As someone who does not hold great sentimentality over the movie theater, I think its interesting to consider how techniques and paradigms from the theater influence derived media. I think this can be considered partly a business study as to how people react to comforting and familiar stimulus, similar to how digital product designers attempt to make their apps and websites hold physical weight. I see many cinematic effects and styles translated over to something as short and inconsequential as an Instagram story, to as long and immersive as a holographic museum exhibition.             

                  There are many direct translations from cinema to visual social media, and use of them in handheld or house-bound devices have both watered down and increased their potency as a creative format and selling point. These can range from gimmicky add-ons to decisions in the composition of a short clip. One example of a gimmick is found in AR and superimposed filters. I remember going to watch the Christmas Spectacular at Radio City when I was about 6, and the physical satisfaction of being handed a pair of 3d glasses that were clear and not red & blue. The tangible performances of the Rockettes were supplemented by a Santa who almost drunk drove Rudolph into my head. Even once 3d was commonplace in movie theaters, it never had the same impact as it did that night, partly in fact due to sheer presence and the melding with actual people. Nowadays, we can have this immersive reality appear in things as functional as measuring out prospective furniture, to as whimsical as an interactive face filter. And this is considering only a smartphone’s capability, not regarding the use of a virtual reality headset.

                  This knack of ar appearing every where you look has lessened its magic for me, even if it has grown from its origin as an effect. Its push and development by every social media platform however, is reminiscent of it being a tacked-on selling point as well. From a consumer standpoint, I’ve yet to see a truly genre changing functional use for smartphone bound ar, as has been seen in vr headsets used to paint and sculpt digitally, or game in an interactive environment. The closest approximation is the storing of information being triggered when something is scanned, such as a transit card showing its route map when presented to the camera. But even this can be argued to be a mere extension of an qr code, and even harder to access, locked behind proprietary apps and swipes that do not come naturally to us (yet?)

                  The best success and contribution to culture for ar has to be in the ones that still refer to tradition by way of being mere ceremony or embellishment, such as face filters. By being enmeshed with moving reality instead of needing a special flow of decision making, filters give consumers a relaxing way to create. By providing a pre packaged visual experience, an Instagram user can feel like they are creating an image, without having to undergo the mental toll of actually drawing onto the image as we did before (and that’s in the history of the same app! Who do you see that actually draws on themselves since filters came out?) The creative itch is then satisfied and shared for others to evaluate, attempt, and compare, creating a memetic web which either succeeds or dies out depending to the infective touch of who uses it. It can lie dormant in a filter bank for months, before being reconsidered and becoming relevant again. The creative agency is even more lopsided than in the Rockettes, because there you can choose whether you want to attend the performance or not, the only advertising being, well, actual advertising and word of mouth. With Instagram filters they are launched onto us without warning, unless you want to sacrifice your utilization of the app. This creates a power dynamic where your evaluation is constantly being attacked and asked if these creations are worth propagating or not. Of course, you can choose not to subscribe to the loops if you consider them above your ego or you think they can have dangerous effects on individuals and community. But where’s the fun in rejecting these ready-made heuristics, which can easily spark up meaningful conversation and foster relationship growth? It is worth attempting to reap benefits from them as well, and not relegating them as vapid & ephemeral ideas, but as social tools towards constructing something substantial.

               The one thing I always consider when I think of Scott Pilgrim is how the age of Knives is clearly presented and considered in the film, with Scott’s friends expressing discomfort at the fact. However, this is always glossed over in discussions about Scott, even when mentioning how much of a bad person he is. For some reason, the age is not considered an issue, and when it is brought up it is attacked with retorts of his presence as a fictional character. This when considered against the backdrop of cancel culture, brings up why we rate the actions of some as acceptable and some as erroneous, regardless of the exertion they have on individuals and communities.

               It goes in line with the satirical cancelling of Genghis Khan on twitter, and the creation of mock infographics and petitions detailing his brutal decisions as if they were happening today. This is important because of two things: the hold of those decisions over current reality, and how these decisions are perceived. While the conquests of Genghis khan happened centuries ago, they have very relevant consequences even nowadays. And even though they have affected so much of how a percentage of humans live and came to be, to all of us Genghis Khan may as well be an abstract, intangible idea. Despite shaping a part of human culture, no one is influenced by the actions of Genghis. The same cannot be said of Scott Pilgrim, a mere character that cannot move a feather in reality (unless egregores exist..) yet his actions, and the acceptance of them have very real world consequences. Many older individuals can consider their grooming predatory behaviors to be socially acceptable, if Scott goes on screen and is lauded and clapped for other achievements despite being wrong just 30 minutes ago.

                  The presentation of such behaviors affects the judgements made upon them. By catering to the affect of those who watch Scott go about engaging in exaggerated and unrealistic actions, the viewers are robbed of their capacity to deem something as right or wrong, even if it goes against their well defined beliefs. I saw this clouding of judgement when one of my high school friends was approached by a Vice editor and asked to smuggle cocaine to Australia in a suitcase. The editor set the backdrop as being cool, comparing the action to a Future song as well as downplaying the risk. If he had merely downplayed the risk and my friend had no previous context of such actions being glorified in pop culture, I doubt he would have done it (he hates drugs!) But against a mental backdrop whereFast Life is playing and theres an abundance of Rolexes, the perceived criminal risk was lowered, and the moral risk was considered an acceptable blemish.  He ended up getting caught and sentenced to a couple of years in Australia.

                  Considering the manipulative behaviors by the creators as to how we rate Scott’s character, should we warn people and cancel him through social media as we do with real people who have hurt real people?  Absolutely, given the way his character enables real life decisions, and creates a context in which these decisions can be temporarily construed as acceptable, even by morally sound people. In no context are crimes such as pedophilia, rape, or sexual assault considered acceptable. Should we cancel Rick Ross for flexing a narrative of wealth through the transport of drugs, even if its “just considered cool and silly and not actually inspiring anyone to sell blow”? That depends on your original moral standpoint and understanding of context for why someone would take those actions.

                The Bling Ring brings up an interesting scenario where a system faces parasitic behavior created by its own influence. The glorification of consumption and aesthetics created by Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan is a fictional narrative created by the media, binding to them a construct which benefits them as much as it detracts. By putting their fame on a pedestal, the press enlarges their pool of actions which they consider acceptable. But it is important to note that their individual opinions are not wholly important in the scope of the overarching system, as they have been sadly robbed of any true agency. Such can be seen with Britney Spears and the conservatorship imposed upon her upon rebelling, and the resulting idea of scandal as positive.

              The glamourization of these false narratives is experienced by a large majority of a populace who consumes such media, whether intentionally or not. By correlating scandalous and irresponsible behavior as chic, it can create a culture of imitators, desiring displayed lifestyles despite not belonging to such a crowd. This trickling of pomp down social strata leads to self-similar systems appearing in incubators for expectations, such as college cafeterias and middle school locker rooms. With individuals appeasing to their respective social climate for adoration, it can lead to irregular decision making, such as an LA girl adopting a British accent, or an Irish Bostonian dying and straightening his red curly hair to appease to the Jersey club crowd. These are decisions that defy moral categorization outside of their corresponding social biomes, as they aren’t detrimental to their opters or anyone.

                This importance that is given by the masses to what is in vogue can be seen in history-changing circumstances, such as the Spanish lisp and gourmetization of lobster from peasant fuel to haute cuisine. It is important to note that by creating these complex social convictions, it is hard to define ethical boundaries, as it is impossible to consider any one individual implicit in malice or wrongdoing by following a set paradigm. Seeing this, it is hard to convict the kids of the Bling Ring for robbing the homes of their icons. My roommate argues that an individual should always take blame in not rejecting the standard if they themselves know it is wrong, like German war criminals who went along with horrible crimes despite being against them. But that would be to disregard to impotence of people with a limited decision set, as well as an affront to the subjectivity to which social order hangs on by a thread. If one is to compare petty theft to mass murder, then it is to throw ones ethical rubric out the window and devalue our decisions in a system as meaningless, devoid of any free will.

                And here is where we face dilemma in arguing their innocence, as the lack of free will under consumerism is exactly what led to their robberies. But the truth is that the normalization of scandalous behavior shifted their perceived decision pool to include socially motivated and lauded actions. The best way to consider Rachel and Nick to be implicit in wrongdoing would be to term them as innovators, indulging and taking advantage of the system presented to them. This implies that they exist outside of the influence of their social expectations, experiencing the media but utilizing it as a guise to benefit from it. But once again, this would be to disregard their evident desires and clear submission to social constructs.