Screening Response Week 12

What struck me about Mad Men and Damages in the context of millennial media was the obvious visual allusion to film noir. Especially Damages with its contemporary urban setting had a very dark somewhat grim look. Also there is the element of the flashbacks. I had watched the whole first season before and think its an excellent show. I had never really appreciated the visual appeal of the show and how it adds to the overall feel of it. At least I wasn’t aware of it. Mad Men is set a little after the time of noir but its look and particularly the lead character Don Draper fit the genre perfectly. Draper is hard to read but especially the revelation that he is married establishes him as a character with complicated or rather compromised morals. The show features typical femme fatales. Joan seems to fit the description but also the character of Megan Calvet who choses not to adjust to social convention and enjoys the adventures of business. She stands her ground against Don Draper and displays great self-confidence.

The character of Peggy is quite interesting. While Draper is the main character she is the character we are most likely to identify with. Even though her decision to start an affair with Pete is certainly questionable as a viewer we see the world of advertising in the 1960s through her eyes as we are as unaccustomed to it as she is. Her coming-of-age or rather coming into her own in a world of powerful men and femme fatales is a entry point for millennials who might face similar challenges entering the new and ever-changing world of adulthood. In that sense despite its setting in a different period Mad Men is accessible for today’s viewer. The setting actual adds to the shows appeal.

A parallel between Mad Men and Damages is the obvious contrast between the “innocent” newbie and the cynical or even manipulative “grown-ups”. Both Ellen and Peggy are new to their respective environments but have to hit the ground running while also trying to define themselves as individuals outside the working place. Generational discourse and collaboration again comes into play. Especially Ellen though is faced with a twisted role model. Patty is great at what she does (so is Don Draper) but her personal life and her character are not exactly inspirational. Ellen has to be selective about what traits of Patty she wants to pick up. Over the course of the season she has to negotiate, defend but also let go of some principles. She eventually finds her place – en par with Patty’s wit while at least trying to maintain some integrity. This is similar to the discourse between Gen X and millenial, but really every generation: What do I want to emulate of what is presented by the older generation and what do I not like and can i do better.

Both shows provide interesting commentary about the roles of women and illustrate changing attitudes. While Peggy has to assume a subordinate role in the male-dominated office, Ellen has a female boss who runs a tight ship and won’t let anyone get in her way. While not typical millennial shows, since not really targeting a teen audience, many conventions common or maybe defined by millennial television shine through both programs.

Rejoice, He’s dead!

American tendencies towards Patriotism have always somewhat alienated me. I think that has a lot to do with me being German and therefore traditionally feeling a little uneasy about excessive love to a country. So it is my understanding that last night was a glorious night for the United States and there is reason to celebrate.

Mmh, I do not mean to get political, it’s certainly not my field of expertise. I just feel really weird about the notion that after ten years and two wars, killing Osama Bin Laden is such a triumphant moment. Killing anyone, even a terrorist, doesn’t really strike me as a great occasion to party. Also what exactly has changed now?

As so many I watched Obama’s address last night and found myself having very mixed feelings about this. I can’t even put my finger on it, I’ve never been this crazy about Obama (even though I’m obviously with the Democrats) but seeing him flirt with Bush-esque patriotic rhetoric was kinda disappointing.

I guess at least it’s gonna help him for the upcoming election next year. Still, this leaves a strange taste in my mouth.

Reading/ Screening Response Week 11

I have to say that I have always been somewhat bewildered by this Second Life concept and personally I find the idea of assuming a computer/game-based identity kind of depressing. So my post will rather focus on the Stein piece and this weeks Screening.

I do have to admit that I’m finding myself a little underwhelmed by Veronica Mars. I am by no means saying that it’s a bad show – not at all. I know that Veronica and Buffy – as referenced by Stein are icons of American pop culture or at least academia’s take on it. I liked both shows but had an issue with both of them. The mystery/monster-of-the-week usually bored me and drew too much attention from the far more interesting overarching seasonal mysteries. I see how this weeks episode of Veronica Mars tied in with Pretty Little Liars – a girl with a secret, her dissappearing and Veronica stepping in to help out to solve the mystery around her. Still, as I’m watching the show I find these weekly cases stall the far more interesting plot points of the show and that is kind of where I see the show might have lost its audience. I think a l lot about Veronica Mars is interesting but the bits and pieces are more compelling that the show altogether and as a viewer I could see myself just stop watching after a while. I haven’t watched all of the show but as mentioned in one of the article’s comments Veronica really is the (at this point) the only female character to identify with (her dead friend is neither involved in the present plot nor seems truly relatable) so Veronica’s empowerment seems somewhat limited as the show only has weak character’s and victimized women as other mode of femininity to offer.

Pretty Little Liars seems more varied in its representation of female characters. The girls all seem very femme fatale yet somewhat relatable. Aria, pursues Mr Fitz even though she realizes he thinks she’s a college student. Her friend Spencer tries to seduce her sister’s boyfriend to get even, while Hanna believes her self-confidence allows her to get away with everything, including theft. She might have taken cues from her mom who seems willing to do everything to get what she wants. Allison clearly is the most cut-throat out of all the characters, a Queen Bee par excellence. There really appears no homme fatale as the ladies run the show which I found refreshing. The show is female-centered and even the love interest seem only marginal – Emily’s female love interest being the notable exception. The show feels a bit like Desperate Housewives with teenagers. All of the positive aside though the plot development so far was a bit cliché and the student/teacher love story at this point feels like a dated teenshow device (Every teen show I can think of did it!).

I certainly agree with Stein’s point that despite its glammy look Pretty Little Liar offers an interesting new take on young females and their ability to stick up for themselves.

Mean Confessional

I’m feeling like the focus of my blog is somewhat shifting from American Culture to college culture but since the college experience is in many ways very different from the European university experience I’m still en par with what I set out to do. Earlier this semester my attention was brought to a site associated to Middlebury but it’s my understanding that many colleges (or rather college students) run pages like this: MiddConfessional. This site, I feel, also ties in well with the paper on Mean Girls I just wrote. At first it seemed like a fun place to procrastinate – a bit like TMZ just about people one might actually know – but as naive as it may sound I’m finding myself increasingly disturbed by it.

For those who don’t know it, even though I really doubt any Middstudent could be unaware of it, it’s an anonymous site where you can post secrets or statements and everyone gets to comment; anonymously as well. You have crush lists, people actually sharing their feelings about their experience here (suicide as of recently seems to be quite the topic) and then inevitably you’ll find posts on people that can become rather vicious. I guess that is to be expected, a site like MiddConfessional is pretty straight forward about being gossipy. I haven’t followed it long enough to make a longterm judgement but I do feel it’s getting particularly nasty as of late. I wonder what it must feel like to be called anal whore by your peers or have your penis size commented upon – I guess it’s not exactly a great feeling.

Without trying to go all Pollyanna on you guys but I do find it stunning that people take the time to write stuff like that. Also I’m wondering what an impact it actually has. Initially I was told that it’s mostly used by freshman but the people who are talked about on there are mostly upper classmen. I guess it’s a guilty pleasure everyone secretly participates in. Including me obviously.

With regards to our millennial-themed class it does make me wonder though. Have we become that socially incompetent that we can’t even gossip in person anymore? Do people realize that even though the site is only for Middstudents it’s not exactly private. And now there is this AddSeven thing, a partner matching page. This is supposed to be a nicer version of MiddConfessional. With facebook, confessional and AddSeven it seems actual interaction becomes more and more redundant…

Reading/Screening Response Week 10

In their respective articles Doty and Hilderbrand discuss the surface diversity on Glee and Modern Family. While both shows seem to push a liberal agenda, both authors argue this agenda is only superficial and within the hierarchy of characters and conservative or at least heteronormative values are privileged.

Upon watching the pilot episode and a more recent episode of the show I would agree at least with regards to the issue of race. The central characters that we are supposed to empathize with (at least based on screen time) are all white and despite their underdog status, especially or rather specifically talking about Rachel, attractive and en par with common ideals of body image in the media. There are characters of color, an obese girl (that doesn’t get to talk though) and a character in a wheelchair. They all seem to be sidekicks though. The show is giving a larger platform to the gay characters of Blaine and Kurt who even get to kiss. I found it refreshing to see a gay love story between teenagers play out on the show at the same time I found it to be cheesy (for a lack of better words) and very much have to agree with Hilderbrand that this romantic storyline breaks with the show’s otherwise rather satirical tone. Overall that’s what struck me the most about Glee – its unevenness and inconsistency in tone. The musical numbers are often vibrant, the character of Sue Sylvester provides comic relief and the show does attempt to tackle teen issues (most recently an extended storyline on teen bullying, which was a little disappointing though). The problem with Glee seems that the bits and pieces of the show are better than what it all adds up to.

The show tries very hard to send a positive message to kids while at same time trying to reflect quite cynically on the realities of high school and the feeling of being othered. Unfortunately this creates a somewhat schizophrenic tone.

I found myself a little irritated by the criticism of heteronormativity (a term I have generally struggle with) regarding Modern Family. The author attacks the show for portraying the relationship of the gay couple as emulating the dynamic of a “normal” heterosexual couple with one playing the role of the husband and the other one being the wife. I don’t think this necessarily has to be the case but what is wrong with presenting a couple where this to an extent might be the case. Overall there seems to be a lot of criticism as to how certain sexual orientations or races are represented on shows – as if these shows would claim or could possibly ever portray a minority in its totality. Showing a gay married couple raising a child is not something you commonly see on TV so this isn’t really stereotypical altogether. If this one couple has to stand in for all gay couples how should they be portrayed? I think my general problem with this approach is that no TV show could possibly do justice to a minority because sexual orientation and race are just one feature of the individual. There is no such thing as one single coherent way of representing them. In that sense people like doty might never be satisfied with what they see on television.

 

BROkeback Mountain

This saturday I went to a party at ADP. The alcohol level was fairly high by the time I arrived. As I was in line to get a beer a guy in front of me suddenly turned around. He wore a baseball cap, a shirt that indicated his affiliation with some sports team and by his stature I assumed he’s either on the football or rugby team. He yelled “Heeeyy maaannn” and gave me a hug – out of the blue. I’ve never met this guy. Once he was done huggin me he looked me in the eye and said: “Maaan, you’re beautiful.”

Okay, I do not want to overanalyze this but here is my thought: I really wasn’t familiar with the concept of “Bros”. I knew about jocks and I guess bros extend the jock culture beyond the athletic aspect (Is that so? Illuminate me!). Here’s my observation – isn’t there a bit of a…I don’t know, romantic kinda vibe to it? I see these guys hugging each other all the time, making jokes about being gay. One could deem that homophobic but it strikes me as rather homoerotic.

Watching films like I love you man or The Hangover I kind of see a shifting tone between guy friends and how they act out their masculinity together. I’m not at all involved in the Bro-scene but from what I see there is quite a bit of PDA happening, especially when there’s alcohol involved. Now, I’m certainly by no means saying they’re all gay – mmh, it is Middlebury though – but I find it interesting and even a bit endearing how these guys relate to each other. In a way they’re using what could be seen as gay slurs to profess their affection for each other. What do you think?

Reading/Screening Response Week 9

I found the reference to film noir in this weeks Gossip Girl fairly obvious but without extending this to my entire assessment of the show as a whole somewhat underwhelming and poorly executed. We had the blurry flashback, the sensual woman with a dark secret that links her and Chuck Bass to an underworld of crime (well, at least prostitution plays a role). Mmh, I found myself unimpressed with the episode. I’ve seen a few episodes of the first season and found it shortlived yet fun. Maybe I just lacked connection to the characters and storylines but I really did not see an entry point for me to get invested. Noir doesn’t necessarily try to present lovable characters but I do believe especially as a teen drama GG wants us to care about the people involved. Blair is mean and self-absorbed – most of the time – but still I remember finding redeeming qualities in her when I initially watched the first few episodes. Here I found myself very detached. Same for Dan and Serena whose, I believe at some point very central, love story was dropped rather unceremoniously at the end of this episode.

I found the article on masculinity in The O.C. very interesting and shared Turnbull’s views. I watched the entire show and that was what initially drew me to GG – I liked Schwartz work on the O.C., even though like Turnbull’s son I found my interest in the show decrease substantially from season 3 on. Reading her article and considering the screening of tonight I found myself comparing the two shows. There are parallels: Like Ryan in the O.C. GG features the Humphreys, a family that is surrounded by wealthy Upper East Siders, who are far less fortunate. Serena mirrors Marissa, as she is, in the larger scope of the show, the poor rich girl who is somewhat troubled and has a complicated relationship with her mother. Also adults, Dan’s Dad and Serena’s mom, play crucial roles on the show, so parents are here represented as full-fledged and quite flawed people, allowing viewers to relate beyond generational boundaries. While the male friendship between Ryan and Seth was central on The O.C., GG focuses on the female friendship between Serena and Blair. The girls friendship seems a lot more complicated than the bromance between the guys. From a feminist perspective – as far as I can take that perspective – one could argue that the friendship between women seems dominated by catfighting and backstabbing. On the other hand I think one could say that their relationship is more complex and able to endure a lot.

Finally in comparing these two shows I have to say that what drew me away and disappointed me about GG was that unlike The O.C. the show contained, for all I’ve seen, no real criticism of the character’s lifestyle but rather indulges in it. The show highlights fashion and has a very glossy look. i missed the implicit critique of superficiaö materialism that Turnbull references as well. Also I feel that men are more objectified on GG and mere Eyecandy: Chuck is wild, Nate is hot and Dan is cute (and really boring). I found the characters on the O.C. more relatable and rounded.

With regards to NYC prep: Well, the show speaks very much for itself (Yikes), but as for the millennial context I have to say – Schwartz did again. His show always shoot of paratexts and echo in popular culture. While O.C. was the inspiration for Laguna Beach, NYC tries to turn GG into a reality show. His shows seem to truly inspire networks executives to try and tell the “true story” – as harrowing as that may be…

Slutty Dolls

When I visited New York City last year I passed a toystore and couldn’t help but be completely paralyzed by these dolls they had on display. These Bratz try hard to live up to their name. Apparently Mattel filed a lawsuit that the idea for those dolls was stolen from them and that they are heavily based on Mattel’s products – I’m not sure why anyone would want to take credit for these dolls.

First of all, they’re really creepy. Why are their heads so big? These stilettos look like weapons. Their faces seem inspired by child-pornography. Obviously they look incredibly slutty which leads to the question: what parents buy those dolls for their daughters.

Barbie is a controversial (yet quite essential) figure in American culture. Often seen as the beacon of a culture that objectifies women and imposes impossible body images on them, poor Barbie has been villified and somewhat antagonized as the antithesis to feminism. Well, suck on that Barbie.

The idea behind Barbie, in my humble opinion, is to give girls a mature “companion” (despite her lack of nipples or genitalia, she is a grown woman after all) with whom they can enact and experiment with ideas of womanhood and what kind of women they want to be when they’re grown up. There’s princess Barbie, doctor Barbie, even army Barbie. Despite her flawless appearance (I mean, c’mon who wants to play with an ugly doll??) she provides a blank slate that girls can project upon and fill with their own ideas. I’m not saying that Barbie is the savior of little girls in the western hemisphere but after being confronted with these Bratz I feel like a lot of Barbie criticism must be put in perspective.

If these Bratz are supposed to give little girls an idea of how to perform feminity and what’s out there in the world for them the message is strong and clear: Hit the streets, Girls, it’s time to earn money!

Reading/Screening Response Week 8

I had been somewhat exposed to the Twilight phenomenon thanks to female friends of mine but even more so through my mother. Since I’m the only one in the family who can watch movies with her in English and she’s absolutely obsessed with the books, I had to watch all three films with her. I’ve never read the books (well, apart from the first two chapters now) and am based on what I read not to tempted to that. I think it’s easy to dismiss these books as “girl fiction” (not that that would necessarily be that bad) but that’s not even my mine criticism about what I read. I simply found the writing rather uninspired and hardly captivating. At the same time I see the appeal: apart from romantic clichés (and again, nothing wrong with that per se) Meyer leaves many things blank. Edward Cullen is “inhumanly beautiful” and looks like a model. Her description is somewhat vague (and so is the personality of protagonist Bella) which allows the reader to fill in missing content with his or probably more likely her own ideas, fantasies and desires. This perfect gentleman and his girl next door are great archetypes to project one’s own wishes on.

Prior to the readings I had heard a lot people talk about Twilight’s conservative nature and not to subtle religious undertones. I found Toscano’s take on this refreshing. Instead of emphasising the restrictive nature of religious dogma she acknowledges liberties Meyer takes in her writing. Her idea of good and evil is more complex than what you would expect from a “religious writer” – even though since Twilight is teen/fantasy fiction it seems a little narrow-minded to try and pin  Meyer’s narrative down on religious ideology only anyways. Also the question of individual choice and self-reliance is quite central to the Meyer’s storytelling – I had preconceived notions about the franchise and even though I had seen it before had never picked up on this. This “free will” which Toscano stresses though has to be put in perspective: Bella’s choice is Edward and anything that allows her to be close to him and this choice is presented as inevitable, inescapable really.

This leads to McGeough’s essay. I find it limiting to look at characters in novels as agents of feminism. Yes, Bella does it all for love, she’s a clumsy teenager who is only able to be comfortable in her own skin by becoming a mother and a wife. This is certainly not a conventional take on female enpowerment. Yet, this strongly resonates with (female) readers and might just be tied to the desire to find a true connection and real love. I think a great appeal of Twilight is the fact that these characters are and have what many readers want to be or to have. It’s a fantasy (the genre makes that clear) and therefore doesn’t have to be tied down to conventions of social ideology and ideas of how enpowered women have to live.

Overall, I feel conflicted about Twilight. Escapism seems to be what draws in audiences for both books and film and as far of the film goes it is well executed “abstinence porn” that highlights desire and moreso the repression of desire. I understand that but personally prefer more reflected and less conservative frameworks. Still, I thought the readings added to my susceptibility for the complexity of the material.

Reading/Screening Response Week 7

This week’s screening that I would like to focus on is The Secret Life of the American Teenager. I think Supernatural definitely has rich potential to be discussed in a religious context but based on the episode screened I feel I lack the knowledge of the storylines and the show’s mythology and therefore cannot really delve into the subject matter the way the two articles by Stein and Petersen do.

In class professor Stein urged as not to accept articles or text at face value but not to just dismiss them either. I find it very hard to just dismiss this show as terrible but I will try to look beyond the tepidly memorized recitals by these more or less gifted aspiring actors and actresses – I can’t really blame them because they are givin subpar dialogue to work with. I’m also trying to look past the cheap looking sets as I read on Wikipedia that this show is produced for a million dollar less than the average show on American Primetime television.

Overall, the show felt somewhat schizophrenic as it was moving from attempting to sound young and hip (the mother’s Gilmore-esque rant about North Korea at the beginning comes to mind) to a fairly preachy tone (so we’re allowed to say abortion but only to make clear that it’s NOT a viable option). The Christian characters seem to offer some comic relief, yet the alternatives to their lifestyle are represented as doomed and disastrous. Also “the good Christian family” we meet is morally elevated by having a son with Down Syndrom, which they obviously deal with in the most gracious manner. Also, the nice Christian boyfriend is tempted by an ethnic vixen that wants to sleep with him, probably just to prove his morals wrong. But of course, they are caught in the act – you can’t get away with sin. This seems to be the underlying message the show wants to convey hidden under the “we just want teenagers to realize that actions have consequences”-coat. Yes, they do but by judging them and portraying teenagers as perpetrators without morals or even understandable intentions may not be the way to go. Also, the perpetuation of the idea that a sexually driven teenager (the guy who got Amy pregnant) most come from a place of emotional disturbance seems a little dramatic. Sexual abuse, really? Way harsh. Amy’s likable love interest also struggles with sexual desire but these notions go out the window he gets to know because then it’s all about love – which in Brenda Hampton mind doesn’t go together with sex, at least when it comes to teenagers.

Hampton is responsible (or really to blame) for 7th Heaven, a decade-spanning Chrisitan family saga. Here, she seems to try the racy approach, instead of talking about doing the wrong things these characters at least do it. An improvement from Heaven but overall still not pleasant to watch.

With regards to the readings, unlike Supernatural this show is more preoccupied with the institution of church and the integration of faith and beliefs in the lives of teenagers. Characters are represented as either religious or very much not so – as with the entire show there’s seems to be little room for nuance. In our discussion of Millennials we talk about values and leadership as being more prevalent in this generation. I’m confused as how to apply this to this show which strikes me as offensively judgemental, portraying teenagers as almost exclusively incapable of acting responsibly or within any reach of reason but also rather inconsistent in its tone and message. It tries to portray a variety of values, ethnicities and role models but at least for me in this form and representation none of it seems intellectually coherent or appealing!