AWESOME MEDIA LITERACY BUTTONS!

1" diameter (b & w) .50 each

QUESTION MEDIA--This is the heart of Media Literacy Education!

WWJDO?--What Would Jesus Do Online?

TO ORDER:

--Indicate which button(s) you are ordering and how many of each.
--.50 per magnet. 1-9 buttons: $2.00 postage. 10+ magnets: $3.00 postage.

--Cash, check ("Daughters of St. Paul"), VISA/MC (with exp. date).
--Your full name, address, phone # and email.

Sr. Helena Burns, fsp
Pauline Books & Media
172 N. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, IL 60601
cell: 617.850.5584
email: hburns@paulinemedia.com

THANK YOU FOR SPREADING MEDIA LITERACY!

MEDIA TECHNOLOGY: HD FLIP VIDEO CAMERA

MOVIES: “STATE OF PLAY”

The new suspense movie, "State of Play," is an ode to old-fashioned journalism, boasting a stellar international cast that doesn't disappoint: Russell Crowe (Aussie), Rachel McAdams (Canuck), Ben Affleck (Yankee) and Helen Mirren (Brit). (Jason Bateman is just outstanding in his small, sole comic relief role as an unscrupulous, two-bit middleman involved in a game that's way over his head.) The film is self-consciously reminiscent of "All the President's Men," and even utilizes the Watergate building. Although in the beginning it looks like newspaper journalism (Crowe) is going to be pitted against new media (online blog/website) journalism (McAdams), the two join forces to get the story the only way it can be got: by pounding the pavement, taking personal risks, and talking to sources. Where the story eventually shows up is secondary to the actual content.

The story keeps a tense pace without overdoing it, either in the soundtrack or in the sparse action scenes. Everything—the multiple crimes under investigation and the way the story is gathered—teeters on what's legal, what's ethical, what does our American society stand for, anyway? The tale is intricate without being complicated. Above all, "State of Play" is humane. It's about interweaving relationships and loyalties vis-à-vis Washington power and war profiteering. When things get too cold and rough and ugly, one character will always exhibit a piece of humanity that reminds everyone why we do any of what we do, and what the ultimate standards are: marriage, friendship, love of country, the truth. Everyone is tempted to sell out in some way, including the head of the "Washington Globe" newspaper (Helen Mirren). To speak about innocent civilians as collateral damage is decried. And of the four casualties swept up in an expedient string of murders, one is achingly described as "simply delivering pizzas." In fact, what sets off the entire investigation is a telltale emotion: on camera, a married Congressman (Affleck) breaks down in tears over a female staff member's death, and the whole world instantly recognizes they were having an affair. Plans never go according to plan because people keep being human and messing them up (e.g., falling in love with someone you're supposed to be spying on).

Russell Crowe's veteran journalist manifests the constant conflict of interest that plagues every journalist in their efforts to be objective and truthful. They, too, are humans with their own flaws, alliances, dalliances, and ulterior motives as they struggle to perform for the public the job and service they love and are driven to do. The indispensable role of the media, the fourth (and possibly fifth) estate, in our democracy is underlined in bold: "I think people know the difference between [cow patties] and news and are grateful that someone cares enough to tell the story." The image of a whole newsroom reverently waiting while a lone reporter types out an important scoop also serves this purpose. The closing credits are of the printing/production phase of a newspaper, an institution we've taken for granted and relied on for so long, but which may become archival footage very soon.

At a certain point, we begin wondering who is really more "dangerous" to people's personal agendas: politicians or the media? (Remember Governor Blago attempting to make sure reporters critical of him at the Chicago Sun-Times got fired?) The film reminds us that every year there are many journalists around the world who DO give their lives for their profession. "State" also brings out the fact that police and reporters are often in a very similar business, neck and neck in their progress on a case.

The Congressman is involved in a hearing regarding "Pointcorp," a private security company made up of ex-military that is raking in the do-re-mi in Iraq. (Blackwater, anyone?) Not only that, but Pointcorp is poised to be the face of a coming privatized Homeland Security, law enforcement, domestic intelligence infrastructure. (Conspiracy theory? Check out Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine.")

The "State" viewing experience is marred only by a few minor logic gaps. An ending twist points to the fact that stories are rarely finished. There's always more, another layer, deeper connections. Rated PG-13, there's hardly any profanity, foul language, violence and no nudity, even though these would have been germane. A "movie for grown ups" (as Entertainment Weekly puts it). Truly grown up. So often "adult" is made to be synonymous with what it actually adolescent.

"State of Play" made me worry even more about something I've been worrying a lot about lately: our desperate need for trained, paid, accountable journalists who are employed by an impartial party to uncover stories, goings-on, potential and actual shenanigans at the local, state and federal level. This has been our system for quite some time, and it has worked rather well (albeit that newspapers in general are left-leaning--but everyone knows that). Fabricate a story? Do something unethical? Get paid off? Promote a product? Can't tell hard news from soft news? Lose your job. It doesn't so much matter whether news is in print or online. The only problem with online is that everything is FREE and you only get what you DON'T pay for.

A free [not under government coercion] (and serious) press is essential in a democracy.

Another sore need we have is that of NEWS LITERACY—training children, teens and adults how to "read" and "read through" the news: www.thenewsliteracyproject.org

RANDOM THOUGHTS:

Why don't characters ever TIPTOE in parking garages when they're being pursued by murderous thugs???? They always sound like woolly mastodons crashing through the underbrush! Do they all have some kind of sick death wish?

Am I the only one who can't take Jeff Daniels seriously any more after "Dumb and Dumber"???

Don't think we don't notice that believers are often the villains, Hollywood. The only mention of God-fearingness in this movie is by a hypocritical scumbag.

The ultimate barb to the heart: "I would never do that to you."

THE FOLLOWING LINK IS FROM: MEDIA LITERACY CLEARINGHOUSE

So why does Hollywood keep making movies about newspapermen? The short answer is that Hollywood loves a good yarn. For much of its 100-plus-year history, whenever Hollywood has portrayed journalists, it seems to have taken the advice of the frontier newspaper editor in John Ford's "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," who said: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/04/journalists-in-movies-why-does-hollywood-still-love-em-.html

POPE ASKS YOUNG PEOPLE TO USE MEDIA TECHNOLOGY TO SHARE FAITH

By Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI asked young Catholics to use their computers, Facebook accounts, blogs and Internet video posts to share with their peers the joy of faith in Christ.

"Be sure to announce the Gospel to your contemporaries with enthusiasm," the pope told young people in his message for the 2009 celebration of World Communications Day.

"Human hearts are yearning for a world where love endures, where gifts are shared, where unity is built, where freedom finds meaning in truth and where identity is found in respectful communion," said Pope Benedict's message, which was released at the Vatican Jan. 23.

The theme for the 2009 World Communications Day, which will be celebrated May 24 in most dioceses, is "New Technologies, New Relationships: Promoting a Culture of Respect, Dialogue and Friendship."

Releasing the message -- which included e-mailing it directly to 100,000 young Catholics around the world and asking them to forward it or post it on their Web sites -- the Vatican also announced that it would take a further step into the digital age by making video of the pope available on YouTube, a video-sharing Web site.

In his message, Pope Benedict said that if used creatively and correctly new computer technologies can help people meet the human longing to connect with others and share the search for goodness, beauty and truth.

Of course, he said, people must "avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable."

And praising the way young people use the Internet to form and maintain friendships, he also cautioned against trivializing friendship by not forming real, face-to-face relationships.

"It would be sad if our desire to sustain and develop online friendships were to be at the cost of our availability to engage with our families, our neighbors and those we meet in the daily reality of our places of work, education and recreation," Pope Benedict said.

"If the desire for virtual connectedness becomes obsessive, it may in fact function to isolate individuals from real social interaction while also disrupting the patterns of rest, silence and reflection that are necessary for healthy human development," the pope said.

Still, Pope Benedict said, new technologies have an "extraordinary potential" to bring people together, to help them share information, to rally them to work for good causes and to educate.

"They respond to a fundamental desire of people to communicate and to relate to each other," he said.

"When we find ourselves drawn toward other people, when we want to know more about them and make ourselves known to them, we are responding to God's call -- a call that is imprinted in our nature as beings created in the image and likeness of God, the God of communication and communion," Pope Benedict said.

Much of the pope's message was addressed to the "digital generation," to young people who have grown up using computers and cellular phones, e-mail and text messaging.

He asked them "to bring the witness of their faith to the digital world" and to write openly about the joys of faith when they write their profiles on social-networking sites or blogs.

The first step in evangelization is to understand the culture in which the Gospel will be proclaimed, he said, and young Catholics are the ones who have that understanding of their peers and of the Internet culture they use to communicate.

"You know their fears and their hopes, their aspirations and their disappointments," the pope told young Catholics. "The greatest gift you can give to them is to share with them the good news of a God who became man, who suffered, died and rose again to save all people."

Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, told reporters Jan. 23 that the message was distinctive for the sense of trust and openness it showed toward new technologies and for the fact that it was addressed primarily to young Catholics.

Msgr. Paul Tighe, secretary of the council, said people who have grown up with computer technology "and integrated it naturally into their lifestyles" communicate, learn, get information and engage in political and social activities differently than people over 40 years old, the so-called "digital immigrants."

But, he said, young people and anyone else using the new technologies need to be careful about the content they are generating, sharing or drawing to the attention of others.

"We are all aware of the risks of news forms of cyberbullying and abusive postings that have emerged in recent years," he said.

- - -

Editor's Note: The text of the pope's message in English is posted online at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20090124_43rd-world-communications-day_en.html.

The text of the pope's message in Spanish is posted online at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20090124_43rd-world-communications-day_sp.html.

MEDIA LITERACY: FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS

Here are two comments from students attending my media literacy workshops:

After viewing a "mash-up" that exposes the fact that GE makes weapons, warplanes, bombs AND owns NBC (Nightly News), we discussed whether or not NBC would want the war in Iraq to continue, and how they would present the war.
5th grader: "Does that make the News terrorists?"

When asked what hurts more, bullying in person or cyberbullying, a teenage girl responded: "Cyberbullying, because it's permanent. You can read it over and over, and so can everyone else."

Given a choice whether they thought their peers were "more real," "more fake," or "just themselves" online, the teens responded overwhelmingly: "more fake." (I was really surprised at this and tried to bring out the fact that we have the potential to be "more real" online by sharing our deepest thoughts we might feel foolish saying in person, or not know how to formulate on the spot. But they felt the fact that you COULD stop and formulate your words more carefully was "fake." They felt face to face conversation was "real." As a big Theology of the Body proponent, I tend to agree with them!)

I spontaneously asked the teens: "Do you realize what you're living is bigger than Gutenberg?" They started nodding vigorously with big smiles on their faces. I told them, "You are Christian pioneers in the digital revolution!" They loved that.

MEDIA LITERACY: MUST-READ--THE WHOLE "SCREENS ISSUE" OF THE NEW YORK TIMES MAG

THE LASTEST ON THE NEW MEDIA

http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2008/11/23/magazine/index.html

MEDIA LITERACY: "THE TRICKLE UP EFFECT"

In media literacy, there is the "trickle up" effect. This means that the older generations haven't rejected or been bypassed by the new media. They are slowly adopting it. This was evidenced by a dear friend of ours here in Philadelphia, a 73-year-old grandfather of 15 who is trying to keep in touch with his grandkids.
He knows how to text on his phone, but his wife doesn't. He calls instant messaging "texting" also. He calls young people "Youtubers," and now, best of all, he wants to get into "My Face."

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH & THE MEDIA

Do you know what the Catholic Church's position is on abortion? Helping the poor? You probably do. How about the Catholic Church's "official" position on the media? (By media we're referring to the whole enchilada: media content, technology and culture.) Not so sure? You're not alone. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church has been trumpeting (at least in her documents since the mid-twentieth century) that the media are gifts of God. Any gift of God can be abused, but that doesn't make it any less a gift. More recently, the Church has declared that Catholics must be an "active, listening" presence in today's world which is created in part by the media. When you think about it, isn't that what the Church is called to be in the world in general? "Active"—we're "in the world, not of it," helping our fellow human beings, creating a "civilization of love." "Listening"—we care deeply about the struggles of our contemporaries, their sorrows and joys. We strive to listen to the heart of humanity.

 

So, what do we call this "official" position of the Church toward the media? "Media Literacy." The Church began wholeheartedly adopting the language of Media Literacy in the 1992 document: "Dawn of a New Era." Then, in 2003, just two months before he died, Pope John Paul the Great signed off on "Rapid Development," a small document on the "new media." New media refers to the recent explosion of new media technologies and applications: internet, wireless capabilities, digital technology, cell phones, social networking internet sites like Facebook, mp3 players, texting, computer games, instant messaging, etc. John Paul II repeats over and over in the document: Do not be afraid of the new technologies! Do not be afraid to use the new media! Put out into the deep! (And JP2G also gave us the example—he wasn't exactly a scaredy-cat when it came to media.) Not being afraid of media is a big part of Media Literacy. How can we be "literate" in something we're apprehensive of? (Both Vatican documents are available at www.vatican.va.)

 

The "National Directory for Catechesis" from the U.S. Bishops (what every catechist has under their pillow when they go to sleep at night) is full of Media Literacy. Here are some powerful Media Literacy quotes from the NDC:

 

"Especially in the U.S., 'the very evangelization of modern culture depends to a great extent on the influence of the media.' In fact, the mass media are so influential that they have a culture all their own, which has its own language, customs, and values."

 

"If the Gospel message is going to make sense to the next generation of Catholics…catechesis needs to find more sophisticated ways to employ these new technologies."

 

"Reality, for many, is what the media recognizes as real; what the media do not acknowledge seems of little importance."

 

"Communications media themselves are suitable subject matter for catechesis."

"The Church's mission requires her to be 'in the very midst of human progress, sharing the experiences of the rest of humanity, seeking to understand them and interpret them in the light of faith.'"

 

"Those to whom the Gospel message is addressed today, both young and old, are, in a sense, children of the media."

 

"The anonymity and lack of accountability in cyberspace requires a more sophisticated level of MEDIA LITERACY that has ever been needed in the past."

 

So, as you can see, the Church is asking something new of us.

 

What's the history of the Media Literacy movement? Although Media Literacy is not a religious movement, Catholics have been involved from the beginning because we care deeply about communications and culture. Canadian (and convert to Catholicism) Marshall McLuhan, a brilliant scholar and professor, wrote extensively about how media was profoundly changing the way we live and relate to one another. He was famous for his dictum: "The medium IS the message." Fr. Walter Ong, SJ, was also an early ML pioneer. Canada has been teaching ML in its schools at all grade levels for many years now, and the United States is catching on. Pittsburgh is the first diocese in the U.S. to mandate ML in its Catholic schools.

 

The best way to define ML might simply be: to question media. (A comprehensive definition can be found at www.medialit.org.) We don't want to be cynical with regard to media, but we want to understand as fully as we can what our fellow human beings are trying to communicate to us and why. In this stance of inquiry, our relationship to the media is such that WE are in charge. WE have the power. WE are asking the questions. Teach young people to ask questions of the media, and instantly, they, too, are in charge. ML does not avoid media, but engages in dialogue with media.

 

There are five basic approaches we can take to media in life: 1) stay away  2) look mostly for the bad  3) MEDIA LITERACY: think critically, participate actively  4) look mostly for the good  5) couch-PC-console potato. Which do you think is most helpful for navigating the media culture we're all living in?

 

Media Literacy also wants us to develop four media skills: 1) access media (use it!)  2) analyze media  3) evaluate media  4) act (anything from giving feedback to creating media ourselves). As an example of skill #4, check out Chicago seminarian, Andy Kirchoff's blog: www.catholicvideogamers.blogspot.com  Andy plays and critiques video games from a Catholic perspective.

 

The Five Core Concepts of Media Literacy are also turned into questions to make them easier to use. They can be used with any media.

1. All media are CONSTRUCTED. Even the most "objective"-looking media (like a news report or documentary film) have been constructed and filtered through someone. Certain things were included, certain things were excluded. Question: How was this media constructed?
2. Every media uses its own media LANGUAGE. Novels, plays, TV sitcoms, science fiction movies, oil paintings, comic books—all have their own unique language, rules, conventions. Question: What techniques were used to get my attention?
3. Different people EXPERIENCE media differently. The easiest illustration of this concept would be a particular style of music. People will have completely opposite experiences of the same style of music. Question: How might different people experience this media?
4. All media have embedded values and POINTS OF VIEW. There is no such thing as "values free" media. To even try to create "values free" media would itself be a value. Question: What points of view are presented/not presented in this media?
5. All media messages are constructed for PROFIT and/or POWER. Profit and power are neutral. It's what we do with them. Power is acquired through media mostly by getting media users to agree with an ideology. Question: Who created this message and why? Who pains, who gains?

 

A new movement called "Media Mindfulness" seeks to bring the faith component to Media Literacy. A new book for use with pre-teens, teens and adults called "Media Mindfulness" is available from St. Mary's Press: www.smp.org. Media Mindfulness adds two more questions:

 

6. What CHRISTIAN VALUES does this media support or not?
7. In light of my Christian beliefs, what will my RESPONSE be?

 

Still feel conflicted about media? Think of it this way. "Everything works together for the good of those who love God." That includes media! Make media work for you with the "3 D's."

DISCIPLESHIP—If we are disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, we want to honor, glorify and imitate Him in everything we do, yes? But the same way we don't ignore non-Christians, we don't ignore media that doesn't represent Jesus' way of life.

DISCERNMENT—God has given us so many tools for discernment, not just for making good choices in our lives, but also for discerning media: philosophy, theology, our minds, wills, hearts, consciences, imaginations, the Bible, the Church, mentors, etc. The more we know about our Catholic Faith (and also how media works), the better we will be able to discern our media experiences.

DISCIPLINE—Self-discipline, self-mastery. We need to be constantly asking ourselves: How is this particular media influencing my relationship with God, myself, my family, others, my enemies, Creation? Adjust accordingly.

 

In addition to Discipleship, Discernment and Discipline, we need to pray about and with media in order to stay strong in our own convictions in a pluralistic media world.

 

Media Literacy and Media Mindfulness is a lifelong journey because we are constantly having new media experiences and growing in our faith. There is too much at stake for us not to be media literate in today's media culture. As the National Directory for Catechesis states it: "For many people, experience itself is an experience of the media." And as the Center for Media Literacy puts it:

"Media: love it or hate it, it's not going away." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOVIES: "THE DARK KNIGHT"

YYY

From the opening scenes of thugs holding up a bank and blowing employees and each other away, to the Joker carving smiles into people's faces (remind anyone of the Black Dahlia?), to a horrific half-faced burn victim, "The Dark Knight" is dark indeed. Definitely not for most kiddies under twelve. DK is shaping up to be a controversial film because of its genre-mixing: comic book (kid friendly) with psycho-thriller (not kid friendly). The Joker's makeup alone, in early publicity photos, clued me in that this Batman tale would be different. It wasn't cartoon/graphic novel/comic book style. It was disturbingly realistic.*

The Wall Street Journal blasted "Dark Knight" for being almost nihilistic in outcome, for "humiliating" the superhero in his own movie, and for killing off a main character. The Hollywood community is focused on Heath Ledger's "fearless" and brilliant performance as the antagonist (so, who's the main character here?)

Another point of controversy is: Did the depravity of DK send actors Ledger (who presumably accidentally OD'ed on prescription drugs he was taking for insomnia and depression) and Bale (charged with assault by his mother and sister) over the edge? As we know, actors have to bury deep inside their roles. But if this were the case, wouldn't there be such incidents after every horror, war and action movie?

A huge problem with DK is that there are many, many ideas—some of them inchoate, confused, complicated, unclear. I'm sure that if we were to do an exit poll of moviegoers, we would get cosmically different opinions about what just transpired, for this reason.** I found myself asking, "What did I just see?" A coherent story-line doesn't seem to be important in DK. The value seems to be examining the recesses of the psychotic mind, and setting up "Sophie's Choice"-type "social experiments."

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that this is a series, and writer/director Chris Nolan can get away with a down, ambiguous ending because another installment will follow on DK's heels. Already, there were several "resurrections" of characters we thought dead, so my money is on future character comebacks.

I also disagree with the critics who think that somehow The Joker won, that the only way to stop The Joker is for Batman to become like the Joker. Rather, Batman's seeming defeat is similar to the seeming defeat of nonviolent action: We pay the price ourselves rather than kill others (in this case, Batman won't kill the Joker). It takes more time when we won't do evil in order that good may result. But this is the only way to create lasting change. It seems that Batman's "one rule" is never to kill anyone. Actually, whenever he comes on the scene, the violence de-escalates. He doesn't use guns, but more of martial-arts, mano-a-mano type fighting. The nine year old next to me in the cinema will be chewing on this lesson for a while. He kept asking his big brother: "Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?"

As the audience, we can't relate to the psycho, but we can relate to a good person who has overwhelming evil coming against them, or as The Joker says (he has all the good lines): This is what happens when "an unstoppable force meets and immoveable object." At the end, the young boy in DK says: "Batman did nothing wrong," and the Dark Knight's role as "watchful protector" is reiterated.

ALL that being said, this new addition to the Batman saga is certainly a very serious exploration of the Caped Crusader's escapades.

Some of the central questions are:  1) Who is the real hero of Gotham? Batman (the mysterious, brooding Christian Bale); Harvey Dent, the D.A. (a mighty, strong performance by Aaron Eckhart), or perhaps even the people of Gotham themselves?  2) What will a real hero do and not do? What is their code of honor? How far will they go? Just when does a hero become an anti-hero? What's the difference between a vigilante/outlaw and a hero?  3) Are Batman and the Joker both freaks? Two sides of the same coin?   4) Why be good anyway? The lengthy (2 hrs 32 min)"Dark Knight" is dripping with moral musings and conundrums worthy of an ethics thesis, and is stocked with some of Hollywood's finest: Gary Oldman as the police commissioner, Michael Caine as Alfred the butler, Morgan Freeman as Batman's technology meister, and Maggie Gyllenhaal*** (who thankfully replaced the lightweight Katie Holmes) as lawyer Rachel--Batman's love interest.

Of course, the real, real hero of DK is our fair city of Chicago! How grand that New York (the real Gotham) was evidently not good enough for "the Batman" (I noticed for the first time that this is his proper title). Lower Wacker, Navy Pier, the River, La Salle Street canyon, the Christian Scientist Church, Chicago Police bagpipers, Lake Street, the Wrigley Building--Chicagoans who hung out at the peripheries during the filming will get a kick out of seeing how the locations are utilized.

What is the Batman fighting in DK? What he's always fighting: corruption in Gotham. This time his nemesis is The Joker (RIP, the scene-dominating Heath Ledger, rumored to be a shoe-in for a posthumous Oscar). This Joker is a far cry from the Jack Nicholson character. Ledger plays a vicious psychopath who is motivated, not by money like the mob, but by blood sport, the game, torturing and killing to see what makes people tick, inciting anarchy for the sake of chaos. As Alfred says of him: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."**** The Joker wants to show Batman that the rules by which he lives his life don't work. Batman, of course, is also fighting himself. Is he responsible for the people the Joker kills (because Batman won't kill the Joker?) Is it all right for him to do some dirty dealings (so Harry Dent doesn't "have to"?) Will Rachel wait for him or will she marry Harry Dent?

Most of the humor involves The Joker and is sadistic. But it's not exactly cheap laughs, it's some kind of relief in a very bad world that cannot be escaped but only negotiated. A few people laughed very loudly in my theater, the rest of us grimace-smiled to ourselves.

There are incredible car/truck/motorcycle/Batmobile chases, aerial views, cool new techie toys, pyro-technics and my favorite shots: The Batman gliding through gleaming cities at night. (I think I like the Batman best of the superheroes because he has the coolest costume, based directly on one of the coolest critters in Creation.) There are many levels of the good guys' and bad guys' power structures (some reaching to Hong Kong), and The Joker aptly describes his battle as being "for the soul of Gotham." The people of Gotham figure in pretty heavily in DK. Batman has to be "what the people need him to be" (relativism?), and the Joker sets up a fascinating life-and-death choice to be made by ordinary people on two ferries, both set to blow up.

Why is a movie with such a demented character breaking box office records? First--it's a BATMAN movie. Second, at least for the USA, we're in a time of war, and I think people can handle, want to handle, feel obliged to handle darker themes (but only as metaphors, not head on).

DK incorporates some comical, paunchy Batman impostors trying to "help" Batman, which reminded me of Comic-Con (the world's largest comic book/pop arts convention in San Diego—in progress as I write--that is now an industry bellwether and project maker or breaker) attendees who are actually true romantics. They want to save the world, too. But how to translate saving virtual Gothams to saving real Gothams? Virtual nobility to real-world nobility?

The people in my theater clapped at the end of the show.  I hope for all the right reasons.

_____________
*Media Literacy Core Concept #2: "Each medium has its own media language."

**Although Media Literacy Core Concept #3 is: "Different people experience different media differently," reaction to DK will be all over the board in great part due to a wildly spinning story compass.

***Gyllenhaal, known for her quirkier roles, didn't seem to totally commit to the one-dimensional role of Rachel.  I could be wrong, but I seem to sense when brilliant actors hate their part or their lines and subtly sneer and mock their way through them. So don't take the job! Aaron Eckhart treated his--(albeit more fleshed out)—role like he was a figure in a Shakespearean tragedy. A joy to watch.

****Media Literacy Core Concept #5 is: "All media messages are for profit and/or power." The Joker is quite clear what his motive is: "It's not about money, it's about sending a message."

 

MEDIA LITERACY CERTIFICATION IN LOS ANGELES!

Here we are at Sony / Columbia / Tristar / MGM. (Marilyn Monroe walked up these steps.)