Tuesday, September 30, 2008

"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)

Thursday, September 25, 2008

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

"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

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

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)

Monday, September 22, 2008

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:

Thursday, September 18, 2008

"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.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

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

Thursday, September 11, 2008

"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

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

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.

Monday, September 8, 2008

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

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

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

Monday, September 1, 2008

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.