When Archie Met Peter---"All in the Family" vs. "Family Guy"

“All in the Family” and “Family Guy” are situation comedies that follow the lives of the Bunker and Griffin families, respectively.  “All in the Family” aired in the 70’s, while “Family Guy” has been airing since the late 90’s. These two sitcoms prove to be interestingly comparable, since they tend to address similar, often controversial, issues while using widely different formats. Naturally, there are some differences between the two TV shows but these help illustrate cultural and social issues being dealt with at their respective time periods.

Take a moment to look at the following clips:
*NOTE: SOME OF THE MATERIAL MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE

 

 

-Clip 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkjnKTEffbQ

-Clip 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGA000ozeMc

 Keeping in mind last screening's "All in the Family" episode; I am going to compare the two TV shows according to the following 3 categories:

1. How are they different?

• "All in the Family" deals with the theme of accepting homosexuality through Archie Bunker's character. Archie is portrayed as disliking, making fun of, and being repelled by homosexuals. Contrastingly, the characters in "Family Guy" seem to accept homosexuality, as seen with Stewie's (baby) character.
• "All in the family" presents a homosexual character as physically strong, well-built, athletic, serious ex-football player.  In other words, homosexuality is not represented in a stereotypical way.  Contrastingly, in the first "Family Guy" clip, Peter portrays homosexuality a slightly more stereotypical way. 
• "All in the Family" uses derogatory language (in this case, when referring to homosexuals), while "Family Guy" tries to be more politically correct
• "All in the Family" addressed Homosexuality by having Archie confront one of his friends in a serious manner. "Family Guy" addresses Homosexuality acceptance by making fun of stereotypes (such as the one seen in the first video) thus pointing out how absurd stereotypes are. In other words, "Family Guy"'s comedy style  is much more openly ironic

2. How are they the same?

• In "All in the Family" and "Family Guy", the family dynamics are similar. The father is the main figure, and each episode's story usually revolves around what he does/says. The mother is there as support to her husband but doesn't get as much attention as he does. The children are a form of "reaction" to their father's character and actions but they don't get as much importance as the father figure either. 
• Both shows usually employ the main character (in this case, the father figures Archie and Peter) to address the main issues of each episode. For example, Archie is the one that learns how to deal with homosexuals. Similarly, Peter is the one that has to learn to accept other people and whatever unconventional situations they might represent.
• Both shows deal with controversial issues. "All in the Family" is trying to show that homosexuals are just as much a part of society as anybody else (among other social and cultural issues), and that people should learn how to accept and respect that. "Family Guy" usually addresses similarly controversial issues such as homosexuality, immigration, racism, etc., and also encourages acceptance and respect. Basically, both shows intend to impart a morale by the end of each episode. 
• Both shows provoke and challenge the status quo, by addressing said controversial issues in such an open manner.
• Both shows use comedy as a tool to help normalize concepts that would be usually unacceptable in society. 
• Both shows portray the main characters as intolerant. At first, Archie does not accept or respect his daughter's friend because he suspects he is a homosexual. Peter also dislikes and/or makes fun of homosexuals, physically impaired people, lesbians, etc., and gives off the impression of being a "macho". Both character seem to represent intolerance at the beginning of the show but by the end, they realize their faults and try to impart some valuable lesson on their respective families and, indirectly, on the audience as well.

3.What kinds of issues did “All in the Family” deal with that "Family Guy" doesn’t, and vice versa?

•  "Family Guy" deals with most of the issues dealt with in "All in the Family" because it was created in a much later time period. "Family Guy" started out in the late 90's where controversial issues were already being dealt with in the Media. In other words, "Family Guy" is controversial because of the way it addresses said issues, not because what issues are addressed. 
• Of course, "All in the Family" was controversial back then because it was one of the first shows that dared to speak of social and cultural issues in such an open way. 
• Having said so, "Family Guy" deals with much more explicit content than what would have been acceptable in the 70's such as sex and drug abuse. 
• Also, "Family Guy" addresses immigration issues because they are of extreme relevance today. Naturally, "All in the Family" didn't address such issues because they were not yet as present as they are today. 
• "Family Guy" also tends to make fun of politicians and celebrities, often belittling and humiliating them. "All in the Family" didn't mock politicians or celebrities in such a cynical manner. Perhaps TV in the 70's had more self-imparted censorship than it does today. 
• "Family Guy" revolves around inside jokes of the news/celebrity world, often portraying real-life characters to be made fun of. "All in the Family" was a show with fictional characters and situations. 

Despite their differences, both sitcoms are an important part of Televised society because they hold a mirror up to us in the hope of encouraging acceptance and respect. Whether it be Archie, Peter, or any of the other characters, sitcom characters continue to voice society's concerns and reactions. It it through these characters that society as a whole has become more open and more willing to question the hegemonic ideals that surround us today.

*"All in the Family" image from google.com

***CORRECTION*** (last sentence of introductory paragraph)
"In other words,  radio tells people exactly what they want to hear".

We the Audience Command the Radio!--Explaining Audience Demand

floridacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com

Ever since the navy handed the radio over for public use after the war, it (radio) has been in constant flux. The radio went from being a naval communications system, to a news broadcaster, to advertising mogul, to what it is today: a medley of music, advertisement, news, and talk shows. So, why the change? Why did radio go from war communicator to colorful, boisterous entertainer?--Because audiences demanded it. In my opinion, audience demand is the leading force that shaped, and continues to shape, public radio and its content ever since its inception in 1920 because listeners become faithful audiences only when radio broadcasts content which is relevant or of interest to listeners' lives. In other words, tells people exactly what they want to hear.

Audience Demand is what people expect from, in this case, a media outlet of their choice. It reflects society's ever-changing interests and needs, and how they expect those to be met. For example, Austinites, in general, have a reputation for liking non-commercial music. As a consequence, local radio stations play music from different genres found outside the "mainstream". As a result, a large majority of Austinites are content with local radio stations because A) they play music that the Austin underground music scene demands/needs, and B) because the radio stations reflect Austin's indie/underground music community. Contrastingly, if Austin radio stations played ONLY mainstream pop music 24/7, the radio here would probably A) have significantly less listeners, less identification with the radio, and less audience loyalty, and B) there would be a large discrepancy between the radio content being played, and actual indie Austinite culture. In short, audience demand speaks of how media content is shaped by audience needs and interests, and how a media medium's success depends on whether and how well the media meets listeners' expectations.

amoeba.com

The book (Media Now. Straubhaar, LaRose, Davenport) mentions the development of radio and its impact on the 1920's. Surely, we've all heard of the "Roaring Twenties" but what made them so, well, roaring? According to www.1920-30.com, the 20's was "a boisterous period characterized by rapidly changing lifestyles, financial excess, and the fast pace of technological process". Precisely. Changing lifestyles, financial excess, and technological process are what determined the radio and its development in the following ways (examples based on Media Now book):




1. Rapidly Changing Lifestyles:

•  People were starting to grow more aware of worldly news through newspapers and such. Radio provided them with a better, faster, more direct way to attain information.
• The loss and devastation of WWI strengthened family bonding. Radio presented them with a recreational activity perfect for the whole family.
• Also in response to the war's sorrow, people turned to radio for escapism and all sorts of entertainment. 

2. Financial Excess:

• Financial excess meant that audiences could actually afford to spend money on the products advertised on radio. As people had more money, the radio provided and increasing amount of products for sale for every need.
• Financial excess also meant that people could afford to buy their own radios. That meant that the radio industry saw a significant increase in radio sales, thus and increase in audience loyalty.
• Financial excess allowed stores to buy more advertising time, thus creating a larger consumer audience and more income. 

3.  Fast Pace of Technological Process:

• The advancement of technology allowed radio to be transmitted directly to listeners' homes through consoles.
• After a few years, music could be recorded and thus played repeatedly on the radio, creating more musical "hits"
• Radio clarity increased with the introduction of FM radio.

There are a variety of other examples pertaining to each of these groups, other than those mentioned above. Through these examples we see how audiences in the 1920's shaped both the radio industry and its content. This Audience Demand influence continues today as times and cultures change. With these cultural and social changes come changes in interests and needs as well. In the 1920's there was a demand for Big Band music; today there is demand for Hip-Hop. The radio will continue to change as its content continues to adjust to address each time's specific expectations.

Not All Mexicans Sit Under a Cactus and Drink Tequila---Explaining "Stereotyping"

Are All Mexicans Really Like That?

I was born in Mexico, and I have lived there all my life. When I travel to the States or abroad, I am confronted with the most surprising questions. One of the most memorable was, "Do you have cars in Mexico?" Sometimes I still can't believe that so many people have such a distorted view of Mexico. The concept of stereotyping, like in the movie “Nacho Libre”, helps explain why a large portion of the population has a distorted impression of Mexico and its inhabitants.


Stereotyping is the creating of an over-simplified image depicting a specific group of people. This image is often created by “outsiders”, people who are not part of the group being generalized; people who are not well-informed as to what those in the group are actually like. Stereotypes are mostly derived out of lack of information, since the stereotyping of a person or group of people consists in pointing out what seems to be the most obvious/recurrent characteristic of said person or group. The term refers to generalizing, to sorting out people according to labels which have been determined by another, misinformed, group of people that make up the largest part or general consensus. I will be further explaining “Stereotyping” by addressing the movie “Nacho Libre”, and how it distorts the image of Mexico and its inhabitants.

…”You mean not all Mexicans are poor and overtly religious?"---Exactly.


Before diving into my explication, take a minute to look at the following movie trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uTN8hPpP0&feature=related


This movie perfectly exemplifies stereotyping in the following ways:

1. It is an oversimplified, uninformed depiction of Mexicans in that:

• Nacho is slightly overweight, has dark hair, dark eyes, and a mustache
• Nacho’s best friend, Esqueleto (Skeleton), is portrayed dark-skinned, dirty, animalistic, and starved.
• The setting is a run-down, poverty-stricken church/orphanage
• The town where Nacho does his shopping is portrayed as a brown, dusty, dirty place with no roads, and crumbling structures
• Mexicans are portrayed as overtly religious and, consequently, poor
• Mexican every-day life is portrayed as revolving around scarce food, and the occasional Lucha Libre match, otherwise uneventful.

2. This depiction of Mexico was created by "outsiders":

• It was directed by Jared Hess
• It starred Jack Black (and others)
• It was produced by Nickelodeon Movies
• Basically, this image was created by a predominantly American group of people who only focused on certain aspects of Mexican culture and society. 

3. The movie focuses ONLY on one side of Mexico:

• The film depicts Mexico as very rural and underdeveloped. 
• The film revolves around the extreme religiousness of certain Mexicans and how that affects their every day life
• The movie ONLY portrays the kind of life that can be found in modern-day Mexican pueblos, not everywhere else in Mexico.

THE RESULT is that people who watch "Nacho Libre", and otherwise lack sufficient information on Mexico,  will accept the image that the Media is providing as reality. Because the movie reached and will continue to reach a very broad audience, that large portion of the population will view Mexicans in a certain way (a way which was influenced by the movie). As a consequence of stereotypes, people have come up to me and asked, "Do you have McDonald's in Mexico?", "Do you ride a donkey to school?", "Are there roads in your city?". I've also met some people who don't believe me when I tell them I'm Mexican, they say"But you're white...and you speak English well...". Because so many types of media only focus on similar aspects of Mexico such as the one I mentioned above, Mexico has become, to the eyes ans ears of the audience, a place like the one you saw on the movie trailer.

I am Mexican, and I am here to say that not all Mexicans are like those portrayed in the movie, and that not all of Mexico is dusty and underdeveloped. Mexico is a place where technology and architecture are thriving. It is a place where traditions meet innovations. Yes, we have McDonald's. No, I do not ride a donkey to school. There are thousands of roads in my city and they are overflowing with cars of all shapes, colors, and sizes.
So, stereotypes shine a specific light on a certain group of people, but lets not forget that all groups of people are multi-layered, and hard to be labeled as just one kind of thing.

"Committed Relationships With Cell Phones"- Explaining Technological Determinism

**The cartoon belongs to Liza Donelly, and it helps to illustrate my point.**

The concept of Technological Determinism helps me understand why most people are afraid to look up from their phones while waiting at the bust stop in the following ways: The development of technology has caused us to be dependent on cell phones, because they connect us to something/someone thus creating a society dependent on cell phones for comfort and safety.

The concept of Technological Determinism explains that technology directly influences society therefore determining, to some extent, its culture and the changes within it. This term refers to how technology is the working force that propels cultural and social change, thus opposing Cultural Determinism. Technological Determinism, in other words, proposes that the media controls the people through the power of the “medium” (Cell phones, Internet, etc) and people’s dependency on it (cell phone usage comes to mind, and I will expand on that in the following section). Not only do societies become dependent on the medium, but their lives are further determined by the messages expressed through it. This dependency on mediums and people’s susceptibility to them and their content, shape the way people think, feel, act, grow, interact with each other, etc. Essentially, Technological Determinism, put simply, is the chess player, and we the people are the chess pieces.

In my case, I will explain Technological Determinism in terms of how technology, specifically cell phone usage, has promoted a culture in which person-to person interactions are hard to come by.

Applying the term to an example:

To further explain Technological Determinism, I’m going to turn my attention to an every-day phenomenon: The Bus Stop.

The Example:
I’ve been at UT for 3 weeks now, and since the campus is so big, I’ve been taking the Forty Acres bus to get to my classes. As I’ve waited at the bus stop for the FA to come, I have come to realize that the people also waiting for the bus almost always have their eyes glued on their cell phone screens.

Each new person that walks towards the bus stop, as soon as he/she gets there, pulls out his/her cell phone immediately and tunes out the rest of the world… What are they afraid of?
It is as if people no longer know how to deal with themselves or with other people when there’s nothing to do for a few minutes. The idea of just waiting, just taking a deep breath and looking at one’s surroundings, just isn’t valid anymore.

So, why do we do this? Why can’t we simply look up and breathe in the sunshine? Why don’t we dare to look around us comfortably and admire the landscape? Why is it so hard to be comfortable without a cell phone in front of our faces? …Because, we’re not used to it.

Because we’ve been the subject of Technological Determinism since at least our adolescence.

Here is how our lives became technologically Determined:

• Cell phone technology developed, eventually enabling us to make calls, text, and access the web.
• Cell phones became most desirable objects since they presented us with a way to be connected to everyone and everything, all day any day.
• Younger and younger kids started getting cell phones, thus setting a trend for even younger generations to follow.
• All these kids then grew up surrounded by cell phones, enjoying the communicative commodities they offer.
• Using a cell phone became natural, part of our every-day routine.
• We immersed ourselves in the advantages cell phones offered (communication made easy, etc)
• Our “immersion” in cell phones slowly became an “obsession” as our use of it became arbitrary (usage of cell phone no longer out of necessity)
• Usage of cell phone started to replace real life interactions and entertainment
• THE RESULT: A society where people have become dependent on their cell phones to the point of being frightened by genuine social interaction. A technology-driven culture where people develop parallel lives and languages. A society where having a cell phone means feeling safe and comfortable.

Connecting the example and how we became technologically determined:

Cell phones nowadays provide us with instant access to the web, giving us the opportunity to instantly plug ourselves into our virtual lives. We tweet, we post on walls, we comment, we “LOL”, we text, etc. The cell phone is no longer an accessory; it is a necessary limb. People often feel naked and vulnerable without its bright screen light shining comfortingly on their faces.

Were it not for the advancement of technology (in this case, cell phones), today’s societies would probably be more social, and more aware of their environment. Back when there weren’t any cell phones, social interaction was what was “natural” in situations such as waiting at a bus stop. Person-to person relationships were the norm.

Now, the norm seems to be the person-to cell phone relationship, and why? Because technology today has offered us something more, something that has become much too popular to be ignored. The risk is that, should we decide to ignore it, we’d be outcasts left behind in our technologically deprived solitude. The advancement of technology is necessary and, scarily, it does indeed DETERMINE the our every-day lives.

Why am I in this class?

DSC_0032.JPG
Ah, our first assignment…and so the race begins.
Why am I in R-T-F 305, you ask? Because I need this class in order to become a successful filmmaker. My being a part of R-T-F 305 actually has very little to do with UT-inforced prerequisite policies. As an aspirant film director, an introduction to media studies is necessary. It is absolutely vital because being media-ignorant/complacent would be the equivalent of being thrust into the Film industry with a blindfold over one’s eyes and ears. Understanding and knowing the various forms of Media is the foundation of a future filmmaking concentration. I don’t know about you, but I see no point in walking around blindfolded, and so; it is time to dive into Professor Straubhaar’s Introduction to Media Studies.

To concretize my previous rant, I’ve divided my reasons of why I’m part of this class into two separate groups: My Present, and Future.
-I am part of R-T-F 305 because…
PRESENT:
1. I believe it is a necessary foundation for later filmmaking education. How can I make compelling movies without first understanding what modern-day society is feeding the Media, and how the Media is spitting it back out? This society-Media digestion is the key into anthropologically insightful films…which are the ones I’m interested in making.

2. I admit it, more often than not, I feel like the world should revolve around films alone. That’s why I’m in this class to broaden my understanding of other types of media, and the reciprocal impact they have on each other and the rest of the world.

3. Honestly, I want to learn how to handle myself, my attention span, and my academic resourcefulness in a class of 500+ people, and be able to meet the standards of college-level academia. This “enormous college format” is entirely new to me.

FUTURE:
1. I want to be able to master ( and by master I mean completely understand and be able to manage) all types of media that are out there, in order to become as well-rounded as possible. I want to be a director, and that is not easy, therefore, I need to have “the whole package”. Being a decent storyteller won’t cut it anymore…

2. I want to stop being complacent about the society I’m living in today. I want to understand the full power of the various Media in order to find a way to “redirect” society through films. After all, the Media has been like a “Big Brother” for years now: Observing, controlling… Well, if we understand Media, can we control it back?

Apart from achieving these personal goals, what I hope to learn from this class is, “What makes Media tick?’”. By this I mean, Is it society that feeds it? Or does the Media feed society? What elements are essential to the Media, and who’s behind it all? Where did media originate and where is it going? ,etc.

As for the multimedia aspect of my blog, I'm adding this link to USC's lecture series on filmmaking. It is in NO WAY a comparison between USC and UT; I just like listening to what the speakers have to say. (I don't have a favorite blog...)

http://itunes.usc.edu/

So, at the risk of boring anyone who’s reading this, to death, I shall conclude swiftly.

Hem, hem…In conclusion, I am part of this class because I want to be, not because I have to be. I believe it will provide me with the knowledge I lack and need. And, lastly, my true hope is to be able to demystify the Media in order to fully understand it, something that will surely help me through the filmmaking craze I have ahead of me.

This is Andrea Macias, the 19 year-old Mexican and film directing hopeful, signing off.