Thoughts on Hooks from a Cracker

"Reprensentation of Whiteness in the Black Imagination," by Bell Hooks argues that the common conception of equality and sameness within our society today are sqewed towards the white power structure.  If a Black person was asked, according to Hooks, what their feelings on the issue of sameness according to skin color, they would say that there is a high difference.  Hooks brings it so far to say that, "to name whiteness in the black imagination is often a representation of terror" (pg.172).  Hooks also mentions that many Black folk will put on sortof a mask or amulet to hide their real feelings towards white people.  This is because white people have become so accustomed to this idea that we are all equal and the same that anything else would just be wrong.  It is so bad that most Black people have to put this mask on so as to not anger the "power" of the white people.  Again, it seems that many white people go through life without recognizing that many Black people have to act like this (yet again according to Hooks).  

Ok, so maybe it is just because I didn't get the whole article, but I think this was true in most aspects, yet was a little dated.  The first thing that came to mind was the whole idea that white people are lame.  This is something that I actually developed more just by watching Chappelle's Show.  That show pretty much says everything that Hooks said, but puts it into a satrical fashion, so maybe it goes below the radar.  This short clip is one in which a white family has the last name of a common slang against Black people.  Funny yes, but do we white people actually understand the messages around this?  Has anything really changed by making fun of the aukwakrd social interactions? 

clips taken from youtube

Qui est Film Noir?

So, after thinking about it for a long time, watching some of its variety, and talking about it in class, I think I may be able to come up with a list of certain things I think a noir film must have.
Here it is

1) Crime always seems to be the most important thing for film noir. By crime I mean any form or illegal activity. This by no means is just cop and robbers crime. In Double Indemnity it was killing and insurance fraud, and in The Set-Up it was the proposed act of throwing a fight aka rigging the game.
2) Low Lighting/Use of Darkness Pretty selfexplanatory. Most Noir films are dark in content, so most to nearly all of them are dark visually. I noticed how the shadow over the face seems to be very common.
3) C'est la vie. I think this is something that I started see in Blade Runner. I like to call it the "so it goes" idea (thank you Kurt Vonnegut). This could also be defined by the more commonly known French phrase, "C'est la vie." It is the idea that no matter what, at the end of the film, things go on. At the end of Touch of Evil, we see Tanya and Schwartz talking about the events. Just by the way they are talking, you can see a sense of "O, well." I imagine this as being a direct opposition of the beginning Depression era films were things work out in the end (like Casablanca) .

to be continued

The Set-Up review

For my individual film noir viewing I choose The Set-Up. Basically, the story is about Stroker, an older boxer (in boxing terms) who is one match away from retirement. The problem is that his wife wants him to quit, and his manager wants him to throw the fight.

Initially, I was unsure what to think about this movie. I really like boxing and thats why I choose to watch this film. However, this was more of a movie about a man's pride and the consequences that come with it. While I could appreciate the plot, the scene with the fight was just brutal and I don't mean violent. I wasn't sure if this was meant to be done either on purpose or for effect. Was the fight meant to be this way because of censorship, or because it was to show how the "Golden Age of Boxing" was done away with. Whatever the reason, it was still pretty boring. The audience reactions were actually more interesting/exciting (seeing their change from booing to rooting for Stroker).
What I really liked about The Set-Up was the scenes inside of the preparation room (the room where the boxers got ready for their fight). Stroker fights last that night, so he watches the emotions of every boxer. He watches the return of each victory and each loss. It was hard not to feel like you were in Stroker's position. He is old and starts to look over his life and possible future as a boxer through his fellow boxers. Gripping stuff
I think that this was a good film to watch when trying to define film noir. While the other noir films viewed in class were about murder and cops, The Set-Up was about life, pride, and aging. Not an amazing film, but a good change up.

Blade Runner review

So, nearly all of the movies that I have watched in Art of Film have been movies that I have heard about but never watched. Yet again, here is another one: Blade Runner, the neo noir, cyber punk sci-fi flick of the 1980's. It was weird watching this. It has always one of those films that I haven't necessarily been told that it is an amazing film, but that because of it being talked about so much I figured that it was. In a way I hyped myself up for this film. I was expecting something else. Instead of an action packed feature, it was an oddly realistic, psychological/philosophical journey (with some action).

Blade Runner felt like a movie that was set in futuristic setting just so there could be the idea of the replicates. What I am trying to develop here is that besides the replicants, this movie was pretty universal. I could actually see this being a supernatural noir film. Not only that, but I could see this movie as being set in any time period (if there was a way to explain the replicants). That is one thing I can really appreciate and like about Blade Runner. This is a timeless film (in the future!).

Touch of Evil, Fist of Death!

I must say, when we found out that we were watching film noir for our genre, I wasn't sure what to expect. Double Indemnity was good, but it didn't really leave a lasting "amazing" feeling on me. Touch of Evil however, is definitely one of those films that is amazing.
Personally, I like gritty, lifelike films like this that don't have a typical Hollywood ending. So, Touch of Evil was actually enjoyable to me. Besides that, there was plenty of depth in this film. Every time we watch another of these (older) films for class I start to see a how their creation has evolved film styles. Specifically with Touch of Evil, I can see how the many interconnected story line type of film came into fruition. Touch of Evil (for some reason) felt like Magnolia.

Besides that, there are many plot developments that seem to have originated (maybe, maybe not) from this movie. I like the whole "good cop turned bad" theme on both sides. It is obvious that Quinlan has turned bad, but I also noticed that even Vargas had to do some "evil" to get the job done (opening the file on Quinlan wasn't very legal was it (?)). Thinking about it some more, the movie title is actually quite symbolic. The way I think about it is like water with a little bit of oil in it. That all it takes is a little bit of oil to contaminate the water. The only thing is when will the "oil" be included? ("You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Thank you Dark Knight)

"Advertising Whiteness" by Entman & Rojecki focuses on television commercials and the level of inclusion of exclusion of minorities, specifically Black Americans. It is pointed out that typically today there is a level of "status quo" you could say for the amount of Black people allowed in commercials. According to the article, there are also levels of closeness or familiarity (hugging, caressing, kissing, etc) that are not allowed to most advertisements that include Black people. The article summed up Black representation in advertising by saying that, "Blacks seemed neither fully rejected nor wholly accepted, neither categorized identically with Whites in a color-blind American community nor universally linked to a rigidly demarcated domain of pollution and danger" (pg.163). They are there but not completely there.

This clip from Family Guy shows this idea of diversity within Abercrombie & Fitch. It is so bad that the Black male is basically Waldo from Where's Waldo. At the same time, he is not included in selling the product. There but not there.

One other case in point I have is from Maddox at thebestpageintheuniverse.net . The blog that he writes is entitled 9 things I learned about the world from anonymous stock photo models. In it he literally does what his title says. He took several cliches from advertisings usually found on the internet and comments on them. One specific one entitled "At least 1 in 3 people chosen at random will necessarily be "African American," even though only 13% of the US population is black," is definitely worth a read. I can only imagine what advertising for other minorities is.

Gotta love that General Tso's

Chapters 9-11 of Media & Minorities focuses on the views of African, Hispanic, and Asian Mass Publics in the News. I focused on the Asian chapter (11) since I was not sure about their involvement in the news what-so-ever. According to the chapter, I was justified in this lack of knowledge since Asian Americans are very excluded from the news. When they were mentioned in the news, very much like other minorities, they were labeled with their Asian text, not by their name ("Korean Grocer Receives Probation"). The chapter goes on and discusses the various "model minority" images that the mass news can attribute to Asian Americans. One of the biggest stereotypical images and ideas about Asian Americans were that they were foreigners and thats it. There was a great deal of emphasis on the racial hierarchy saying that Asians could never assimilate into American society. This is ironic because the chapter also mentions how another big aspect of the Model Minority is that Asians are high achievers. Hmmm, in America the strong survive.....yet, if they achieve too much they are deemed as cold and emotionless. This is definitely a Catch 22 for Asian Americans.
Recently, there was an episode of South Park (yeah I know, but I love it) in which the overtly racist Cartman joins in a crusade to eliminate the threat of Chinese in America (because of the Olympics). To do this, he and another character Butters, dress up like stereotypical Chinese and take over a P.F. Changs. To his dismay, all the people working for P.F. Changs are American. I thought that this was hilarious. As the chapter talked about how many Asians were most of the time viewed as foreigners, their conceptual ethnicity is a part of our food consumption. At the same time, I am reminded of a quote from Family Guy, "What do you want to have for dinner tonight? I dunno, maybe Caucasian?" While there has been assimilation with the food industry, Asian food is still stamped with their ethnicity.
all this talk of Chinese food is making me hungry.

Double Indemnity Review

Double Indemnity, to me was classic. It wasn't amazing, but it was something I could appreciate. Watching it, I started to see themes in film Noir and in cinema today. The perfect murder, the payoff, good guy tempted by woman, woman gold digger using man, the list goes on and on. One of the most notable things about Double Indemnity was how nearly everything focused around the night and the "moral" character. Keyes was this character to me. While he is not a perfect man (smoking, drinking, married to his job, etc), he still does the right thing. In a sense, he is the anchor to the main character. Besides that, Double Indemnity had a good plot and a good cast of actors that played their roles superbly. I am not wowed by the plot, but that is only because it is something that I personally have seen before. All in all, a good intro to noir.

This is the class that we say nothing...

George Lipsitz's article "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" is about the selling power of the O.J. Simpson trial. The trial, be it morbid murder trial, was something that combined multiple aspects of media commercialization into consumption for the average American citizen. Lipsitz mentioned how television is one of the big middle grounds of media, in which someone can have face time for nearly everything. The trial gave us not only ideas of consumption, but it was also popular because it felt like television show. "The athlete/actor/celebrity defendant charged with murder could have come out of Murder, She Wrote or Columbo while the details about his residence and vehicles might easily fit into segments of Dallas Dynasty, or Life Styles of the Rich and Famous" (pg. 178). Though, Lipsitz mentioned that the trial did feel more realistic, though not entirely.
Lipsitz went on to talk about how not only did the trial do a lot for television and newspapers, but they also did much for books, and even "fancy" attire just because of association with the people behind them (the leather gloves, Italian shoes, Cochran's suits, etc). It was also said that during and after the trial, O.J. copyrighted his name and known nicknames so he could produce a profit. (Doesn't this seem just slightly morbid, that is if he did do it.....)

I found that this article focused on the fact of O.J.'s fame instead of his skin color. You would also think that it would at least mention John Cochran not just because he is black, but because he was a big selling point in the trial. I mean, who ever is going to forget, "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." Was the trial's attention in actuality a focus on the celebrity status of O.J., or is there more than meets the eye?

Thinking this trial, I could not think of any athletes that have come under fire like this. Honestly, the only thing that came to my mind was the Kobe Bryant trial, and even then I barely knew anything about that. The O.J. trial, I knew everything about. Media's marketing, or racial finger pointing?
I wanted to have a clip from Family Guy that I felt displayed this situation, but I couldn't find it. The scene shows Brian (the dog) and his black roommate looking in on the Kobe or O.J. trial (I cannot remember which). When Kobe/O.J. is not guilty, the roommate jumps up and says "yes," while Brian jumps up and complains. Then they both draw guns on each other and decide not to live with each other. Was the O.J. verdict something along the lines of this? I remember believing that he did it. Was this my racial outlook being skewed, or was it the truth. Maybe I was wrong. Well, the fact is that he was not guilty, and used his freedom to steal his Heisman back.

Thats like asking why pumpkin pie is good....

So, we were asked by our professor to make a bulleted list of things that are necessary for "truly great film." This is going to be hard. I feel like no matter what I write it is going to be refuted by at least 15 films I didn't think of. Guh. Though I do have to say that there are varying degrees o the necessities that go into making a truly great film. There is a lot of give and take.
Well, here it goes

To be truly great, a film must have/be.....

• A decent plot-Does not have to be amazing, though it helps. A great film does not have to blow you away with their plot. Casablanca doesn't have a AMAZING plot, but it does have an interesting plot.

• Unique-There should be at least one thing that makes this film stand out more than most films. Ran brought together Shakespeare and traditional Japanese theater. Daughters of the Dust envisioned African style theater in American film.

That is all I can think about for now. I will try to update it.

Ran Review

So, I wasn't completely sure what Ran was when I walked into class. Once I heard that it was an Akira Kurosawa film, I was really excited. I must say that personally I really liked Ran. It was an easy enough plot to follow (thank you Shakespeare), the action scenes were good, and I could understand most of the cultural things within it. I have spent a lot of time reading about not so much acting style of old Japan, but pretty much with everything else. So, most of the cultural things made sense.
When it comes to mise-en-scene, I felt like it really had a historical mise-en-scene with the very rustic appearance of the castles and the armor and such, but also had a theatrical mise-en-scene with the actor/ress's decisions and make-up.
I think what made this film really appealing to me was the melding of King Lear into Ran. It is a cross cultural movie that can show how little boundaries there are between cultures. However, at the same time, it also shows how many there are too.

"Men Are Terrible and They Will Hurt You Because This is Lifetime

The joined efforts of Minu Lee and Chong Heup Cho give a little look into the married life of Korean couples in their article "Women Watching Together." The article focuses primarily on the women in the relationships and how sometimes they struggle to find time to watch their shows. Some of the women interview mentioned how they will watch the shows after when their husbands are away, since they would not want to watch that "trash". Other women felt that since the house was basically more of a workplace then a relaxing environment (thank you Confucius), relaxing was looked down upon (as opposed to the men who go to work and relax when they get home). They also talked about how women get together to watch these shows sometimes, yet most of the time they do other things like gossip and such.
The article then went on to talk about a series called The Sand Castle which pointed out a husband who had an affair. The husband treated both women bad, and so the wife ended up leaving. According to the women in the article, the men called this series trash. However, the women felt empowered by the show and actually started questioning their spouses. Oddly enough, some of the husbands actually agreed that men can have affairs.
So, I felt a little weird reading this article. I am so used to soap operas being completely ridiculous. I find it odd how they can actually be empowering to another culture. Though I look at our soap operas and shows of that such and see a culture that has taken the idea of women empowerment and manages to cheapen it. This clip was from Family Guy. I must say that this pretty much sums up the idea behind Lifetime which is notorious for its abusive husband/overall male outlook.

I am sort of curious about how the women interviewed would say about Lifetime.

Daughters of the Dust review

Daughters of the Dust......umm.....not really much to say about it.
I usually like foreign films, but American films made to be like foreign films....meh. I understood before watching the film that it was supposed to be different from the average American plot line. Yet, I felt like there wasn't much difference except that it was just really drawn out. Actually my initial reaction to the film was that it felt like a Hallmark or Lifetime movie (not really sure how to explain my reasonings).
I was not crazy about the film, but there were some things that I could appreciate about it. After talking to a classmate (thanks Andy!) I came to appreciate the cultural significance of it. From watching this film, I could understand where a portion of the Black background came from. Also, little things like their language gave me an understanding where the accents today come from.
So, overall, not my cup of tea. Maybe after a talk I'll understand it a little more...

Casablanca Review

Ah, Casablanca. You really can't go wrong with this movie here. I watched it once in high school and appreciated it then. Now, 4 or so years later, I can appreciate it so much more. This time around, certain things just made more sense. Considering that Casablanca is one of those films that is at the base of Hollywood films makes it's historical background credible. I found myself seeing so many pop culture references in my head that I never understood until now.
I find Casablanca funny because it seems like this movie was made as a propaganda piece against the Nazis and against the Vichy government in France (especially when the bottle of Vichy water is tossed in the trash at the end of the film). It is amazing to see that a propaganda piece could capture the eyes of millions of viewers through the years.
To top it all off, the paradoxical acting of Humphrey Bogart (emotionless, yet full of emotion at the same time, and always amazing!) makes Casablanca an antique of film.

Don't Shoot Until You See.....

Stuart Hall's article The Whites of Their Eyes talks about the ideological formation of race. Hall starts off by giving talking about three things to remember about ideologies. Ideologies are not stand alone concepts, they are what we form our world around, and they influence our ideas (pretty much stuff that we have heard before). He goes from that to talking about the ideology of race. Hall makes sure to start off by saying that the idea that media is the lone "ruling class" that enforces these ideologies is wrong. However, media is one of the biggest producers of these ideologies. To explain this a little more, Hall defines overt and inferential racism, the first being blatant racism, while the latter being a "set of unquestioned assumptions."
From there, Hall introduces and explains a few of the base-images of the "grammar of race." The base-image's shown were the slave figure, the native, and the clown.
For my case-in-point I wanted to focus on the slave figure
I am pretty sure everyone knows who this famous actor is. Morgan Freeman is a phenomenal actor. He really is amazing. The parts he plays, in my opinion, can give him the base-image of a form (my own) of the slave figure that Hall portrays.
I actually disagree with Hall in the fact that the the slave image is really only "childlike." I think that the slave image should include the wise old man image within it giving a feel of an Uncle Tom or something along those lines. Now I am not also saying that Freeman is adhering to "Master" either. With Freeman, I think that the fact that he is always the wise supporting character give him the image of always less important than the main character (always seemingly white).
image from http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/01/25/image669004x.jpg

Most people are so ungrateful to be alive. But not you. Not anymore.

Chapter 10 of Media, Gender and Identity talks about role models and the effect media has on creating and influencing us to believe that these people are role models. The chapter also talks about self-help literature and what the over arching meanings behind it are.
The chapter starts off giving a some what definition of role models and gives at least two pages of examples in the media. Then, it goes on to talk about the "girl power" role models of the Spice Girls and Destiny's Child. It mentions how each of these groups brought forth a feeling of self independence and self worth in a male dominated culture. However, it also mentioned how these groups used their sexual side to sell records, which could be negative for the young ones understanding. The chapter also talks about the male aspect of role models (yet also only focuses on the music role models again). Gauntlett goes on about the wide variety of male music orientate role models and how they can go from tough and thuggish (like Eminem, Dr. Dre, Busta Rhymes), to squeaky clean boy bands (N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, etc), and can also be pretty unmanly as well (David Bowie, Boy George, Robert Smith of The Cure, etc).
The chapter also talks about the different kinds of role models that Gauntlett describes. I am a little disappointed that Gauntlett only talked about role models in music, since there are many more role models that don't even really exist. This brings me to my case-in-point.
Ever seen this guy before?










If not maybe your more familiar with his puppet.









Yes, this is Tobin Bell as the serial killer known as Jigsaw from the series of horror films called Saw. The rest of my blog will most likely be a spoiler so if you want to watch it, watch and get back to me.

Anyway, the whole idea of Jigsaw is that he put each person in a rather gruesome trap or "game" as he calls it. Each one basically causes the person to do some horrible deed to themselves or others so they may survive. It is pretty messed up but it is Jigsaw's idea that people take life for granted and cannot appreciate it at all. Therefore, by putting them through these games he teaches them to live. "Live or die, make your choice."
So, how can he be a role model? Surprisingly throughout the series, he actually gets two followers who try to do his work. While he may be a bad role model, it does point out how not all role models are good. We can get the idea that life is something that should be cherished from Jigsaw, yet at the same time we should not emulate him as well (really, that would be seriously messed up). This is what I think was something that was left out by Gauntlett. That while music stars are where we focus some of our role models, there are still outside examples like Jigsaw. Also, that there should be lessons learned or taught by the role models, not to live like them. Brings new meaning to "do what I say, not what I do."
first image from http://www.moviesonline.ca/movie-gallery/albums/Saw_III/saw3-6.jpg
second image from http://valuesatplay.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/saw-iv.jpg

Raging Bull analysis

It is pretty evident that the first thing to note about Raging Bull is the choice of making it black and white. I feel like it was Scorsese's idea so the audience gets the nostalgic feeling. Then again, it also could be so something like the editing would be so seem less. Think about it, if there is less varying degrees of color than the transitions should be pretty smooth.

As previously said, the editing in Raging Bull was very smooth. Personally, I could not pick it up at all. The boxing scenes were by far the most intense editing. I can only imagine how long it took to put all of that together. The very slow shots, to the very fast shots gave the feel of how it must be to be in a boxing match like those. These transitions from slow to fast (especially in the last fight) could make someone (me) forget about watching for editing, no matter how many times I watch it. It also gave the feel of the rhythm of the boxers punches (rhythmic editing!!!) On top of this, the match almost had the feel of a conversation. They had an establishing shot when they went into the center to fight, they went back and forth (or forth with the punches to LaMotta), and they had a few reestablishing shots with added two-shots. I also noticed how the over the shoulder shots gave you the feel that you were actually punching LaMotta, or getting punched by Sugar Ray with the medium shots.

"Useless talent number 66. I'm very pliable."

Rachel Fudge's article The Buffy Effect or, A Tale of Cleavage and Marketing goes through the image in the television box of the 90's that was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I did not know this but Buffy actually started out as a failed movie that really was nothing special. Cue the television series. Buffy was created as a way to erase or oppose the typical ideal of women in nearly all of monster horror. As Fudge said, "Instead of shouting, 'Don't do in there!' to the naive girl traipsing through the darkened vacant house, we shout, 'Go, girl!' as Buffy enters the dark alleys to dispatch the monster of the moment with her quick thinking and martial-arts prowess." While Buffy may seem to be a ditsy version of Van Hellsing decked out in the latest fashions, Fudge comments that it is her womanhood that makes her different than the other vampire slayers before her. Also, it is her exemplification of her "girl power" that makes her strong. Instead of just wearing a girl power t-shirt, she is actually out there fighting vampires, and doing the dirty work while still remaining womanly.
Fudge also mentions how Buffy was a television show that did more than just energize people by killing vampires. Buffy actually could be used as a big metaphor for the struggles that all high schoolers, girls and guys alike, face on a day to day basis. Fudge calls it the "high-school-as-hell" metaphor.
I have not personally watched much Buffy at all, but I do remember one clip. All that happens is while Buffy is lying on her bed, presumably deep in thought, she nonchalantly reaches to the side of her bed and grabs a battle ax. Ridiculously awesome.
So, this is my case-in-point, Rose McGowan as Cherry in Planet Terror. I know, I know, who watches this but guys, I know, but I feel like this actually shows a lot of Buffyesque action like Fudge talked about. She kicks butt while still remaining womanly. Also, one little plot point is that she has at least 100 useless talents. At the end of the film she uses these talents....and an M16 to take out all the bad guys who just so happen to be mutants.
image from http://www.moviesonline.ca/

"That's me. Six years and 600 pounds ago... before I knew how much I hated myself."

Jean Kilbourne's article "The More you Subtract, the More you Add" Cutting Girls Down to Size talks about the hegemonic and blatant coding of girls through advertising. Kilbourne's discussion goes right out by saying that advertising tells girls how they should look. "The culture, both reflected and reinforced by advertising, urges girls to adopt a false self, to bury their real selves, to become 'feminine,' which means to be nice and kind and sweet, to compete with other girls for the attention of boys, and to value romantic relationships with boys above all else" (pg. 259). This leads to "self-objectification" that can lead to other problems such as eating disorders. Kilbourne mentions how this connection between eating and advertising was showed in Fiji when television was introduced. At least 74 percent of teenage girls were weight conscious within three years. Coincidence? I think not. Kilbourne also says that it really isn't always the advertising companies fault, yet it is this "problem" that keeps selling their products. "Certainly the cumulative effect of these images and words urging girls to express themselves only through their bodies and through products is serious and harmful" (pg.264).

Case in point Dodgeball Globogym

This mock commercial meant to be satirical says a lot about gym advertisements in general. They all never really say stuff like Ben Stiller does but most of the time it is implied. It is unfortunate that this is the only way to get people to subscribe to a gym. It seems like these commercials speak to everyone.
clip taken from youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ce2-fZn84

Raging Bull Review

Ok, like pretty much every movie I watch for Art of Film, Raging Bull was another one of those timeless classics that I have not watched until now. Honestly, I thought it was only about boxing. After watching it, I feel like it was really just a film about some messed up guy who just-so-happens to box. A story about a guy who just couldn't let things go, or he was just stupid.

Besides the plot, this film really does show the genius that is Martin Scorcese. The editing in the film felt very naturalistic and calming/invisible. The editing was simply something that I just didn't notice very much, even during the times when I thought to.

I also found it funny how time went by. Besides the text on the screen indicating the year, there was no other indication of how long went by. One minute Jake is puting the moves on Vickie, boxing scene, then Vickie is "with" Jake (if you know what I mean).

Overall, I was indifferent about the film. It just didn't really catch me. (By the way, I like watching boxing, so when I found out it was more of a person film with boxing, instead of a boxing film I was turned off). I found it funny though, how someone like LaMotta couldn't control his anger. Kinda sounded like another famous boxer....

Do the Right Thing Analysis

After watching Do the Right Thing in pieces there were a few things I wanted to mention. First off, the group of four kids that are always together seem to be the characters who display the theme of the time with their costumes the most. At the same time, their stylized acting gave you the feel of comic relief, yet quick changing moods (especially at the end, happy-to ticked pretty fast).
Another particular scene that I wanted to talk about was the talk with Sal and Pino. The mise-en-scene's setting and shot stays the same, yet there are a few people who arrive and leave within the shot. The lighting in the scene seems to be like the lighting through the rest of the movie except slightly different, to give you a feel of "end of the day." The talk is mainly about Pino's anger to which Sal is finally confronting. Ironically, the one person who is (for the most part) innocent and has done no harm shows up. Smiley shows the stylistic acting as well to show how people really just don't listen to some people. If the riot at the end of the movie only heard his say, "one of the cops was black," would Sal's pizzeria been burned down? analysis

Cosmo Girl and today

Inventing the Cosmo Girl by Laurie Ouellette tells the hegemonic tale of Helen Gurley Brown and her building up of the contemporary woman through the women's magazine, Cosmopolitan. It goes through the thought process that Brown went through with the standpoints that Cosmo wanted to play to. From her teachings came the idea of the Pink-Collared work place, which ends up basically being a secretary. This was one of the best jobs for a woman according to Brown, since you could meet a variety of men ranging in power, wealth, and looks. At the same time there was also an emphasis on the idea that can be the "Beautiful Phony" as Oullette calls it. They can be beautiful if they use these little tips on how to make themselves more desirable (Vaseline?). It is also said about how Brown emphasized how women should make themselves to be looking the part of the elite, rich, ritzy, or however you want to say it. The main point behind this was the ideal of seemingly trying to break the boundaries of class by looking like "them" and getting a rich male to like the woman.

Ok, so there is one film that is soooo hard not to think of when reading this article (if you have seen the movie that is). That movie is Down with Love. Starring Ewan McGregor and Renee Zellweger is about Renee's character Barbara Novak and the effect she has on the women of the world with her book "Down with Love". Skip a few chapters and she is the head of a women's magazine called "Now" as opposed to McGregor's character Catcher Block's magazine "Know".

This movie generally feels like it was a direct allusion to Brown and her life. If you would like a better understanding of the movie you can go here
clip taken from youtube.com

"I know kung-fu"

Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity by Jackson Katz does exactly what the title says; talk about advertising and the construction of violent masculinity (do they ever come up with clever titles?). Anyway, the article goes in depth with the hegemonic ideals that are being filtered into our societies ideal of violence=masculinity. There are two areas of advertising that Katz talks about a little more in depth and they are the 21st-Century Rebel (Eminem, Kid Rock,.....Limp Biskit? lame) and the Military/Sports symbolism of masculinity. Besides those, the main idea of the article is that muscles equal masculinity, and muscles are mainly used for beating people up. He also mentions how guns are actually a intergration of male violent masculinity. "In fact, the presence of guns in magazine and newspaper ads is crucial in communicating the extent of a movie's violent content" (pg.357). I feel like this could easily be attributed to other weapons as well, but I have noticed how the gun's presence (not firing) alone speaks more than a knife would.

This brings me to my case in point.


Ok, I hate to say this but if you haven't at least seen this clip of the Matrix....well I think you may be living under a rock (totally, for sure). The scene drips masculinity. Guns? Check. Dark lighting? Check. Hot actress? Check. All decked out in black? Check. Am I missing anything? Oh, right. Lots of butt kicking? Triple Check. The scene before this one actually shows the materialization of literally millions of guns being created in the white void before the matrix. It is really hard for any guy to not get pumped up while watching this. I have to say that the Matrix as a whole pretty much was all I thought of while reading this article. Self explanitory I believe.

clip from youtube found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF-WeswkqXc

Let me tell you the story of "Right Hand, Left Hand."

O, Spike Lee. I have to admit that I have only seen one of Lee's films (Inside Man) and that was hardly race related at all. So, I wasn't sure what to expect from his films. Anywho, Do the Right Thing was one of those films that left me thinking if I was racist at all. Sal seemed like the biggest example of this conviction. At one time he is a nice guy, and at other time he is completely different throwing racial slurs about. The ending really left me convicted. Why did Mookie throw the can through the window? Why didn't he explain himself? I looked around online and found that it was part of Lee's ideals that asking a question like that put the life of Radio Raheem lower than a building. Instant shame. Wow, that hits like a ton of bricks.
Another thing that the film left with me is the conviction of peaceful protest to violence. As Smiley and the picture of MLK and Malcolm X showed this constant battle within the movie. You almost get the feeling that it just happens. That's life.
Do the Right Thing also manged to grab my attention just by the simple task of costume. While most of the people in the film were dressed in bright, over the top clothes I noticed that Da Mayor was dressed in a simple suit with a simple hat. I think that this task was merely showing how the times have changed, and the time for revolution wasn't going to be humble (just a thought). Each costume just felt right for each character. (I found it ironic that Buggin Out was so upset about his Air Jordans while he was stuck in his political plight)

All in all, Do the Right Thing is one of those movies that I am really going to have to ponder over for a while. I think it would also help to watch it a few times as well.

The Godfather analysis

You really cannot go wrong with watching The Godfather. Copolla really knew what he was doing with everything. The mise-en-scene is particularly amazing for this film. One particular scene that I find amazing is the baptism scene. This is when Michael Corleone is attending his nephew's baptism, while he is also having hits put on each of the Family heads. In many ways this is an instance of historical mise-en-scene since the Priest is speaking in Latin while performing the baptism, which is similar and very different to the mainly Italian tone of the film. Where the hits take place also seem to be describing the mise-en-scene as a measure of character. Each of the hit victims are in places that they would consider comfortable and safe. Most notably Barzini was shot in front of what seemed to be a big business, and Tattaglia was gunned down with a prostitute both of which show the personal traits of the character (Barzini being professional, and Tattaglia being sleazy).

Another scene I wanted to talk about was Sonny's death. This scene does a good job of making sure the historical context is in play with everything (the tommy guns were what really made this interesting to me since when you think of mobsters, you think of tommy guns). The blocking for the scene could be described as also a mix between social and graphic blocking. When the hit men surround Sonny, you know that this is a sure-fire way to kill someone. At the same time you get the feeling of being "blocked" in (puns are hilarious). I also found it ironic because all Sonny had to do to get away was back up, which could also have described his character too (Sonny Corleone does NOT back down!).

"Its like I've married my best friend, but in a totally manly kind of way!"

Chapter 8's title Men's Magazines and Modern Male Identities pretty much spells out exactly what Gauntlett is going to talk about. The first chapter is spent mapping out the content and validity of modern men's "lifestyle" magazines. The chosen few include FHM, Loaded, Maxim, Men's Health, Front, GQ, and others. I am going to come out in the open and admit that I have personally read at least half (Mens Health is quality man magazine) or more of these magazines (Loaded is a UK magazine, and Front is new to me.), and, for men, these magazines are something that everyone has to have at least taken a look at once (if they say otherwise, I believe they are lying).
One specific thing that I noticed about most of these magazines is that the articles are written like it is two guys talking to each other. "The irony is used as a kind of defensive shield: the writers anticipate that many men may reject serious articles on relationships, or advice about sex, health or cooking and so douse their pieces with humour, silliness, and irony to 'sweeten the pill'" (pg.167). I have to admit that this is a very attractive and clever way of writing. Honestly, I have gotten this type of feeling whilst reading an article from these magazines. Gauntlett continues on by mentioning that men actually have a laden innate nature to need advice about what it is to be a man, but are made to think that they do not want serious articles. There needs to be a level of informality, so it could be considered as "man talk." It seems like men, in general, can only talk about unmanly things like "feelings" or "emotions" if it is considered funny or laughable.

Case in Point
Scrubs ~Guy Love~


This a clip from the show Scrubs which includes JD and Turk who are know throughout the series for being best friends for life. This clip comes during the sixth season, and at this point JD and Turk have been given the joke that they are like a married couple multiple times. Though comical this clip shows something that is pretty much accepted by our culture. That guys can be really good friends without being considered gay because....its just two guys enjoying each others company but it is joked about. Guy love. If this was a formula it would be like this

too much guy time+emotions=gay
too much guy time+emotions+jokes=Manly and awesome

cause hugging a guy is alright now....cause its funny

.....it was bound to happen

ok, so I saw this today on youtube.
figured I should at least put it on my blog




taken from collegehumor's youtube page

o sarah palin

"Do you like Huey Lewis and the news?"

John Beynon's article The Commercialization of Masculinities; From the "New Man" to the "New Lad" talks about the changing tides of masculinity from the 50's to the 90's. Beynon goes talks about a wide variety of men in this article. The "New Man-as-Nurturer", The "New Man-as-Narcissist", the "Yuppie", the "Old Industrial Man", and the "New Lad" are all the examples Beynon talks of. My biggest problem about this article is that there is really no amalgamation of these men. They are only talked of in these groups. I feel like my personal "favorite" (emphasis on sarcasim people!) man is the "Yuppie" (I have grown up to despise Yuppies so there may be some bias here). The Yuppie is most likely Beynon saying that there is a middle ground for the "New Men". A Yuppie can be a narcissist while caring for his looks, but seems like he can also be a nurturer while being in touch with his emotions.......in yoga class. However, there is a high empahsis on the fact that the Yuppie has wealth and makes sure to show it off at any time. "Sitcking his hair and using every excuse to get into and out of his suit, his tie, his stripped shirt and, of course, his Porshe" (pg.205).

I cannot utter the word Yuppie without talking about Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) in American Psycho. Throughout the movie we see Bateman's obbsession of his looks and overall appearance. Yet, at the same time, we see his obsession of simple things, like comparing buisness cards, that undermine his power and prestige (tying into to his emotions and such)
Overall, Patrick Bateman is the ultimate Yuppie.
image from http://clashofthetitans.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/americanpsycho2.jpg
clip taken from youtube

The Godfather initial thought

Ah, The Godfather

Another one of those movies that I had only heard of, but never seen. I have heard a multitude of thoughts on it, and I must say, anyone who thinks that The Godfather is overrated, is crazy. It was a superb film. The characters, the images, the soundtrack, everything! This motion picture managed to take a giant cast of a-listers and make it monumental. I think when The Film Experience was talking about naturalistic acting, it was talking about nearly EVERYONE in The Godfather. I have to mention that Marlon Brando truly deserves the praise he gets for his roles. Yet again in The Film Experience, there is mention on how certain actors tend to feel like other characters they have played. Brando is an exception. I could not believe that was him. His acting and the make-up (cotton balls in his mouth) made him look and feel completely different than he did in Apocalypse Now. He really is an amazing actor (my Dad told me that Brando actually did the film reading cue cards!).

Al Pacino also brought a wonderful performance. He seems so young at the beginning, and towards the end feels ages older. The slow turn from innocent war hero to the cold mob boss he is was just phenomenal, and also left me thinking how easy it could be to turn like that. I found it ironic that Michael Corleone went to war, and still was unprepared for the life of a mobster. I noticed that the snub nose revolver that he uses to kill Sollazzo and the McCluskey is like the diverging point of his life (how props can be more).

By the way, I happened to play the video game for The Godfather before this and I must say that if you are a fan on the movie, it would be a wise decision to play this game. All of the dirty work that we don't see as the viewer (planting the gun in the toilet, killing Paulie, and the killing of Tattaglia to name a few) is done as we follow the main character of the game. Not as monumental as the film, but still really good (one of my personal favorites).

Even sad in pixelation; The Death of Sonny

"You dropped acid? Far out...."

The scene in Apocalypse Now that I wanted to talk about was the scene in which the boat reached Do Long Bridge. There is a lot to talk about in that scene, so I wanted to talk about the movement of the camera. In the very beginning we are right on the boat looking at the hellish place this bridge must be. As the scene progresses the camera shows the men on the left trying to get onto the boat (presumably to freedom). I think that the cinematographer was trying to make it so you were looking out on the people outside as well, and even doing the same thing of looking at everyone around you trying to make sense of what is going on. When Willard and Lance get off the boat and are moving along, there is that long, smooth, tracking shot of the two of them walking with the insanity behind them. After that the camera does more cut shots, possibly to further disorientate the viewer.

"Don't dream it, be it"

The sixth chapter by Gauntlett changes from Anthony Giddens to Michael Foulcault. Foulcalt's main discussion is about "modes of living," and how discourses can help us view the world around us. He then also talks about how certain groups have the so called "power" to cause discourses to be swayed an influenced. I really like this concept of power that he goes into. "Power simply cannot be held by one group; power is everywhere and plays a role in all relationships and interactions. Power does not exist outside of social relationships; it's exactly within these relationships that power comes into play" (pg.118). He then gives the a few examples of this (boss is powerful at work, but weak at home). On the opposite, he also mentioned how with power there is almost always resistance. Since this resistance comes into play, it is that which can cause even greater change to occur. "Power is productive" (pg.121).

The next chapter(7) by Gauntlett has to do primarily with the theory of queer (quickly explained that it is not related to homosexual activity, but can be used by them). The big wig behind queer theory that Gauntlett talks about is Judith Butler (though the ideas are developed from Foulcault). One of the big bullet points about queer theory is that nothing about the identity is fixed, and when I mean nothing, I mean nothing. Probably the backing point behind this is the idea of gender. Playing on identity, Butler mentions that gender is merely something that is played into by our society. If identity is not fixed at all, then gender is not fixed either. Butler is very keen on calling gender a "performance". "Butler is saying that we do not have a gender identity which informs our behavior; on the contrary, that behavior is all that our gender is" (pg.139).

Ok, so with the talk of power, resistance, and queer theory, the first thing that I thought of was The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Well, what can you say about it? Susan Sarandon losing her innocence, Bary Bostwick playing a square being sexually released, and Tim Curry in womens intimate apparel talking about transsexuals (something nobody really wants to see) to name just a few. Beyond that, there are points at which Foulcalt and Butler's ideas come into play. With power and resistance causing change comes the idea of Eddie and Dr. Frank-N-Furter creating tension and a change (leading to the creation of Rocky). With Butler and queer theory comes the idea of Dr. Frank-N-Furter, Brad, and Riff-Raff being ok wearing womens clothing, since it is just a part of their identity they can change.
image from http://kingdomofstyle.typepad.co.uk/my_weblog/images/2007/08/31/ringlogo_rhps.jpg
(by the way, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is pretty weird, so if you ever go and see it....be sure to have an open mind....yeah its goofy)

Cheer Up Emo Kid!

Anthony Giddens, the bad boy of sociologists, is talked exclusively in chapter 5 of Media, Gender, and Identity. His sociological outlook has given him endless critique, yet seems so attractive. Gauntlett even mentioned how his attitude of, "oh, you're making it very complicated, but it's perfectly simple" can cause a great deal of frustration, yet he still is correct. His theory on structuralism is that, "social life is more than random individual acts, but is not merely determined by social forces" (pg.93). Simply, it is a middle road.

Gauntlett also talks about the idea of modernity and the forms that come along with it. He mentions how we are coming out of an era of post-traditionalist, which he calls modernity. Traditionalism is when a society does not take individual action into thought since tradition spells action. Modernity is when the actions of past people do not make or form the people of that time. It is the breakdown of tradition. Giddens was mentioned on how we are often told that we are in post-modernism, when actually we are in late-modernism. Instead of being past modernity, we are viewing an influenced modernity. The main ideal of late modernity say that the self is created by the individual and that we may choose our lifestyle, though we all have influences that can be external (except in romance, no more arranged marriages).

I can't help but think of emo kids while talking about Giddens, structuralism, and modernity. In a lot of ways they are the ones who do break the idea of traditionalism as mentioned by Giddens by coming into school wearing make-up and girls jeans, and being criticized even though millions of girls do this everyday. Also, they are an image of the age of late modernity because the image they make is the image of the self and it is their lifestyle to dress this way. However, they also fall under the consumerism of modernity that does tie in with the individuality as Gauntlett puts it. It is bands like Panic at the Disco, My Chemical Romance, and Avenged Sevenfold that give this new look on consumerism play on individuality. (i do have to admit that their music is good, but their look is sooooo annnoyyyingg)
Panic at the disco image from http://www.realbuzz.com/images/articles/panic%20at%20the%20disco%20!(0).jpg

"Charlie don't surf!"

So, Apocalypse Now, where to start?

Well I think the first thing that stood out was the overall acting of EVERYONE. First off, Martin Sheen. I am soooo used to seeing him as being aged that seeing him young puts a whole new light on his already immense acting talent. He played the role of a strung out soldier amazingly. Add to that mix Robert Duvall, Lawrence Fishburne, and of course Marlon Brando (course he had to be the second biggest part, as fat as he was). Even the lesser known actors did a phenomenal job. Also a surprising cameo by Harrison Ford.

The plot itself was just amazing. Too many war films today show war as something that is justified, easy, and even beautiful. Apocalypse Now took everyone of those presuppositions and dashed them to the wind (ironic because it was one of the first Vietnam movies made). They made war not only something that was full of death, but something that was full of actual psychological issues.

The cinematography is another big feature of the movie. The two things that I picked up on the most was the use of pitch black and a little light, and the use of picture on picture. The scene where Brando is talking about the "perfect" soldier is haunting, just by having his face in and out of the light at times. Towards the end, when Sheen is leaving on the boat, you can see his image on top of the image of the city. It just is perfect how centered it is. It almost seems to say, you are these people.

I found it funny while watching the movie, that i was finally understanding all these pop culture joke references. There is actually a whole episode of Animanics that follows the whole story of Apocalypse Now. I also think there were a few references in The Simpsons.

All in all, amazing

clip taken from youtube

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly analysis

One particular scene I liked in the Diving Bell and the Butterfly was the one where Jean-Do is shaving his father's stubble. This scene was mainly done to show the relationship that Jean-Do has with his father. Through looking at the depth of field within this scene, it shows that there is actually more things in play. During the whole scene the only area we see is the immediate area around Jean-Do and Papinou. Along with that, we see photos of Jean-Do when he was a child. I think that this was to show how both Jean-Do and Papinou were trapped in their own little worlds. Papinou was trapped in his apartment where he could only see his son in pictures as his thoughts dwindled away. This is both similar and different to Jean-Do's situation. He can only sit and look at pictures, but his imagination allows him to take him to other worlds. All of this comes back down to the simple task of making the shot stationary and small.
(image taken from imdb.com)

Sugar, spice, and everything nice plus radioactive chemicals

Liesbet van Zoonen's article Feminists Perspectives on the Media talks about the ongoing struggle for gender equality and the different means to this end. The three ideological feminist views are liberal, radical, and socialist feminism. Liberal feminism has the viewpoint that the stereotypes and prejudices of yesturyear and today has caused the inequality of women. Therefore, a liberal feminist's goal is to enter the male dominated workforce, demand equal pay, and still be able to be a mother. Zoonen described this idea as the "Superwoman." Zoonen also mentioned how this can easily lead to women being "burned out" since this is one hard task. Radical feminist view patriarchy as the enemy of all women. Naturally, this means that Radical feminists must "cut all ties with men and male society" (pg. 37). It is their belief that women are innately good. I'll leave that statement alone and hope that it does sound ridiculous (sugar and spice and everything nice huh?). The last of which Zooner talked about was the Socialist feminist who deals with not only the gender issues of woman equality, but also divulges into the "class and economic conditions of women as well" (pg. 38).

Even Feminists can be villains as well!
This is an image of Femme Fatale, a one time man-hating villain from the cartoon the Powerpuff Girls. Her whole deal in the episode Equal Fights was that because she was a woman criminal that she should be allowed to do her theft of Susan B. Anthony coins. Through some persuasion, she was let go by our trio. To make a long story short, the girls decided that it was wrong to let her do this because even Susan B. Anthony wanted to be tried equal to a man.
I look at this example and think of the radical feminist and their ideal of women being innately good. I can understand women wanting equality within society, but that is easier said than done. If true equality is given, than women can lose the role of motherhood, yet on the other hand, too much motherhood with equality can lead to the "Superwoman" ideal within Liberal feminists. Needless to say equality is a hard thing to attain. However, we can all agree that people like Femme Fatale should stay equally behind bars. :cue ending theme:

"I'm the guy that's gonna save you." (immediately killed)

Gaye Tuchman and his (or her? not really sure) Introduction: The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media outlines the media's influence over the minds of women throughout the ages. Two new concepts were brought forth in the article. They are reflection hypothesis and symbolic annihilation. Reflection hypothesis is the idea that mass media reflects "dominant social values", while symbolic annihilation is the fact that dominant ideas are taken in unknowingly by the consumers. Tuchman then goes on to systematically break down the programming that has been put into television, magazines, and newspapers in almost a very obvious way (women are given the lesser roles in television while displaying the "damsel in distress", women are taught to "catch that guy" in magazines like Cosmopolitan that put on a front of a strong womanhood, and newspapers exiling women to the "women pages" making the emphasis on clothes, gossip, and makeup). As a final thought, Tuchman asks a few questions that may help (or I felt that it helps) analyze what said media does to the viewers.
1. Do girls pay closer attention to female television characters than to male characters?
2. Do girls value the attributes of female characters or those of male characters?
3. Does television viewing have an impact on the attitudes of young children toward sex roles?
4. Do these attitudes continue as children maure?

Chapter 3 of Gauntlett's book displayed a great deal of the same ideals of women in our media. He focused more on the bare statistics and percentages of women and men in media. He did change it up by talking about men and women in film, which I felt held more weight than television (as Tuchman seemed to be weighing as the most important factor). Films, to me, hold much more of a "cool" concept than television. No one can downplay that. Think about the first time you saw James Bond or Indiana Jones punch a bad guy out. However, when it comes to concepts of gender, these two characters play different roles. Gauntlett discussed the character of Indiana Jones and why he is so attractive to us consumers. "The character of Indiana Jones....is the typical macho action-adventure hero on the one hand, but we see him being tender with women in each film, acting as a father to Short Round in the second picture, and responding as a son to his dad in the third." While he does all this, he also ends up winning and saving the girl in each film (SPOILER! minus the third which was quite surprising). Taking a character like Marion on the other hand is a strong woman (especially the scene where she out drinks that guy in her bar) who does display some stereotypes. Unfortunately, she is still the supporting character not the lead lessening her strong characteristics. James Bond is similar but also worlds apart from Indy. While each of his movies always introduces another "Bond Girl" Bond rarely changes his polygamous lifestyle as it is "business as usual." (Even though Bond is still the same, the Bond girls have at least changed a little Gauntlett mentioned) One thing that Gauntlett could not mention is the new Bond film Casino Royale where we actually see an emotionally raw Bond who (SPOILER!) tries to give up the mantle of 007 for the love of a woman. Sadly for women stereotypes it is the woman who betrays Bond and seemingly causes his cold polygamous attitude.

As both of the articles talked of the lack of positive female images and overabundance of male reinforcement in media I wanted to do one case in point.


Ok, so this movie is called Feast and yes it is a horror film. I find that this movie is probably on the best horror films in a while, not because it is really scary but for its characterization moments. What would happen is the character would come on the screen and would be still framed. Then their name, typical job, and funny remark would come up. On top of that, there would usually be their role in the film like Hero, Heroine, Honey Pie, Vet, etc which are all usually horror stereotypes. Ironically the guy who gets attacked at the beginning is called the "Hero" moments before his demise. In many ways this is meant to be funny and in the end (SPOILER) the woman who was the heroine dies and another better heroine takes here place.
Horror films are sort of a paradox in that, most of the time there are more heroines than heroes. Yet at the same time they always need the men to push them towards their goal.

This has to be the first time that I have watched a movie and really wanted to write about it immediately. After class (which ended 1/2 hr early) I went back to my dorm and started writing. It is my earnest feeling that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is one of the best movies I have seen in years. It is simply an amazing film.
The story itself is so remarkable that this could only be a true story. For all of you who haven't seen The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the story is about Jean-Dominique Bauby and his life after a severe stroke. Being based off of the book that the actual Jean-Do (his nickname, his friends call him that) wrote, the script and people are so real that you seriously cannot help but feel like Jean-Do is you, your father, your friend. The cinematography is so superb that you view a good portion of the film through Jean-Do's eye. Not only that but different perspectives are given as well. Therefore, through the film, you are the family, friends, and self of Jean-Do. For right now, I don't have much more to say. I am still a little bit taken aback by the movie. It just really seems to hit home, no matter the person. I will probably (more like will) write a more analytical blog about the movie tomorrow or Thursday.
But for now, see The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

7/24/06

Everyone smiles as you drift past the flowers, that grow so incredibly high.

Media, Gender, and Identity by David Gauntlett starts out like any media critique book. It acts as an Introduction (of course, since it is the title of the dang chapter) to the basic groundwork of the book as a whole. Simply put, this book is made to analyze what media might be implying and how these can be effecting us as the people. As the title of the book suggests, an emphasis is put on the gender issue of media. Later in the chapter, Gauntlett gives a quick image into the issues of Masculinity and Femininity. Men used to impose the ideals of the household and society, and women used to support the man's ideals. Now there is a shift and women are becoming not only the nurturers but also the bread winners as well (not to say there still isn't issues with femininity in U.S. culture today). This is just a taste of what is to come. I liked how Gauntlett actually pointed out the problems with his commentary. It leaves the concepts and ideals to be played around with by the readers.

The second chapter gives a tour to a few of the debates that are present in media critiques. The first one discusses whether media influences are imposed by the ones wielding it, or is media something that the people actually have the power over (determinism or social constructivism?) Do commercials cheapen the art of television and film therefore making it the power of the media? Does the fact that we are critiquing media now make us the powerful? This really is an unanswerable answer (what is the sound of one hand clapping). Gauntlett also brings up the idea that media is something that is just interpreted different by everyone thanks to Stuart Hall. The chapter then goes on to discuss the issue of psychologists and their dealings with gender issues. Like one of the problems with this book in chapter one, the psychologists focused on the popular culture instead of new, radical ideas.

Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

Cellophane flowers of yellow and green,
Towering over your head.
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes,
And she's gone.

{CHORUS}
Lucy in the sky with diamonds,
Lucy in the sky with diamonds,
Lucy in the sky with diamonds,
Ah... Ah...

{VERSE 2}
Follow her down to a bridge by a fountain,
Where rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies.
Everyone smiles as you drift past the flowers,
That grow so incredibly high.

Newspaper taxis appear on the shore,
Waiting to take you away.
Climb in the back with your head in the clouds,
And you're gone.

{CHORUS}

Picture yourself on a train in a station,
With plasticine porters with looking glass ties.
Suddenly someone is there at the turnstile,
The girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

lyrics from this site

While I was writing this blog, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds actually came on my music. There has been rumors thrown about that the song is actually a song about LSD due to the radical imagery in the song and in the music number in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Also most easily seen is the simple letter structure in the song's name Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. It has been said that the actual story is from a picture that John Lennon's son Julian showed him. Julian drew a classmate Lucy, who was in the sky with diamonds. Hence the name. For this particular situation there are these two debates but there are seemingly millions of other ones that could be the truth. However, we will never know the truth entirely.
The original picture drawn by Julian taken from www.whatgoeson.com/gallery/lsdpic.jpg

"Buy all our playsets and toys!"

Hegemony is simply defined by James Lull as the "power or dominance that one social group holds over others." However, Lull broadens this by mentioning that hegemony is a "method for gaining and maintaining power." In this day and age power can easily be defined as money, money, money. Just like the Hulk, green is the color of power (and fear according to Anne Heche). That is why Lull talks about how most things today are made and used for the amount of money could be made off of them. Toys, cars, music, television shows you name it. The strong develop objects and materials that we as consumers are trained into desiring, therefore causing the strong to gain hold of us and become even more powerful. Hegemony is definitely a thought process in which capitalism is the evil. Thats Marxism for ya.



The Cheat Commandos exemplifies the sometimes obvious product development tied into the cartoons that children watch. I can remember as a kid watching shows similar to The Cheat Commandos like G.I. Joe, Power Rangers, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles while going crazy over the newest toy or video game advertized in the following commercial (Hey! They just showed that jeep in the show!). The Cheat Commandos shows how something as ridiculous as a cheap brand of toys could sell easily on their own but gets a television show because it would easily boost profits

Psycho 1998 remake: Making Vince Vaughn into a dashing 70 year old woman

Ok, so remakes of old movies are bound to happen I have come to accept that. However, it has been my understanding so far that nearly (and I say nearly) all of the remakes were of bad and/or cult classic films (and ironically most of them are horror films). Remaking Psycho seems to feel like a grave is being robbed. The only thing is the grave is filled with gold. It seems like it would be a good idea. The movie itself is alright in my mind. Nothing amazing, yet also nothing like House of Wax.

For a film that was made in the 1960's, it is hard to keep the lingo, look, and feel of the film the same, especially if it is a shot for shot remake. I do have to applaud Gus Van Sant for managing to modernizing everything while keeping the plot the same. I also did notice Van Sant keeping some of the motif's of Hitchcock alive, like the theme of horizontal and vertical imagery (the buildings and streets of the intro shot, Norman in his box yet cut by the screen, etc). Overall, the imagery is the thing I liked the most about this film (despite the images during death). The thing that bothered me was the characters themselves.

I found myself thinking through the movie that there was at least a few people that seemed really unsuited for their roles. Anne Heche felt too peppy in the film. Most of the time it seemed like she was an actress. There was never a moment of sincerity from her (this is yet again my feeling). Her facial expressions felt blank or perky, thats it. The zoom out of her eye was probably one of the most emotionless expressions in the whole movie (yeah I know she is supposed to be dead, but she did just get killed by Norman in a bad wig and ugly dress). Vince Vaughn was the other one that was just bugging me. He was tall, awkward, and odd looking, yet had a forceful, apprehensive, charming (or attempting to be) feel to him at the same time. One moment he was shy, then was assertive the next. The best way to describe Vince Vaughn's role as Norman was just plain awkward.

Overall, the remake actually wasn't too bad.....once you get past half of the acting (you can't go wrong with William H. Macy). The fact that it is a remake make me feel like there is hope for all remakes out there. The only hope is that a good horror remake comes out.

Remember, remember the fifth of November.......

Do you know exactly what the television, film, music, and internet material tell about yourself or about those around you? Is the media we partake in something that is just swallowed like the food we eat or is it more like a "vaccine" injected into our system? How can we dissect what we our putting into our systems, or, at the very least, understand that which we intake?
Douglas Kellner has produced a formula to filter the meanings behind the "madness" in his article entitled "Culture Studies, Multiculturalism, and Media Culture". The three steps that which Kellner uses to break down media are through analyzing their production and political economy, text, and audience reception. The production and political economy of a media source simply entails the marketing of and the political background and/or views of said media. The text analysis includes the meanings behind the media itself. This can be a multitude of meanings that can use the production and political economy mentioned above. As Kellner finishes his section on the textual anaylisis he writes, "Of course, each reading of a text is only one possible reading from one critic's subject position, no matter how multiperspectival, and may or may not be the reading preffered by the audience." Finally, audience reception is needed because then the media can be viewed through the eyes of not only the critics but the average viewers themselves. Plus, the audience allows for a mass study of the staying effect of the media (most noted by the dreaded "Trekkies).

While reading this article one movie stood out above any other in my mind. What this one particular scene displays all of these three steps.


If the above clip does not work it can be seen here-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLD3Z6sJWA

This is a clip from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta. This scene speaks many different languages to the audience but politics is it's main lingo. While watching this, it is hard to not think about what this really is signifying. As I said, this movie was first released in 2005 during a time of questioning of the validity and planning of the government. The story of V for Vendetta takes place in a "prosperous" England under the rule of the facist Norsefire party's leader Adam Sutler. The party uses words like religion, faith, and security as a tool to help control the people. This can easily be seen as a political satire for the Bush administration at the time. The clip can be seen many different ways. It could be seen as a warning for us as viewers. We must be sure to question the motives of the people who lead us, and make sure that they are doing it for our benefit. It could also be implying that anarchy is needed to purge a corrupt government. The viewer finds the protaganist V as a crusader in this society. However, he is also considered a terrorist. Also, the emphasis on Guy Fawkes, of whom Guy Fawkes day (November 5th) is named after, can be mislead considering that he planned on blowing up Parliament which makes himself a terrorist.

The formost point in this speech is that the people have the power to make or break their leaders (which could have been a direct attack towards President Bush who recently won the 2004 election four months earlier). The point of the speech is directed to the people of England, however, it also can be point out towards you th audience. Could V be saying that as England made it's mistake in choosing Sutler, we have made a mistake in choosing Bush?

clips courtesy of youtube

Apparently there is more to Disney movies than funny subliminal messages.

Henry A Giroux talks openly about the effects and underlying social meanings that occur withing the world of Disney. Giroux plainly puts his ideas into a simple, straightforward question; "Are Disney Movies Good for Your Kids?" He starts his discussion developing the simple groundworks that is Disney. It is a company that has entertained the American's and people all over the world for many upon many of years. Disney has and is a part of one of the ideals of America itself due to the "history" it shares with the common citizen. Grioux comments that in many ways Disney has become a form of "teaching machines. (pg. 164)" By this he means that Disney movies can be teaching children social rules, conducts, and taboos. However, this also means that things like class structure, gender issues, and racism is viewed as well. Grioux then goes into detailed discussions of various Disney movies. The main movies he talks about are The Little Mermaid (teaching that men do actually prefer women who don't talk), Beauty and the Beast (teaching that women must tame their men to make them proper), The Lion King (teaching that the rough, bad, mean looking hyenas have thick accents, which fit their characters), and finally Aladdin (teaching, yet again, that good looks must make you good). At the end the chapter, Grioux goes on to describe what could be done about Disney. All in all I believe what Grioux is trying to say is that in this day and age we cannot just simply overlook what is in these films. They are entertaining, but there needs to be some level of understanding for the children of what these films underlying message may mean.



This clip is the trailer for the Disney movie called Enchanted. I think that this in many ways is Disney's attempt at actually poking fun at themselves. Also, this movie brings about a change in the whole Princess fairy tale story. There are still some points at which are questionable, but for the most part is an almost redemptive story for Disney.

clip taken from youtube found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLdKwdGdZaI

More Stereotypes

Hello, viewers, readers, or listeners
This installment includes another dosage of everyones favorite subject. No, not ape fights, but stereotypes. Richard Dryer writes a chapter called The Role of Stereotypes in which he breaks down a quote from Walter Lippmann. "We can begin to understand something of how stereotypes work by following up the ideas raised by Lippmann- in particular his stress on stereotypes as (i) an ordering process, (ii) a 'short cut', (iii) referring to 'the world', and (iv) expressing 'our' values and beliefs" (pg 11). Dryer breaks up the rest of the chapter into the i's above. By an ordering process he meant that a society has a need to describe itself in any way possible. Unfortunately, this descriptive process can lead to something along the lines of a stereotype. The idea of stereotypes being a short cut is really like saying it is a condensing of multiple ideas into an everyday term. So, when you say something like "drunk Irish" there are more social terms being throw around. When Dryer was talking about stereotypes as a reference to the "world" I believe what he was saying is that certain stereotypes appear as a function of understanding for all to see. Dryer mentions how this is easily seen in fiction and like the short cuts there are many more things at play. Finally, Dryer talks about stereotypes (how many times am I going to write stereotypes for this class?) as as expression of values. This means that this shows how one group determines the stereotypes for one other group. Expression of values is like a circle theory or like a snake biting its own tail. You create a stereotype for one group, and you learn about that same group from that stereotype.

One book actually came to mind when thinking of the expression of values portion of the chapter.


For those who do not know what this is it is simply a book talking about the necessities of being a man in a simple alphabet form (A is for this, B is for that, etc). This book plays into a lot of the stereotypes that circle around men and how they should act. This book also portrays women in a fashion of.....well, typical stereotypes put to an extreme level. While it is meant to be comical (actually I'm not sure if it is. The author is quite odd to put it lightly) it does point out a many issues that were common stereotypes that were once (and can still be) considered right about men and women.

This book was written by what you could call a famous internet star named Maddox whose website is http://maddox.xmission.com/. I felt the need to intentionally not activate the link simply because its content (seriously though, this is offensive stuff. If you do go, go with a mind wide open.)
image from http://www.alphabetofmanliness.com/

Stereotypes

Bradley W. Gorham wrote an article entitled The Social Psychology of Stereotypes: Implications for Media Audiences in which he talks about stereotypes and how they are actually much more ingrained into our daily lives and viewpoints. Gorham starts off by talking about how stereotypes have two main factors about them. These being that they follow a schema and because of this encounter priming. Schema basically means that we can identify things according to general information. Priming occurs when we take the schema and assume/come to the conclusion of uses, concepts, or characteristics of said person, place, or thing. These two concepts are so included (intentionally, and non-intentionally) that they can cause a "natural tendency" to think unknowingly with stereotypes. Gorham also talks about how stereotypes cause a sense of ingroups and outgroups. Ingroups are basically the group of who you or whomever is accustomed to, while outgroups are people who belong to the opposition. Gorham then continues on to discuss how the mass media can have influence on how people perceive people in outgroups. Simply put the people in power control images on outgroups.

Weird Al's White and Nerdy music video

I thought of this video when reading Gorham's article mainly because it is a blatant image of the nerd culture. You can see at several points in which a white nerd is with a hip black guy and the first thought is that that is unnatural and usually does not happen. Also just the first few seconds displays a comical look at how from just one glance it is apparent that Weird Al (guy with glasses and black hair) is a nerd (and frightening.......if only). The last line of the song really displays this feeling of separation because of stereotypes. "I wanna bowl with the gangstas but so far they all just think I'm too white and nerdy."

Psycho, the grandfather of modern thrillers?

After watching Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho my initial reaction is somewhat indifferent. In many ways it "wow-ed" me, but at the same time it also disappointed me. I have been so used to the idea that Psycho is the grand daddy of all thrillers that it almost was too high up on the pedestal.
My personal favorite part of Psycho was the musical score. The main intro song was so chillingly exciting that I can hardly find a word to describe it. The shower scene screeches made an already chilling scene just over the top scary. Also, the odd silence when Norman is cleaning up after Mother is just perfect.
The shower scene is most likely one of the most notable instances in all of American film. The idea behind being attacked while you are the most defenseless and (quite literally) exposed is enough to make anyone lock their bathroom doors for a few years. Hitchcock did a wonderful job of building up the suspense before the shower. This left the audience hoping she was going to survive. I found the idea of the shower scene to be frightening. On the other hand I found myself feeling that it was a little cheesy. There is a scene from an old play-turned-movie called 12 Angry Men in which the characters go over the logistics of stabbing at a downward angle. Eventually it is proven that stabbing someone that way would not do the damage to kill the victim (in that movie). Watching Marion get stabbed like that only made me thing of that scene from 12 Angry Men. It just didn't feel real.
Even though I do say that it didn't feel real, it is exactly that which makes Psycho so effectively scary. Audience and viewers alike are left thinking "how could something like that even happen." The even scarier thought is that Psycho was based off of a serial killer named Ed Gein.
Besides these few nuances, the acting was gripping (especially the unspoken acting), the plot was intriguing (money has nothing to do with death), and the camera work was brilliant (never has a shot of stuffed birds been creepier). Overall, I did like the film. Really the big downfall for me was that it was made in 1960.