Analyzing The Hunger Games

Analyzing The Hunger Games HD

Influential (Educational) Gaming

Jane McGonigal has such an interesting stance on gaming. I find that in a few ways I agree with her “research” but in quite a few other ways, I disagree. The Epic Win is something that happens everyday as people are playing games. While it is great to empower people with this sense of accomplishing extraordinary tasks, I find it hard to believe that this empowerment lasts for even more than a few days. In order to produce lasting impact this empowerment must spark an intrigue, which then must produce action. It seems this, as well as so many other topics discussed, links directly to the definition of activism.

Is searching for clean drinking water online activism when there is already a pre-determined course one must take? Interesting question.

I do not necessarily believe McGonigal to have fallen off her rocker, I really like the idea of using media as it is already presented in potentially its largest form within games to have a bigger impact. The only thing I have an issue with is how this can truly be accomplished. I think perhaps the biggest possibility for achievement is simply education.

We don’t have to use games to search for clean water, but we can use games to educate users about the desperate need so many have for clean water. As so many said in class, when they were presented with an interesting idea, they were inspired to research further and produce their own stance. In this respect I think game education (even if it is subtle and fun) can begin to impact the world in huge ways, but maybe not quite the active ways McGonigal suggests.

Food Inc. + Active Consumers

I found the presentation of Food Inc. very interesting for a few reasons. I had never seen the documentary before, but felt more informed and more intrigued by the idea than I had before watching the film, so in that sense, it accomplished its goal. Along with that however, I felt the film to be very black and white when there tends to be a blurring of gray with the food and pop culture topics.

On one hand the film showed the horrors of the meat processing factories, the poor working conditions of the employees, and the manipulation of chicken farmers property and wealth. On the other side, they show the organic farmer, his small production, and his privately managed property. It makes me wonder if there truly isn’t anything in between. Having not done extensive research on the topic, I can’t honestly answer that questions, but I would like to think that a blend of the two worlds could produce healthy food products while maintaining good working conditions/salaries for workers.

            It might be slightly naive of me to say that the pros of each industry can be combined, but I simply wonder what our understanding of food within pop culture would be if that were to happen. I am a strong supporter of the active consumer, and when one steps back to examine both the pros and cons of each industry presented within the Food Inc. documentary, it seems to boil down to just that. People have a choice to make at this point as to whether or not their food comes from one of the four mass production giants of meat, or from a small organic farm. Active consumerism, its our responsibility to decide.

Quality for Quantity

Throughout the lecture this past Tuesday and the discussion on affordable food and the bad cycle that the industry has produced, I was struck with the thought that in some ways it all boils down to the quality versus quantity debate. It was said during class that cheap food is advertised more prevalently, but I think this cheap food is advertised as a quantity rather than a price. It is no longer just chicken nuggets for 4.99, it is a 20 piece bucket of chicken (emphasis on the 20-piece). It seems that a majority of America has decided to sacrifice the quality of their food for a larger quantity.

All of this makes sense when viewed through the lens of the affordable food movement of the 70’s, and the decreased wages for those working in the food industry. When families are forced to spend less money on food due to the fact that their salaries are smaller, it makes sense that they would rather spend 5 dollars on a bucket of chicken that can feed the whole family rather than a small appetizer that may be “healthier” for them.

Regardless of the stance one takes on the food movement, and food politics, I think that in many ways there has been the birth of a sub-culture. This sub-culture of foodies and organics may in essence become the new mainstream culture. Advertisements may begin stressing how healthy their food is without even discussing the price. Although this is a bad example, Subway has already started doing that. They advertise “fresh” ingredients and the ability to “eat right.” While seemingly all pop culture is subjective, this is one topic that everyone has an opinion on, and typically it is hard to sway them the other way.

Defying Reality Produces Laughs

The discussion surrounding women comedians is an interesting mystery that I’m not sure will ever be truly solved. I researching Christopher Hitchen’s and presume him to be a bold outspoken critic of just about everyone and everything. He is listed as “excoriating” (severely criticizing) many people, so I personally have a hard time placing any large amount of credit to his works due to the fact that they seem solely based on opinion.

“Why Women Aren’t Funny” criticizes both the male and female spectrum of comedy stating that men prefer to laugh at other’s expense and enjoy laughing at anything that is extremely stupid, and women simply want the world to be sweet and fair. I think these statements are both limiting and slightly cynical.

While appearance and content both determine the quality of funny, I am more apt to state simply that the more an individual is willing to defy the reality of social norms, the funnier (or weirder-this could go both ways here) they will be. Melissa McCarthy in both of the SNL sketches shown in class today did things completely outside of the realm of normal social behavior and people laughed.

The first example of the office love affair attunes more directly to a reversal in gender stereotype, the woman pursuing the man. However, I wonder if the gender roles were switched if it would still be funny. In a lot of ways, I think many would still laugh at the sheer craziness that is taking place in that office. The second example of the Ranch testers seems to ignore gender stereotypes and simply makes viewers laugh because Melissa McCarthy is pouring Ranch all over herself yelling gibberish and wearing a Spock sweatshirt… Reality? Probably (maybe hopefully) not. Comedy? Seems so.

Tear-Stained America

As I have been contemplating both the lecture and class discussion regarding the Ott and Aoki article Media Framing of Matther Shepard, I am struck by America’s malleability. The people outside of the actual happenings were influenced by whatever media they consumed. Although a slightly obvious statement, it is almost scary once the true meaning sinks in fully, especially if one looks at the motives of media producers, and the motives of the population in general.

The selectivity, partiality, and structure of the medias’ biases in storytelling were ones of pity, guilt, sadness, defeat, and in some ways mystery (will Shepard survive). While these biases were with the purpose of informing, they produce an attitude that is ingested by the public. What makes this media consumption alarming is if one flips the message of the media. What if the motives of the media producers were to portray Henderson and McKinney (the killers) as heroes? Ott and Aoki note that, “An event is selected to become a major news story based on its potential for drama.” What if the media praised the antagonists' actions… what would America think then?

It is difficult to describe the true motives of the public at the time of Shepard’s fight for life, but the authors note that the public identified with Shepard as a friend and son. The suffering of someone they had never met impacted them as if he was a family member. Step back and contemplate the impact of that hurt. America was hurt by the death of this young man, and the media was happy about it.

In no way am I saying the media is a tool used for destructive purposes alone, because there are thousands of benefits to media, however I am saying that I am glad the media chose to portray the story the way they did. I’m glad America was saddened by Shepard’s death and not celebrating the actions of the two killers.