I JUST found this article on Yahoo. It's titled "Are Rom-Coms Ruining Our Romantic Lives?" It reads as follows:
"According to relationship experts at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, romantic comedies give people unrealistic ideas about love and sex, and cause them to 'fail to communicate with their partner.' Here's more:
Psychologists at the family and personal relationships laboratory at the university studied 40 top box office hits between 1995 and 2005, and identified common themes which they believed were unrealistic.
The university's Dr Bjarne Holmes said: 'Marriage counselors often see couples who believe that sex should always be perfect, and if someone is meant to be with you then they will know what you want without you needing to communicate it. We now have some emerging evidence that suggests popular media play a role in perpetuating these ideas in people's minds. The problem is that while most of us know that the idea of a perfect relationship is unrealistic, some of us are still more influenced by media portrayals than we realize.'
Do you think this is true? Is real-life romance a big ol' letdown? Sure, lots of people like the idea of a perfect man or 'happily ever after,' but does that mean we're all unable to separate fantasy from reality?
Also, have you ever had an experience that could have been right out of a romantic movie (think John Cusack holding up a boom box)?"
I thought it was relevant to what we've discussed this semester.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Final Essay: Gender Stereotypes in Entertainment
I sit down on the couch and turn on the television. I’ve got some free time to myself and feel in the mood to do some “channel-surfing.” As the stations change in a babble of broken words and phrases, I think of how there is hardly anything good on television anymore. All the “reality” shows and similar programming is, in my opinion, just about the worst TV has to offer. Finally, I stumble upon a station that has always been one of my favorites: Turner Classic Movies, (channel 127 for those who have digital cable.) By the time I found it, I was just catching the tail-end of the classic Civil War epic “Gone with the Wind.” As I sat there right alongside a broken-hearted Scarlet O’Hara (played by Vivian Leigh,) my heart started aching, too. This was not because Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) had just delivered his famous line, (“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,”) and left a sobbing O’Hara to fend for herself at the foot of the stairs, but due to the fact that, in my opinion, Hollywood’s portrayal of the woman as a weak, emotionally driven creature has become almost archetypal in the world of cinema and television. Of course, in more contemporary times, woman characters have slowly started to break away from the common stereotypes, but the fact that they are still prevalent and remain is indicative that not much has changed over the years. In this paper, I plan to discuss various gender and sexual stereotypes and how they are influenced by the Entertainment Industry.
Chris Barker in his enlightening and eye-opening analysis of pop culture, Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, defines a stereotype as “…involving the reduction of persons to a set of exaggerated, usually negative character traits” (Barker 307). In my opinion, no one promotes these ideas better than that most famous (and infamous) Hollywood starlet that everybody knows and loves: Paris Hilton. To say she’s talented or glamorous in any way would be totally and utterly offensive, (to say the least disgraceful,) to those famous Hollywood leading-ladies of the past. Especially since the rise of feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as many women have tried so hard to steer away from the horrible stereotypes and ideas of the female sex in a mostly male-dominated society, Paris Hilton is a complete and total throwback to said stereotypes. Her wardrobe leaves a lot to be desired, (or not, for that matter,) and her intelligence is showing the rest of the world that women are inferior to men when it comes to using the mind (which, as we know, is not true.)
Simone de Beauvoir, in the introduction of her famous article Woman as Other, takes a quote from writer Dorothy Parker’s Modern Woman: The Lost Sex. Parker clearly states how she feels about the subject:
“’I cannot be just to books which treat of woman as woman… My idea is that all of us, men as well as women, should be regarded as human beings’” (Beauvoir 1-2).
Beauvoir then goes on to say that “every concrete human being is always a singular, separate individual” (Beauvoir 2). To an extent, I can agree with this, but on the other hand, the actions of one woman, who just so happens to be famous, can affect what people think of the gender as a whole. The same can be said for other Hollywood “celebrities” as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, among others.
In regards to women and television, they are still, (for the most part,) viewed as objects of desire by the predominantly male masses. Television, I find, is one of the places where this is most prevalent. Take commercial advertising, for instance. Since TV is easily accessible, it is easiest for certain brands and companies to promote their products. In commercials for designer items, they usually present somebody who is thin, big-breasted, and gazing sultrily into the camera. In my opinion, this is unhealthy, for it gives women the idea that they have to look a certain way or fit a specific standard to be considered beautiful or attractive. What these women need to realize is that this “need” to look a certain way is not reflective of the natural world, but a social and cultural construct. Barker states this quite clearly in his book:
“Early feminist studies made the assumption that representation was a direct expression of social reality and/or a potential and actual distortion of that reality… However, later studies regard all representations as cultural constructions and not as reflections of the real world” (Barker 307).
On contemporary television shows, women characters are slowly starting to finally break away from the average female stereotypes. For a number of years, there were a variety of different “stock types” of women characters portrayed on TV. Barker’s book lists a few examples as they appeared in Diana Meehan’s 1983 analysis of images of women on US television. Meehan broke down the “types” she saw into two different categories: good and bad. The good tend to be obedient, submissive, and sensitive, while the bad are independent and self-centered. The good are as follows:
-The Good Wife: domestic, attractive, home-centered; [think 1950s, common housewife; obedient, her place is in the kitchen, at home, etc. ]
-The Victim: passive, suffers violence or accidents; [typically the “damsel in distress”]
-The Matriarch: authority of family role, older, desexed; [think Queen Elizabeth I of England; pale face, not sexy, epitome of “desexed”] (Barker 307-308)
The bad, I must admit, are much more colorful:
-The Imp: rebellious, asexual, tomboy
-The Harpy: aggressive, single; [the harpy is an ancient Greek mythological monster with the body of a giant bird, but the head of a woman]
-The Bitch: sneak, cheat, manipulative; [in reference to a female dog]
-The Decoy: apparently helpless, actually strong
-The Siren: sexually lures men to a bad end; [a siren is a female water spirit in ancient Greek mythology that would lure sea-faring men to the depths with their beautiful singing voice]
-The Courtesan: inhabits saloons, cabarets, prostitution; [think Mae West, or Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge!]
-The Witch: extra power, but subordinated to men (Barker 307-308)
It is important (as well as interesting) to note that there are more bad types than good. This is reflective of the male-dominated ideal that females are submissive and obedient and if they are not, then they must be wicked, scheming characters plotting man’s downfall.
Though there are many more stereotypes in the media of film and television pertaining to women, it is also crucial to note that men also fall victim. Particularly since the rise of feminism and the feminist movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, men, specifically in comedies, have been portrayed as dumb, sometimes stupid individuals who are lazy and rely on other people, (namely women,) to do their work for them. Also, men are often shown as physical beings while women are the emotional ones, (the stereotype being that men do not like to commit in a relationship is quite prevalent.) In a few rare cases, the roles are reversed; (a perfect example would be Samantha Jones in the hit TV series “Sex and the City.” In many situations, she takes control, which would normally be the job of the man. Also, she enjoys sex as much as any man would, and also is afraid to commit. For her, it’s just casual.)
To elaborate on the stereotype of men being the physical creatures as opposed to emotional, they are often portrayed as keeping more to them selves, restraining their feelings for no one else to see. A perfect example of this kind of ambiguity was captured in one of the 20th Century’s greatest plays: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof by Tennessee Williams. The play’s lead male character, Brick, is a reserved young man. His wife, Maggie, feels as if she’s being punished for they have not made love to each other. After a while, she finally decides to confront him:
“Margaret: Y’know what I feel like, Brick? I feel all the time like a cat on a hot tin roof!” (Williams 31).
To which Brick hastily responds:
“Brick: So jump off the roof, jump off it, cats can jump off roofs and land on their four feet uninjured!
Margaret: Oh, yes!
Brick: Do it! Fo’ God’s sake, do it…
Margaret: Do what?
Brick: Take a lover!” (Williams 31)
Despite his attempts, she says:
“Margaret: I can’t see a man but you! Even with my eyes closed, I just see you! Why don’t you get ugly, Brick, why don’t you please get fat or ugly or something so I could stand it?” (Williams 31).
Here, not only do we witness Brick’s stereotypic male nature, but we see the roles reverse. Here, it is Maggie, the woman, who is urging him to have sex with her. On the other hand, he refuses, even suggesting that she find a lover to satisfy her needs. This play, for its time, was quite revolutionary and contains some racy content. I just find it absolutely astounding that the “typical” male and female were not portrayed in this piece. Perhaps that is one aspect that critics found to be so mesmerizing.
Though entertainment in the United States has taken a small step away from all the negative stereotypes of women and men, it is obvious that they are still present. I am hoping that, in the near future, we as a society can learn to stray away from these ideas in the hopes of bringing us closer together as opposed to driving us apart.
Bibliography:
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd Ed. Sage Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA. 2008.
Beauvoir, Simone de. Woman as Other. 1949.
Williams, Tennessee. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. 13th Printing. Signet Publishers: The New York American Library, Inc. 1955.
Chris Barker in his enlightening and eye-opening analysis of pop culture, Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, defines a stereotype as “…involving the reduction of persons to a set of exaggerated, usually negative character traits” (Barker 307). In my opinion, no one promotes these ideas better than that most famous (and infamous) Hollywood starlet that everybody knows and loves: Paris Hilton. To say she’s talented or glamorous in any way would be totally and utterly offensive, (to say the least disgraceful,) to those famous Hollywood leading-ladies of the past. Especially since the rise of feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as many women have tried so hard to steer away from the horrible stereotypes and ideas of the female sex in a mostly male-dominated society, Paris Hilton is a complete and total throwback to said stereotypes. Her wardrobe leaves a lot to be desired, (or not, for that matter,) and her intelligence is showing the rest of the world that women are inferior to men when it comes to using the mind (which, as we know, is not true.)
Simone de Beauvoir, in the introduction of her famous article Woman as Other, takes a quote from writer Dorothy Parker’s Modern Woman: The Lost Sex. Parker clearly states how she feels about the subject:
“’I cannot be just to books which treat of woman as woman… My idea is that all of us, men as well as women, should be regarded as human beings’” (Beauvoir 1-2).
Beauvoir then goes on to say that “every concrete human being is always a singular, separate individual” (Beauvoir 2). To an extent, I can agree with this, but on the other hand, the actions of one woman, who just so happens to be famous, can affect what people think of the gender as a whole. The same can be said for other Hollywood “celebrities” as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, among others.
In regards to women and television, they are still, (for the most part,) viewed as objects of desire by the predominantly male masses. Television, I find, is one of the places where this is most prevalent. Take commercial advertising, for instance. Since TV is easily accessible, it is easiest for certain brands and companies to promote their products. In commercials for designer items, they usually present somebody who is thin, big-breasted, and gazing sultrily into the camera. In my opinion, this is unhealthy, for it gives women the idea that they have to look a certain way or fit a specific standard to be considered beautiful or attractive. What these women need to realize is that this “need” to look a certain way is not reflective of the natural world, but a social and cultural construct. Barker states this quite clearly in his book:
“Early feminist studies made the assumption that representation was a direct expression of social reality and/or a potential and actual distortion of that reality… However, later studies regard all representations as cultural constructions and not as reflections of the real world” (Barker 307).
On contemporary television shows, women characters are slowly starting to finally break away from the average female stereotypes. For a number of years, there were a variety of different “stock types” of women characters portrayed on TV. Barker’s book lists a few examples as they appeared in Diana Meehan’s 1983 analysis of images of women on US television. Meehan broke down the “types” she saw into two different categories: good and bad. The good tend to be obedient, submissive, and sensitive, while the bad are independent and self-centered. The good are as follows:
-The Good Wife: domestic, attractive, home-centered; [think 1950s, common housewife; obedient, her place is in the kitchen, at home, etc. ]
-The Victim: passive, suffers violence or accidents; [typically the “damsel in distress”]
-The Matriarch: authority of family role, older, desexed; [think Queen Elizabeth I of England; pale face, not sexy, epitome of “desexed”] (Barker 307-308)
The bad, I must admit, are much more colorful:
-The Imp: rebellious, asexual, tomboy
-The Harpy: aggressive, single; [the harpy is an ancient Greek mythological monster with the body of a giant bird, but the head of a woman]
-The Bitch: sneak, cheat, manipulative; [in reference to a female dog]
-The Decoy: apparently helpless, actually strong
-The Siren: sexually lures men to a bad end; [a siren is a female water spirit in ancient Greek mythology that would lure sea-faring men to the depths with their beautiful singing voice]
-The Courtesan: inhabits saloons, cabarets, prostitution; [think Mae West, or Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge!]
-The Witch: extra power, but subordinated to men (Barker 307-308)
It is important (as well as interesting) to note that there are more bad types than good. This is reflective of the male-dominated ideal that females are submissive and obedient and if they are not, then they must be wicked, scheming characters plotting man’s downfall.
Though there are many more stereotypes in the media of film and television pertaining to women, it is also crucial to note that men also fall victim. Particularly since the rise of feminism and the feminist movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, men, specifically in comedies, have been portrayed as dumb, sometimes stupid individuals who are lazy and rely on other people, (namely women,) to do their work for them. Also, men are often shown as physical beings while women are the emotional ones, (the stereotype being that men do not like to commit in a relationship is quite prevalent.) In a few rare cases, the roles are reversed; (a perfect example would be Samantha Jones in the hit TV series “Sex and the City.” In many situations, she takes control, which would normally be the job of the man. Also, she enjoys sex as much as any man would, and also is afraid to commit. For her, it’s just casual.)
To elaborate on the stereotype of men being the physical creatures as opposed to emotional, they are often portrayed as keeping more to them selves, restraining their feelings for no one else to see. A perfect example of this kind of ambiguity was captured in one of the 20th Century’s greatest plays: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof by Tennessee Williams. The play’s lead male character, Brick, is a reserved young man. His wife, Maggie, feels as if she’s being punished for they have not made love to each other. After a while, she finally decides to confront him:
“Margaret: Y’know what I feel like, Brick? I feel all the time like a cat on a hot tin roof!” (Williams 31).
To which Brick hastily responds:
“Brick: So jump off the roof, jump off it, cats can jump off roofs and land on their four feet uninjured!
Margaret: Oh, yes!
Brick: Do it! Fo’ God’s sake, do it…
Margaret: Do what?
Brick: Take a lover!” (Williams 31)
Despite his attempts, she says:
“Margaret: I can’t see a man but you! Even with my eyes closed, I just see you! Why don’t you get ugly, Brick, why don’t you please get fat or ugly or something so I could stand it?” (Williams 31).
Here, not only do we witness Brick’s stereotypic male nature, but we see the roles reverse. Here, it is Maggie, the woman, who is urging him to have sex with her. On the other hand, he refuses, even suggesting that she find a lover to satisfy her needs. This play, for its time, was quite revolutionary and contains some racy content. I just find it absolutely astounding that the “typical” male and female were not portrayed in this piece. Perhaps that is one aspect that critics found to be so mesmerizing.
Though entertainment in the United States has taken a small step away from all the negative stereotypes of women and men, it is obvious that they are still present. I am hoping that, in the near future, we as a society can learn to stray away from these ideas in the hopes of bringing us closer together as opposed to driving us apart.
Bibliography:
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd Ed. Sage Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA. 2008.
Beauvoir, Simone de. Woman as Other. 1949.
Williams, Tennessee. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. 13th Printing. Signet Publishers: The New York American Library, Inc. 1955.
Cyberspace!
I can say that I really agree with everybody's response to the topic of cyberspace. Yes,
it is an escape. No, it would not be a utopia. What technologically savvy people
nowadays need to realize is that cyberspace is a form of entertainment, more or less. I
remember about a week ago, I was watching Jeopardy on ABC, and there was this one
contestant who said that she had been the mayor of a little community of people made
up on the Internet! How strange, I thought to myself. Then, I asked myself: Is it
possible that cyberspace could be a whole new frontier? Very interesting.
it is an escape. No, it would not be a utopia. What technologically savvy people
nowadays need to realize is that cyberspace is a form of entertainment, more or less. I
remember about a week ago, I was watching Jeopardy on ABC, and there was this one
contestant who said that she had been the mayor of a little community of people made
up on the Internet! How strange, I thought to myself. Then, I asked myself: Is it
possible that cyberspace could be a whole new frontier? Very interesting.
We are slaves to the machine.
Watching that clip from "Metropolis" was very ominous. I have seen the film before, and it had just as frightening an effect then as it does now. As far as I know, they are not robots, but the workers are so used to working with machines that they themselves become mechanized. Watching it made me think of the direction we are heading technologically. It seems as if every minute, new breakthroughs in computer technology are being developed. It is kind of frightening.
I remember a while back, I was watching this television program about various theories as to how human civilization would end on the planet Earth. One of the theories was that nations around the world would be ruled by a computer-like machine as opposed to a human leader. Its capabilities would be astounding. However, since mankind gives it so much power, it would eventually overthrow the human race and destroy everything. I know it sounds like something that science fiction writers would predict happening in the distant future, but with the way we're mastering the science of computers, who's to say we're not far off?
I remember a while back, I was watching this television program about various theories as to how human civilization would end on the planet Earth. One of the theories was that nations around the world would be ruled by a computer-like machine as opposed to a human leader. Its capabilities would be astounding. However, since mankind gives it so much power, it would eventually overthrow the human race and destroy everything. I know it sounds like something that science fiction writers would predict happening in the distant future, but with the way we're mastering the science of computers, who's to say we're not far off?
Five Minutes of "Moulin Rouge!"
Baz Luhrmann’s magical and electrifying musical motion picture Moulin Rouge! is a celebratory ode to love and romance. The story takes place in Paris, France in 1899, but it is different than most musicals in the fact that the music is anachronistic with the times. More contemporary rock and pop songs are used in the score. However, Luhrmann makes it fit in beautifully, almost as if these songs were written in the day of the Moulin Rouge.
When I think of the “radical romance” as a whole, my mind automatically goes to Moulin Rouge! To begin with, it is the story of a man who falls for, none other than, a courtesan. This, to me, is a total departure from the “typical” romantic movie. Indeed, it follows the classic formula of “boy-meets-girl-and-they-fall-in-love,” but it’s radical in the sense that the woman is a high-class prostitute. Also, the ending, (which I will not give away for those who have not seen it,) is tragic. When one thinks of romance films, one usually thinks of the two lovers going off happily ever after. Not so in Moulin Rouge!, which establishes itself from the very beginning as a contemporary take on the myth of Orpheus, whose story also ends in tragedy. Therefore, I feel that Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge! epitomizes the idea of the “radical romance.”
When I think of the “radical romance” as a whole, my mind automatically goes to Moulin Rouge! To begin with, it is the story of a man who falls for, none other than, a courtesan. This, to me, is a total departure from the “typical” romantic movie. Indeed, it follows the classic formula of “boy-meets-girl-and-they-fall-in-love,” but it’s radical in the sense that the woman is a high-class prostitute. Also, the ending, (which I will not give away for those who have not seen it,) is tragic. When one thinks of romance films, one usually thinks of the two lovers going off happily ever after. Not so in Moulin Rouge!, which establishes itself from the very beginning as a contemporary take on the myth of Orpheus, whose story also ends in tragedy. Therefore, I feel that Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge! epitomizes the idea of the “radical romance.”
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"Sex and the City" article courtesy of irishtimes.com!
'Sex and the City' author in Dublin to promote book
GROUPS OF well-dressed women sipped margaritas rather than Sex and the City-style cosmopolitans as they waited to hear author Candace Bushnell speak at a Dublin city-centre pub last night.
Bushnell was in Dublin to promote her new book, One Fifth Avenue.
Whispers such as "do you not remember the episode where Miranda . . .?" could be heard around the room of women in their 20s and 30s.
Bushnell said women everywhere seemed to relate to the ups and downs of the New York-based Sex and the City women.
"Everywhere I go, women always identify with those characters, and there's always a Carrie and a Samantha," she said last night. "I think the audience feels like they really know those characters."
Bushnell said she was proud of the film adaptation of the series, which caused a frenzy when released in Ireland earlier this year. But despite such successes, Bushnell said she did not think of this when writing: "I just try to write the best book I can write and that's what I try to focus on."
About five men could be counted dotted around the room, shyly perusing One Fifth Avenue.
Even though her new novel's characters live in an affluent part of New York, Bushnell said the book did have something to say to women in the midst of economic downturn.
"The book deals with the mortgage crisis and hedge-fund managers and the enormous wealth they have accrued," she said. "It is about how life goes on and the new replaces the old and the new becomes the establishment."
© 2008 The Irish Times
This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times
GROUPS OF well-dressed women sipped margaritas rather than Sex and the City-style cosmopolitans as they waited to hear author Candace Bushnell speak at a Dublin city-centre pub last night.
Bushnell was in Dublin to promote her new book, One Fifth Avenue.
Whispers such as "do you not remember the episode where Miranda . . .?" could be heard around the room of women in their 20s and 30s.
Bushnell said women everywhere seemed to relate to the ups and downs of the New York-based Sex and the City women.
"Everywhere I go, women always identify with those characters, and there's always a Carrie and a Samantha," she said last night. "I think the audience feels like they really know those characters."
Bushnell said she was proud of the film adaptation of the series, which caused a frenzy when released in Ireland earlier this year. But despite such successes, Bushnell said she did not think of this when writing: "I just try to write the best book I can write and that's what I try to focus on."
About five men could be counted dotted around the room, shyly perusing One Fifth Avenue.
Even though her new novel's characters live in an affluent part of New York, Bushnell said the book did have something to say to women in the midst of economic downturn.
"The book deals with the mortgage crisis and hedge-fund managers and the enormous wealth they have accrued," she said. "It is about how life goes on and the new replaces the old and the new becomes the establishment."
© 2008 The Irish Times
This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Rocky Horror and Pop Culture
Last night, I had the pleasure of attending a ritual. It is a cult that, for the past 30-some years, has been a sensation all over the world. For at midnight on certain Fridays every month, people from around the globe participate in one of the greatest social gatherings pop culture has ever witnessed. The name of this fascinating ritual is “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.”
“The Rocky Horror Picture Show” is actually adapted from a stage musical, entitled simply “The Rocky Horror Show,” and it was written by Richard O’Brien and adapted as a screenplay by Jim Sharman, who was also director of the motion picture (Lloyd 261). When “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” first opened in cinemas in 1975, it received, to say the least, reviews of indifference from most of the critics, despite the fact that the stage production succeeded on the London stage (Lloyd 261). However, shortly after its release, word began to spread that it was a movie to be watched at midnight (Lloyd 261). This changed everything. Since then, the film has grown into a world-wide cult gathering that includes dressing up as various characters from the film (or simply cross-dressing,) a live action stage show that involves actors playing the various roles and mouthing every word of the text, and a scripted exchange of dialogue between the audience and the film (Lloyd 261).
I, myself, have been to “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” twice, (the night of October 3rd being my second time,) and will most certainly continue attending as often as I can. However, while watching the film that night, I thought it would be a marvelous topic for this paper. I really analyzed the story and characters and soon realized that they fit in perfectly with what we have been discussing so far in this course. I shall demonstrate.
The story takes place in Denton, Ohio, and focuses on Brad Majors, (played by Barry Bostwick,) and Janet Weiss, (Susan Surandon,) a very “normal, ordinary” couple who are just recently engaged. One night, they decide to drive off together to share the wonderful news when the car’s tire goes flat. In search of a telephone to use, they stumble upon the castle of the ambiguous Dr. Frank N. Furter, a transvestite scientist who is housing transsexual guests from a galaxy called Transylvania. Seeing that they are virtually stranded, Furter extends his hospitality to them, to which they reluctantly comply. It is then that he intends to show them Rocky, a “love-toy” in human form that Furter created for the relief of sexual tension. By the time Brad and Janet leave Furter’s lair, they have changed forever (Lloyd 261).
In my opinion, Brad and Janet are perfect examples of the “ideal” conservative Christian couple. They have a very broad, “simple” mindset. They start off as two very innocent people in a playful, adoring romance. The symbolism is present as well, for the first image the audience sees after the introduction to the film is a cross atop a church steeple. Basically, Brad and Janet are the average small-town couple, “unpolluted” by more liberal, open-minded ideas. Janet Weiss, in particular, is everything a woman shouldn’t be: completely obedient to the man. It’s almost as if she has no mind of her own. Whenever I watch her, I cannot help but think of de Beauvoir’s article “The Second Sex.” She refers to the woman as “other” while man is the Absolute:
“She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other.” This most certainly applies to Janet in the beginning of the film, for she constantly has to rely on her precious Brad for guidance in everything.
Enter Frank N. Furter and his minions. To me, he is the absolute essence of the free-thinking liberal idea that challenges the beliefs of Brad and Janet. Not only that, but he is the voice of all the things that they keep to themselves. So to speak, he is the voice of their deepest, darkest desires.
In terms of tapping into said feelings, however, none of the characters goes through as drastic a change as Janet. After witnessing the birth of Furter’s “human sex-toy,” Rocky, her curiosity gets the better of her, and we (the audience) see her liberate herself and succumb to her desire in the form of a hilarious musical sequence entitled “T-T-T Touch Me!” The lyrics go:
I was feeling done in/couldn't win
I'd only ever kissed before.
She continues:
I thought there's no use getting/into heavy petting
It only leads to trouble/and seat wetting.
This line explains it all:
I've got an itch to scratch/I need assistance (lyricsdowload.com 2).
This clearly shows just how much Janet has changed as a result of being Frank N. Furter’s “guest.” Not only that, she can now tap into the deeply repressed feelings that she has been (taught, perhaps?) to keep to herself. An independent, contemporary woman is born! I have no doubt in my mind that McDonald, author of Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre would agree that Janet Weiss is the epitome of the radical romantic female character!
As you can see, Richard O’Brien’s “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” is a perfect parallel of modern times. It shows the clash between conservative and liberal ideals and how said ideals can change people’s perspectives.
Bibliography:
Lloyd, Ann. 501 Must-See Films. Octopus Pusblishing Group Limited. London, England. 2004.
www.lyricsdownload.com/rockyhorrorlyrics
“The Rocky Horror Picture Show” is actually adapted from a stage musical, entitled simply “The Rocky Horror Show,” and it was written by Richard O’Brien and adapted as a screenplay by Jim Sharman, who was also director of the motion picture (Lloyd 261). When “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” first opened in cinemas in 1975, it received, to say the least, reviews of indifference from most of the critics, despite the fact that the stage production succeeded on the London stage (Lloyd 261). However, shortly after its release, word began to spread that it was a movie to be watched at midnight (Lloyd 261). This changed everything. Since then, the film has grown into a world-wide cult gathering that includes dressing up as various characters from the film (or simply cross-dressing,) a live action stage show that involves actors playing the various roles and mouthing every word of the text, and a scripted exchange of dialogue between the audience and the film (Lloyd 261).
I, myself, have been to “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” twice, (the night of October 3rd being my second time,) and will most certainly continue attending as often as I can. However, while watching the film that night, I thought it would be a marvelous topic for this paper. I really analyzed the story and characters and soon realized that they fit in perfectly with what we have been discussing so far in this course. I shall demonstrate.
The story takes place in Denton, Ohio, and focuses on Brad Majors, (played by Barry Bostwick,) and Janet Weiss, (Susan Surandon,) a very “normal, ordinary” couple who are just recently engaged. One night, they decide to drive off together to share the wonderful news when the car’s tire goes flat. In search of a telephone to use, they stumble upon the castle of the ambiguous Dr. Frank N. Furter, a transvestite scientist who is housing transsexual guests from a galaxy called Transylvania. Seeing that they are virtually stranded, Furter extends his hospitality to them, to which they reluctantly comply. It is then that he intends to show them Rocky, a “love-toy” in human form that Furter created for the relief of sexual tension. By the time Brad and Janet leave Furter’s lair, they have changed forever (Lloyd 261).
In my opinion, Brad and Janet are perfect examples of the “ideal” conservative Christian couple. They have a very broad, “simple” mindset. They start off as two very innocent people in a playful, adoring romance. The symbolism is present as well, for the first image the audience sees after the introduction to the film is a cross atop a church steeple. Basically, Brad and Janet are the average small-town couple, “unpolluted” by more liberal, open-minded ideas. Janet Weiss, in particular, is everything a woman shouldn’t be: completely obedient to the man. It’s almost as if she has no mind of her own. Whenever I watch her, I cannot help but think of de Beauvoir’s article “The Second Sex.” She refers to the woman as “other” while man is the Absolute:
“She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other.” This most certainly applies to Janet in the beginning of the film, for she constantly has to rely on her precious Brad for guidance in everything.
Enter Frank N. Furter and his minions. To me, he is the absolute essence of the free-thinking liberal idea that challenges the beliefs of Brad and Janet. Not only that, but he is the voice of all the things that they keep to themselves. So to speak, he is the voice of their deepest, darkest desires.
In terms of tapping into said feelings, however, none of the characters goes through as drastic a change as Janet. After witnessing the birth of Furter’s “human sex-toy,” Rocky, her curiosity gets the better of her, and we (the audience) see her liberate herself and succumb to her desire in the form of a hilarious musical sequence entitled “T-T-T Touch Me!” The lyrics go:
I was feeling done in/couldn't win
I'd only ever kissed before.
She continues:
I thought there's no use getting/into heavy petting
It only leads to trouble/and seat wetting.
This line explains it all:
I've got an itch to scratch/I need assistance (lyricsdowload.com 2).
This clearly shows just how much Janet has changed as a result of being Frank N. Furter’s “guest.” Not only that, she can now tap into the deeply repressed feelings that she has been (taught, perhaps?) to keep to herself. An independent, contemporary woman is born! I have no doubt in my mind that McDonald, author of Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre would agree that Janet Weiss is the epitome of the radical romantic female character!
As you can see, Richard O’Brien’s “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” is a perfect parallel of modern times. It shows the clash between conservative and liberal ideals and how said ideals can change people’s perspectives.
Bibliography:
Lloyd, Ann. 501 Must-See Films. Octopus Pusblishing Group Limited. London, England. 2004.
www.lyricsdownload.com/rockyhorrorlyrics
Radical Romantic Comedy
I must say, after reading chapter 4 of McDonald's insightful (and
informative) book, I am left with a detailed description and analysis of
what exactly a "radical" romantic comedy is. However, there is one
aspect that certainly blew my mind, so to speak. For instance, part of
the "radical" concept of said comedies is the introduction of the
woman's interest in various sexual activities. This was fascinating to
me. Is the writer inferring that part of what makes this new form of
romantic comedy so "radical" is the fact that the female characters, for
the first time, enjoy partaking in sexual activity? I would hardly
consider that "radical." Perhaps she is referring to the fact that such
a topic or situation in a romantic comedy was not addressed prior to the
late 1960s. Though, going by this, it is just as radical to say that
the men were not interested in sex either until the late 1960s, for
before, thanks mostly to the censorship code that existed in Hollywood,
there was hardly any inference to such activities. How intriguing!
A little bit off the topic, but in class, we briefly discussed Woody
Allen's "Annie Hall." My friend did a scene from the film in my theatre
class last year. It sounds very interesting. I would very much like to
see it in its entirety!
informative) book, I am left with a detailed description and analysis of
what exactly a "radical" romantic comedy is. However, there is one
aspect that certainly blew my mind, so to speak. For instance, part of
the "radical" concept of said comedies is the introduction of the
woman's interest in various sexual activities. This was fascinating to
me. Is the writer inferring that part of what makes this new form of
romantic comedy so "radical" is the fact that the female characters, for
the first time, enjoy partaking in sexual activity? I would hardly
consider that "radical." Perhaps she is referring to the fact that such
a topic or situation in a romantic comedy was not addressed prior to the
late 1960s. Though, going by this, it is just as radical to say that
the men were not interested in sex either until the late 1960s, for
before, thanks mostly to the censorship code that existed in Hollywood,
there was hardly any inference to such activities. How intriguing!
A little bit off the topic, but in class, we briefly discussed Woody
Allen's "Annie Hall." My friend did a scene from the film in my theatre
class last year. It sounds very interesting. I would very much like to
see it in its entirety!
I suppose it's relevant...
I found this on yahoo. It's a costume idea that's "less-cliche" for
Halloween.
Audrey Hepburn From Breakfast At Tiffanys: No one could resist Audrey's
infectious charms as the adorable Holly Golightly in this classic film.
All it takes is a black knee-length sheath dress, black oversized
sunglasses, a set of pearls, kitten heels, and a long cigarette holder,
darlings. And don't forget the very chic updo with tiara. Voila!
I don't know exactly what to say, but I found it interesting since it
has to do with Tyffany's!
Halloween.
Audrey Hepburn From Breakfast At Tiffanys: No one could resist Audrey's
infectious charms as the adorable Holly Golightly in this classic film.
All it takes is a black knee-length sheath dress, black oversized
sunglasses, a set of pearls, kitten heels, and a long cigarette holder,
darlings. And don't forget the very chic updo with tiara. Voila!
I don't know exactly what to say, but I found it interesting since it
has to do with Tyffany's!
Breakfast At Tiffany's
I must say that out of all the required reading I've ever had to do for
a course or class, Capote's Breakfast At Tiffany's has to be my favorite
book of them all so far. It is so wonderfully written, with witty
exchanges of dialogue and some of the best descriptive paragraphs I have
ever read before. Holly Golightly, the character whom the story focuses
on, is a very lively and colorful character who is so flesh-and-blood
and lifelike that she almost jumps off the page and into the room.
Also, in yesterday's class, I was very excited to see some excerpts from
the film version as well, which is, as any film buff will say, a
classic. However, I must say that the book is much better.
The film, starring the elegant and chic Audrey Hepburn, takes a
departure from the book in many ways. For instance, the content of the
book is much more racy and crude, which the Hollywood sensors of the
time would see to it to remove from the script. Also, the character of
Mr. Yunioshi, a Japanese photographer who lives in the same building as
Holly, is portrayed as a buck-toothed, slanty-eyed, rodent-looking
creature played by (in other films,) the quite talented Mickey Rooney.
Even as we watched these scenes with Yunioshi in class, I could hear the
sporadic "racist" exclamations. It just goes to show how much time has
changed since then.
Also, what I happened to notice in both the film and the novella,
is that the character of Holly Golightly is a very independent woman.
For her time, she is quite the antithesis of the "average woman" of her
day. She seems to almost assume the role of a man in various
situations. For instance, in the film, Holly is seen flouncing about
"Fred's" apartment in a man's shirt, mixing drinks and holding most of
the conversation while he lays in bed after an affair with another
woman. In a "typical" drama of the day, the woman would be the one
lying around in the bed with the man mixing drinks and holding light
conversation. The "reversal" here I found to be completely interesting
a course or class, Capote's Breakfast At Tiffany's has to be my favorite
book of them all so far. It is so wonderfully written, with witty
exchanges of dialogue and some of the best descriptive paragraphs I have
ever read before. Holly Golightly, the character whom the story focuses
on, is a very lively and colorful character who is so flesh-and-blood
and lifelike that she almost jumps off the page and into the room.
Also, in yesterday's class, I was very excited to see some excerpts from
the film version as well, which is, as any film buff will say, a
classic. However, I must say that the book is much better.
The film, starring the elegant and chic Audrey Hepburn, takes a
departure from the book in many ways. For instance, the content of the
book is much more racy and crude, which the Hollywood sensors of the
time would see to it to remove from the script. Also, the character of
Mr. Yunioshi, a Japanese photographer who lives in the same building as
Holly, is portrayed as a buck-toothed, slanty-eyed, rodent-looking
creature played by (in other films,) the quite talented Mickey Rooney.
Even as we watched these scenes with Yunioshi in class, I could hear the
sporadic "racist" exclamations. It just goes to show how much time has
changed since then.
Also, what I happened to notice in both the film and the novella,
is that the character of Holly Golightly is a very independent woman.
For her time, she is quite the antithesis of the "average woman" of her
day. She seems to almost assume the role of a man in various
situations. For instance, in the film, Holly is seen flouncing about
"Fred's" apartment in a man's shirt, mixing drinks and holding most of
the conversation while he lays in bed after an affair with another
woman. In a "typical" drama of the day, the woman would be the one
lying around in the bed with the man mixing drinks and holding light
conversation. The "reversal" here I found to be completely interesting
Bookstore Analysis
I walk through the glass front doors of the Borders bookstore at
the Northridge Fashion Center. I often find myself in here, in search
of a good read. I am an avid book enthusiast and a voracious reader
with appetites for history, historic fiction, poetry, romance, fantasy,
and noir, as well as the occasional sci-fi novel. However, today, I am
conducting a sort of experiment. A series of observations, if you will,
for my Pop Culture class.
I take a seat at one of the tables at the Seattle's Best Coffee
Shop within the store. To make myself look less like someone who is
conducting a social experiment, I grab a copy of the New Yorker from the
magazine section. I sit back down, pretending to be interested in the
magazine, while my eyes flutter all around me to catch a glimpse of my
surroundings.
To my immediate right, sitting up against the bargain bookshelf, an
Asian girl, probably in high school, is reading "Teen Vogue." She is
wearing a white tank-top and jean shorts. She has her iPod earphones in
her ears. Whatever she is listening to, I can hear vaguely where I'm
sitting. I can catch a reggae tempo. Bob Marley, maybe?
Also, to my right, a middle-aged woman is looking at the rack of
2009 calendars that are already on the shelves. She is carrying a big,
white handbag, and is wearing a pink top with beige pants. She is
looking at one whose theme is puppies. They are very cute. I can see
the golden retriever puppy on the cover.
Dead ahead, directly in front of me is a man with a bluetooth in
his left ear. He is wearing a faded pink Hawaiian shirt and shorts.
He's drinking some sort of ice-blended coffee and reading some magazine
about cars and auto-mechanics. He seems quite content and "in the zone."
At the counter to my left, a guy is buying something at the coffee
place. He is talking to his friend about "Citizen Kane" and how he felt
about it. She listens intently, almost as if she's hanging on his every
word about the film. I take it, from her expressions and intensity,
that she has probably not seen the film yet, but is very interested in
doing so. I can relate to her, for I haven't seen it either, but would
very much like to.
I, too, can go on and on and on about what I saw, but I found it so
mesmerizing just to sit down and observe the behavior and reactions of
people all around me. Being a theatre major, I do this often, as it
helps me to really study people so that I may be able to expand my
creative choices when tapping into emotions for various roles I perform
onstage. However, this was a little different, for not only was
observing their emotions, but their clothing, their actions, even the
things that they were looking at or discussing. It was very fascinating.
The bookstore, I've come to realize, is a very free, open place
where people of all walks of life can come to unwind from the stress and
tension of the weekday by losing themselves in a classic work or
literature, by drinking coffee, or just catching up on the latest news.
It's like no one really cares who or what you are. They just know that
they are all their for the same reason and for the same thing.
the Northridge Fashion Center. I often find myself in here, in search
of a good read. I am an avid book enthusiast and a voracious reader
with appetites for history, historic fiction, poetry, romance, fantasy,
and noir, as well as the occasional sci-fi novel. However, today, I am
conducting a sort of experiment. A series of observations, if you will,
for my Pop Culture class.
I take a seat at one of the tables at the Seattle's Best Coffee
Shop within the store. To make myself look less like someone who is
conducting a social experiment, I grab a copy of the New Yorker from the
magazine section. I sit back down, pretending to be interested in the
magazine, while my eyes flutter all around me to catch a glimpse of my
surroundings.
To my immediate right, sitting up against the bargain bookshelf, an
Asian girl, probably in high school, is reading "Teen Vogue." She is
wearing a white tank-top and jean shorts. She has her iPod earphones in
her ears. Whatever she is listening to, I can hear vaguely where I'm
sitting. I can catch a reggae tempo. Bob Marley, maybe?
Also, to my right, a middle-aged woman is looking at the rack of
2009 calendars that are already on the shelves. She is carrying a big,
white handbag, and is wearing a pink top with beige pants. She is
looking at one whose theme is puppies. They are very cute. I can see
the golden retriever puppy on the cover.
Dead ahead, directly in front of me is a man with a bluetooth in
his left ear. He is wearing a faded pink Hawaiian shirt and shorts.
He's drinking some sort of ice-blended coffee and reading some magazine
about cars and auto-mechanics. He seems quite content and "in the zone."
At the counter to my left, a guy is buying something at the coffee
place. He is talking to his friend about "Citizen Kane" and how he felt
about it. She listens intently, almost as if she's hanging on his every
word about the film. I take it, from her expressions and intensity,
that she has probably not seen the film yet, but is very interested in
doing so. I can relate to her, for I haven't seen it either, but would
very much like to.
I, too, can go on and on and on about what I saw, but I found it so
mesmerizing just to sit down and observe the behavior and reactions of
people all around me. Being a theatre major, I do this often, as it
helps me to really study people so that I may be able to expand my
creative choices when tapping into emotions for various roles I perform
onstage. However, this was a little different, for not only was
observing their emotions, but their clothing, their actions, even the
things that they were looking at or discussing. It was very fascinating.
The bookstore, I've come to realize, is a very free, open place
where people of all walks of life can come to unwind from the stress and
tension of the weekday by losing themselves in a classic work or
literature, by drinking coffee, or just catching up on the latest news.
It's like no one really cares who or what you are. They just know that
they are all their for the same reason and for the same thing.
Romantic Comedy
I found this reading to be very engaging, as I have a great passion for all film. Romantic
comedies are no exception. Among my favorites are "Love Actually" and "The
Philadelphia Story" among others. However, if you were to ask me to define "romantic
comedy" before I read Chapter One of McDonald's very informative book about this
specific category of cinema, it would have been difficult for me to answer. McDonald
explains that "genre films" are generally associated with "bad American cinema" and
even states that for many film critics, as "the lowest of the low." Perhaps, she is
referring to the more contemporary romantic comedies that have been released for the
past few years, (those have been rather terrible for the most part.) Whatever the case,
near the end of the chapter, McDonald brings up a fascinating point that the main goal of
the romantic comedy, be it classic or contemporary, focus on the "old-fashioned"
fantasies of finding true love and happiness for "forever after."
I already know that I will enjoy this book, and look forward to discussing the material
further in class.
comedies are no exception. Among my favorites are "Love Actually" and "The
Philadelphia Story" among others. However, if you were to ask me to define "romantic
comedy" before I read Chapter One of McDonald's very informative book about this
specific category of cinema, it would have been difficult for me to answer. McDonald
explains that "genre films" are generally associated with "bad American cinema" and
even states that for many film critics, as "the lowest of the low." Perhaps, she is
referring to the more contemporary romantic comedies that have been released for the
past few years, (those have been rather terrible for the most part.) Whatever the case,
near the end of the chapter, McDonald brings up a fascinating point that the main goal of
the romantic comedy, be it classic or contemporary, focus on the "old-fashioned"
fantasies of finding true love and happiness for "forever after."
I already know that I will enjoy this book, and look forward to discussing the material
further in class.
de Beauvior response
To begin with, I found Simone de Beauvoir's article to be completely engaging. She
has a wonderful way with words. There were so many examples that I found that apply
to both her article and to pop culture, but since I am limited only to two, I chose two of
the ones I thought were the most fascinating. For example, on page three, de Beauvoir
quotes an excerpt of a text known as the Rapport d'Uriel by Benda. "'For him she is sex--
absolute sex, no less... He is the Subject, he is the Absolute-- she is the Other.'" This
particular excerpt and passage really stood out to me. First off, it completely backs de
Beauvoir's claim that (in the Western World, anyway,) woman has often been overlooked
by man in terms of being equal. In her opinion, they have, for the most part, been
viewed as objects of sexual desire and subservience. Also, Benda's quote completely
pertains to pop culture. The minute I read the excerpt, I immediately thought of
contemporary media and its portrayal of women. Many R-rated films, for instance, show
scenes that contain nudity and sex or sexual acts. How often does one see a nude man
in such shots? More often than not, it is the woman who is shown nude in these scenes.
Coincidence? I think not.
Another example that I found completely fascinating can be seen on the bottom of
page four and the top of page five. de Beauvoir is comparing women and proletariats.
She mentions that the word "we" is a key concept that separate the two. "Proletarians
[Russian revolutionists, the blacks of Haiti, and the Indo-Chinese] say 'We--' But women
do not say 'We,' except at some congress of feminists or similar formal demonstration;
men say 'women,' and women use the same word in referring to themselves. They do
not authentically assume a subjective title." She goes to say that women "...have gained
only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only
received." I really had to think this over as it suddenly came over me. Did de Beauvoir
think that women couldn't fight for equality? I came to this conclusion by thinking about
the other examples she presents, such as the Russian revolutionists and the Indo-
Chinese. Both of these groups were led by men who have since left a lasting impact on
world history (Vladimir Lenin and Ho Chih Minh.) However, before I could analyze this
passage even more, de Beauvoir explains that "women lack concrete means for
organising themselves into a unit which can stand face to face with the correlative unit.
They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity
of work and interest as that of the proletariat. They are not herded together in the way
that creates community." I understood this immediately, for they never were "grouped
together" by society like, say, Jews, Asians, or the various racial or ethnic/religious
groups were.
As one can see, I really took a lot from this article and had much to say about it! I
am looking forward to what people will say about this article in class tomorrow!
has a wonderful way with words. There were so many examples that I found that apply
to both her article and to pop culture, but since I am limited only to two, I chose two of
the ones I thought were the most fascinating. For example, on page three, de Beauvoir
quotes an excerpt of a text known as the Rapport d'Uriel by Benda. "'For him she is sex--
absolute sex, no less... He is the Subject, he is the Absolute-- she is the Other.'" This
particular excerpt and passage really stood out to me. First off, it completely backs de
Beauvoir's claim that (in the Western World, anyway,) woman has often been overlooked
by man in terms of being equal. In her opinion, they have, for the most part, been
viewed as objects of sexual desire and subservience. Also, Benda's quote completely
pertains to pop culture. The minute I read the excerpt, I immediately thought of
contemporary media and its portrayal of women. Many R-rated films, for instance, show
scenes that contain nudity and sex or sexual acts. How often does one see a nude man
in such shots? More often than not, it is the woman who is shown nude in these scenes.
Coincidence? I think not.
Another example that I found completely fascinating can be seen on the bottom of
page four and the top of page five. de Beauvoir is comparing women and proletariats.
She mentions that the word "we" is a key concept that separate the two. "Proletarians
[Russian revolutionists, the blacks of Haiti, and the Indo-Chinese] say 'We--' But women
do not say 'We,' except at some congress of feminists or similar formal demonstration;
men say 'women,' and women use the same word in referring to themselves. They do
not authentically assume a subjective title." She goes to say that women "...have gained
only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only
received." I really had to think this over as it suddenly came over me. Did de Beauvoir
think that women couldn't fight for equality? I came to this conclusion by thinking about
the other examples she presents, such as the Russian revolutionists and the Indo-
Chinese. Both of these groups were led by men who have since left a lasting impact on
world history (Vladimir Lenin and Ho Chih Minh.) However, before I could analyze this
passage even more, de Beauvoir explains that "women lack concrete means for
organising themselves into a unit which can stand face to face with the correlative unit.
They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity
of work and interest as that of the proletariat. They are not herded together in the way
that creates community." I understood this immediately, for they never were "grouped
together" by society like, say, Jews, Asians, or the various racial or ethnic/religious
groups were.
As one can see, I really took a lot from this article and had much to say about it! I
am looking forward to what people will say about this article in class tomorrow!
First Impressions
The first day of a new semester is always interesting for a student. For the most
part, it's a day of getting readjusted and getting back into the swing of homework,
exams, projects and all other form of academic activities. Of course, there is also that
dreaded time of walking into a classroom and sitting in awkward silence waiting for the
professor to come in. For the most part, my first days of new classes at CSUN have
been exactly like this, (save for the courses I take towards my major. I know almost
everybody there!) So far, one exception was when I stepped into this somewhat small
room in the Jerome Richfield building. First of all, there were a couple of people I
already knew and recognized. Second, the minute Professor Wexler stepped inside, all
that first-day awkwardness flew out the door. I would venture to say that it was one of
the best first days of class I've ever experienced.
We immediately delved right into the material. Our first assignment was to watch two
clips from two very different films, ("Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy"
and "Fatal Attraction,") and observe how women are portrayed in contemporary media.
To begin with, both stories are told from a male perspective. Also, both films showed
women as being weaker than their male counterparts, which, to me, was no surprise.
The United States is, like many nations in the West, a male-dominated society. For
centuries, the woman has always been viewed to be weaker and more submissive than
the man. This has always amused me, for it is women that go through the most as far as
the human body is concerned. They are the ones who go through menstruation and
childbirth. That is most certainly commendable. Most men I know would complain,
saying that they'd NEVER be able to endure such pain as that. So much for men being
the "stronger" ones.
Overall, I had a wonderful time analyzing the films and found the materials covered
this week to be very fascinating. I look forward to the upcoming weeks!
part, it's a day of getting readjusted and getting back into the swing of homework,
exams, projects and all other form of academic activities. Of course, there is also that
dreaded time of walking into a classroom and sitting in awkward silence waiting for the
professor to come in. For the most part, my first days of new classes at CSUN have
been exactly like this, (save for the courses I take towards my major. I know almost
everybody there!) So far, one exception was when I stepped into this somewhat small
room in the Jerome Richfield building. First of all, there were a couple of people I
already knew and recognized. Second, the minute Professor Wexler stepped inside, all
that first-day awkwardness flew out the door. I would venture to say that it was one of
the best first days of class I've ever experienced.
We immediately delved right into the material. Our first assignment was to watch two
clips from two very different films, ("Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy"
and "Fatal Attraction,") and observe how women are portrayed in contemporary media.
To begin with, both stories are told from a male perspective. Also, both films showed
women as being weaker than their male counterparts, which, to me, was no surprise.
The United States is, like many nations in the West, a male-dominated society. For
centuries, the woman has always been viewed to be weaker and more submissive than
the man. This has always amused me, for it is women that go through the most as far as
the human body is concerned. They are the ones who go through menstruation and
childbirth. That is most certainly commendable. Most men I know would complain,
saying that they'd NEVER be able to endure such pain as that. So much for men being
the "stronger" ones.
Overall, I had a wonderful time analyzing the films and found the materials covered
this week to be very fascinating. I look forward to the upcoming weeks!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Cat On a Hot Tin Roof
The use of ambiguity in Tennessee Williams' "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" is both marvelous
and maddening. For instance, there is a reference to a deal of some sort between
Margaret and her husband Brick that is never revealed, just hinted at throughout the
story. On the other hand, it is quite amazing in the sense that Williams was allowed
to "get away" with a lot more "taboo content" thanks to the use of ambiguity. For
example, in the play's text, there are subtle hints that Brick may either be homosexual
or had a homosexual affair with a young man named Skipper. Of course, it never
blatantly states the word "gay" or "homosexual," for the topic of such was almost
unspeakable during that time period in America (the 1950s.) I just found it interesting
that Williams, who was homosexual, managed to slip some innunendos into the text that
the reader or the audience member would not be able to pick up on. Repressed by
society, many popular gay writers of the time would follow a similar formula to that used
by Williams, thus allowing these authors to express themselves in a way that no one
would be able to recognize.
and maddening. For instance, there is a reference to a deal of some sort between
Margaret and her husband Brick that is never revealed, just hinted at throughout the
story. On the other hand, it is quite amazing in the sense that Williams was allowed
to "get away" with a lot more "taboo content" thanks to the use of ambiguity. For
example, in the play's text, there are subtle hints that Brick may either be homosexual
or had a homosexual affair with a young man named Skipper. Of course, it never
blatantly states the word "gay" or "homosexual," for the topic of such was almost
unspeakable during that time period in America (the 1950s.) I just found it interesting
that Williams, who was homosexual, managed to slip some innunendos into the text that
the reader or the audience member would not be able to pick up on. Repressed by
society, many popular gay writers of the time would follow a similar formula to that used
by Williams, thus allowing these authors to express themselves in a way that no one
would be able to recognize.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
My e-mail address!
I'm sorry! I totally forgot to put my e-mail address on here! I prefer my personal one, as my CSUN gets messed up sometimes. It's rockyhorrorbeatlesfan@yahoo.com.
There ya go!
:D
There ya go!
:D
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
