This is my first post since I first started this blog back in the spring for my Gender and Mass Media class. I got an A, so that's nice. Figured I'd keep up writing about gender, specifically in contemporary media and mostly focusing on film and television.
















Albert Nobbs will be the first film I analyze. The film's been out for a while, released in 2011 sometime, it was nominated for several Oscars, including a Best Actress nod for Glenn Close. Glenn, I haven't seen The Iron Lady but I'm sure you were much better. Close plays Albert Nobbs, a woman in 19th century Ireland, way back before women were encouraged to be independent. She cross dresses a Albert and works as butler. When she meets another cross dresser, Hubert (played by Janet Mcteer) her perspectives on success change a little bit. Hubert is much more comfortable with her cross dressing and sexuality. She even has a wife. Albert, who dreams of opening a cigar shop hopes to acquire the same success by courting Helen, a maid (played by Mia Wasikowska) who has little interest in the person she believes to be a little old man and more interest in a young boiler who works at the hotel.
All this sounds like a great premise. But I was left feeling disappointed with the story.

With Glenn Close looking like an awkward deer caught in the headlights most of the film and Mcteer  convincingly androgynous. Is she really that tall? I felt uncomfortable feeling any attraction to her, but I enjoyed her performance more then Glenn Close's. But it becomes hard to watch as Albert hopelessly tries to get together with Helen, who endlessly takes advantage of her, hoping to bribe her into giving her enough money to buy a ticket to America. Meanwhile, Nobbs doesn't get a clue about the fact that Helen has no interest in him/her, nor does the thought of two woman living together strike her as odd.
 
The whole time I wasn't sure what they were trying to make the audience understand. Life was hard for a woman, a lesbian, a cross-dressing lesbian in the 19th century? I got that. But what I wasn't ever clear on was Albert's sexuality. Confused, is a good answer. She seems to have dressed up as a man so long that she identifies as one, not even remembering a female name, only Albert. When her and Mcteer dress up as woman just for fun they really do look like men dressing as women. In fact, we never even see her as a woman.

None of this is inherently bad. For what it's worth, I enjoyed Albert Nobbs, but I felt like it could've been much better. I normally enjoy ambiguity and I'll admit it's refreshing to see a different take, not on the side of comedic of a cross-dressing tale. But with a glum ending and enough uplift, Nobbs leaves much to be desired.  

HBO'S Girls: Post-post feminism for a young audience

HBO'S new series "Girls" tells the story of Hannah, a woman in her twenties, fresh out of college who has to learn to deal with the real world. The real world, being the life of an adult. Hannah is an essay writer who, after her parents decide to stop supporting her, is forced to bum off of her friends in order to find a job. The series uses the tagline "living life one mistake at a time" and producer Judd Appatow says he hopes the show will provide insight to "realistic female." And it does. That is, at least spoiled middle class white girls who complain that their parents don't give them enough money. Not such a bad thing.

Hannah is just the new millenium's version of Carrie Bradshaw for a slightly younger audience. She's not quite over represented, but she has not got a job on the show yet, but somehow maintains life by bumming off her friends. She spends her time having sex with a disgusting-dominating-actor-friend-with-benefit, Adam. She goes through some "hard times" with her queer family of girls who, just like her manage to slacker lifestyles in Manhattan (sounds familiar). The show has a great cast of characters. There's Marnie, the uptight one that complains that her boyfriend is too nice, Jessa, the free-spirited one who has no interest in relationships or maintaining a real job and Shoshana, the prissy on out of the bunch who is still a virgin.

It's refreshing to see a show about "women who act like men," as Carrie herself might call it. The men on the show are either sensitive wimps, assholes and even sex objects, something extremely rare in any media. This show is indeed, all about the Girls point of view. Yes, they're still straight, white manhattinites complaining about white people problems and for whom life seems so glamorous, so easy yet we still feel bad for them when they cry. And at the same time, there's little redeemable about them. In the second episode they're talking about an abortion like its cookout. Despite all this I am now addicted to this show and it's certainly nice to watch something about the way girls communicate, bond and have sex that's not written from some man's imagination.

FINALLY! Female lead action heroes with very little down side!

If there's one thing I've learned from watching Charlie's Angels and reading critiques on it, it's that you don't have to be the opposite of the average woman to be a feminist. In fact, men can be feminists too! Who knew? If you are for equal rights for both men and women, you are a feminist. That doesn't mean that women should have MORE rights then men, just EQUAL rights. We've seen so much media that tries to reach out to both male and female audiences. A lot of the media we've analyzed at are action movies. When they try to market action movies to women, all they do is either stick some ass-kicking Kung Fu- doing anti-female as the lead or supporting role. But to keep the male viewers interested, they make her sexy. Which is fine, because guess what: they do the same thing with male leads. Ever see an unattractive male action hero? Imagine if in Die Hard, John Mclane was played by Danny Devito instead of Bruce Willis. Or if Thor was played by Seth Rogen. It just wouldn't work.


Unfourtanetly, most of the films and television series we've looked at (ex. Die Hard 4, Charlie's Angels) we've analyzed negatively. They don't seem to send the message that people think they are supposed to. At first glance, sure, they change things up a bit and question masculinity and femininity, but if you analyze closely enough, they just revert back to old school thinking in the end. They aren't as progressive as they're supposed to be and Hollywood is very clever at keeping you entertained while encouraging you not to think.

So what are some films that can be analyzed positively? I've chosen to talk about two: THE HUNGER GAMES and THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.  Both of which are adaptations of best selling books.

The Hunger games has sold over 25 million copies of the book and grossed 150 million in it's opening weekend. Third only to Harry Potter and The Dart Knight. I read the book before I saw the movie and found Katniss Everdeen to be phenomenal character, one who's voice I didn't mind staying in the entire read. She does everything by herself including taking care of her mother and sister, hunting with her bow and arrow, which is considered to be a man activity and winning the actual hunger games. There is one point in the book which is definitely worth looking at and is only briefly touched on in the movie where Katniss nurses her teammate/love interest Peeta back to health inside a cave.  Peeta is practically the damsel in distress majority of the time and comes from a family of bakers. Talk about role reversal. Played remarkable strength and confidence by Jennifer Lawrence, Katniss is certainly pretty. But she doesn't use her sexuality to her advantage, in fact, sexuality isn't much of a them in the story at all. There is a slight love triangle between her, Peeta and Gale, but it's not the main basis of the story.

The second film, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, is on a more adult heavily R-rated side of the spectrum, but still offers a unique and refreshing heroine. Lisbeth Salander is her name and though she shares the lead with Mikeal Blomkvist (played by Daniel Craig in the American version) she's pretty much the star of the show. The books were written by Stieg Larson, who got his inspiration for the character after witnessing his friend of the same name get raped. Larson was an advocate for women's rights and originally titled the book "men who hate women." While Dragon Tattoo isn't necessarilly an action movie, it is a thriller which is a genre that is always popular in the movie business. It's certainly worth taking a look at.
It would take pages to go on about Lisbeth's back story, which would be rife with spoilers. Instead of doing so, I'll just point out a few parts about the character I find most interesting. First off, her sexuality is never quite distinct. Sometimes she has sex with girls, sometimes with men. She always seems to treat the women better then the men and "has sex like a man," in Carrie Bradshaw's terms. This isn't necassarily a good thing, but the shoe can be on the other foot, guys.
Lisbeth is independent for the most part, steadfast and at times blunt. She dresses in a way that certainly draws attention to herself, but also tells people to F*** off. She is extremely intelligent and capable of hacking into just about any computer. So she draws on her intellectual powers to get things done, not her physical prowess, though she is capable of defending herself. She uses her sexuality as a weapon only once and it is in an act of revenge, but there's nothing sexy about it. Trust me. Lastly, the fact the Mikeal needs her to solve the case he is working on, but Lisbeth doesn't necassarilly need him says something.
Lets hope there's more Lisbeth Salanders and Katniss Everdeens in store for our future. Otherwise, how is anything going to change?

Hey! I grew up on that!

There is no more sensitive topic then children's cartoons. We can talk intelligently about race, class and gender but don't insult the animated films that were so near and dear to our childhood. Men will defend the coolness of their GI JOE'S, their TRANSFORMERS and their superheros. Women will defend their love of princesses, almost all of which come from Disney adaptations of various literature and fairy tales. In fact, do you know anyone who hasn't seen a Disney film? I mean, come on, every one has at least one if not more, favorite Disney movies. What's the big deal though? They're just cartoons after all, right? Surely, there can't be more to their simple success other then the fact that they bring joy to children.

WRONG!  Whether you like it or not Disney is a HUGE corporation that dominates children's entertainment and owns many broadcasting companies and entertainment industries. I don't really have a problem with the animated films that Disney makes. In fact, they've made some pretty brilliant films. But there are common characteristics that Disney films share with flaws that few people are willing to admit.  These flaws are essentially subliminal messages for young kids that (no research done here) effect their behavior and way of thinking as adults.

I have chosen to point out three. The first, is that women can't do anything without a man's help. There are plenty of Disney movies that have fantastic leading ladies and if you read my blog on Beauty and the Beast, you know that I think there are positive sides to them as well. But Sleeping Beauty has to wait for a handsome prince to wake her up, Snow White needs the help of yes, another prince to kiss her and bring her back from an almost-death and Pocahantas can't solve the violence ensuing between the Indians and the Colonists without the help of pretty-blonde-white man: John Smith. Things are getting better. Not all Disney films send this message. In fact Pixar's new movie BRAVE stars a female character. It is the first of the Pixar films with a leading female role and looks pretty good. So go ahead, love those Disney princesses, but don't BECOME one.

The next is the racism that some of these films seem to promote. Most of the main characters are idealized, aryan and in power already. In the article Monarchs, Monsters and Multiculturalism, the author gives the example of The Lion King. I hate to harp on The Lion King because it's on of my favorite Disney movies, but after I read the article I realized some flaws. The Lions are at the top and represent those in power. In America, that means mostly white people. The hyenas are given Latino accents and are represented as insane followers of Scar. Scar himself, is drawn with a black mane versus the blondish-brown of Simba and Mustafa. The Lions want to keep everyone else in their place. Those of us who live in a democratic society should ask ourselves: is this what we want democracy to be? Shouldn't the Zebras and Giraffes have an equal say?
Things are getting better as far as diversity. Mulan was female and Asian, Jasmine was Persian (or middle eastern of some form) and more recently The Princess and the Frog starred a black princess instead of white. The more minorities rise to power, the more diverse animated films will become.

The third and final is the problem of the Good vs. Evil dichotomy. When it comes to children's media, its much easier to make good one side and bad the other. You are either good or evil, with us or against us. Makes sense, right? The problem is, kids are never made to question what it actually means to be good or evil. Certain things we know to be bad: stealing, killing, lying, that sort of thing. But don't the good guys do all those things in order to get rid of evil? What kids learn about good and evil nowadays is that they attack you, so it's okay for you to attack them. They wronged you, so you must get rid of them. But does that mean that they are evil? Isn't it all perspective? Oh, and not to mention those who are in power are the ones we root for, those who defy them are considered wrong and immoral.
Take Alladin for instance. Alladin stole because he had to. Alladin did not have money. He was referred to as "street rat." But that doesn't mean Alladin was bad. He was just poor!  If Disney would make its characters more complex and set the good/evil line a little bit closer, then perhaps we could actually make kids think about the movies they watch instead of just watching them.

The Positive Side of Child Marketing

This past class we began our transition into learning about media for kids. In the first article we read From Tony the Tiger to Slime Time Live discussed how the 1980's lead to a new era of marketing towards kids. In 1980 the deregulation bill was passed and the market became free to try and profit off of whoever it pleased. One of the biggest changes was the fact that now, advertisers were allowed to target kids of any age. While the article focuses mainly on the negative aspects of this, I've chosen to focus on some of the positive. Surely, not all media being thrown at kids can be crap.

During the 1980's a whole slew of children's TV shows were sold as multimedia products, meaning they were not just a television show, but a series of toys, video games, comic books and often times made into food. Some of the most memorable ones to me are G.I. JOE, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers and The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.

The fact that all of these series could be experienced both by watching television, playing with action figures, playing video games and by reading is pretty cool. If you're a kid, imagination is the best part of your life. In fact, lets face it, most of what you think about when your a kid is make believe. While the real world is pretty exciting and filled with fun new facts every day, kids spend more time focusing on make believe media then they do on being concerned about what real life is like, or what they're going to do when they grow up. And how much does a career matter at that age? Zilch. People argue that kids can't just play in their backyard with a stick anymore. Sure, kids aren't as easily entertained, but they're simply experiencing imagination in a different, more interactive way. And aren't the filmmakers, writers and artists who help create these TV shows just kids who never grew up? 



A craze more recent and more popular with my generation is the Harry Potter series. Harry Potter books have sold over 400 million copies, made over 900 million in ticket sales for movies and has made even more money off of merchandising. There's even a theme park. 400 million copies is a lot of kids reading. Yes, Harry Potter is aimed more towards a teenage audience but the first book has been read by kids as young as nine, maybe even younger. Why is this such a good thing? Because the books have received a number of literary awards and for kid's books, include a pretty heavy vocabulary. With all the complaining about how often kids spend on media no one ever thinks about how much more kids are reading because of the number of ways they can experience media. Read the book? I can't wait to see the movie! Seen the movie? I can't wait to read the book! Also, Harry Potter tackles much more complex themes and issues then the before mentioned TV series. Stephen King, an extremely acclaimed writer quotes, "Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity." Can you think of a theme that's not in Harry Potter? I can't.

Having a multimedia children's market offers kids the chances to play by themselves on a console or computer, play with their friends with action figures, watch TV and THINK about being the characters, read, or if they feel like it, simply pretend to be a TV show character, with no form of media in front of them. Kids still have strong imaginations, they're just a bit more spoiled then the last generation. 

Porn: something no one wants to talk about but almost everyone has seen

In class, we started talking about one of the most interesting, yet awkward subjects to talk about: Pornography. And I don't just say "interesting," because it involves nudity and sex. I say interesting, because its something that is considered so taboo, so shameful, yet so normal at the same time. In the film we watched in class, it was stated that the porn industry makes an estimated ten to fourteen BILLION dollars a year. That's a lot of money. More then any other form of media combined. But why? Is it because of it's availability? The majority of Porn that people look at nowadays is internet porn. Websites make their money from advertising and you can't go onto a single website without seeing some from of advertising. Ever notice how the more popular Youtube became, the more advertisements it became laced with? Sex sells, period. Whether its literal sex or suggestive sex, or a product that promises to get you sex. Whether we like it or not, we all at some point or another have bought something for that reason. And lets face it, Old Spice has definitely got it right. 


The other element to why Porn sells so well is the sexual fantasy it promises to fulfill. We all read books and watch movies to get inside fictional character's minds. To feel like we're witches, wizards, superheros, rock stars, or whatever. We can't all be these things, however. And lets face it, not everyone can get the kind of sex they want. If we did, the porn industry wouldn't be making so much money. It's not that we can't get sex. We can. But it's hard to find people who are interested in the same things you are and willing to do certain "favors." Also, for most, it takes a significant amount of work in order to get sex. With Porn, you can skip past flirting, dating and the hard work of a relationship. Its just a click away. Of course, you'll still be alone.

The Porn industry's fan base is almost all, not shockingly, men. But what I find interesting is that studies have been done that women actually have a stronger sex drive then men. Just one that is not as frequent. The stereotype is that men just want sex. Plain, simple sex. No commitment, no emotional attachment, no strings attached. And it might be true and some cases, that men look more towards the physical, pleasurable aspects of sex rather then the emotions that come along with it. And God forbid, love. But we've seen on shows like Sex and the City, that women enjoy having sex this way too. The entire pilot episode of the show was all about casual sex. Sure, more then often they are ridiculed for it, by being called "sluts" and "whores." But if they weren't so often criticized, would we still view things this way? 
I've actually asked people questions about this. Most women say that they prefer something with a plot. Just plain sex is not a turn on. It's also because the people who make porn are almost all men, so what they film is biased towards heterosexual men. I am sure that no women wants to watch something that makes her feel bad about herself. Or rather, if the actress doesn't look like they're enjoying it, then it can't be good. Most women who actually do watch, or have watched porn, watch Erotica. Erotica, also known as soft-core porn is simply porn without the penis. Most Erotica involves a plot, often a parody of another film. Most men don't like Erotica because it doesn't show enough. It's considered boring. Wait, more heterosexual men want to see male genitalia then women? Sounds a bit off to me. The thing about most Erotica, however, is that it is not as degrading to women.

Herein, lies the problem with porn. Something that could be relatively harmless becomes offensive and degrading. There is nothing wrong with sex. We all know that. But an industry that the media likes to glamorize, that seems like such a good way for young women (and men) to make money becomes much darker and honestly, sad, then we need to do something about it. Yes, its good money, but its often short lived and the processes that women go through in order to get into it are sickening.
Personally, if the actors and actresses don't look like they're enjoying it, then its not something that I want to see.

Is Max the new Jack?

The recent TV show HAPPY ENDINGS or as I like to call it, "Friends with a gay character and a black character," is an excellent example of what contemporary television is in the 21st century. HAPPY ENDINGS borrows the storyline of a group of friends all with different backgrounds and different story lines each with their own unique character quirks and flaws who all live in close vicinity with each other. It takes its comic exaggeration and style of humor from popular shows such Will and Grace, Friends and Sex and the City. One of the most interesting is Max.
Max is gay, but you wouldn't guess that from looking at him on the outside. Unlike most gay male characters of the nineties, like Jack or Will, he is overweight. He's attractive, yes, but not exactly stylish. It's never quite clear what Max does for a living. He is much like Jack in the sense that he's a bit of a freeloader, yet he somehow always has money. He's more what you would think of as a laid back heterosexual guy. He's not necessarily promiscuous, in fact he is much less so then all of the other characters on the show who are straight. He is a bit ridiculous though, but he's not the only one. Everyone else on the show is a bit silly and easy to laugh at because we can see that they are just caricatures of ourselves. If anything, Max is not a caricature of a gay man, but a caricature of a slacker, who tries his hardest to get out of work and make as much money as possible without working a real job.
Another thing about the show that I think is important is that they were not afraid to show guy on guy kissing when Max gets back together with his old boyfriend. He woos him by lighting candles outside his apartment. The writers of the show might as well scream, "They are just like us!"  And what's the big deal about showing men kissing anyway? It is probably stems from the fact that so many heterosexual men take pleasure in watching women kiss, while most heterosexual woman don't necessarily enjoy watching men kiss. The other factor is that so many men, even those who claim to have no problem with gay people are still extremely homophobic in the sense that they think guy-on-guy is gross. The more they see it on the TV however, the more likely they are to change their minds and simply get used to it.