Best Picture: How Far Will Hollywood Go?

Best Picture: How Far Will Hollywood Go?

Alan Stone seems to be arguing that Brokeback Mountain’s reason for not winning the Oscar for Best Motion Picture might be attributed to Hollywood’s pre-existing homophobic sentiments. He starts out by noting the initial surprise at the actual result of Crash winning and subsequently expounded on the merits of Brokeback Mountain as an “important milestone” in Hollywood history in contrast to Crash and its failure to break new ground. While Stone only relies on his critique of the film to substantiate his ideas, he does put forth a persuasive image of Hollywood still being reticent towards liberal ideas such as homosexuality.

The New Rhetoric of Prize Commentary – James English

 The New Rhetoric of Prize Commentary – James English

·         “..in the world of prizes, rapid prestige accumulation is often coupled with nearly constant ridicule and disparagement on the part of experts in the arts press and the popular media”

·         “..the fact that a prize makes good economic sense does not mean that it makes good symbolic or cultural sense”

·         “..”celebrity sadism” as one commentator called it ensured that incidents of scandalous misbehavior..would occur even more often and could be even more eagerly anticipated”

For Putin, a Peace Prize for a Decision to Go to War

The title seems to suggest the irony behind a Peace Prize that is awarded base on a decision to go to war – the article seems to start out by attempting to lay the foundation as to the suspicious, ironic state of the award criteria. Subsequently, the article noted the curious lack of coverage for the said award, bringing in credible accounts by the previous winner (a Taiwanese politician) and Putin’s spokesperson. The article seems to be questioning the legitimacy of the award by observing the lack of support from China’s Culture Ministry as well as comparisons with competing prizes of similar criteria.

A Reality Show Where Islam Is the Biggest Star

A Reality Show Where Islam Is the Biggest Star

The writer adopts a very positive and encouraging writing style with regards to the reality show – “Imam Muda”. He expounded the general intentions of having the reality show and put forth a compelling argument to justify the idea for the reality-TV show. While the article paints an encouraging facet of prizes as being able to be used as a platform for religion to reach out to the younger generations, the article fails to present the perspective of existing religious leaders themselves. For a more complete and just article, the writer needs to consider whether the present religious leaders in KL agree with this concept.

“Popularity May Have Doomed Chinese Talent Show” by Andrew Jacobs

“Popularity May Have Doomed Chinese Talent Show” by Andrew Jacobs

Title: “Popularity May Have Doomed Chinese TV Talent Show” – The death or end of a talent show brought about by an extensive coverage or a resulting popularity or attention on the show itself.

Words: 

Doomed, Pulled the plug, Bracing reminder..heavy hand guiding popular culture, Raised hackles, blanket prohibition, tight leash, lambasted, terribly radical

The write adopts a very stylistic choice of words, choosing to replace common-used adjectives with words and expression with harsher tones such as “doomed” or “tight leash” especially when making references to the China authorities – one can sense disagreement from the writer who seem to disagree with the control that exist even over something like a TV reality-show that was not even “terribly radical”.

Claims:

China government censors claim that “producers had simply let the program warble on too long” Evidence: Spokesman for the company apologized for exceeding the state-imposed 90-minute limit

The suspension has produced shock and heartache. Evidence: Interview with a fan – “I will never be happy again”

·         

“Heavy hand guiding popular culture” Evidence: One-month ban by authorities on a channel in Hebei one day after “Super Girl” was suspended

·         

Communist Party was unnerved by the success of the show. Evidence: Television executives and cultural critics suggestions

·         

Show could have been banned because the “reliance on voting by audience members was dangerously democratic” Evidence: Based on historical events, regulators banned text-messaging voting in 2007

·         

Ban “reflected the growing chasm between Chinese youths and the conservative bureaucrats who keep a tight leash on the production and dissemination of popular culture” Evidence: Interview with Zhan Jiang, journalism professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University

·        

China’s cultural authorities were unhappy about being cut out of the selection process and threatened by the kind of women who rose to the top. Evidence: Online essay by one of the show’s judges, Song Shinan

· 

Response:

In general, the writer has amassed a series of claims; all with the consistent underlying message of pointing out the control that the China government censors have over their popular culture. I find the argument decently crafted and the writer did not let too much of his personal disagreement get in the way of putting forth a convincing and fairly non-bias report.

One point that I would like to develop however would be on Zhan Jiang’s postulation about the state of popular culture in China. The main point that I think deserves pushing is, with regards to prizes, how far can a competition and the “decision-making” process for the prize-winner be used to push the strict control that authorities may have over their media and popular culture.

In this case, another point worth mentioning is the potential suspicion that the authorities felt threatened by the voting process – this reveals volumes about the extent of which even the voting process of a competition may actually bring about ideological and political repercussions in a nation.