The Flying Scissors

This film’s producers argue that “The Flying scissors” is a funny movie. Their target audience is 18 to 35 year olds with a quirky sense of humor that they perceive as non-mainstream; the kind of people who watch “The Office”. The trailer claims that the audience will enjoy “The Flying Scissors” because it fulfills the audience’s sense of humor.

The film is logically illogical (you can’t misunderstand the weirdness). The trailer also appeals to two emotions: humor and curiosity. It hopes to amuse and gain interest enough that, in theory, it will persuade people to see it. Mockumentary films have some of the same subconscious credibility as documentaries because the actors appear more real.

Unfortunately, I felt like the trailer was insufficient. The first 30 seconds were effective, but it dropped off and didn’t hold me in. In order for a trailer to be “sufficient” today, it must be short and to the point. This trailer lost a lot of potential audience members by trying to pack in too many jokes. In a trailer, one lame joke can ruin 20 good ones.

The untypical nature of this movie and trailer are actually quite typical of the independent, edgy comedy genre. The comedy was exactly what I expected and it made me laugh exactly the way I expected—just not as much as I expected. As a member of the target audience, I thought that the film accurately depicted the people I would expect to be Rock-Paper-Scissors fans. The humor used is relevant because the producers don’t care about people who aren’t in their target. The lines/scenes they chose best fit the typical comedy style that this audience watches.

Brigham Young (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 216-217

In his talk regarding women’s duties, Brigham Young spoke to male members of the Church. He argued that women should be able to study and work in any field that they choose and not be thought of as mere housewives. He claimed that women are just as intelligent, just as capable, and have just as much right to higher education and pursuing a career as men do.

The enthymeme he unconsciously used could be summed up in this way: by allowing women in higher education and following a career path, women please God because by pursuing education and careers women “answer the design of their creation.”

Brigham Young appealed logically, not starting out by saying that women should leave the home and become doctors and lawyers. Such a bold statement would offend many LDS men of the day and would go against their logical understanding of the doctrinal teachings about home and family. Instead President Young tells the men that they have women who, if they had opportunity to study, would make just as good professionals as any man. After laying this doctrinal foundation, the prophet built logically upon by teaching that women should be given the opportunity to pursue these career and educational paths.

Implying that women are not given opportunities to study in professional fields when they are able brings a degree of sympathy from men who have had that opportunity for themselves. Also, implying that men sometimes think of women as only useful at home invites a little guilt to the audience.

Brigham Young, as president of the church, commands great authority in himself since what he says can be considered scripture by the Latter-day Saints. He also, at the end, said women “answer the design of their creation,” reminding the Saints of their scriptural commandment to fulfill their divine purposes. This brings in the authority of God, saying that by studying and practicing careers, women fulfill their Heavenly Father’s plan.

As a prophet, the evidence Brigham Young uses is sufficient for the audience. He does not say “thus saith the Lord” or “as the prophet I command.” He uses enough reasoning, considering his audience, to back up his authority. The speech seems typical of Brigham Young’s teaching style, so the audience would receive it without seeming out-of-place. However, instructing women to go out to do business would be strange for the time. It’s possible that some would have discounted it. President Young also gives an accurate description of women’s situation during that time and of the struggles they faced as housewives. As such, the information and instruction was very relevant for the men and women of Brigham Young’s day.

Passive Parents

Artist Zhong Biao argues in this painting that Chinese parents are not taking an active role in raising their children; therefore the westernized media is raising them to become violent and forget their traditions and values. His audience are working class Chinese parents. Westernization, over-worked parents, and forgotten children are all very relevant issues in modern China. The people that Zhong Biao wants to reach are the people who relate with the parents in the foreground of the painting.

He asks what the consequences are of parents taking a passive role in their children’s lives on the negative influence that their children pick up from westernization. Parents who are passive about raising a child will cause the child to become violent and insensitive because not having a parent around means that the child will be more strongly influenced by negative Western media, symbolized by McDonald’s and two Western children.

The argument works logically. When no adults are around, children think and do what they please. If parents don’t even know what their children are doing, how can they teach them correct values? The parents in the painting are obviously more interested in taking time for themselves to relax than to be with their children.

The parents on the couch also look very comfortable and relaxed. They seem to have both just finished a long day at work and look forward to some much-deserved rest. The image is very typical and I think that most adults have felt like this. We’ve felt the expression on the painting’s parents’ faces before and can picture ourselves in their situation very easily. With ourselves in the picture we become much more emotionally involved. Also, kids with guns are a powerful picture, even if they’re toys. That image hits home hard.

The manner of dress for both the parents and the children is an accurate depiction of what a working class family in China would afford to wear. Even the sport coat on the father is extremely typical of working class Chinese men.

McDonald’s has one of the most recognizable symbols in the world. Mixing this symbol of Westernization with the symbolism of a gun, Zhong Biao links the concept of Western influence with increased youth violence.

There isn’t significant enough information about what to do after a parent sees this image. I think that the art effectively communicates its point, but it may not effectively cause the audience to change. Even if a parent sees that the lack of attention given to their children is a problem, they still both have to work 6-7 days a week in order to support a family. What can they do to reverse the problem if they can’t change their lifestyle?