For subtitles you have to click the CC button on the bottom right. If you enjoyed this video, you'll also enjoy Becky Adams and Daniela Velluto's video @ http://danielapensatroppo.blogspot.com/. Some people haven't been able to see the video on here due to a privacy setting problem which I can't figure out so if that happens please follow this link to you tube to see the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0l3BZIM7CE
Medical research articles intimidate people because they are
geared towards a particular audience with an extensive vocabulary. Unfortunately, this audience is extremely narrow and many other people miss out on the amazing
breakthroughs in science. Also, since highly involved and interested groups are
usually the only financial backers there is limited funding for promising
research. What is needed is more exposure to the general public to create excitement.
So how could breakthroughs in research and science get to the general public in
a grand scale?
This is a Social Media Plan to increase awareness of recent
breakthroughs in spinal cord regeneration based primarily on the research
article “Effects of Lumbosacral Spinal Cord Epidural Stimulation for Standing
after Chronic Complete Paralysis in Humans” published just last year in 2015.
Making it into a video will make it more appealing to a
wider audience. By creating a documentary, many other things have gone viral
and spread through Netflix and other online movie sites.
Step 1: Hire someone to make a documentary of the people
involved in this research if they agree to and find a director with popularity
and large amounts of followers like Clint Eastwood (who has done some inspirational movies lately) or Angelina Jolie (who directed Unbroken).
Step 2: Make the documentary available on Netflix with one trailer and post on YouTube. By
releasing the video with few trailers and advertisements[1],
it will allow for a natural growth of the viral event.
Step 3: create a catchy slogan that’s simple enough be
reused and repeated by WOM[2]
like #StandingHope and have the director tweet it or post on Facebook with
message “Complete Paralysis isn’t the end.”
Step 4: Advertise the movie to interest groups[3] to
become involved, have them share, retweet the directors post or their own with
the hashtag. The largest and most celebrated being the Paralympic community,
would be perfect for this event. This will help more people become interested in the movie on Netflix.
Step 5: The Paralympics in 2020 would be the perfect time to have
special viewing events after the movie is launched on Netflix and advertisements on t.v. and Facebook during both the Paralympics and Olympics. This will
create more hype and many people will spread the news again by WOM. By
combining a natural event with a promoted one it is expected that the viral
event will reach a large amount of target audience and last a long time.
[1]
p.g. 25 of “Going Viral” explains “promoted messages tend to gain and lose the
public’s attention more quickly than socially driven messages, perhaps because
social messages are more socially authentic.”
[2] In
“Going Viral” by Nahon and Hemsley WOM or word of mouth is when “people speak
to each other, often about a product, but without a commercial motive.” This
does not include social media posting but when the event or idea becomes large
enough, WOM will become crucial in the natural growth of the idea.
[3] In
“Going Viral” events “…can help bring people together of common interests,
purposes and actions.” By reaching out to one interest group, creating a
movement, others will latch on to the “bandwagon” and the event will reach a wider
audience.
a. Where did your samples (images, video, audio) come from?
Our samples originated from various places, such as parts of the ASPCA official ad commonly seen on television, Taylor Swift’s music video, and homemade videos of pranks, via youTube.
b. Who has taken part in the creation of these samples?
i. Individuals? Sarah Mclachlan, Taylor Swift, and unknown homevideo authors.
ii. A community? Animal Rights Activists and normal everyday people
iii. A company or other organization? ASPCA
c. Do you have a connection to any of these individuals or groups? We care about animals and have pets. Otherwise, no.
i. Is this connection close, or does it resemble seven steps to Kevin Bacon? Not especially close.
d. Do you think your relation (or lack of relation) to these individuals or groups gives you more or less constraints to sample and remix their creative work? A lack of substantial connection to the ASPCA or animal cruelty has allowed for a less inhibited view/use of the materials.
e. If you do not know where your samples come from originally, how do you think you might discover this information? (Once you have done more research, go back and answer the previous questions.) It would be very easy to trace the origin of many of the clips taken. For example, the ASPCA commercial video can be found on youTube as well as their website.
2. Identification of Caring/Wounding
a. To the best of your ability, please research the groups and/or individuals from whom you have sampled. According to your sources (scholarly, popular, friends, etc.), what are some of the cultural values of these people and their communities? Provide some evidence for your claims. If you identify as a member of one of these communities, explain how you have come to understand the community’s values and how your own understanding of these values might differ from others in the community.The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as their name implies and their website confirms, is an organization devoted to preventing animal cruelty in the United States. Sarah Mclachlan is an advocate of the organization, who has appeared in multiple ads they have produced. Our understanding is that of an outsider who commiserates with the cause, but does not actively participate in the organization.
b. Identify 3-5 of your acts of sampling in relation to the individuals and/or groups you identified above as either acts of caring or wounding or both. Address the following questions in this identification:
i. In your sampling and remixing, are you potentially contradicting, subverting, changing, or even violating some of the values you researched above? Imagine someone sampling your work (something to which you have dedicated your life) and remixing it into a new work that actually violates the values expressed in your original work or that seems to take credit for authorship without acknowledging you. How do you think the “original” authors would react, should they witness your remix? How might it affect them? Our sampling and remixing certainly makes light of a serious issue and completely changes the meaning of the original ASPCA commercial. The original authors might find it humorous because pets are a part of everyday life but because our video makes it seem that pets would rather not be helped, the original idea of the ASPCA is argued against. If our video was taken seriously by an uptight ASPCA member, it would perhaps make them mad but most would regard this video as no hinderance to their goal to rescue animals.
ii. Are you appealing to their values? In other words, do you think the artists you sampled from would endorse how and what you sampled and remixed? The creators would probably acknowledge the humor in our interpretation. In fact, Sarah McLachlan performed a parody of this advertisement in a Super Bowl commercial for Audi. The original video is very “gut-wrenching” and memorable. Obviously the creators know this because they made it like that to convince people to join the ASPCA. Any parody made of it would not be taken seriously.
iii Under what conditions might your act of caring be an act of wounding (and vice versa)? Our video, when viewed with a certain paradigm, seems to make light of animal cruelty, which was obviously not our intention.
c. How might your caring and/or wounding change your relationship to those individuals or groups? Has your opinion of the different individuals and/or groups changed? Why or why not? How? The ASPCA is a very large organization, which has a very small possibility of encountering our video. If they did, we doubt they would trouble. Our opinion of the organization is relatively unchanged, though we do appreciate the work they provide.
3. Identification of Ethicality
a. After completing and reflecting upon the previous sections, ask yourself the following questions:
i. Do you consider your acts of wounding and/or caring to be ethical?
1. Why or why not? Can you justify your acts of wounding? How? Yes, because it is entirely ethical. An advertisement is made to be watched and therefore criticised, especially one so obvious in its goal.
2. If you decide to distribute your remix, do you think it would be legal? Yes, though we don’t envision a situation in which we would be able to profit from this remix.
3. If not (see #2), what would you need to do to make the distribution of your remix ethical as well as legal?
Procedural rhetoric is a fascinating branch of rhetoric that
encompasses “the practice of using processes persuasively,” (Bogost 28) and is
a subset of the field that we had not even considered previous to reading
Bogost’s Procedural Rhetoric. He goes on to explain that “its
arguments are made not through the construction of words or images, but through
the authorship of rules of behavior.” What does this mean, precisely? One way
this persuasiveness is put into action is through games, such asCards
Against Humanity, a purposely distasteful card game intended for a partying
audience. The game successfully fosters an environment where offensiveness is
not only acceptable but rewarded. Terribly caustic and inappropriate phrases
and jokes presented during the game would be immediately balked at and rejected
outside of play. Under the premise of a fun party atmosphere where such
behavior is unpunished, however, players’ moral standards quickly dissipate.
Whether it was the intention or not, the game reveals to players how “horrible”
they are and have the potential to be, given the right circumstances. Moral
code is not so steadfast.
If the name isn’t enough to convince you of the blunt
purpose of the game, look at what it says on the box of the game before it is
even opened up: “A game for horrible people.” In fact, the creators’ website
includes single worded reviews such as “horrible” and “bad”. One word says it
all as they advertise these reviews to build the reputation of the game, adding
to the “horrible” environment as people play. The creators also exploit the bad
reputation further by allowing others to contribute more “bad ideas”. Though
arguably the game’s main purpose, like all games, is to entertain, it also
creates an atmosphere that brings out the dark side in everyone. It's main genius
is using humor to do so.
The object of the game is to collect the most black
“statement” cards. Players must learn to choose white “response” cards that
appeal to the judge. The judge chooses the white card they like the best or
find the most amusing, and the corresponding player obtains the black card for
that round. This creates an interesting psychological twist as players attempt
to appeal to each other’s darker psyches, regardless, perhaps, of their own
moral background or standards.
One of the most persuasive procedures of the game is that
the longer you play, the more desensitized you become. There really is no end
in sight unless players have the miraculous patience to go through all 90 black
cards and 460 white cards in one sitting. In a way, it’s like one of those
amazing road trips where you get to know everyone on a more personal level. The
longer that you're in the car with your friends and the more fast food that is
eaten on the way, the smellier everyone gets. It may start out smelling awful
but the longer everyone is on the ride together, the more desensitized everyone
gets to the bad smell until finally you leave the car, realizing just how clean
the air is outside. In Cards Against Humanity, innocent
‘moral’ people will squirm at some of the cards used like “Masturbation” and
“Nipple blades.” However, the longer the game is played the less ‘evil’
things seem. Soon the true purpose of the game alights in the eyes of all
players, desperate to be the winning card. And since ‘everyone is doing it’
there’s no longer a sense of judging that usually holds people back from
bringing out their worst sides.
On a similar note, the game does not hold back when it comes
to response cards. For example, not every player will approve of the card
“Pac-man uncontrollably guzzling cum,” but it is included in the game anyway.
When “Kids with ass cancer” is an option, “Tasteful sideboob” seems perfectly
mild. This lack of un-offensive card options lowers the player’s inhibitions
and helps the creators’ accomplish their goal.
Another intriguing aspect to the game that undoubtedly
contributes to the player’s propensity to behave offensively, is the relative
anonymity involved. This is especially true when larger groups of people play,
which is common given that it is marketed as a party game. When players add
their own despicable answers to the mix for the judge to choose, unless their
card is selected, no one knows they put it down. This concept adds an element
of risk and excitement to the game as well. People are more likely to lay down
wildly distasteful and hilarious cards because the risk for repercussions (i.e.
being “caught”) are lower.
In what many would consider a
politically correct society, this game has no place. Perhaps that is what has
made the game so successful. It is a stress release, or rather, a tool that
facilitates the release of the offensive and overly sexual in a way that can be
laughed at but also invites discussion. This was almost certainly part of what
the creators’ hoped to accomplish with the game. As Bogost’s states, “each unit
operation in procedural representation is a claim about how part of the system
it represents does, should, or could function,” (Bogost 36). For all the
reasons cited above, it is clear that the game has successfully utilized
procedural rhetoric to help players have fun, invite discussion, and
demonstrate that (in the right environment) anyone can be a “horrible” person.
In "The Elements of Dramatism", David Blakesley breaks down several
points made by famous philosopher and rhetorician Kenneth Burke. One of the
most useful tools he uses, called the Pentad, can be used to break down an
event or act. This tool, used in the right way, can help a person not only
interpret an act but interpret their interpretations.
The pentad explores 5 themes of any event – the Act, the Scene,
the Agent, the Agency, the Purpose and the Attitude. If you need a simple comparison
we could say it’s a lot like a game of Clue geared towards finding the real
reason behind an act. In Clue, you have to answer the questions: Who did it?
Who was killed? Where it happened? And with what was the murder done?
Unlike Clue however, with the Pentad you must also find out the
Why. Not only that but unlike Clue, you’re not just uncovering a murder but
your uncovering the scenes behind why people do what they do and why they do it
the way they do.
For example, I recently came across this little part in the movie
17 Again and honestly I thought it was a perfect moment to apply the Pentad of
Burke. Watch the scene here:
So now we can divvy up this hilarious clip by the Pentad:
Act: A brave kid takes a stand against the Big Bully of the school.
Scene: Typical jungle of a high school cafeteria
Agent: Zach Ephron <3
Agency: Awesome basketball skills and cutting words
Purpose: 1. Protect his high school son from further being bullied
2. Prove his male dominance
3. Maybe to show off just a bit…
This scene is meant to amuse but I also think it is trying to persuade the viewer into thinking a certain way about bullying. Zac's enemy in this moment is Stan and he brings him down by humiliating said bully in front of the very people Stan has worked so hard to intimidate and impress. Is that really a good way to handle bullying? People who are watching this movie however, are convinced because not only does Zac win with style but he uses facts. Everyone believes him, even the audience not in cafeteria.
This movie, in my opinion, is just to poke fun at typical stereotypes and life in general but by applying Burke’s Pentad, I’ve thought of this moment in a deeper way and now I have more questions. For example, its kind of ironic that Zac used Stan’s own medicine against him, but bullying is still a problem in today’s culture. And it’s changing with technology. Now there are cyber bullies and all sorts of messed up ways kids and adults even, intimidate and ridicule others. Was the way Stan was brought down solve any problems? Or was it just putting another (extremely more attractive) bully to take his spot? How should we tackle bullying? Or should it even be tackled?
