Cross-Cultural Blog

I like the concept but I mean it's hard to really take this totally serious. Where was this commercial four years ago? eight years ago? Why is it that actors and stars pick and choose the time they actually WANT to take a stand, when they know that by the nature of their profession the camera is always on them. Don't get me wrong it's a good attempt and for some it may even be wut convinces them to vote, but for once in this country I would like to see someone take a PROACTIVE stand on something...anything. I would like for someone to alert a culture of its ills (and in this case the vitality of voting) before it simply becomes a response to the circumstances that are prevailing at the time. I mean it's great to get ppl to vote but what makes this year any different from any one before....oh, because the economy is tanking, because global warming is a serious threat. Maybe if people paid more attention and voted years ago alot of those problems could have been avoided, or at the very least not be as ominous as they are today. It's a good commercial but the paradox in it, is that in attempt to promote something vital and impactful, it exposes one of the root ills of this nation....for far too long we have been a complacent people that waits only until after the problem has happened to devise a solution. Granted that's starting to change now. People are starting to do something about alot of the perils plaguing the world and I'm not a pessimist, but the previous points shouldn't be ignored. If we continue to put more thought into the future as opposed to the circumstances that exist in the here and now (as we are starting to do)...we could do remarkable things.

To quote Christine, this is indeed a very interesting piece. When I first watched the "Don't Vote" video, I had trouble figuring out exactly who the audience was for this viral video. It is surely too lengthy to attract the leisurely internet surfer or the busy multi-tasker, and uses the wrong approach to persuade the undecided potential voter.

The beginning of the video featured many well-known actors and actresses, sarcastically and viciously mocking a group of people that does not really exist ("You don't care about your children's healthcare"). This struck me as another example of American celebrities 'playing it safe' when they have the power to take a risk and confront the real target: young people online who truly believe "my vote doesn't matter," "both sides suck," and "nothing will change." If you are going to use aggressive rhetoric, use it against the group that needs it.

A young person who is considering voting but lacks the tools get started would have had to wait 2 minutes and 23 seconds (about 4 years on the internet) for the first piece of useful information: some states have deadlines on October 4th. The placement of this fact, and the link to a helpful website are unwisely placed at the end of the rhetorical appeal, when the only viewers left watching are those who have probably already registered in the first place.

What we find interesting about this video is the use of big-time celebrities. We think it speaks to our culture today greatly about how celebrity opinion matters. If someone famous tells us to do something, there is a greater chance we will because of the value we place in them as people. It almost seems to undermine the idea that amateur videos are taking the place of more traditional means of media coverage because this particular example of a "viral video" isn't amateur at all. Would it have been as successful without the use of celebrities?

There are several different techniques are group found effective. One of them was the long list of concerns young people may or may not have about the upcoming election. Between issues like health care, education, the genocide in Darfur, gas prices, etc., there were bound to be at least a few things a viewer can relate to.

The portion of the video where the celebrities wait for the viewer to register to vote was a little more problematic. Some of us found it humorous, while others thought it made the video too long and decreased its overall effect. On the other hand, because we viewed it as a class, the waiting around was more prominent than if we were alone sitting at our computers, switching tabs to actually visit the website and register to vote.

The rhetorical approach of the actors being explicitly talking to the viewer was really effective. Their "in your face" style was very direct and made us take it more seriously.

The number of appeals it made was interesting: we give you credit for being an intelligent person, but if you don't care about what is going on in the country, you're stupid. The introduction was unusual in that it completely contradicts the point it's trying to make, but it catches the user's attention and uses the shock factor to get people to keep watching.

The use of celebrities was also a commentary on American culture; "Americans will pay more attention to a political video if celebrities are in it" is indicative of Americans' trust in popular figures' opinions over those of pundits, who might be viewed as concerned by different issues. Celebrities are 'real people' that everyone knows.

The video presents itself as impartial but many of the featured celebrities have publicly aligned themselves with a particular candidate, Obama. When presenting issues words used such as "global warming," "abortion rights," and "gay rights" show a democratic slant in comparison to "climate change," "abortion," and "marriage."

On one hand, while it is valid to point out the perhaps inappropriate length of this video, a trait that would potentially detract from its effectiveness, -especially in the eyes of the ADD online majority- one of the most effective techniques this video takes advantage of is the 'time' that the celebrities take 'out of their lives' to 'wait' for 'me'. In the modern mass media age, both politicians and celebrities exist in their own world media-constructed-world that is psychologically distant from the average American citizen. This strategic rhetorical move appeals to a personal connection that is non-existent in the culture at large... the speakers break the 'fourth wall'... they are no longer the alienating celebrities from on high who are telling an ambiguous audience what to do, but have instead entered a simulated dialogue with the viewer. On a subtle level, Seth's joke about inviting the audience to dinner highlights this psychological device and in so doing, comforts those audience members who perhaps feel as if they were being manipulated. In this way, the video maintains a level of integrity. It is able to use its style to support its argument, and yet it doesn't try to hide anything that it is doing.

Pretty long for a youTube video - I got the picture after a couple seconds of "DONT VOTE" and after that the video lost its luster. Using celebrities politically brings mixed reactions - who are they to tell me what to do? The message to vote is a good one, but the question is who is legitimately inspired to vote after finding and watching the 5 long minutes of this video? Those who have no interest in voting likely didn't even make it to the point where registering information was shown, or weren't likely to find or watch the video in the first place. And, thundercat wonders where Matt Damon was.

You know it's condescending, right? If you don't know it's condescending, I... I just don't know what to say to you.

What gives these Hollywooders the right to assume that the rest of us are stupid? This video looks it was calculated to infuriate conservative and conservative-moderate voters. Almost every single issue they brought up was approached from a liberal point of view; the phrase "right to life" was mentioned once, in passing,in an exasperated tone of voice. In addition, nothing is more likely to piss conservatives (especially red-staters from the heartland) off than celebrities being annoying and talking about politics. Not to mention rampant cussing and Sarah Silverman disrobing. In fact, the exasperated tone and condescending approach even annoyed a few liberal members of our class. If the point of this video is, as we assume it is, to encourage people to register and vote, why design it in a way that almost guarantees that the target audience (people who have not yet registered or do not plan to vote) will turn it off in disgust and anger less than halfway through?

To be fair, the cause is admirable, and we're happy to know that so many celebrities came together to accomplish something more significant than increased box-office returns. If only they knew how to do it in a way that wouldn't make us hate them.

There's no better ethos than a respected celebrity. Leonardo DiCaprio, Dustin Hoffman, Forest Whittaker. All big names, telling you -not- to vote. Wait, what? They don't want you to vote? That's impossible. Oh. It is. They -do- want you to vote. That is, if you want to vote for what they'd like you to vote for. Sure, vote if you care about health care, social security, abortion, gay rights. If you don't, I mean, hey, it's your choice. You're just an insensitive ass, right? It's all good and neutral at first. We really should vote, shouldn't we. Honestly the whole message was emotional, and above all, quite original. But then they slipped it in. The mickey in our internet cocktail. The message is directed. The celebrities reflect their own views and, under the pretense of increasing voter participation, attempt to push some of their own beliefs on us. But let no one be mistaken that such an undertaking could ever have been accomplished without the mass viewership of the internet. Movies aren't the only way for celebrities to make waves after all.

The approach that this video took was to use celebrities as spokespeople to reach the common person who may feel a closer connection to Halle Berry than a random politician. There was an entertainment value by using celebrities and this attempting to capture and retain the attention of the viewer. This video seems more directed at common citizens and others who don't know basic voting rules (such as younger voters who have never voted before). The message comes across as slightly insulting for those who are aware of the political process, but this approach was utilized to reach the most basic level of awareness. There is an undertone of liberalism but there is no explicit partisan support. This video isn't an attempt to explain the candidates opinions on the issues and it doesn't try to sway voters to be more liberal or conservative, it does however work to convince the viewer of the important issues out there and how it's relevant to them.

This video is first and foremost a demonstration of the unique connection between American politics and pop culture. The fact that a number of famous Hollywood celebrities would be involved in a political commercial such as this provides a great example of this new trend in American political culture.

From a rhetorical standpoint, this video first begins by trying to relate to non-voting viewers. Then, as the commercial progresses, the gradual change of the celebrities' stance on voting forces viewers to reconsider why they are or are not voting, attempting to lead the viewers through the same thought process as the actors. The diversity among the celebrities featured (in terms of gender, age, race, and genre) seeks to appeal to a wide variety of viewers. Additionally, the actors tend to portray themselves as they are commonly seen in their movies/shows, trying to meet the expectations of fans in order to help them to relate to the video.