The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:” News or Entertainment?

Show Summary:

On January 15, 2014, “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart aired with two top stories.  One pertains to the US and other world powers’ agreement on a date to begin implementing an interim deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program - set to occur on January 20, 2014.  Jon Stewart appears thrilled with the decision, then proceeds to make a joke that the deal could affect Season 4 of Homeland.  He goes on to mention, “That show could end up completely untethered from reality.” The audience laughs.

The second story covers a search of Justin Bieber’s property for evidence involving the egging of his neighbor’s home.  Stewart mocks the news for covering the Bieber news.  He jokes that a “white guy breaks some shit, cops come, and take the black guy away.” Stewart follows up by singing “America.”

Stewart effectively relates the two stories, one involving news that seriously affects our nation and the other petty entertainment news that only affects Bieber by saying, “Congress is the Justin Bieber of our government….Throwing away a tremendous opportunity because of immaturity and a lack of self-control.” This comment also brings a laugh from the audience.

The show concludes with an interview with Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who wrote a memoir titled, “Duty,” describing his frustration with Washington, specifically Congress and The White House. Although there are a few digs and jokes about the way Washington is currently being ran, the interview is reasonably serious.

Critique the format of entertaining or comedic news:

Comedic news is popular and somewhat effective to certain viewers.  More conservative viewers are, by nature, more likely to stick with the traditional style of news exposure.  More liberal viewers may be more open-minded to mixed paradigms.  Further, those individuals looking simply for comedic relief may be incline to watch this hybrid format, as well.  This format is in a niche environment of viewership, where a specific market is targeted.  Needless to say, the show stills airs with somewhat positive ratings and is, thus, successful to some extent.

Do you believe it is beneficial to society because it is more likely to have people know what is going on in the world?

I do believe that comedic news is beneficial to society for a couple reasons. First being, it’s down right entertaining.  As an avid viewer of comedic news, such as “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report,” I enjoy hearing a funny and uplifting spin on the normally dry news that airs on Fox or local news stations. Stewart merely made a delightful combination of classic news and satirical talk shows. Yes, Stewart does make a living mocking important groups and members of society (e.g., George W. Bush, U.S. foreign affairs, and Congress) and tends to make light of serious matters, but Stewart is still educating Americans, such as myself. For example, I was unaware that the United States made a historical treaty with Iran, until I watched this episode of “The Daily Show.” As a fan of talk shows and comedy, I see no tangible dilemma arising just from utilizing “The Daily Show” as one of my new sources. I believe that it only becomes a problem if one only uses “The Daily Show” as a news source. However, that is the case with any source. Stewart has, indeed, claimed that his show is not journalism, and should not be treated as a factual source regarding all topics. The show is biased and has an agenda, just like any other news program. Therefore, I believe the program is beneficial to society because it encourages seeking knowledge about U.S. and foreign affairs, and does a good job in doing so. The show is only not beneficial if the viewer fails to form his or her own opinion regarding the news that Stewart delivers.

Or, do you believe that it degrades news and makes serious topics appear less serious, which undermines any usefulness it may have as format?

“The Daily Show” may make fun of news stories, but it doesn’t change it. If anything, I believe “The Daily Show” is beneficial to young Americans because it encourages them to at least get informed somewhere. For example, I despise when my father comes home and puts on the local news. Not that the news is boring, but how it is presented is. I think it’s done in a mediocre fashion, the newscasters are outdated, and the stories lull me to sleep. Whereas a comedy news show simultaneously makes me laugh, informs me, and keeps my interest the entire duration of the program. I am still getting informed and am aware of serious world events, but in an entertaining way. And I think that if that’s what gets me interested in news, so be it.

Pulp Fiction: Analysis

Pulp Fiction: Analysis

Film Summary:

Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, the movie Pulp Fiction effectively reforms customary cinematic norms through use of anti-chronological sequences.  Albeit, the dialogue remains procedural; that is, there is no discernible evidence proving that the dialogue is also portrayed within this anti-chronological paradigm.  Nevertheless, the movie begins at its end where, despite the viewer’s lack of understanding, a burglar couple make the conscious decision to rob a restaurant.  Their aliases, as declared in the film, are “Pumpkin” and “Honey Bunny.”  Both Pumpkin and Honey Bunny fail to succeed in robbing the restaurant, but this never comes to light until the film’s conclusion.  In-between the start and finish of Pulp Fiction, a series of events happen in an intermittent order, but for the purposes of this summarization, the paragraphs below represent a chronological representation of the story.

The chronological perspective begins with Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield, who are two hit-men employed by their mob boss, Marcellus Wallace.  Both Vega and Winnfield successfully initiate a search for a stolen briefcase belonging to Wallace, but end up killing several men in the process.  In disarray, Winnfield calls Wallace, who calls Winston Wolf to help clean up the mess.  Wolf consults the men and informs them how to clean up the scene.  Subsequently, Vega and Winnfield decide to have breakfast at the Hawthorne Grill, where the actual (anti-chronological) beginning and ending occur.  Winnfield reveals his plan to leave his current life and travel the world as a beggar, helping those suffering under oppression.  Vega ridicules him, then goes to the bathroom.  At this time, it is observed that Pumpkin and Honey Bunny begin their robbery. Winnfield consequently pulls his gun and disarms Pumpkin, while Vega proceeds to detain Honey Bunny and prevent the full-extent of the robbery from taking place.

The next chronological sequence is one where Wallace asks Vega to keep his wife, Mia, company by taking her out for dinner when he goes out of town.  Mia subsequently overdoses on cocaine, but is brought back to life by a nearby drug dealer’s effort to inject a dose of adrenaline into her heart.  It works, and Mia lives.  Both Vega and Winnfield agree not to tell Wallace about the incident.

In parallel, Butch Coolidge, an experienced boxer, is asked by Wallace to lose his next fight in hopes that Wallace will make a large sum of gambling money.  However, Coolidge accidentally murders his opponent during the boxing match and subsequently plans his escape.  Realizing that he cannot leave town without his prized possession, a golden watch, he returns to his apartment only to find Vega in his bathroom.  Coolidge kills Vega and flees but, to his disadvantage, runs into Wallace during a car-accident in the street.  Now on foot, Wallace chases Coolidge into a pawn shop where both of them are detained by the sadistic owner, Maynard.  Maynard, full of grotesque intention, rapes Wallace.  Coolidge manages to escape and free Wallace.  Wallace is grateful and allows Coolidge to be set free so long as he never returns or speaks of the events that occurred that day.  Coolidge rides off and the story ends.

Anti-Chronological Tone:

Tarantino revolutionized cinema when he broke the movie’s sequence of events into pieces and cleverly placed them in an uncanny, anti-chronological order that comes full circle in the end.  Although the aforementioned summary describes the story in a sequential manner, the implementation of non-sequential scenes provide a tone that cannot be realized until observed, in full, by the viewer.  The impetus behind this is clearly intentional.  Tarantino must have understood that the anti-chronological sequence of events could provide a more robust and intensified conclusion.   To do this, he had to create a sense of dramatic irony in the film, where the viewer is unsure of the logical chronology until the conclusion.  This puts the viewer in a position of uncertainty, only to strategically (and cleverly) accumulate and stack the rising action sequences to a more intensified climax.  That, in effect, gives the movie a unique texture and tone not previously seen in cinema.

Effects of a Chronological Model:

                  Should the movie be placed in chronological order, as depicted in the summary above, the entire tone would negatively change.  In fact, the climax would not be nearly as climactic and the viewer would observe the movie and a series of events that occurred at one point in time.  In turn, the viewer may not feel a true connection with the film, nor would they care about the welfare of the characters.  By implementing a traditional order for a movie like Pulp Fiction, no real assembly to the film could be made.  Part of the greatness of doing things in an unprecedented way is the conclusive appreciation of the film.  Once the film ends, the viewer then begins to put the pieces together in a normal, chronological manner.  Thus, in effect, this film makes the viewer think long after its credits.  This would not happen in a traditional, chronological model.  The movie would end and the viewers would leave it behind.  This movie is superb because of its modification; changing it back to a customary sequence would strip the film of its stout impression on the viewer.

Quality Score & Justification:

Considered by many to be one of the greatest films of all time, Pulp Fiction deserves an “A.”  The interweaving of sequences and mini-stories make sense when separate, but not together, at least throughout the film.  The genius of it comes only at the end, where all the pieces of the puzzle can be brought together and understood.  Further, and perhaps one of the most impressive qualities of the film, is Tarantino’s ability to create a dialogue that remains sequential.  It is almost as if the viewer has to ignore the words of the characters, so as not to get confused.  This effect is crafted carefully and is fundamentally a work of genius.  Any movie that can manage this and still find room for comedic relief deserves the highest of accolades.

Additionally, the dialogue is thought provoking, interesting, comical, and most significantly, carries the film through a sense of sequence and connection.  For example, the conversation between Coolidge and his girlfriend, Fabienne, is coy and playful instead of serious.  At this point in the film, the viewer might expect the conversation to be serious since Butch just killed a man.  Instead they cuddle in bed and have a normal conversation, which gives insight to the impetus behind this film.  There is connection here similar to that of the viewer and the film, being that not all things need to happen in a procedural manner.  That is, Coolidge does not have to feel remorse immediately after killing a man, it can happen at another time.

Notwithstanding the impressive score, lighting, camera angles, and performances, this movie is at the very least remarkable.