Dog Day Afternoon is a brilliant film, and highlights a number of points that we considered during our discussion and via this blog. However, I wish to draw importance to its portrayal of a "Media Circus".

The media are so prevelant in our daily lives, that while they don't exactly tell us how to think, they do tell us what to think about. The recent growth of the concept of the 24-hour news cycle demands continuous "fresh" news, and this has turned the informative aspects of the media (such as the news) into entertainment. This, coupled with the current economic situation and profit-driven news corporations, has led to the tabloid culture that was first made famous by muckrakers such as William Randolph Hearst. Stories like "Balloon Boy" plague our news cycle, so much so that we (the younger generation) are forced to turn to "fake news" outlets (such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) or poorly researched internet blogs. This is exactly why many people my age are not only completely unaware of the world around them (the world that matters, not the world that revolves around Lady Gaga), they are actually made to seem less intelligent than the previous generation (by the media that talks down to them). They have come to think that news is synonymous with entertainment. They insist that the world pander to them. That is why when an actual event is so fantastic that it can be used as entertainment (such as a hostage situation in Brooklyn), the media go crazy.

In a situation like this, it is important to remember the original values of journalism: reporters needed to serve as the guardians of democracy and as the watchdogs of the government. They need to disregard the entertainment or profit-driven motive and aim instead to inform and educate. These values were expressed brilliantly by the film Network, one of my favorite movies of all time, and another of Sidney Lumet's masterpieces. The important, though admittedly idealistic (and maybe naive), point I am trying to make here is expressed almost perfectly by "the mad prophet of the airwaves", Howard Beale:

This movie is a great watch, but also refers to many of the ideas that we as critical viewers of media need addressed. The media circus is a concept that should have lost its excitement-factor a long time ago. Can it be safe to assume, then, that the more important a role media plays in our life, the less we control how it affects us?

Should we put a warning on false beauty?

When the media industry changes one aspect of the media production process, an entire domino affect occurs.  Will changing some part of the industry affect profits?  Will people lose their jobs?  Will negative social issues occur?

 

Many of my classes have discussed the issue of women and men being photoshopped in magazines and how it promotes false images to the readers.  It is easy for us to say that the best way to improve the false promotion of female and male beauty is by adding a form of warning.  This can lead to numerous problems for the industry.   Many people would lose their jobs, new ethical situations would arise and in turn companies could go under due to loss in profits.

If advertisers or magazines had to clearly state when they used Photoshop, some companies may decide to take on more creative photographers in order to create flawless photos without computer enhancement.  So what happens to the millions of people who spent their lives training and working for this aspect of media production? They are out of jobs and left with a skill that has become useless for most companies.  What about the companies who produce the digital tools and the millions of people who work for these technologic companies? These people need work to feed their families, pay their mortgages, and uphold a healthy standard of living.  Is it worth hurting all these people for this one caption at the bottom of an ad, which may not make a difference?

          Let's say a magazine decides to take the unique and creative road and they say that they will never use Photoshop.  Then one day a celebrity comes in and has a blemish on her face and she insist on having it taken out on the computer.  Should a company risk its’ credibility in order to keep a good relation with this particular celebrity? This may seem like a stupid situation, but small situations such as these cause ethical issues to arise.  If a magazine is trying to make money, but their client doesn't want the public to know their face was technologically changed, what should that company do?

If the word got out that they used Photoshop, which goes against their motto, they lose their credibility and thus their magazine may not remain as successful.  The magazine may have to make budget cuts and in turn more people end up without jobs.  A small situation ends up affecting hundreds of more people. 

Even if these companies agreed to place this caption on the image, companies will find ways to go around it.  They will find models that have perfect skin, who never need to be photo shopped in anyway.  This means discrimination will occur against any model who does not seem perfect in person.  This would now cause issues between the modeling industry and bigger companies.   If companies only hire people who in reality appear almost perfect, won't girls all over the world feel inferior to these women appearing in magazines and advertisements?  Companies will still be promoting an image, which most girls will never be able to obtain.  The self-esteem issues existing amongst women will remain in place.  It may even become worse, because people will know that these women really do exist and look almost flawless without any enhancement.  

Changing one aspect of the media industry leads to a complicated mess of more issues, which will need to be resolved.  The industry must figure out whether it is worth the consequences to simply place a caption on the bottom of a photo.  I am sure this is one of the main reasons why the US has taken precaution in adopting this law.

Examples of photoshop :

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ebeautydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/0720-faith-hill-photoshop.jpg&imgrefurl=http://dezertprincess.wordpress.com/tag/vent/&usg=__4UwaCqrRG_LTNYe6BnSp3A2KhNA=&h=331&w=450&sz=34&hl=en&start=19&sig2=Vdn7byGcKcysVzDkUZt-dA&um=1&tbnid=3j7ye5GrouQeCM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddoctored%2Bfashion%2Bphotos%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=zOjrSuOgN5HplAfTrrH_BA

Capitalism in Film

In Michael Moore’s most recent documentary titled, Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore explores the role of capitalism in today’s society by investigating a wide range of cases from people of every economic class. In doing so, Moore articulates the main focus of the documentary: that all around us, “capitalism trumps democracy”. Essentially what Moore means by this is that the process of capitalism has become too polarizing—making the wealthy wealthier, and the poor poorer. In doing so, the wealthier population becomes more powerful and is able to further manipulate the lower classes by treating them as products instead of people, all in an effort to further increase profits. In turn, as they nurture the idea that people are products, the people begin to forget that they are human beings with the power of voice and opinion. It is at this point that the public no longer utilizes all powers instilled by democracy, making it seem almost nonexistent in this capitalist society.
During the movie I found two particular examples of the above process particularly intriguing. First is in regard to the juvenile delinquent program through “PA Child Care”. In this example, judges were payed off by this private corporation to meet a certain quota in terms of the number of people they send to juvie. One of the victims articulated the process best when saying that he was simply viewed as a product in the eyes of this company and all human attributes were no longer considered. His original reason for being placed in juvie was illegitimate and he was forced to stay longer than he should have—he was simply an instrument for profit making.
The second example was even more disturbing and it dealt with “Dead Peasant Insurance”. This refers to a type of life insurance for employees that are bought by companies so that they make money when you die. This becomes an even more blatantly disgusting illustration of greed when you learn that more often than not, the thousands or even millions of dollars they make off of the death of someone’s loved one is used to pay for the retirement funds or bonuses of high-level execs, instead of being used to help pay for the funeral expenses of the one who passed. Both examples illustrate how this extreme sort of capitalism that exists today is concerned about nothing other than profit.
What Moore suggests we do to combat this sort of capitalism is to go back to our American roots of democracy and rebel against the few elites that control the system. In doing so, we will help to reinstate a balance between capitalism and democracy that will help to dissolve the drastic barriers between today’s economic classes.

A Modern Media Spectacle: The LA Car Chase

I remember a few years back watching television and hearing about the popularity of car chases in Los Angeles. Being from the East Coast, I didn't know much about the situation aside from the fact, that almost every day there was apparently car chases where the police would go after the "bad guy" and every local station would air it live on television for everyone to see. According to an article from 2003, in the year before their were over 700 police chases, "most of them offering hours of live television coverage." It got to the point where city officials had to urge the media to stop publicizing these pursuits. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064169270.html?oneclick=true).

When we discussed the film this week and the media spectacle surrounding the events at the bank that day, I couldn't help but think of these chases. I believe that the car chase is the equivalent of the bank robbery then- just as people in the movie gathered around their TV sets to see what would happen to Sonny, people in 1994 sat for hours watching OJ Simpson being tailed by police in his bronco as he attempted to flee to Mexico. It is interesting how viewers are interested in these real life events to the point where they find entertainment in crime. It goes beyond watching a Law and Order to watching the real thing play out before their own eyes. And it is interesting how this phenomena continues to this day. It appears that people will always find fascination in these situations and the media plays off of this.

Also, on a different note, if anybody is interested, when I was researching the true events of the story (most of this stuff is on Wikipedia) these are the main differences between the film/what really happened, in addition to interesting facts:
-Sonny's real name is John Wojtowicz; Leon's is Earnest (but he went by the name Elizabeth Eden)- John was sentenced to 20 years in prison but served only 14 years; John died in 2006 of Cancer
-Eden's sexual reassignment surgery was funded by John selling his story for $7,500. Eden died in 1987 of AIDs related pneumonia.
-John had left his wife 2 years before meeting Eden
-John never spoke to his mother and they wouldn't let him speak to his wife (her name was Carmen)
-Sal was only 18 years old at the time of the crime (but John Cazale, who was in his late 30's at the time was cast at the request of Pacino); Sal was the only person involved in the robbery with a criminal history- he had been arrested for several different things including drugs and burglary- and had been abused in prison which was a source of anxiety for him during the incident (and a probable reason why he did not want to go back to prison)
-Also, Sal had fired the single shot out the back of the bank, though it was Pacino's Sonny character who fired the shot in the film; while the shot was provoked by police attempting to enter in the film, the incident was unprovoked in real life
-John based his plan off the Godfather which he had seen earlier that day (incidentally, both Pacino and Cazale, were both in that film)
-Also, random actor facts: John Cazale was actually engaged to Meryl Streep but died in 1978 at age 42 from bone cancer before they could marry; Chris Sarandon who played Leon was Susan Sarandon's first husband

Do the Right Thing

I know we mentioned Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing a couple of times in class the other day and I decided to post the “race rant scene” for everyone to take a look at. As I was watching Dog Day Afternoon, I couldn’t help but associate it with Do the Right Thing because they both deal with controversial issues in an unexpected way. Do the Right Thing talks about racism “out loud” (for lack of a better term) and the entire movie feels very real. When I first watched the movie, I felt like I knew Sal, Pino, and Vito. In fact, I know many people like them who think that they aren’t “really racist”. This scene from the film is so powerful because it addresses so much of what really goes on. Dog Day Afternoon, which successfully addressed class and race issues, was definitely a precursor to Do The Right Thing. While Dog Day Afternoon essentially talks about marginalized people and their relationship to capitalist America, Do the Right Thing examines the relations between racial groups of the same class. For those of you who haven’t seen the film, the main conflict is between Sal and his sons and the black youth in the neighborhood. Spike Lee ultimately has you asking yourself just who is doing the right thing? I highly encourage everyone to see it as it is a very thought provoking film. 

The Sharpie Bandits

I stumbled upon an article on these two men today and I immediately thought of "Dog Day Afternoon". They were found driving away from a crime that they had just committed. As soon as police caught a glimpse of their faces they were certain that they had the right people. The two suspects had not only tried to mask their faces with black marker, but they had done so with a permanent one. They were apparently just trying to scare the man who owned the house, for personal reasons. It reminded me of how incredibly unprepared and ironically "unprofessional" (by criminal means) Sunny and Sal were.I think it is hilarious that someone could possibly think this would work in this day and age.

their mug-shots are below:

Misogyny and RAPE and the violence of the Male Gaze

Although I agree that Dog Day Afternoon was a very good movie, I was really concerned with its portrayal of women. It seemed as if the stereotypical traits of the women were exaggerated to the point where it was almost absurd. The director may have wanted it to be satirical, but I didn't laugh when the lead teller was getting her five seconds of fame on tv nor did I laugh when Sonny's wife and mother were blamed as a scapegoat for his social deviance. Why is it that women always carry the burden of responsibility? We are still victims of the male gaze, even after so much feminist discourse.

I was reading this article in the Daily News about a devout Muslim woman who attempted to murder her liberal husband for forcing her to adopt Western customs. This being the main plot, a spin was placed on the article that disturbed me. Staff writers Rocco Parascandola and John Lauinger described the woman as "pretty and petite" and "soft spoken and lowkey," yet in such a condescending tone. They specifically point out things that would appeal to a man: her being traditional and subservient, wearing sexy skirts for her husband, her straddling him, her eating pork. They portray her as the victimized woman, almost sickeningly so, and it reminds me of a rape narrative, where the man gets off on overpowering the woman and forcing her into submission.

Of course, if we step back from the article, this is most likely not the story. She probably was just some crazy lady who was indoctrinated by an extreme reading of her religion. Yet why is it that the woman is continuously sexualized by the writers? Isn't this the one thing she would have least wanted in her portrayal? The lack of respect for the woman's voice is astonishing. Reading the comments, I didn't see a single instance of someone standing up for her image. Isn;t that the issue at hand?

What do you think? HERE'S THE LINK

Authenticity

Since the advent of Photoshop the question of authenticity has been a hot topic. As we discussed in class on Monday, support is growing for legislation that would make advertisers post notices on ads that have been photoshopped. Photoshop has blurred the line between authentic and inauthentic and such legislation seeks to clarify the boundary.

In keeping with the theme of authenticity, I found an interesting article on nymag.com today regarding a marble sculpture named "Young Archer." The statue, which will be on display in the Met beginning November 3rd, is the subject of much controversy in the curatorial world. As the article explains, the statue was declared by NYU's own Kathleen Weil-Garris as an official work of Michelangelo, but many other scholars question the works' origin.

Upon reading this article I was immediately reminded of the first chapter from Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink," in which he chronicles the quest to authenticate (or not) a kouros statue in the J. Paul Getty Museum.

In a world where reproductions can be produced with minimal effort and at incredible volume, it seems we value the authenticity of a work more than the creative effort behind the work. The lengths to which people go in order to prove the validity of a painting, sculpture, or an ad are extensive - it can take years of research and investigation to prove if a statue or painting is real. In todays world, imitation is not the highest form of flattery.

http://nymag.com/arts/art/features/60279/

How America Supports Their Charities

America loves to pseudo-support charities by buying products that contribute a small, and usually capped amount to a particular organization. This is a win-win situation, the consumer doesn't have buyers remorse over the pink Corvette they just purchased because $2 will be going to breast cancer research, and Corvette just made bank appealing to that desire to be a "good Samaritan" within the consumer.

My question is, if people are so eager to join a cause and give their money to prevent/stop/raise diseases/genocide/awareness, then why can't they find a website and donate directly? I think there are a few reasons why the majority of people don't do this, but continue to lick and send their Yoplait yogurt caps.

The first, and most simple reason is that America is lazy. We are all touched by tear-jerking stories on Oprah, and everyone loves to watch Ty Pennington built a house in 20 minutes on "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." But when charities ask for donations, it becomes a hassle for many. People don't feel like seeking out charitable organizations and would rather get their good deed over with in the cereal isle of Whole Foods.

Another reason which delves deeper into American culture can be explained by commodity fetishism. Not only are good erased of the labor that went into them and instead infused with hegemonic ideas about beauty, food, and cleanliness, when a product slaps a colored ribbon on the front of their product, or changes the color of their product entirely, that good becomes an embodiment of charitableness, selflessness and awareness. Essentially, consumers can have their cake (the pink Swiffer) and eat it too, (They think they're combatting breast cancer).

When I googled "charity supported products" the first thing that came up was Oprah's "18 Products That Support Breast Cancer Charities" if you get a chance, take a look. Among the pink bras, cosmetic cases, sneakers and sneakers, there are also Sharpie products with the caption "Pinkify your life" the suffix -fy, which means 'to make' proves the point that in order to support breast cancer research one must literally buy into it.

Politically Dressed

Okay, I'm having a little bit of writers' block concerning this week's post, but I ran across this New York Times article regarding the "it" item of this fashion season: the flannel shirt. (http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/flannel-shirt-bipartisanship/ ; http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article10190901.aspx )

The article suggests that due to the economic crisis, those who can no longer afford such luxuries as Hummers to depict themselves as "rough and tough" individuals can instead indulge $500 dollar "workman" shirts and work boots to compensate. Since, as the article states, it never costs too much to look like you've just come how from work

The article also addresses how the flannel look appeals to both sides of the political spectrum, including those wild and crazy urban hipsters. What this article fails to acknowledge is the aura of "American authenticity" flannel has about it. It the fabric of the hard working, the person who is pursuing the American Dream in an age where this ideology has grown increasingly jaded.

Is this return to flannel not only a return to specific style but also an attempt to get back to one's "roots?" Or is it merely the result of the American public's desire for further commodification and kitsch?

Personal Photoshop

I really enjoyed Monday’s discussion about the laws some European countries are planning on passing about putting disclaimers on any digitally enhanced images. That got me thinking about our culture’s obsession with programs like Photoshop and altering their own photos to appear flawless. I knew a girl in high school who, before posting any picture to Facebook, would edit it in Photoshop to whiten her teeth, get rid of any acne, and even go as far as to make her face thinner. That just seems excessive to me. But when we see these images of beautiful, digitally enhanced people in advertisements, we’re a lot less quick to judge. At the same time, it’s natural that we want to look as “flawless” as these models. So why is it so criticized when a “normal” person slightly enhances their photos when advertisers do that at extreme levels?

Obviously there’s a clear distinction between a picture that’s going to appear on the cover of Vogue versus on the front of someone’s Facebook profile. But then it’s viewed as more socially acceptable when professional photographs are taking for businesses or even family Christmas cards. So maybe it really is that the medium determines the acceptability of enhancement. What might happen if advertisements were forced to publicize when they’re digitally enhanced but then personal media were not? I think it would be really interesting to see the dynamic between advertisements and consumers if personal cards and photos slowly became more edited and “perfect” than the images we see in magazines and on billboards. Personally, I’d love to receive a Christmas card with a giant label that warned me that the people in it had been digitally altered.

And I found the pictures below on a site about terrible Photoshopping. They’re basically glamour shots that were taken of little girls then edited until they look “flawless” (in my opinion, kind of like creepy dolls). I thought they were entertaining.

Family Guy and Microsoft

The incredibly funny (fact, not opinion) Fox show Family Guy was slated to release an episode with a bit of a different twist. Instead of breaking for regular commercials every 15 minutes, they teamed up with Microsoft so that Seth McFarlane would say some witty words plugging Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows 7. This would be a nice break for the viewers because everybody hates commercials, and it would be good for Microsoft, as they are trying to appeal to the college aged, or at least college educated, consumer. After a representative from Microsoft was invited to a screening, the company backed out. They were turned off by the show's off color humor and style of comedy.

It's kind of a fine line in this situation because obviously this is the perfect show to target the intended audience, but Microsoft runs the risk of being associated with the values of that show if they choose to sponsor it. Ultimately, they pulled out of the agreement and the creators of Family Guy are now left to do some creative editing work to make it a smooth show. This comes down to the idea of branding and how companies want to be perceived. There are certain associations consumers make with certain companies. Mac users associate Apple computers with being fun and reliable. PC users may expect something a little more professional because as of right now it caters to an older demographic. If Microsoft wants to be recognized as a younger brand, it may have been a good idea to suck it up and keep the spot on Family Guy because it is sure to be seen by all the people the company wants to receive that message.

"Hey, I'm a Star!"

While doing some research on Dog Day Afternoon, I came across Roger Ebert’s 1975 review of the acclaimed movie. In his review, he addresses an important aspect of the movie that we spoke about in class. He says, “There’s a point midway in “Dog Day Afternoon” when a bank’s head teller, held hostage by two very nervous stick-up men, is out in the street with a chance to escape. The cops tell her to run. But, no, she goes back inside the bank with the other tellers, proudly explaining, ‘My place is with my girls.’ What she means is that her place is at the center of live TV coverage inspired by the robbery. She’s enjoying it…Criminals become celebrities because their crimes provide fodder for the media…Through it all there’s that tantalizing attraction of instant celebrityhood, caught for an instant when a pizza deliveryman waves at the cameras and shouts, ‘Hey, I'm a star!’” I think that Ebert evaluated this notion perfectly. While the bank teller had already spent several hours as a hostage in a stuffy and hot bank, she opted to go back inside and remain in a potentially dangerous environment. Why? Because she was getting her 15 minutes of fame. Likewise, Sonny’s role as a criminal seemed to be completely obscured by the fact that he was the center of attention and attracting the interest of the media.

While Dog Day Afternoon was filmed about three decades before America’s fascination and obsession with reality television, this theme of “celebrityhood” still played a pivotal role. Today, with shows like The Bachelor, A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, and I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, the aspiration for attention and fame has not diminished one bit. VH1 has even created an entire block of shows dedicated to celebrity reality, known as “Celebreality”. It seems as though America was obsessed and is still obsessed with capturing the attention of millions even if it is fleeting.

This recurring theme that comes out of movies like Dog Day Afternoon and the reality shows that inundate television listings is the idea of people being famous for being famous. People like Tila Tequila and Paris Hilton are people who attained celebrity status for no particular reason; they achieved their celebrity and fame for having no talent or special abilities and in Paris Hilton’s case, simply through being a rich socialite. What we know is that the world and America, in particular, is enticed by celebrities and their lifestyle and as a result, average Joes and Janes are constantly trying to achieve a status of recognition.

Obama administration and the media

I am pretty sure that a few classes ago we were talking about the ban that was put by the government on pictures of bodies or coffins that came back form the war in Afghanistan. Well this morning while browsing the web for news I stumbled upon an article on yahoo.com from the Associated Press that talked about president Obama and how he flew to Delaware for the transfer of many fallen soldiers and how he was part of the ceremonies and was witness to the costs of war. In the article it talks about how the ban that media had on images of dead bodies in war or coffins was relaxed under Obama's administration and how now it is up to the families to decide whether or not images of their loved ones can be used in the media.

What is interesting for me about this article and the whole subject is how changes in government administration change the reach the media has to certain types of information. Also, I feel like it is a good decision from Obama to leave this decision to the families of the fallen soldiers. First of all, it would improve relationships between the government and the media which ultimately decide the image of the government that is going to be presented to the public. Also, I feel like the enforcing of this ban by George W. Bush was only damaging to the image of the government because it gave out the message that the fatalities were so many that the government could not approve of those being in the reach of the media (apart from the whole families-finding-out-by-pictures aspect, but that does not come to case at the moment). By Obama relaxing this ban I feel like he is aware of the fact that the war costs should be shown to the public and that the media can be given the access to these fatalities so they can deliver the message to the public. Lastly, I feel like this move from the Obama administration shows that it is focused on getting soldiers home soon because they would not have given access to the media to images of fatalities if they were not decided on decreasing the amount of those fatalities.

Everyone wants to be a Celebrity

After watching Dog Day Afternoon, it is apparent how the introduction of television into society produced a universal desire to be on T.V. and its association with being a celebrity.  Because Sunny and Sal were all over the news and their lives were discussed in great detail they became celebrities.  The pizza boy was one of the characters within the film that was “star struck” when he was able to interact with Sunny.  The pizza boy even exclaimed that he was a “star” because he was able to be on T.V. 

The fascination with being on television has only gotten worse in today’s society.  As a result, the definition of what a celebrity is has changed.  It is no longer defined by one’s talent as an actor, but rather an ability to capture people’s attention in whatever means necessary.  While there are rankings among the celebrities, A list, B list, C list, D list celebrities, we still regard reality T.V. stars as some form of celebrities, distinguished from the rest of society.  Reality television has allowed average Joes to get their 15 minutes of fame, and if they are lucky it might be longer.  Shows such as I love money, Real Chance of Love 1 and 2, Tool Camp, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, My Antonio, etc. allow unknown individuals to come into people’s homes once a week on various shows (the lovely photo above is from the show I Love Money).  They become a part of our social discussions and gossip. 

The creation of the celebrity also goes beyond the television; people are able to become “famous” through the Internet, through blogs, youtube, etc.  This sort of fame relies on how many people view the image or video.  The image or video does not necessarily have to be well represented, the presentation is not what is important, rather how entertaining it might be. 

So if anyone and everyone can be a celebrity in today’s society why is there still such an obsession with being on television?

New DirecTV commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvyZC5Wajj0

For those of you watching alot of Baseball lately, you have probably seen this DirecTV commercial featuring David Spade and the late Chris Farley. The scene is the infamous "fat guy in a little coat" scene from the movie Tommy Boy in which David Spade addresses the camera to endorse DirecTV. Many people have had a negative reaction to this commercial, believing that it was done in bad taste since Farley died of an overdose in 1997. Many people questioned why Spade, such a close friend of Farley would have agreed to do the advertisement. "Great, I'm here with tons of fun, but I could be at home with DirecTV," Spade says in the commercial. "It never gets old," he says after Farley busts the seams on the too-small jacket. What I found most tasteless was not the use of Farley in the add (lets be real, Michael Jackson died less than six months ago and there is already a movie in theaters about his life) but rather the sarcastic commentary that Spade used to talk about Farley in the add. When asked about his decision to do the add he said that "It is a clever homage to my friend and a movie that we loved doing." Many people wonder if Spade and those in charge of Farley's estate agreed to do the DirecTV commercial for the preservation of Farley's memory or for purely fiscal gain. I think the commercial may be successful in introducing a new generation to the humor of Chris Farley, I have never seen Tommy Boy and the commercial has made me more likely to watch it next time its on HBO. While DirecTV should have expected some public outcry from the commercial, making monetary gain off of a dead celebrity is hardly a new idea in Hollywood.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/27/farley.directtv.commercial/index.html

Branding of Charities

On Monday we had a quick conversation about the branding of charities. I was particularly struck by the discussion about the breast cancer logo and how it sells. People want to feel like they are helping out a good cause, and I think it is wrong for companies to put caps on the donations they give. This seems like a breach of trust that the companies are participating in. But as I was thinking about branding and charities I immediately thought of the wristbands that are so popular. These bands became popular starting with LIVESTRONG I believe. I remember the yellow livestrong bracelets were all the rage the summer they came out. I wanted one, and many places were quickly sold out of them. Celebrities and people on the streets were rocking the yellow band and it became a very popular item. Every charity began to mass produce these bands and made about $1 by selling them. They claimed to be raising money although now I am skeptical about how much of the money goes to the charity or if there is a cap on it. There are now thousands of websites and places where you can customize your own "livestrong" type bracelet. I have a couple of them and I even wear one everyday for cancer. It is good for the livestrong company that people automatically first think about the yellow bracelets when this idea comes to mind.

So today there is an "awareness" bracelet for every cause. If there isn't one for your cause, you can create it. We can create a bracelet for awareness or basically advertisement on our person everyeday if we walk around with them. I think that this was a great and original idea that has really taken off. People are making statements about what they support by wearing them. Along with this idea also comes the idea that different charities and causes often times have their own color. Like we said, breast cancer has a specific pink, I know that colon cancer is blue, red for HIV/AIDs, and white for diabetes to name a few. These colors normally correspond with the bracelets that are made for the causes, or a ribbon people showcase in support. People are constantly showing their support in many ways, by wearing bracelets, wearing ribbons or putting ribbons on their cars. I think this is nice but I wonder about the fact that it is nice to support, but by buying that ribbon did you really support the cause? Maybe there is a cap on that product as well. Nowadays it is popular to support charities and everyone is doing it, but are people really passionate anymore? Or are people just doing it because everyone else is doing it? I'd like to think that people really care and are supporting in more ways then just showing a ribbon.

Commodity Feminism

When reading Chapter 3 of “Practice of Looking,” I was drawn to the section about “commodity feminism” in which concepts of empowerment and strength are “translated into the mandate that working out, producing a tight, lean, muscled female body, and consuming products such as sunning shoes is equivalent to having control over ones life.” I immediately thought about Nike ads, because in my Advertising class they often come up in conversation. Nike is one company that successfully promotes respect for females, their bodies, and a sense of empowerment in regards to their decisions. Nike’s ads speak to women directly, encouraging them that rather than being overly critical of themselves, they should embrace their bodies and their authenticity. Nike takes the stance that it can supply these products to contribute to the lives of these women, but at the same time makes women feel confident and powerful themselves, making it seem as if the decision change and develop as a person must come from them.

An ad campaign that I immediately recalled involving this type of Nike strategy attempted to show women that they are respected as human beings, not just bodily shells. At the time this ad campaign ran, I personally found this type of advertisement refreshing amongst advertisements of skinny models, high heels, and naked people selling perfume. They are print advertisements featuring only images of only certain body parts, with a woman’s claims about them, their flaws, and why they are still beautiful. The female voices of the ads all have a tone of rebellion and confidence within them, similar to the Reebok ad showed as an example in “Practices of Looking.”

One is a picture of a woman’s quite large butt, with only tiny nude shorts on. The background is white, and the text is shaped the same way that the woman’s body is, emphasizing her bottom even more. The text next to the image claims: “MY BUTT is big and round like the letter C. And ten thousand lunges have made it rounder, but not smaller. And that’s just fine. It’s a space heater, for the side of my bed, it’s my ambassador to those who walk behind me, it’s a border collie that herd skinny women away from the best deals at clothing sales. My butt is big and that’s just fine. And those who might scorn it are invited to kiss it.” Another is a picture of a woman’s cut up knees reads, “MY KNEES are tomboys. They get bruised and cut every time I play soccer. I’m proud of them and wear my dresses short. My mother worries I will never marry with knees like that. But I know that there’s someone out there who will say to me: I love you and I love your knees. I want the four of us to grow old together.” One more: “I Have THUNDER THIGHS. And that’s a compliment because they are strong and toned and muscular. And though they are unwelcome in the petite section, they are cheered on in marathons. Fifty years from now I’ll bounce a grandchild on my thunder thighs, and then ill go out for a run.”

This is Nike’s way as a company to say to women, “We understand that you are not a model, not a size two, not a groupie of the beauty industry, but you are still beautiful, powerful, and we support you.” The ads express a sense of strength of everyday women, and because of their directness and underlying humor, they are able to change the typical spectator’s gaze and set themselves apart in the clutter of the advertising world, where spectators have often become cynical and disbelieving of advertisements. An actual product is absent from the ad, but can be inferred because of the spectator’s previous knowledge of Nike, and the typical gaze of women is challenged through these advertisements. These ads essentially successfully sell the attitude of Nike, one that the woman can adopt and alter for use in her personal life as a type of “commodity feminism.”

http://slowchurnedicecream.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nike-knees.jpg

http://www.nike.com/nikewomen//us/v2/media/swf/wkcampaign/shoulders_800x600.jpg

Speaking of celebrities volunteering...

I was on LIFE.com tonight (you should all check it out...i interned for them this summer) and I found this post about Madonna launching a school for poor girls in Africa. So, on the topic of celebrities and their grandiose volunteering gestures...

http://www.life.com/image/73899727/in-carousel/6762

PINK STUFF

Ok, not to crowd this blog, but I LITERALLY just left class like 5 minutes ago and I'm standing at one of the quickie computers on the second floor of Kimmel, and there is a table of people with pink livestrong type bracelets saying "Help support breast cancer awareness", and they're selling them for $1.  Do people pay a dollar to help find a cure, or do they have to pay a buck to be aware?  I can be aware for free.  

Dove and Axe

We have been talking a lot in class about the hegemony of the beauty industry and how it is their undying goal to get girls to buy their products. I was watching the Dove transformation video of the model being "beautified" with Photoshop (which, from what I understand, can't actually be done entirely with Photoshop, but requires other editing software) when I started to read the comments below the video. One caught my eye: "Pure hypocrisy: brought to you by the same company that owns Axe." I found that so crazy because on the surface, Axe and Dove seem to be completely different companies with a completely different set of values.

The whole idea of Dove soap is to find the inner beauty and not give in to the pressures imposed by the media. Axe, on the other hand, markets to men and tells the consumer that if he uses this product, he will get the girl. A company called Unilever owns both of these products, and other skin care products such as Pond's, Sunsilk, and Vaseline. This is similar to the big 6 media conglomerations that we talk so much about in this field, but instead of different TV stations with certain agendas, they are different products with different auras, so to speak. While Dove is encouraging young women to find their inner beauty, Axe inspires men to find only the outer beauty in said women. It seems that contradictory messages by the conglomerate on top in the name of profits is a little more common than we might realize.

If you're interested, here's the link to Unilever's branding section of their webpage: http://www.unilever.com/brands/

Disney Lessons

After our class discussion last time, I started thinking about the different Disney movies and the different lessons taught in each of them. While I agree with all the arguments in our reading I do think that the messages portrayed in these movies are representative of the beliefs society had at the time. If we look at Disney movies now, specially the movies made along with Pixar, we can see a different set of messages sent to children and parents. Starting with the adorable "Finding Nemo" (which taught us about friendship and family love) and ending with "Cars" (which teaches us about good sportsmanship), we can see that Disney movies do not send a fictitious message to children nowadays. Instead, they teach kids lessons they can apply to every day life. I feel like Disney stories are not about that fairy tale ending anymore but more about lessons that build character and prepare children for adult life. Also, I believe that these movies also target older audiences as some of them deal with themes that people of more age deal with in daily life.
As we continue to watch movies from Disney, we should think about the social implications of the time when the movies were created. Maybe as times keep changing, the lessons taught in these movies will change as well.

Breast Cancer Being Branded?

Not related to our readings from this week but an interesting argument that I've seen in a few articles recently that relates to what we've learned about branding.

Is breast cancer being capitalized on by companies/are companies exploiting breast cancer awareness in order to better market themselves?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/12/pink-ribbon-overkill-companies-exploit-breast-cancer-campaigns/print/

Unrealistic Expectations

In reference to Gitlin's article about the hegemonic processes in television entertainment, we began discussing the concept of photo shopping, and how these unrealistic images cause viewers to have unrealistic expectations of themselves, and how this leads to problems ranging from low self-esteem to diseases like anorexia.

An scarily accurate example of this is the Dove "Evolution" ad, which is part of the Dove "Real Beauty Campaign" (which is also what I wrote my paper on). The model starts out as a normal, reasonably attractive woman who is photoshopped beyond recognition to create this unrealistic super-woman that everyone will try, but be unable, to emulate.

This is just another instance of the negative effect of media technology on contemporary society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

I would also recommend watching the "Onslaught" commercial from the same campaign. It addresses the same issue, but the effect is much more chilling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=321Kb8pBu5s

Why not blame the family?

            When we are children we do not comprehend all the hidden racist, connotations within the classic Disney movies.  While we can look back and see the flaws within each plot, it is only after a college education that these flaws have become apparent to us.  Yes, women are portrayed as helpless and mindless characters that rely on a man, or a beast, to rescue them, but to a child this is nothing more then pure love.  Cinderella is about a princess, who is kind to all and in turn becomes a character kids look up to. These movies demonstrate simple ways to understand relationships between people.

            We can all admit that the Disney’s films take little care in developing diverse universes.  Each one is usually about white characters and if another race appears they do seem to portray the stereotypes of a certain race.  Does a five-year-old child see this in the film? Some people mentioned in class that children look up to certain characters and they may form prejudices based on what they see in films like Cinderella and Snow White.  As someone motioned in class, an African American child’s self esteem may be hurt because she feels inferior to the white girls portrayed as princesses in these films. 

            In my opinion children do not simply form ideas on race based on the faults in a Disney film.  When kids watch these films they see a princess, a prince, and a bad guy.  They don't consider the races and stereotypes in these films.  If they do, it is a matter of what they have been exposed to growing up, rather then simply what they see in a film.  I grew up going to public schools and my entire kindergarten through eighth grade experience was at a school that used a Spanish immersion program to teach kids.  In turn, Caucasians and upper middle class students were the minorities.  My closest friends used to be children of immigrants from all over the world.  My parents wanted me to be aware of the differences amongst people.

            I even remember my first American Girl doll, which my mother picked out and surprised me with on my birthday.  It was not  Samantha, the wealthy, little, Caucasian girl growing up in the turn of the centur, but it was the Addy doll.  Addy was a girl born into a life of slavery.  My next doll was Josephine the girl living in Mexico.  With these simple gifts my mother was teaching me lessons.  I was not narrow minded, and I believed these dolls were just as pretty, if not prettier than the Caucasian dolls.  Each one told a story of courageous girls growing up during hard times in a world extremely different then my own.

            The point of all this, is that your family has a huge impact on how you receive and interpret messages you gain from the media and other human interactions. When a child watches Cinderella and doesn’t want to be friends with a girl of another race (other then white) it is ignorant of us to only blame Disney films.  Parents can tell stories, use a small gift, and other ways to demonstrate equality amongst other cultures.  Disney movies are fundamentally happy tales, which teach kids about life experiences in the most simplistic way.  Kids get an insight into love, friendship and what is right and wrong. They may provide shallow insight, but the fact is most kids can only understand the basic levels of these themes.   We all want to blame the media for our problems, but I do not believe Disney films single handedly provide negative messages for kids. We must critically analyze family life and other aspects of a child’s environment, since these are some of the main causes that encourage a child’s one-dimensional view of the world.

The "White, Christian, Male Power Structure"

Just to support my argument of 2 minutes ago, this clip shows the infamous Bill O'Reilly talking about the White, Christian, Male power structure of which Walt Disney was very much a part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARBzAKSJOWw

It's almost amusing to hear it expressed so blatantly, as this is something that is an underlying theme in most major social/media/political decisions, but isn't made as obvious.

Disney obsessed

I admit that I am a bit biased toward Disney, but I had difficulty accepting all of Giroux’s arguments. The ultimate question he is posing is “Are Disney films good for your kids?”. My answer is that Disney films certainly aren’t bad for kids. Yes I admit that the racist messages in Disney films are unacceptable and that it upsets me that they are there in the first place. However, I can’t stress enough how many people I know who never noticed any of this as a child watching these films. I never watched The Little Mermaid or Aladdin and thought to myself that Ariel was a weak female character or that all Arab people were bad. I have been to Walt Disney World over twenty times and I’ve seen almost every major Disney film. I do not have a distorted worldview and I didn’t have one as a child either. I learned about racism and poverty etc., in school. And in my opinion, that is exactly where you should be learning about these types of things. Entertainment does not have to reflect reality. Children learn from all areas of their environment, not just media. Therefore, I think it is unfair to label Disney as somehow poisoning the minds of children with sexist and racist messages. I think its important to note that many Disney films are classic fairytales that existed before Disney ever created their own version. I also think Disney is learning from their mistakes they made 20 years ago and they have recently tried to be more inclusive. (Although the Princess and the Frog is an exception, because from what I’ve heard, it isn’t absent of stereotypes). I do believe Disney should address this issue and be more conscious of the messages that their films portray. But I also think that doing so is more for the benefit of adults watching, not the children (because they don’t know any better). Disney brings joy and happiness to people of all ages and provides a comfort that, I believe, is very unique to Disney. I go to Disney World at least once a year and I cannot explain the connection I feel with that place. In much the same way that people watch genre films to escape, Disney also offers a type of retreat. I don’t see anything wrong with giving in every once and a while to a world where every story has a happily ever after. After all… if you believe in magic, you belong. I confess, I’ve been completely enchanted. 

A Few More Thoughts on Disney...

One thing that I wish we could have touched on more in class on Wednesday is how many Disney movies- Snow White, the Little Mermaid and Cinderella to name a few- are descended from classic fairy tales with not-so-happy endings. For those of you who don't know, in Snow White, the prince does not kiss Snow White to wake her. Instead, the prince becomes so enamored with her beautiful lifeless body (necrophilia much?) that he insists on taking her coffin back to his kingdom. On the way, a servant trips and drops the coffin and Snow White throws up the apple lodged in her throat. The Little Mermaid dies at the end of her story and in Cinderella, the two stepsisters cut off parts of their feet in order to fit in the glass slipper.
I find it interesting how the Western world's perception of types of stories are appropriate for children has changed. Such gruesome and sad stories would never be told to children in this day and age. At the same time, the messages that the "Disneyfied" versions of these stories promote are hardly any better. Parents tend to just assume that because something is Disney, it is family friendly when as we discussed in class, these films often carry subtle messages of racism and sexism and all in all give children a pretty distorted world view.
Another thought that I had was the idea of the "happily ever after" Disney-type fairy tale (as opposed to, say, those of the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen) and how it is marketed to women even after they outgrow their Disney years. The romantic comedy seems to me to be the grown woman equivalent to Disney fairy tales. Indeed, both promote, however subtly (and in several cases not so subtly), that women need men. Even the ones that seem to promote female empowerment, such as He's Just Not That Into You or even Sex and the City, promote this ideal. Carrie going back to Mr. Big time and time again is just as bad as Belle falling for the Beast who has taken her hostage or Ariel giving up her voice to get the guy.
I would really just like to see more positive female portrayals in the media. I think that there are some movies and TV shows that are getting it, but as the romantic comedy suggests, we really haven't evolved much past the not-so-female-friendly Disney movies. As Donatella Versace said "I am not a great believer in fairy tales. Every woman should have to fight hard for her own happy endings."

Disney: Wrong, or Old Fashioned?

The Disney Corporation has had a very noticeable impact on contemporary society, as mentioned by Henry Giroux.

In particular, it is a powerful "teaching machine". While providing entertainment, its products subliminally send messages to its consumers (who are mostly children) about how society "should be". It promotes a sanitized, simplistic, exclusive idea of culture, one that almost completely disregards certain fringe elements of society (such as the poor, immigrants, minorities) that are left to question their self-worth and strive for an almost unattainable idea of "the american dream".

Examples would seem almost redundant after the detailed discussion we had last class about racism in movies like Aladdin!

Disney's claim of being "family friendly" is completely laughable when we consider the fact that Walt Disney was famously anti-Semitic. Perhaps it is important to take this into account when we compare the evolution of the concept of "family values" from the 1950s through to present day. The traditional American family, or the American dream, back when the Disney corporation was founded represented a the view of a narrow non-majority conservative American ideal: The white, Christian, heterosexual nuclear family living in the suburbs with a white picket fence. While this ideal still undercuts many of society's major institutions, it has evolved somewhat to include a larger population: therefore, the issue of race isn't as emphasized as heterosexuality.

However, Disney seems to have failed to cope with, and mimic, this evolution, and is therefore easy to single out as an institution that doesn't respect all the members of its following. It is easy, and often necessary, to demonize the views of such corporations as, because they have a significant influence on society and social change, they often prohibit progress and the transcending of archaic racist and elitist patterns of thought.

Disney exposed...literally...

I'm sure you have all heard about the suggestive material that makes it into disney movies, or maybe you have noticed it on your own. However, I found a web presentation that clearly displays all of them. The most widely known mishap is when the dust is carried into the night sky in the lion king and it spells out the word sex. That is the only one I had heard about but this page shows all the others. Personally I feel that most of them are merely coincidences, but one was ridiculous. It came from the 1977 version of the rescuers, and there is the image of a naked woman in one of the windows as two of the characters ride by in a buggy. There is no way that happened by accident because the image is quite vivid once you notice it. A few of the ideas are farfetched, but still disturbing nonetheless.

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/tcom/faculty/ha/tcom103fall2003/gp13/gp13.pdf

A Generational Gap

In recent years, Disney has marketed their "princess brand" which is essentially all the female protagonists of the animated films whether or not they were actually a princess in the film (Mulan anyone?). It is these "princess" films which are often critiqued for their portrayal of the women characters. However, I think there is a problem with these critiques that lies in the over generalizing of all the princess films into this one grouping. After all, the first princess film, Snow White, was filmed in 1937. A film like Beauty and the Beast was not created until 1991, and clearly, the 1930's were a much different time than the early 90's. Thus, I think to do an accurate critique of the Disney Princess brand, this time difference must be taken into account. For instance, a lot of critiques of the princesses surround the fact that they are submissive to the men in the films- the men are the rescuers, the saviors of the damsels in distress. However, I think that this is more prominent in the early features like Snow White where she would have died had she not gotten her "true loves first kiss." But in later films such as Mulan, we have a protagonist who is sort of a "bad ass," who disobeys her father and goes against society by joining the army. I don't think this sort of plot would have worked at all in an earlier film such as Snow White which took place before the World War II which is when more women began entering the work force. The time when Snow White was made was during the depression, where women did stay at home. Likewise, it is interesting to note that a character like Ariel disobeys their father. While they do end up "happily ever after" with another male character, it is a sign of woman's liberation, that Ariel was not going to let her father hold her back.

This is not to say that there are not problems within all the Disney princess films, but I think these problems need to be addressed individually for each film rather than generalize for all the princess films.

Racist Disney

As a child, I loved watching Disney films that always had some kind of love story involved. I was always intrigued by the music and how it fit so well in with the whole story. As a child, I sang along to these songs without knowing the true meaning behind the image Disney was portraying. I never realized the racism in Disney films.
I feel that as a child growing up I looked down on Arab's because of the film Aladin. Subconsciously, I had this negative view on the Arab people and I was scared of them. In Aladin, they were portrayed as dark, mysterious people who had to cover themselves with turbines, to commit crimes around the town. Now the city I live in is dominated by Caucasians and growing up I didn't see too many Arab's. This portrayal of Arab's was the way I viewed them in society when I was a kid. They were the bad guys with the weird accents. And although Jasmine and Aladin were both Arab, I for some reason did not picture them as one of them. Like the article states Aladin and Jasmine did not have an accent and therefore I separated them from the Arab group.They were Americanized and viewed as better people in the film.

The song "Arabian Nights" also emphasized the darkness of the Arab people and shifted my views as a child. I may have not really listened to the lyrics but when I watched Aladin continuously as a kid, I probably could figure out what they were so saying. Or it was a positive or negative connotation. The part when it says "Oh I come from a land/From a faraway place/where the caravan camels roam. Where they cut off your ear/ If they don't like your face. It's barbaric, but hey, it's home." I can still sing this song in my head today, matching the rhythm of the song. I know how it exactly goes in which part of the movie. It really shows the power of Disney films and how it can shape your mind about different cultures. As a kid we don't know what is going on and Disney films play a huge role in teaching kids about different societies and races. I feel we have to be more attentive to what we show to kids because they subconsciously take in all the hidden messages in films, advertisements and movies.

Disney Films and Music

This semester I'm interning at Columbia records. I'm surrounded by music all day and often outside of the office when I'm helping out with work related duties. During this weeks discussion about disney movies I couldn't help but think about the songs behind the animations. Just as recognizable as a disney princess are the melodies of the songs that accompanied the animation. Songs such as 'Under The Sea' or 'A Whole New World' were musical narration as Ariel expressed her yearning to live amongst people with legs on land or as Jasmine took a carpet ride with Aladdin.

The animated films that came out of the 70's, 80's and early 90's acheived status unparalled by subsequent projects. That is not to say Disney hasn't had a top-grossing movie since (they have had MANY), but considered from a perpective inclusive of musical success, I can't think of a recent set of years when Disney films soundtracks have defined a generation. I could sing along with the music from Finding Nemo or Toy Story (both extremely successful movies) as I watched them, but if someone asked me to hum even one line from a song from either movie now I couldn't do it. To contrast, just writing about Ariel got the song 'Under the Sea' stuck in my head. I would bet that if you played the Alladin soundtrack for a classroom full of college students, at least half would be able to sing along, and most of the rest would be able to hum the melody from memory. Markers of success for the Little Mermaid Soundtrack are the Academy and Golden Globe Awards it won in 1989, the year of its release.

Further distinguishing the Disney princess generation from more recent animated Disney movies is their success outside of the film and music market. The princess generation inspired commodities from halloween costumes to video games (Alladin for Sega anyone?) and most of those commodities were hugley successful. Video games for Finding Nemo exist but you'd be hardpressed to find someone who owns one. Regardless of your feelings about Disney (portrayals of women, race, sex), you can't deny that the power of Disney to permeate the lives of generations of children is awe-inspiring.

Black Beauty

So I was reading the review for Chris Rock's new movie, "Good Hair". I thought it was another one of those cheap "black" comedies (which I loathe), but turns out it's actually a documentary. I'm copying the synopsis from movietickets.com below:

"When Chris Rock's daughter, Lola, came up to him crying and asked, "Daddy, how come I don't have good hair?" the bewildered comic committed himself to search the ends of the earth and the depths of black culture to find out who had put that question into his little girl's head! Director Jeff Stilson's camera followed the funnyman, and the result is Good Hair, a wonderfully insightful and entertaining, yet remarkably serious, documentary about African American hair culture. An exposé of comic proportions that only Chris Rock could pull off, Good Hair visits hair salons and styling battles, scientific laboratories, and Indian temples to explore the way black hairstyles impact the activities, pocketbooks, sexual relationships, and self-esteem of black people. Celebrities such as Ice-T, Kerry Washington, Nia Long, Paul Mooney, Raven Symoné, Maya Angelou, and Reverend Al Sharpton all candidly offer their stories and observations to Rock while he struggles with the task of figuring out how to respond to his daughter's question. What he discovers is that black hair is a big business that doesn't always benefit the black community and little Lola's question might well be bigger than his ability to convince her that the stuff on top of her head is nowhere near as important as what is inside."

Here's the trailer. I promise it's funny!



I think I'm going to be in love with this movie. It shows a true side to what black women have to go through in order to fit into a society with a very strict image of beauty. It also got me thinking about our dear friend Maddy/Tiana, the new Disney princess. Just how typically "black" is she? I can see the kinky hair and the inherent attitude just from the trailer. Kind of pushing the limit ther,e huh Disney? It remains to be seen. All I know is i'm going to see this movie assoon as it comes out, and hey we can't all know what it's like to be another race, so issues of representation wil always be at stake. Hopefully, we won't have another Aladdin. Seriously, insensitivity will not slide this time Disney. Hire some advisors!

What are people expecting?

So lately I've found myself frustrated with a lot of peoples' takes on recent movies. The most recent movies that this pertains to are Where the Wild Things Are, and Funny People.

The primary problem that many people have found with both of these movies is that "it wasn't what [they] expected". For Where the Wild Things Are, it seems that people were expecting a more kid-oriented film... something for the whole family to watch and enjoy together. In terms of Funny People, a lot of people expected an outrageous, non-stop comedy similar to Superbad. Instead they got something that they didn't expect.

What I've found to be similar between these two movies is that they both have a large emphasis on depicting the reality of the situation presented in the stories. In Funny People, we witness an iconic comedic celebrity realizing all of the aspects of a normal life that he missed out on due to his egregious lifestyle. Much of the movie deals with this struggle, as the audience witnesses serious fights between major characters, as well as an intense internal struggle within the lead protagonist. Many reviews claimed that because there was this intense, dramatic element included in the movie, director Judd Apatow's direction for the movie wasn't clear. But why is it that both comedy and drama cannot be seen through the same lens without protest? Most of the people that I spoke with about the movie encountered the same problem saying, "It wasn't funny enough" or "It was a lot more depressing than I expected".

Where the Wild Things Are, faces a similar problem with many people complaining that it was way too sad for them. In fact, when asking my roommate the reason for his negative response to the film, he gave me that exact reason: "It was way too sad". But does that qualify it to be an unliked film? That it was too sad? My personal take on film in general, is that if a film evokes a certain strong emotion within the audience and it is in some way intentional, there must be something commendable regarding the film.

The larger question however, is what is the audience looking for? Yes, someone could argue that maybe the movies weren't properly marketed in order to reach a larger demographic than the movie possibly speaks to. However, it also seems like the general public has found more entertainment in the cheap gimmecks of film (think computer-graphics based Transformers) rather than in the art, or emotion behind it. We should be able to look at a film without having to label it under a certain genre and we should be more willing to welcome raw emotion into our viewing experience.

Beauty and the Beast Parody on SNL

This was on SNL last week with Gerard Butler and is just really funny if you need a laugh. It parodies the way Beast is deemed a beast and Beauty is deemed a beauty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjIIfp8Kjbs

Beauty and the Beast

Growing up, “Beauty and the Beast” was my absolute favorite movie. I was Beauty for at least three years of Halloween during my childhood and have some hysterical home videos of me singing “Be Our Guest” into one of those fake-echoing microphones. To me, I associate that movie with fond memories of dancing with my dad and watching the movie with my brother. In fact, my dad and I also dance to “Beauty and the Beast” at special occasions and claim that it is one of our songs. The lyrics go: “Tale as old as time, tune as old as song, bittersweet and strange, finding you can change, learning you were wrong,” and to me, it reminds me of how much I love my dad.

However, I haven’t watched the movie in years, and have an extremely fantasized version of it in my head it in my head. I think that is a huge aspect of why people were extremely surprised in class about the underlying messages in Disney movies, because the way we remember it from our childhood is much different than the way we may view it now. Often, these movies are not something we continue to watch as we grow older, and Disney as a franchise is associated with fond childhood memories. So last night, I watched Beauty and the Beast again (and forced my roommate to watch it with me), and I now completely understand Giroux’s concerns about the messages being portrayed in these types of movies. The real events of the movie are quite alarming: how Belle was thought of as strange because she was always reading, how the Beast essentially kidnapped her, how she “civilized” him by teaching him how to control his temper, eat properly, and dance. I always just remembered Belle helping the Beast, and thought it was a powerful love story. The whole kidnapping and Belle being deemed strange because she was smart must have gone right over my head at this young age.

Realistically, in the beginning when Belle is running around town with the book, the part I always enjoyed, the townspeople are commenting on the fact that Belle is beautiful, but claiming that it is a pity she is strange because she reads. “A most peculiar mad’moislle/It’s a pity and a sin/She doesn’t quite fit in/Cause she really is a funny girl/A beauty but a funny girl.” Belle’s father is an idiot, Gaston is determined to get Belle to be his wife, the Beast is ordered to be killed because he is different, and the candlesticks and plates are thrilled to have a guest because “life is so unnerving for a server who’s not serving” and they are excited to feel useful again to serve someone. All of this is ridiculous.

Still, the songs and movement are just as captivating, and I think as a child, that is where the entertainment value comes into play and Disney movies are successfully entertaining. I do not know just how many of these messages a young child can pick up, even if Disney is putting them out there. Still, I think it’s important to realize how inappropriate these underlying messages are, and revisit these movies in order to appropriately evaluate them. There are many people who have an image of the Disney franchise in their head as a pure and innocent part of childhood, but realistically, it is so much more than that. However, with all of the companies Disney owns and their power to put these messages out to youth culture, how can society force them to be more socially responsible with their choices of plotlines, and shed light on the unrealistic assumption that Disney is an icon of American goodness?

Our discussion about racist and sexist portrayal in Disney made me think immediately of the soundtrack for Mulan. Outright it seems that these songs are very sexist in that they reinforce stereotypical characteristics that are desirable in men and women (what kind of girl is worth fighting for, what being a real man is). While there remains some irony in these songs, the most obvious of course being the fact that Mulan is a woman disguised as a man and proves herself in the end, the ideas that are being perpetrated to children throughout the film are extremely stereotypical. We are shown at the beginning of the film during the matchmaker scene how Mulan is the black sheep of the girls in her village and it is clear that the elders look down upon her free-spirited ways (side note: has anyone ever noticed how the women are depicted in the movie? I have no idea what some of them are wearing...they look more like yukatas or Korean Hanbok than traditional Chinese clothing). The idea that girls should be perfectly obedient are reinforced in "Honor to us All" and "A Girl When Fighting For" through the descriptions of the "perfect girl" as beautiful (beautiful, specifically, means "paler than the moon"), able to cook, and adoring. In "Honor to us All" the ideal women that men want are "calm, obediant, who work fast-paced, with good breeding and a tiny waist." Mulan is also reprimanded for "speaking without permission" when she meets the matchmaker. When Mulan suggests "How bout a girl who's got a brain, who always speaks her mind?" in "A Girl Worth Fighting For" she is immediately rejected by the rest of the soldiers. Obviously, if you aren't a "perfect porcelain doll" you fail and you won't bring honor to your family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3Y-nXHsFI
"Honor to us All"

Roles of Mothers in Disney Media

In this weeks reading, Are Disney Movies Good For Your Kids?, Giroux brings to light the values that are portrayed in Disney movies that the public, specifically parents of young kids, may not know. In Wednesday’s class, we discussed how the heroes and heroines of most Disney movies come from unstable family backgrounds; most are either orphaned or have no mothers. There is much debate about the reasoning behind this phenomenon. In doing some research on this topic, I found that some allege that it comes from the guilt that Walt Disney had about the death of his own mother, Flora Call Disney. Some feminists believe that the absence of mothers in Disney movies it is to create dramatic interest in the main characters; if mothers were present to guide them, the plot would not be as interesting. Others believe that it is to show that a happy family does not have to consist of a traditional, cohesive family with a mother, father and a child. Such examples are Pinocchio having no mother, Belle in Beauty and the Beast having no mother, and Quasimodo’s mother being killed in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. To many of my peer’s dismay, I am not a big fan of Disney movies and in all honesty, cannot recall ever sitting through a whole one. I am therefore not familiar with the plot of any of Disney’s movies. As a kid, however, I was an avid watcher of Mary Kate and Ashley’s films and television series.

A recurring theme in the Olsen twins’ acts was the absence of a mother figure. One such show was Two of a Kind, which appeared on ABC Family in 1998 and 1999. ABC family is a cable television network currently owned by ABC Family Worldwide Inc., a division of The Walt Disney Company. In Two of a Kind, the main premise of the show is that Mary Kate and Ashley are being raised by a single father. Many of the episodes revolve around the feats that their dad faces raising a set of twins alone. Likewise, in their 1998 movie, Billboard Dad, the twins’ father is widowed and they decide to paint an advertisement on a giant billboard on Sunset Boulevard to find their dad a girlfriend. In the first, their mother is never mentioned and in the latter, their mother died.

While I was always aware of this theme of a mother’s absence in the Olsen’s movies and television shows, I was not cognizant of this overall theme of the lack of mothers’ roles in the media. Why is the media hating against mommas?

The JAP Affect

No, I'm not using a derogatory World War II term or referring to Long Island's obnoxious and entitled, I'm talking about Judd Apatow and his slew of movies. They don't necessarily break the genre barriers but they have introduced mainstream movie-goers to a new kind of comedy. Most notable are Knocked Up and 40-Year-Old Virgin. I won't go into full-blown synopses of these films but they do have overlapping elements that are Apatow's trademark. Similarly, these elements can be used to analyze our culture, and the role and perception of men in society today.

The male characters in both of these films are average by every standard. They're not the overtly fat, dumb, and rude to their wives and children like the male characters on CBS sitcoms. (names of which are escaping me right now) But they're also not the Brad Pitt's of Hollywood. They're basically the quintessential "dudes." They're exceedingly relatable yet outlandish enough to elicit laughs. Their dialogue is itelligently comical and their trials and tribulations are endearing.

The movies themselves appeal to a very specific demographic because of the structure of the humor and the cultural references made. Many lines from these type of movies become fleeting catchphrases. They also incorporate both mainstream and alternative popculture and subcultural ideas aiding to the subtle exclusivity of the humor.

Although these men have their problems and are not physically remarkably attractive, they somehow find themselves with gorgeous women who claim to choose these men despite their attractivenessm, for their winning personalities. According to Apotow and the like, it pays to be dorky as long as you have a good heart and can make some good jokes. The "villains" or guys who are out to get the quirky Average Joe's are usually beefed up jocks and are depicted as being unintelligent. This displays that men who are physically fit and attractive are not smart enough to be in on the jokes. Thinking about these male characters this way, is not much of a departure from how female characters are viewed. If a woman is both thin and beautiful, she can't be very smart.