Monday, April 11, 2016

Research Report

This was helpful, yet somehow more confusing.

Source 1: Can Watching Horror Films Be Harmful to Our Children?

  • Author: Dr. Lawrence Ross
  • Website: TideWater Parent
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • The first reason is found on the same page I hyperlinked above; right next to his name he has mentioned he has a PhD in clinical psychology
    • Here's a link to Dr. Ross' website where he mentions his clinical expertise, experience, location, and how to contact him. 
  • Who's the target audience?
    • Right from the get go the title of the website, "TideWater Parent" makes it pretty clear that the intended audience is parents. 
    • Dr. Ross mentions parents and their possible concerns several times in the article, and at the end he even lists a few tips for them. 
  • What's the purpose?
    • Dr. Ross is trying to inform parents of the negative affects horror movies can have on kids, and one of the ways he tries to drive his point is contrasting the blood and gore kids may see in these movies with the positive things they believe in, like Santa and the Easter Bunny. 
    • He makes it a point to emphasize the lasting effects horror movies can have on children by citing a study done on college students. The study focuses on the damage these students felt scary movies had done to them in their past, and a few expressed that they still felt those effects into their adult lives. Basically the purpose is to scare. 
  • I think it's really interesting that he mentions that although horror movies can be psychologically damaging to a person of practically any age group depending on their sensitivities, it's particularly jarring for kids because of the way their minds work (different perspectives on reality)
  • He makes a clear distinction between the psychology behind scary movies, as opposed to the physiology. We may be able to tell ourselves that it's just a movie, but our body will react in its natural way.
  • Author: Tierney Sneed
  • Website: US News
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • According to her LinkedIn profile, Tierney attended both University of Florida and GeorgeTown.
    • She also has plenty of experience in journalism, from CBS to VH1.
  • Who's the target audience?
    • I think a large portion of this source's audience is parents as well because the article refers to what the "parents" are thinking as a collective group, and what they do or do not know. 
    • I think another portion of the audience is people who enjoy movies. The ratings system can change the content that we find in our favorite films, which the article makes a point of emphasizing several times. 
  • What's the purpose?
    • The purpose is to inform the reader of a few issues that are present in the MPAA ratings system and how that affects the movies and the viewers.
    • I think the purpose is also to incite anger in both parents and movie lovers alike. The MPAA has caused controversy with both of these groups, and I think the article is asking for these groups to search for change.
  • A really important details about this source is that it differentiates between the reasons that movies are normally rated R for, and what people think they should be rated R for. 
  • This article points out how biased the board tends to be to certain material, like sexual promiscuity and violence (common aspects of horror)
  • Author: the only cited author is "FilmakerIQ"
  • Website: Filmaker IQ
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • There is no specific author anywhere on the article, unfortunately. I still think this is a reliable article because of the domain, because it is a website that teaches film courses (the subject of the article)
    • Even if the author is unknown, every source is hyperlinked. Many doctors and psychologists are cited throughout the article.
  • Who's the target audience?
    • Film students make up a large portion of the intended audience because of where the article is posted, as well as the content. The article mentions cinematic aspects of what makes horror movies so attractive to audiences, like tension, relevance, and unrealism.
    • Another audience other than the primary one (film makers) would be those interested in psychology. The article explains a few theories behind what tracts people to horror movies, like the psychoanalytic theory, which would require a little background knowledge on psychology (or at least a mild interest) to understand, and even mention.
  • What's the purpose?
    • The purpose is to inform the readers/viewers on the definition of horror, and a few theories on what attracts people to it in the first place. 
    • The purpose is also to appreciate horror movies as artistic and unique pieces of media, unlike the other sources. This is made evident especially with the last subheading "Horror as a vehicle for Growth."
  • One of the most important pieces of information this article gives is a sort of loose timeline of theories on horror. The importance behind this is that it makes it clear that this is an aspect of an argument that's been around for a long time.
  • Another key point this article/video makes is the 4 categories of horror watching recorded in teenagers. This could be really helpful to factor in when I mention raising ratings as bad solution!!
Source 4: NeuroCinema
  • Author: Peter Katz
  • Website: Youtube
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • Peter Katz is a film producer with plenty of film experience, dating back to the 1970's.
    • Katz wouldn't normally be a reliable source on neuroscience, but the fact that you can see him talking to neuroscientists and observing the MRI makes him pretty credible in this case. 
  • Who's the target audience?
    • The target audience is definitely lovers of horror interested in psychology, or maybe just Katz's work. This is made obvious because he doesn't ever state that the brain activity appearing in the MRI is damaging.
    • Katz is definitely trying to reach to some fans in this video because of how he tries to emphasize how scared the experiment's participant is of his own movie, so he's basically trying to see his own film.
  • What's the purpose?
    • Like I mentioned above, one motive behind the video is Katz's own personal agenda (pushing his film as really scary and worth watching).
    • The purpose is also to be educational and show on the MRIs that fear is observable and measurable in the brain.
  • The most valuable aspect of this video to my project is the videos of the MRI scans. Even though these are scans of a grown woman watching a horror movie, I have a feeling they'll be valuable to a video essay. 
  • An interesting point that remains subtle throughout the article is that this is an example of a director consciously trying to manipulate his audience into being as fearful as possible. This may seem like an obvious point, but it's easy to make it seem like the director's are being suppressed from creating their art when it comes to receiving a rating on their films, as opposed to a strategic choice to create as much of a shock factor as possible and get away with a lower rating than they may deserve.
  • Author: Bernie DeGroat
  • Website: University of Michigan News
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • The author, DeGroat, is not so much reliable as he is present. He is a part of the University of Michigan News team and has a bachelor's in journalism, but the real credibility comes from the fact that the study was conducted on University of Michigan students.
    • Because he's there on campus, he cites personal interviews he can get with participants and the people behind the study.
  • Who's the target audience?
    • Although this article was published in University of Michigan news, not many students pay attention to their own university's news (from personal experience) so I would say one of the primary audiences would be parents , since it has an emphasis on the college students' experiences as children.
    • Another important audience would be people with an interest in psychology because the article takes time to point out several statistics on fear and the types of fear that are the most prevalent across this age group (that started as fears from scary movies)
  • What's the purpose?
    • The purpose is to inform the reader of the effects past horror movies have had on adults to this day, and basically cause concern.
    • I think the purpose is also to show off the University of Michigan and its psychology department, since the article makes it a point to say that the research will be published in a journal.
  • This is going to fit into my project as an age group link. Yeah some parents might be over exaggerating- are these movies really hurting their kids that much? These college students are proof of the long lasting effects and that these parents aren't just crazy. 
  • The study classified five types of area of fear that these college students identified with from their childhood-movie fears; animals, blood/injury, environmental, situational, and disturbing sounds/images. This will be important because these are hugeeeeee aspects of scary movies (basically what they're completely made up of) and what seems to affect them the most; also what the ratings system seems to ignore. 

  • Author(s): Sam Adams, Marcus Gilmer, Noel Murray, Keith Phipps, Nathan Rabin, Vadim Rizov, Tasha Robinson, Scott Tobias
  • Website: A.V. Club
  • Why are the authors reliable?
    • Every one of the authors has made several posts on the website on different movies of all sorts of genres, so they clearly have extensive movie knowledge. Here's a link to all the posts just Sam Adams has published. 
    • These authors are movie lovers writing about what they love-movies. It's an opinionated article so their well versed opinion on movies they know a lot about makes them pretty reliable opinionated people.
  • Who's the target audience?
    • The website is called AV Club and the article is completely made up of movies, so its safe to say that the primary audience is movie lovers. 
    • A few of the movies aren't necessarily mainstream, and the title itself does not define what the MPAA even is, so you do need to have some movie knowledge to follow the article.
  • What's the purpose?
    • The purpose seems to be to make the MPAA ratings system look terrible, which is clear just from the title and its use of the word "egregious." 
    • The article makes it clear that the authors stand with the producers of the movies and a more "free" ratings world, because, again, the article just roasts the MPAA.
  • This source is going to fit into my project because of the several examples of movies that are widely regarded as having incorrect ratings. The movies date back to the 1960's so there's plenty to choose from.
  • Another important aspect is the inconsistency in the ratings and the type of content. Some are R for the same things that others are rated NC17 or PG13. This is going to be an important reason for why changing the ratings scale for horror movies in general isn't going to work to stop children from being affected by these movies; its just too subjective.
  • Author: MrDisgusting or or Brad Miska
  • Website: BloodyDisgusting
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • He has many many many posts on this horror movie forum, so I think he must really know a lot about them.
    • According to his Twitter, he is actually a co-founder of the website and a producer of a few horror films, including the VHS movies! (cool weird movies)
  • Who's the target audience?
    • Horror fans. He starts the article with "Us horror fans.."
    • The fact that the post is on a horror movie forum is also pretty indicative of its intended audience.
  • What's the purpose?
    • The purpose is to condemn the MPAA for restricting the artistic freedom of horror film producers and directors.
    • The purpose is also to rile up lovers of horror and get them angry at the MPAA. Not sure what this will do but he ends the article with "Now, TALK Below," so he's definitely trying to start some conversation on the topic.
  • This will serve as an example of a lover of horror/producer expressing their anger at the MPAA; another reason why raising ratings will not be an effective solution.
  • The points he makes about censorship will also be very useful as a direct quote.
Source 8: MPAA Rating System (the video has lots of cursing and weird, kind of funny(but more crude) little animations so just a warning)
  • Author: Revinthehead
  • Website: Youtube
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • Unfortunately, there isn't much information on RevintheHead, and this video is the only video he has posted. I can't say much for his reliability since he is most likely just posting the video and had nothing to do with its creation. I trust the source because I know that the way they've described the ratings system is how the MPAA has self described it.
  • Who's the target audience?
    • I'm also a little hesitant to say for this. My first instinct is parents because of the content; they are generally the most interested in ratings. But the crude humor makes it seem like it would be more geared towards younger people.
    • I'm going to go out on a whim and say that the audience is whoever the MPAA/MPAA supporter could try to convince to watch it, and the ploy is to try to win the viewer over with dumb humor.
  • What's the purpose?
    • To inform the viewer of the MPAA's rating system.
    • I think the purpose is also to convince the viewer that the ratings system makes sense and is effective, since the video becomes more crude as it continues.
  • This video will be helpful to my project primarily because of the graphics, which I am definitely going to steal.
  • It is also my only pro-MPAA source so far.
  • Author: CinemaSins Jeremy
  • Website: Youtube
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • Jeremy is a published author and a daily well known movie critic with a decent twitter following.
    • He's also got his own movie-criticing website, which I find pretty credibility building.
  • Who's the target audience?
    • Since his following is built on movie critiquing, his audience is movie lovers/critics.
    • Movie lovers/critics seem to also hate the MPAA, so he knows the topic will be well received with his audience.
  • What's the purpose?
    • Inform his viewers on his opinion of how the MPAA is a corrupt organization and is virtually ineffective.
    • He is trying to incite some controversy in his followers and is really making an attempt to reach the MPAA (as he states in the description).
  • His insight will be helpful since he is a lover of movies, and the fact that it's a voice over I can use is also great.
  • He is the first of all my sources to point out that kids will see the movies they want to see anyway which is the most obvious point to me, and one I plan to use in my own argument.
  • Author: GoodBadFlicks
  • Website: Youtube
  • Why is the author reliable?
    • GoodBadFlicks is another movie/game critiquing entity with its own website and twitter following.
    • The creator of GoodBadFlicks is Cecil Trachenburg, a writer and producer of a short series, Mr. Mendo's Hack Attack
  • Who's the target audience?
    • Based on GoodBadFlick's following, the audience is most likely movie lovers, specifically of the horror/thriller type.
    • The video makes many movie references and mentions directors and specific people, o you have to have some movie knowledge. 
  • What's the purpose?
    • To complain about the misuse of the PG-13 rating and how ineffective it is. 
    • The purpose is also to get people angry(like most of my sources) about the MPAA, and just spread the word on its general unreliability. 
  • The most important point that I learned from this source is that STEVEN SPIELBERG IS THE REASON FOR PG13. This was a huge thing I didn't know.
  • He gives many many examples of movies that were edited to fit the PG13 rating.
DONE.


No comments:

Post a Comment