"Media acceptance"

This week during class we focused on how the media was portrayed in “Dog Day Afternoon,” and related it to the significance that the media plays in the movie, and in our every day lives. A particular scene from the movie, that was shown in our class, was when Sal was upset that he was called a homosexual on the TV. It was a perfect example of how the media chooses the angle that they want to take on a story, regardless of whether the people in the story want them to take that angle. The media will label anything and anyone just to make a story seem more interesting. As I watched the scene I could see why Sal was so offended by just being labeled as a homosexual and not referred to as an actual person. The media is what influences stereotypes. It just labels people to evoke attention to stories. A movie I watched today made me really think about the hardships that homosexuals have to go through in our culture because of the media. When I was watching “Broke Back Mountain” today, I was reminded of how much controversy the movie caused when it was first released. The movie caused an uproar because of the “graphics” that were shown. I think that it is ridiculous that not all people are accepting of the gay community and will not watch a movie because of it. I hope that eventually our media will be able to influence the public in a good way, so that our culture awareness of the gay community is more widely accepted.

double consciousness

I've always found theories of the other and marked bodies to be interesting, particularly Edward Said's theories, which I did not mention in Wednesday's class. The very basics of his argument focus on Orientalism as a European construction - a process, rather than a definition. It is an invention that serves the function of marking and contrasting an opposite. Furthermore, it lives through academic and institutional traditions as artists, scholars, poets, authors, etc. all write of 'the Orient' as if it were a subject for study.

All of this can be said of other 'minorities' as well... and I think my own process in creating Wednesday's presentation says a lot about just how much a part of academic tradition this process of marking an 'other' is. I took care to try and limit the examples I had - in the sense that I was very aware that my own purview on this subject was in the Asian other. As a Korean-American female myself, I am of course aware of the double consciousness in this respect - and it made me pretty uncomfortable to focus just on the Oriental other.

I'm not sure that I did a very good job of this, but the point is that I felt more weary of pointing out racist ads and visuals than I did for pointing out sexist ads. As an American, born and raised in New York and a student at a pretty prestigious university, it was as if my brain was warning me to be politically correct and equitable at the same time it was screaming at me to stop being a wuss and make my point regardless. I could feel the pressure and weight of that consciousness that I thought was pretty ironic.

"I Am Mad as Hell, and I Am Not Going To Take It Anymore"

Since our discussions this week were related to the media's power to perpetuate

certain stereotypes, maintain ideological values, and act as agents of

normalization, I decided to reflect on the 1976 Academy Award winning

film, Network. The excerpt from this film presented above has a number of

implications.

Firstly, it illustrates how the media can motivate people. The unprepared

anchorman of UBS agitates the people and calls for action. He stimulates

and invigorates people to vocalize their complaints and prove that their

lives have value. This shows that the media, in general, have power to

mobilize the society. For this very reason, the media were also used for the

purposes of propaganda, especially during the Cold War.

Secondly, the excerpt suggests that the media must support public interest.

While it is often obscure as to what public interest constitutes, it is nonetheless,

clear that no one wants to be lied to and treated unjustly. Unfortunately,

the media, especially the news still revolve around stereotypes. It treats

particular groups of people unjustly in terms of racial inequality. As such,

it (news) has a tendency to highlight certain cultural aspects, while

hiding others in a systematic way. Therefore, for example, it perpetuates

the stereotype that people involved in crime are most often African

Americans by focusing on the incidents involving black people, while

bypassing those that surround white people. This is why, the UBS anchorman

commands the public to get mad and demand justice. He wants people to

require the media to objectively serve public interest as opposed to provide

biased information.

Lastly, this excerpt suggests that the public tends to follow the flow.

This is perhaps, what Marx would call False Consciousness or what

Gramsci would describe as "social consent," which is more suitable

to this example. People, busy at their jobs as they are, want light

news based on entertainment and sensationalized human interest

stories as opposed to 'serious' news. People also tend to be ignorant

of important public policy issues. This is why the UBS anchorman

demands their participation. He wants them to wake up and question

what they are being exposed to.

Unfortunately, thirty-three years after the release of this film, not much

has changed. The media are still largely based on stereotypes, many

people still follow the media without questioning their credibility and

legitimacy. And, while the Internet appears to be the only alternative

way of accessing diverse information, quick regulation may change everything.

For Our Entertainment

I'm into this. And when I say I'm into this, I mean I'm really into this in the way where I couldn't stop laughing. Adam Lambert, the runner-up from the latest season of American Idol, recently released the cover for his upcoming CD For Your Entertainment. And it's worth talking about.

I didn't get to hear the class discussion, but it seems like a large portion of the chapter in the book focuses on the gaze and how it incorporates us as viewers in different ways. This gaze from Mr. Lambert is giving me signals for all the wrong reasons. Let's just get it out of the way that I think the entirety of this cover is atrocious. The reaction from most of the public (and a good percentage of his fans) was the same, for various reasons. Actually so much so that he issued a statement thanking the people that "got it" and that it was meant to "deliberately campy". But I think he takes himself and his "brand" very seriously, likes good or bad attention from anywhere he can get it, and has too much of an agenda to really be in on this particular joke. So that gets that out of the way.

What's confusing here in terms of what we've read is the issue of androgyny. We already know that an important part of the gaze is the "other"; The person that the gaze is meant for and the power play between them. But who is the other looking at the front of this album? For the life of me, I can't figure out who he is marketing this to. It puts off the girls that think he's attractive because it's just too feminine. It puts off the (small group) of middle America who may like his voice because it's just too out there. And it puts off the gays who were rooting for him because it's just too stereotypical and so, so ridiculous. That leaves a very slim amount of people that are into this sort of thing. A very small amount.

I'm probably being a little all over the place with what I'm trying to say. But really what's happening is someone with such an intense desire to succeed taking all the right steps to becoming a big joke.

E.A.'s latest marketing scheme has been making its way around the "internets" for the last month or so and I thought I would share it with you guys because it lead to me to the realization that marketing can be awesome. I never thought I would say this, in fact I'm probably the last person who would think anything near this, but what these guys are doing is so creative and original I'm willing to admit that my distaste may have simply been a lack of imagination concerning what is possible.

Without getting too into detail, the marketing team for E.A.'s new game Dante's Inferno have been gifting prominent video game critics with strange items that present opportunities for them to express the seven deadly sins. For greed, they sent out two hundred dollar cashiers checks, for wrath, they sent our mysterious boxes that blasted Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Let You Down" until you destroyed them with an included hammer. They staged a fake fundamentalist Christian protest of the game that got major news coverage.

This kind of marketing is a reaction to our general apathy towards symbols these days. We've become so inundated with suggestive imagery, we've become very adept at interpreting it, effectively taking away it's subliminal power. The reaction of modern hipsterdom to blatant connotative marketing is nothing short of disdain. If a company fails to innovate with its marketing, it gets left in the dust. Often when companies realize this, and try to compensate, the results are pretty hilarious (see recent Adidas "party" ads).

What I'm trying to say here is I don't like being marketed too. If there are items that I need, I do research and buy them. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on T.V. or in a magazine and subsequently purchased the product. But our society cannot function without advertising, and if it is going to be such an prevalent part of our modern lives then it should contribute not just to companies, but to culture at large. For almost no cost, E.A. has gotten my attention. In short, they win. Lastly I must comment that poorly done viral marketing makes me want to throw up, but thats an post for another day....

Halloween and "Slutty" Costumes

I'm being a dominatrix for Halloween. My friend Will is going to be my "pet," as the girl in the bondage shop where we bought our costumes put it. We came up with it as a joke (obviously) but I hadn't really thought about the implications of my outfit, which is very revealing (tiny vinyl dress, fishnets, garter belt, etc).

Remember how in the movie "Mean Girls," Cady is told that in America, Halloween is just an excuse for girls to wear slutty outfits? This issue came up in class during our discussion about Foucault's theories of power, specifically how it ties into spectatorship and the gaze. I never thought of my Halloween costume as "slutty," mostly because I hate the word "slut" and think it's degrading and outdated. But it's true that the dominatrix gear turns me into an object, and because of that I would never wear it normally.

There's something about Halloween that makes it acceptable for women to wear what are deemed "slutty" outfits without fear of being branded a "slut." Halloween is a night for assuming alternative identities, for being something that we want to be, as opposed to what we are. But why are so many women eager to do this? Do we secretly crave the attention that comes with objectification?

I think we kind of do. I think there's a part of everyone that wants to be gazed at, to be admired in a purely physical way, and Halloween is so anything-goes that we can indulge this desire. I kind of wish I felt more uncomfortable about this, but I think it's okay if it's for one night. I'm going to wear my bondage gear with pride.

Make Way.

In class this week we discussed the concept of “the other” otherwise known as the different racial and sexual oriented groups within our society. Most of the groups are viewed as not normal and are often distinguished from the norm as the black guy or the gay guy. In the ad above, MTV uses our social norm to its advantage. The ad focuses on a young, high school student who is interested in both men and women. The commercial ends with the tagline, “If your love is boundless, take care of yourself and others. Wear a condom.”

Both simple and effective, this commercial uses the knowledge that gay, bisexual, and lesbian tendencies are not seen as “normal” and uses that knowledge to its advantage. While the commercial does in subtle ways promote that gay/bi sexuality is not the social norm, it also promotes the idea of what is most important, no matter what your sexual orientation is, condoms should be use. Furthermore, the commercial implies that it’s okay to be the way you are no matter what they may be.

I think part of the reason an ad is able to get away with is partly because of who is in charge of broadcasting it. MTV is known for pushing boundaries and representing the generation who supports it. Because the “MTV Generation” is comprised of, for the most part, of open-minded teenagers and young adults, they are able to get away with marketing and portraying a severely under-represented minority I think a good question to pose in light of this ad is will these types of commercials, depicting all types of people begin to proliferate our society? I think so as “norm” is now not so much the “norm” and society begins to accept and acknowledge that this world is comprised of multiple norms and standards.

Fair and Lovely

When I was 15 my mom handed me a tube of "Fair and Lovely" and said "Try it! Its very popular in India!" On the tube was this beautiful white woman with black hair who was supposed to be Indian. She fooled no one. I called all my other Indian friends and they told me that they have also at one point been approached by their mothers with the same tube. In India, it is an obsession to have light skin. Light skin means wealth, class, and beauty. India was colonized by the British since 1600 till 1947, many years of imperialism and cultural imperialism. And after their independence in 1947, India has been trying to compete with the western powers. It is only inevitable for western culture to seep into the Indian culture. Not only with the obsession of lighter skin, but major institutions like Bollywood are directly promoting a western agenda. They make re-makes of Hollywood movies, like Superman, and place actors who are at least 3 shades lighter than the average Indian. Without the success and influence of Hollywood, Bollywood would not exists today. And then there are major western companies like Ponds who only sell skin lightening cream in Asia. While India is trying to progress in the world economy, it is still under the influence of the west. Cultural imperialism is just as significant as capital imperialism. And if India keeps on being influenced by the west in this way, they will not have the social progression they need to become a significant world power.

Fresh Prince Switch

Since I did not have cable when I was younger, I did not grow up off Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network rather I watched the sitcoms on regular cable channels. My favorite show from the 90's happened to be the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, which I still love today. Most people know that the character Vivian changed actresses halfway during the shows run time, from Janet Hubert-Whitten to Daphne Reid. From our discussion on race this week I began to wonder about the switch and the choice of casting. Janet Hubert- Whitten did leave the show because she was pregent and had conflicts with the produces, but what I think is interesting is that the new Vivian they casted was significantly lighter skinned. You would think the produces would like to have the character look a close as possible to the original; however, it does not seem to be the case.

Until this week I was unaware that lighter skin on black people is also preferred within the black community. I think this may have played a role in the recasting of Aunt Viv on the Fresh Prince. Also, when I look at most of the characters on the show they are all pretty much light skinned, except the butler Geoffrey, which is also interesting that the "servant" is the only really dark skinned character. Will and the two sisters, Ashley and Hilary on the show are considered good looking, while Carlton, who is a little darker skinned is unable to get girls. It seems that the lightness of black skin is preferred and that the lightness of their skin may appeal to a white audience also, so the show can attract more viewers.

"Well This Is A Story All About How...."

I grew up enjoying the sitcom, The Cosbys , but it would be an outright lie to say that I have not seen every single episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Will Smith is pretty much my hero. I fell in love with that show from the moment I first heard the cool introduction rap song and those hilarious and utterly corny jokes keep me giggling today. Just to drive my point in further- I catch every morning episode from 8:30am-9:00am on TBS while sipping on my coffee. The Cosbys may have opened the door for the concept of a wealthy black American family, but The Fresh Prince took that door and flung it right open. Uncle Phil was a big-shot judge out in Los Angeles, who mingled with the other wealthy families in LA. If you think back to the first episode, the whole family is appalled by Will’s behavior, because it is so out of line and “improper” in comparison to their own. This family is not only portrayed as wealthy, but also portrayed as educated and elitist; I mean, look at Carlton! The Banks family also has a butler; however, their butler is black like them. Now that I can look back on this show with more insight, I resent the creators of this show for not taking the opportunity to “stick it to the man” and make the butler white. It really would have made a point, but I suppose that’s how Hollywood works. The show was already “pushing its boundaries” by FINALLY showcasing a well-off African American family.

Will, unlike his cousins, actually represents the image of black people that is primarily shown on television. He is comes from a lower-class society, was void of opportunities in his “rough neighborhood” and is constantly trying to better himself, work his way UP the ladder. As the Banks family grows more accustomed to having Will in their lives, it becomes clear that they too are reaching deep into their roots and identifying the struggles they needed to overcome in order to be successful. However much success and wealth the Banks family is portrayed to have, it is important to the creators of this show to convey the message to their viewers that it wasn’t always so easy for this family, and that they too had to work their way up the ladder of success. There’s no such thing of black people being portrayed as just born into wealth, it’s a constant uphill battle, and even when you reach the top of the hill, it is crucial to always highlight the difficulties in arriving there.

The Ligher, the Brighter, the Better...or is it?

"Jill, you better not bring home, marry and have kids with anyone too dark" is something my mom told me her grandmother told her when she was younger. Racism within one's own race? Before, I thought racism could only come about when there were two different races involved. I came to the realization early in my life that light-skinned blacks were and continuously are looked at as ' better than' dark-skinned blacks. I thought, Where does this idea come from? Of course, blacks could not have come up with this conclusion themselves, and I finally realized why. Throughout history in the United States, the lighter a black person was, the more they were valued, especially in the minds of whites. In fact, during the days of segregation, my great-grandmother actually for a white person because of her fair skin and very light hair. The pressure for blacks to conform to the white, westernized, European ideal is something that has shaped the minds of many blacks in society. Think about it - some of the most famous people portrayed in high school have light skin tones. Beyonce? Yup. Halle Berry? yes. Rihanna? you bet. This idea that an African American is better because of a lighter skin tone is a view that needs to be eradicated from the minds of people forever, yet I still see little progress. The Notorious B.I.G. even comments on the negativity of his dark skin by saying, "black and ugly as ever, however I stay Gucci down to the socks" in which he tries to refute how his skin tone essentially makes him a less attractive person by relying on material objects to make up for that disadvantage. Ultimately, change is going to be needed to get rid of the ideology that the lighter one is, the better they are. The main point is, we are all different - people, especially blacks should not have to conform to a certain ideal that was not even set by them. However, there is a lot of work that lies ahead.

"Mestiza"

Last class we discussed the popularity of skin whitening creams in Asia. Where I come from, which is the Philippines, the culture of wanting to emulating anything remotely Western is very apparent.
The Philippines was colonized by the Americans. I regret to say that while most Filipinos view Americans as, for lack of a better term, those "manipulative bastards" who promised our freedom but instead tore down what used to be our charmingly distinct Manila to make way for cinemas and shopping centers, we still somehow view them in the highest regard. Maybe it's because media largely promotes Western values, and globalization in the establishments of McDonalds and Starbucks chains have given us the impression that the American way of doing things equate to progress. Caught in the illusion, we forget that it is because of them that we lost our cultural identity in the first place (no offense, but the evidence lies in history).
Which is probably why many Filipinos turn to skin whitening creams. "Whiteness" is equated to high class standing. While Americans view tanning creams as a sign of leisure, most Asians resort to skin whiteners to suggest wealth. It also implies staying OUT of the sun to give the impression of being sheltered and not having to do any physical work.
Interestingly, back in my days at an all-girls Catholic school I experienced prejudice for the ironic reason that I was white. (I am Filipino but of Spanish descent, which is termed "mestiza.")
One memory stands out particularly in my head. In third grade, a friend of mine grabbed a hold of my hand and commented that my skin was "nice and white" and that my palms were really smooth. What seemed like a compliment was followed up with, "that's because you don't do any chores, like WE do."
That's segregation at play, and I recognized it at a young age. Recalling that experience, I realize that the definition of beauty is context-specific. I felt out of place because in a class of fifty other girls I stood out as seemingly American, and it was not something I was particularly proud of. In fact, I felt ashamed of my skin color, because in my old school, being dark meant belonging to the prevailing social class, and THAT was "beautiful." I was the minority, and for that I felt embarrassed.
So, despite the persuasive power of media in defining beauty, it is not the only factor that determines the ways in which we view things. As we have learned, it really has a lot to do with how people make meaning of the things around them.

Media's affect

After watching Dog Day Afternoon, I was so surprised to how much we are swayed by the media. Like I mentioned in class, I was stunned when the lady was more concerned about being interviewed than being part of an armed robbery. I think if I was in her position, I would be so scared and wouldn't want to talk to anyone. It just shows how powerful the media is to us. Everything revolves around the media, what we wear, what we say, what we do. I feel like we became to worship the media. I am definitely a victim but I feel like whenever we see a celebrity wearing a certain item it just looks so much better. We just want it that much more. I guess it's the human in us that wants something we can't get and others possession always looks better. For instance, I was at the department store with my brother getting a new game and a boy was begging his dad to buy him the new playstation console at the time. His father was so dumbfounded and didn't know why he had to buy his son the new playstation when they had one that looked almost the same at home, maybe just a little thinner. But his son was so persistent about it and was trying to come up all these reasons why he need to have it but I could tell he was running out of ideas after awhile, he just knew he needed to have it. I just feel like its amazing how just a 30 second tv commercial, an advertisement in a magazine, or even through product placement we are so convinced that the newest is the best and the fairly new is old. Another example is Apple. It reminds me of the time we had a conversation about Apple during class. It's amazing how we are so swayed to think that whatever Apple comes out with is needed and not an option. We don't realize it but it's funny how we think once you take a step back and look at ourselves.

Party Monster: Media's Interference with Criminal Activities

The film Dog Day Afternoon captured the impact that the media can have on society. In light of this film, I began to think of another famous film, based on the true-life rise and fall of the notorious club kids of New York in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Made into a book entitled Disco Bloodbath, a documentary called Party Monster: a Mockumentary, and film also entitled Party Monster, the real life case, and following films, are great example of the media “interfering” in the ideological normalcy of society, introducing counter-hegemonic actions. When drug dealer Angel Melendez was brutally murdered by heroin hopped up party promoter Michael Alig in 1996, the subsequent arrest was all due to media interest. Though Alig attempted to confess to the murder on multiple occasions, it was not until Village Voice reporter Michael Musto made gross (though true) accusations of the murder of Melendez that the police even began to take some hint of interests – though very little. While the family of Melendez urged police to take action, it was not until Alig confessed to the murder on national television during a filming of a day time talk show that the police made their arrest (this being after the body of Angel Melendez was found, and identified).

 

The aforementioned events, as well as the film, portray a depiction of the media interfering with societal woos. If it was not for the media, in the form of Michael Mutos’s piece in The Village Voice, and Alig’s confession on national television, who knows if the criminal would have ever been tried for his wrong doings.

 

Furthermore, just as Dog Day Afternoon made us lose our ideologies for authority and obedience to the law, Party Monster abolishes ideologies of contempt towards criminals, as Alig received notoriety for his actions, in the form of endorsements, and a constant stream of fan mail after the production of the books and films.

Black Hair

The readings and the class discussion from this Wednesday really made me think about representations of blacks in our culture. One of the images I see over and over again is that of black women with straight hair. Some of the most famous black women in this country like Oprah, Michelle Obama, and Beyonce have straightened hair. In class we discussed how the media has the ability to shape how we feel about ourselves. I think that images of black women in entertainment and in advertisements plays a large part in how black women feel about their hair and what society tells them is beautiful.






The new Chris Rock documentary, Good Hair explores the lengths that black women will go to in order to straighten their hair.



I think that racism and a fear of black people is what causes these anglicized images of blacks to be so popular in the media. Perhaps if more images of natural black hair became popular there would be more than one definition of beauty (white beauty) in American culture, and non-white people would feel beautiful as they are.

Power of the Gaze

We recently discussed the power of gaze in relation to spectatorship. How the person who gazes holds the power. Sturken and Cartwright’s book is called Practices of Looking for a reason. The whole idea of society revolves around the topics of observation, viewing and receiving information through our interaction with the media. I think this power of the gaze is very relevant when observing print ads or other forms of still life. We discussed Manet’s Olympia and how this painting was the first of its kind. Here is a completely naked woman staring directly at the viewer. Regardless of her being a prostitute and the fact men chose her to be displayed in the Musee d’Orsay because they wanted to see naked women when they entered museums, her main power and the reason for her alluring appeal is through her gaze. Her portrait is fascinating, almost spellbinding as she captures the attention of the viewer with her eyes.

I have come across Armani Exchange advertisements recently that seem to focus on the themes of sex and power.

In both of these advertisements the woman seems to be seducing the man. He is staring directly at her while she seems to be more interested with the viewer. The control is obvious in the ad where she is lying on top of the man, yet still holding herself up and looking directly at the viewer. This positioning does not only make the viewer think of sex but also makes the viewer understand who holds the control. The woman is dominating the man- her hand is on his chest holding him down on the floor, his gaze is completely fixed on her, and she is not returning this same amount of attention.

The other advertisement is similar, but in this one it is the man who is holding onto the woman. Yet he is not holding her in a way which exerts control, more he is holding her as if he does not want to lose her. The reason the viewer sees it this way is all through the gaze. If she had been gazing directly at him the power struggle would be more difficult to discern. But again, he is looking at her, holding tightly onto her, while she does not seem as interested because she is looking away from him and at the viewer.

Through the act of looking both of these advertisements define the relationship of power. The gaze here determines what the viewer comes to think of each character. Their stance and actions are important, but the overall idea is symbolized directly through their gaze.

Nudity in a Modern Setting

In class this week we discussed a multitude of topics, but one that stood out the most to me was how women are represented in art. In the chapter from Practices of Looking that we read this week they stated that about 3-5% of all artists at the time were women, while approximately 80% of all art in a particular museum were depictions of women, and many times without clothing. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at this in a more modern media outlet, cinema.
While nudity in films does not necessarily take up 80% of all screen time, it still is something that is present in many R-rated films, and most often it is female nudity. Take for instance the critically acclaimed film Monster’s Ball, directed by Marc Foster, a man. In the film there is a controversial sex scene and while both actors Billy Bob Thorton and Halle Berry are nude during the scene, it is Halle Berry that exposes her breasts, buttox, and pubic region openly to the camera while Billy Bob Thorton’s backside is only shown briefly. Another controversial film is the critically bashed Showgirls directed by Paul Verhoeven, another man. The film was the first to ever be made with an intended NC-17 rating, and it is clear why. The women in the film are completely naked for almost the entire film, however, there is only one scene of male nudity and it is just from the backside again. And finally, a genre that is famous for diminishing women, the horror genre. In Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake of the classic film Halloween, about 3-4 women appear nude in the film, mostly during sex scenes with men, and not a single male is shown nude, not even from the back as most other films depict.
Overall, I think it is quite obvious that most films nowadays still hold many of the sexist themes that art held in many earlier days. What is unknown about this situation is whether it is the audience’s fault for wanting to see more female nudity and not asking for more males, or if it is because so many men are in high power positions in the media. I believe both are probably strong factors.

why judge disney?

Growing up I was a complete admirer of all of the Disney films, and honestly even after our discussion in class, I still am. I think that although Disney has characters that portray typical American beauties or heroes, that the movies they create do build a great structure for children’s imagination. When I Watched the Disney movies growing up, I would envy the princesses but I never once in my head thought of the movies as showing racism. I simply believe that the Disney movies, just like all other cartoon characters have a specific look just like a Disney mark. The princesses will all look similar because they are all the same of princesses,” Disney” princesses. I am sure if Dream Works created princesses they would all have similar animation too. Even after realizing that Disney movies do have their share of flaws, I do think that they are still great movies to show to children. They are all fairy tale endings, which is what kids like to imagine life will be like. Disney movies create a way for children to use their imaginations and help them spark creativity. As a child I never saw these movies in a negative light, I liked watching them for entertainment purposes and because they had happy endings. I think that the way we have criticized the Disney movies in our class is over analyzing how children view these films. Disney Land was a world of imagination to me. I knew it was not how the real world was, but when I went there I felt like dreams could come true. Overall I feel that these movies are safe for showing children and I anticipate the days that I will be re-watching the Disney movies with my own children.

Disney Princesses are everywhere!

Since Disney Consumer Products started it's Princess franchise "six years ago by packaging nine of its female characters under one royal rubric, [their sales] have shot up to $3 billion, globally, this year, from $300 million in 2001." With an growth like that, anyone would be hard pressed to simply ignore this 'phenomenon.' The fact is that these particular Disney characters are everywhere, even making appearances in video games. I'm not talking about the Princess-only video games directed at young girls, but Kingdom Hearts and all its sequels which are targeted towards a completely different demographic.

Kingdom Hearts, developed and published by SquareEnix (the same company that makes Final Fantasy) in conjunction with Disney, features 8 of the Princesses - minus Tiana. What's interesting, however, is each Princess' role. Of the 8 only Snow White, Aurora, Belle, Cinderella, and Jasmine are "Princesses" in Kingdom Hearts. Within the game, Pocahontas and Mulan are actually featured more substantially than Ariel, and yet are not represented as Princesses. In light of our class discussions of ethnic representation in Disney's Princess characters, it makes me wonder why Pocahontas and Mulan are left out.

Even more interesting is the conception of "Princess" in Kingdom Hearts. Not only are Snow White, Aurora, Belle, Cinderella and Jasmine Princesses, but they are, in the game's world "Princesses of Heart." A large part of Kingdom Hearts' mythology centers around the 3 parts to a being: the body, the soul, and the heart.

The heart, as one finds out during game play, is made up of light and dark, the latter of which exists because of people's greed. Princesses of Heart are maidens who are free of this darkness. What's problematic is the attachment of darkness is excluded only in those Princesses. Is it that KH is telling us that only those 5 Princesses are without darkness for a reason?

I'm sorry about this really late post, I've been feeling sick the last couple of days... and in my preoccupation totally forgot about posting this.

Not That I Have Kids, But...

If I did, I don't know that I could feel comfortable showing Disney movies to them. After our class on Wednesday, my first reaction was to think, "I watched - and loved - Disney films as a little girl, and I turned out perfectly fine." 

But what if I didn't? I'm lucky to have parents who exposed me to all different types of culture, but what if my main source of entertainment had been Disney movies? Briana makes a good point, that as children we didn't grasp that these movies were full of race and gender stereotyping. But I think that actually makes it into more of a problem. If kids don't know that a hyena character is actually perpetuating negative black stereotypes, or that the portrayal of the bad guys in Aladdin plays into unenlightened conceptions of Middle Eastern culture, then it's all the more easy for them to accept these messages as true. Disney's done a great job of creating a world that seems perfect and whole, and kids don't know to question it. Neither do most adults (check out the fairly creepy i-love-disney.com). 

Another thing that really gets me is the Disney princesses. Listen, I loved Belle as much as the next girl. But now that I'm older and more culturally aware, it bothers me that Disney isn't coming up with realistic role models to present to little girls. It's irresponsible. I mean, look at them. Their waists are impossibly small, they have perfect hourglass figures and they all look pretty much the same, even if they're supposed to be Chinese or Middle Eastern or what have you. They're as feminine as it gets, but it's an outdated and even degrading notion of femininity that they're fulfilling. The plots of these movies always, always involve these characters' dependence on or subservience to a man. It just saddens me that the expectations on women to be perfect, to be thin, and to find a man are present in films meant for very young girls. Why does it have to start so early?

Anyway, I think I'll probably let my future kids watch Disney movies, even though I have deep reservations about them. I believe in my parents' approach, which is to expose your kids to all kinds of cultural influences (within reason). But I'm going to make sure I talk to them about what they're seeing, and make sure they understand that it's okay to question even Disney.

Modern Disney?

How bad is Disney for kids? Everyone in this class has probably seen a Disney movie or interacted with a Disney product in some way. I have seen many Disney films and would I say that Disney made me racist? No. Sexist? No. Believe in some unattainable fantasy? Maybe, but what is wrong with wanting to find love. For me growing up watching Disney, I did not recognize that the crows in Dumbo or the hyenas in the Lion King were supposed to be Black. I did not equate the worth of each Woman by the prince she attained in the end. Looking back on it I do not think it greatly affected my outlook on life as a child, but now that I am older I do think the portrayals of minorities by Disney is wrong.

And maybe now that Disney is older they are realizing the same things too. Although Disney still keeps it's old fashioned fantasy culture and image in tact, starting in 2000 I noticed a new trend in Disney films. Since Mulan came out in the late 1990's, there has not been a Disney animated feature film featuring a women protagonist or any characters that have been overtly racist. Maybe it is due to all of the bad press or their teaming up with Pixar, but most films that have come out recently have featured mostly non-human characters that are male. The most popular films being Monsters Inc, Lilo & Stitch, WALL-E, Cars, Ratatouille, and Finding Nemo. The plot lines do not focus around falling in love anymore, but seem to center more along the lines of self-discovery and maybe finding love along the way. And this love does not have to be between a man and a woman anymore, but it could be between and monster and child, a girl and an alien, a rat and food, or a father and son. It will be interesting to see where they head in the future and I think that may depend on the reaction to their new film featuring a black princess.

It is nice to see Disney moving a little more with the times, but I guess the real question I am beginning to wonder is if Disney can ever be truly modern or if that goes against the "Magic" of Disney that children fall in love with?

A simple solution to our daily problems

In our reading of the criticism of Disney movies, it was stated that not only children enjoy the movies but adults as well. Why is that? Perhaps the same answer would be why we tolerate romantic comedies and genres similar to such. In Disney movies, the conclusion deduces to the moral of "love conquers all," (I can't tell you how many times this gets reiterated in Sailormoon, which is my Asian version of Disney princess movies) but we know that in actualality love is more complicated and most of the times creates more problems than solutions. But big blockbuster movies like Titanic and Spiderman, ends with the notion that love saves those who seem lost in life. It's interesting that although film does not have as long of a history compared to literature but their themes are quite relevant. I remember reading the medievall stories of sirs and knights, where the writer, sponsored by ladies of the castles, always used love as a potion to cure all things that seem illogical in reality. Similar to how in romantic comedies and princess stories, where random people can just fall in love with anyone and not worry about the situation in which they live in. It's interesting how Disney movies and many films model their storylines to medieval stories, while Greek literature and Shakesparean stories are less likely to be shown in a theatre near you. Perhaps the higher culture have artworks present problems to what we think should have a simple solution. I remember when my teacher asked us what love is in Shakespeare's terms, and it all turned out to be pretty bleak answers. Conversely when you think love defined in Disney terms, it's simply living happily ever after with the prince you love. Enterntainment, like movies, become such because they offer a discourse to reality; while artwork continues to present and shed light on realistic problems. If Disney movies are seen as educational than we would all be living a simple and happy life once we have found our love, but how we found our love also presents another problem.

Genre Films and Disney.

Is religion the opiate of the people as Marx said?" Or are Genre films the opiate of the people? Genre films have a long known tradition for being massive products with no interest to better-cultivated moviegoers and film critics. According to Judith Hess Wright, Genre films—such as the western, the horror, the gangster and the science fiction, to which I would include the romantic comedy and the musical—have been the “most popular products (and thus the most lucrative) to emerge from the machinery of the American film industry.” (p. 41) Without a doubt Hollywood industry is the most powerful film industry in the world, only followed by Bollywood. This big corporation industry, as any other corporation, has only one main priority: make money.

It’s known that these kinds of films are the main studios way of making money. But, in recent years Hollywood products have become extremely repetitive and monotonous to the point where there is complete lack of creativity and it’s becoming almost a line production system, like a car factory. Lately, many of the big Hollywood studios have been using the same kind of formulas they have been using for years, the same romantic comedies and the same actions films as always, which just shows that Hollywood is still the same.

However, there is still hope. Independent brands of studios (which don’t really fall into the independent category any more) are making films that can be more interesting and are opening doors as they are making people more open minded about their interest and raising the bar for quality film making.

On a side note, the Disney article we read this week, regardless o how well criticize it was and how right it is, I agree with Alex and how kids are looking at the bigger picture. When I was reading this article, although I was very aware of the issues that were being raised, what was going through my head was the music soundtrack when I was reading some of the lyrics that were written in the article; and instead of paying attention to the article I was focusing on how much I used to like these films and still do and no matter what was being said, it took me back to my childhood and the good times I had when I saw these films.

I admit, that in the eyes of my Media Studies teacher, I am the enemy. For one, I haven't picked up a serious journalistic publication in God knows how long, but that's normal now right? How many NYU students are going to sign in the Times delivery guy every Sunday really? Worse however, is the fact that I have no particular interest in these publication's websites either. I find them bloated, biased, and clunky, and don't even get me started on paywalls.

The majority of online content that I consume comes from RSS feeds. Examples of popular RSS feeds are popular sites like Reddit, Digg, and StumbleUpon that rely upon users to vote up links to the most happening things on the web each day. These sites feature a strong community spirit, and favor citizens summaries over journalistic fact based writing. As a result, I hardly ever visit nytimes.com, cnn.com, or any other corporate based online media content.

I bring this up because we are currently facing a crisis that could tip the scales back in the direction of media hegemony, stifling the minority opinions expressed on these sites. It seems you can't throw a rock in Washington without hitting someone passionately uttering the words "healthcare", "public option" or "Hitler" these days, but online there is a different issue on the tips of internet users fingers.

"Net Neutrality" is the coined phrase for a new Obama supported initiative that will ban the Internet Service Providers from giving preference to one site over another. This is how things have worked since the dawn of the internet. Whether you are Joe the Plumber or Ted Turner, if you can pay the annual fees for bandwidth, your sites will load at equal speed, and be treated as equal domains by your ISP. However, as the internet becomes an increasingly invaluable corporate resource, companies are starting to flirt with the idea of going into cahoots with the ISPs, and paying for preferential treatment.

As young and informed internet addicts, we must rise against this in the best way that we can. If the internet is not regulated, it is likely that what we will end up with is a glorified version of television, where public access channels struggle and fail miserably to compete with slick major networks. Admitted computer illiterate John McCain is opposing the idea of net neutrality, following the silly old doctrine of Capitalist competition in all things (but healthcare). Don't let these dinosaurs glaze over this extremely important issue in the name of an outdated political philosophy. Write a blog about it bros.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/174221/mccain_moves_to_block_fcc_net_neutrality.html

Capitalistic Fantasy.

In class yesterday we talked about how Disney works racial and sexist ideologies into their children’s movies. Okay, we know that. Disney is racist and sexist. Whatever. Let’s move forward and call Disney what they really are….Capitalists.

Disney and their ever reaching empire are not stupid. They know what the dominant ideas in this world are and even if they are sexist and racist, they still hold true as the reigning ideology in this society. Hegemony is at its best in Disney movies and Disney capitalizes on that to make some of the most widely accepted, widely viewed films of our time. Perhaps instead of blaming for Disney for the capitalist ways, we should instead evaluate ourselves. The non-desirable aspects of Disney movies would not be able to exist without the social norms and ideologies already in place.

But since they are in place, Disney has done in an outstanding way what all businesses do, capitalize on what they have available. The Disney model has achieved what few others have, a massive empire built on the foundation of what we believe and what we wish to believe. That is the sexist and racist ideologies that plague our society and the fairy tale like way they come together to make for a perfect ending, where all is solved and problems no longer linger.

So instead of calling Disney racist and sexist, we should perhaps look farter and call them what they have positioned themselves to be….entrepreneurs that very cleverly used OUR social ideas to make a shit load of money. And furthermore create an empire that is inescapable and likely to continue to promote these ideas for years to come. Disney should not be blamed for its ingenious moves, for every business has aspects that are undesired and sometimes unethical. I’m not saying that hey should be praised for their use of stereotypes, all I’m saying is that these ideas did not originate in Disney films, these films are simply vehicles that help convey what we already hold true as a society.

The Ugly Side of Disney

I don't think I'll ever be able to not think of Disney article while watching any Disney movie. The hopeful dreams of a Prince Charming to whisk me off my feet, having a singing candlestick as my best friend, and living happily ever after, have been crushed forever. Despite the mild depression I suffered after reading this article, I am grateful for the knowledge I have gained from it. There are several pressing issues that we covered in class, racism and gender roles, but one that I would like to look into further is Disney's sidekicks and villains.

It is prevalent what Disney thinks of ugly people; you're either evil or stupid. It is only the unrealistically beautiful people who get to be the prince and princess. This is an issue that needs to be discussed because the children watching these films are very vulnerable to this critique. Any seven year old girl will ask, "Daddy, am I pretty?" And undoubtedly the father will respond with, "Of course." Talking from a girl's perspective, you get to an age where you realize that your family's opinion doesn't matter with how you look, it becomes your friends (and crushes too). So, with Disney telling us that ugly people amount to basically nothing, kids can grow up with serious disorders and fears about being a stupid, ugly person. If a child has low self-esteem and sees one of these films, they could encompass the personality of the villain or side kick and thing that that is all they will ever become. Disney films need to put a positive spin on average looking characters; the mold needs to be broken by possibly having a good looking sidekick, or a more typical hero.

Four-year-old me would object.

Were any hearts broken from last class' discussion, besides mine? Just me? Alright then.
I'd say I'm a pretty outspoken person. But last class, I surprised myself when I sat there quiet, slowly digesting everything being said about Disney. This is the girl who dressed up as Princess Jasmine for consecutive Halloweens, and ran away to her Little Mermaid tent, stroking a fake magic lamp after a scolding.
I walked home, trying to understand the reasons for my silence. Should I have come to Disney's defense? Besides, the rest of the media communicates similar ideologies of machismo, the subordinate role of the female, and race. I mean, come on. Dora the Explorer? The Power Rangers (more explicitly in terms of the black and yellow ranger being black and Asian, respectively)? Why does Disney have to take all the blame?
One of my classmates said, "the danger lies in Disney being subtle about it."
Truth be told, I actually was not convinced by Giroux's article. Kids don't take these films literally; they are only concerned with the sensual and positive moral aspects of it. The color, the shapes, the music. They also don't notice things like Arabia being a shady, unfamiliar place or Mulan fighting for the honor of her father who is male. They see it as the Aladdin film embracing other cultures by depicting Saudi Arabia as an exotic "whole new world" that is profoundly beautiful, and Mulan challenging the role of males in her bold decision to fight.
Kids don't care about the details, they look at the bigger picture. Hey, if Belle could resist gorgeous buff studs and believe in the beauty of the human heart, I too should stop judging people by how they look.
Giroux also argues for a "sociological analysis" to take place, where parents discuss the issues of the movie with their kids to "correct" the inaccurate portrayals on screen. While I would advocate that for media scholars, critics and students, I do not believe that is necessary in homes.
What I'm trying to say is that, while Disney has some prejudices, the moral values of the films greatly outweigh the racist and sexist connotations.
Knowledge is great. As a media student I am definitely more skeptical of what I see on the screen, deciphering the messages with caution. But it comes with the curse of being too overly analytical, to the point that the "magic" of being a spectator, of being entertained, just dissipates. (My boyfriend pointed out that I tend to comment a lot when we watch TV shows together. Whoops.)
Despite everything we talked about, I would still show Disney movies to my kids as a parent. It gave me a great childhood, for one thing. I admired Cinderella's determination to step out from the status quo, and Ariel's gutsy attitude to resist authority. And Disneyland still makes me happy. Though many would label a Disney type of mentality overly idealistic, it still gives a kid hope in the world.
I guess you can say I was overwhelmed by some of the truths revealed to me -- Disney was anti-Semitic, Disneyland was originally for white people, etc. I just lost my admiration for Walt Disney as a person. But films are another thing, and could be analyzed in many ways.
I'm open-minded to those interpretations, which was probably reason for my silence. I wanted to hear the other side of the argument. And while I would agree that yes, maybe Snow White IS quite useless, I would say that characters like Mulan (who was voiced by Lea Salonga, a Filipino, not Christina Aguilera) are more resonant and relatable to females today.
And sure, some Disney execs might have highly capitalist motives. But we should not generalize that the entire corporation is so.

I would also like to add that besides Jesus, Santa Claus has a beard and kids love him. Should we tell our children that he doesn't exist?
If you're like most people, you wouldn't. Why? Because if you look at the BIGGER picture, that their belief in fancy flying deer and a jolly man in red makes them reassess their behavior. It makes them happy. Why take that away?
However, when they get older and wiser, they'll stop believing. In their own terms. But nonetheless, it gives them pleasant memories to look back on, and hopefully, the good habits they have formed while immersed in that belief will stick with them.
I'd say the same with Disney movies. Don't kill the magic. Kids will figure it out for themselves when they're older.

It was surprising to see how inappropriate Disney really is. I guess I was really upset and disappointed about this whole business with Disney. I always had this image of Walt Disney as someone who cared about everyone. Who wanted everyone to have a equal time of fun and joy at his parks and so on and so forth. But after finding out that he was extremely racist and generally a bad person, it makes me think twice of Disney and its goals.
Every since I was little I loved Aladdin. I thought Jasmine was the prettiest princess out of all the princesses. I loved how she lived in this huge castle, had a pet tiger, and had a lover that loved her so much. However, I feel like as a young girl I never completely related to her because there was no resemblance between her and me, physically. It wasn't just Jasmine but all the other princesses. So I felt like I could never become a princess. I remember crying about it and screaming at my Dad asking him why I couldn't be a princess. As I look back, it looks stupid but at the time I think its something very degrading. I feel like this made me feel like I wasn't accepted Maybe that's why certain race aren't as bold as other races? Now, after learning and realizing the different layers of Disney, I feel like the little but blatant aspects makes the difference to really affect us, viewers.

I Want To Play A Game

I was never really into Disney movies (except for one, but there's only so much I can say about my boy Hercules), so in the spirit of Halloween we're just going to talk about murder. The sixth installment of the now-infamous Saw series opens in theaters today to the excitement of sickos everywhere. Many would categorize these films as senseless violence. Unnecessary gore. "Torture porn", of a sort. And I would tend to agree. But there's an underlying intelligence and maneuverability that makes these movies much more than simple horror.

We've already discussed the typical formula for the genre: humans fight the supernatural "other" and end up winning when they realize that ideologies function much more appropriately than science. But viewers can only take so much of this formula until they get bored, which is why it seems horror films seem to operate in stages. We've already seen the creature features. The decade of the slasher. And now we've reached the age of excessive blood and guts. But there's a reason Saw has been able to release a new movie every Halloween and Hostel only made two before going under. Sure, viewers pack seats because of girls being thrown in pits full of syringes and reverse bear traps that could rip open your face. But it's more than that. These movies are smart. You're not watching a guy in a mask chase around a bunch of teenage girls for an hour and a half, and you're not just watching people being ripped to shreds for the hell of it. You're watching a cancer patient teaching people lessons on how to live. You're drawn into the traps because they're clever, and you follow the plot because it takes more than one movie to spell it all out. You need to be actively engaged instead of just looking.

Obviously the Saw series must end one day. The story is going to wrap up and we're all going to move on. But that's not going to be until they stop making so much money and a new era of horror movies comes into play.

When that will be, who can say.

Prince Ali Fabulousee!

If you were to ask me what my favorite Disney movie was, without any hesitation I would declare Aladdin. I was only 3 years old when this movie was released in 1992 but that didn’t stop me from having a special place in my heart for it; I must have watched this Disney classic once a week until I was about seven or eight years old. Why was I so addicted to this movie? And what was its special significance to me? We were discussing in class the way Disney butchered the Arabian culture in this film without giving any of the concerts genuine Arabic accents and passing off scribbles for Arabic writing. These are undoubtedly highly offensive to any Arabic person, but as a three through eight year old, these minute details didn’t faze me. All I saw was a boy who slightly resembled my dad when he was a child and a princess, Jasmine, who could pass off as my sister. I’m not even Arab, I come from a Persian background, but I was able to distinguish myself from the other Disney classics, through these characters. I also mistook the Arab culture for Persian culture, granted they’re closely related, but I made it into something I could relate to.

I can presume that Disney makes movies like Aladdin, and even Lion King, and the upcoming Princess and the Frog in order to attract non-white moviegoers as well to theaters. I had always loved Disney films, but the fact that I was suddenly able to directly identify with this film and its characters boosted this Disney classic to the top of my list. After learning more about the Disney Corporation, and especially after our conversation in class this week, it’s hard for me to look upon Disney films with the same awe I did as a child. But, there’s no way I could have picked up these somewhat subtle gestures that proved how non-cultured Disney truly was as a young girl. It wouldn’t occur to me then to be offended by what I was seeing on the screen. I’m sure that if I re-watch this film, which I’m highly considering doing, that within the first few minutes I’ll be able to pick up on every single error on Disney’s part. This doesn’t exactly please me, considering how much I once valued these films, but I think I can come to terms with the fact that I’ve grown and wise old enough to begin critiquing these childhood favorites!

Disney Forever

After having our discussion in class regarding the many prejudices in Disney movies, I was astounded. All my life, I believed that absolutely nothing could be bad about a Disney movie. Disney movies represent my childhood, along with countless other people in the world. There is something magical about seeing pots and teacups come to life, and for animals capable of being your best friend, and even if I turn on a classic like Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast today, the same magical feelings come to life. To be honest, I do not remember ever noticing subliminal messages or messages of oppression toward certain groups like women and minorities, and I wonder, How many other kids don't remember seeing those same messages? After analyzing Giroux's article, I can say that he makes valid points, but not valid enough to discredit the history and impact that Disney movies have had generation after generation. Also, I believe that lessons on self-value that are overlooked in Disney movies should be reinforced at home. Understanding who one is and what they represent is something that shouldn't rely on Disney to teach to children. As I see it, Disney already does a good enough job at helping create an imagination and prolonging of innocence, which has more of an impact than the words out of the character's mouths that may not resonate with the viewer. Academic scholars may have some relevant points on the topic of why Disney movies may not be good for one's child, but Disney will always prevail.

Kiri Davis' Experiment

This Wednesday we discussed how Disney films perpetuate certain stereotypes.

From gender roles to forms of representation (skin color, hair style and color)

of the characters,Disney cartoons set terms for what ideal beauty is supposed to

look like. They also determine what gender responsibilities are supposed to be

(men being protective of their women, and women being dependent on their

men). While both children as well as adults enjoy Disney films, they are

mainly designed to target the former, and thus shape their perception of an ideal.

A seventeen year-old high school student, Kira Davis recently created a short

documentary which depicts how little children perceive beauty. She interviewed

21 kids and asked each whether they liked a black or a white doll. After the

experiment Kira concluded that 15 out of 21 children chose a white doll saying

that it was more beautiful than the black one.

Considering the age of the children interviewed (about 5-7), what seems to be the

source of influence on their perception of beauty is Disney films. While these cartoons

are portrayed as innocent, they at the same time carry subliminal messages, which

enter children's subconsciousness. Truly, Disney films are more than just depictions

of beautiful, wholesome white couples, they are more importantly one-dimensional

in promoting a specific gender role and appearance, which shape children's

perception as evidenced by Kiri Davis.