#braydonrhe

This is an Xfinity commercial that aired during the Oscars on Sunday. It shows a young, blind child's description of what she "sees" while viewing The Wizard of Oz. It finishes with a voice-over describing a new "Talking guide" feature for people with visual impairments. 

Since we talked all about the issue of accessibility for disabled people on Tuesday, I thought this was very relevant. The talking guide will speak the names of shows/movies that are currently airing, and will speak other things like movie ratings, TV settings, and DVR features. 

As seen in the commercial, although Emily is visually impaired, she still sees images in her head while watching "Oz," even picturing herself as Dorothy. The commercial brings her imagination to life for all of us to see. This is a very effective way to show that TV and movies aren't just enjoyable for able-visioned people: they can be loved by everyone. Xfinity is attempting to include visually-impaired people in the viewing of TV and movies by making it easier for them to access shows by themselves. I think it's a very well-done commercial and great idea. 

One of the great questions that pervades the understanding of cinema is simply this: What is its purpose? There are countless theories that attempt to answer it. Film theorists, like Rudolf Arnheim believed that film is art, in that it shouldn't (and doesn't) represent or replicate real life, whereas André Bazin thought films capture an "objective reality". Roger Ebert had his theories as well, and in a commentary on Dark City, he suggests that film isn't the medium to use when trying to express a logical and intellectual argument. Hit the jump to hear Ebert's thoughts on why cinema is an emotional medium.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Up there is a link to an article about the late Roger Ebert (RIP) and his philosophy about the purpose of films. It reminded me of Benjamin's criticisms and ideas of film. 

Although I usually agree with Ebert's reviews of movies, I'm gonna have to disagree with the point that he made here. He believes that films are not a place for "political" or "philosophical" arguments, but the ideal medium for those are "printed works." He backs it up by saying "When we watch a film, the director is essentially standing behind us and saying, 'Look here,' and 'Look there,' 'Hear this,' and 'Hear that,' and 'Feel this,' and 'Feel the way I want you to feel.'" But, Mr Ebert, isn't that exactly what the author of a printed work does? The author presents you with specific points that they want you to read and understand, and they leave out things that they do not want you to read or think about. In my opinion there is just as much deliberation in the making of a film and in the making of a printed work. Film is arguably more powerful of a tool for arguments, since you can utilize the power of words along with the power of visuals and sounds. You can read all the articles you want about how bad drugs are for you, but I swear the most powerful anti-drug message you can get is through watching Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream." And that is just one example of a powerful argument done through film. 

So yeah I have an unhealthy love for coca-cola. 

Also, I think their advertising and marketing strategies are really smart and utilize the appeal of friendship and togetherness to sell more of their product. In the Berger readings, he talked about how images from the past (oil paintings) relate to modern publicity images. This is why I chose to juxtapose an older coke ad with the newer one that we're all probably very familiar with. Both ads create a sort of friendship and bond that are achieved through drinking coke; they also both seem to be inviting you, the viewer, to join in on the fun and togetherness by buying coke. The first ad does this by using images of young faces that seem welcoming and inviting. The second does this by the text it displays: more of a written invitation to the coke party (the DRINK ok not the snorty coke). Because the older ad shows young people, it seems to be mainly focusing on a younger audience to persuade them to buy coke, while the newer ad appeals to a wider audience by not showing the actual people enjoying the soda. I do believe that these ads are very effective and persuasive because it makes viewers seem like they're included in some inner circle of people who all share a common love for coca-cola. 

pictures:

Older one