What I've learned...

Since this is the last blog of the quarter, I've decided to do a conclusion for the time being. Looking back, I'm impressed by the variety of stereotypes I've pin-pointed and analyzed. Here is the list of the groups of people I found to be exploited (or fairly represented) by Hollywood:

1. All Women
2. Goofy/Lazy Husbands
3. Asians
4. African-Americans
5. Overweight Americans
6. The British
7. Hawaiians
8. Little People
9. The Brain Injured
10. American Southerners
11. Polygamists
12. Housewives
13. Nazis

Surprisingly, I found that women were the most commonly exploited group of people in Hollywood. Actually- I am half surprised. I thought a specific ethnicity or race would definitely be the most exploited but I kept finding more and more ridiculous stereotypes of women. Perhaps I am biased because I am a woman but I think I found the women stereotypes to be the most surprising and non-progressive. It seems that racial groups usually speak up when they feel that they are unfairly represented in Hollywood. I don't think this is as common for women. I have no idea why this is and it is frustrating. We are a huge population and bigger than any one racial group so why should we be so quiet and accepting? I know there are women out there who do voice their opinion and point out these stereotypes. But I do not think we are doing a good enough job because these stereotypes are still going strong in Hollywood.

Doing these blogs has exercised my brain a lot and has caused me to easily identify stereotypes in every TV show or film I watch. I am glad I can do this but it is annoying at the same time because it becomes hard for me to enjoy most TV/films. Hopefully I will be in a position one day to make changes of my own in Hollywood *knock on wood*.

The Reader

I finally saw The Reader this past Wednesday. Kate Winslet is one of my favorite actors and I have heard mixed perceptions of this movie. So of course I was excited to see it and form my own opinion.

Basically, I'm not sure if LOVED it. I liked it. I appreciated it. But I don't think I loved it.

Why I liked it:
1. Kate Winslet is a great actress (obviously with her Oscar)
2. I was very impressed with rookie actor David Kross
3. I usually have a soft spot for the tragic love stories

Why I appreciated it:
1. Somewhat of a non-linear storyline. Thank you for attempting to exercise my brain Hollywood.
2. It gave a Nazi human qualities vs. portraying them as lifeless monsters.
3. It showed how different generations of Germans comprehended the holocaust.

Why I didn't love it:
1. Her flaw of being illiterate was spoon-fed to the audience. It was not a surprise even though it was supposed to be.
2. I would have been more interested in seeing her thoughts and how she became a cold guard who assisted in the final solution. The illiteracy seemed to be a more important issue to film makers/author.
3. Tragic women always kill themselves! I am becoming numb to suicide in film/play plots. It never surprises me!

Well to be fair, my problem with the plot line is more of a fault of the author of The Reader (what the film is obviously based off from). I just can't get over why women can never solve their problems or just deal with them. The Reader continued the helpless woman stereotype.

As for improving stereotypes, I really liked how there were characters who were conflicted about how Hanna (Winslet) should be punished and the holocaust itself. And we also saw that she is indeed human like the rest of us and has feelings, regrets, emotions and confusions. It did not end in a lecture or the expected revenge catharsis. I felt the story was truthful.

What I found interesting was a passage in Wikipedia about the criticism of the story:

"Schlink (author) has said, 'in Israel and New York the older generation liked the book' but those of his own generation were more likely to criticize Michael (and his) inability to fully condemn Hanna. He added (also in The Guardian), 'I've heard that criticism several times but never from the older generation, people who have lived through it.'"

Big Love: Exploitation for drama? or fair representation?

This is another post about one of my favorite shows on television: Big Love. For those of you who are not familiar with the show, it is about the joys and struggles of a fictional polygamist family in Utah. I became addicted to the show during its second season and have been following it since. As a minor critique, the quality of writing has definitely taken a turn for the worst in its current season. This is because they set up several great story lines in the second season and now they are all being revealed. I think the writers either got too excited or ingested too much caffeine because the story has become overwhelming. Every two to three minutes, the story and scene switches and a new secret is revealed. However, the unfortunate quality of the third season has allowed me to view this show objectively because I am not as invested. I found myself questioning if all of this drama could even be possible.

So, I decided to do some research. Is HBO's depiction of the polygamist lifestyle accurate? Semi-accurate? I had a hard time finding up-to-date articles. Most of the criticism from the Church of Latter Day Saints and polygamist Mormons seemed to occur before the first season even premiered. Most of it came from the wary LDS because they understandibly do not want old stereotypes about their religion to be reinforced in the public's mind. Although, Big Love does successfully state in their plot line that LDS does not support polygamy what-so-ever. Point 1 for Big Love. But what about now? I did find one article that talked about the hard facts of polygamist life seen on Big Love vs. the real world.

The article is from Entertainment Weekly's "Expert's Corner: How real is 'Big Love' season 2?"
EW representative Shirley Halperin interviews Salt Lake Tribune reporter Brooke Adams. Adams tasks include covering the trail of Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, interviewing Polygamist families, and updating the paper's polygamy blog. To sum up the interview, Adams is answers specific questions about whether the plots and character portrayals in season 2 are accurate. After reading the interview it seems that overall, Big Love is fairly accurate (with a few exceptions of course).

But what bothered me the most is that the writers of the shows copied real situations that occured in the polygamist world (i.e. Ronda seeking spilling her story on a talk show. This actually happened with two runaway girls from a polygamist compound). Are the writers getting lazy? Or did their reaseach make them realize that polygamy is entertaining in itself so why not just retell reality? So why did they even make the show? I suppose its hard to please an audience because people want accurate representation but not actual copy-cat stories. I can sympathize with this difficulty. I still haven't answered my own question (it appears in the title). To be quite honest, I'm not sure if HBO's aim is to just make money by exploiting this group of unique people or if they're interesting in representing humanity. Perhaps I'll have an answer by the third season's final episode (just a few weeks away).

Stupid, fat, male catastrophes

I finally found a good, solid male stereotype! The stupid, fat, American father! Nobody tops Homer of The Simpsons and Peter of Family Guy. This blog maybe hard for me to write objectively because these are my two favorite television shows of all time.

Here is a list of all of his inherent flaws just because he is overweight.

1. Lazy
2. Stupid
3. Funny because of his stupidity
4. Bad father
5. Alcoholic
6. Somehow marries a hot, smart wife. But why does she fall for him if she's so smart?
7. Because they are SO lovable!
8. And they're always lower middle class.

In The State of the United States, a blog geared toward understanding American culture from a foreigner's perspective, The Simpsons is cited as the OVERALL classic example of the American stereotype. Meanwhile, Annalee Newitz makes an interesting comparison between Roseanne and The Simpsons in his blog Why I Hate The Simpsons.

So why do I still love these shows so much? I'm not exactly sure. My boyfriend thinks the bright colors really help because they make viewers happy. I suppose these shows also remind me of my childhood. I feel like a hypocrite admitting that these are my favorite shows on my blog devoted to revealing negative stereotypes in Hollywood. Perhaps it's because none of these stereotypes apply to me. I guess its natural for people not to be offended by things that do not affect them. It's difficult to find humor that does not hurt some group of people. Maybe that will be my next mission- to find the perfect humor for everyone.

Dramatic Titanic

I was 11 years old when Titanic premiered in movie theaters. And boy, did it move me! The Romeo and Juliette tragic romance is probably the reason why Titanic was my favorite movie for years. Like I said, I was also 11.

Last night, I revisited this old favorite for the first time in probably two years (yes I loved it for THAT long). After taking a class in college about stereotypes used in film, it has been a lot harder to enjoy films because I am realizing that they are everywhere! So when I was watching Titanic last night, I started to catch handfuls and handfuls of stereotypes. And it made me amazed that I never realized this before- even at 18 years old.

The most obvious contrasting stereotypes I caught last night was that of the stuffy, cold, and heartless Briton vs. the warm, caring and lovable Irish. For example, Mr. Ismay is actually a historical character who was the Managing Director of the White Star Line. He was in fact British and also did indeed shamelessly climb into a life boat while there were still women and children aboard. What director James Cameron exploded in his movie was that Ismay bribed Captain Smith to speed up the voyage beyond safety- making him at fault for the tragedy. Accroding to Wikipedia, this was a rumor that circulated but was never proven true by any of the ship's surviving crewmen. More British stereotyping is seen in the crew characters when they are trying to control the frantic passengers during the ship's sinking. They themselves go insane and start screaming and man-handling passengers. Also, the characters Rose and her mother Ruth were portrayed as snobby American socialites (Rose in the beginning) but I find it interesting that these actresses are both British. I guess Cameron thought only Britons could play snobby and wealthy well.

The Irish in the movie are all composed and just plain lovely. All of the doomed third class children who have lines in this movie happen to be Irish. A conflicting portrayal is given to the historical Irish character Mr. Andrews who was responsible for the ship's design. Andrews is seen in a positive light and manner the entire film even though it was his fault for the ship's lack of boats and its design that increased its sinking potential. Still- we love and sympathize for Mr. Andrews. Also- all of the lovely romantic music seems to have an Irish influence. So I guess Americans will always love the Irish and hate the British.

I was also bothered by the typical tragic portrayal of the lost woman whose only answer to her problems is to kill herself. How many times have we seen this?! Why must women be so helpless that the only thing that can save us is a swaggering male?

A British shopping website called Ciao has an interesting review of Titantic because it is from a British citizen's point of view.

Beneficial Reality Shows

The first reality shows sought manufactured drama. This was achieved by either shutting away groups of strangers in a small house or by impossible competitions. These kind of shows (i.e. Real World, Survivor, etc.) are obviously still present today (i.e. Real World, Top Chef) but are defined as the crappy television. When most people hear the word reality, they think of ridiculous drama, contrived situations and awful human beings that unfortunately exist.

But some networks have given myself and other television enthusiasts hope. TLC is the best example of this. Shows like Little People Big World and specials like World's Heaviest Man are about the lives of disabled individuals. They give healthy people a glimpse into the the daily hardships these subjects experience. Even though every television show's purpose is to be successful for material reasons, I am glad that they are doing something good at the same time. These shows are educating healthy Americans about things they do not know. I am hoping that this will make children (and even a lot of adults) think twice before they make an immature and cruel comment about disabled individuals faced with daily hardships they cannot control. I believe that humans are innately insensitive when they are uneducated and unfamiliar with disabled persons.

Some followers of TV Squad believe that Little People Big World exploits little people. Although I can see how people arrive at that accusation, I do believe that this show can only do more positive than negative. It shows how this family is just like yours and mine, with a few exceptions here and there. Forcing disabled people to hide in the shadows would only breed more cruelty because people are uncomfortable with what they do not understand.

Millionaire Matchmaker= not anti-feminist?

Season two of Millionaire Matchmaker just premiered two Thursdays ago. Matchmaker Patti Stranger offers this courting service to the millionaires who are having trouble finding "the one". Stranger's goal is to successfully "cure" these millionaires from their poor dating habits and to find their perfect mate suitable for marriage. The millionaires of this show were all men up until this season. I unfortunately did not get the chance to catch the millionairess episode.

Being that the majority of her millionaire clients are men, Stranger treats her women candidates as objects. She tells them to show cleavage, wear high heels and basically look absolutely flawless when they attend the meet-and-greets. In the season premier, she actually told one of these hopeless woman victims that she was too fat for the men and that she needed to lose weight before she was presentable. Let's keep in mind that these millionaire men are no prized pigs themselves. In fact, they are more-often-than-not narcissistic, thoughtless, older and unattractive. And you would think some of them have never seen a woman before! Of course, this is where Stranger whips them into shape and shows them how to properly woo a woman.

For the above reasons, I felt that a lot of women (and hopefully some men out there- the few that would even watch the show) would feel that Millionaire Matchmaker is incredibly anti-feminist. But I was surprised to find a few entries online that opposed my accusation- including an interview with Stranger herself. In an interview with Zap2It.com, Stranger states the following:

"'The rules never change. Men are men, and women are women," she says. "No matter how many times you think you're going to be equal to a man or you're going to become more the man, you're just going to emasculate the man. Then you're going to have a child on your hands. You really have to be a woman, a feminine woman. People think that's anti-feminist, but it's not.'"

In the rest of the interview, she defends this position more by saying that she believes a couple is the most successful if they assume their traditional gender roles. In other words, men will always be physical creatures, so women must be as physically appealing as possible in order to attract them.

After reading this interview with Stranger, I'm starting to see her point of view. Men do not have an anti-feminist mind. If they see a woman who is at least slightly sexually appealing they will seek her. If they are not intrigued, then they won't. This is how the world works, unfortunately. It's that plain and simple.

The upside to all of this is that Stranger does put these men in their place. If they are being an asshole or are seeking a woman way above their own level of attractiveness, she will call them out on it and tell them that they need to be more realistic in their expectations. At least we have SOME justification.