Why are Fridays so hard?

For some reason I find it difficult to get motivated on Fridays. It's like my brain gets into weekend mode as soon as I wake up. I managed to drag myself up to the office today, even though I'm later that usual. I'm in the midst of working through some chapter revisions which have been taking forever it seems and I just need to get it done and submitted so I can move on to the rest of the thesis. But speaking of thesis-related things...

The other night I watched this doc that aired on CBC awhile ago (trying to get through the pvr list!) called Game of Death. It was pretty interesting but had a few flaws. The filmmakers adapted Stanley Milgram's early experiments for the TV age, but in France for French audiences. The basic idea was that people were selected to participate in a game 'test' so they weren't actually competing for money. One person went into this little dome-like room where they were attached to electrodes (this person was an actor) and the contestant asked them questions. Each time he answered incorrectly the questioner had to give them an electric shock. This kept escalating as part of the experiment was to see how far people would be willing to go despite the guy's growing pleas to stop. Most people went all the way to the end (even after he stopped yelling at one point) while a minority actually quit along the way because they felt empathy for their co-player, and stopped despite warnings and coercion from the game show host. The filmmakers and group of psychologists came to the conclusion that the media, especially TV hold an authoritative role in our lives and are capable of convincing us to push our moral boundaries; in short, TV is able to manipulate us quite easily, and to resist its power is quite difficult. Needless to say, I was rather disappointed that they framed it in this way and I felt that they were sensationalizing the issue a bit. The idea that the media/TV have this hold over us is not at all a new position. However some points of note: they found that more people submitted to the demands of the game structure than they did in Milgram's experiment. However, I am not sure that direct correlations can be made between the two experiments given that the settings were quite different and not exactly replicated; the game show took place in front of a live studio audience with cameras and a game host whereas in the Milgram experiment the scientist/researcher stood in as the authority figure and the research subjects were placed in closed off rooms.

Moreover, the sociocultural context has changed considerably since that time and I think the filmmakers glossed over some of these external factors. Yes, media have certainly come to hold more prominence in our everyday lives, and yes, we could argue that TV content has changed dramatically especially with the rise of ever more spectacular and boundary pushing shows that seek a share of the niche audience pie. In turn, our relationship to media has similarly changed. Consumers and audiences are far more savvy and knowledgeable about the media than in previous generations which explains why some of the contestants made comments that they 'knew it was fake' and therefore kept going. I found these comments interesting as they illustrate how we are still invested in the media as a cultural power even as we are willing to question its claims to truth and authenticity. I also wished that they broke down for us whose empathy empowered them to end their participation in the game. It seemed like a lot of women and racialized contestants were shown questioning the game structure while two of the most ardent critics of the game's authenticity were Caucasian males. However, this wasn't addressed and therefore the doc raised many more questions than it was able to answer.

Getting back into blogging mode...

It's been a long time since I posted anything...I guess life just got in the way. Although, I admit that part of the motivation was receiving an email from Google about my blog account...I guess I don't want to let it go.

However, I have been feeling the urge to start up again with the blogging, especially as I am in the writing phase of my dissertation. I think it would be a good idea to have another writing outlet, if nothing more than to just keep me writing especially on those days when it feels so impossible. My intent with this blog was to mainly comment on pop culture stuff but I think from here on in the blog will be about anything I feel the need to write about: dissertation, writing, teaching, politics, life, and yes pop culture.

The weather has been great in Vancouver lately, and a fun little visit to the beach yesterday reminded me how beautiful this city is - I mean, I wasn't anywhere close to wearing sandals and shorts this time last year! I have to find a way to harness the spring energy into habitual writing. I know some people are able to do this with little provocation but this has not been my experience over the years. It's funny, when I'm in the mode, things are great but then I hit a roadblock or the self-doubt creeps up and I'm struggling again. And I know rationally, that the only way to get better at writing is to just keep doing it - and maybe it's not even about getting better at this point, but just getting consistent in output. I mean, I really do like the work that I'm doing and have received encouraging comments along the way. I think some of the writing problems stem from fear - that once I finish this work it will no longer belong to me but will be out there, to be critiqued and maybe laughed at, not to mention I will face a panel of (potential) peers who will question me about my work, who will expect me to defend this work and its so-called importance. Ugh even this seems so self-indulgent...but it's working because now I've guilt-tripped myself into working. ha!  

oh crap, just heard on the radio that the temp is going to reach 28 degrees today. I forgot sunscreen!

Breaking the Hollywood 'glass ceiling'

Last night's televised Oscars awards ceremonies held a few surprises. One, I didn't think the indie film The Hurt Locker would end up winning as many awards as it did, and second, I definitely had my doubts that Kathryn Bigelow, the first woman to win in the director category, would finally get her due!! What an exciting night for women in film, or is it? I'm currently doing volunteer work for an upcoming conference on women in/and the media entertainment industry and let me tell ya, the stats are pretty dismal. Interestingly, the work begun by many second wave feminists - seeking gender equality through media reform - is still desperately needed. I admit, I have not always been attentive to the inequality that exists behind the scenes, as much of my own writing has tended to revolve around textual analyses of media texts utilizing feminist critique.I think part of the problem was the ways in which the movement 'essentialized' the debate - that is to say, the idea that if more women worked behind the lens this would result in more 'realistic' and 'feminist' stories about, and images of women. Certainly, these kinds of stories are important and contribute much to media culture but what about women's enjoyment of other kinds of stories?

Bigelow is a perfect example of a female director who has carved out a rather unconventional space for herself, refusing to be 'ghettoized' directing 'women's films' (i.e., rom-coms) and instead, has tried her hand at various genres from horror, sci-fi, and action. Yet, feminists cannot exactly claim her as one their own despite her unusual position within the film industry. Despite this, we can enjoy her accomplishments, take pleasure in the genre-testing films she makes, as well as her construction of some amazing female characters. Go Kathryn!! Can't wait to see what she does next. Some of my fave Bigelow films:

Blue Steel - Jamie Lee Curtis plays a kick ass cop

Near Dark - one of the best vampire films ever made

Strange Days - an empowering sci-film featuring Angela Bassett

Reconsidering the female superhero

Well, the new year has started and I'm trying valiantly to get myself back into a writing routine. It hasn't been easy! But after getting sucked into the film Hancock this afternoon, I'm feeling the urge to communicate some of my observations, especially when I consider some of the other films I saw during the holidays.

I didn't have much interest in the film when it was released in 2008 but when I found out the premise I admit I was intrigued. Basically, the story revolves around John Hancock, a troubled superhero who, while performing his 'duties' (i.e., saving people) as expected, does so in a rather haphazard manner. You get the impression that he'd rather be downing a bottle of whiskey in his trailer than helping people. When Hancock saves Ray, a PR exec, he offers to reform his tarnished public image through press conferences and incarceration/rehabilitation. As Hancock becomes immersed in Ray's life, we find an odd tension/attraction between him and Ray's wife Mary. One night, after Ray has passed out drunkenly, Hancock finds himself alone with Mary in the kitchen where they almost kiss. At this moment, we discover that Mary also has super powers! In a show of extreme aggression and rejection, she throws the fridge and Hancock right through the living room window. For reasons that are still somewhat unclear to me, we learn, as does Hancock due to some kind of memory loss, that he and Mary were once a couple, 'a pair' as she calls it. (This is where the story gets a little fuzzy and perhaps some more details should have been ironed out by the writers but alas, maybe that's expecting too much.) Mary informs Hancock that they are the two last surviving 'superheroes' as the rest of them died once they paired off. She makes it rather clear that she wants nothing more to do with Hancock, arguing that she is happy now in her life with Ray and his son (from a previous marriage). Hancock seems to have trouble accepting this but upon almost losing Mary during a violent attack in the hospital where he is recovering from an injury, he struggles to move on as well, and in the process enables her life to continue as it was before. The film ends with everyone seemingly content and satisfied in their 'chosen roles' - Hancock as reformed superhero and Mary as devoted wife and mother.

The first thing that got me thinking was how the trailers and marketing for the film played up the 'image consulting' aspect above the rest of the storyline...it really didn't occupy that much of the narrative. The second idea began more as a series of questions: why does Mary reject the role of superhero? Aren't all superheros obligated to utilize their powers to help out us mortals? Now, I know the film was adapted from a comic book or graphic novel, so perhaps some information was lost in translation because I never felt the audience was given a proper or sensible explanation, other than for her to say she is happy. Couldn't she be happy and a superhero and a mother and a wife? All of these questions got my feminist senses tingling...

In recent years, there have been a number of articles written by feminists, celebrating contemporary representations of female superheroes as empowering 'ass-kickers' (i.e., 'Buffy') who are just as strong - mentally and physically - as their male counterparts. While these images might be still somewhat limited in their scope and diversity (i.e., most are still white, able-bodied, conform to beauty norms), they clearly have proved pleasurable for many female, and even male viewers. For many years I have found these images of strong, and some might even argue, violent women enjoyable as they speak to certain desires and feelings of powerlessness I continue to harbour. I understand this about myself and recognize that these unresolvable feelings make it easier to overlook problematic aspects of these images but when we start to consider them as part of a continuum of representations, over time, a different viewpoint takes shape. Specifically, this image seems to fit in with a number of other current images of women in popular culture that have blossomed within postfeminist media culture. These representations often play on anxieties about women and their place within the current socio-political and economic climate and tend to either reject and/or minimize feminism as 'passe' and/or responsible for women's ongoing struggles in both the public and private spheres. Feminist media scholar Diane Negra has identified a particular theme within postfeminist media culture, what she refers to as 'retreatism', where career-minded female urban dwellers leave their fast-paced life in order to return to their hometown, either to help family or for romantic love. While Negra focuses mostly on romantic comedies and television dramas, she does note that in other genres like horror and action, women are often punished and/or are defined by familial loss; in other words, they are haunted because they have chosen to leave home against their family's wishes or because they have no 'home' to speak of (i.e., Alias). This latter point is interesting as Negra notes that the global citizen is often gendered to read male, while women are often aligned with the local or national. She also explores how news reporting sensationalizes stories of women who reject the retreatist narrative (i.e., the runaway bride) and conversely hype up stories of women who 'choose' to leave their professions in order to focus on family. Negra does stress that these images aren't created in a vacuum but speak to the socio-economic realities of women's lives, where work culture is still heavily defined in masculinist terms with very little desire to accommodate and/or support the working mother. Rather than focusing on these issues, emphasis is placed upon the working woman's 'choice' to leave the professional world, which then becomes heralded as the (postfeminist) solution to a very complex and long-standing problem for working mothers. So the retreatist narrative plays into these anxieties and struggles by romanticizing and legitimating 'opting out' as a common sense and necessary choice if women are to find happiness and fulfillment in their lives. As Negra states: "Whether named as 'downshifting,' an 'opt-out revolution' or the mommy or daughter track, retreatism heavily negotiates current economic and social dilemmas that disproportionately impact on women, while its romanticizing alibi, the hometown fantasy, remains distinctly evasive to social and economic realities" (2009: 46).

Returning to Hancock, it appears that the film invokes a retreatist narrative to explain Mary's rejection of her superhero (re: professional) identity. While she is not returning to her hometown like the romantic comedies discussed by Negra, she is retreating from the very masculinist world of 'superheroedom' because as she states over and over again to Hancock, she has truly found happiness now in her 'normal' life with Ray and his son. After reading Negra's piece, I find it fascinating that traces of this narrative have even infiltrated a comic book film adaptation. Of course, the film also raises questions about Mary and Hancock's interracial relationship and why their inability to be together is couched in such fatalistic terms (i.e., if they stay together they will literally die). Indeed, by the end of the film, Hancock, as he finally hunkers down and becomes the transnational superhero he is destined to be (re: the new global man), is also resigned to carry out this work alone, sans companion.

However, while thinking about Hancock, superheroes, retreatism, and postfeminist media culture, I was reminded of an animated feature I watched during the holidays with my partner and his two young nieces, Dreamworks' Monsters vs. Aliens (2009). We are introduced to a young woman named Susan Murphy, who is about to get married but gets held up on the way when she is hit by a meteor which turns her into a giant monster. The government whisks her away to a top secret compound where she meets and becomes friends with other non-human creatures, and they rename her Ginormica. All the while she longs to be with her estranged fiancee and to have the 'normal' life she used to lead. Later on, a robot threatens to destroy the planter and under the orders of the President, Ginormica and her friends are sent on a mission to save the world from the evil robot. While she has trouble accepting her new identity at first, she quickly learns how to make the most of her new powers and stature and works with her monster posse to destroy the robot. Realizing she can return home, she quickly does so with the hopes of reuniting with her fiancee. Once she returns home she finds that things have changed as her fiancee informs her that he cannot be with her anymore as her new-found 'monster celebrity' threatens to overshadow his career as a news anchor. At first, Ginormica is hurt by this but quickly comes to the realization that she is better off without him, and quickly settles into a life of independence and new found strength (both internal and external). However, things do not end here and she soon finds herself kidnapped by another evil creature, Gallaxhar who steals the source of her towering size, thus reducing her to human-size once again. She realizes that her friends are unable to rescue her, so she convinces Gallaxhar to let them go and in the process regains her giant status by taking quantonium. Thus, the second time around, she makes a conscious decision to become Ginormica, realizing that is what truly makes her happy. In the end, her ex-fiancee tries to get back together with her in order to get an exclusive interview with the new superheroine but she knowingly rebuffs his attempts and instead makes a fool of him on air. 

Upon reflection, this film imparts a rather feminist message to its young female viewers, encouraging them to pursue other interests outside those of the normative social script (i.e., marriage). Susan thought that's what she wanted until other possibilities and ways of being were introduced to her; until she became Ginormica. Here, we find a representation of the female superhero that fits with my earlier comments about the feminist-inspired, girl-power touting woman who has, as the film advert above states, both "brains and brawn" suggesting that the modern gal doesn't have to sacrifice one for the other (and 'good' romantic partners wouldn't expect that). Needless to say, what I assumed would be a boring, simplistic children's film turned out to be one of the most captivating films, at least where the politics of representation are concerned, I've seen in a long time. However, I wonder why we have to look to a children's film to find such empowering images and progressive gender politics, and by the time we get to a film like Hancock, much of this work is undone and contested. What conflicting and contradictory messages we are sending to young girls and women! When you are young it's ok to imagine or fantasize a world where young girls are just as capable, just as strong, just as smart as any boy but womanhood, as imagined in popular culture, becomes an exhaustive battlefield where resistance becomes futile in the face of preordained biological destiny. Monsters also seems to convey a positive understanding of citizenship: that we are responsible to others around us and that we must work collectively in order to enact positive change in the world. Hancock suggests that women, especially those with extraordinary powers, are not needed to maintain peace and order in the world but rather their obligations lie in upholding the roles of wife and mother and maintaining order in the domestic sphere. Is this part of postfeminism's ambivalent relationship to feminism? Sigh. I wonder what kinds of discussions Ginormica and Mary would have about these issues. :)

Twilight

So, I finally watched Twilight, the first in the film trilogy based on a popular series of novels aimed at young readers, about the romantic relationship between a human, Bella and a vampire, Edward.  Having heard so much about the film in the popular press, I figured it was high time I educated myself on this pop cult phenomenon. Aside from the hilariously awful dialogue, numerous plot holes, and budget special effects, I was stunned by how the film portrayed Bella and Edwards relationship as border-line obsessive. Now, I get that teens can be highly emotional - everything seems so much more dramatic and intense when you're young (at least from what I remember) but I'm not convinced that the type of romantic relationship depicted in the film is productive in any way, other than to reinforce very outdated ideas of heterosexual love. I remember when the first film came out, and I was reading all the online debates and reviews, and I was under the impression that many fans loved Bella as they viewed her as a positive role model for young women. Again, I found little evidence of that in the film. In fact, I found her character to be rather weak; one who is not assertive but who's agency is totally usurped by the creepy hold of a 'man' she barely knows! far from a love story, Twilight perhaps reveals the troubling nature of unhealthy relationships which, at any moment, might become violent. I mean, Edward convinces Bella to leave her family, after convincing her to lie (in a very hurtful manner) to her father, and basically uproots her from her whole life...there is a scene towards the end of the film where she is being driven off and she passes a restaurant where her friends are hanging out and having fun, doing teen things...I thought there seemed to be a moment of self-reflection and maybe regret but no. There is no discussion about how she has given up this life to be with a man she barely knows! Twilight then, looks more like a warning narrative for teen girls than a love story, at least from where I stand.

As many reviewers have already pointed out, Twilight also appears to be a story about abstinence; indeed, throughout the film, the two must constantly restrain themselves, for if Edward becomes too 'aroused' he might not be able to 'stop himself' from biting Bella, even though he is later put in a position where he must 'taste her' to save her life. Oddly enough, I think I found this one of the more interesting aspects of the film...not so much because I read it as an abstinence narrative per se, but because it seems to me to be more about male (hetero)sexuality. The film doesn't go far enough in troubling these expectations though but tends to uphold a rather stereotypical notion of heteromale sexuality as potentially out of control and dangerous...that young men are not in control of their sexual feelings and therefore women must be careful in their temptation (i.e., the bedroom scene where Bella, for a moment, sexually asserts herself only to have Edward, rather aggressively, rebuke her because of his 'blood lust').
However, this brings up many of the same questions and feelings I had about the cosmetic surgery debate, I don't want to assume that all young women who watch these films interpret them uncritically, or as Hall would say, in the 'dominant' way. I'm sure there are researchers already putting together focus groups and whatnot to understand how young women have received the film, and I look forward to reading that literature someday. I definitely adhere to the idea that women are NOT cultural dupes (again, me thinks I need to consider that more in relation to the cosmetic surgery debates) but dammit, I can't help but feel annoyed that so many women (and yes, many adult women love the films!) find pleasure in these representations. There is such a lack of diversity when it comes to women and Hollywood, that such mass appeal tends to reinforce the idea to all those sexist male producers that this is indeed what women want! ugh, the ongoing struggle for representational equality has been a long one, but one worth fighting for.

Thinking about cosmetic surgery

Ok, so I just read this really interesting piece on the Nation's website about a proposed sales tax for all elective cosmetic surgery procedures (i.e., Botox) and oddly enough, one of the most vocal opponents has been the mainstream feminist organization NOW.  I was really angry and surprised when I read this. The author notes that their position appears to be steeped in 'choice rhetoric' - that is, they are basically taking the position that women need to have access to this choice in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. While I can, sort of, see where they are coming from, I find it shocking that they would be willing to ultimately support the idea that women are the ones who need to change and adapt, rather than the workplace and/or employers. How very retrograde! This seems to be taking the fight for women's equality several steps back, in the wrong direction. My feeling is that by making such claims, NOW is attempting to appeal to a younger, perhaps more mainstream audience but I'm not sure that all women who are strong advocates for 'affordable' cosmetic surgery would necessarily identify as feminist anyway. Making elective cosmetic surgery a 'woman's issue' in the same way that we have daycare, abortion, equal pay, and so on leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Perhaps this then becomes a subjective position based on one's own definition and/or understanding of feminism. But then the problem becomes, what does feminism mean when it can mean anything to anyone? It would seem to me, that it becomes rather meaningless. There must be another way for feminists to tackle the issue of cosmetic surgery without uncritically endorsing it.

I find that I straddle a very odd position here because in some ways, I am totally supportive of a woman's right to bodily self-expression through various means like tattooing, piercing, and so on but I have a hard time accepting the alteration of one's face and/or body which functions as a way of upholding capitalist-patriarchal definitions of femininity. Yes, I think this is what lies at the heart of my own personal opposition and concern over these procedures because I don't see them as resisting gender norms, although I am sure they could be used in that way (here I am thinking of the French artist Orlan) but rather, they serve to create an unfair and unequal hierarchy between women who are able to afford such procedures and therefore can attend to the maintenance of the self which is so much part and parcel of our neoliberal, postfeminist culture, and those women who are either unable to or do not wish to partake in such activities. Not to mention that most of these procedures also privilege certain racialized features of Caucasian persons (i.e., small nose, eyes) and I rarely see any discussion of that! And yet, I am not oblivious to the ways in which we alter our bodies in other ways, however subtly, whether through exercise and diet, personal style and fashion, and yet, many of these techniques are not so permanent, allowing for more flexibility and playfulness perhaps. I guess I'm still thinking through what this whole thing means to me, to other women, to feminism...

And so it begins!

Well, I am finally jumping into the world of blogging! I have been thinking about doing this for some time but always found a reason to put it off. While I regularly write for myself (the kind of writing no one ever sees), I thought it might be nice to have a semi-private, semi-public space all my own. I have no idea if anyone will read this (!) but in many ways, I'm doing this for me, not so much for others. However, if anyone else finds what I have to say amusing, interesting, and/or even mildly thought-provoking well, then I guess I'll take that too. I suspect this blog will become a dumping grounds of sorts, for my often conflicting and contradictory feelings about television, and more generally popular culture. Part of this internal conflict stems from my identity politics, as I'm sure my writing will make painfully clear. It feels like a constant balancing act; like I have a second-waver on one shoulder, and a third-waver on the other constantly battling it out for ideological supremacy. I love television, I hate television. Television can empower women, television is harmful. Of course, exploring one's relationship to popular culture is much more complex than I might be making it out to be.This is part of the struggle...hopefully I can work through some of my feelings in this blog and come to a better understanding of the bigger picture, especially as it relates to my research. I guess we'll see what happens!

xo