line. For example, many  advertisers refused to run ads on Air America, the liberal radio station.

            All the networks are part of large conglomerates. NBC is owned by General Electric and Disney (the world's largest media conglomerate) owns ABC. Most local radio and TV stations are owned by companies that own hundreds of other stations. There used to be tighter regulations concerning these matters, but the Telecommunications Act of 1996 changed this. These companies are unlikely to want to upset those in power. Maybe to get out of this biased system, some more publicly funded news networks or outlets are needed.

            These problems are just part of a much larger issue. The news networks have become increasingly more sensationalistic. They will often do stories on celebrities. This is just a distraction from what is really important. When Anna Nicole Smith died, there was coverage round-the-clock over the circumstances of her death. This, all over someone who was famous for no legitimate reason and really had no important position in life. These so-called “news” programs often discuss the personal lives of athletes or movie stars. When Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, it was one of the biggest stories. These kinds of stories are a distraction from what is really important. Many Americans have no idea what's going on in foreign countries, but they know about the relationships of celebrities. People won't be upset at those in power if they are thinking about trivial matters.

            Furthermore, these cable news networks often run stories on missing women. It's unfortunate that these women are killed or kidnapped, but this isn't really a pressing issue on society. Not to the mention the fact that the missing women that are covered are almost always Caucasian. According to a CNN article, “When pretty, young women – especially white ones – are killed or disappear, media storms often follow... Media and social critics call the wall-to-wall coverage that seems to swirl around these events, “Missing White Woman Syndrome” (Foreman, 2006). The news stations seem to be more concerned with entertainment than actually getting across information.

            The way TV news is set up makes it highly difficult to get out ideas that are  out of the mainstream. Usually segments are only a few minutes and interviews are short as well. That's  not really enough time to present a cogent, detailed argument. Ideas that challenge the mainstream way of thinking may seem ridiculous at first, but if their proponents are given the chance to present evidence, they will be more convincing. However, this doesn't happen on cable news channels. Especially on Fox News, where hosts such as Bill O'Reilly often shout down guests and tell them to “shut up”.

            The documentary Outfoxed showed how O'Reilly had a guest on, named Jeremy Glick, whose father had died in the September 11^th terrorist attacks. He claimed that Bush had inherited a legacy from his father, who led the CIA when it trained al-Qaeda. O'Reilly shouted him down several times, told him to shut up, and claimed that the man's recently deceased father would not have approved of what the man was saying. He doesn't even seem to consider the possibility that there is some credence to what Glick is saying.

            The documentary also demonstrated how Fox News consistently uses fear tactics. They would play up terrorism fears, with stories on anthrax scares that only affected a small amount of people. The film claims that Fox also used similar tactics concerning gay rights and immigration. This fear then leads to people wanting a strong government and national defense.

            Outfoxed pointed out several other ethical violations. Their anchors often use the phrase, “Some people say...” as a way of distancing themselves from the unsourced allegations they are about to make. Usually these “some people” are attacking liberals. They referred to suicide bombers as “homicide bombers” in order to make them seem less noble, even though all bombers are committing homicide and what makes these people unique is that they are taking their own lives in addition. Fox News also spent a lot of time attacking Richard Clarke, a former Bush administration official who later criticized the way that the administration handled the Iraq War.

            However, the documentary could be accused of being one-sided as well. No one interviewed in the movie denied Fox's bias. The makers of the film obviously have an axe to grind. Outfoxed also contains many clips that are very short and could be taken out of context.

            Fox News has been the subject of a massive amount of criticism. There have been many studies done, many by liberal groups, that document the station's conservative bias. Fox News has become the favored target of many on the left. Many of their anchors or hosts are avowed conservatives. John Moody handed down several memos that encouraged employees to support the Bush administration. Fox News is more likely to hire conservatives and many Fox personalities regularly raise funds for the GOP. Most TV viewers see Fox News as conservative, but Rupert Murdoch and other employees deny that they are partisan. Studies have found some differing conclusions about how the station effects voter behavior, but there is some evidence it causes them to vote for Republicans.

             A study has shown that Fox News viewers are more likely to hold misconceptions about the Iraq War. Some people have claimed that MSNBC and CNN are just as biased as Fox News. Conservatives claim that CNN is liberal, while some lefties say it has a right-wing, pro-corporate slant. Most of the mainstream media gave Bush a pass after 9/11. These outlets are all owned by powerful corporations that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The way that these shows are formatted helps keep the status quo intact as well.

References

Ackerman, S. (2001, August). The Most Biased Name in News. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from             www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

Cable TV: Content Analysis. (2005). Retrieved April 6, 2010, from             www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5

Calderone, M. (2008, August 24). Rendell: Obama coverage was embarassing. Retrieved April 10,          2010, from             politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0808/Rendell_Obama_coverage_was_embarrassing.html

DellaVigna, S., & Kaplan, E. (2006, March 30). The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting.       Retrieved May 1, 2010, from www.elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/foxvote06-03-30.pdf

Dimiero, B., Holden, J., & Maloy, S. (2010, April 23). Media Matters: Fox News' ever-expanding

            ethics nightmare. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from mediamatters.org/columns/201004230046

FLASHBACK: Media advanced falsehood that drilling is safe because no oil spilled during Hurricane      Katrina. (2010, April 29). Retrieved April 30, 2010, from       mediamatters.org/research/201004290040

Foreman, T. (2006, March 14). Diagnosing 'Missing White Woman Syndrome. Retrieved May 1, 2010,      from www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/03/diagnosing-missing-      white-woman.html

Former CNN Correspondent Claims CNN’s Liberal Bias Caused Dobbs’ Exit. (2009, November 16).        Retrieved May 1, 2010, from theamericano.com/2009/11/16/former-cnn-correspondent-claims-          cnns-liberal-bias-caused-dobbs-exit/

Fox News Nailbiter!. (2008, November 5). Retrieved April 1, 2010, from www.fair.org/index.php?           page=3643

Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network. (2009, October 29). Retrieved April 20, 2010, from             www.people-press.org/report/559/

Gainor, D., & Menefee, A. (2005, March 28). CNN’s Global Warming Special Typifies Liberal Bias of       Climate Coverage. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from       www.businessandmedia.org/news/2005/news20050328.asp

Hoft, J. (2010, March 27). CNN on Size of Searchlight Tea Party Rally: “Hundreds of People, At Least     Dozens”. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/cnn-on-size-of-        todays-searchlight-tea-party-rally-hundreds-of-people-at-least-dozens/

Ibarra, S. (n.d.). CNN Ratings Down; Fox, MSNBC Grow. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from             www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/cnn_ratings_down_fox_msnbc_gro.php

Interview transcript: Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. (2006, October 6). Retrieved May 1, 2010,            from www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b77af92-548c-11db-901f-0000779e2340.htmld

The Invisible Primary. (2007, October 29). Retrieved May 1, 2010, from             www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/reports/invisible_primary_invisible_no_longer.pdf

Jill Zimon Proves Liberal Bias at CNN. (2008, February 25). Retrieved April 18, 2010, from             www.rightpundits.com/?p=1184

Krueger, A. B. (2005, August 18). Fair? Balanced? A Study Finds It Does Not Matter. Retrieved May      1, 2010, from www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/business/media/18scene.html

Kurtz, H. (2008, May 28). MSNBC, Leaning Left And Getting Flak From Both Sides. Retrieved April       20, 2010, from www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703047_pf.html

Maloy, S. (2009, December 8). Fox News fiddles with climate change polling. Retrieved April 16,             2010, from www.mediamatters.org/blog/200912080002

Martin, V. B. (2008, September 26). Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced. Retrieved April 12,             2010, from www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election

Michael Moore “Blitzes” CNN’s Coverage of Iraq War, Healthcare in Live Wolf Blitzer Interview.          (2007, July 11). Retrieved April 18, 2010, from             www.democracynow.org/2007/7/11/michael_moore_blitzes_cnns_coverage_of

News Corp Denies Fox News Bias. (2004, October 26). Retrieved April 30, 2010, from             www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/26/1098667750250.html

Noah, T. (2005, May 31). Fox News admits bias!. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from             http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

Perez-Pena, R. (2009, September 13). Trust in News Media Falls to New Low in Pew Survey.       Retrieved May 1, 2010, from www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/business/media/14survey.html

Rendall, S. (2009, December). Fox News—Wing of the GOP?. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from             www.fair.org/index.php?page=3957

Rendall, S. (2001, July). Fox's Slanted Sources. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from      www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072

Selfa, L. (2003, October 3). How the media sold Bush's war. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from s            socialistworker.org/2003-2/470/470_09_MediaMuzzle.shtml

Steinberg, J. (2007, November 6). Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left. Retrieved April 10,    2010, from www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html?            _r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Weisberg, J. (2009, October 17). The O'Garbage Factor. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from             www.newsweek.com/id/218192

Cable News Networks and Bias (Part 1)

       In the past decade, many more people have been getting their news from 24-hour cable news networks. This is in great contrast to earlier times, when TV viewers only had the half-hour nightly news programs to watch. The main American news networks are FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN.    

      These networks are often much more ideological than the traditional news programs. They often take after talk-radio political programs such as Rush Limbaugh. CNN and MSNBC are often criticized for having a liberal bias, while FOX News is seen as right-wing.

            This paper will examine whether or not these perceptions have basis in reality. It will also examine what effect these potential biases have on viewers. Does biased reporting damage the political discourse? Does it simply encourage bickering between the two sides?

            FOX News is often the target of those decrying media bias. It first aired in 1996, and it was created by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch made Roger Ailes, who worked for Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the CEO of FOX News. Ailes was also a former NBC executive.

            The station often uses flashy graphics that contain patriotic symbols such as the American flag. They are usually colorful and attention-grabbing.

            Fox News also has a radio station that syndicated throughout the US. They recently added a satellite radio station as well.

            Many people have noted that FOX News seems to have a conservative bias. Two of the most popular figures on the network, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck clearly espouse conservative views. Hannity is right-wing, one of his books was titled, “Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda." Beck often refers to Obama and his policies as "socialist" or "radical". He compared churches that fought for social justice to Hitler and Stalin in an episode of his show.

Grindhouse and Postmodernism

Grindhouse and Postmodernism

            Grindhouse was released in 2007; it consists of two films, Death Proof (directed by Quentin Tarantino) and Planet Terror (Robert Rodriguez). The film is meant to bring back the days of B-movies and exploitation films. There are also fake trailers in between and various interstitial segments. On DVD, Grindhouse was released as two separate films. They were also released separately outside of North America, partly because countries besides the United States don't necessarily have the grindhouse double-feature tradition. However, some saw it as a way to make more money, as people would have to pay for two separate tickets.

             The films don't really have anything to do with each other. There are a few connections, but they never congeal into anything meaningful. Death Proof is about a sadistic stuntman who hunts down women in his specially-made stunt car. In Planet Terror, there is an outbreak of a dangerous virus that turns people into zombie-like creatures.  Grindhouse is definitively a postmodern film. This is due to heavy use of intertextuality, mixing of genres, and the concept of simulacra.

            Tarantino and Rodriquez throw together aspects of all sorts of different genres. According to Javier Martinez " Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror simultaneously occupies a number of generic spaces: a horror film about encroaching zombie hordes; an sf film about an experimental gas that unleashes a biological plague; an over-the-top black comedy; a splatterfest drive-in film; a fetish film; a tragic love story; a film about the creation of a Latino utopia. (331)

             Grindhouse is mainly a horror film, but there are decent amounts of drama, action, comedy, and sci-fi elements as well. Planet Terror includes zombies, a common staple of horror flicks. There's plenty of disgusting, gross-out violence in both parts. Thrilling action sequences are also a key part of Grindhouse. There are many jokes as well, especially in the faux trailers. Planet Terror is, at times, intentionally bad, and this is played for laughs. Tarantino is known for mixing genres throughout his career. "…The film gleefully combined various periods, genres, and styles, producing the perfect postmodern cinematic stew." (Booker 48) Booker's quote refers to Pulp Fiction, but could just as easily refer to this movie.

            "Postmodern artists, however ingenious and inventive their works might be, are unable to establish and maintain a distinctive and easily identifiable personal style in the modernist sense" (Booker 188). The makers of Grindhouse aren't trying to make an original, creative film. Intertextuality in the form of reference to other films is another key factor that makes Grindhouse postmodernist.

             As stated in an article in Film Quarterly, "Rife with references to Rodriguez's other films as well as 1970s film conventions, Machete creates the past-and-present in which the rest of Grindhouse takes place. This blurry fictional temporality is figurally represented by the onscreen dust and scratches that appear in both Machete and Planet Terror" (Benson-Allott 1). The constant scratches make the film seem like an actual grindhouse feature that has been damaged from being shown too many times.

            In another quote that refers to Pulp Fiction, but could equally apply to Grindhouse, "The film exemplifies the postmodern appropriation of elements from the popular culture of the past" (Booker 13).  It does this in an "ahistorical" way with "little genuine nostalgia"(Booker 47) Also, "[Tarantino's] Jackie Brown nostalgically looks back on a number of predecessors in film, beginning with its opening airport sequence, a pastiche of the opening of The Graduate (1967)" (Booker 14). Clearly, Grindhouse is the continuation of a trend that has been present in Tarantino's career from the beginning.

            These and many other elements serve to constantly remind the audience that they are watching a film. This is in strong contrast to most movies that try to keep the viewer engrossed in the story and feel like they are in a fictional world.

            For example, "The title of Tarantino's contribution, Death Proof, is made to look as though it's been crudely spliced into the opening credits, as though, in the meta-world surrounding the film, the distributor hastily decided that the original title wasn't quite lowest-common-denominator enough to ensure brisk business" (Figler). Things like that actually happened in the real world with B-movies. This mood is set from the very beginning, when a title card saying "Our Feature Presentation" is shown that looks like it is straight out of the 1970s. Furthermore, when Cherry and El Wray have sex, the film completely deteriorates and a title says, "Missing Reel". When things like that happen, it's hard to forget that one is watching a film.