It's All Relative

my take on The Blind Side

2009-12-07T18:52:00.005-05:00

I'll be honest - I had a ton of preconceived notions before I went to see The Blind Side last week. On the car ride there I was telling my mom exactly what to expect regarding race representation (in retrospect I feel kind of bad about that because I think she just wanted to go see a heart-felt movie. oops). And as I sat down in the movie theater I was a total media & society student - ready to pick apart every single aspect of the film and how it related to race representation. I would say that I was in a pretty cynical mood...definitely feeling very "politically correct," and totally priding myself in that.

But then, pretty much from the moment the movie started, I felt my heart begin to soften. Okay, maybe I didn't completely fall for the "tear-jerking, win over your cold heart" aim of the film (or, maybe I did!), but I definitely gave up on my cynicism and (overly) political correctness. I realized that whatever the race representation in this film may be, I refuse to be that person I hate...the person that picks apart every single aspect of what *might* be racism or sexism or ideological etc. etc. Ugh. I never want to be like that, in the same way that I don't ever want to be on the other end of the spectrum as a naive spectator of media effects and race representations.

So before I even get into what I thought about the film, I learned something really important about myself. I never want to be an angry, pessimistic, "set in my ways" person when it comes to the media, politics, race, ideology...none of that. Maybe I am being that naive spectator in saying this - but I'd rather be optomistic and hopeful that humanity and even the media is taking steps forward with all of those things I just mentioned. And simply the act of going to see this film helped me to realize that.

OKAY, onto the film. Honestly, I really liked it. I stopped myself from picking apart each scene and just tried to enjoy the movie as a whole. Yes - of course there were race representations present. There is really no denying that. But given the story about a young, homeless black man from the inner city moving in with a rich, white family a) there was really no way around these representations taking place and b) I think the film did a fairly decent job handling them (I'm fully prepared to have tomatoes thrown at me right about now). Oh, and before I continue...I just have to say that I was SO glad when Mike said he didn't like being called BIG MIKE because if I heard someone call him that one more time I was going to scream!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem, anyway. In class we talked about that fact that just because it was a true story it doesn't mean representations can't be created/changed/manipulated, and I kept that in mind throughout the entire film. And yes, I would say that certain representations were not exactly "positive." But here's what made me like the film. At the end, I did not get the sense that a white woman (family) sacrified herself to save a poor, helpless black boy. Rather, I left the theater thinking that in the end race really had nothing to do with their relationship. Leigh Anne truly loved Michael as her son, and he loved her as his mother. The pictures of the real-life family during the closing credits reinforced this for me. In fact, those images moved me more than the rest of the film. Seeing the real "Big Mike" and Tuohy family made the story so much more real to me, and I could see the love between them. I'm not saying that race was never a factor in the relationship. In the world we live in, it had to have been. But it seems as though they overcome that, and that is pretty encouraging.

Okay, it totally sounds like I drank the koolaid. And maybe I have! That could mean one of two things. The Blind Side is a true story that portrays the positive way that race relations can and should take place, or, the creators of The Blind Side did a really good job of convincing white people that "love" can overcome anything, even racial differences. I think that there is truth in both of those. And, unfortunately, the latter could potentially make a lot of people assume that race isn't as important of an issue as it really is, if that makes sense.

I know that this entry has mainly highlighted the positive things I thought about the film, but the truth is that I found some negative aspects as well - mainly regarding the "white family saves the day" concept. And like we talked about in class the other day.....even if that *is* truly the story that took place, and all of the right intentions were there, it is still important to look at the effects that this movie could/will have on our society regarding race relations and representations. Some people might view it as a step forward and some may see it as a step backward. So, which is it?! I really look forward to discussing that as a class, because as of right now my only answer is, "it's all relative."

my local highschool WOULD be the "Redskins"

2009-11-30T13:31:00.003-05:00

Almost every Saturday morning my family and I have pancakes for breakfast (whole wheat with dark chocolate chips is my personal favorite, yum!). And yes - we use Aunt Jemima pancake mix. [I just checked the fridge to see if we use her syrup as well, only to find "Mrs. Butterworth's." Woops!] Anyway, it never really fazed me that Aunt Jemima was, well, black. I mean, if you asked me what race she was I would know, but I never really had a second thought about what that meant. When I googled "Aunt Jemima images," I was shocked to see what she used to be portrayed as.

The stereotypical image of the black mammy - especially combined with the type of language used in the blurb - is definitely racist. Just because her image has become more politically correct over the years (she's prettier and lost weight) that doesn't take away from what Aunt Jemima originally stood for. However, the use of race (or gender, lifestyle, etc.) seems to be kind of unavoidable if we're going to use images of people on products or advertisements. I'm not saying that that justifies the racist image of Aunt Jemima. But, for example, wouldn't it also be considered sexist to have an image of a housewife in an apron making the pancakes? Although Aunt Jemima is an obvious example of stereotypical representation in advertisements, others might not be so clear. As a society compiled of many different races, ethnicities, and lifestyles, advertisers are going to constantly try to relate to niche markets. So if representations of people continue to be used, this sort of stereotyping seems almost unavoidable.

With that being said, it's obviously not an excuse for racist representations to be used. So - moving on to Native American sport team names. I personally don't even see why there is an argument here. I mean, if the majority of Native Americans (81% according to the optional-reading article) are offended by these team names/mascots why is it even a question? Whether these sports teams' names are honorable and courageous or racist and disrespectful is not for the white majority to decide. UGH!! I'm actually doing my race essay on Native Americans' representation in the media, and the main theme that I've found is that their story is and has continually been written by the White mainstream society. And this subject of mascots just reinforces that.

I actually live right down the street from my district's high school, and they are the "Neshaminy Redskins." I've heard talk for a few years now that they are going to change that, but I'm not sure if that has happened yet. I'm going to look into that, actually. Speaking of which - redskins is definitely the name that irks me the most. I mean, how can you NOT see the racism in that? Ugh!

2009-11-24T10:48:00.001-05:00

Wanting to be a part of the hip-hop culture is something that I can personally relate to. I've pretty much lived in the suburbs all of my life. However, my church/school was located in Northeast Philadelphia. Although that is still quite suburbian, a good amount of my classmates were from more inner parts of the city. Because of that, I was able to experience more diversity than I would if I went to school where I live in Bucks County. Most of the kids that were from the city were a part of this hip-hop culture. Well, they at least walked and talked the part of it. Some of them were black, but most of them weren't. Three or four of these students just happened to be the cutest and most popular boys in our grade, and that seemed to be the case in other grades as well. So starting in 6th grade, it seemed as though my entire school tried to transform into being part of the hip-hop culture.

Throughout junior high and the beginning of high school things just intensified. Rap was everyone's music of choice. All of the boys wore their baggy jeans, diamond earrings, and chain necklaces. The girls wore big hoop earrings and scrunched their hair to make it curly (or just crunchy). And everyone who was anyone had a pair of Timberland boots. On the weekends my group of friends hung out at the Palace roller skating rink, where the truly hip-hop kids hung out. I remember trying so hard to "play it cool" to fit in with them because they were like...celebrities to me. This trend, I guess you could call it, stuck around all through high school. My close friends and I phased out of it just as we entered into high school, but there was certainly a huge majority of my classmates that remained as part of the hip-hop culture.

Okay, so it looks like I went off on a tangent. Woops! I guess I needed to fully remember what those days were like to get where I'm going. When I think back, I can honestly say that the main thing that led to this desire to fit in to the hip-hop culture was the fact that it was part of the counter-culture (although I didn't realize that at the time). As a blonde haired, blue eyed, Christian white girl from the suburbs, it made me feel less like a goodie-two-shoes and more like a cool, rebellious teen. And the more I was in on the popular clothes and music, the more empowered I felt. It was almost like there was a competition between everyone as to who could be the most genuinely hip-hop. It's so weird to come to that realization, but that's really how it was.

Looking back on my particular group of friends and social environment, mostly all of us where white. There were maybe 5 black kids in my grade at school, and even less when we would go to the hip-hop Mecca - Palace roller skating rink. It really was as though the hip-hop culture was transformed into a white institution, at least where I was coming from. But at the same time, there was that knowledge that what we were wearing and listening to was certainly derived from the black community.

I agree with Kitwana that my group of white friends did not want to be black. We didn't have anything against black people - they were in fact the people that we were trying to emulate. But the hip-hop culture (the one that I grew up in, at least) did seem to promote whiteness. Like I said earlier, there were not many black people to counter this, so the hip-hop trend was actually more of a "white" thing.

Okay, so I failed miserably at providing an image or video to analyze. But I really wanted to give my two cents since I've "been there," sort of. One last thing. I few months ago I ran into the cutest, most popular boy from junior high that I mentioned earlier. He looked completely different. His attire was straight out of a Gap ad. I couldn't believe that our "king" of the hip-hop culture from junior high and high school made such a transformation! But then we started talked, and I realized that although his clothes were different, the way he talked and acted was definitely still hip-hoppish. I can't really explain how or why, but it was. I find that interesting because it kind of shows that the hip-hop culture doesn't just lie in what a person dresses like or the music they listen to. It's kind of a whole demeanor or lifestyle. And once again, I think that that comes back to the feeling of empowerment that comes with the hip-hop culture.

2009-11-18T13:12:00.006-05:00

Okay, so Hooks article was shocking. But besides the title of the article, it wasn't exactly the language used that I found shocking - it was the realization of how sexualized black women really are. I feel so naive! While I do realize that most representations of black women are very sexual, I sort of assumed that that was the case for all women. But the difference is that while many white woman are sexualized in this way, we are also provided with many *other* images and representations of white women.

Take the music industry, for example. Sure, there are the Britney Spears' and Madonnas who many people would argue are the queens of sexploitation. But then there is a large number of (very successful) white female artists who are considered wholesome, "the girl next door," or even motherly figures - i.e. Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion, Carrie Underwood, etc. I do think that mostly all women artists are pushed at least in some point of their career to sexify themselves. But - it seems as though white women have more of a choice in the matter than black women do.

My favorite black female music artists are Rihanna, Alicia Keys, and Beyonce, all of which have either been sexualized from the start or moved towards that image as their career progressed. Beyonce was sexualized from the moment she stepped onto the scene as a member of Destiny's Child. She was in her teens at the time. Unlike Britney Spears, who went from the seemingly girl-next-door image to dressing like a dominatrix (literally), Beyonce was portrayed as a sex-symbol from the start. As I've watched her career progress, especially with her most recent performances and music videos, Beyonce's sexualized clothing and (more specifically) suggestive dance moves are certainly in line with Hooks' stance on black female representation. In fact, in the first image below, notice that the members of Destiny's Child are wearing a jungle-woman sort of costume - that exoticism that Hook often refers to.

And then there is Rihanna, who seems to have started out in a much more wholesome way than Beyonce did. If my memory serves me correctly, her first few songs released (when she looked like the first image below) were not entirely successful. However, around the time that Rihanna became more sexualized and had more edgy songs and music videos, her career took off. What is interesting about Rihanna is that her image was not just sexualized, but it was done in a very fantastical way. She became visually appealing in the sense that her sexual presence was extreme and quite bizarre. I feel like that kind of emphasizes Hook's point about the otherness and almost distorted-ness of the black female.

Although the following quote is describing black models, to me it also related to Rihanna's new image: "Reinscribed as spectacle, once again on display, the bodies of black women appearing in these magazines are not there to document the beauty of black skin, or black bodies, but rather to call attention to other concerns....their features are often distorted, their bodies contorted into strange and bizarre postures that make the images appear monstrous or grotesque. They seem to represent an anti-aesthetic, one that mocks the very notion of beauty. Often black female models appear in portraits that make them look less like humans and more like mannequins or robots."

race and comedy, a perfect match?

2009-11-17T10:27:00.002-05:00

I really enjoyed reading Acham's article because it was an easy read, and it was related to aspects of media that I am familiar with. Specifically, I can remember Chris Rock's rise in popularity. At the time I was too young to realize the importance of his representation and talk about African Americans. But now that I look back, I realize that he seemed to pave the way for many other black comedians to take on issues of race.

With that being said, Chris Rock definitely took a more blatantly political/ideological stance on race issues. He still used comedy, but he was also like an activist of sorts. Although I am not entirely caught up on comedy these days, it seems as though most comedians still take a strictly comedic stance on race issues. However, the presence of racism against other African Americans is definitely still prominent.

A black comedian that I am familiar with is Katt Williams. If my memory serves me correctly, he often pokes fun at other African Americans. But while I was searching for videos of him on YouTube I came up with a video from Guy Torrey. I must admit I've never heard of him or seen his comedy, but the video I found does seem to provide an example of what I'm talking about.

Interestingly, Torrey makes fun of African Americans by comparing them to white people. He basically says that black people spend their money on things to look good, i.e. a nice car and nice clothes, but in reality they are still poor and living in their grandmom's basement. He also makes fun of white people for the opposite offense: white people are rich and have nice houses but they don't give a crap about what they look like. Although he is making fun of both races, it seems to me that the assessment of black people is more harsh. Maybe I just feel that way because I'm white - I don't know. It just seems more insulting to say that black people are not only bad with money but they also pretend to be more wealthy than they are. And isn't it reinforcing the stereotype of black people being poor and lazy? I would think so. And I feel like many white people, whether subconciously or not, use this type of comedy to support their preconceived assumptions about black people.

I wonder what Chris Rock would think about this type of comedy. I mean, it seems as though he's the first person to admit that there are black people who fit into certain stereotypes. But what about the issue of black comedians sort of reinforcing that? Is Rock guilty of that as well? To be honest, hearing some of the things Chris Rock says and stands for does reinforce some of my own preconceived notions. And to be completely honest, while reading Acham's article I caught myself thinking, "wow, Chris Rock is thinking like a white person." I hate that I thought that - even if for a split second. It really is such a touchy subject. Like, white people making fun of each other isn't even questionable, it's fine. And black people making fun of white people is okay too. It's usually hilarious. But when it comes to black people making fun of each other - well, is our society ready for that yet? Obviously they have every right to do so, but is it in turn making white people think it's okay to hold those views of black people as well now?

Did I do that?!

2009-11-12T10:24:00.003-05:00

Reading Coleman's assessment of Blacks in the media has been a very interesting and sometimes shocking experience. I feel naive to never realize how distorted the images of black people in the media are. Watching that documentary in class about black people in film just added to my dismay. No wonder discrimination and prejudice is still present today! And the sad part is that many people don't even realize that they are engaging in racists behaviors and mindsets, and I myself am guilty of this. I'm sure of it.

I liked the second part of the Coleman reading because it was closer to my lifetime, so I could more easily follow what she was saying. I have watched many of the Black sitcoms she spoke about. Shows Family Matter, the Cosby Show, and Fresh Prince of Bel Air were all watched by a large white audience. I mean, I can't say I know statistics or anything, but mostly all of my white friends enjoyed those shows - in fact, they were some of their favorites (my best friend Leah watched Cosby every day, without fail!). I personally would list Family Matters as one of my favorite TV shows, alongside with Full House, Saved by the Bell, and Step by Step. And interestingly, I never really realized that the Winslows were actually black...

So my question is, is the portrayal of black families as being seemingly exactly like white families helpful or harmful to society? I would assume that it could be helpful in the sense that it may have helped break down barriers between blacks and whites. From a young age, shows like Family Matters showed me that not only are black people just like me, but they're even funnier and more fun than my family is.

But at the same time, do these shows portray reality? I really don't know. I'm sure there black families that are like the Huxtables and the Winslows. But they aren't all like that, in the same way that all white families aren't like the Tanners (from Full House). In that sense, we're never going to get a full portrayal of reality through television shows. *But* I do think that there's a difference between getting a realistic view of white people and black people on TV because, well, have we ever really gotten a realistic portrayal of black people through the media? Once again, I don't know. It's actually very disheartening to realize that as a white person, the majority of my ideas about black people are from the media, which, based on the Coleman reading is very distorted.

I find it really interesting that the character who made Family Matters especially popular, Steve Urkel, was a huge nerd. I could be wrong about this, but aren't nerds usually a white stereotype? It makes me wonder if having the character of Steve the nerd was a purposeful move to draw in a white audience. It sure worked for me, because for some reason I thought Steve Urkel was the funniest character ever! And I remember growing up having "did I do that?" being a humorous term often used by my family members (especially my dad...haha, duh dad!). And embarrassingly enough, I actually wrote a fan letter to Urkel and received this postcard in the mail:

Even more embarrassing is that I actually had that picture uploaded on my computer, haha!

Once again, I kind of feel like I have no right making these assumptions because they are just that...assumptions. And sometimes I feel like all the research and expert opinions in the world couldn't really answer my question(s) about race in the media. But at least I'm trying to learn. That's gotta be a step in the right direction, right?

Geez, Louise.

2009-11-11T18:30:00.002-05:00

Okay, so I admit it. I really only watched Thelma and Lousie because I knew a (half-naked) Brad Pitt was in it. And for the extra credit points, of course!

But I've got to say, I liked the film a lot more than I anticipated. I always thought it was a chick flick for middle-aged...chicks, but I never realized the political/ideological aspects of it. I found myself really rooting for the two women, especially because they were so royally screwed over by men throughout the film. I mean, even the polite, young Brad Pitt who finally showed Thelma a good time and seemed like he could do no harm turned around and stole their money...then turned them in to the cops. Ugh!

The rape scene was obviously the most difficult part to watch. I caught myself gasping and almost covering my eyes. I don't even have to explain why. I'm sure most women would say that they don't blame Louise for shooting that bastard. I personally would've shot him in the leg or something, but that's just me. I also would've turned myself in right after the shooting occured, but that's only because I have the optomism (or, naivity) to think that the authorities would believe me in saying that he attempted rape. When Louise pointed out that no one would believe them (since Thelma was dancing with him all night, no physical evidence) my heart dropped because I knew she was right. What a horrible, frightening thought.

While I can't condone the decisions the women made after that, I can't at all say that I blame them. It's like, once you've killed a man, why give a crap about anything else? Especially if no one...including your own husband...gives a crap about you. In that sense, I feel like the film itself is like a metaphor for the feminist movement. There's comes a point where we can't just sit around and hope that society will begin treating us as equals. It's no wonder that some forms of feminism have become so radical - it's because of losers like Darryl and Harlan...because YES, those men actually do exist.

I think that the ending was very fitting. Thelma and Louise knew that they had to end things on their own terms. They were never going to get a chance to explain themselves anyway, so why give themselves over to dozens of male police officers? Clearly their actions spoke way louder than any words could have - words that they probably wouldn't have even gotten to say.

"He could be a crackhead"

2009-11-02T13:35:00.001-05:00

I'm sure by now pretty much everyone has seen the YouTube video of "Leprechaun in Alabama." It's probably one of the most popular YouTube videos out there. It's even been featured on one of my favorite television shows, The OReilly Factor :):)

The video shows the people of Mobile, Alabama who are convinced that there is a leprechaun in their town. What makes this video so funny is that it seems as though these people truly believe that there is a leprechaun. Their reactions make it easy to make fun of them.

The problem lies in the fact that every single person in this video, with the exception of the male news anchor, is African American. I don't know whether Mobile is a predominantly black town, but the video gives that impression. The video also gives the impression that these people are naive and unintelligent. So is this video harmful to the Black community? It is supporting a previously held stereotype or creating a new one?

It's hard for me to say this about this video because I do find it to be humorous - and that has nothing to do with these people's race. However, I would really like to hear the perspective of an African American person. Clearly this video provides a false representation of black people. Although most people would consider it to be harmless because it's for humurous purposes, I think it would be quite ignorant to assume that this video is not promoting a certain stereotype.

Now, if this exact video included all white people, I would still find humor in it. I also wouldn't be upset that it was giving a particular representation for white people. But - that's easy for me to say because "hicks" or "white trash" are not the typical stereotype of Caucasians. African Americans, however, have constantly battled the stereotype that Barker provided. "Within the west, people of color have often been represented as a series of problems, objects, and victims....unable to think or act for themselves, people of color are not held to be capable of inititating activity or of controlling their own destiny" (264).

Like I said, I really need the perspective of African Americans on this one. In fact, I want to know what they think about their representation in the media in general, whether it's videos like this or the "good" examples like the Cosby Show...

2009-10-28T12:14:00.003-04:00

I've got to admit that I am one of those people's who sneaks into the self-help book section in the bookstore from time to time. I can't help but love reading about tips on how to decrease stress, increase happiness, and find my "passion" in life. There's just something so encouraging about reading self-help books. They cause me to feel empowered to take control of my own life. I feel as though the general theme of most self-help books is that it isn't life's circumstances that determines happiness - it is your attitude that will help lead you to a happier, more successful life.

The book that instantly popped into my mind was "He's Just Not That Into You" by Greg Behrendt. I think that nearly every woman of my generation has either read this book or at least heard of it. It isn't just the book itself that has become popular - it is the general attitude conveyed that has really transformed the way women view relationships, men, and even themselves. Let me explain.

The basic premise of the book is that if a man does (or does not do) A, B, or C, then he simply is not interested in you. Plain and simple. This concept revolutionized the way women think about dating and relationships. At the same time, Behrendt made it a point to speak to women readers as though they were way too good for this sort of treatment. He refers to the reader as "hot stuff" and "super fox" (corny, I know...but effective!). It causes the woman to feel empowered because she can now pick up on these ques from men, avoid being hurt, and move on as her sexy, confident self to find someone who will treat her the way she deserves to be treated. That's why this book has become so enormously popular and was even turned into a movie. Up until Behrendt revealed this straightforward, simple, "just the way it is" mentality, women would constantly make up excuses and exceptions as to why men treated them certain ways. We just needed someone to show us the light, so to speak.

"He's Just Not That Into You" conveys almost all of the messages that Gauntlett believes is present in women's self-help books: it gives a planned approach to specific life problems (don't waste your time with that loser if he doesn't call you), self-esteem is important (you super fox, you!), don't make excuses (he is NOT intimidated by you, he just doesn't like you), and women have "no problems inside as long as they can be confident; with self-assurance and a positive approach...anything can be achieved" (p. 245). Wow, I could swear that Behrendt read that list before writing his book, haha!

I think that self-help books in general are a good thing for our society. There certainly can be a danger if the author is making unhealthy prescriptions *cough* Oprah and her "new age-ness" *cough* or purposely trying to make bank on people's insecurities (which, I assume is unfortunately an all-too-common occurance). But we as humans are constantly seeking to improve our lives and our happiness, and if self-help books can help achieve that, well than I'm all for it.

2009-10-26T12:22:00.002-04:00

The readings about men's magazines definitely helped me to gain a better perspective on what the men's magazine is all about (which, is a really good thing because I'll be needing that insight for our upcoming paper!). What I found to be particularly interesting is that there doesn't seem to be that huge of a difference between men's and women's magazines. At first glace it would seem that men's magazines and women's magazines are a world apart. Men like cars, women like make-up. Men prefer being communicated through irony and jokes, women enjoy the how-to's, emotionally charged stories, etc. And, I could be wrong about this (I'll have a better idea after doing some more research...) but I tend to get the sense that in the bigger picture, the realm of men's magazines and women's magazines are not all that far apart. And here's why.

Other than content related to hobbies and lifestyle, most magazine content remains the same among men's and women's magazines: relationships, sex, health, money, and oh yeah, sex. The men's magazines are trying to help men understand women, and the women's magazines are trying to help women understand men. For example, men's health magazines help men get the perfect six-pack abs (because women love them, of course) and women's health magazines teach how to put some bounce in that booty (because men love butts, duh!). Okay, so I'm being sarcastic. But my point is that...in my opinion thus far, at least...men's and women's magazines are interconnected in a way.

On a different note - I just want to point something out about men's magazines like FHM and Maxim. First of all, I can't say for sure whether or not I think that these images of women are sexist. I mean, don't we as women also enjoy looking at half-naked men? Anyway, instead of taking an analytical view on these magazines, I kind of want to integrate my personal beliefs into this one. I feel as though I am all too often trying to view media and gender studies through an academic's eyes, and that often overrides my Christian beliefs and values. Sexism and feminism aside, I think that magazines like FHM and Maxim are toxic to our society. As cheesy as this sounds - what would Christ think about these magazines? He'd be appalled, I'm sure. When God created women he did not intend for our bodies to be flaunted on the covers of millions of magazines...especially not for the sole purpose of exciting and arousing men. Whether she is in "control" of the man reading or not - screaming "sex" on the cover of a magazine is not where we as women should be. I believe that it is conveying the idea that it is okay for men to be obsessed with sex. Sex is meant for the sanctity of marriage, and these magazines have broken those boundaries...in a bad way. And yes, women's magazines are guilty of this as well.

Now, I'm not saying that articles about sex are necessarily wrong. Married people should have access to that information if they please (like there will ever be sex articles specifically for married couples...yeah, right!). And one could argue that it is not the magazines who are to blame for this but our sex-obsessed society. Sure, I get that, but there is no denying that these magazines feed that obsession.

Girls Kick Ass

2009-10-22T10:39:00.004-04:00

I could fill an entire page listing female media figures that represent the modern concept of girl power. We've already talked about most of them; Gwen Stefani, Courtney Love, Buffy, Lara Croft...and then of course there's the Spice Girls. I remember holding up a peace sign and repeating "girl power" when I was about 12. I don't even think I knew exactly what that meant, but if Posh Spice did it then it must be cool.

In a way, it's unfortunate to see that feminity has indeed become a product of sorts. Or, it has at least become new form of marketing to young audiences. T-shirts with messages like "girls kick ass" and "girls rule boys drool" are not meant to be political or ideological statements - they are merely a new trend. I personally do not think that that's even arguable because to promote and sell clothes like that in stores where young girls shop (i.e. Justice, which is for girls under the age of 12)...well, clearly we're not aiming to make 8 year old feminists.

And then there are figures like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lara Croft. They are not just female heroes - they are sexified even moreso than most female images on TV and film. Why is that? Is it because we have such a hard time accepting that the female can be the hero that we have to make her as visually appealing as possible?

Now, clearly I have a pretty cynical view of how feminism has been portrayed in the media. BUT - I've got to say, I think it's better than nothing. First of all, I'd rather have young girls being sent some form of message saying that they are strong and empowered than not. And since Buffy and Lara Croft became popular, female heroes are popping up everywhere. Maybe they are still sexified, and who knows if that will every really go away. But I think that the presence of "girl power" within our culture is a step in the right direction, and it seems as though most actors and music artists seem to agree.

I'm just a girl...but what IS a girl?

2009-10-19T12:23:00.001-04:00

As someone who tends to lean towards the social construction of culture, Duke and Wald's article gave me some good insight on the effects that the media can have in shaping concepts of gender. I was particularly interested by the findings in Duke's study - that African American girls generally reject teen magazines due to their lack of "real" girls. The main reason they can overlook the information provided by the media is because their differences separate them from the majority. Even more, African American teenage girls actually have higher levels of self-esteem and more often view themselves as being attractive than White teenage girls.

What really stood out to me and I actually envied was the idea that the African American teenage girls were able to form their identity and "celebrate their 'Blackness'" based on their differences. In other words, instead of trying to conform to what magazines prescribe to teenage girls and letting their differences be a burden of sorts, African American girls embraced their differences and in a way used it against the media. Like I said, I envy that. Sometimes I wish I had something "different" about me that I could celebrate and bond with others over. But instead I'm just another blonde haired, blue eyed, White female who is (what others may view as) a product of the media. I know that that sounds kind of crazy. It's not that I'm not secure in my own identity because I am, it's just that I know I'm being directly targeted by the media, and sometimes I feel like there's nothing I can do to change that.

I was glad to learn that family and community played a large role in shaping the identites of African American girls. And not just because it affirmed my belief that social construction is stronger than media :) I could personally relate to that. I grew up in a very tight-knit family (extremely close to my mother, who is a great female role-model) and a close community in my church. I really do believe that that has shaped my identity more than the media has. I think that these days society is really lacking in having a sense of community, and family for that matter. It seems as though families aren't as stable anymore, and individuality is much more greatly valued than being part of a group. Television, the Internet, and video games have taken away from social interaction. Okay, I'm going off on a tangent now. But my point is that the social construction of culture, more specifically gender, is stronger than many people think. Although media is pretty sneaky in finding ways into our lives, I think that we greatly have control over how much and what types of media replace or social lives.

You know, now that I think about, the "Riot Grrrl" phenomenon that Wald discussed is actually kind of a weird combination of media influence and a social community. Hm. Like, the Riot Grrrl is an image portrayed by female music artists that can certainly influence other females' concept of gender, but at the same time it forms a social bond that is fighting back against the media. Weird. I think I just confused myself way too much. But that thought is causing me to wonder what other media entities result in the same social community...

Okay, back to Duke. I think that the combination of rejecting media and embracing family and community has helped these African American girls arrive at a much more healthy identity and idea of what it is to be beautiful. "In their eyes, personality, attitude, character, and style were the primary elements of real beauty" (p. 289). Later on Duke pointed out that "white girls knew to say reality is better, but their eyes led them back to the ideal - a reality only for the limited few who work hard enough for the look." So what is the difference between the African American girls and the White girls? Well, I guess it's the fact that teen magazines are targeting White girls instead of Black girls. But for me, that's just not good enough. If African American teenage girls can acknowledge that the models and content of these magazines are not "real" - and not just regarding ethnic diversity (but also stories about romance, fashion, etc.) - why can't White girls? I guess that's where the evidence of media construction of gender comes into play, and the ever-important education/awareness of media effects....

The Princess versus the Dutchess

2009-10-13T10:47:00.002-04:00

I found Perry's article "Who(se) Am I?" to be extremely interesting. And as I'm writing this, I still can't decide where I stand on the issue of women in the music industry and how they portray sexuality. Should women hold back their sexuality as to not uphold the stereotype of being sexual objects? Or should womens' sexuality be something they should be proud of and flaunt?

The artist who first came to my mind when I thought about this is Lady Gaga. She blatantly flaunts her sexuality both in her appearance and her songs, but she does so in a way that doesn't seem like she's trying to appeal to the masses. It really seems as though she is simply being herself. I think that the reason for this is that she isn't JUST sexual - she is eccentric, unique, and quite bizarre! She is also very open about her sexuality as being a bisexual woman and her sexual escapades. Maybe it is all just a marketing ploy on her part. If so, I would say it's pretty effective because not only is she getting attention, but people really believe that that is how she is. The perceived authenticity of Gaga's sexuality is what causes it to be so acceptable and even respected by many people.

On the other hand is Britney Spears. Britney flaunts her sexuality just as much as Gaga does. And their music is really not all that different. Yet it seems as though less people would consider Britney to be the "artist" that Gaga is. Why? I would argue that Britney's sexuality seems to be more strategic. Sex sells, and she knows it. From the beginning of her career as a teenager, It appears as though Britney has embraced her sexuality over the years. But has she really embraced it, or is she just doing it for the popularity and recognition that comes along with being a sex sybmol? Most people would argue the latter.

And you know, like I said, Gaga's sexuality may be just as strategic as Britney's. In fact, she may have even done a better job because her strategy of using sex to sell records is more discrete. Whatever the case may be, I personally find it sort of disheartening that this discussion has always been and probably will always be present when it comes to discussing and analyzing women in the music industry (or any industry, for that matter). Whether it's at the forefront of a woman's career or not, sexuality will always be an issue, and that is not the case for men.

relatability or ideology?

2009-10-07T15:52:00.004-04:00

I enjoyed today's reading because it included a lot of feedback from real women regarding how they feel about women's magazines, both the content and the images. I wasn't incredibly surprised to learn that women often pick and choose the information they find relevant within magazines (Gaunlett) because I would tend to agree with that. However, it was very interesting to read women's reactions to photographs of women within these magazines (Dines & Humez).

It seems as though the majority of women do not relate at all to the women they see in these photos. In fact, much of the feedback given showed that some readers actually have disdain for them. There's been plenty of chatter about how magazines rarely portray "real" and relatable women, and that that's what the audience desires, so why is this (below) all we continue to see?

This brings me back to our discussion in class on Tuesday about how the ads in Ms. Magazine were generally driven by ideology rather than the wants of the audience. I think that this is also the case when it comes to photographs of women in magazines. If readers are actively saying that they want to see more realistic images of women, than why wouldn't a profit-driven magazine listen? Maybe because these magazines are more driven by ideology. Think about it - if Vogue had images of size 6 models (which is still thinner than the average American women, mind you) it simply would not be Vogue anymore. And that goes for mostly all magazines, and ad campaigns for that matter.

What makes this ideology so strong? Why are we constantly fed image after image of edgy or seductive or thin or [insert characteristic here] women when audiences are clearly saying that they do not relate to them? Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope that I am, but I think it comes down to the fact that we haven't fully escaped a patriarchal society. And by saying that I am not blaming men. What I'm saying is that we still tend to view a woman's beauty through what men consider to be beautiful. One of the woman that was interviewed in chapter 9 of Gauntlett referred to Berger in saying that "men watch women, and women watch men watching women" (212)....(which, reminds me of the "male gaze" we read about a few weeks ago). I think that we're still stuck in that rut, and I don't know if we'll ever get out.

Women's Magazines = Identity Crisis?

2009-10-06T10:07:00.003-04:00

As much as I enjoy reading most womens' magazines, my biggest concern with them is the (what some might consider to be overwhelming) influx of information provided for women, which I brought up in a previous blog post. I feel like many magazines, in an attempt to break stereotypes of female roles (i.e. housewive), have provided even more roles and characteristics that women should have in order to be a considered a good or successful in society. This can be a good thing for women who can sort through these messages and decide on their own identity, but for other women these messages can cause confusion and discontent if they don't meet all of these expectations. De Santis put it perfectly when saying "[magazine articles] stress the fluidity of female subjectivity, encouraging readers to make themselves over and even construct multiple selves, often to meet the demands and opportunities of prolonged courtship" (Dines and Humez, 120).

This magazine cover provides an example of these messages being sent. On the cover alone, women are told they can "reveal their best body" in one month, achieve "happier, hotter sex," be a "natural beauty" (probably with the use of make-up, of course), and do "at-home health checks." So at one glance women are provided with the idea that they should have a perfect body, sex life, and be their own doctor...all while looking naturally and effortlessly beautiful. Problematic? You decide.

Ouellette also argues that the Cosmo Girl is encouraged to be phony; to create the "illusion of beauty" with things like fake eyelashes and push-up bras. I think that this is definitely an unfortunate fact for women in our society. In fact, we don't even seem to realize that that's what we're doing. It's considered normal to wear high-heels because, duh, we want to appear taller and slimmer. And how dare we leave the house without mascara?! I'll be honest, I often enjoy engaging in these "illusions of beauty," and I think that the majority of females would agree with me. If you take even the most anti-conformist, feminist woman and put her on a make-over show, chances are that she'll be crying at how beautiful she looks and feels when the make-over is complete. Is that a bad thing? Well, yes and no. I'm not going to say that it's natural for women to enjoy these beautification rituals - it is certainly a product of our society, and that in itself is not a bad thing. However, if some women find that they don't fit in or are considered weird if they don't conform to these ideals, then that is problematic. And womens' magazines fit into this equation because they oftentimes prescribe how women should be rather than describe how we actually are. And that, my friends, is why I want to work for a womens' magazine one day and transform it into the amazing resource it can and should be for women around the world! :)

a quick take on "The Monstrous Regiment of Women"

2009-10-04T16:36:00.003-04:00

I was able to watch The Monstrous Regiment.. this weekend, and it was not exactly what I expected. After sitting through the class' discussion on Thursday, I thought I was going to cry myself to sleep after watching it. But that wasn't the case...at all. I've got to be honest in saying that it didn't really affect me that much. I would agree with what Kim said in class - that it was difficult to feel emotion because these women and their beliefs are so distant from my own. It was easy for me to dismiss what they were saying because I know that they are mislead and misinterpreting what Scripture really says.

With that being said, I did feel at least some emotion. I didn't feel as much anger as I had expected, though. The main anger I felt was because of the fact that these women used the Bible to support their skewed beliefs. How dare you tell me that I'm not a godly woman because I want to have a family AND a career? That bothered me.

But more than anger, I felt sad for these women. They made it seem that they were happy with their lives, but how can you be happy with such a lack of freedom? I'm not saying that being a stay-at-home mom is any less important or fulfilling than having a career. In fact, I'm sure there will be a portion of my life where that's what I am, and I think that every woman should have the choice to do that. BUT women should have the choice to do *whatever* they want, even if that includes just being a housewife. I cannot imagine being told and truly believing that I have no other purpose in life than to be a wife and mother. I do believe that that is part of my purpose, but not even close to being all of it. I think it was Elise that mentioned in class how her heart goes out to these women, and I would say that that's what I felt towards them moreso than anger or disdain.

I was talking to my mom about the film (she wasn't able to watch it with me) and she pointed out that the Proverbs 31 woman was no Betty Homemaker. I quickly opened the Bible to read it, and I was so excited to see that this woman was a strong, wise, and busy woman. In addition to taking care of her family, she made and sold clothes (verse 24), and she also bought a piece of land (verse 16). But wait, isn't business and buying real estate only part of a "man's world?" I think not!!

Gender Representation at Bayside High

2009-09-30T12:40:00.005-04:00

Today's reading was about gender representation in television and film. Gauntlett opened the chapter by giving a bunch of statistics about ratios of men to women over the past few decades of television, and basically concluded that men are always the majority, and things haven't changed much over the past decade.

I've got to say that these statistics actually surprised me. I started to think about the television shows that I watched growing up, and I could remember plenty of prominent female characters. However, now that I actually think about it, they weren't prominent at all. The females in mostly all sitcoms are either the wife, daughter, or sister of the main men characters (i.e. Full House - the only females are the children and Uncle Jesse's wife, Becky). And then I started thinking about one of my favorite TV shows growing up - Saved by the Bell. At first I thought, "well at least there were 3 males and 3 females." But then I started thinking a bit more about the roles of those females, and I got sort of discouraged.

First there was Kelly Kapowski, who I desperately tried to identify myself with as a child. She was the most beautiful girl at Bayside, a cheerleader and homecoming queen, and more importantly she was the love interest of Zack Morris. Unfortunately, Kelly's character had little to no actual substance. The audience rarely saw a deeper side to Kelly. The closest we got to actually knowing Kelly was when she had an affair with her older, male boss, yet that just furthered her role as the show's sex symbol.

Then there was Lisa Turtle. Lisa portrayed another stereotype of females. She was the snobbish, materialistic diva. In pretty much every episode Lisa made at least once reference to shopping. She gives the impression that nothing else matters...certainly not the education she was receiving at Bayside. Instead, being beautiful and trendy was her calling in life.

And then there was Jessie Spano. Finally, a feminist character who we can all look up to, right?! Not quite. Yes, Jessie was certainly portrayed as an intelligent, strong-willed female. Yet she was also portrayed as being bossy, stuck-up, and downright crazy at times. Her intelligence and strength as a female was made fun of about 99% of the time. She was the bitch of the show who bossed around her boyfriend AC Slater. She often used the term "sexist pig," in fact. Of course, when push came to shove, he was the only one who could tame her and help her revert back to her "feminine" side.

Talk about a wake-up call! The female stereotypes on Saved by the Bell couldn't be any more blatant, actually. But I've gotta say, it did make the show pretty interesting. However, the fact that I never really picked up on these stereotypes and actually thought that they were normal goes to show just how much these gender-roles are engrained in our minds...especially when we're young. It also shows that it's not just the amount of females present on TV or film that require our attention, but the personality and role that the character is given. Gauntlett points out that things are beginning to progress in this area, such as with Ugly Betty and Charlie's Angels. However I don't think that stereotypes of females are ever going to completely disappear.

Oh Lady O

2009-09-27T14:59:00.002-04:00

All of this talk about feminism brings me back to last semester when I wrote my senior thesis, which was about Oprah Winfrey. Although the focus was not on feminism, I did address issues of intimacy among women, Oprah's influence among women, and her spiritual prescriptions...for women. My point is that talking about Oprah in one way or another can't really be separated from the concept of feminism.

Through the research and writing process, I remember thinking how odd it was that Oprah herself barely mentions issues of feminism and gender roles. She is undeniably one of the most influencial media figures in the world even though as a black female she has gender and race working against her. She has broken down barriers for women and African Americans alike. One of the interesting things that I pointed out in my thesis is how Oprah is so different from how women in society "should" be: she's black, unmarried, childless, and the epitome of a working, career-oriented women. Yet she still finds a way to be relatable to millions of women viewers, a good majority of which are probably stay-at-home moms. In my thesis I argued that this was due to her use of self disclosure and "girl talk," but could there be something more?

It isn't Oprah's means of communication with her audience alone that causes that relatability (uh, not sure if that's a word...). It's the characteristics that result from that communication. In addition to Oprah's determination, strength, and intelligence (which are mostly considered to be male traits) Oprah's viewers see emotion, generosity, and vulnerability in Oprah. For example, most women can relate to the weight battle that they've witnessed Oprah go through for the past 20 years. Oprah herself admitted last year that she is embarrassed that that is still an issue for her; after all of her amazing accomplishments she still struggles with her own body issues.
I wonder why Oprah rarely makes it a point to talk about feminism. Maybe she think that simply talking about womens' issues (i.e. sexual abuse, working moms vs. stay-at-home moms, weight issues, etc.) is enough, and that each woman should make her own decision? That's hard for me to believe, though, because Oprah has no problem making spiritual prescriptions! I personally think that she doesn't address the issue often because it can be a touchy subject, and she might risk causing controversy. Or maybe she just isn't passionate about it? Who really knows...

If I had to guess, and based on her life's experiences, I would think that Oprah falls somewhere between a liberal and social feminist. I mean, she might not necessarily call herself that, but based on van Zoonen's description of liberal and social feminism I see Oprah fitting in somewhere around there. She has broken many stereotypes of woman, and also attained equality with men (although she's definitely a few steps above the majority of men as far as success goes!). She also addresses broader social issues regarding race, class, etc. Although Oprah has not often blantantly addressed issues regarding feminism, I think that her show in itself, being an outlet and realm for women, has helped move feminist issues in the right direction.

Cosmopolitan Magazine - friend or foe of feminism?

2009-09-21T10:18:00.002-04:00

Feminism has got to be one of the most exciting yet confusing topics for discussion. Just when I think I know where I stand, I hear about or read another perspective and completely have to re-evaluate everything I thought I knew. I envy women who can clearly define where they stand on the issue of gender roles in society. I'm probably that female that no feminist would ever want to associate with because I'm just so fickle. I feel as though I'm the reason that there's so much frustration within the feminist community. It'd be much easier if I could just label myself as a liberal or radical or third wave feminist, but I just can't. There are aspects within all of those categories that I can certainly identify with, but others that I am quite opposed to.

Womens' magazines was a topic brought up in both of today's readings. It was pretty much established that womens' magazines generally contain stereotypical feminine topics, such as how to take care of the home, families, emotional matter, etc. Tuchman pointed out that "a woman's magazine is sex-typed in a way that is not true of men's magazines." In other words, many men's magazines can be read by women as well because they contain "American culture" content, whereas women's magazine simply contain female-related content. This is very true. No one would be shocked to see a woman read GQ magazine, but if you see a man reading Redbook then he's either gay or looking for a new way to please his woman (even then, it'd be considered an oddity). But then Cosmopolitan magazine is mentioned, and it almost seems as though Tuchman approves of that publication due to it's content about women in the workplace (although I wouldn't go as far as saying she's a subscriber to the mag...). Gauntlett also talks about how Cosmo was the first magazine to stray from the stereotypical female gender role, and instead it focused on womens' sexuality, freedom, and talk of the workplace. However, he is still critical of Cosmo and basically gives off the idea that it takes a half-assed stance on feminism. Well, that's the impression that I got at least. I think I'd have to agree.

First, let me ask this question: who defines what is or is not considered feminism? Some feminists might argue that Cosmo is just like any other womens' magazine but even worse because the explicit talk about sexuality and images of beautiful women is demeaning. But other feminists could say that the explicitness present in Cosmo is exactly what women need instead of being tied down by society's concept of the ideal, housewife woman. Part of me thinks that Cosmo, Redbook, Glamour, etc. have come a long way with embracing feminist ideas. I've seen articles about "how to get a raise at work" and "when to know you should dump his ass" and so on. These topics don't seem "passive" or "dependent" to me, as Tuchman believes (of course, her article is from the 70's). Sometimes I actually feel empowered after reading a womens' magazine....sometimes.

I am a reader of these womens' magazines, and I actually hope to work for one someday. But that doesn't mean that I don't have my disappointments. Sure, we've progressed somewhat since the days of Betty Homemaker. But is it enough? Something particularly disheartening to me was how Gauntlett talked about Cosmo as being full of contradictions, which I definitely agree with and have always noticed about most womens' magazines. I don't know whether he was being critical or praising the mag in saying this, but I especially agreed with the following: "It is not surprising that the Cosmo woman cannot escape contradiction, as she is expected to be so many things: sexy, successful, glamorous, hard-working; sharp and relaxed in social settings, powerful and likeable at work." At first I thought that the contradictions in these magazines could actually be a good thing in the sense that it is realistic for the magazines to understand these issues that women face. In a way, talk of these numerous expectations might help women try to adjust to the many roles we are required...er, expected of.

However, I think that the expectations these magazines portray are more prescriptive than descriptive. I don't get the impression that these mags' content is about how women really are, rather how we should be or should at least want to be. First of all, it is a known fact that the majority of women are not size 2's with large breasts and perfect skin. Yet how many images of "real" women do these magazines show? They might show women with flaws every once in a while, but not enough to match reality. Most of the time after I read a womens' magazine, I get the impression that I should look a certain way, eat a certain way, have a certain sex life, and...oh yeah, a career might be helpful. In fact, that is one of the reasons I would like to work at one of these publications. Maybe little old me could bring in some ideas that relate to ALL women, not just what we should all aspire to be.

you can gaze at me anytime.

2009-09-16T12:37:00.007-04:00

What I found to be one of the more interesting parts of the reading for today was the concept of the "male gaze," which is probably because I could not shake the image of Edward Cullen from my head. Whether you detest Twilight or not, Edward Cullen is arguably the poster-child for the male gaze. If you have seen the film, you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you haven't, let me explain a bit - about 75% of Edward's communication (especially with Bella) is through his eyes alone. It was almost as though they had formed a relationship with one another before verbally speaking. Edward's gaze lasted throughout the entire film. In fact, many girls would argue that Edward simply wouldn't be Edward if it was not for his dark and mysterious stare. Some may even argue that that's what captured Bella's interest in him so much. I always knew that there was something about Edward that made so many women fall for him (not me, of course....), and I was pretty sure that it had to do with the dark and mysterious vibe that he has. But now it has become clear that that is mostly due to his seductive gaze. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he purposely studied and decided on that aspect of his character...

Based on the fact that I've personally fallen victim to the male gaze, I've got to say that I think Laura Mulvey is pretty much on track with her argument. I especially agree with her idea that people are drawn to "scopophilia, a voyeuristic gaze directed at other people." Mulvey goes on to describe "narcissistic voyeurism - seeing oneself in a primary character and identifying with them." I think that this is certainly one of the main appeals of the Twilight films...especially for those who have read all of the books as well. There is this sense that any one of us girls could be Bella and have Edward fall for us. There is nothing particularly special or extraordinary about Bella so we can, in a sense, put her aside and claim Edward as our own.

In Twilight there is also the sense of the active male and passive female that Mulvey refers to. "Her role is to drive the hero to act the way he does," and this is certainly the case for Bella and Edward. Because of Bella, Edward shows his strength of being able to love a human and surpress his vampire urges and habits. Through Bella, Edward becomes even more so of what every girl dreams of. But like I said - Bella is nothing special, and each girl can easily replace herself into that role of being the one who tames Edward.

Up until now I really viewed Twilight as a mere love story in which Bella and Edward are the stars. In fact, reading the books through Bella's perspective almost made me feel as though she was the main character. But I've got to admit that she is somewhat....disposable. It is Edward who is irreplacable in the story. Sure, Bella goes through her share of transformation because of Edward, but he is viewed as the magical one. It is his mystique and sensuality that the audience reacts to, and it is his gaze that captures the viewer.

...but which came first?

2009-09-13T17:28:00.011-04:00

Let me begin by saying that I, like most girls from my generation, am I huge Disney fan. The Little Mermaid is of course my favorite Disney film, and I've got the home video of me wearing green sweatpants (both legs in one pant leg, "mermaid style") in the bathtub singing along to my Little Mermaid cassette tape to prove it. So you can imagine my dismay when I began reading Giroux' article, which basically ruined my dreams of spending my honeymoon staying in the castle at the Magic Kingdom. Just kiddding....kindofbutnotreally.

I will admit that I actually loved this article...mainly because I hated it. What I mean is that the subject matter truly challenged me, and I sort of love the back-and-forth that's going through my mind right now. The "rational" and overly-optomistic-of-society part of me is thinking "this guy is nutso and completely over-analyzing Disney films." But then there's the student inside of me, who has learned to look at everything as critically as possible....and that part of me agrees with everything Giroux said, and it made me realize that I'll never be able to look at Disney in the same way.

With that being said, I can't help but think that Giroux is placing a bit too much blame on Disney for the racial and gender-role themes present in their films. Look, I understand that Disney is one of the largest and most powerful media corporations in the world. I get that. And I 100% agree that they should be held accountable for the messages that they provide us with. However, the roles and meaning that Disney films portray to the audience are nothing new. The subordination of women and racial stereotyping has had a place in our society long before these Disney films came along.

Giroux, in my opinion, is pretty much spot on with his criticism of these Disney films (I personally was more convinced with his assessments of Aladdin and Pocohontas, and not so much with The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast). And I do believe that Disney's portrayal of race and gender roles is harmful in contributing the the stereotypes we already have in place. It would be naive to think that a media corporation as large and influencial as Disney should not be held accountable for this. But like I just said - these are stereotypes that I believe have already been present in society before Disney came along. And I'm pretty sure that Giroux would agree with that, but I just don't think that he made that a strong enough point in his article. Instead, I came away with the impression that Disney is evil and Disney alone provided us with all of these skewed images and beliefs of race and gender roles.

In the article, Giroux compared Ariel to an anorexic Barbie figure (or something like that). Before I continue, can I just say that I find it very offensive when people refer to a thin person as being anorexic? Anorexia is a disease - not just the result of a vanity laden female. ANYway, this was one of his criticisms that I didn't find incredibly valid, and not because of his use of the anorexic term. The reason it didn't hold ground with me is because the image of Barbie is one that has been around long before The Little Mermaid was even released. Our society has been overwhelemed for decades with the image of the "perfect" woman, complete with a tiny waste, large breast, and curvy hips. This is nothing new. Sure, one could still argue that Disney is portraying Ariel's body shape as the stereotypical "eye candy" of a woman, but isn't that what we as society expect? In fact, isn't that what we desire? I would argue yes.

I belief that this applies to most of the other areas of Disney films that Giroux criticized - Disney used meanings and beliefs already held by society, rather than Disney implementing them onto society. I guess you could say I'm taking a post-structuralist stance on this. With that being said, I will be the first one to admit that many of Giroux' criticisms (especially that of the opening song in Aladdin) are indeed very troubling. I would like to hope and believe that it is not the Disney corporation as a whole that holds these racist views, and that people like Giroux will continue to hold Disney accountable. Although racial and gender based stereotypes have been accepted as being inevitable in our society, we cannot stop being critical of these media portrayals...no matter how much we want to defend our beloved Disney films, in this case!

"it's what separates us from animals"

2009-09-09T15:27:00.004-04:00

My second favorite cartoon of all time has got to be Recess, which I watched faithfully every Saturday morning as a kid (it's second only to Doug, which is in an entirely different category of it's own!). Every episode of Recess provided a glimpse into what culture is and what culture entails. First of all, the kids of the recess playground all shared a set of rules and principles, most of which were put in place by King Bob. According to our reading, that would be an example of hegemony, which Gramsci defines as "a situation where a 'historical bloc' of ruling-class factions exercises social authority and leadership over subordinate classes. This is achieved through a combination of force, and, more importantly, consent" (p. 66). Although the kids sometimes have their qualms with King Bob, they generally abide by his rules without much argument. In addition to the ruling of King Bob, there are also other forms of power within the recess playground, such as the sixth graders having power over the younger grades, and so forth.

What I'd like to focus on most, though, is the ideology that is present on the recess playground. I remembered the perfect episode to illustrate this, titled "Jinxed."

In the very beginning of this episode, we're introduced to the concept of the "kids' unwritten code of honor," which includes rules such as not being a "taker backer," not stepping on cracks, etc. One of these codes, which is what the entire episode is about, is that when you are jinxed you cannot talk until you are unjinxed (which, occurs when someone annouces that you've been jinxed). Anyway, long story short, Gus gets jinxed by the Ashleys and can't talk because of the unwritten code of honor, blah blah blah.

I found this episode to shed light on the concept of ideology, which can be somewhat confusing to understand (especially considering our reading gave about 20 different definitions of it!). According to Gramsci, "ideology is understood in terms of ideas, meanings and practices which, while they purport to be universal truths, are means of meaning that sustain powerful social groups...Ideologies provide people with rules of practical conduct and moral behavior..." (p. 66). Based on that explanation of ideology, I would argue that the "kids' unwritten code of honor" is certainly part of the ideology held by the recess kids. In fact, Gus holds this ideology as being so true that he nearly gets beat up by sixth graders, then caught by Ms. Finster, and the police even show up to take him away! Still, Gus never speaks until TJ unjinxes him.

One of the interesting aspects of ideology is that the group of people following it rarely ask the question of why those are the set of norms. Even in the wake of getting beat up, sent to detention, and taken away by the cops, Gus never questions the code of honor. And because of it, he becomes a hero of the playground in the end.

This episode of Recess and it's portrayal of the concept of ideology can be related to the ideologies we share in today's world. Everywhere we go there seems to be some sort of ideology, whether we realize it or not. It can be in the form of politics, religion, etc. etc. And all cultures have it one form or another. I don't think that there's necessarily anything inherently bad about ideologies as a whole, but I do think that it's very important to be aware that they are very much present within our society. I also believe that ideologies can be dangerous depending on who puts them in place and why. So being aware of the existence of ideologies can help us to make our own decisions about what we believe is right and true. Although, I probably would've done the same thing that Gus did because we all know how brutal kids at recess can be...!

music snob?

2009-09-07T12:12:00.009-04:00

You know, the more I read about cultural studies, I realize how dead-on I was in naming this blog "It's All Relative." So far, pretty much every aspect of cultural studies totally confuses me because I can't help but think it all comes down to what perspective you're looking at it from, and I really hate that. My main concern with taking this course has been that I get really frustrated when I don't know what the answer or solution to a particular question/problem is. And the more I read about cultural studies, the more discouraged I seem to become! But maybe that's a good thing. Maybe some things in life really do just come down to what perspective you're viewing it from.

One of the sections in the reading addresses the issue of taste and aesthetic value within culture, which is kind of what I touched on in my previous post. The example used in the reading was soap operas versus fine art, or something like that. My mind automatically began to compare soap operas to the Mona Lisa, and I questioned which is a "real" form of art. Most people would argue that the Mona Lisa is, but why? Is it because that's what their culture has told them? Or because it's "weird" looking so it must be fine art? Or maybe it's because they're embarassed to admit that they're an avid One Life to Live fan. Although (as a former actor) I can't say I'm the biggest fan of soap operas, I would argue that they are indeed a form of art. Maybe not as "good" as the Mona Lisa, but who am I to say that? What constitutes art (or music, literature, etc.) to be "good" or "bad?"

Although some might not consider the arts to be as important as other aspects of culture such as religion and politics, I personally consider it to be a crucial part of culture and of humanity as a whole. Something that I tend to struggle with is being (what I refer to others as, but certainly not myself, haha) a music snob or a movie snob. For example, I like to think that I listen to "good" music, but do I consider it "good" because that's what I personally like listening to? Or do I consider it to be good because of the instrumental and lyrical value? For me, it's a little bit of both. I truly enjoy listening to and learning about music that is unique, beautiful, and challenging. So does that mean that my music preference is better than someone who listens to the Pussycat Dolls or LFO? Well.....yes and no :)

That's where my struggle is. A huge part of me thinks that MY music is better for a myriad of different reasons. But the person who listens to LFO could make a similar argument (...I guess). And then there's the question of entertainment value when it comes to music. While I am entertained by bands like the Smiths and the Arcade Fire, someone else might find it boring and/or "weird." And I am also entertained by artists like Lady Gaga and Britney Spears, which some MUSIC SNOBS might consider a travesty. Hm....I think I may have just answered my own question...

Bottom line: I certainly believe that some music (and films) carry with them a more advanced artistic value. But, I cannot bring myself to say that certain forms or art are better than others because, well, it's all relative. And, it's all a part of culture. For something to be a part of culture doesn't mean that it has to be the "Mona Lisa" of it's particular category. This is along the lines of the stance that Raymond Williams took when it came to the nature of culture - "...it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings" (page 41). Now I know that I'm stretching it a bit by using music as the example because by "traditional" Williams is referring to the working man's everyday life patterns, but at least I know what I'm talking about (haha). I guess my point is that no aspect of culture is necessarily better or "more cultured" than another. Or, at least I think so....?? Ugh.

Anyway, to illustrate my thoughts, here are two songs/music videos to check out. I'll let you notice the difference. Which do you prefer?

turning over a new leaf.

2009-09-02T12:32:00.006-04:00

Hi! And welcome to my new and improved blog. My name is Gracie. I started this blog about a year ago for personal use, which never happened, so it ended up being recycled into a film blog for a course called Art of Film. Please don't even bother reading those posts because to be completely honest, they're crap. I really didn't put the time and effort into them that I should have (I can say that now because I already got my grade in that course, haha!). So now this blog is going to be recycled yet again...even though the original title of "sassy and classy" doesn't exactly relate to the new subject matter :) Actually, I guess it could, if I really wanted to dig deep into how our culture defines the word "classy," and how it's generally used to describe a particular type of woman, but we'll save that for another time.

This blog will now be dedicated to material related to the media and cultural studies, i.e. race, class, gender, etc. etc. I'm really going to try to relate my posts to issues that I am personally interested in, which can range from politics to pop culture to religion to how to find the perfect pair of jeans. Oh, and p.s., my writing style is usually pretty conversational, so I am very aware that the past sentence was a very hideous run-on.

Okay, let's get to business. I just finished reading Barker's introduction to cultural studies, and it was incredibly boring. Informative, but boring. One of the general themes throughout the whole chapter, and of cultural studies in general, is the idea that social meaning is created through symbols and signs, aka language. This is a concept that I first learned in a Communication Across Cultures course, and it really changed my entire perspective of the concept of communication. Sure, communicating with other cultures is a difficult task, but it just amazes me how communication between human beings has evolved into what it is today. Whether it's words or numbers or hand gestures...every single "form" of communication we have has in one way or another been created by humankind. And then to top that off, different cultures have their different ways of communicating meaning, and, sometimes the meanings are all together different. Does that make sense? Well, here are some illustrations to sort of show one of the many aspects of how meaning is created through communication, rather than being universally static.

The picture above (from http://www.flickr.com/) is a portrait of a Venetian woman from the 16th century. She is clearly overweight and pale. Sorry for the bluntness, but it's true. That is what was considered to be beautiful during that time. Being overweight signified that one was healthy and had plenty to eat, which meant that they were rich. Being thin, however, showed that one did not have enough to eat, and hence they were most likely poor. Also, being as light-skinned as possible was considered beautiful, and (I believe) that dark skin was associated with slavery. (FYI, I didn't exactly research that last paragraph, it's all going off knowledge I've gathered over the years. So please correct me if I'm wrong!!)

Obviously we all know who is in the picture above. It's the dutchess of pop herself, Britney Spears. Yes, I am a fan, get over it. Britney is pretty much the posterchild for what we consider "beautiful" today. She is thin, tan, and promiscuous (I was actually thinking about showing a picture of Paris Hilton because she is even more thin and tan, but she's also kind of fug if you ask me). Anyway, my point is that over the last few centuries, the concept of what is beautiful has changed drastically. And changes like that take place all around us, all of the time. What do we consider to be good, or evil? What does it really mean to be smart, or successful? And my personal favorite, what does it mean to be politically correct?

It just goes to show you that communication between society is an evolving process, and many (including myself) would argue that the mass media plays a huge role in that. Hopefully through keeping this blog and taking this course I will be able to learn and uncover even more about this process! That's all for now, ta-ta.

(image of Britney Spears is from Rolling Stone Magazine, found it on a google image search)

Citizen Kane - Pros and Cons

2008-12-09T14:04:00.003-05:00

Hearing everyone's take on Citizen Kane definitely helped me to realize why I liked it. I also realized some things that I didn't like.

First of all, earlier I mentioned that I like the choppiness of the film. I realized that I also like the fast-paced-ness...we basically saw Kane's entire life within a two hour time frame. Grace pointed out a particular scene that I loved - when we saw Kane and his first wife Emily go through what seems like years of meeting for breakfast (umm, dinner?). I thought that that was really neat because it showed the decline of their marriage as well as Kane's transformation into a workaholic of sorts within a few short minutes. I like when things 'get to the point,' so to speak, so that's why I really enjoyed that scene.

A lot of people mentioned that they didn't like Kane's character...especially towards the end of the film. I still can't say how pleased I am with the character development. On one hand, it was interesting to see his decline without a specific reason given. It left me asking "what the heck happened that made him this way?" And sometimes I like when a movie makes me think like that. On the other hand, it kind of irks me that no reason was given for his decline! Like, what was the theme of the film? What was the point?! I think it was Lee that brought this up, and I have to agree with him in a sense. It was also brought up how the movie doesn't really make sense unless the viewer has an understanding of the historical context, and that is a good point. If I didn't have background information than I probably would have hated the film...

During class I realized another thing that I didn't like about Citizen Kane...it was all textuality and no presence. Not once did I feel emotionally moved or drawn to any of the characters. Maybe this is what Welle's intended - especially with his cold portrayal of Kane toward the end of his life. Maybe he didn't want us to have sympathy. Still, I would like to have felt at least some emotional pull. For me, that is (generally) crucial when it comes to whether or not I like a film.

However, I've still got to say that Citizen Kane is a great film. I appreciated it, and I can understand why it continues to be recognized as one of the greatest films of all time. I mean, movie buffs and critics tend to think they're more legit for liking bizarre films, so I'll give them this one!

Citizen Kane

2008-12-03T14:08:00.004-05:00

I went into this movie thinking....no, knowing that I would hate it. I didn't think I would be able to even appreciate it, let alone be entertained by it. However, to my surprise, I actually really enjoyed Citizen Kane.

The best word I can think of to describe Citizen Kane is fun. I genuinely enjoyed watching it. The choppiness of the film made it exciting and fascinating. I really appreciated the fact that Welles had no concept of the typical Hollywood film because it made for a very new and thrilling experience. I loved the opening "news flash" (or whatever it was) about Kane's life. It totally threw me off and left me guessing how the rest of the film was going to flow.

My favorite part of the film was definitely the architecture. I've always had some weird obsession with large and elaborate buildings/palaces, and the influx of this in the film really caught my attention from the onset. Xanadu made my eyes happy, to say the least!

Welles did a magnificent job as Kane. His development as a character was especially intriguing to watch. The way he portrayed Kane was so precise that it makes it seem though he didn't trust anyone other than himself to take on the role.

And then there's rosebud. I really didn't think that we were going to find out what rosebud meant, so towards the end of the film I was itching to come home and google the possible meanings!! I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it was the sled (which was very clever!) but at the same time I was kind of hoping for a little bit of mystery to hold on to.

Overall, I really did enjoy Citizen Kane. I kind of still can't believe it because I was so set on hating it! I guess I must have a good taste in movies after all :)

so what IS film noir?

2008-11-25T09:43:00.002-05:00

Film noir was an interesting genre to study because it's one that sort of slips under the radar. What's particularly interesting about it is that it isn't really a genre at all - it's more of a film style. This was especially apparent to me after viewing Blade Runner, which is genre-wise more of a science-fiction. It was also the case with Double Indemnity, which isn't completely a comedy, but it definitely has some components of a comedy film (as did Touch of Evil, now that I think about it).

After watching Double Indemnity, I thought I knew all there was to know about film noir. That film, in my opinion, is the ideal example of a film noir because it is a blatant display of the 'good guy gone bad' because of the 'femme fatale' and their suspensful crime story with twists and turns. But then after watching the other films, I realized that there are actually many more components that go into what makes a film noir. Our discussion in class about 'what is film noir?' was certainly helpful in showing me what is/isn't crucial in a film noir. Whether this agrees with that or not, here is my list of what defines a film noir (listed from most to least important!):

- a dark and shadowy feel (both visually and figuratively)
- suspenseful story (usually crime-related)
- a flawed/imperfect hero
- a femme fatale (she doesn't neccesarily have to have bad intentions, but she may simply be a weakness for the hero)
- dramatic music
- a city setting
- smoking/alcohol consumption
- flashbacks
- narration

This list is clearly much shorter than the one we compiled in class, but I think that these components (especially the first three) are absolutely crucial for a film noir.

Something I've also been thinking about is that film noir generally have a gloomy, almost depressing feel to them. Even the comedies are...dark. And it's almost like everything going on is a secret from the outside world; there's always someone hiding something.

This is just a guess, but I think that maybe film noir came as a reaction to the happy-go-lucky films that preceeded it. People were sick of everything always being perfect and having a happy ending, and this was especially the case after the Depression and WWII took place. Film noir kind of gave an outlet for people to see the corruption in other people's lives.

As I mentioned earlier, film noir was really an interesting (sub)genre to study. Even though film noirs are still being made today, I think that the style still goes very unnoticed! I'll definitely be keeping my eyes open for film noirs from now on!

The Man Who Wasn't There

2008-11-20T12:32:00.003-05:00

I watched The Man Who Wasn't There on my own time for our study of film noir. I can't say that I enjoyed it very much, although I did appreciate it. It was definitely a great example of film noir, which is exactly what the Cohen brothers were going for. It was almost humorous because it was like there was a blatant overload of film noir aspects.

First of all, this very recent film was very purposely in black and white. Secondly, there was a good deal of narration throughout the film. There was also the expected shadowy darkness throughout the majority of the film, cigarette smoking, a "suspenseful" plot with many twists, an imperfect lead character, etc. Basically everything we went over in class last night to describe film noir was present in this film! However, I found it to be quite dull and boring. I think that the Cohen brothers were kind of striving for that, so I can appreciate it, but I prefer to have some sort of entertainment when I watch movies!

Billy Bob Thorton did a good job as being the "harmless barber" who got caught in a string of unfortunate events, but there was nothing likeable about his character. I didn't even care when he...well...I don't want to give away the ending! Although I obviously just did...

As I mentioned, I appreciated this film for its use of the film noir style, but I can't say that I found it to be an enjoyable experience. In fact, I'm glad that I got to watch it on my own time so I could "accidentally" miss a few minutes of it while I got food from the kitchen or browsed the internet...

Blade Runner

2008-11-19T15:05:00.003-05:00

Loved it! Blade Runner is one of those films I probably wouldn't have seen if it weren't for film class, and I'm so glad that I did. At first I was thinking, how can a science fiction film possibly have a film noir style? But it definitely did. The music, lighting, cigarettes and alcohol - they all pointed to film noir. In fact, I picked up on the style at the very beginning of the film when Deckard was interrogating one of the replicants because interrogations are definitely a charactersitic of film noir.

If it weren't for the film noir style, Blade Runner would probably just be another forgettable science fiction film. Clearly that is something that Ridley Scott tries to avoid (Alien is one of my favorite films...and it is far from forgettable!). The concept of combining science fiction with film noir is so bizarre - I still can't quite figure out how it worked - but it did! Scott definitely took a risk with Blade Runner, and I'm glad he did.

As much as I loved a younger Harrison Ford (was he really 40?!), I'd have to say that my favorite character was Pris, played by Daryl Hannah. She was so creepy yet cute at the same time. The same goes for Roy...why do the bad guys always have to be so darn handsome? He really creeped me out towards the end with the howling and what not. I was pleasantly surpised when he saved Deckard's life. It made me a feel a little less guilty for rooting for him during the fight scene, haha!

Overall, Blade Runner was not only entertaining, but also a great example of an off-beat film noir.

Touch of Evil. Ew.

2008-11-13T15:04:00.002-05:00

I hated Touch of Evil. Hated it!! In fact, I hated it so much that I don't know if I can say that I even appreciated it. It was choppy. It was boring. I felt like I was watching a circus freak show. Now, normally I would enjoy watching a circus freak show, but the weirdness stopped short of being entertaining so it was just...weird. And boring. It was like a mix between freak show and normalcy. I needed more freak show. And then there was the fast-pace/choppiness of the film. It made it seem like Welles was trying to make a boring plot more exciting by making it so hard to follow, but I just found it to be bothersome and unexciting

Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I need someone to explain to me the "brilliance" in Touch of Evil...because all I know is that it was probably the worst movie-watching experience of my life. I feel like it's one of those films that people don't actually enjoy, but they pretend to enjoy it because they feel like they are supposed to. Like "oh it's so artistic, and Orson Welles is a genius, so I must like it!" Well sorry, but you can't fool me.

Double Indemnity

2008-11-12T16:34:00.002-05:00

Double Indemnity was definitely a great film to kick-off our study of 'film-noir.' I loved it!! After watching both Casablanca and Double Indemnity I can safely say that I absolutely love classic Hollywood films. In fact, I feel like I've been missing out because I always assumed that they'd be well, boring. But it turns out that I love the simplicity and glamour that classic Hollywood films present....especially the typical love story between the "man's man" and the beautiful, classy woman. Gets me every time...

Anyway, Double Indemnity was just...delightful! The mixture of suspense, drama, and comedy kept me engaged the entire time, which isn't an easy task. I especially loved Fred MacMurray's role of Walter Neff. You could almost tell that he was purposely exaggerating every "baby" and kiss with Phyllis, and I appreciated his sense of humor. I was not as enthused by Barbara Stanwyck's portrayal of Phyllis - until the twist came at the end. I totally understood that casting decision at that point in the film! Because it was like (hate to say this but)...I always thought she was kind of ugly and she just covered it up well, but then her ugliness just showed through completley when I realized what a tramp she was! And speaking of the twist, I certainly was not expecting it, but I was thrilled by it. It took the film to a whole different level...perhaps a 'film-noir' level? I can't say I've read the Keith Grant handout yet, so I'll get back to that question...

So far I can definitely say that I think 'film-noir' is more of a style than a genre - especially since Double Indemnity could be considered part of a few different genres. So far, I would say that 'film-noir' generally adopts a very shadowy and mellow dramatic feel - both of which I really enjoyed.

Cinematic Excellence

2008-11-11T09:43:00.003-05:00

So the question is, what makes a film great? Some people would argue that it must be entertaining. Others would argue it's aesthetic value. Some might even determine a film's greatness by the actors. Maybe a film's greatness is simply found in the eye of the beholder. I can't say that there is one single aspect of a film that makes it great, rather it's a combination of many things. So here it goes. To be truly great, a film must:

- As I just mentioned, good acting is crucial. To me, acting can literally make or break a film. I'm not saying a film must have A-list stars (in fact, sometimes that can actually take away from a film), but character developement and relationships must be engaging, or I'll often tune myself out of the film.
- Cinematography. This has always been one of my favorite aspects of film, but I just never knew what it was! As with acting, cinematography can make or break a film. This was especially the case in Diving Bell.
- It must innovative. No one wants to see something that has been done before (*cough* sequels). For a film to be great it must either address a new issue/event or address it in a way that hasn't been done before.

Now, this is quite a short list, and I plan on adding to it in the future, but this is all I can really think of right now. I was going to add historicity, but then I realized that I don't think a film neccesarily has to be historically accurate to be great. I was also going to add genre, but after seeing Do the Right Thing I think genre is actually quite overrated...

Anyway, I would say that these criteria are timeless and universal when it comes to the greatness of a film. However, there is no denying that there is additional criteria that changes with the times and the culture. For example, within the past decade we've witnessed an age of the "mythical film," which began with Lord of the Rings, and led us to Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, Pan's Labyrinth, and so forth. Now, I wouldn't consider all of those films to be great, but a huge chunk of the population probably would.

I guess my point is that the definition of 'greatness' is in a way timeless and ever-changing at the same time. I know that that is contradictory, but that's how our society is! And, that's how films are. Film is art, and directors are constantly trying to push the envelope and introduce new, innovative, and even controversial movies. So to say that there is one definition or set of criteria for a great film is naive.

As I mentioned, I do plan on editting this post in the near future. "What makes a film great?" is a question that I never really thought about much, and now I can't stop thinking about it! Hopefully I'll find that answer throughout the rest of this semester...

Casablanca

2008-10-28T22:26:00.002-04:00

What can I say? Casablanca was phenom. Before watching it I had no idea of the genre, plot, or characters. All I knew was that it was supposedly really good, it starred Humphrey Bogart, and that the line "here's lookin' at you, kid" was in there some place or another. Unfortunately hearing that line 43584782 times before kind of took away it's impact, but whatev. That's my own problem I guess.

As a girl, I'm always a sucker for a good romantic film, and seeing Ilsa's eyes swell up at the sight of Rick did me in right then and there. Coming away from Casablanca, the love story is what made it so brilliant to me. Although I lovedlovedLOVED the film personally, I can't really understand why it is considered one of the greatest films of all time. I mean, I would certainly consider it that, but I wouldn't quite think that generations of movie buffs would as well. Usually the "brilliant" films are ones that are either a) incredibly visually appealing/artistic or b) socially relevant. Casablanca wasn't really either of these, in my opinion. It was, however, a film with great acting, character developement, and an interesting plot. So, since when is that enough to make it one of the greatest films of all time? My vote is for Humphrey Bogart.

Unfortunately I haven't yet done the reading on historicity or whatever, but I'm kind of glad I didn't. It allowed me to view the film without searching for this-or-that, and I was able to really appreciate Casablanca for its greatness as whole.

Raging Bull - Initial Reaction and A Closer Look

2008-10-23T13:44:00.001-04:00

I will say off the bat that I really enjoyed Raging Bull. I didn’t think that I would like it at first because I generally (aka always) don’t like sports movies, but it wasn’t just a film about boxing. I think Robert De Niro did a fantastic job portraying Jake La Motta. I really got the impression that Jake was his own worst enemy. I can’t think of any part in the movie where I actually sympathized for him. He had such a great life going for him – success in boxing and a family that he loved – yet he gave it all up. But for what? That’s something I still can’t seem to answer. What the heck was it that caused Jake to let go of everything good in his life? Maybe he thought that he didn’t deserve it. I really don’t know.

This film was definitely a good one to watch for the purpose of studying editing. First of all, there’s the fact that the entire film was in black and white. I can’t really figure out why Scorsese decided to do that, though. Maybe its because it gave more of a “gloomy” feel. Or maybe that’s how Jake saw the world around him – in black and white.

I also liked the close up shots, mainly in the love scene between Jake and Vicky. It really caused me to be drawn into the lives of the characters. This was also the case when Jake was fighting. It was almost like the close-up shot got me into the head of Jake La Motta. What the heck is going through his mind when he is fighting? Sometimes I thought that he didn’t even care if he killed the other fighter, or even if he killed himself. The final fight scene where he let the other fighter hit him was very effective. The slow motion shot caused me to think “what the heck is he doing? Why isn’t he fighting back?!” That question was answered, of course, when he told the other fighter, “you couldn’t get me down.” It was almost like a pride issue. Jake wanted to know that he was in some weird way…unbreakable.

As far as continuous versus disjunctive editing – I would say that Raging Bull included both. The film was basically the sequence of a few decades of La Motta’s life (continuous), but at the same time there were a lot of abrupt scene changes (disjunctive). There was also the scene that basically fast-forwarded through 10 years, and it almost seemed like we were watching home videos. I really liked that because it gave me a sense of reality. It also made me think “hey maybe things will work out for Jake after all.” Obviously that didn’t happen. I would consider that sequence to be disjunctive, but I’m not sure if that’s correct!

And then there’s the acting/character development, which I don’t feel like spending much time talking about! All I’ll mention is that Vicky’s character was…interesting. It really bothered me how indifferent she was to EVERYTHING around her (or at least that’s how she came off). But I think that that made the film even more intriguing because she wasn’t the typical housewife/trophy wife. Even though Jake was clearly nutso, I feel like Vicky didn’t do anything to change it. She didn’t even try. At some points I couldn’t blame her, but at other times I just wanted to scream at her for not snapping some sense into him. That’s what wives are supposed to do, right? :)

Overall, good film. Good editing. Liked it.

Mis en scene in 'Do the Right Thing'

2008-10-13T16:31:00.002-04:00

In my last post I mentioned how the characters' brightly colored clothing caught my attention. I also mentioned how this was somewhat misleading because many of the characters were violent and corrupt. Let me expand on that. First of all, the bright colors gave a fun and happy feeling to the neighborhood, but in reality it is wrought with racism and hatred (which is most evident during the fight/riot scenes). Secondly, the clothing seemed like something little kids would wear. That, combined with the fact that no one besides Mookie seemed to actually have a job, caused me to think that the majority of the characters didn't really want to grow up. They just wandered around the neighboorhood all day, oftentimes looking to get into some sort of mischief (i.e. the fire hydrant, picking on the mayor, boycotting Sal's, etc.).

After viewing the fight/riot scenes again, something that really stuck out to me was the social blocking. During the fight in Sal's restaurant, you see almost every character piled on top of each other in one shot. I can't say for sure what the significance of this was, but it gave me the feeling that all of the tension and underlying racism just exploded. Everyone was unloading their frustrations, which had been building and building up until this point (especially Pino's). The blocking was also significant when Mookie and Jade were sitting next to one another on the street corner watching the riot take place. To me it signified that they realized there was nothing they could do. The riot was still taking place, and people were still running all around them, but they separated themselves and sat in disbelief.

The scene where the cops kill Radio Raheem is particularly disturbing the second time around. The use of the nightstick as the murder weapon definitely made a difference because it shows more of the intention of the policeman. I'm not saying that the cop knew and/or wanted Radio Raheem to die, but it seemed like more of a personal, hands-on attack than if he were to shoot him with a gun (not that using a gun would have been any more civil, but I would think it would be easier to accidentally kill someone that way). My point is that the nightstick as a prop definitely intensified the scene.

I won't even try to get into the racism aspect of the film because even though we had an hour long conversation on it in class, I'm still not sure where I stand or what to think. I do know that I believe Spike Lee's intention with this film was to raise questions rather than answer them, and he did so very effectively.

'Do the Right Thing'

2008-10-08T15:59:00.003-04:00

I haven't heard much about this film, so I didn't know what to expect going into it. I wasn't sure if it was a comedy, a drama, or what....and in fact, I still don't really know what genre it would categorized in. When it first started, I got a 'Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' feel (who knew Rosie Perez could dance like that?!), but it turned out to be much, much more.

The colors of the film were probably what stuck out to me the most. Everyone was dressed so colorfully - even the most violent of people. These bright colors were misleading of the neighborhood as a whole, which was obviously quite corrupt.

I do remember thinking a few times, "what's the plot?" But all of those questions were answered towards the final scenes of the film. I can honestly say I wasn't expecting the fight/riots that took place. But then thinking back, I'm not entirely surprised that it happened.

How the film ends is very disheartening because it shows that everything in the neighborhood goes back to the way it was, which makes me think that another riot is going to happen sooner or later.

While Do The Right Thing wasn't particularly the most enteraining film I've ever seen, I'm definitely glad I saw it. The social implications of the film are still extremely relevant today, and Spike Lee was very successful at conveying that message.

A Closer Look at 'The Godfather'

2008-10-07T11:55:00.002-04:00

Unfortunately I was unable to make it to Wednesday's class, so I missed out on the discussion about The Godfather. I'm sure everyone missed my input! :)

I mentioned in the last post how much I appreciated the mis en scene in The Godfather, so let me expand on that a bit more. One thing I totally forgot to mention was how excited I was to finally see the horse's head in Jack Woltz's bed!! I really don't have a sick mind, I swear, but I've just heard so much about this scene and seen so many parodies of it in the past. It was even more shocking than I had imagined, and I loved it!

Another thing that made The Godfather particularly enjoyable was that is was one of the only movies I've ever seen where I didn't separate the character from the actor. Since I used to be an actor myself, it's second nature for me to analyze the acting of a film rather than becoming engaged in the characters. This was not the case. What is even more suprising is that many of the actors were well-known, which makes it even more difficult for me to take their characters completely seriously, but I still forgot that Michael was Al Pacino and that Tom Hagen was Robert Duvall. This may be due to the fact that they aren't as recognizable to me in their younger years, but nonetheless it was a refreshing change of pace for me.

On the same note, The Godfather is one of the only films that I did not textually analyze throughout the entire three hours. In fact, I don't think I did much textual analyzation at all! This is very unlike me, but I really enjoyed it. I usually get really antsy when a movie gets to the two hour mark, but the three hours of The Godfather seemed to fly by without any boredom ensuing.

Back to the mis en scene. I really loved the sequence of scenes that took place in Siciliy. It was a flash of light and nature as opposed to the dark, city life that took up the majority of the film. It also really helped to develop Michael's character - especially seeing him fall in love and then tragically lose his wife. It almost justifies his decision to really delve into the "family business." The fact that the setting was in Siciliy made it seem like it was Michael's last chance to escape the horrors of New York City. He was in a beautiful safe-haven (which we learn isn't so safe after all) with a beautiful woman. He could've had a whole new life, but the trouble followed him and forced him back into a life of violence and crime. The film would not be as effective if it were not for this change in scenery.

So there ya have it. I'm tempted to watch The Godfather II and III, but has anyone seen them?! I don't want to ruin the greatness that I was left with after the original...

The Godfather

2008-10-01T13:35:00.002-04:00

The Godfather has got to be one of the most popular films in American history. Heck, even my mom said it was one of her favorite movies. I really appreciate a film that can gain critical acclaim yet still be entertaining and popular the general population at the same time. The Godfather is proof that a movie doesn't have to be boring or difficult to follow in order to be considered a great film.

Because we're beginning to study mis-en-scene I made it a point to pay attention to that at least a little bit. What I picked up on the most was the everyday happenings that would go on all around the Corleone family - Connie's wedding, New York City during Christmas, the stop in Chinatown (which very obviously turned violent) - it really made me feel like the Corleone's were just another family with their own little business. In fact, I am almost jealous of the bond and love that is present within the family. It was sometimes hard to remember that Don Vito was actually responsible for the murder of so many people because he just seemed like a nice old man at so many points in the film. Basically the mis-en-scene is what made the film seem so realistic because the Corleone's didn't come off as some evil family lurking in New York City - the seemed like a normal, loving family.

I feel like I've accomplished an important task in life by finally watching The Godfather. And I've also fallen in love with Al Pacino circa 1972!

Apocalypse Now - Presentation or Representation?

2008-09-30T09:28:00.001-04:00

It’s been about a week since I first watched Apocalypse Now, and I still can’t seem to answer one of the most pressing questions: was it a film about presentation or representation? I know there’s no right or wrong answer to this, but I can’t seem to settle on one or the other. Would it be a cop out to say that it was both presentation and representation? I feel like it is. So here is what I’m thinking.

I first thought this film to be more of a representation of the Vietnam War. The emphasis on the characters and their inner struggles with sanity are what made me feel this way, in addition to the overall lack of actual war/battle scenes.

But then on last Wednesday night’s class we watched a clip from Hearts of Darkness where Coppola said something about how the film “is a film about Vietnam/War”….in other words, it was more of a presentation. As soon as he said that I thought, hey, he’s the director…maybe I should listen to him! And then it made me think about the fact that Vietnam was a war that led to insanity and uncertainty among the soldiers. It wasn’t just these select few that we watched – it was a widespread event. I mean, it has pretty much been established that Vietnam was a pointless and unjust war, so the emphasis on those brutal, and in my opinion unfair battles was not merely what Coppola wants us to think happen. It really did.

So which is it?! Since this is my blog, I’m going to go ahead and admit that I still haven’t settled on an answer. I’m also not going to apologize for the lack of commentary on the cinematography because I simply can’t get the presentation/representation battle out of my head!

Speaking of which, I will say that after reviewing cinematography of the last scene of the film on Wednesday definitely gave me a whole way of thinking about the film. It really was a fight of good against evil….and the war brought that out in people. It’s not just the soldier’s sanity that was being threatened, but their judgment of what is right in the world. The shadow that almost overcame Willard’s face showed me that he was *this* close to becoming what Kurtz had become, which caused me to actually sympathize for Kurtz.

All I can say is that I’m glad the film ended the way it did because it meant I didn’t watch “the horror” for two and half hours in vain!

Apocalypse Now

2008-09-24T13:36:00.004-04:00

So I *thought* I had seen this film before, but embarrassingly enough it was The Deer Hunter that I was thinking of (duh!). It was a pleasant surpise to find out about halfway through that I was actually watching a film I'd never seen before!

I've heard a lot about Apocalypse Now, and it did live up to the expectations I had for it. The cinematography was indeed brilliant. It was a perfect film to watch after The Diving Bell and the Butterfly because it shows a completely different aspect of cinematography. While Diving Bell was all about the point of view shot, Apocalypse Now revealed much wider, larger shots. The colors are what captured my eyes the most. Different scenes had different color hues, such as the first war scene, which had an orange-y glow to it (I actually noticed this before you pointed out the "blue" jungle scene, Kevin!). I also loved the colorful flares throughout the film. I don't exactly know what the significance was behind them, but I found them to be beautiful bursts of color among a war-consumed Vietnam.

The scene that was most effective for me was when the multitudes of helicopters headed to claim their next village. The black shadows of the helicopters all in a row gave me the impression of a swarm of locusts headed to engulf their next meal. And, sure enough, I was right.

There's so much more that caught my eye: the sweat dropping off Willard's nose, the crescent of Kurtz's face when we are first introduced to him, the appearance of a Kurtz's "kingdom"....these are just some of the images that keep running through my mind when I think of this film.

Oh, and let me just say that my favorite character in the film by far was Lieut. Colonel Kilgore played by Robert Duvall. I can't help but think his portrayal of Kilgore was exactly what Coppola wanted. His character alone was one of the factors that caused this film to go from being one of presentation to representation, and that is basically summed up when he refers to the villagers as "f**king savages."

Overall, Francis Ford Coppola does a tremendous job giving a presentation and his representation of the Vietnam war, and a good deal of this is done through the cinematography.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - a closer look

2008-09-22T16:24:00.005-04:00

After spending the last week studying cinematography, I can honestly say that it's something I've taken for granted. I especially realized this after viewing The Diving Bell and the Butterly and Visions of Light (as boring as it was!). I've learned that cinematography isn't just how the movie is filmed - it can change the entire aesthetic of the film and how we, the audience, interpret it. Although much importance still lies in the writing and overall story of a film, cinematographers are the true artists behind it all, in my opinion. Cinematography can truly make or break a film.

In The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the use of the point of view shot from the very onset set the stage for the rest of them film. It was definitely a risk to be taken, but it could not have been more effective. The use of that shot for about the first quarter of the film also causes the audience to feel incredibly connected to Jean-Do before we even see his face. In some sense, I felt like I was Jean-Do. As people spoke to him, such as when Celine first came to visit, their faces went in and out of frame, which gave a us a very realistic feel of Jean-Do's constraints. The framing also gave the feel as though people were looking at him like he were a caged animal. This gave me an even further sense that Jean-Do was truly trapped in his own body. This is a very frightening thought - one that I'm sure that Julian Schnabel and Janusz Kaminski wanted to convey to the audience.

I also really enjoyed the outdoor scenes, such as on the beach and in the boat. I can't think of a better setting to represent freedom and beauty. As Jean-Do sits motionless and alone in his wheelchair with the vast beach around him, we get an even better idea of how trapped he is. The wideness of the shot makes Jean-Do appear even smaller and helpless. It must have been particularly difficult for him to sit there unable to run across the sand with his children, especially after his imagination shows us that he dreams of surfing and rolling around in the sand with his love. The beach and the ocean are clearly near to his heart. That's probably why he often dictated his book near the beach.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was a cinematographic masterpiece. I'm glad that Julian Schnabel was able to make a film that did Jean-Do's life justice, and a film that I will forever recommend for others to see!

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

2008-09-17T09:26:00.002-04:00

Since the moment this movie ended I haven't been able to keep it out of my mind. As I neared my apartment on the way home from class last night I realized that I didn't even turn on the music in my car, which is a rarity, because the scenes kept running through my mind. What I can't seem to figure out is how a movie that most people would consider depressing left me feeling incredibly...joyful. I can actually pinpoint the exact scene that left me feeling this way. It was when Jean-Do described the never-ending possibilities of his imagination. Image after image moved across the screen showing his dreams and fantasies. It was really just a glimpse of what was really going through his mind as he sat there motionless day after day. God forbid I ever became paralyzed like Jean-Do, but I found myself almost jealous of the fact that my imagination will never be that vibrant.

This film was indeed perfect for the study of cinematography. Jean-Do's point of view throughout the film (specifically in the beginning of the film) left me feeling incredibly uncomfortable...almost claustrophobic. This was just part of the brilliance in the cinematography. Beautiful scenery and bizarre angles swept through the screen and continued to grab my attention.

As beautiful as the cinematography was, I simply cannot get over the story of the film itself. Obviously the cinematography made the story even that more moving, but Jean-Do's character and his relationships with the other characters was very much thought-provoking. Mathieu Amalric did an amazing job of somehow conveying so much emotion with a single eye. We as the audience felt closer to Jean-Do than any other characters in the film because we could hear his inner thoughts as he lied there speechless. It showed his personality was not at all affected by his condition. It made me feel like I knew him.

If I haven't made it clear yet, I think that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was brilliant, and certainly one of the best films I've ever seen.

'Psycho' a la 1998

2008-09-10T16:55:00.002-04:00

So where do I begin? Maybe with the fact that Viggo Mortensen and his behind can pretty much save any movie. And Anne Heche's retro-style fashion has inspired me greatly...

But let's get to the good stuff. In all honesty, I was/am hesitant to admit that I don't find the film to be that bad. I was actually the first person to say something good about it during last night's class, which was then followed by others admitting there were some not-so-bad aspects of the movie as well. You're welcome. Seriously though, what's wrong with liking a movie simply because it's entertaining? Excuse me while I rant, but I'm sick of people saying their favorite movies are Donnie Darko and Garden State because they think they're "artistic." Puh-lease. Now, don't get me wrong, I've seen my share of indie/artsy films, many of them I find incredibly well done, and others I don't. But assuming a movie is good because Wes Anderson directed it or bad because it's a sequel is simply absurd.

With that being said, the original Psycho is clearly superior to the remake. However, I've seen worse remakes in my time. I applaud Gus Van Sant for doing the film shot-by-shot and almost line-by-line, yet still finding ways to modernize it. Anne Heche was a mediocre Marion. She fit the part physically, and I appreciate her trying to update Marion's character. However, she dropped the ball far too often - especially in the parlor scene. The chemistry between she and Norman (Vince Vaughn) was practically non-existant. Vince Vaughn, in my opinion, failed in his role of Norman. But I can't say it was all his fault...I think it was more of a bad casting choice. He lacks the innocence, kindness, and handsome appeal found in Anthony Perkins. I had sympathy for Perkins, but barely any for Vaughn....especially after the masturbation scene. Ew. No comment.

Overall, 1998's Psycho was a less-than-perfect remake of the original film, but did anyone actually expect it to measure up? They couldn't have. Props to Van Sant for even attempting to remake one of the most classic films in history....

...and for casting Viggo Mortensen as Sam.

initial reaction to 'Psycho'

2008-08-29T13:26:00.003-04:00

'Psycho,' as far as I know, is the first psychological horror film...or at least the first one to gain as much attention as it has over the past four decades. I should probably catch up on my research before saying this, but I'm pretty sure that horror films before this one consisted of your typical werewolf/vampire villian (which, I can't help but still love!). What makes 'Psycho' particularly frightening isn't just the fact that the villian (which, it is arguable to even refer to him as that) is the psychotic Norman Bates, but that he first appears to be one of the kindest, most gentle human beings one can think of. It really makes you wonder if there is someone in your own life that may unexpectedly be...crazy! But interestingly enough, Norman Bates was not the only villian in the film. Up until Marion meets him at the motel, the villian in the film is Marion's guilt. The guilt follows Marion since the moment she left her house with the money, and ironically when Marion thinks she is going to defeat the guilt by returning home, she falls into the the trap of the other villian in the film - Norman Bates (well, his "mother").

What I enjoyed the most about 'Psycho' was that the star of the movie was Norman himself. His character(s) were the focus of the film, as opposed to the Jennifer Love Hewitts and Neve Campbells of today's slasher films. Norman wasn't just a killer running around with a mask stabbing people. He had a story. He had a reason for his madness.