Broad-ly Speaking

The 1979 film “10” is a romcom that epitomizes unbridled hedonism. In the film it appears that the sole purpose of the characters lives is the “pursuit of happiness”. It seems that in their eyes happiness is synonymous with personal gratification. Though I found the film extremely raunchy a specific scene between George and his significant other Samantha (Sam) caught my attention. As Sam and George are settling down for the night they get into an argument about George’s use of the term “broad”. Sam immediately becomes defensive and assails George claiming that he is using an extremely derogatory term for women and is implying that all women are nothing more than chattel. George becomes defensive exclaiming that in his opinion ‘broad’ is simply another way of saying ‘woman’, he claims that he is not using the word in a derogatory way and that Sam is simply attaching a derogatory connotation to the word. The altercation continues until George looks up the term in a dictionary and discovers that it is in fact a slang word used to convey a derogatory attitude towards women. Sam is smug that she has proven her point and tells George that in addition to being a “male chauvinist pig” he is gutless because he “refuses to take it and lose like a man”. Though spoken in a bantering sort of way George replies that he wouldn’t mind losing like a man if Sam did not insist on winning like a man. This brings up how value ladened our language is, even though we don’t always realize it. Language is like a loaded gun that we tote around unaware of its potential to inflict harm. What exactly does George mean when he tells Sam that her domineering attitude is unfeminine? Is he implying that women are supposed to be passive and that in carrying on in her altercation she is being unwomanly? What exactly does in mean then to be a “man” or a “woman”? This is a question covered extensively in Barkers anthology of cultural study. The question of identity and it’s implications is an extensive field of study. In this field language is a significant player. Language is the means through which we attempt to create our identity and at the most basic level attempt to let others know who we are as well. Therefore when George tells Sam that she is insisting on being a man he is attacking her verbally by questioning her gender. To theorist Stuart Hall this scene would be a clear example of how “we are formed as sexed subjects in the context of gendered families. Thus what it is to be a person cannot be universal or unified since, at the very least, identity is marked by sexual difference.” (224). Essentially Hall is postulating that the reason we use such gendered language when communicating is because this sexed code has been inculcated in us from childhood. Rather than being human we are categorized as “man” or “woman” “boy” or “girl”. Barker explores poststructualism and feminism and states that these movements argue “that sex and gender are social cultural constructions that are not reducible to biology…where femininity and masculinity are not essential universal and eternal categories; rather they are understood to be discursive constructions”. (224). Hall would concur that sex and gender are socially constructed institutions that creep up in our daily lives and most definitely manifest themselves in the way we speak.

funnypictures.net.au

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies, Theory& Practice. California: SAGE Publications Inc. 2008. Print

Images of Women in the Media

In class we have been watching scenes from The Graduate. One of the scenes that stuck out to me was when Mrs. Robinson confronts Ben in his car when he comes to pick up Elaine for a date. Soaking wet she gets into the car and commands him to keep driving. For once Ben stands up for himself and tells her that he and Elaine are going out and there’s nothing Mrs. Robinson can do. With a loathing look that could melt the flesh off of someone’s face Mrs. Robinson orders Ben to “Do exactly as I say!!”. Ben acquiesces and continues driving, Mrs. Robinson makes it clear that she doesn’t want Ben to come near Elaine ever again. It seems that Mrs. Robinson won’t be content until everyone is as miserable as she is. By allowing herself to become attached to Ben she became vulnerable. After Ben jilted her because of his “love” for Elaine she realized that  once again she was left alone, and if she could not have what she wanted then no one else could either. She threatens Ben that if he doesn’t obey she will tell Elaine everything. Ben disbelieves that she would do such a thing and Mrs. Robinson dares him to defy her. Ben dashes out of the car (all the training on the track field really starts to pay off) and Mrs. Robinson unused to opening her own door stays fumbling with the locked door. Ben beats Mrs. Robinson home and dashes up the stairs into and blurts out the truth to the unsuspecting Elaine. A hysterical Elaine forces Ben out of her room and shuts the door. What I found interesting about the way the scene was shot was the fact that Elaine’s room is decorated in white and the walls in the hallway are a glaring white as well. As Mrs. Robinson slumps against the wall dejectedly watching the scene, her black robe is starkly contrasted with the purity of the white hallway. This scene is highly symbolic and uses white (Elaine) to represent the “good and pure” and the black (Mrs. Robinson) to portray the “perverse and tainted”. Analyzing this scene from our classes viewpoint I drew a connection between this scene and Diana Meehan’s theory about the images of women. In his book on cultural studies Barker introduces theorist Diana Meehan introduces the way that women are portrayed on US television. Meehan postulates that women are portrayed in several different images and suggests that “representations on television cast ‘good’ women as submissive, sensitive and domesticated while ‘bad' women are rebellious, independent and selfish.” (307). In this scene it is very clear how Elaine stands to represent all that which is pure and desirable in a women. Mrs. Robinson on the other hand is obviously the bad women who is to be avoided at all costs. Though I too was repulsed by Mrs. Robinson’s character I found it interesting that my reaction was exactly what the makers of the film expected of me. Unbeknownst to me this scene served to reinforce a certain ideology of what makes one woman “good” and another  “bad”.

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies, Theory& Practice. California: SAGE Publications Inc. 2008. Print

The Graduate in Cougartown

Today we watched scenes from the 1967 film "The Graduate". As we watched the film I could not help but feel repulsed by Mrs. Robinson’s character yet felt sorry for the bumbling Benjamin. At the party that his parents throw him following his graduation he is constantly smothered by people barraging him with questions about his future. It seems that no one sees who he really is and the only way that they relate to him is through his accomplishments. He is addressed as “the athlete”, “the graduate” and his mother rattles of his many accomplishments from his yearbook. Try as he might he cannot have an actual conversation with his father or anyone else for that matter. Everyone seems more interested in telling him what he should do with his life and what he should be. Through Barkers perspective Benjamin is the prime example of the Sociological subject. Benjamin is being molded left and right by the people around him and he’s being shaped into the person that everyone thinks he should be. As one of the older men at his party told him, he had just one word for Ben, “PLASTIC”. Like pliable plastic Ben is being handled and shaped into something he isn’t even sure he wants.

Then along comes Mrs. Robinson with her domineering and seductive ways. Like an innocent puppy Ben falls into her trap and is so easily manipulated it’s pitiful. Mrs. Robinson joins the crowd in telling Ben what it is he wants and despite repeating several times “I’d rather not, I’d rather not” he does what he’s commanded anyhow. During the scene when Ben and Mrs. Robinson are having drinks in Mrs. Robinson home and Ben apologizes for accusing Mrs. Robinson of seducing him, we get an interesting look at who Mrs. Robinson is. Despite being an extremely manipulative person she seems hungry for attention and control. It almost seems that she is trying to relive her youth and envies her daughter Elaine who has what she can never regain.  After Ben’s apology she changes the subject by asking if he would like to see Elaine’s portrait he replies “Very much so”.  Granted it may just have been part of Mrs. Robinson’s ploy to get Ben upstairs but by using Elaine’s room to do her dirty work it appears that she is trying to channel Elaine’s youth. Knowing the movies background one could argue the Mrs. Robinson is this way not by choice but because she has been forced into this position by society. She has been denied the opportunity to pursue the things she felt fulfilled her. She felt forced to take a path she regretted and therefore chose to assert herself and follow her every whim.

The scene that I found most interesting was on Ben’s 21^st birthday when his parents parade him around in the new scuba gear that they bought him. Reluctantly Ben goes outside to the pool and despite trying to get his father to talk to him. His father is more interested in letting everyone see the expensive scuba suit that he purchased rather than listening to his son’s concerns. His Father rants on and on about how Ben is leaving boyhood behind and is taking his first step into manhood. As Ben steps out, he sees everyone through a mask. This scene is very symbolic in the sense that his first step into manhood is done while wearing a mask. It seems that the lesson his father is teaching him is that to be a man you must wear a mask and be the person that everyone else expects you to be. Ben puts on the mask to please everyone else and as he dives in the water his father keeps pushing him down while smiling. As Ben is submerged in the pool it symbolizes how he feels overwhelmed and smothered under the overbearing expectations of society. Like Brick in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof Ben is learning that the only way to be a man in his society is to learn the art of mendacity.



Movie Videos & Movie Scenes at MOVIECLIPS.com



Mendacity



Romance at Starbucks

Jenny Leyva
English 313
Professor Wexler
20 September 2010

Romance at Starbucks

When the word “romance” is uttered it conjures up a different mental picture for each individual. Some see candle lit dinners and long walks on the beach others see heart break and deception. Some may claim that they “see” nothing because romance is non-existent. The majority of us though, walk around with preconceived notions about romance, and the meanings we attribute to it are often quite clichéd. But, what exactly is romance? Is there any way for us to put “romance” in a petri dish for analysis? This weekend I sat at a local Starbucks attempting to do just that. Like a Sasquatch enthusiast I was on the hunt for this elusive idea of “romance”. I focused on identifying romance/love and its manifestations in the relationships of those who walked through the door.

Like a professional amateur I studied people as they interacted with one another and among the numerous individuals there one particular case caught my attention. I focused on a woman in her late forties and her friend of about the same age sitting at the table next to me. They appeared to be close friends and the first (who we will call Mrs. X) was relating the conflicts of her married life to her friend. As the Mrs. X began talking, her relationship with her husband Sam seemed normative enough. Mrs. X discussed how Sam was supportive and did his part around the house. She discussed how he avoided conflicts as much as possible and described him by saying “My husband deals with the unpleasantness of life with brainless activity, he plays video games or buys new properties to restore them and stay busy”. Sam seems like the passive husband and as she described him I couldn’t help but think about Bricks character in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. The way that Brick deals with the unpleasantness in his life is by dousing it in alcohol in an attempt to numb it. As I would learn later, rather than turning to alcohol Sam turned to nicotine as his method of dealing with the preoccupations that filled his mind.

As Mrs. X continued to talk about her husband the one thing that struck me as non-normative in their relationship was the reversal of the gender roles still widely held by society. Sam is a stay at home Dad and she is the one who goes to work. She went into detail telling her friend how every day she comes home and dinner is on the table, the dishes are all done and how she can’t even remember the last time she went grocery shopping. A bit exasperated she tells her friend how “This was the kind of help I needed when the kids were young, you know…He smokes a lot now”. Throughout this discourse I sensed a disconnect between Sam and his wife and learned that the disconnect had to do with their prodigal drug addicted son Danny. She described this rift as the biggest problem in their household, yet it was something that Sam refused to acknowledge and address. She was frustrated by Sam’s inaction but resorted to telling her friend about this rather than him.

As I listened I began to wonder, if her relationship with her husband is so unsatisfactory why does she remain bound to him? What is holding her in that relationship, could it be love? Simone de Beauvoir would argue that the reason these two remain bound has more to do with biology rather than a four-letter word. In her book The Second Sex Beauvoir explores how women are bound to men in a master/slave relationship. Though women remain oppressed under this relationship they fail to break the yoke because they have not realized that they are just as important as men. Just as the master is nothing without the slave the man is nothing without the woman. The reason that women cannot completely sever themselves from men is because without both parts of the equation there cannot be procreation. Beauvoir describes this dilemma by stating

“..the woman cannot even dream of exterminating the males. The bond that unites her to her oppressors is not comparable to any other. The division of the sexes is a biological facet, not an event in history. Male and female stand opposed within a primordial Mitsein, and woman has not broken it. The couple is a fundamental unity with its two halves riveted together, and the cleavage of society along the line of sex is impossible. Here is to be found the basic trait of woman: she is the Other in a totality of which the two components are necessary to one another.” (Beauvoir, 1949).

Therefore the reason that Sam and his Wife are still together is not because they are in love with one another and any notions of romance go out the window. The reason that Sam and Mrs. X are still together is because of their children. The product of their biological connection is what unifies them and perpetuates this master/slave relationship. Looking at this vicious cycle one has to wonder who is being served by this relationship and how it is that it continues? As we discussed the article “The politics of culture” we came to the conclusion that culture easily becomes a means of domination. Looking at the story of Mrs. X and Sam I saw the same culture of the “happy housewife” that Anne Archer represented in the film Fatal Attraction. Though I heard no complaints of infidelity Mrs. X remains bound in a marriage in which she feels unfulfilled yet does nothing about it for fear of what others will think. Bent on keeping up appearances she chooses keep up the charade that serves the powers that be.

Works Cited

Williams, Tennessee. Cat on a Hot tin Roof. New York: James Laughlin, 1995. Print

Rivkin, Julie and Ryan Michael. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.

de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. France: 1949.



thesunblog.com

Observations
Starbucks: Van Nuys 12:11pm

Two women talking @ table next to me about letter from long lost relative:

“Answer to every troubled man is his woman”
“My husband deals with the unpleasantness of life with brainless activity, he plays video games or buys new properties to restore them and stay busy
she comes home and dinner is on the table, the dishes are all done and how she can’t even remember the last time she went grocery shopping
“This was the kind of help I needed when the kids were young, you know…He smokes a lot now”.
My frustration has little to do with his inaction my frustration and the biggest problem in our household is Danny
Danny has “amputated” himself from family, swore they would never see him again and kept his word
Mrs. X claim that only regret in life is how she and Sam put son out
Couple walks in interracial

Couple walks in smiling wearing working out clothes

no wedding rings., woman significantly younger man graying hair
Woman’s daughter about 7 or 8 yrs old
Completely absorbed with each other, man stroking her hair as daughter vies for mothers attention, mother indifferent to daughter
Married couple
walk in with young daughter abt 2 or 3 sit at separate couches in own world, Father absorbed taking care of daughter

Another couple
young woman and older looking man:
Woman attempting to keep his attention, leaning forward showing him pictures
He appears distant, uninterested ready to go
No wedding rings

Group of three:
Two are a couple and third is friend
The couple sit @ table together he has laptop out and she’s absorbed in cell phone

WANTED: Non-Traditional romcom

This week in class we began Tamar Jeffers McDonald’s exploration of the Romantic comedy. In her book “Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Gril Meets Genre” McDonald analyzes the components of the traditional Romcom. McDonald begins her book by discussing how the Romcom is seen as a generic formula that is so predictable many critics regard this genre as insignificant and trite. McDonald however hopes that by exploring the genre and raising questions she will manage to “problematise the romcom, so that such films become new and strange again, and can therefore open up to analysis.” (5). McDonald makes the point that even though the traditional romcom has a plot so trite that anyone can rattle off the pattern, there’s just something about them that keeps us coming back. As cheesy as many of these films can be they still continue to draw large audiences. McDonald offers her speculations on what it is about these films that keep drawing us in no matter how predictable they may be. McDonald defines the romcom as “a film which has as its central narrative motor a quest for love, which portrays this quest in a light-hearted way and almost always to a successful conclusion” (9). With that definition in mind we were asked to come up with the name of a film we thought fit the description of a traditional romcom and a non-traditional romcom. The list of traditional romcoms was long and included many well known films: Pretty Woman, You’ve Got mail, Notting Hill etc. Personally the thing that stumped me was trying to think of a non-traditonal romcom. After wracking my brain I finally came up with 500 Days of Summer. This film follows the 500 days of Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer Finn’s (Zooey Deschanel) relationship. On first thought I considered this film non-tradtional because Summer is the one with commitment issues. In the film Summer is the non-sentimental one who tells Tom that she does not believe in true love and is not interested in a long term relationship. Tom on the other hand is the one who belives that true love exists and he believes that he has found it with Summer. Ultimately Summer ends the relationship and Tom finds himself utterly devestated though Summer had told him from the start that it would probably end that way. The films ending is not the typical happy ending where the boy and girl end up together. I thought that this element made this a candidate for the nontraditional category. But, looking at McDonalds defintion of the traditional romcom I changed my mind. Though the ending is not typical I would still consider it a rom com because it fits the defintion put forth by McDonald. She points out that the films almost always have a successful conclusion, but just because the film ends “unsuccessfully” does not disqualify it from the romcom genre. Though Tom and Summer do not end up together the “central narrative motor” is very much so the “quest for love”.  Even though Summer and Tom go their separate ways they both continue on their quests for love even though it takes them on separate paths. Essentially I am still left wondering if there is truly a romcom film out there that would be considered non traditional….

McDonald Jeffers, Tamar. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. Print 

Simone de Beauvoir in Jerry Maguire

In class this week one of the pieces that we discussed was Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex". In her introduction Beauvoir explores the question "what is a woman?". In our discussion we looked at Saussiere as well and his theory of binaries and the fact that they are hierarchal. Beauvoir builds on this theory and expands on it saying that one of the binaries is always on top. She gives the example that in the binary man/ woman the man is on top of the hierarchy and compares the man/woman relationship to that of master/slave. Beauvoir asserts that the only way that this relationship will ever change and the only way for women to free themselves of this yoke is to come to the consciousness that they are just as significant as men. In the master/slave relationship the way for the slave to become free is to realize that without him the master cannot enjoy his position of prestige and therefore without them there is no master. When a woman realizes that man is nothing without her then she can rise up. Beauvoir argues that the fact for which women have not come to this realization is partly because they lack solidarity and do not organize as a unit to break the chains of oppression. Another factor is the fact that women are biologically joined to men and cannot completely sever themselves from these ties because without both parts of the equation there cannot be procreation. This “dilemma” makes it difficult for women to revolt. Beauvoir makes this point when she states “ woman may fail to lay claim to the status of subject because she lacks definite resources, because she feels the necessary bond that ties her to man regardless of reciprocity, and because she is often very well pleased with her role as the other.” It is as if women are passively giving up their rights to be recognized and rather than embracing autonym they are content to remain as the other. In Beauvoir’s words they lack the aspiration “to full membership in the human race”. This scenario is seen in Jerry Maguire a few moments before the famous “you complete me” scene. As the divorcee club is meeting in Rene Zellewegers home she stands to take dishes to the table and says “I’ve sat here and listened to you tell your sob stories about how horrible men are, but even though men are the enemy I still love the enemy.” (loosely paraphrased). Rene Zelleweger is the epitome of the women Beauvoir discusses, one who is content to remain in her role as the Other despite how unfair it may be. Beauvoir explores how women are also tied to men for monetary reasons she writes “Man-the sovereign will provide woman the liege with material protection and will undertake the moral justification of her existence: thus she can evade at once both economic risk and the metaphysical risk of a liberty in which ends and aims must be contrived without assistance. Indeed along with the ethical urge of each individual to affirm his subjective existence, there is also the temptation to forgo liberty and become a thing. When man makes of woman the Other, he may then expect…complicity”. This economic dependence that a woman has to a man and refuses to sever is of consternation to Beauvoir. She details how women prefer to accept this role of the other and remain subject to the man simply because this is the easier road. Looking at things through this lens leads one to wonder whether in a capitalist society intimacy is intricately bound with money. This question arises in the famous “you complete me scene”:

Throughout the monologue he continues bringing business into their relationship and discussing that though he had a tremendous victory in his business he did not feel complete because Rene was not there. He says I couldn’t enjoy it because “I miss you, I miss my wife”. In the middle of professing his love for her Tom keeps talking business, there is no clear distinction of where business ends and their personal relationship begins. After talking business Tom drops the line “I love you, you complete me”. As I watched this I couldn’t help thinking “Are you serious?? Is he making a business proposal here or professing his love for her?? Is she really going to buy that?”. Of course Rene’s response answered my question “You shut up! Just shut up… you had me at Hello…” To me this scene answers the question of whether intimacy is tied in with money in our capitalist society with a resounding “Yes”.

Anti-essentialism and the American Psycho

The word "identity" has been a subject of discourse among thinkers in the popular culture field. Chris Barker the author of Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice explores the idea of identiy and what it entails. Essentially Barker defines identity as a question of how we see ourselves and how others see us. In this debate there are those in the essentialist camp who argue that we all have an essence and that inner essence is our identity. Proponents of essentialism believe that all humans have "an underlying identity" and that identity is in actuality something real. In the other camp there are the anti-essentialists who argue that there is no such thing as identity. Anti-essentialists argue that we are not born with this essence or identity that defines us but rather that identity is something socially constructed. Your "identity" depends on numerous variables that shape you and is constantly shifting and changing over time. During our class discussion the question arose as to how we can know who we are. The answer we arrived at was that the only way to know and express who we are is through language. It is through language that we communicate to others who we think we are. An anti-essentialist would argue however that language is simply the way through which we create an identity rather than express an identity. As Barker puts it language is not a means for us to find our identity but rather our way of making an identity (Barker, 217). This way of seeing things is clearly seen in the film American Psycho.  From the short clip we watched in class I was able to see Patrick Bateman as the embodiment of the anti-essentialist argument. As Bateman is going through his extensive morning routine he goes into excruciating detail about every aspect of his routine. When he gets to his facial routine he applies a facial mask and as he is letting it harden he makes the statement "There is no real me, just an illusion...I simply am not there..." Bateman is supporting the anti-essentialist notion that we have no identies and that which we call our identity is simply a construction that we create and attempt to maintain. Bateman is asserting that he has no identity. He is a socially constructed being and all that others see is the hollow frame that he inhabits.