One key notion that we talked about this term was Canada’s identity, or rather, lack there of. Canada’s identity is largely based on the United States’ identity, who has infiltrated their values, beliefs and practices into the hearts and minds of Canadians by way of the mass media. When we turn on our TV, we, as Canadians, are bombarded with shows American sitcoms, to the American news. The States’ huge influence and power over what we see and know as Canadians has overridden an identity that we may have had long ago. Now, much of our identity is quite similar to how Americans see themselves, in terms of much of our practices and beliefs. I think that we try to counteract America’s extreme influence by clinging to our collective memory of our historical past, or, at least, the representations of it that are available to us through our schooling and through the media (i.e., CBC documentaries). In addition, because we don’t really have a unique identity that sets us apart from the States, I think we actually cling to the stereotypes that others have about ourselves, and, in a sense, become or represent what others think we are about. For example, things stereotypical of Canada include hockey, beer and it’s association to hockey and Canada, our winter climate (snow, ice — hockey – representing that we’re tough and can handle both an extreme climate and the tough game of hockey), we’re peacekeepers, and that we are multicultural. Although we are the birthplace of hockey, and some places in Canada are multicultural, we can’t say that Canada, as a whole, is multicultural, when, truly, it is not (maybe in comparision to other places, it is though). We like to associate ourselves with something, and, basically, it seems that stereotypes are all that we have. The significance of the issue of Canada’s identity (or lack of identity) is that we need to stabilize one, in order to feel/be connected, and to continue as a nation. Our national pride (patriotism), identity, and sense of ourselves is greatly at stake, and we need to be able to come together as one in order to strengthen our nation.

Another idea we discussed this term was Marshall McLuhan’s “global village”. McLuhan’s global village asserts that the world is being brought together (connected) by way of the digital media, such as the internet. For example, we now have social networking sites, such as Facebook, that allow people all over the world to share stories, pictures, etc., and to learn about each other’s cultures and keep in touch. This interconnectedness is important on a number of levels. For one, it helps us to stay in touch with people when we move, especially for groups of cultures that immigrate to other places, so they can adapt to a new environment, yet keep in touch with their old ones (they can have both new and old traditions then). As well, it helps us to meet people around the world, to learn of ideas and stores of people around the world, so that we get a greater knowledge and understanding of each other. In addition, as this is “social media” (as opposed to traditional media — the TV, radio, etc.), we are able to have input on what goes on the internet, and have interaction (we are able to be active participants, and not just passively taking what’s being presented by the media at face-value). The notion of the ‘global village’ is hugely important to the world, bringing people together, and allowing us to share in the creation of stories and the creation of meaning, so that the media (TV, radio, books, etc.) are not our only ways of gaining information that has been chosen for specific purposes (ie. these mediums deem what is, and what is not important by what they show, yet EVERYTHING is available on the internet –that is, we are not inhibited by the media’s ‘agenda setting’).

Marshall McLuhan’s ‘global village’, in terms of the internet, for example, both beneficial and detrimental implications may arise. The connectedness that people feel may create a sense of a shared community between internet and social networking users all over the globe. Another positive of the internet ‘bringing’ people together could be that people may learn more about other cultures, and become more open to them. The internet, then, can broaden peoples’ horizons, in more ways than one. On the negative side, because Canadians don’t have the most identifiable identity, compared to nations like the US, they may feel threatened by all these other places that do have a knowable, set identity. This could cause a panic in Canadians, or, on the positive side, could prompt citizens to search for an identity in terms of what makes one Canadian. Because the internet allows for people all over the world to access anything, Canadians may get a lot of information from the US, which could maybe force more of the United States’ identity onto Canadians. Canada’s identity, then, could become even more lost, because of the overwhelming influence of the States.
On the other hand, it could be a good thing to get some media that Canadians might not acquire had it not been for the internet, so that we can, once again, broaden our horizons and knowledge. One issue I see with this notion of a global village, however, is that there are many places and people outside of North America that do not have access to computers, and it’s not really fair to say that there is a shared connectedness when many people in the world are not, in fact, ‘online’.

The film somewhat suggests that Canada has an affluent popular culture, musically speaking. The film and story take place in Montreal, which is known for having a big music scene. So, to have a record company in Montreal, however small, is an accomplishment for Montreal, because most record companies are in the United States (especially the big ones, ie. in Nashville, California, etc.). To have a record company in the town of Montreal suggests that they do have a popular culture, as there is enough music to promote in the city. Montreal’s urban setting allows for the music scene, because of the number of band venues, record stores, companies, etc. that are available (as opposed to a rural area where you wouldn’t find nearly as much opportunity in that respect).

Two  theories I could use in my analysis could include agenda setting (media influences audiences –they decide what we see on TV — what is newsworthy, and what is not), and cultivation effect/theory (people begin to believe things about their own reality based on what they see in the media — do Canadians conform to the stereotypes about them?) These could help to frame my analysis because the two theories, both circling around the notion of the media’s influence on audiences, may be applicable to why the two artefacts I chose are so significant for Canada, in terms of shaping our so-called “identity”, and whether or not this identity is based on stereotypes.

My active process of reception is kind of a negotiated reading of the closing ceremonies.  I involve myself in activities that are stereotypically “Canadian”, like the ceremonies are trying to promote (i.e. I am a big hockey fan and like to skate and I go to Tim Horton’s as much as possible).  Participating in things such as hockey and Timmies come naturally to me, because Timmies is (mostly) a Canadian shop, and it’s cheap, so it is more of a convenience to me than anything else such as representing some sort of Canadian identity on purpose (same goes for hockey – we have winter, therefore the conditions to skate). I, however, don’t agree with certain things about what it means to be Canadian that were promoted in the ceremonies, because many were stereotypical, and I don’t think they apply to everyone in Canada, only certain people and cultures.

The film conveys issues of identity with one of the main characters, Silas, as he doesn’t really know where he wants to go in life. Silas’ personal issue of identity can be seen as a reflection of the identity issues that the  Indians on reserves struggle with as a whole. That is, they have become more of a minority in Canada, because of the Europeans moving here years ago. The Indians’ culture, then, may struggle with a bit of an identity crisis, as they need to find a way to preserve their own culture, while be able to adapt to the predominant cultures in Canada. The Indians, like Silas, may not know which direction they want to go in as their culture struggles to stay untarnished.

Dance Me Outside illustrates what we talked about in lecture, regarding the Indians recreating artifacts that they no longer use, all for a sense of “authenticity”, for tourists, or, in the the film, for Silas’ sister’s new husband (Silas gives him an Indian headdress), but the family doesn’t wear that traditional dress themselves.

Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi The Next Generation share both similarities and differences. The two shows are similar in that they both deal with many controversial issues, that students often struggle with, such as teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol use, and homosexuality. Both shows also make it clear that they are Canadian, often mentioning Toronto (where the shows took place), and certain areas in Toronto, such as Queen St. The shows differ in the casting of actors, as DJH casted less experienced actors, while DNG has actors that have had more acting exposure. While DJH was publically funded and came from a smaller production company, DNG is broadcast on CTV, and more recently in the United States. DJH, then, wasn’t able to reach as many audiences as the new Degrassi is, which may lead to the newer one having broader content. For example, because the DNG is now broadcast in the States, a recent episode revolved around the characters travelling to Hollywood to try to become famous. This plotline made the show more relatable to people in the U.S. As well, it seems to have made the current Degrassi seem a little less like “reality” than the old one, because in reality, it is unlikely that a group of people from a school would travel to Hollywood to find fame (too far-fetched).

The first episode of the first season of DNG is similar to that of the first episode of the ninth season of DNG in that, after 9 years, they still utilize the same theme song, and both episodes make references to Canada. The first season, however, makes many more Canadian references than the ninth season, whereby it refers to Yellowknife, Scarborough, and Bay Street in Toronto. The more recent ninth season, however, only displays a street known in Toronto (Adelaide St.), and makes more references to places outside of Canada, such as California and LA, and Europe. This reflects how Degrassi is now broadcast to a wider audience (the US in addition to Canada), and is changing its identity by becoming more Americanized (many references to Hollywood are also made). Both seasons deal with controversial issues, with the first season’s plot following Emma and her relationship with a fellow she met online, and the ninth season’s mention of Mia having a kid while still in high school.

Part 2

Believe commercial #1: Has Donald Sutherland (Canadian actor) as the voice of the commercial. The commercial is trying to get us to “fall in love” with the athletes by promoting Canada itself (to get us to fall in love with Canada). The ad states, “we believe our athletes will perform like never before”, just because the Olympics are in Canada, like that will have an impact on their talents…One scene in the ad displays people drinking beer at a bar and watching hockey, claiming that “this is the sport we hold most dear”, and, therefore, reinforcing some  Canadian stereotypes that others have about us and that we have about ourselves (beer and hockey). Another Believe ad features singer Nikki Yanofsky singing a song in support of the Vancouver Olympics. She sings about “feeling like giving up”, and shows the participants looking sombre, then starts saying “I believe”, and showing Canadians winning at the olympics, and the emotion in both the participants and the audiences.

Both clips utilize music throughout, and some of the music may be seen as being used to evoke a sense of nostalgia from the audience, and to evoke emotions in general. The music, for example, grows more intense when “necessary”, i.e. during a fight scene, or calmer and slower during parts that aim to draw out emotions from the audience such as empathy for Canadians in the past. Aside from music, another technique in these two clips involves the use of a narrator, who tells us what’s going on in the visuals we’re seeing. History, then, is being fed to us, and we must be aware of what may or may not have been cut out in order to show a side of history that the media wants to portray. We don’t, then, know the extent to how truthful everything we are seeing is, and as we discussed in lecture, Roland Barthes would want us to look critically at these things, and to look at the signs and their meanings (not only manifest, obvious content, but the more latent, hidden meanings that can be extracted as well).

I noticed, in both clips, that many Canadian landscapes were shown, which can be said to be a symbol of Canada. For example, snow-covered mountains, rushing water, people walking in snow, and walking through forestry were displayed. Canada: A People’s History makes use of many re-enactments, which may be utilized as a means of adding excitement to certain scenes, such as gun violence during the seige in Quebec.

The first clip actually mentioned how Canada became unique (which relates back to the talk of what makes up Canada’s identity), as it became occupied by many different tribes, who each had their own ways of life (the Inuit, for example). Many of us Canadians have this idea that we are multicultural and accepting of all cultures, but it seems that all those different ways of life seemed to fade out once the Europeans settled here… Another thing I noticed was that the second clip revolved around the Americans attacking Quebec, which kind of highlights how Canada is more of a peacekeeper in comparison to the States (sets them apart), and they were only trying to defend their land.

I don’t think that popular history plays a too great role in establishing Canadian identity. Growing up in school and high school, we were never taught much at all about Canadian history, so I really don’t know too much, and I don’t think the media has done a good enough job promoting Canada’s history to us. In high school, my grade 10 history class was general history, but 90% of it had been American history. If I were to think from a perspective other than my personal one, however, popular history may play a significant role in Canadian identity, because if enough people are made aware of Canada’s history, they may come together and form a “collective memory”, as talked about in lecture. That is, people of Canada may share certain ideas about Canada and what it means to be Canadian, based on what they have learned about Canada’s history (for example, our “multiculturalism”, and our beautiful landscapes). This collective memory, then, may serve to evoke a sense of national pride in Canadians, and also reinforce certain ideologies and stereotypes.

The Marxist perspective may be used to analyze the main story in the film. The premise of the film revolves around the US wanting to start a war against Canada to boost the President’s popularity. They debate whether this can be done, however, because Canada is so “civilized”, for example. One person suggests that Canada is growing in power, however, which leads them to think that their idea is sufficient. The Marxist perspective deals with issues of power, which means control, and the Americans want to have that control and be dominant over a “perceived” threat to their status (albeit a made-up one).

The feminist perspective can also be applied to the film. The character, Honey, who is basically the only female in the film, has a traditionally male position (she’s a deputy to the sheriff), and she is small in size but packs a punch. Honey, then, certainly doesn’t fit into feminine stereotypes and stereotypes about what it means to be a man or a woman in our culture.

The one scene that stood out to me was when the main characters were at a hockey game, and John Candy, when referring to Canada, said, “Their beer sucks”, which was followed by the entire crowd turning to stare at him and a fight breaking out. George Gerbner’s ‘cultivation effect’ could be applied to this scene, whereby the media (specifically, watching TV), influences viewers ideas about their own realities (their environment and the world around them).  Moore’s film was rife with stereotypes of both Canadians and Americans, and it demonstrated how people seem to actually believe what the media is telling them, whether it is true or not (for example, that hockey and beer are very important to Canadians, and how other people perceive them).

“Canadian Bacon” reflects Canadian popular culture through its association with stereotypes, (i.e., hockey, beer, winter climate). A theme in the film appears to be national pride, and an us-against-them mentality of nationalism. The film also reflects how much of Canada’s identity is based on the earlier-stated stereotypes, among others such as Canada being civilized and friendly.