Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

So, as most of you in class on Wednesday remember, I was very vocal in my objections to the movie adaptation of the classic children's book. I still hold by my opinion that there was not nearly enough material in the original story to warrant a 90-minute-ish movie. In addition, it takes a lot away from the magic of the original to explain through pseudo-science why the weather is expressed in food. I also think that it completely changes the context of the story to attribute all of the disasters to human/machine error.

But, I think that my biggest bone to pick with this movie is the pseudo-science which feeds into the misconceptions people have about microwaves and how they cook food. Yes, microwaves are a kind of radiation because they are electromagnetic waves. No, they are not the kind of radiation that mutates your food and changes molecular structure. This is why people believe that microwaved food is cancer-causing. But, what the microwaves actually do is excite water molecules in the food, causing friction. And any grade-schooler can tell you that friction causes heat.

Lastly, what is with all of the "stupid" humor in that movie? Is this really what we are reducing the next generation to? How does America intend to improve the education of the youth or even compete with other nations if we allow for such nonsense to continue? "Steve." Really? Way to raise the bar.

Alright, my ranting is over. Feel free to comment and to refute my claims.

Cannibalism/The Cook

Hi Class,Since I wasn't able to be in class today, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the film we watched last week and the readings we went with it, and also wanted to hear other people's ideas, so please respond! I thought it was interesting in the Bartolovich reading when she talked about how The Cook is unique in talking about cannibalism because it shows modern day civilized people being cannibals rather than barbarians or more primitive human beings. I really do agree with her in the sense that it was a lot more effective in making me (the audience) think about themselves as being cannibals. Watching primitive humans that do not really exist anymore is not exactly relatable to a contemporary audience. I was able to relate and put myself in this film much more than Little Otik. A tree creature/monster eating humans did not have any sort of impact on me, I just felt like I was watching a fairytale/fiction movie that I consumed and didn't really think about (I only forced myself to think about it for the sake of this class). The Cook really disturbed me and made me ponder about what it was trying to say I think because it was a lot closer to real life, if that makes sense. The ending when she looks straight into the camera and says "Cannibal" is also very powerful, for I believe its the first time in the film where a character breaks that fourth wall, and its very striking and jarring. It really startled me a little, like "is she really talking to me?" Relating cannibalism to contemporary consumer society is definitely more effective when the actual film is in a modern setting we can understand.So basically, I think The Cook is a lot more effective than Little Otik...If anyone was making this a competition....ha

An observation...

After finishing the readings and checking out a few other reviews for Little Otik, I haven't seen anything written about the theme of "possession" in the film. Considering that Svankmajer himself claims that he does not assign any intentions to his films, it could very well be my own personal interpretation, but I found it interesting that Mrs. Horakova seems more infatuated with the idea of possessing a child rather than raising one; I think she wanted what she couldn't have more than she simply wanted to be a mother. I wonder if the surrealist introduction of the market people on the streets buying babies in rapid succession spoke just as much of this idea (undervaluing nature for our own selfishness) as it did simply to express Mr. Horak's thoughts or as a tribute to Bunuel's similar shot in Un Chien andalou. It is also interesting that the precocious young Alzbetka goes so far as to announcing something along the lines of "I want this because I don't have it. I'm a very possessive person," accentuated by an extreme closeup. I'm curious as to what people's thoughts are on this and how these subconscious desires of possession relate to the greater theme of consumption.

Course Description

In our era of global capitalism, consumption and consumerism are considered to be key to managing a healthy global economy and a healthy self alike. Consumer activities and flows are thoroughly mediatized. In this course we will discuss how the intertwined operations of media and consumption have impacted contemporary lives and given rise to new theoretical, political and ethical configurations in the past decades. Some of the major sites we will explore are films that foreground eating and other forms of consumption; television, particularly reality programming, soap opera and advertising; memory and history; travel; citizenship and politics; friendship; fashion; fandom; and youth culture. We will draw on a range of media texts and an interdisciplinary collection of theoretical and critical readings related to consumerism and consumption encompassing cultural studies, film and television studies, communication, feminist and postfeminist approaches, tourism studies, history and studies of political economy.