It's almost Halloween. I watched a horror movie. To some of you that seems perfectly normal. To others of you, you might be surprised if not a little disappointed to hear I watched one (or two). Either way I feel a sense of guilt about watching a horror movie and I wonder why.
Now I'm tempted to write an entire post about what constitutes a horror movie. Is it the presence of grotesque violence? However, most people would argue that Saving Private Ryan is an important historical movie, not a horror movie. So maybe then it has to do with the occult or senseless killing.
But then again, I've read some interesting articles about why horror movies connect with people and how they can truly reveal what scares us that we often refuse to face (mainly death). Moreover, I'm also tempted to write about why people are drawn to horror in a society that is often a distance with war, disease and even death (many of us have never seen a dead body that wasn't well presented in a funeral home or church).
Yet, rather than using my head I will simply use my stomach. All I know is I felt gross afterwards, I felt dirtied. I know it's not popular, especially in Southern California to critique media and whether a Christian should partake in movies, T.V., music, etc. However, just because we can build up a tolerance to simulated violence, sex and fear, does that mean we've spiritually matured or simply dulled our senses? How much do we really want to blur the line between what we can tolerate if not enjoy on screen and what we can tolerate and ignore in the real world. I am the biggest hypocrite because I watch a lot of T.V. and movies, but I'm afraid to stop asking these kind of questions.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Short Attention Span? (Old Man Concerns)
At the risk of sounding like an old fart, there are things I notice that concern me. First off I'd be remiss not to state that most of these concerns concern me. I often have trouble paying attention watching T.V., driving, in conversation and at church without fighting the impulse to pull out my phone and check my email, the internet, etc.
However, I remember reading an article about how children's shows have changed drastically in the length of each shot (unfortunately I couldn't locate the article). The point as I remember it is that children's shows in the past (i.e. Sesame Street) use multiple cameras and multiple shots, changing periodically to change perspective and emphasize a different speaker or point of interest. The article made the point that on The Street and other classic children's shows the length of each camera shot was considerable longer than shots on newer children's T.V. shows. By quickly changing camera angles/shots it creates a sense of stimulation and excitement. Older shows like The Street tend to linger and give the child time to process information and settle into a scene; while newer shows by contrast force a sense of excitement by keeping children on their toes.
I bring this up because whereas before my daughter was introduced primarily to Sesame Street and loved the show, my son via the power of Netflix was introduced to newer formatted, shorter shows. Now that my son and his older sister are accustomed to those shows (who's run times also run about 25 minutes, compared to Sesame Street's epic run time of 50 minutes), calmer shows which take more time to develop and patiently present information seem horribly boring. After 10 minutes of Sesame Street my son is begging for something else.
This led me to wonder what consequence this might have on my children's ability to learn and be engaged with people, situations and life in general as they age. I could further this to question what affect T.V. shows or multimedia in general have had on our ability to focus on anything other than what flashes repeatedly in front of us.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with T.V. or smartphones or whatever else, but as I get older and my children get older, shouldn't I question what the world presents as normal? I think so.
However, I remember reading an article about how children's shows have changed drastically in the length of each shot (unfortunately I couldn't locate the article). The point as I remember it is that children's shows in the past (i.e. Sesame Street) use multiple cameras and multiple shots, changing periodically to change perspective and emphasize a different speaker or point of interest. The article made the point that on The Street and other classic children's shows the length of each camera shot was considerable longer than shots on newer children's T.V. shows. By quickly changing camera angles/shots it creates a sense of stimulation and excitement. Older shows like The Street tend to linger and give the child time to process information and settle into a scene; while newer shows by contrast force a sense of excitement by keeping children on their toes.
I bring this up because whereas before my daughter was introduced primarily to Sesame Street and loved the show, my son via the power of Netflix was introduced to newer formatted, shorter shows. Now that my son and his older sister are accustomed to those shows (who's run times also run about 25 minutes, compared to Sesame Street's epic run time of 50 minutes), calmer shows which take more time to develop and patiently present information seem horribly boring. After 10 minutes of Sesame Street my son is begging for something else.
This led me to wonder what consequence this might have on my children's ability to learn and be engaged with people, situations and life in general as they age. I could further this to question what affect T.V. shows or multimedia in general have had on our ability to focus on anything other than what flashes repeatedly in front of us.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with T.V. or smartphones or whatever else, but as I get older and my children get older, shouldn't I question what the world presents as normal? I think so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)