Archive for April, 2010

Edmonton Public Library: rebranded!

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Where there used to be three stacked books in the shape of the letter E, we now have five coloured bars. The Edmonton Public Library has changed its identity.

To what, though, exactly? The intent is to have people see the library as more than books. This is a well-known fact to regular users, but why not just change the messaging without getting rid of a clever, meaningful logo? Libraries are still book-based, and no matter what the future of literacy holds, the history is still in books.

And to address the snazzy taglines and “Beyonce to Beethoven” commercials–  it’s going to date itself so fast! And don’t even get me started on the idea that you need to make things “cool” to attract young people. Ugh.

Rebranding is well-meaning, but there is something to be said for being recognizable and coherent. Remember when UPS changed its logo? It erased the meaning from the little crest (The little string-tied package!) and made it into something shiny and forgettable. Why, EPL? Why you too?

Empire Avenue

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

I’ve been trying out this new Empire Avenue thing.

It’s a marketplace for individuals’ influence. What happens is you set up a profile, then other users buy “shares” in someone with virtual money. Theoretically, this identifies the individuals who are the most influential, which will be useful information someday for advertisers, who may at some point want to actually invest in influencers to reach targeted audiences.

In the Beta, what I noticed is that people who knew each other invest in other people they knew. It was kind of a popularity contest. In the Edmonton Twitter scene, there is a group of people who know each other, on and offline, and these are the ones who did the best. I did OK, topping out at around $16 a share. The most desirable people traded at upwards of $30.

EA rewards you for being active online, so every time you post on Twitter or Facebook or make a blog entry, you get “paid.” For best results, you link to your accounts. So basically, if you are on social networking a lot, you get rewarded, regardless of what you post. I’m not sure how to feel about this.

I like social networking. I’m basically on it all day, since I work from home and do semi-creative work. A FB break every 10 minutes is nice when I’m brainstorming. But I keep my privacy settings high, and try not to share sensitive information. My level of activity is scaled to the amount of public accessibility: I’m most active and candid on Facebook, a little less so on my blog, and even less so on Twitter. Unfortunately, Empire Avenue wants me to change that. No dice, EA. If you really want the goods, you have to meet me in person.

Another weird thing is the market aspect of it. I’m not a die-hard capitalist, so it’s hard for me to quantify the value of my relationships to a number. At the beginning, I was a little sad that people weren’t buying my stock. Eventually, they did (I’m a slow dazzler!) but it was kind of masochistic seeing the numbers change hour to hour. I’m pretty uncomfortable with the concept of a marketplace for people generally, and especially when no one really makes an effort to get to know who they’re buying into. Most don’t send messages, and some don’t even bother putting up bios! It’s the least relationship-building social networking site I’ve been on. No one’s gonna be making new friends from this, which is sad.

There are interesting things about it for me, though. We are allowed to buy ads, which was where things got fun for me. Most people write a sell: “I’m trading low, so buy into X stock!” But I find that sad. Real advertising is creative and tells you something about what you’re buying. So I bought a lot of ads– PSA’s, more like, reminding people to floss at night. Things people can use. I doubt it helped, but seriously– it’s a great place to test drive your marketing know-how to see what gets click-throughs and what doesn’t. An ad I did that said simply, “Pay Attention!” actually worked. And the weird thing is that others are now copying my style of advertising. Flattering!

They’ve opened up the system a bit to more users, so if you want to be invited in, let me know. But be forewarned: it’s a little obnoxious.

The new Clash of the Titans

Saturday, April 3rd, 2010

This is basically all spoilers, just so you know.

I was really looking forward to this, because the original Ray Harryhausen stop-action film was so much fun. But instead, I’m infuriated!

It’s cynical, misogynist, and arrogant. The main problem is that they completely erase the role of most of the other gods of Olympus, making it a God VS Satan dualism between Zeus and “Hades”, which is what they’re calling the god of the Underworld. People: Hades is a PLACE. The god’s name is Hephaestus. [I've been reminded that yes, there is a god named Hades, but the '81 version it was Hephaestus, the metalworker. He made Bubo.] And Hades is not the equivalent of Hell, in the Christian sense. But I guess they don’t trust the American public with polytheism, or maybe they don’t want to offend the fundamentalists by suggesting it.

But it’s important: the original film (and Greek mythology generally) showed the gods arguing, bargaining with each other, and finding compromises. That helps explain the seeming randomness of fortune back on earth: there are consequences to intervening in our lives. In order to prevent utter disaster, someone else might have to suffer. It’s a very complex system, and no one on earth can understand it from our very limited point of view.

In the original, Perseus is an innocent, thrust into a confusing world at the whim of the gods. In this new CotT, Perseus is an angry young man who just wants to spit in the face of the gods who “killed” his family. He is singlemindedly vengeful, and is not even interested in adventure for its own sake, or the love of Andromeda. You can even see it in the way they represent the character, physically: Perseus in CotT (1981) is a curly-haired, nearly nude young Harry Hamlin, guided by the playwright Ammon (Burgess Meredith). He learns that the privilege he has is not an accident: his father is a god, and he understands that every man is presented with opportunity and fortune as a result of a history that has nothing to do with him. He fumbles his way through, forgetting his sword but being grateful for the help that he gets.

Perseus 2010 has a shaved head like a military man and rejects any of the help that the gods offer. He is played by Avatar’s Sam Worthington. But even though he prefers to make it on his own, it’s not because he aligns himself with humanity: when he is given a chance, he refuses to take on a leadership role, even when his men need it. He is entirely self-centred, thinking only of his need for revenge. In a Greek play, this hubris would usually lead to something terrible happening; in CotT, he is rewarded.

And women in this film are virtually invisible, and when they appear, they are powerless. In 1981, Hera (Claire Bloom) Thetis (Maggie Smith), Aphrodite (Ursula Andress) and Athena (Susan Fleetwood) all had a say in Olympus. It was love that motivated Perseus, not revenge. By eliminating the role of all but two gods, we remove just about all womens’ voices as part of the cosmic plan. And it’s shocking to hear Perseus 2010 refer to Medusa as “that bitch” after it is explained to us that she is cursed by Athena for being raped in her temple– victim-blaming at its most horrible. And Io, the only other woman with any significant role, is barely a presence; in fact, she becomes a PRESENT, literally gifted to Perseus by Zeus as a reward. She has no say in it, and doesn’t indicate any interest in him along the way, unless you count a parental role or a rape-like scenario where Perseus pins her down during a training fight.

Sure the animation is better now and the Kraken looks pretty cool. But in hindsight, there’s so much more charm in Ray Harryhausen’s stop-action compared to the fascistically perfect CGI of the 21st century, especially combined with the questionable politics of the new Perseus. They even make reference to the Harryhausen film, by finding the mechanical owl Bubo and throwing him away! Heartless.

And that’s the problem with Clash of the Titans ’10.  The playwright Ammon was our guide in 1981. In 2010, we have only soldiers. It has no poetry in it, literally.