The Fandom Trap

After reading about forms of identification and star-audience relations from Jackie Stacey’s article, I thought about how much I truly looked up to celebrities and tried to copy them when I was a young girl. I dressed up like a ballerina after reading Angelina Ballerina and I played hopscotch on the sidewalk because that’s what the children did in Sesame Street. One film that particularly changed my “eight-year old life” was The Parent Trap, a 1998 film starring Lindsay Lohan.

Hallie Parker, one of the main characters in The Parent Trap (, played by Lindsay Lohan,) is portrayed as the “cool sister” when compared to her proper English twin, Annie James. Hallie wears jean jackets, has pierced ears, wears stylish sunglasses, and has an overall sense of confidence throughout the film. After watching this, my eight-year old self wanted to be just like her, so I began transforming my appearance and trying to act like her because I identified with her character and wanted to become just like her. As a result, I began to resemble Hallie by wearing similar clothing and dressing in what I thought was vogue (, for a second-grader at least). I also imitated much of what she did physically, by getting my ears pierced and cutting my bangs to fall past my eyes ever so slightly. Not only did I resemble the character of Hallie Parker in my newly-found confidence, but I also managed to look much like her as much as I could through my physical changes by my hair and ears. At the time, I did not think much of what I did, yet looking back on my year in the second grade, I realize much of what I did and how I dressed during that time was very much a result of The Parent Trap, and therefore a reflection of media identification.

Twilight Poster

In terms of fandom, the Twilight series is one of the most recent big obsessions with a large audience. Variations of people are literally obsessed with the films and books. Young girls are waiting hours to see the newest film, people are tattooing names of characters to their body and fans feel like the movie is actually a part of their life. This is a shot of a blog entry on E!’s website. There is no preview, no spoiler alerts of the film or any clues at all. It’s a simple poster with the name of the latest movie and the release date. The blog post says, “It’s finally here!” There is clearly this element of surprise and excitement for fans. They have read the books and watched the previous films. This poster release draws them into the upcoming movie. The creators of the film understand the dedication of the audience. The release of this poster is a tease. It reminds the fans that there is more to come and they have something to look forward to this upcoming fall. I personally am a fan of the series and the poster does in fact excite me. I watch other films and shows. There is a mental break from Twilight since the last movie hasn’t come out since this past summer. Seeing this poster, I remember that the series isn’t over and I can finally see what happens next.

Sequels Galore

Let's admit it: there will be a Hangover 3. Why? Because Part II will spend a couple weeks at the top of the box office and another installment would do the same in the future. Plus, there are still bachelors remaining in the script. How convenient.
11 of the top 20 all-time grossing films in the US have been sequels or installments in a series of films. Why another Pirates of the Carribbean movie? Goodness, I completely forgot about Fast5. There are some standard questions that are always asked about these movies: Is it as good as the first one? If it's based on a book, is it as good as the book? Are the special effects the only thing impressive? Are the special effects/computer animation terrible? Dialogue, anybody?

It is safe to say that it is easier to win an Oscar than it is to get 100 million people to see the film. And, in many cases (not all), the more money you spend in Hollywood the more money you make. Plus, Americans have an enormous appetite for cheese. Who is this silent majority? Why is critical and general opinion about blockbuster movies so wishy washy and so many people still see them?

Can it be chalked up to marketing? Or have our standards fallen this far?

Logorama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ligDITLoehA

In the short film, Logorama, we see an alternate reality in which there is nothing but “Logos,” which are advertisement. The short get’s us to think about the effects that all of these logos influence our lives, especially living in a society which is now saturated with different advertisements from all over. All industries have a targeted market, but at the same time, each industry want to appeal to as many as possible, a result of political economy, and the Logo’s while making fun of advertisement, is also being critical of how our society has changed. For instance, if we look at how women are portrayed as sex objects through the “Esso,” which is the name of an oil and fuel company. This connotes a sense of being taken advantage of, since the world has abused oil and fuel, much like a woman. We also see Ronald McDonald as the bad guy, which would work to paint a picture of childhood obesity, or obesity in general. This can also be seen as a view on McDonald’s as a brand in general. Furthermore, we see the two boys at the zoo, misbehaving and being disrespectful. The colloquialisms used in the film work to heighten the sense of post-modernity and how norms are redefined from generation to generation. Logorama is touching on several themes that force us to look at ourselves as a whole.

A Sucker Punch to Gender Roles

                                                           (Photo Credit)

So the other day I came across the preview for the new movie Sucker Punch. Let’s just say It’s nothing that I really cared to see. This is my thought process because by judging from its main characters, the movie is nothing but eye candy for men. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel like the movie's going to have blatent cheese and stereotypical fantasy's screaming from the screen to men everywhere. The girl's in the movie are clad with sexy 'fighting' gear, makeup, and done up hair. Is this empowering to women or degrading? Or is it neither, and just simply fun? Being a free spirit myself, I feel that self-expression comes in many forms, and some women dress 'skimpy' because they like having the freedom to do so. Yet with this film, I feel like the sole purpose is to attract men with the ideal girl that is 'hot' and able to 'kick ass'.

My notice in the film isn't being blogged about to rant or discourage people from seeing it, nor is it to shed a bad light. I just wanted to point out the fact that as a woman, I notice the intent behind the film and can't help but recognize the theme that it woman are framed as 'sexier' when she breaks her gender roles in society and is more than a dainty flower or house wife. When you put combat boots and skimpy clothing not only is the female attractive because of appearance, but the fact that she can kick butt and do more than what is expected of woman, then she automatically becomes superior to other woman and more desired.

By casting women in a role that sheds light to gender roles, it is almost increasing or enhancing gender role expectations because it is exploiting the lead characters as taboos or something not usually seen in an everyday setting or not normal and therefore better. 

-Ali Carlson

The Fighter

This weekend I had the privilege of watching Danny Boyle’s The Fighter. The film is based on the true story of Mickey Ward and his struggles as a professional boxer. While the film may have just seemed like a boxing film, it spoke a lot about our culture and the way Americans perceive boxing. In the trailer, Mickey is shown losing a fight badly and being so embarrassed to come back to town simply because of that fight. This was eye opening to me because it added this sense that it was more than just a fight. He had to prove his whole town wrong and show his dominance. The added pressure was so tough that it forced Mickey to re-evaluate his career and consider giving up the thing he loved. This also reflected how much society loves to see people fail. Rather than being supportive of a local star, people like the guy at the bar are constantly antagonizing him saying that he’s going to lose or that he is a “stepping stone.” It was irritating me how no one supported him from a place where he called home. Finally, the film showed us the power the media has on people. Dicky (Christian Bale) is a struggling crack addict who happens to be Mickey’s brother and trainer. He constantly struggles being in and out of jail due to his addiction and how he acts under the influence, yet he never learns. Throughout the film, he is being followed by HBO to do a special in which he thinks is about his comeback but in reality is about drug abuse. When he sees himself on the screen, he is suddenly moved because he sees how it is affecting him and his family. It was interesting to see how it took showing rather than telling to change Dicky’s ways. All in all, the Fighter is an awesome movie and reflects societal norms of today.

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

Product placement is something that is definitely very present in film and television, but I am not sure that most people realize the extent to which it is used. It definitely has an impact on us, however, even if it is not overt advertisement. There is a film coming out by Morgan Spurlock called The Greatest Movie Ever Sold and in it, Spurlock attempts to expose product placement advertising techniques. Spurlock has a track record of doing great documentary films with his popular film Super-Size Me, and his lesser known but just as good television series 30 Days. In his films, Spurlock attempts to expose problems in society by living with them as best he can. For example, in one of his 30 Days episodes, he tried to live with his wife on minimum wage for 30 days and he found it to be almost impossible.

For this particular film, Spurlock is trying to expose product placement in films by making a film that is paid for entirely by advertisement in the film. I think that it will not only be an interesting film, but I also think that it will be a great way to expose people to the way that they are getting advertised to. Even though I have only seen a trailer for the film I am already more aware of the ways that companies advertise that may be more subtle than others. I think that this film will be a good watch for everyone.

Cabrini-Green is falling down...

As I write this, a wrecking crew is hard at work demolishing what is left of the legendary Cabrini-Green housing complex. As it says on it's wikipedia page, this housing complex became the symbol for all the problems associated with housing projects. As far as popular media is concerned, it will always make me think of Good Times and Candyman.




This is a classic television program. I've seen it in syndication and enjoy it, but I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the way in which this show uses the terrible social problem of poverty as a way in which to market the characters. If you look at this in contrast with All in the Family (another Norman Lear creation) I think working with these themes makes sense. Good Times is a classic show that can't help but show it's age. I think it's worth mentioning that nothing mentioned in the title song is ideal, or good for that matter, yet the message is 'ain't we lucky we got 'em.' In other words, be happy with what you have and don't try and improve you station in life. (IMHO)

Candyman, on the other hand, uses Cabrini-Green to a much different effect...



In case you haven't seen it, the Cabrini-Green housing project is central to the plot of this film. The Virginia Madsen character is a student researching urban legends who comes upon the legend of the Candyman, who may or may not be a real killer living in the Cabrini-Green housing projects.

Look at the imagery related to Cabrini-Green used in the Candyman trailer as opposed to the same setting in the Good Times opening. These are the same buildings, and Candyman was even filmed on location at times. It's interesting that the social meaning that these buildings held can be used for both horror and comedy. In both cases the housing project's implicit meaning connects it with poverty and other social ills. Also notice at what point the Hancock tower is shown in both of these. What does it mean that this building is shown in relation to Cabrini-Green? What purpose might the juxtaposition of these buildings serve?

In any case, the last of the Cabrini-Green buildings is being torn down right now, but the legacy that that particular landmark carries is likely to continue.