Skip to main content

Media About Media - "Unedited Footage of a Bear"

by Cameron Mady
"Unedited Footage of a Bear"
Released December 16 2014
The entire video.
**NOTE*** I don't know why the beginning is in tiny text. I've changed it back but it keeps switching to the small text again.
     "Unedited Footage of a Bear" is a short video from Adult Swim that comments on the manipulative and intrusive nature of advertisements in modern culture. Consumers fall victim to the empty promises of large corporations and are left to deal with the consequences. People are far too willing to trust the media, and forget that there is almost always an ulterior motive to media production; this could be profit, power, or persuasion. The video claims that advertisements are not for the benefit of the consumer, but rather for the benefit of the company that releases its corrupted messages to the public.

"Claridryl targets where you're most vulnerable, acts immediately, and lasts indefinitely"
    The first way that this video addresses the deception behind advertising is through the concept of the video itself. The creators lure in their audience with the false claim that this video is about a bear. Around thirty seconds in, the shaky nature footage is interrupted by a glossy, bright advertisement for the allergy medication Claridryl, forcing the audience into watching something else. This theme of manipulation and betrayal by the media is ever present in this video, as the spokesperson is also betrayed by Claridryl, which promises to solve her problems but instead creates more. In both cases, someone is being fed untrustworthy information by the media, which is doing whatever it takes to make a sale. The video is intentionally deceptive to further push its message about the dangers of advertising.


...and 30 seconds in, the titular bear is never seen again
     In the fake commercial for Claridryl, the side effects are tucked away at the very end, overlaid with happy, sunny imagery. This is meant to reflect on how advertisers rely on distractions and the ignorance of their customers in order to sell their product. Despite the fact that these side effects are largely dismissed by the company, they prove to be more than just minor inconveniences when they literally take over the spokeswoman's life. After the advertisement ends, the Claridryl woman begins experiencing the severe side effects of the medication, including paranoia, aggression, and double vision (literally, as the medication creates an evil clone that attacks and replaces her). She isolates herself from her family, and constant gets caught up in her own paranoid delusions. The woman's breakdown portrays the reality behind the neatly packaged commercial for Claridryl, and the dangers that advertisers minimize and ignore to make a quick buck off of unsuspecting people.
Symptoms include: paranoia, aggression and double vision.
     Finally, there's of course the moral issue about advertising prescription medication. Is it safe to advertise drugs to people who know nothing about them? "Unedited Footage of a Bear" addresses the issue of actively deceiving and risking the safety of people who don't know any better. The Claridryl woman falls victim to the company's advertising tactics, and like many others, neglects the risks that come with taking any sort of medication. The saccharine world depicted in the infomercial doesn't accurately showcase the potential side effects caused by taking Claridryl, but should it even have to? It is a commercial after all, and if commercials are designed to sell a product, is it fair to make them show the dark sides as well? Is it the company's responsibility to accurately depict their products, or should consumers have to make the effort to educate themselves before making a purchase? These are the questions that "Unedited Footage of a Bear" plants in its audience.
And if you look in the backseat, she's definitely overdosing too.
    Personally, I agree with the overall message of this video, and think that advertisements, especially drug commercials, are dangerously deceptive. The reality of products like Claridryl will never be shown in commercials because it would not help sell the product, but people often forget this. We live in a world where it's unsafe to trust the media, because every single media source has its own agenda that is reflected in its writing. Even the news itself is biased. If someone were to only check Fox News or CNN, they would form two very different opinions as each network tries to push its own political agenda. The same is true for all commercials. The world of media is incredibly competitive, and I believe that sometimes advertisers go too far in trying to make a sale or pushing their viewpoint, neglecting the health and safety of their customers for profit. Because of this deception, I think that some things should just not be allowed to be advertised.
Get back to normal life*
*restrictions apply

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Detroit: Become Human - Blog #2: M for Machines

I think it’s incredibly fair for Detroit: Become Human to have an M Rating. It deals with heavy themes, including lots of violence and murder (somehow in every character’s arc but especially in Connor’s, the literal homicide investigator), characters like Lieutenant Anderson who swear constantly, signs of alcoholism and drug use (whatever Red Ice), and domestic abuse (including both child and elder abuse). The game also deals with heavy themes of identity along with intense and consequential decision making that younger audiences may not be…mature enough to handle. I don’t think this game would appeal to many kids or younger teens in the first place, and even though it doesn’t involve humans I think the junkyard scene would be traumatizing as well. I can’t imagine this game receiving anything less than a 17+ rating.

Willy vs. Charlie - How Maiming Children Has Changed Through the Age of the Blockbuster

     Roald Dahl's 1964 novel  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory seems to be a story that demands to be put to film. Two completely separate adaptions of this book were put to the big screen 34 years apart, before and during the age of the blockbuster. 1971's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and 2005's Charlie & the Chocolate Factory both try to cater to the audiences of their times, and as a result end up being two remarkably different films. NOTE: For the purposes of this blog I will be treating Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a remake/reboot to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory even though they are both technically reiterations of the same book. This just makes it easier to compare them. Willy Wonka... (1971, left) and Charlie ... (2005, right)      Both of these films take a very different approach to the original source material;   while Charlie...  sticks closer to the events of the novel and as a result falls more into the goofy, fant

Flying Rat Man and His Pop Culture Pliability

     Unsurprisingly, Batman has a lot going for him when it comes to versatility. A lot of the elements of Batman's character make him incredibly effective in most environments, from the goofy 60s TV show to the original comics to the grittier world of the Arkham video games and the Christopher Nolan trilogy. I think this is because at his core, Batman is a very simple character; it only takes a few characteristics to make Batman recognizably Batman. If his name is Bruce Wayne, his parents died when he was young, he's rich and he dresses up like a bat to fight crime, then yup, he's Batman! Everything else is up for debate. Trust me, Batman's parents die. They won't let you forget that.      Although there are many other elements that make Batman an icon, different interpretations of his character will use them more or less depending on their target audience. One of the best examples of this is The Boy Wonder, Robin. Much like his original introduct