What I See When I See “Saw”

                  So, this holiday season in my annual attempt to avoid the movies of the holiday season I sat with my daughter to watch “Saw”, followed by “Saw2.”  Consistent with federal law regarding horror films, no such film offers closure—just a means of setting up infinite sequels. (2023 gave us the tenth Saw movie--the one where the evil Jigsaw hits menopause.)

                  “Saw” is different than the standard horror offerings.  The killer in “Saw” is not just a teen who was not invited to a dance ten years ago--who has grown into an adult that needs to kill all who attend the federally mandated reunion of all those that did attend the dance. 

                   Jigsaw has a motive.  He only kills those not living lives of perceived value.  Jigsaw passes judgment on the quality of the life that was lived, without understanding the back story of the person and without fact checking—just assuming the assortment of offered facts are accurate.  So, in other words, Jigsaw does the same thing that many social media users do. 

                  Saw is a perfect film for our social media driven society—without understanding the context of the life we are judging, we get to post things without critical thought,  without consideration of the effects or whether our basis for judgments are justified.  Just like Jigsaw.

                  A generic Facebook post is a meme and a quote as the author of the meme hopes—that someone will look at a quote and a meme and assume whatever is there must be valid--hopes that are often rewarded.  Because if there is a picture AND a quote—well, that level of sincerity and credibility can not be doubted, (according to sarcastic bloggers such as I).  

                  Jigsaw is self assured that his assumptions and interpretations are accurate or at least hopes they are to help him justify his barbarism.  Are meme artists similarly self assured or do they know they are dealing in defecation? 

                  It is easy for many to applaud Jigsaw for his righteousness against a selected set of characters that have lived perceived lives of limited value.  Perhaps Jigsaw is also popular because he represents both the meme artists and those that repost the works of meme artists.  No critical thought is needed to produce such memes or to believe such memes.  Quite often, taking literally 15 seconds can show us whether a social media post is valid or not.  Does Jigsaw take that much time to reflect on the lives he tortures?  Do we take that much time to assure that we are not sending bovine defecation to our social media friends?  Or are some social media authors rightfully depending on the fact that no one will challenge a meme? 

                  Now I do grant you that sending and accepting a meme based on no fact at all is a lesser offense than grinding someone’s nose under a semi’s wheels as Jigsaw might.  But is either a good idea? 

No links in this blog.  Just some thoughts.

Reflecting on a moment can ruin the moment.  Not always.  But it might.  I learned that today.

I just got back from walking in the snow, the quiet broken only by my shoes scaring away snow from my path, a gentle breeze that should be cold but feels good on a January-like day. Surrounded by the woods and the hills of Tennessee that we graciously call mountains, while the real mountains reside in other parts of the state, I realized what a lovely moment it was.  How peaceful.  How right.

When I got back to my apartment, I saw three young people sledding down the new three inch offering of snow.  Two were sledding. One was taping on a cell phone.  Two were enjoying the moment.  One was taping the moment.  All three were apparently in fear that the moment was so transient that if it was not saved on video, it never happened.

It made me realize something about the phrase “in the moment.”  There are two versions of this.  One version of “in the moment” is actually three moments.  The current moment is surrounded by the moments of the past.  Some may experience these as moments of lacking.  Perhaps they remember lacking what are thought to have been essential elements needed for contentment.  Those missing elements of  past moments may cause a  focus on any present current needs—elements of life still perceived to be missing,  along with the realization of the moment’s transient nature. 

Directly in front of our current moment is the future, which becomes our hopes and fears of the benefits and consequences of the moment.    Those that surround themselves with the past and the future as they live each moment are missing so much.  So many moments are just perfect without having to overlay the context of a realized past and an uncertain future. 

There are those that are probably in the moment in its truest sense.  Each moment is individual.  There is certainly time for reflection upon the meaning of the past and the benefits and consequences perhaps derived from the moment.  But the moment is singular.  It is now.  It is unencumbered by context. Truly living “in the moment.”

Unfortunately, I fall in to the 3-moment category of experiencing life.  I know I am missing something.  I know I am not alone.  I am joined by all those that fear they have to have video of the moment.  To prove it existed.  

So, has Facebook made us less human?

In the movie "Network", Howard Beall asked the rhetorical question, "What's so bad about dehumanization?"  Like so many issues raised by that movie 47 years ago, this question is relevant today.  We have our lives defined by social media, imitated by AI and vilified by any that thing in ways contrary to what we think.  No matter what we think.  

We are commodities. Corporations break us down into demographic and psychographic categories being judged by our marketing attractiveness.  Our government breaks us down into categories based on the degree of national threat we pose, based on our digital communication.  We are categorized.  We always were but now what we buy, where we shop, what we say, what we view online, what we say online---is all being scrutinized by someone who doesn't know or care about us.

So, what's so bad about dehumanization?  We will go to work today or look for work today, care about our families and complain about the deficiencies in our government and take for granted those things in our government that do work.  We are going to have the same day we had 47 years ago.  Except our privacy is being compromised and we are aware of it.  Have we truly lost our freedom and have our lives materially changed due to all this information being tracked, categorized and shared?  The philosophical arguments with these practices are compelling. The practical effects of this seem a bit less obtrusive or life changing.  

Are we any less human today then 47 years ago?

Racist Kids Will Be Racist Kids..

Racist  Kids will be Racist Kids…

(please note that linked articles include strong racist terms and profanity)

I hate when someone starts a column or a speech with rhetorical questions.  But I am going to.

If a teen publishes something stupid on the internet, should the teen suffer consequences?  And does the school have a responsibility in bringing that student to justice?  Does the term "bringing that student to justice" suggest that broadcasting something stupid is a crime?  

When I look back on my teen years, there are stupid things I said that I wish I hadn't.  In my case, most don't remember the dopey things I said.  When teens  vent their worst thoughts they're on the internet.  On twitter and Facebook.  Available to the world in perpetuity.  Tracie Egan Morrissey found some of these tweets and reprinted them.  

Tracie's November 9  article on Jezebel.com, ran a column of tweets of teens venting their anger at Obama being reelected.  The tweets include the racial terms that I can not repost here.  And profanity I wouldn't repost here.  Then she called those student's high schools to find out what, if any, action the school might take toward those students.  

Is the role of a blogger to rat on a tweeter exercising First Amendment rights?  Maybe what 

Tracie has highlighted is the checks and balances of the internet.  If we search we can find the range of viewpoints that exist in our world.  We need to know that such racism exists.  

A follow up article from Jezebel.com  featured the racist and profane responses of adults who were mad at the website for calling the kids out.  Teens hate being called "kids."  But teens are, by definition,  young and going to make mistakes that adults will catch.  But now those mistakes might be captured and retweeted.  The follow up article featuring the bigotry of adults only shows us that the kids learn from the adults.  

The racist teens and inquiring Jezebel bloggers are part of the checks and balances. Should a blogger have called the schools?  I'm a parent.  I want my daughter's school to be challenged.  Is printing racist terms a crime that should be called to justice?  What do you think about hate speech?

Yes, I left you with a rhetorical question.  

A comment on a column by Brian Solis

Following is a long segment from an interesting column by Brian Solis.  Following that is a much shorter response.  

A comment on a column by Brian Solis

http://www.briansolis.com/2012/05/the-future-of-tv-is-more-than-social-its-a-multi-screen-experience-that-needs-design/

Segment of Brian’s column:

Today, we’re seeing experimentation across the screens with strategies that invite audience participation. Some live shows now run social media tickers during programs. Other live events feature tweets and also live statistics based on social media analytics. Some programs are integrating community participation into content. Others are using social media to tell supporting stories between seasons or airing special webisodes to keep interest and anticipation high between on air programs. Apps are also emerging to open new windows between programs and mobile audiences.

So what?

What we need to do for any of these initiatives to work is to align them with a higher purpose and a vision for what the new relationship looks like between viewer and the program, the viewer and the program’s elements, storyline and characters/roles, between the viewer and the screen, and between viewers and other viewers.

You must first answer these questions…

What is the objective and the purpose of your social TV initiative?

What kind of relationship are you striving for and how will you enliven it through each channel in a way that’s not only engaging, but also relevant?

What would the “Tweet heard around the world” look like and what is the social spark that would trigger activity?

What does the experience look like on a mobile phone, tablet, PC, and a TV? Meaning, what does the second and third screen experience look like? Design it and also design it back into the first screen programming.

Programming is just the beginning. Advertising also has a new opportunity to engage in a more meaningful way.

Rather than simply buying seconds and using spots to promote social media campaigns, visits to Facebook pages or rallies to Tweet a branded hashtag (brandtag), think about it as a way to tell a story that can live beyond the spot or beyond the campaign. Old Spice learned that its commercials were too successful to treat as traditional campaigns that would start and stop. Viewers don’t “turn off” so why wouldn’t a great story continue to live on across distributed platforms where consumers are more than willing to engage?

Now, Old Spice hosts an ongoing experience where its campaign has become a transmedia experience that perseveres across online, broadcast and social channels. The story, the product, the series keeps viewers engaged. The series also strives to make consumers part of the story where custom videos are created based on input and participation.

Product placement is also open for reinvention. By making products or brands part of the story, advertisers have new opportunities for contextualized storytelling across multiple platforms and the ability to host new interactions, build communities or drive desired outcomes. Everything of course is based on the story advertisers wish to tell and the experience they wish to delivery. The point is that advertising doesn’t just have to end nor does it have to be limited to a finite engagement in new networks and platforms. Storytelling and consumer engagement are infinite if they’re compelling, delightful and shareable. But then again, it takes a different vision supported by an irresistible purpose or intention.

Through experimentation, we are seeing what’s possible. However, networks, advertisers, and producers, must think beyond technology and rethink experiences. By not focusing on the experience or defining the nature of relationships, we fall to mediumalism a condition where we place inordinate weight on the technology of any medium rather than amplifying platform strengths to deliver desired experiences, activity, and outcomes.

The future of Social TV is not yet written nor has it been broadcast. It takes vision. It takes creativity and imagination. It takes innovation. Most importantly, it takes the architecture of experiences to engage, enchant and activate viewers across multiple screens. A hashtag is not a second or third screen experience. Right now, viewers are taking to multiple screens without any cues or direction. What it is you want them to do or say requires explicit design for each screen. Doing so will inspire more informed and creative ideas through the entire broadcast ecosystem, including the original programming on the main screen.

My comment:

Interesting. He is commenting on the distinct uses and gratifications of the related media and realizes that new media and new uses for that media should lead to new forms of content. That content has not materialized yet.

There are a number of variables that need to be accounted for as a generation embraces the new media and "experts" determine the next big thing in terms of medium and programming. Sophistication of the content, storyline development, ability to gain a large audience in an increasingly fractured marketplace are all variables with a wide range of potential execution success.

The term "social media" seems to limit the perceived uses of the media.  Traditional uses and gratifications research looks at issues such as the public's desire to gain orientation to the world around them through the media offering of surveillance of the world, advice on how to deal with issues and developing quasi-relationships with media persona.  Will those traditional uses of the media change with new media or will content providers have to find new ways to fill the old needs?