Friday, September 30, 2011

Popular Culture and Society

In our most recent discussion class on 9/28, which was led by Diego, we watched an interesting documentary, Celluliod Closet, which discussed the transition of homosexuality portrayal in film. I found it very interesting that the portrayal of homosexuality in film was a direct parrallel to homosexuality at each given time period.
For example, in the 1920's homosexuality was more openly shown in hollywood films. According to historymatters.gmu.edu, "in the 1920's, due in part to Prohibition and the emergence of speakeasies, homosexuality became even more open." I find it interesting that the social acceptance of homosexuality came along with the more open minded portrayal in Hollywood during the "roaring 20's."
When our culture entered into the 1930's, all of this began to change. The 1930's was a time of the Great Depression and religious revival. During this time, Hollywood films began to tone down the appearance of homosexuality. Homosexuality appeared less in mainstream films during this time due to criticisms aimed at Hollywood from religious groups claiming the industry contributed to immortality. This decline in homosexual portrayals on the big screen was partnered by a more taboo outlook on homosexuality in general. It is interesting to note this societal change that seemed to mirror the change in popular culture because it brings up the question of which change occured first and how does society and popular culture affect one another.
Through some research on several different sites (listed at the end of this post) I came to the conclusion that the change in society began before the change in pop culture, but the change in pop culture seemed to always become a catalyst for more widespread and faster change in society. This can easily be seen in the change that occured in the 1930's. Due to the Great Depression and the hardships it tolled upon many Americans, religion became of greater importance than it had been in the 1920's because it gave people hope and a more optomistic view on their lives. This religious revival then provoked Hollywood to turn to more "moral" themes and characters (in this case, heterosexuality) than it had previously. Due to this change in Hollywood's depiction of our society, society itself began to shape itself at an ever increasing rate to conform to the popular images devised by the films. This shows the basic idea that slight changes of societal viewpoints cause a circular effect of Hollywood conforming to societal standards follwed by society conforming to Hollywood's standards and so on.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Homosexuality in Current Day Films


In today's discussion, which we had with Diego, I was really interested in the video that we had watched regarding homosexuality in films. What I found most interesting was the amount of innuendo slipped into films that were made as early as the 20's! However, one thing that bothered me was that whenever a gay was portrayed it was often in a negative, stereotypical way. As they had mentioned in the film, Celluloid Closet, homosexuality was only something to laugh at, pity or fear, and gay characters never played a role that was fleshed out and explored beyond the gay stereotype. Interested in seeing if we have progressed any farther since the time when gay men were used I decided to look at films in the current day to see if they have improved at all in their stereotyping.
The first film I looked at was probably the most mainstream and obvious choice, Brokeback Mountain, which tells the tale of two male sheepherders who fall in love and pursue a rather tragic romance. While the movie focuses on two bisexual (not gay) males who do end up getting married and having children of their own, their homosexual relationship is definitely the main plot of the film and is a deep and complex one at that. The fact that they have to cheat on their wives in order to be together does sort of portray the men as lying, lustful, and manipulative, which may lead some to believe that this film paints gays in a negative light, but I think this just adds a whole different layer of complexity to the characters, making the audience see how difficult it really is to have a homosexual relationship. Thus, I think this film does a really great job of revealing the hardships that gay men face, while additionally avoiding the feminine stereotype that most gays are portrayed in in most modern films. I'd definitely say this film is a huge step forward from the time of 20's films with "sissy" gay characters.
Another film I examined was a scene within Easy A, in which the protagonist, Olive, helps her gay friend, Brandon, find acceptance in high school by "pretending to be straight". In order to do so, she pretends to have sex with him and the scene is played largely for laughs, and a good amount of them are made at Brandon's sexuality's expense (lavender curtains joke, gnome in underwear, etc). While Brandon's character may seem like a total stereotype who sets gays back simply by existing in film, I think he is actually a rather progressive character. He reveals the discomfort that a lot of gays have while being closeted in high school and even gives a really great speech within the film about the pain that he suffers as people are constantly mocking and bullying him. Through mixing a combination of gay stereotypes and real personality, I think that Brandon's character comes across as genuine and offers a great insight into the lives of a struggling gay teenager (while simultaneously keeping things lighthearted).
All in all, I'd say that the portrayal of gays in films today has been getting way better since the early films of the 20's-50's, and while there might still be a lot of offensive stereotypes, I think things are headed in a positive direction. Here's to hoping things might continue getting better!

Brokeback Mountain trailer:

Olive and Brandon in Easy A:

Agent van Alden

Last week in class, Professor Velasco mentioned briefly about a character in HBO's Emmy award winning series, Boardwalk Empire. The character is prohibition agent van Alden, and he has been shown to self-flagellate when his work and beliefs are in conflict. To summarize quickly, van Alden is working in Atlantic City during the Prohibition era to try and bring down the kingpin of the bootlegging and illegal sale of alcohol. The reason he mutilates his body is because he believes he sins. In Atlantic City, where prostitution and all sorts of illegal activities occur, its very hard for a lone man to not get tempted. Even though his job essentially is to rid the city of the "sins", he himself falls victim to temptation.
Interestingly, we see this commonly. People who at first strive to do good for society become prey after they realize just what they are dealing with. Politicians, for example, come into office with a lofty and ideal agenda on how to better the world. Only a few years in, those same politicians become so enamored with power and control they become what they had hoped to stop in the first place. "If you can't beat them, join them" may sound cliche, but it holds some truth, ironically.

The teachings of Christianity is also similar in that it tells people how to be good and what exactly a good person is, but people still do what is considered bad or evil. We know the blueprint to leading a life that will eventually take us to "heaven" but along the way we encounter many of the temptations and desires that stray us. Thus, in order to repent for these sins, people believe that delivering physical pain to the body is an offering for God's forgiveness. Though there may be a higher entity somewhere, realistically speaking, we only do these things to straighten our conscience. The feeling of guilt and betrayal to God, who is always looking upon us, must somehow be quelled. The knowledge that one has made dues with God allows that same person to go on living his or her life. Many of the things we do are truly things we do for ourselves, in fact.

The Modern Day Baroque Attitude






In this post I have 3 sections that I want to address that all relate to the Baroque "attitude": Keira Knightly and airbrushing, a YouTube video posted by comedian JennaMarbels, as well as a question I had today in lecture.

First off, Keira Knightly was a principle role in the movie King Arthur. However, Keira also faced troubles with airbrushing. Keira's body lacks the voluptuousness in her breasts, which is why the editors of the movie poster decided to use their Photoshop techniques on her. This was also not the only occasion Knightly had to face this, but also with a Coco Chanel ad.

When Keira Knightly was interview in a People article, I found her comment about beauty very compelling,

"OK, I'm on the cover of a magazine but somebody else does the hair, and the makeup, and airbrushes the f--- out of me – it's not me, it's something other people have created."

I thought she captured the Baroque attitude of saying that visual enhancement is just a lie and not her true self. Similar to Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, both women were trying to falsify the portraits of themselves in telling the public that it is not the true image of them.

Moreover, a comedian JennaMarbels posted a YouTube video that is very satirical on female body image. Although Jenna is mocking girls that wear a lot of makeup, she indirectly raises the issue that women are very consumed with how they look. I also thought that Jenna took on this Baroque attitude by implying that makeup is just another way to cover up true beauty and is superficial. When watching the video, I couldn't help but think about the "deception of color" that we talked today about in class as it relates to makeup. The "foolishness" in Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz's sonnet about trying to hide ugliness is connected to Jenna's rant about the insanity of women's fixation of needing to deceive people that they are in pretty. After all, Jenna's video title is "How to trick people into thinking you're good looking."

Finally, I wanted to repost my question from today's class:

"Although the Baroque attitude has a negative perspective on superficial appearance change, what do you think the Baroque attitude would be towards transgendered people?"

In my opinion, I think that the Baroque attitude focuses on more on what is "true" and not hiding from reality. Therefore, I would think that if I lived in the Baroque era, my opinion would be this: There is no point in hiding behind deception because we are all going to die, so if someone is transgendered they should get a sex change to remain true at heart. Don't try to avoid fate, but rather embrace it, because hiding who you really are is the same as hiding behind an appearance.

Obviously this is just my opinion and I would love to hear your thoughts!




Link to People Article: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20052654,00.html

Link to JennaMarbels YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYpwAtnywTk





Kim Kardashian is everywhere. With more endorsements than I even care to list, her fame and popularity has only increased in the last few years.

But I wonder, is Kim really that beautiful or is her beauty just the result of talented make-up artists, hair stylists, and airbrushing?

I've included in this post a few "candid" shots of Kim in her day-to-day life running errands, at the gym etc.

Now if we compare these first two pictures to a photo shoot Kim did for LIfe and Style Magazine that featured her "without makeup" there is an obvious difference! What's interesting is in the article she states she wanted to show people that she is "comfortable in her own skin" and not afraid to be seen without makeup. Yet, in this photo it looks like she has makeup on, and there's a clear difference between photos taken of her in her daily life and a photo taken during a photo shoot.

Overall, I feel such images of stars without make-up on are positive, and important for women to see. As the Dove commercial shown in class mentioned, our perception of what is beautiful is distorted because the images that the media provides us are distorted themselves.

If we continue to see examples of celebrities in their day-to-day looking like the rest of us, maybe some of the pressure will start to fade, and we can go back to appreciating what's really important.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Painting Our Identity?



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/13/new-j-crew-ad-sparks-debate-on-gender-identity-confusion/

It's just a normal advertisement for J.Crew, and there seems to be nothing wrong... except for the bright pink nail polish on the young boy's toes. The verdict has always been blue is for boys and pink is for girls, but this ad has a pink color painted on a male child. Some people take this as simply an ad that expresses the mother's love for the child, but others don't take this ad very lightly. Conservative columnists believe this is a form of celebration of "propaganda pushing the celebration of gender-confused boys wanting to dress and act like girls is a growing trend, seeping into mainstream culture." If I were asked about this ad, I would say it conveys nothing more than a cute child enjoying his time with his mother who is having a little fun with toenail polish, but I would personally never be caught dead wearing pink toenail polish. This is an advertisement that confuses some about gender identity, and it goes back to the problem of the re-defining gender, which is never a simple task. Yes, it is odd in society for a male to be wearing pink, but can we really judge our gender identity with the paint on our body? Gender can be juggled in the social norms of culture and ideals, but in the end, we can't judge our gender identities based on a color. In the most objective viewpoint, pink is only an idea, a figment of our imagination, a memory. Colors are based off the frequency of light that is reflected, and yet something so intangible as pink, is conceived as feminine or girly. The only reason why we believe it is girly is because that's what we're told to believe. Society can change the expectations we must meet in order to fulfill a gender identity, but it can't define nor limit our gender identities. 
-Fred Kim

Monday, September 26, 2011

Male/female Underwear Models

After looking at all the images in class today, I thought it was interesting that the male models were frequently shown without heads. The framing only included their chests and crotches. I searched female Calvin Klein underwear ads as well, and with a few exceptions, the women are almost always depicted with their heads on. Female bodies are cut up in most other advertisements, so I wondered why Calvin Klein would remove the occasional male head but present whole females. Does this mean that advertisers were uncomfortable about the male model's face? Or did they feel the need to direct the consumer's gaze to the 'underwear'? I think it indicates that even though both kinds of bodies are on display for objectification, people gaze at men and women differently and process them differently. In female ads the seductive gaze of the female model seems important to the overall appeal of the image. Maybe male consumers are not used to having sexy naked men stare them down? Female-directed advertising successfully uses this trope but maybe the lack of male heads suggests it only works in the one market. I don't know what year most of these were taken, but it would be interesting to see if there's been a trend towards either less male faces or more.

I'm just posting the female model results because this link is ridiculously long, but this is the general trend.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Fb4&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=calvin+klein+rossetti+poem&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4309l4436l0l4716l2l1l0l0l0l0l180l180l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&biw=1342&bih=739&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi#um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=calvin+klein+women+underwear+ads&oq=calvin+klein+women+underwear+ads&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=44208l44615l6l44767l4l4l0l2l0l1l248l397l0.1.1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=6a724fd66067ec27&biw=1440&bih=766