Here’s a timely piece of entertainment news in light of our recent discussions.
An accompanying article in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2013/jul/09/tootsie-dustin-hoffman-epiphany-women-judged
Lankslear and Knobel discuss the influence and increasing popularity of blogging as a legitimate literacy. They begin their argument with a differentiation of mindset between a tolerance for technology, with a focus on the individuals’ intelligence and ‘bookspace’ versus the collective intelligence created by the digital media space, in a world influenced by advances in technology. (Lankslear & Knobel, 2006). This is an oversimplification, but the points remain valid: the juxtaposition of reluctance of embracing technological advances versus the embracing of the potential for technology.
The authors discuss the evolution of blogging from the early 1990s, where blogging was a forum for technologically astute, computer literate people. However, by the late 1990s, blogging became readily accessible to the majority of the population and was more about being socially connected than being isolated. Naturally part of the appeal is having instant recognition for your ideas or posts by friends or strangers, but also having a forum to voice your opinions about any issue or event.
One interesting phenomenon that results from blogging is that the more popular or controversial a post becomes, the greater the likelihood is that the originator of the post becomes more of a facilitator of their argument than an active participant. While this may create a deeper engagement with the content of the blog than with traditional published works, it also provides immediate feedback the ppossibility for revisions and corrections. However, it may remove the originator of the blog as a participant.
Obviously, this article was published 7 years ago and was starting to recognize the potential for influence and legitimacy as a critical or analytical source, whereas today many people are dependent on blogs and social media to help them formulate their opinions on everything from where to eat, how to accomplish something, which teachers to avoid etc.
As a classroom tool, I believe that blogs are an excellent method for engaging a wide variety of responses from students. On my practicum we used a variety of classroom blogs to keep students informed of classroom assignments, fieldtrips and to have a forum for current events. Students were encouraged to participate on a weekly basis and to contribute ideas for journal writing prompts and classroom debate topics. This was a successful way of monitoring class levels of engagement for topics and also it gave students who were reluctant to participate orally in class an opportunity to be heard.
Finally, the article concluded with a discussion of fan blogging and the impact it has on reality TV, but also over political campaigns, corporate images and the immediacy of disseminating all manner of information.
Work Cited: Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006) Blogging as Participation: The Active Sociality of a New Literacy. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, US, April 11, 2006.
Blog post #1
Before I start, can I just say that I’m amazed that I didn’t know Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme”? My life is forever changed.
I’ve chosen to post a blog about “On the origin of adaptations” because I’m really interested in film adaptations and movies in general. I was a Film Studies minor during my undergrad (the one where you study movies, not the one where you make them). This minor wasn’t due to any special talent or deep knowledge of film; mostly I just wanted to sit around watching and talking about movies. So. I am now going to proceed to sit in front of my laptop and type about movies.
While I was initially a bit baffled by the idea of “homology” between biological and film adaptation, after reading through the article I find value in the comparison. I like that the article points out that “biology does not judge adaptations in terms of fidelity to the ‘original’; indeed, that is not the point at all” (445). While film adaptations are often panned for going “off the script” of the source material, biological adaptation necessitates this kind of change. Perhaps, like biological adaptations, film adaptations should attempt to improve upon the originating material and adapt to changing social and cultural environments. This is summed up quite nicely in the article’s simple formula: “narrative idea + cultural environment = adaptation” (448). Math!
The article touches on an issue that I fondly call the Shakespeare Exception, in that Shakespeare is celebrated as high culture despite containing certain elements of style and subject matter which, when they appear in any work not written by Shakespeare, are disdainfully labeled low culture. In the article, the Shakespearean Exception is that we don’t criticize Shakespeare for straying from the source material he used to write Romeo and Juliet, whereas we so often critical of more modern adaptations that do the same thing. (To learn more about the source material for Romeo and Juliet, you can watch this awesome video by Young Adult fiction author John Green.) Another example of the Shakespearean Exception that I rather obsessively must mention is that of the pun. Shakespeare’s plays are packed with line after line of shameless and wonderful puns, yet when I make an especially punny joke involving the words duty and doody, I am not celebrated for my brilliant Shakespearean wit (as I rightfully should be).
Before I sign off, I feel the need to bring up an issue not dealt with much in the article that complicates the idea of adaptation, and that is the fact that adaptation is not always a strictly book-to-film process. In these mad times of ours, we have board games, action figures, and TV series being made into films. We also have films being adapted into books, comics, and other media. Indeed, adaptation is a messy and unpredictable thing: just as Twelfth Night became She’s the Man, the dinosaur became the chicken.
Work Cited
Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically. New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.
– Allison
Blog post #1
Weblog Post #2: Jacqueline Simpson
What struck me most about this article was the concept that “descent with modifications is essential” (446). I do not believe in discourse fidelity for the sake of fidelity: I think that adaptations will always be viewed as such when the original is known, and it makes far more sense to consider the adapted work as an original creation even if it has borrowed plot, characters, and themes from another source. Absolute fidelity is not possible, and it is not (as far as I can tell) the purpose of an adapted script. As English teachers who turn to adaptations of texts for use in our classrooms, do we really do so merely as a means of bypassing the text, or as scaffolding students towards a reading of the novel by helping them to visualize the language?
We choose these film adaptations precisely for the visualization, for the departures from what is directly given from the text—in short, we are already making the choice to present something to the class that must, by its very nature, be different on several levels from a reading of the text in its purest form. In recognizing that some stories hold universal appeal (as in the numerous examples of Shakespeare adaptations), why would the acknowledged appeal not lend itself to re-imaginings in forms less obvious than near-faithful reproductions? In the case of Shakespeare, for example, all adaptations will by nature be reinventions as the script moves from theatre to film. In the most basic adaptations, the visual language changes from intended stage directions to the language of films, and this goes beyond fidelity to language and plot. In class we have discussed the need for teaching a meta-language for new forms of text/media/forms of literacy. In watching Ernesto’s presentation today, we considered how the language we are already teaching our students—the language associated with writing in its rhetorical and literary forms—is the same language that students can apply to a critical reading of a piece of visual media, as they analyze the language of an image and the strategies that the author has used. The same strategies that we teach for reading and writing are rarely applied to readings of visuals, and we are missing an opportunity to teach this crucial form of literacy when we present films as being secondary to plays or novels, and as imperfect works that will always be deficient for what they lack (rather than appreciated for what they offer). Not only are specific readings of specific texts limiting in this sense, they are also blind to the concept of how a text such as a play is meant to appear and—more importantly, how it can appear.
Baz Luhrmann’s “William Shakespeare’s Romeo+Juliet” is a film that is taught almost as often as it is criticized. I have not met a single English teacher who has used the film as an independently interesting piece of film—it is only in adjunct to the study of the play, and it is inspected for its differences and similarities to a pointless degree. We are not told to teach film, many of us are not comfortable doing it, and it is perhaps due to this that we can have a narrow consideration of the possibilities of film as a valid literary form, worth studying in the English classroom. Like Copolla’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” Luhrmann’s film is deliberately referencing the original and the author of that work while adding in extra-textual details, conjectures, and re-imagined elements. The title suggests fidelity to the original, but it is more of an homage than a direct retelling. In cases of adaptation, the word “inspiration” is too easily misread or ignored.
Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically. New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.
What is the measurement of a successful adaptation?
Bortolotti and Hutcheon write that traditionally it has been the similarity or faithfulness of the adaptation to the source material, but that this kind of “reductive judgemental discourse” (444) does not take into account factors that might be more important such as artistic significance or cultural impact. Rather, the persistence of the narrative itself should be considered, along with diversity of media.
What I wondered when I read this article was, how can we measure the success of an adaptation in the classroom? Are there some adaptations that are used more than others, and if so, why?
The article discusses the fact that adaptations can also stand on their own as texts and achieve commercial or artistic success regardless of how closely they follow a source text (or texts). However, in using adaptations in the classroom, one thing a teacher would need to consider is appropriateness.
First, is the adaptation appropriate to the curriculum? A teacher may decide to use an adaptation because it closely follows the text being studied in class. For example, some teachers choose to show more ‘traditional’ films of Shakespeare plays that follow almost word for word the text. They want their students to follow along with the actors and expect that this will lead to a better understanding of the play.
Second, is the adaptation appropriate to the school setting? Of course, it needs to be mentioned that there are perhaps some adaptations that, no matter their fidelity or their appeal, might not be suitable in a classroom setting. I would think that teachers generally try not to be censors, but they do need to make the decisions about what films (or other texts) they present to their students.
Another factor that teachers will consider when choosing an adaptation is the overall appeal to their students. If there are several adaptations of a text available a teacher may worry less about fidelity and focus instead on how old the adaptation is (also dependent on the age of the students), whether or not it uses interesting settings or video conventions, or even how funny it might be. For many teachers, the reason to use a film adaptation in the first place may be to generate interest in the text. If the adaptation they choose does not engage the students, why use a film at all?
I think this leads to other questions for English classrooms, such as studying films as texts of their own and whether or not teachers should show whole movies or just clips when utilising adaptations.
Work Cited
Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically. New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.
-Cristina Relkov
Seminar Prompt
Andrew Knorr, Stephanie Moreno, Jacqueline Simpson, Christina Relkov
Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically. New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.
In this discussion, we will summarize and discuss the argument put forth by Bortolli and Hutcheon, considering how this theory relates to our practice as English teachers. We will lead the class through an activity using Ray Bradbury’s “The Veldt” as a means of diagnosing our own theories of adaptation, namely how and in what ways we feel adaptations should or should not be faithful to the original.
To begin, consider this list of “The 15 Most Successful Book to Movie Adaptations”:
http://filmproductionschools.org/2012/top-15-most-successful-book-to-movie-adaptations/
The Argument: The success of an adaptation should not be defined by how faithful it is to the original
The article we will be presenting on, by Bortolotti and Hutcheon, discusses the idea of similarities between biological adaptation and cultural (or narrative) adaptation. The authors present a homology – that both biological adaptation and cultural adaptation are processes of replication that evolve with changing environments and should not necessarily be judged by their faithfulness to their source. They argue that this perspective can lead to new questions and answers about narrative adaptation theory – including the cultural equivalent of the most basic question asked in biology, why does life exist in so many forms?…Why do the same stories exist in such a startling array of forms?
Discussion Questions:
Next, Consider:
Activity:
Using the synopsis of Ray Bradbury’s “The Veldt” (and any knowledge of it that you may already have) – in your groups discuss how you would adapt this story to video form. Create a working storyboard, outlining how your adaptation would look, sound, and any other ideas that you think would be crucial to your adaptation. You will be pitching your film/television/webisode adaptation to the rest of the class, so be clear in describing how your adaptation will look.
Following the activity, and after having watched an adaptation of the story as a music video, consider the following points:
Hopefully I was not the only one who began to have vivid memories of cramming high school level biology information into my brain before one of my last finals as a grade 12 student when I began reading this article. My skepticism was at an all time high when there was discussion of biology jargon related to literary criticism. However, both Bortolotti and Hutcheon posit a very interesting cross-disciplinary argument for employing biological adaptation ideology when looking at adaptations of literary works. I really like how the concept of the homologue was used. It emphasized that biological literacy would not replace literary dialogue, but rather complement it in the way it functioned. Both authors provide a strong correlation between various biological concepts (e.g. genotype, phenotype, dynamic and conservative selection), with strong examples that provide a solid grounding of the different terms and how they may function across academic boundaries.
I found the most interesting section to be around the idea of success. Bortolotti and Hutcheon suggest that “‘success’…means ‘thriving’” (Bortolotti and Hutcheon 450). The article expresses that thriving can exist in three ways: the number of copies of a narrative, persistence of the narrative, and diversity of the narrative through a multitude of forms (450). I can relate these concepts to many different franchises that even I love to participate in. Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Hunger Games, just name a few. I also have been thinking about how narrative types are beginning to become more persistent in todays popular culture, one strong example being the post-apocalyptic/apocalyptic story plot. One question the article does not seem to explore is why particular narratives tend to do so much better than others. Why is it that there is this sudden surge of interest in zombies and survival narratives? Where does this thirst for stories about destruction and the end of the world as we know manifest from? A similar example presents itself through the resurgence of popular superhero franchises. Why have there been so many new retellings of heroes like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, and even the X-Men? The article provides one answer, discussing “adaptive radiation” (451) where narratives adapt and modify to different environments they attempt to thrive in (452). In this case, perhaps, the new environment is an older audience who is interested in reliving childhood stories, however in a grittier and more adult way. In the case of the apocalyptic narratives, perhaps we are attempting to suppress rage and destructive manner, a way to express our fears of the possibilities of an impending doom…But to be totally honest, they are also just really awesome to watch!
Work Cited
Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically. New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.
Andrew Knorr
I have a confession: I am guilty of “fidelity discourse” (444). Prior to reading Gary Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon’s article, I could not have given my crime a name, but now it’s clear. I have dedicated years to reading novels for personal enjoyment and then waited, in zealous anticipation, for the movies to enter the theaters. Much to my dismay, these cinematic adaptations have been largely disappointing. The list of problems is extensive (I am terribly picky…): key events are omitted; the film is too short, or too long; the actors/actresses chosen for the roles are all wrong; the feeling of the book hasn’t been properly captured; the soundtrack is peculiar, and onwards, my post-film rambling unfolds. In other words, I am guilty of giving “cultural and aesthetic precedence to the ‘source’ to which the adaptation is then judged either faithful or unfaithful – that is, good or bad (445)”.
In my defense however, when a movie adaptation is first created (or at least, considered the first adaptation of significance for a particular generation, for example Baz Luhrman’s The Great Gatsby), some viewers are largely interested in seeing the transference of novel to film. Bortolotti and Hutcheon reference the Harry Potter movies, in particular the movie for the first book. Viewers flocked to the cinemas in anticipation of seeing a “retelling” of the novel in a new medium (449). Of importance, is the concept that the viewers wanted to see how accurately the film captured the novel. Personally, I was quite impressed by the Harry Potter films, finding them remarkably representative of their novels. (Although, I am apparently not allowed to make this sort of comparison…)
Perhaps I’m missing the point, but I’m not sure why the success of an adaptation can’t be based upon (or shouldn’t be based upon) its relationship with the original text. Isn’t there some merit to having carefully reflected on the story’s origin? What then, is the point of creating an adaptation if the story’s integrity, or at least key ideas, are not upheld? How is it then an adaptation? (Why not identify it as a completely separate story, unrelated to the novel or play?)
While film adaptations will continue to evolve (and they should), I do feel that a film can be adequate in its representation of a text, while still maintaining a contemporary viewpoint. Otherwise, I feel like the point of identifying a film as an adaptation loses its relationship with the source… what kind of adaptation is that? So confusing!
By Ashlee Petrucci (Blog #2)
Works Cited
Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically. New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.
I read the first paragraph of Borlotti and Hutcheon’s “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and ‘Success’: Biologically” probably three or four times before I could continue on to read the rest of the paper with confidence. The opening’s reference to a Spike Jonze film along with the use of “biological adaptation” and “metacinematic film” in the same, early sentence, caused me to double (and triple…) check that I was reading it right. But yes, I had correctly understood what they meant: they posit that the process by which certain texts or stories become popular and maintain that popularity is a kind of cultural version of Darwin’s natural selection.
Just like its biological counterpart, “cultural selection…involves differential survival through a process of replicating into future generations” (Borlotti 449). Upon first reading this, I found it intriguing but slightly problematic. In nature, genetic changes take thousands of years. Especially given the flash-in-the-pan internet memes that are afforded momentary superstardom by currently available technology, are we perhaps talking about apples and oranges here? Cultural selection happens at the speed of the fastest internet connections. After thinking about things for a bit longer, I realized that – despite the difference in how long the two processes take – natural selection and cultural selection are, in a way, both about survival.
To further support their position, Borlotti and Hutcheon move on to discuss another biological process: mutation. Here, the similarities between natural and cultural selection are, for me, even more salient. In biology, “mutation is not a negative term”; rather, “it is judged as beneficial, neutral, or deleterious in the context of its environment” (449). Similarly, in pop culture today, mutations are the basis for many fad
To return to memes for a moment: some of the funniest and most popular memes of the past few years have involved riffing on or remixing an original piece. Whether that’s writing a caption for someone else’s image, as in LOLcats or creating an autotuned version of a familiar children’s television show.
These mutated forms of image and video are, in a way, also examples of survival. I wouldn’t be watching this clip of Mr. Rogers if he hadn’t been remixed – I watched his show as a child, but he only appears in my adult life in a remixed capacity. It is only because of mutation, a slight change to the “phenotype” of the show, that he continues to exist in my consciousness.
I find this idea really interesting, and so I’m rambling a bit. I’ll wrap up here. This leaves some of these ideas a bit unfinished, so feel free to tidy things up by adding what you think about what these authors have said.
Borlotti and Hutcheon’s natural selection analogy suggests that the only stories that survive through the years are the ones that can be seen as continuously culturally relevant. As we see with Mr. Rogers, mutation is a way that a story can remain current. The authors also point to transmedia as an indication of a story’s success: “If a narrative is adapted into many different media, we might use this proliferation of forms as a measure of success” (451). I think this popularity test could be expanded to include not just many forms of media, but many locations. If a story is truly “successful,” it may appear in many different cultures across the world. Particularly now, when communities all around the globe are connected online, a story has improved chances of survival if it is not just relevant over time, but is globally relevant right now.
– Shannon Smart (Blog Entry #2)
YouTube Clip (a mystery until tomorrow!)
Summary:
We thought this short clip an appropriate lead-in as the article considers the way advertisements (among other visual media) are constructed and how the deliberate construction of visual media influences viewers often subliminally, as the advertising agents fell prey to in this short clip.
In brief: The article’s goal is to raise awareness about the constructedness of visual media and to promote visual literacy in students and their practice of the critical reading of visual forms.
Manipulating visual media to achieve the desired effect on the viewer – advertisers take advantage of this all the time.
This article stresses the importance of students gaining critical skills to be able to work through visual media.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF BUILDING VISUAL IMAGES (these are important to the construction of visual art, says Farmer)
“- A dot implies a focus or location.
– A line signifies borders and movement. Lines may be strong, dynamic, tentative, wavy, erratic, etc.
– Scale shows relationship of size between two objects, with the larger one usually connoting more power
– dimension suggests three dimensions and perspective; well-executed images may seem more real and credible
– texture generated tactile and visual sensations: of roughness, luxury, softness, age, and even revulsion
– value shows the lightness or darkness of an image; light is often associated with goodness and airiness while darkness may connote power and doom.”
Interesting to keep in mind is cultural difference especially in terms of the use of colour in a visual piece:
– In some cultures, yellow may be the colour of royalty – in others, it may be the colour of cowardice
– In some cultures, black may be the colour of death – in others, white may be representative of death
— without a knowledge of another culture’s visual coding system, it is possible that students may mis-read the image
It is now possible, with technology, to easily manipulate and change an image:
– cropping images to manipulate the context of the image
– changing the value and saturation of an image to change the emphasis of the image
– altering the hue of the image to mislead a viewer’s interpretation
– changing the relative size of the image to change it’s relative importance and perceived power in a frame
– adding or eliminating images to distort the truth
— the author stresses that students must be aware of how an image is constructed and how an image can be manipulated
— it is necessary to have learning activities that help students read visual images, analyze the producer of the image’s intent and just what the image is trying to convince the viewer to do/think
– think analyzing propaganda (this is a direct example of image construction, which seems obviously biased and forcefully persuasive as we analyze it in hindsight), similarly advertisements and other forms of visual media have been constructed with directed intent to manipulate a target audience
Suggestions for Activities (pg. 31):
Farmer suggests a range of activities, most of which have somewhat political explorations. Most of these can be easily used in an English, Socials, or Art classroom.
• Ask students to critique the visual images found in school and local publications: newsletters, yearbooks, and videos. What content is represented or omitted (e.g., gender, ethnicity, subgroups)? What perspectives are represented? What messages are being conveyed? What visual principles are used to convey those messages?
• Teach students how to manipulate images using photo editing software. Ask student pairs to manipulate an image to send opposing messages (e.g., one pro and one con). Ask peers to analyze the resultant visual images in light of the visual principles used.
• Ask students to photograph or videotape their schools or neighborhoods, and then compare their photos in terms of subject matter choice, perspective, and visual principles used. They might focus on people and compare their images. Then ask them to edit and sequence the images to communicate a persuasive message (e.g., athletic recruitment, real estate enticement, clean-up campaign).
• Ask students to locate online images about a social issue, and then analyze images in light of the disseminator’s perspective and intent. Ask them to identify how visual elements and principles are used to convey the underlying message.
• Ask students to locate online images about an international issue; each student (or small group) might choose a different country or culture. Ask them what visual principles appear to be universally applied or culturally defined. To what extent does culture impact the message?
• Consider visual representations of Canadian History. Which perspectives are present? Omitted? Do any of the images seems propagandistic? How might the pictures be different if they were from an alternate viewpoint? (Based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• Download a video of a public event or political rally. Ask students to edit that raw footage to create a 30-second advertisement or political announcement that intends to persuade the viewer to respond in a specific way. Each student (or small group) could be assigned a different audience (e.g., single mothers, rural poor, big business, senior citizens) to target his or her message.
Tips for students (how to critically analyze images):
The article includes a list of suggestions as to what teachers can do to help their students be more critical viewers. The author draws on Silverblatt (2001), who has created a framework that prescribes the following questions for viewers to consider:
1. What is the premise? Is it logical? What assumptions are made?
2. What is the explicit or implicit content?
3. What is the historical and cultural context? What worldview is being represented?
4. What is the emotional response? (I would say what is your response and what is the desired response, do you think?)
5. What genres or conventions are being used?
6. What is the conclusion or inference? Is it logical?
Farmer also includes the Centre for Media Literacy’s suggestions (2005) for how to be an analytical, thoughtful audience for persuasive instruments.
1. Who created the message?
2. Why was the message created and disseminated?
3. What visual techniques are used to draw attention to the message?
4. How might people experience the image differently?
5. What values, lifestyle, points of view are represented or omitted?
Both these are useful frameworks to consider. The second one is a bit more intuitive, as it follows the “who, what when, where, why?” model that students may already be familiar with.
Activity:
● intro activity by showing imgur variations on a picture challenge to make posters for different movie genres:
original image: http://i.imgur.com/ocehWZk.jpg
as rom-com: http://i.imgur.com/9hYwToq.jpg?1
as a novel: http://i.imgur.com/77q0JNx.jpg
as horror: http://i.imgur.com/tRrO9oi.jpg
● give groups of students different pictures/ ads from various magazines
● challenge students to manipulate/ change the photos to target a different demographic of their own choosing (e.g. male vs. female, kids vs. adults, teens vs. 40somethings, etc.) — OR to change the ad so that it’s advertising a completely different product/ idea
Discussion Questions:
1. Is it possible to overcome the power of subliminal messages? If not, what danger to the individual, if any, might this imply?
2. Do you think you would use any of these activities in your own classroom? Have you ever used activities like these in the classroom before?
3. How do you empower students to take visual literacy tools with them from the classroom into their daily lives? How do you ensure that building an awareness of visual image construction doesn’t stop with classroom learning?
4. How might you introduce your students to the “tips” for critical viewing we’ve covered? Do you think they’re worth sharing?
Works Cited
I See, I Do: Persuasive Messages and Visual Literacy. By: Farmer, Lesley S. J., MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 15464636 Jul/Aug2007, Vol. 14, Issue 4
By: Allison Dixon, Ashlee Petrucci, Ilana Finkleman, Shannon Smart
