blog #4

in class we had to read the book Romantic Comedy: boy meets girl meets genre. it was quite an interesting read, and let me see those types of movies in a different light that I would not have thought of before. I actually have never been the biggest fan of romantic comedy movies, they are not very exciting for me, even though i'm a girl and should be into those types of movies. The "chick flick" is just not for me. In movies almost anything is possible like rising from rags to riches, thats the work ethic portrayed in movies sometimes, like when the poor woman or man end up getting the rich woman or man in the end. Traditional romantic comedies have the same or similar type of narrative: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. Those types of movies have always been very unrealistic, they portray a false soul mate phenomena where if you do certain things like buy things (many things) to try and make yourself appealing in order to find love. Traditional romantic comedies focus much subtle attention to advertising, commodities, consumption, selling products, etc. In every movie, the man and woman dress their best when they go on dates, spend a lot to go out, their homes or apartments are generously luxurious with so much glamor and high tech gadgets surrounding the place, with the best phones, laptops, I-pods, stereo surround sound, dimming lights, etc. Movies are always advertising consumption, and they always try and tell you that buying this or having certain types of goods will get you closer to achieving love. even marriage is an industry, almost everything is hung by corporate strings, even love. Have you ever heard of an inexpensive wedding? probably not, right? There's the wedding cost or reception, flowers, food, rings, clothes like the dress and tuxedo. Everything. In order for the capitalist society to work or take hold it relies on monogamy, or heterosexual marriage. That is how they make a lot of money. Corporations use Romantic comedies to advertise what they want the masses to purchase. The way that romantic comedies show a couple that just met and about to go on a date, they must do so much to look their best like buy a new dress, tuxedo, shoes, accessories, make-up, hair gel/ shampoo/ hairspray, perfume, etc. But that's not even it! Going on the date is even more! Paying for a fancy dinner, entertainment and anything else that's going to be done on the date.

For our thursday class we were suppose to read chapter 3 of the Romantic comedy, but let me talk about chapter 2 first. In chapter 2 they focus on the screwball comedy that does not follow the traditional boy meets girl format. The screwball comedy was popular during the 30's where the couple in the movies we're already each others adversaries or equals, where they make fun, hit each other, scheme, and fight with each other, but they always have an intimate relationship, unlike the sex comedies of the 50's that do not focus on that, but more the woman's abstinence or willingness to withhold sex before marriage. Screwball comedies usually start with a "meet cute" where the couple meet in a cute way like they're about to reach out for the same merchandise at the same time. Screwball comedies also do a lot of mistaken identity and cross-dressing. The couple is very hostile with each other but they usually end up together in the end. The Sex comedy came about due to three events in time, (1) Playboy magazine introduced the urbane purchasing persona for men, like the "bachelor pad" or "lair", (2) the movie The Moon is Blue in challenging the PCA's strict movie making codes by freely discussing sexual topics in films more frankly, and (3) Alfred Kinsey's report on the Sexual Behavior in the Human Female which announced, much to the publics surprise, that women actually had sexual desires and impulses just like men. These three reasons led to the creation of the Sex comedy genre. I read the chapter about sex comedy but I didn't attend class that day so I wasn't able to watch any movie clips that day and won't be able to discuss them in my blog, but i will be attending class this coming tuesday September 28. I'm actually a little bit nervous because I will be presenting on the book Sula the next week on October 7, Thursday; I have never been good at presentations, so this one will not be an exception. I will take diligent notes this coming week and blog about the results or what I've learned next weekend. Thank you for reading!

Ethnography

Ethnography
Eng 313, 11:00am
9/21/10

Well just through observation there is a clear distinction between every human being, always something physically that makes them different than another. When it comes to different races, people always believe them to look like one another, like “all Asians look alike” but that’s not necessarily true. They may have similar characteristics in basic features but there’s always something that distinguishes one from the other. The observation spot that i chose was at the Glendale Galleria food court, where many people go. In my opinion the area where the most people gather at the mall is the food court. It’s always full. Food seems to be a significant way for humans to interact with one another. No wonder there are so many holidays that focus more on the sharing and making of food than anything else. There are several families, sometimes lacking a mother or father figure to make a complete pack (perhaps due to work or un-involvement or disinterest). There are several teenagers all around usually with friends, never alone. Going to the mall is never fun when alone, so attachment to peers is common and reasonable. No one seems to be alone at the food court today, it’s not like there frequently is that type of phenomena. It’s a basic fact that no one in this planet like to be alone, unless that certain individual lacks social interaction, or is mentally ill somehow. But most people with sense clearly do not like being alone. I have seen a few couples pass by, not as many as I might have thought to roam around the mall, but some are holding hands but there are also those serious indifferent looking couples that don’t even seem to like each other, but are merely together just so they won’t be alone in this world. I have seen several of those types of couples. Perhaps they were in a fight or they haven’t been having the best of days, I cannot be too sure of that. I can personally put myself in that position because I have also been “that” serious couple that isn’t talking to my significant other, just walking looking ahead with apathy in my face. I can never tell what another human being is thinking, but maybe they are happy but just don’t show it. Humans are extremely emotional beings but somehow our society makes it difficult to convey that aspect of our deep down selves.

There were various ethnically different people at the Glendale food court from Asians, whites, a particularly high percentage of Hispanics, very few African Americans, and the rare Indian person. There are several branches of every ethnicity but it’s cumbersome and very difficult to actually know what specific ethnicity someone belongs to, so large groups of various people are categorized and stereotyped into easy to remember titles. Most people seem to express usually a couple of emotions and expressions like being happy, nonchalant, young teens with parents always look bored with their parents, while in contrast older teenagers look happy with freedom when around their own friends, probably because they have more in common with their peers than their parents. Most of the people at the mall seem to be middle class people. All or most are in appropriate going out garments, not many eccentric people, everyone looks fairly normal from their outer exteriors. But you never know what is under the hidden interior, just like in the film American psycho where Patrick had a disturbing way of thinking that he did not portray in his exterior.

Like I said before, everyone at the mall do not seem particularly fond of being alone. No one likes to be a loner, and I know too well what loneliness feels like, and it is definitely not a walk in the park. Like it says in the book “Cultural Studies by Chris Barker, we are people that live with an ideology of consumption. People seem to define themselves best by how they present themselves physically, by what they wear, or what brands they must have in order to fit into the society they belong to. One common brand of clothing I observed people wear were Abercrombie and Fitch, Hollister, Aeropostale, Gap, American eagle, and so on. I can tell what brands they wear by the company logos they advertise on their clothing. People nowadays love to look good, they like spending money to have new clothes, perfume, cosmetics, shoes, hair care and accessories. Consumption or capitalism is part of the American identity or more its ideology, because when the media and government try to influence the masses and throw advertising at them at every corner in every place they go its difficult to actually say no, especially when everyone else is jumping the bridge. The modern people, regardless of race or gender, have a common ideology of consumerism.

Why are people so keen on pleasing society? The rules that it has set on the masses? My opinion is (like I have mentioned before) is the fear of human loneliness. That fear of being alone makes people want to please others, to fit in, and not be seen as “others” or different somehow, or unacceptable. It is a lot more challenging for colored people to have a slice of acceptance from society so it is usually those people that must assimilate to the standards of a white supremacist land in order to “fit in”. The white powerful leaders are the ones who have dictated every aspect of our society and the rules and regulations that people must follow. Marxists always believed that whoever has power has control over society, the rich and powerful are the ones who decide what kinds of products are produced, imported, what important events in history get published in History books, what speech or words the masses use to communicate have certain meanings or value. All of us like in a pre-existing world with no say in what rules would be established in our society, so in the book Cultural Studies, what Barker says is that people do not have a true self identity, no matter how much we believe we do or know ourselves, our “identities” are always adapting to our current situations, environments, people interactions, it is never set or absolute. We are all layered selves, no true self. We are all mere products of capitalism.

.

Blog #3 :)

Hello there again if there is anyone reading any of the blogs I have written. In Eng 313 the professor gave us an assignment for an ethnography that we are suppose to write and turn in on Tuesday. I just have to pick a place to sit and observe people for an hour and write about it. I hope it's not too difficult. But anyways this week we discussed the play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and one of the questions that came up was if the play was a radical representation of love? In my opinion it wasn't very radical, I thought there to be more a lack of love in the play. Maggie tries to make Brick respond to her in any way possible so he will pay her just an ounce of attention, since he portrays an apathetic persona throughout. Even Big Daddy doesn't love his sons, grandsons, or his wife Big Mamma. Perhaps the lack of love or care throughout the play can be considered radical?

Another question asked, that I also wondered about was why Big Daddy preferred his alcoholic son Brick and his wife Maggie to his other more "loyal" son Gooper and his wife Mae. In the play when Big Daddy is talking to Brick he tells him he hates his son Gooper and his wife, and their 5 little "screecher's" (Gooper and Mae's children), but he actually likes Brick because he is honest. Big daddy doesn't believe Mae and Gooper to be honest people, that they are manipulative and merely after his fortune and land. To Big Daddy his son Brick is like the "all-american guy" who played football and took a job as a news broadcaster. In contrast his other son gooper was just as succesful as a businessman, but Big Daddy still prefers Brick. Gooper always listens to his mom and dad and never talks back at them the way Brick did, but thats exactly what makes him honest. He doesn't want or care for his fathers fortune, unlike Gooper who yearns for it waiting for his father to fly the coop. In the end of the play he admits he doesn't like his father and that his great empire be passed down to capable hands. Even with Goopers superior qualifications big Daddy still prefers Brick. Both Brick and Big daddy despise mendacity! They believe everyone around them to be liars. Perhaps their mutual agreement in their idea of mendacity is what makes Big daddy have more of a preference for Brick. Every time people bring up Brick's deceased best friend Skipper, it always hits a nerve in brick and his indifferent tone becomes defensive, due to the implication of Skipper and Brick's relation when they were friends. No one ever specifically says he is gay but they imply it. Mostly Maggie tho. She's the one who began the implication when she told Skipper to stop loving her husband(pg. 59-60 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof). In the film version of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, they take a more conservative take on the film. In the film, Brick is portrayed as sectretly longing Maggie. Since gayness wasn't a touchy subject at the time when the movie was made a more conservative take on the play was taken to action. They focused more on the materialistic aspect of the whole situation. Perhaps the radical part of the story is the fact that we cant tell if Brick is actually gay or not. He claims he isn't but his alcohol addiction implies otherwise.

We began to read the book Romantic Comedy that does an in-depth study on the most looked down upon genre of movies: the Romantic Comedy genre. The author believes that "Romcoms" are a facade for industries and capitalism to take hold of americans idea of what they need to purchase in order to achieve finding true love. Romcoms always show how a woman needs to dress, put on make up, buy new clothes and shoes for a first date, how the man needs to pay for dinner and flowers, chocolates, gifts, all expensive things for a good date. Even marriage is an industry. Just one wedding takes thousands of dollars to put together. Most romcom movies portray or even encourage those types of "advertising" that sticks in the minds of people who watch these movies and believe that is the way love is suppose to be. The basic narrative pattern of romcoms is (1) Boy meets girl (2) Boy loses girl and (3) boy gets girl back. I'm sure you're nodding with me at this point. I never liked romantic comedies because i always thought that all those movies followed the exact same pattern described above. Nothing more and nothing less. There's always a guy running to the airport trying to stop the girl from leaving, and in the end they end up together. Thats why I was always more of a action genre type of girl.

Blog #2

It was the first time I had ever heard the term Semiotics, or perhaps i have heard it before but i didn't know what it meant at the time, I can't be 100% certain. Semiotics makes the whole foundation of language and communication a more complicated and deep-rooted and philosophical reasoning to it. Semiotics is "the study of signs and symbols as elements of

communicative behavior;the analysis of systems of communication,

as language,gestures, or clothing". In signs there is the signifier and the signified. The signifier creates a visual aural or gives a word its meaning, a mental conception that the signified will be able to understand. This arbitrary relationship is founded on the signifier who has a more powerful authority about which words have what meaning. The signified has no say upon the matter, just what they are told. Who would have thought that even the very language that we speak can seem like a conspiracy, a peek hole to the intensity or gravity of a dominating few?? Power leads to authority and what rules are put to play on the game board of Chess, we the people are mere pawns and only move through our puppet strings by the puppet master. How sad, that we have the freedom of speech but sad to know that we never had a chance or vote on what that speech was to be. Binary signs in language like cat/dog, big/small, black/white, Christian/Jew,or fat/thin were said to not live alone, it is always dependent on another to define the former. Derrida believed in a "Presence X" where all signs are unstable, where they do not have an absolute presence, where one word is dependent on another, and that other word in dependent on another word, and so on and so forth, the pattern continues in an endless pattern. This was revolutionary thought and is still used today by high up people like lawyers and legislators. Derrida always thought that ideas could fall into deconstruction due to their instability.

One of the most famous written binaries by Simone DeBeaure was called "The Second Sex" which dealt with man vs. woman. She wrote about an unevenness between them, how women are seen as the "Other", the oppressed one, the imperfect ones, who depend on the men to keep order. She believes the man/woman relationship is a hierarchical one, with the oppressor(man) and oppressed(woman), similar to the master/slave relationship. Man enjoys higher power, positions, better jobs, authority, privileges, all of which are proven throughout history. Men see themselves as a definite self, where they have their own identity, while women are the "other" who are defined by man. The same way that a slave master depends on the slave in order for the master to uphold power, the man is also dependent on the woman to have power but the difference is that a slave can, in a hypothetical type of way, get rid of the slave master and still live life normally but it would be unthinkable for a woman to be able to get rid of all the men. Women are biologically bound to men, women are born women and cannot change that. In the movie Jerry MaGuire, Jerry's wife suffers through the unstable and mentally abusive antics of her husband, but the minute he apologizes she has completely forgiven him because she depends on him. She saw him or men as the enemy, but unfortunately she loves the enemy. She cannot live without the enemy, consequently incapable of getting rid of him.

In Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, there is a lot of communication problems. The same way Derrida linked the derivative understanding in all meanings of words in language where they are always changing, meanings in cat on a Hot Tin Roof were always changing. Maggie compares herself to a cat on a hot tin roof throughout the whole play who can withstand the heat of a hot roof the same way she can endure the apathetic behavior of her husband. She says its very difficult to love someone who doesn't love you back, but she stays with him due to economic stability. She is an over-bearing and "needy" woman, she's portrayed as aggressive but vulnerable and her husband is passive throughout the whole play except at the mention of his deceased best friend Skipper. Those are the rare times he shows emotion. He is unresponsive and uninterested in anything but his drinking. He removed himself or any type of relationship with his wife Maggie after his best friend passed away. More talk about the book will be discussed in the next class meeting. Until then, see you! :)

1st and 2nd week of Eng 313 class review Blog

We had to read chapter 7 of the Cultural Studies book from Barker, it was interesting but boring at the same time. Perhaps its just me that believes that people overthink every aspect of life but since these educated individuals speak from old ideas accumulated through time and many years of observation it makes sense to use that rationality to concur on those ideas. I have never thought of the word or representation of the concept of identity as such a surreal, or as they say in the book "unreal" representation that we the people create for ourselves and others.

Ideology seems to be a very complicated and philosophical subject. Its the study of ideas right? Does everything in society have link to ideology? Every movie we watch? Magazines we read? What people believe in? The Prof. showed clips of several movies: Anchorman, Fatal Attraction, The Music Man and most recently American Psycho. I would never have imagined any deeper meaning in any of these films although i have only watched one out of the four. All these movies portray ideas and influences of the world around, of society, beliefs, politics, etc.

In the Music Man the whole ideology of the "trouble in River City" song and dance part had to do with culture. The culture of the people, what they believed in, and the main character, the con artist is trying to change their views so he can create trouble in a once peaceful town. He does all this for his own benefit but its very clever how he as an outsider tries to create conflict with the set of moral standards the people of the town have. he taps into their standards and manipulates them into thinking their standards are all wrong and bad and will cause potential downfall to the future leaders of tomorrow.

In American Psycho i found the movie clip to be very "trippy" as some people say, he says he is not really there that he doesn't have a true or real identity or real self. His identity is built on preset ideology, consumerism, and how he wants others to see him, the "Regime of the Self" as the professor put it. he had a very specific and almost tedious daily regime to achieve a self perfection to be seen by the world. That is the "performance" aspect of oneself. One quote that was brought up several times was that of the 17th century during the Age of Reason where someone said "I think, therefore I am". Its a short yet powerful quote. It means that the only thing people can be sure of is self existence. But in the book by barker that doesn't seem to be the case. Can identity really be a composite of what others think of you? That never would have crossed my mind. In the movie American Psycho the main character Patrick seems to be a socially constructed being and a result of all those influences so he can fit into society, so he won't be looked at by people with unacceptable. He puts on a mask to perhaps hide the real him, his inner self. His identity is influenced by these factors: his career (in Wall Street), where he lives (high prosperous district), family, friends, and maybe most importantly people he doesn't even know. How do we know who we really are then? I'm still baffled and pondering over that question myself. Who am I? If everything we believe in comes from a pre-existing world and identities are always adapting and sometimes contradicting we never really know who we are. Language has a very powerful influence over every aspect of our life, in order for people to live well we need language. Its something we take for granted at times or don't always realize or ask ourselves where it came from, all we care about is that we can communicate with others through this language. Its almost like that saying, the monkey doesn;'t ask where the banana came from, the monkey simply enjoys the banana. People are like that too. We do not question what is already in existence or what we believe to be universally accepted or else that is going against the norm. When people are comfortable with something, why change it correct? All words in language have value but the proximity of value placed upon each word differentiate.

In our modern selves, one of the things most people seem to distinguish themselves by is by what they buy. What you wear, watch, own. Can a person identify themselves by what kind of car they drive? Or what kind of watch they wear? many people now are products of capitalism. We consume and consume. Are we trully free in that case? Or are we mere products of capitalism?