I found the Sex Comedy chapter pretty insightful for its facts and
historical accuracy. It made me think about the discussion from last
week when my group discussed "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", relating to
the cage, when a student said that the "cage" in our society isn't
shrinking, but actually getting bigger. McDonald is referring to the
sex comedy sub-genre as a means to make a taboo subject, such as
sex in the 50's and 60's entertaining even with strict codes and
censorship. It shows how culture grows the cage, which is supposed
to protect us, until the cage is eventually non-existent or opaque.
When the birth control pills came out, and the country knew that
more than half of single women/men were already having sex before
marriage, what's the point of beating around the bush of what we
already know? The cage that defined the sex comedy was ultimately
pointless. In order to truly understand the sub-genre, we have to
think like the family from "Leave it to Beaver" or "Pleasantville",
where both the husband and wife sleep in separate beds (not really),
then turn off the lights together, say goodnight, then we see
darkness for a few seconds more, hinting out that maybe it's bedtime
...then again maybe it's not. The chapter actually brought some of
the themes from Pleasantville to mind. The film dives into the
subject of censorship and sexual freedom as color begins to
illuminate those "youngsters" who have become sexually active on
the hilltop hangout.
The "color" in the black and white film serves as a metaphor for the
changing of times and traditions. Sex was no longer talked and
giggled about, but was experimented freely as we see in the scene
where the housemaid wife, sleeping in a separate bed from her
husband, decides to masturbate in the bath tub. Although a little off
topic, I felt I needed to connect some of the themes of that film to
some of McDonald's analysis.
Another interesting fact that McDonald pointed out, which I think can
be considered the biggest contribution to the sex comedy of the
time, was Hugh Hefner's Playboy Magazine. Although the mainstream
cinema of 1953 beat around the bush on the topics of sex, the
magazine dared young men to venture into sex as a lifestyles,
therefore helping the themes, metaphors and humor of the sub-genre.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
FWD from Week 4 discussion
I was excited when I saw our course syllabus and saw the
required text, "Romantic Comedy". I knew it would be a good
opportunity to analyze one of my most unfamiliar, foreign,
and unappreciated genres as a young film student (and probably
most other males). McDonald is pretty accurate when he mentions
that most romcoms are geared and tailored for a consumer female
based audience, which is probably why it is still one of the
most successful and overused of the "blockbuster" box office
profit. Lets face it, most of movie watchers are still within
the ages of 16 to mid 20's area and it's already a given that
more than half of them are probably female, plus the fact that
most dates and/or social groupings are usually attended at
"chick flicks" and not action, horror or other male oriented films.
The genre has become a bit repetitive and cliche, but I think
that's why we are addicted to them. They're simple for 90-120
minutes, predictable, nostalgic and usually end in happy endings
following the "guy meets girl" scenario. So what does that say about
movie watchers as a whole? Since most romcoms usually exaggerate
the most fictional, ideal love scenarios and portray iconic celebrities
with flawless features, are we transforming the idea of love into an
unattainable source of fantasy? Or are we just escaping the harsh
realism of the melodramas, insecurities and affairs of real
relationships? I think it's fascinating when we try and contrast the
romcom with other genres. It's really the only genre that can perfectly
blend the theme of love with comedy and/or satire. Action films may
have a subplot about a guy who meets a girl, then they jump off a
cliff and escape a Nazi camp or exploding volcano. Or a horror film
may involve the survival of a male and female, and along the way of
fending off zombies they miraculously gain an attraction for each
other. Just like McDonald said, almost all genres will contain some
form of relationship or love conflict. It's innate within our emotions
and it sells tickets to both sexes. Only in the romcom, though will
love be the central theme and use laughter and optimistic or
pessimistic comedy as a reinforcement. I guess it's a way of laughing
at what seems to be our biggest insecurity and fear as humans; the
consciousness of being alone and without love.
required text, "Romantic Comedy". I knew it would be a good
opportunity to analyze one of my most unfamiliar, foreign,
and unappreciated genres as a young film student (and probably
most other males). McDonald is pretty accurate when he mentions
that most romcoms are geared and tailored for a consumer female
based audience, which is probably why it is still one of the
most successful and overused of the "blockbuster" box office
profit. Lets face it, most of movie watchers are still within
the ages of 16 to mid 20's area and it's already a given that
more than half of them are probably female, plus the fact that
most dates and/or social groupings are usually attended at
"chick flicks" and not action, horror or other male oriented films.
The genre has become a bit repetitive and cliche, but I think
that's why we are addicted to them. They're simple for 90-120
minutes, predictable, nostalgic and usually end in happy endings
following the "guy meets girl" scenario. So what does that say about
movie watchers as a whole? Since most romcoms usually exaggerate
the most fictional, ideal love scenarios and portray iconic celebrities
with flawless features, are we transforming the idea of love into an
unattainable source of fantasy? Or are we just escaping the harsh
realism of the melodramas, insecurities and affairs of real
relationships? I think it's fascinating when we try and contrast the
romcom with other genres. It's really the only genre that can perfectly
blend the theme of love with comedy and/or satire. Action films may
have a subplot about a guy who meets a girl, then they jump off a
cliff and escape a Nazi camp or exploding volcano. Or a horror film
may involve the survival of a male and female, and along the way of
fending off zombies they miraculously gain an attraction for each
other. Just like McDonald said, almost all genres will contain some
form of relationship or love conflict. It's innate within our emotions
and it sells tickets to both sexes. Only in the romcom, though will
love be the central theme and use laughter and optimistic or
pessimistic comedy as a reinforcement. I guess it's a way of laughing
at what seems to be our biggest insecurity and fear as humans; the
consciousness of being alone and without love.
Monday, September 15, 2008
How did I contribute to the cage?
After seeing the film Cat on a Hot Tin Roof just recently, and reading the play about twice, I finally got an understanding of the themes and characteristics at our last group meeting (9/11/08). I helped structure our group meeting/presentation in a form of three sub-groups, along with Pip’s advice on using three clips from modern films in pop culture. I mostly thought this would be a wise choice because Professor Wexler stressed the idea of not presenting a lecture, and films such as American Beauty, War of The Roses and Brokeback Mountain still possess the value of entertainment to keep our class engaged, entertained and inspired to participate. After all, we are in a Popular Cultures course, so comparing our class read to relevant films can possibly create a ripple for that tsunami. Plus, it works for the Professor, so why not emulate his discussions?
In my sub-group, I concentrated on keeping the “cage” theme alive, by contrasting the film American Beauty with similar characteristics of family structure and success from Tennessee’s book. I feel in most ways, a marriage/family is a cage in itself; a manifestation of a cage. The family is a social construct, dependent on affection, attention, money and security and there are many parallels between a modern suburban American family and that of the vast farmland in the south. The “Beauty” from the title suggests how we create ideals and expectations of the family, and how each person has their own perspective on what beauty really is, whether it is on the surface or beneath.
In my sub-group, I concentrated on keeping the “cage” theme alive, by contrasting the film American Beauty with similar characteristics of family structure and success from Tennessee’s book. I feel in most ways, a marriage/family is a cage in itself; a manifestation of a cage. The family is a social construct, dependent on affection, attention, money and security and there are many parallels between a modern suburban American family and that of the vast farmland in the south. The “Beauty” from the title suggests how we create ideals and expectations of the family, and how each person has their own perspective on what beauty really is, whether it is on the surface or beneath.
FWD from Cat On A Hot Tin Roof discussion
I feel Tennessee Williams'writing is about as real as reality can get. Keep in mind, I bought A Streetcar Named Desire, thinking that it was a required read for the class on an out of date syllabus and read it prior to the class, I thought it was satisfactory, but nothing astonishing. In Cat On A Hot Tin Roof it's clearly evident how Williams uses his protagonists as an alter ego for his own alcohol problems and sexual confessions. The ambiguity of his writing in both stories seem to tap into his own subconscious desires and lies he can't accept within himself. He uses his writing as a confession through layers and depth of character interactions and secrets. Each character, even though this story may be about half a century old, seem as real in dialogue as a character from a Tarantino script, which is regarded as some of the best dialogue of our generation. Each character has layers within layers of subtext, leaving it a mystery to the reader/viewer to interpret their problems by searching within ourselves the problems of the human condition when
dealing with love, family and greed. Each character has a different voice, even without any character description, allowing the flow of words and tones to burn into our thoughts. Some of the themes that add to the absurdity of this "slice of life" play are those that deal with money, and how morality is abandoned when wealth is within reach. It's true that money is the root of all evil, and in this case, Williams hides this evil with plastic smiles, devious and sneaky cat-like confessions, and contrasts with truthful characters, such as Brick or Big Daddy, who seem to need not money, but true happiness, which is out of reach for both, regardless of how many acres are under their belt. Tennessee proposes many questions about life that can't be answered in one play write. How is love and happiness really defined? Is it attained through money? Fame? Acceptance? How low can humans really stoop to acquire this happiness? By living a false marriage (Cat On A Roof that never jumps off)? Or by popping out five children in order to earn
respect from those you despise? Or by escaping reality through a bottle? I think Williams' interpretive writing evolves through his themes that we are scared to relate to, because deep within all of us we have a secret. There is a black to every white and a negative to every positive. Our human shells may make us seem normal, but it's all those gushy secrets, desires and greed underneath that we fail to accept that truly makes us human.
dealing with love, family and greed. Each character has a different voice, even without any character description, allowing the flow of words and tones to burn into our thoughts. Some of the themes that add to the absurdity of this "slice of life" play are those that deal with money, and how morality is abandoned when wealth is within reach. It's true that money is the root of all evil, and in this case, Williams hides this evil with plastic smiles, devious and sneaky cat-like confessions, and contrasts with truthful characters, such as Brick or Big Daddy, who seem to need not money, but true happiness, which is out of reach for both, regardless of how many acres are under their belt. Tennessee proposes many questions about life that can't be answered in one play write. How is love and happiness really defined? Is it attained through money? Fame? Acceptance? How low can humans really stoop to acquire this happiness? By living a false marriage (Cat On A Roof that never jumps off)? Or by popping out five children in order to earn
respect from those you despise? Or by escaping reality through a bottle? I think Williams' interpretive writing evolves through his themes that we are scared to relate to, because deep within all of us we have a secret. There is a black to every white and a negative to every positive. Our human shells may make us seem normal, but it's all those gushy secrets, desires and greed underneath that we fail to accept that truly makes us human.
FWD from Week 2 discussion
I feel this topic of gender roles and equality and contrast amongst the sexes is
relevant to anybody, even if you aren't familiar with Beauvoir's writings. I find it fascinating, much like other discussions, that this was written in 1949, but yet, has so many connections with how we still live in 2008. There are some slight differences from quotes such as, "the two sexes have never shared the world in equality. And even today woman is heavily handicapped, though her situation is beginning to change. Almost nowhere is her legal status the same as man’s, and frequently it is much to her disadvantage. Even when her rights are legally recognised in the abstract, long-standing custom prevents their full expression in the mores." I do think that a lot of changes have been made in the last five decades, and I think the female's handicap she speaks of has evolved much more into an advantage, actually allowing them to express themselves if not more than men, especially in the workforce and consumer industries. I was cracking up from "shoes" bit from youtube.com because it is sadly true. It's like that mid-90's cult hit classic, "Clueless" where women have obvious advantages over men, especially when it comes to expression, clothes, fashion and beauty. Men are powerless to a beautiful woman, and although culture continues to change around us, the woman always has the power of choosing her mate, whereas if a male had the power to choose any mate, they would be considered an aggressor. Us men don't quite understand the fascination with materials and fashion, but we are internally jealous and fascinated with the results and power it has for our hormones.
I also found the following quote fairly interesting, "How is it that this world has always belonged to the men and that things have begun to change only recently? Is this change a good thing? Will it bring about an equal sharing of the world between men and women?" In light of John McCain's recent pick for VP in Palin, I feel that this quote has an interesting correlation with what could easily be the final string in world equality between men and women. With the entire world either in disgust or awe of American politics, a women Vice President can possibly have an influence for other nations to follow in the footsteps of gender rights. Beauvoir was merely skimming the surface. Although I'm not really a McCain fan, I do think that Palin as a VP in our government IS a good thing and CAN attempt to bring about an equal sharing of the WORLD and not just our nation.
relevant to anybody, even if you aren't familiar with Beauvoir's writings. I find it fascinating, much like other discussions, that this was written in 1949, but yet, has so many connections with how we still live in 2008. There are some slight differences from quotes such as, "the two sexes have never shared the world in equality. And even today woman is heavily handicapped, though her situation is beginning to change. Almost nowhere is her legal status the same as man’s, and frequently it is much to her disadvantage. Even when her rights are legally recognised in the abstract, long-standing custom prevents their full expression in the mores." I do think that a lot of changes have been made in the last five decades, and I think the female's handicap she speaks of has evolved much more into an advantage, actually allowing them to express themselves if not more than men, especially in the workforce and consumer industries. I was cracking up from "shoes" bit from youtube.com because it is sadly true. It's like that mid-90's cult hit classic, "Clueless" where women have obvious advantages over men, especially when it comes to expression, clothes, fashion and beauty. Men are powerless to a beautiful woman, and although culture continues to change around us, the woman always has the power of choosing her mate, whereas if a male had the power to choose any mate, they would be considered an aggressor. Us men don't quite understand the fascination with materials and fashion, but we are internally jealous and fascinated with the results and power it has for our hormones.
I also found the following quote fairly interesting, "How is it that this world has always belonged to the men and that things have begun to change only recently? Is this change a good thing? Will it bring about an equal sharing of the world between men and women?" In light of John McCain's recent pick for VP in Palin, I feel that this quote has an interesting correlation with what could easily be the final string in world equality between men and women. With the entire world either in disgust or awe of American politics, a women Vice President can possibly have an influence for other nations to follow in the footsteps of gender rights. Beauvoir was merely skimming the surface. Although I'm not really a McCain fan, I do think that Palin as a VP in our government IS a good thing and CAN attempt to bring about an equal sharing of the WORLD and not just our nation.
FWD from Week 1 discussion
Here is my first attempt at using the internet as a form of education and learning. It's strange how technology has evolved since I graduated from high school in 04. I always thought a blog was just another way of saying "online journal". I never thought I would be blogging through the virtual universe and at the same time gaining twice as much information as the verbal language. For the first week of ENG 313 I actually was surprised at the foundation and structure of the class discussions. On the first day we saw clips from Anchorman and Fatal Attraction, two films which, I feel, have different perspectives on gender roles. In one hand, we have Ron Burgundy, a middle aged womanizer, who uses his class and status as means to charm women. In the other hand,we have the thrilling drama of Fatal Attraction, an exaggeration of real life Jerry Springer scandals and affairs, but wrapped up nicely in a narrative suspense. I believe Ron Burgundy in Anchorman is portraying men primitively, especially in the clip we saw in class, because we see Burgundy mock the cliche theme of "winning a woman's heart". It's a form of satire that demoralizes men and thus, allows the female character to stand out
as Burgundy's attraction and desire. In contrast to the satire of attraction, we have the opposite in Fatal Attraction. Much like the title hints out, the film deals with those powerful emotions correlated with love and drama. I believe the women are given the power in this film moreover Michael Douglas' character, who only serves as humanistic object of desire, much like Christina Applegate's character in Anchorman. The women fight over Douglas in a form of violence, depicting our subconscious desires that we only experience in our nightmares. I believe both films can be viewed in a different perspective on how we view gender roles in our culture. Both films make us think about the tradition of marriage and love, how it is attained, and how it is held together, regardless whether it may be through a form of comedy or tradgedy. See you all in class tomorrow. My time has expired on this internet station. As I said on the first day of class, I'm sadly in between homes, without a computer, borrowing a neighbors pirated internet signal on Labor Day.
Jeremy Hill
hillblogs.blogspot.com
as Burgundy's attraction and desire. In contrast to the satire of attraction, we have the opposite in Fatal Attraction. Much like the title hints out, the film deals with those powerful emotions correlated with love and drama. I believe the women are given the power in this film moreover Michael Douglas' character, who only serves as humanistic object of desire, much like Christina Applegate's character in Anchorman. The women fight over Douglas in a form of violence, depicting our subconscious desires that we only experience in our nightmares. I believe both films can be viewed in a different perspective on how we view gender roles in our culture. Both films make us think about the tradition of marriage and love, how it is attained, and how it is held together, regardless whether it may be through a form of comedy or tradgedy. See you all in class tomorrow. My time has expired on this internet station. As I said on the first day of class, I'm sadly in between homes, without a computer, borrowing a neighbors pirated internet signal on Labor Day.
Jeremy Hill
hillblogs.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
