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.

It's your fault that he's just not that into you...

Last weekend, I saw He's Just Not That Into You. I knew the reviews were not the best, but I was intrigued by the book's success. I've never personally read the book but nearly ALL of my girl friends have read it and swear that it changed their life for the better. To sum up my experience of the movie, I was very disappointed.

I was told by my friends that the book is supposed to be self-help. It's purpose is to make girls feel better about themselves and to know that the jerk that they're dating is the problem- not them. The movie makes all of the females look like naive idiots who have no game. Scarlett Johanson's character is just a plain slut who thinks the married man she's seeing would somehow be a great husband for HER one day. Jennifer Aniston's character has a common law marriage with a man who wants to be with her forever but not marry her for some reason (but at least she finally cracks). Drew Barrymore's character has no style and falls for men on myspace like a thirteen year old girl. Ginnifer Goodwin's character probably has the worst game compared to any other tragic female character in Hollywood.

All of the men in this movie justify their positions very well. They are to the point and barely dwell on their flaws. In fact, the screenwriters make them look calm, cool and collected. And of course all of the women go crazy. All they do is dwell on their jerk boyfriends and husbands. They also tell each other what THEY are doing wrong and how they need to change themselves in order for the men to like them. Eventually, most of the relationships turn out for the "better." But one of the relationships bothers me the most.

Actors Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck play the long term couple who have a common law marriage. Ben Affleck never doubts his affections for her, but he is absolutely terrified about actually marrying the woman he loves. They are actually broken up a majority of the film because of his noncommittal ways but eventually get back together. They get back together because Aniston's character submits to his marriage-less standards. However, the predictable script ends with Affleck surprising Aniston with a proposal. But in the proposal he admits that even though he doesn't believe in marriage, he is willing to basically do it just to make her happy. Even though this pacifies the non-analytical viewer, I think that these actions make Aniston just look like a high maintence character because Affleck's character never agrees that marriage is actually the right thing to do. He just submits and in turn, looks like a "sweet" boyfriend.

This movie oddly made me feel more pessimistic about men and marriage. It seems like they all just submit to marriage in order to make us shut up and stop bugging them. I thought the book was created to make men look like the idiots- not women. The movie had the opposite effect.

Russ Bickerstaff offers interesting facts and opinions about the book and movie in his article " Book vs. Movie: He's Just Not that Into You." It seems like this project was doomed from the start and that the actual male authors of the book aren't that into the readers.

Friends= almost progress

Friends is probably one of the most universally liked shows by my generation. I remember my friends and I would always argue about which Friends character everyone in our group of friends was. I think that is what made Friends so popular- everyone could see similar traits of themselves and their friends in several of the characters. They of course are all so lovable because of all of the shenanigans they get into. In Hana 30th connections' blog about friends, "Gender Representation in Friends- Mr. Daley", Hana surfaces examples that show how every character is a stereotype of their gender. However, Hana is fair in that he/she does give examples of moments when these beloved characters break away from their expected stereotype by showing traits of the other gender. In this blog, I included some of her points and some of my own.

The Ladies.
Monica is the neurotic, cleaning-obsessed, friend that's a chef. This stereotypes women as being innately neurotic and that they should take a house-wife role as cook and cleaner. Monica also used to be overweight when her character was younger. By loosing an incredible amount of weight, this tells girls that they should always be pencil-thin. However, Monica breaks away from the typical woman stereotype because she is opinionated, stubborn, competitive and quite successful in her line of work as a chef. Basically, she is not the demure woman who is afraid to talk back to men. Rachel is the most normal girl of the bunch. She is your typical girl-next-store who is likable, not too intelligent, beautiful, popular, and a waitress who eventually lands her dream job as a buyer at Ralph Lauren. Rachel probably fits into the typical female stereotype the most. She is sweet and loves shopping. She is also not very smart. Her character is non-threatening to men because she is not that successful. She is also quite thin and beautiful. Again, like Monica, she goes against the female stereotype by sticking up for herself when encountered by opposition. She also is not the traditional homemaker and also decided that she wanted to be a single mother. Phoebe is the eccentric masseuse who almost borders on mentally deranged. She is not mentally present the entire run of the show. Phoebe fits the female stereotype by being quite naive, sensitive, and unintelligent. She goes against the stereotype by being openly promiscuous with men and by being carefree about her appearance. Although she is attractive and wears makeup, her clothes are always on the interesting side. She tends to do whatever she wants; she usually does not answer to anyone.

The Boys.
Chandler is the sarcastic, joke-cracking, disgruntled businessman. He fits the male stereotype by being immature and afraid of commitment. He goes against his stereotype by revealing that he is incredibly insecure and sometimes jealous. Ross is nerdy, three-times divorced and a paleontologist. He fits the male stereotype by also being rather immature, insensitive to women, and successful in his career. Ross goes against the stereotype by having a tendency to complain (usually associated with women) and also by crying in one episode. Ross seems to be tuned-in with his feminine side the most out of all of the men. Joey is the struggling actor who loves to eat. He fits his stereotype by fixating mostly on food and women. He is also incredibly immature and childlike. He goes against his stereotype by being one of the more unintelligent characters television has ever seen. He also does not have a very secure line of work.

Overall, I believe the creator of Friends laid a good foundation for our generation to look beyond the expected stereotypes created centuries before.

Gran Torino a.k.a. White Clint's Burden

Two weeks ago, I saw Gran Torino in theaters. In this film, racial slurs are used so often that they become a form of endearment. I definitely stopped cringing after hour one. Besides the predictable storyline, I suppose this film was somewhat enjoyable. But Gran Torino did teach me that the white man (at least Clint) still feels a burden to teach non-whites how live successful lives in a civilized society. And if they are unteachable- they must be eliminated.

Gran Torino attempts to tell a story about a crotchety, racist, white man who befriends his Hmong neighbors after he saves their son from the wrath of the local Hmong gang. After he is showered with gifts (which is blown out of proportion), he feels obligated to attend his neighbor's party. There, he realizes that actually likes these "gooks" and finds similarities between himself and these non-whites. In other words, Clint's racism (although still present in his everyday speech) slowly digresses throughout the movie. He feels an obligation (either through annoyance or actual sympathy-- it's hard to say) to help this family. And boy do they need help: The girl nor the boy can't stand up for themselves, they can't fix a leaky pipe, the boy doesn't know how to get a job on his own, and NO Hmong knows how to do yard work or basic house maintenance. Whites are the only people with money in this movie. Clint's entire white family is obviously well off (yet lacking love-- so sad). And apparently the boy's family can't even afford to buy him tools for his new job because Clint buys them.

Besides Clint's neighbors, all of the non-whites in the movie are "the bad guys". This includes the main Hmong gang who terrorizes the community, the two African-American gang members, and the Hispanic gang members in the beginning. Every non-white in this movie is in a gang! Where are the white gangs? I'm sure they exist if all whites have similar racism as Clint and his Caucasian friends. Clint's white family is well off and successful- they only have rebellious teenagers. The other white young person is a boy who when flirting with the main Hmong family's daughter is encountered by the African-American gang members. Of course, Clint saves the day by scaring off the African-Americans. But the only thing he says to the white boy is "What are you doing here?". Obviously, this good American white boy does not belong in this tough neighborhood filled with non-whites.

Renee (not me) writes about Gran Torino in her blog Womanist Musings: "I continuously marvelled how Eastwood's character was able to assume such a position of superiority based solely in race and have this premise accepted by every single person of colour that he interacted with. " She reveals how Clint's superiority as a white male grounds the movie's plot. How could he teach this non-white family how to be successful "Americans" if they didn't look up to him? How could even SAVE this family from their morbid destiny if they didn't trust him nor ask him for help? Clint also had to detach himself from his own whiteness in order to help this doomed family. He alienates himself from his white family and white priest. He kills himself in the end in order to save this family. He knew he was going to die anyway, so he had nothing to lose by sacrificing his own life. This symbolizes that whites are alive and human-- and non-whites are naturally dead and not human. He had to die in order to give these dead, non-whites a chance to be alive.

Although highly entertaining at some moments, this film fails to stray from common stereotypes already seen in Hollywood about non-whites. It strengthens the stereotype that non-whites can only be American and alive with help from whites.

Everybody Loves Raymond...Not Debra

Since my last few blogs have been about how women have been constantly stereotyped, I thought I'd try to do a blog about men! It's rare- but men are indeed stereotyped in Hollywood. An interesting and different perspective can be read in Jake Brennan's (Askmen.com writer) article "Has Male Bashing Gone Too Far?". He has a theory that there is a current market for "guy" characters (the stupid, lazy, unromantic version of the actual male) in Hollywood. He mentions the character Raymond in Everybody Loves Raymond as one of the perfect "guy" examples. Brennan's article is quite convincing because he surfaces that women are hypocritical beause we love this "guy" stereotype and yet we hate it when women are stereotyped. Although, I am sympathetic for Brennan and other men (not "guys"), I feel that the character Debra in Everybody Loves Raymond is an even worse stereotype for women. This is because she's a bitch. But I'll start with Raymond first...

Raymond is the stupid, dorky, lazy husband who happens to be wedded to the beautiful know-it-all wife Debra. Raymond is constantly getting himself into trouble: when he eats his mother's cooking after he eats Debra's or when he mistakenly tapes over his wedding ceremony with a football game. He means well- he's just stupid and lost without his wife. But it's all Raymond's fault at the end of the day. The audience knows this and also knows that Raymond is not malicious. So of COURSE we love Raymond. But do we like naive Raymond or the know-it-all Debra more?

I personally like Raymond more. Even though he stereotypes the average man to be selfish, lazy, and dumb, he is more likable. Hence the title Everybody LOVES Raymond. What would the title be if it was the exact same show- but focused on Debra? It would be Everyone HATES Debra. I naturally don't like Debra because she's controlling, emotional, overly-critical, and just plain bitchy. Even though she is smarter than Raymond (a plus for women) she is hard to like because she is constantly yelling. Even though I have been in similar situations as her and sympathize, I do not feel like her bi-polar tendencies are ever justified. And as an audience, we get the impression that she is just plain crazy because she is yelling one minute and then crying in the next. And as I woman, I have never needed "a good cry" for no reason (this is the subject for an entire episode). Trust me men, we are not all like that!

I know my purpose was to write about how men are stereotyped and this just turned into another "woman post". I'll find a better example ASAP.

The Real "Housewives"

The never-ending Housewives series on Bravo: staged/instigated drama, bling, and the... wifely duties? It's interesting that the word "Housewives" is apart of the title- because I think viewers see more designer clothing than housewife interaction between husbands and children. Simply put, this show's purpose is to make viewers angry and jealous over the shallow drama that seems to be the symptom of all housewives in the United States. And the title should really include the word wealthy in it- because every housewife is at least a millionaire. Unfortunately, the term "housewife" had negative stereotypes long before this show. And this show EXPLODES these stereotypes.

In the first season of The Real Housewives of New York City, Jill's shining "housewife" moment is when she storms out of designer Luca Luca's runway show because she was not given front row seats. From the same season, "housewife" Countess Luann chooses having a night life over spending her evenings with her children- despite the pleas of her 10-year old son. In the current season of The Real Housewives of Orange County, "housewife" Gretchen (who is technically not even a wife yet- she's only engaged) is remembered as the woman who enjoys vacationing, shopping, and flirting while her loaded fiancé dies in the hospital. Bravo is obviously only concerend with entertaining their audiences. Reinforcing and even strengthening the housewife stereotype seems to be far from their conscience. Associated Contenet writer JM Kellam makes an interesting point in his article "The Women of the Real Housewives of New York City": "The women on The Real Housewives of New York City all have their own jobs and, as far as I can tell, their own maids. So why would they allow Bravo to title them 'housewives?'" This seems to be present in every season and in every different city. Again, Bravo is desperate to find a group of dramatic, rich women.

Even though I am sure many viewers have noticed that Bravo has stretched the term housewife to include these women, this show is still imprinting into viewer's minds that this is how ALL housewives behave. I also believe that expanding the show to cover three different locations has only worsened the reputation for the normal housewife. This influences viewers to believe that if women from three different locations in the United States act exactly the same- then this must be the personality of all housewives.

I was not aware of the damage Bravo has done to my generation until I was having a conversation with one of my friends. We were talking about whether we would ever consider being (or having) a housewife. My male friend said the following: "I wouldn't mind, but she would have to be useful. I wouldn't want her to sit around eating bon-bons all day and watching soap operas." When I questioned him why he felt that all women would automatically be lazy instead of productive, he said: "Well that's all I see on TV. If she actually cleaned, cooked, and took care of children- then I would be fine with that."

Even before this show aired, I remember encountering similar situations growing up. My teachers and coaches would always ask me why my mother couldn't constantly volunteer. When I would say she was busy, they would say almost the exact same thing as my friend- "Busy watching Soap Operas?" Little did they know that she was busy taking care of my severly disabled brother. My mother recently told me that she understands why a lot of women choose to work instead of taking care of their children. She said its because working is a LOT easier than taking care of your children all day.

I really hope this series doesn't last much longer because its just ruining the already ruined reputation of the "housewife."

The Great Disney Princess Role Model

Growing up, my idols where the Disney Princesses. They are probably the reason why I wanted to be a in musical theater (my first play: Peter Pan at 13- coincidence?). Everything about them seemed so perfect: beautiful, thin, musical, the center of attention, and adored by gorgeous heart-throbs. While I was still sweet and cute, I convinced my parents to buy nearly every Disney Princess film. I even bought Sleeping Beauty with my own money as a teenager. I can probably recite every song and dialogue in the Disney Princess "collection". I think its easy to say that the Disney Princesses probably constructed a lot of my views on love and how to be the perfect woman.

Good thing reality hit when I actually started dating in high school. I finally learned how men (boys) really are. I also learned how lame it would be to actually model my life after these princesses. Although I still have a soft place in my heart for these movies, I want to analyze a few things that I feel parents should question when subjecting young girls to these fantasies.

1. Snow White: The character Snow White probably wins the award for "Damsel in Distress" out of all the Disney Princesses. When overwhelmed, she flops herself down onto the ground and cries. She is oblivious to evil (her scary stepmother and poisonous fruit). And she only sings about housework and meeting her future prince. Not to mention- she is a great house cleaner and "mother" to the seven dwarfs. She then marries the first man who kisses her! Off to start her REAL life...

Lesson to girls: Sing, marry the first man you see, and take shady fruit from scary strangers.

2. Beauty and the Beast: According to Kathy Maio's article "Women, race and culture in Disney's Movies", Disney promised its viewers that they would present a more progressive female role model. But the only real improvement to Belle is that she loves to read. One positive is that she does stand up for herself: she does not accept Beast's aggression and she does not fall for the town heart-throb Geston (but he is rather stupid so its understandable). The big problem with Belle is that she sets herself out to change her captor Beast. As Maio points out, a real modern-day Belle would actually be a battered woman than a positive miracle worker.

Lesson to girls: Never attempt to escape from your abusive male companions and it is YOUR job to change them.

And please remember, there are many more examples of these weak female traits in EVERY Disney Princess. Perhaps its in Disney's best interest that they have taken a break from the Princess films.

Skanks in the City

I have always had mixed feelings about HBO's hit series (and movie) Sex and the City. On the one hand, you have a highly entertaining show about women who essentially get what they want. And they want money, successful careers, close friends, and lots and LOTS of sex. Or do they want love? Or sex and love? I'm still not exactly sure- even after I walked out of the movie.

Creators of this show give audiences the impression that this a show about the modern-day, independent woman. The show progresses date-by-date. And lunch-by-lunch. Apparently the modern-day woman is constantly on the prowl for men- or else she is considered a prude. In fact, the character Charlotte is portrayed as the "good girl" because she strives for marriage and a family. Let's remember that Charlotte has had her good share of" sexcapades". Not to mention, I have no idea how all of these women can be so successful in their professional careers because all of their free time is consumed by men: shopping for their dates, lunching while chatting about their dates, and finally- DATING.

Even though having promiscuous sex and successful careers are definitely qualities of an independent woman, this show gives audiences the impression that ALL women are obsessed with men! These characters are fashioned to be the ideal model of the modern, independent women- so women of all ages can aspire to be like them. However, if the ideal independent woman is consumed by men, then ALL women must be consumed by men. That is not liberating at all.

Shelton Hull's 2003 article "Modern Woman as Love Machine: The Post-Feminist Landscape, as Projected by 'Sex and the City'" exposes great specific examples of why this show should not be a role model for any female of any age.

50 First Dates: Lazy Hawaiians and fun brain injuries

Set in picturesque Hawaii, 50 First Dates is just another unapologetic Adam Sandler movie. Even though I do enjoy a good parody, this film just explodes the stereotypes of native Hawaiians. In Michael Tsai's article "Pidgin Holed" from The Honolulu Advertiser, Tsai explains the all-to-familiar Hawaiian stereotypes occurring in this movie: " To varying degrees, these films demonstrate that Hollywood is more than willing to resort to familiar perceptions of the Islands as places of lush natural beauty, populated (sparsely) by large, lazy people who sing, dance, play and eat but, oddly, don't work very much."

These all-to-common stereotypes of native Hawaiians are nothing compared to the character Ula (pictured above: actor Rob Schneider). Ula is a pot-smoking, washed-up, Pidgin-speaking native. The caricature Ula is of course Sandler's scheming side kick in 50 First Dates (he needs one in every film). In Tsai's article, he mentions how several viewers felt that Schneider's Pidgin language was incredibly over-the-top because it did not resemble Hawaiian Pidgin in the least bit (contained elements of Spanish and Native American). Sandler (or Hollywood) obviously supports looking for as many cheap laughs as possible.

What surprised me most about this article was a comment by Kirk Uyezu, a Hawaiian native who saw the film. He felt the film was exaggerated, but he was not exactly offended as Hawaiian:

"'They seemed more like North Shore types,' he said. 'I could see them being like that.'

And Ula?

'I think he's more like what someone from the Mainland would think locals are like.'"

Instead of being offended, Uyezu assumed 50 First Dates was not making fun of him- but OTHER Hawaiians. So of course, this makes it OK? Funny for Uyezu- but not for the North Shore types he speaks of? Unfortunately, mainland Americans are not smart enough to think that Hollywood was only making fun of a specific group of Hawaiians- we assume ALL Hawaiians are like that. And I'm sure Hollywood wasn't making fun of just group of Hawaiians....

This brings me to the brain injury jokes in this movie. I saw this film before someone in my family had a brain injury. I did find parts of this movie insensitive (i.e. Ten Second Tom) but I did find the movie entertaining overall. I then saw the movie after someone in my family had a brain injury and I couldn't watch it all the way through. Uyezu's comment and my second viewing of the film made me realize that humans are only offended by things that we have personally experienced. As unfortunate as this is, I wish it wasn't true. And I have heard a friend of mine say "If f we can't make fun of that group of people nor that group of people- who can we make fun of?"

What is the best kind of comedy? I have a feeling it will always offend someone. I guess making fun of specific people who are inherently evil is OK- but I'm sure the rest of the world would quickly become bored.

Mad Men: Excuse for sexism and racism? Or reality?

I have recently become addicted to AMC's Mad Men. This drama is appealing to me because of its writing and historical documentation. Part of that historical documentation includes the racism and sexism that existed in 1960s. I have read several blogs (particularly HighJive's post on Racilicious) that express frustration with Mad Men because they believe this show is simply racist and sexist without any social commentary. Even though I do agree with these blogger's that this show is just about white America in the 1960s, I do NOT believe this show is racist and sexist only for entertainment purposes. I believe creator Matthew Weiner wants to factually depict the lives of these Advertising executives.

This television show does not go one episode without a racial slur or ass-grab. Int the third episode, the co-workers of the character Peter Campbell paid a Chinese family to surprise Campbell in his office. The family was wearing stereotypical Chinese clothing and had a chicken with them as well. Everyone in the office (all white) thought this was a great practical joke. As awful as this joke is, Mad Men has received wide praise because of its truthful account of racism and sexism in the 1960s. Jerry Della Femina worked as a copywriter during this era and founded his own agency. Wikipedia quotes Femina's reception of the show: "[Mad Men] 'accurately reflects what went on. The smoking, the prejudice and the bigotry.'"

Although 99% of the racism and sexism is met without any objection from any characters in the first season, the first episode of the second season foreshadows the social revolution soon to come in this era. In the picture above, the character Paul Kinsey is introducing his African-American girlfriend to his white, ex-girlfriend Joan Holloway. The scene ends with Joan upsetting Kinsey's current girlfriend by revealing her racism. Even though the scene ends with racism, Kinsey confronts Joan later in the episode and expresses his anger for her behavior.

The episode above definitely contains social commentary. It may not be as direct as some bloggers would like to see, but I believe that scenes speak for themselves without any direct commentary. Even in the first season when every instance of sexual harrassement and bigotry is met without objection or obvious commentary, it shows viewers how far we have socially progressed. This show has showed me a glimpse of what life was like in the 1960s without any censoring. I believe that showing viewers (particularly younger generations who did not live in this era) how things really were is more beneficial than ignoring the issue because it is too depressing. Even though racism and sexism will probably always exist, it teaches viewers why things are the way they are. And why people are still racist and sexist. If we can learn as much as we can about how life really was back then, it can help progressive people understand how to improve these social conditions that still exist.

Shallow Hollywood

Bobby and Peter Farelly's 2001 romantic comedy Shallow Hal seemed like a revolutionary idea: forcing men to looking beyond the physical appearances of women and appreciating them for their beautiful souls. With a very classical Hollywood narrative structure, Shallow Hal has an exposition, conflict, climax and harmonious happy ending: the spell over Hal to see "unattractive" women as physically beautiful is broken and he embraces that he is in love with obese Rosemary by deciding to marry her.

While this film is simple in structure and has the appearance of ridiculing shallow men instead of "unattractive" people (mostly women), Shallow Hal actually leaves audiences with the impression that conventional physical attraction is incredibly important and necessary in order to have a fulfilling love life. While nearly all of the "unattractive" characters in this movie have exaggerated make-up, we are expected as an audience to laugh at these portrayals. These overweight and "unattractive" characters actually exist in society. And most of the general population do not consider themselves to be perfect by any standard. This film explodes the fact that if you are not 5'10", super-model thin, nor flawlessly beautiful like Gwenyth Paltrow- you are SCREWED. Actually, you are only screwed until everyone else is put under a spell which makes you out to be a lot more attractive than you really are. This film gives audiences the impression that physical attraction is the only important thing to men when seeking a mate.

The hypocrisy of this film can be rather confusing. This is because the Farley brothers are either trying to get us to simply laugh at their movie OR they want to show the audience that we too are shallow. The Australian nineMSN website MovieFix has a great variety of opinions of this film that show you how this film is either respected, hated, or a mix of both. As for myself, I'm not really sure how I feel about this movie now after reading those reviews.

The Failure of Monster's Ball

Monster's Ball, directed by Marc Forster, attempted to analyze the ethical dilemma of the modern-day "slave" in the United States. In other words, Forster wanted to present the lasting effects of slavery on the social condition of present day African Americans. However, the film limited itself of such analysis by shifting from discussing ethical dilemmas to moral dilemmas in order to make this film Oscar worthy.

Monster's Ball touches upon to the "non-existence" of the African-American in everyday society. For example, there are several bird-eye view shots when Leticia and Tyrell see Lawrence for the last time before his execution (an African-American family). This represents how the African-American is trapped and cannot climb the paradigm to a better position. Also, Lawrence can never escape enclosure because he is constantly surrounded by prison walls, prison bars, prison guards, or is filmed on security cameras. From just these few examples, it is obvious that this film could have had great potential of surfacing these modern day issues but decided to shift to the less confrontational moral dilemmas.

Once Lawrence and Tyrell have died, Letitica finds herself needing the company of Hank- a white, racist, ex-prison guard. She needs him for a number of reasons: money, emotional support, and sex. Forster tries to disguise all of these reasons with love. In the middle of the movie, Hank's father (also racist) offends Leticia and she decides to avoid Hank for a time being. She eventually needs him again once she is evicted from her home and he invites her to live with him. Toward the end of the movie, Hank tells Leticia that he is going to take care of her. She says "Good. Cuz' I need to be taken care of." This proves that the film does not antagonize African-American's relation to the world- it supports it. It furthers the notion that the white "human" will always be superior to the black "non-human". Once Leticia finds out that Hank was actually one of the prison guards who executed her husband, she is initially upset but eventually submits to him and does not say anything. In the final scene (picture above), Hank feeds Leticia ice cream- representing his ownership of her. This film gives audiences the impression that blacks need whites in order to "make it".

Frank B. Wilderson III was a past teacher of mine who taught African American Drama in Film. This film was one of his primary examples of the social condition of African-Americans but agrees that it failed to bring up anything revolutionary to audiences. In his book Red, White & Black, Wilderson describes the scene when Leticia beings sobbing uncontrollably about her dead son Tyrell and his low position in society:

"I didn't want him to be fat like that...'cause I know a Black man in America- you can't be like that" (2). She then bursts into uncontrollable sobbing while Hank says in a dumbfounded manner "I'm not sure what you want me to do" (3). Wilderson explains why this potentially ethical dilemma immediately turns into a moral dilemma: "...Hank's...'I'm not sure what you want me to do' has the effect of a punctuation mark on...Leticia's stream of consciousness, it snaps them both back into their roles" (3).

The truth that IS surfaced in this film is that bi-racial Leticia and white Hank can only be together as long as they avoid analyzing their structures in society.

"Bridezillas" ravages views on women.

I admit that I have seen my share of "Bridezillas" episodes. Like most reality TV, its ridiculous theme and subjects grabbed me for at least two seasons. Once it became obvious that the subjects were purposely Bridezillas for the sake of getting filmed (i.e. physically and mentally abusing their finacés and family) I was immediately turned off. I'm assuming its both contrived and encouraged by the producers. Every bride on that show is encouraged to be as ugly as possible for the entertainment of viewers.

Before this show, brides already had a negative reputation for being difficult when planning their wedding. While this maybe true for a lot of brides because of the stress experienced when planning a wedding, this show explodes that negative perspective on women. FlickFilosopher critic MaryAnn Johanson gives her two-cents about this tasteless show in her review of its 1st Season: "Yeah, more than one of these women uses the dread word “princess,” even the ones who are high-powered stockbrokers, and you’ll want to smack every damn one of them for throwing the concept of feminism back about half a century." She also mentions how "Bridezillas" gave white, upper-class New Yorkers a bad image (most of the subjects in the first season). (Un)luckily, WE eventually gives brides of every race and social status an equal opportunity to look like morons. Basically, "Bridezillas" makes every WOMAN look like a moron. Not to mention, the "Bridezillas" forum almost completely consists of angry and shocked responses of viewers who are obviously in the dark about the $2500 and fifteen minutes of fame the brides receive for their performance. Sadly, this is the most popularly viewed TV wedding show in America.

As a woman, this show offends me more than a man asking me if PMS is to blame for my bad mood. This show just gives men more of a reason to think that all women are born insane. These women make viewers believe that they live in a fantasy world and have the emotional maturity of a child. Even though women are naturally more emotional than men, Bridezillas takes it too far and makes me almost embarrassed to be female. I hope WE makes up for this by creating more shows about women who are controlled by their brains instead of their feelings.

Where the "Hick" Is

Last week, Where the Heart Is happened to be on TV and I decided to revisit this embarrassingly guilty pleasure. For those of you who don't know, this 2000 film takes place in the American south: first Tennessee and eventually Oklahoma, where the majority of the action is occurs. Based on the popular 1995 novel by Bellie Letts, screenplay writer Lowell Ganz and director Matt Williams inappropriately take advantage of the southern location and depend on the exploitation of the southern hick stereotype for the majority of the entertainment in this film.

Every native southerner in this film is the exact definition of a stupid and low-class hick. And everyone who has a brain in this film has a standard American accent and is NOT from the south. For example, main character Novalee (Natalie Portman) finds herself in the town library researching on how to take care of a plant because she was obviously too stupid to keep it alive. The frazzled librarian Forney (James Frain) becomes frustrated when he realized Novalee does not know what an index is and could barely read above a first grade level. In less than 30 seconds, Forney multitasks by helping Novalee sound out words, shows her the index, while responding to the demands of his sick sister. When Novalee inquires about Forney to a town native, he tells her that Forney is from Main and was going to a very prestigious college before he dropped out and came to Oklahoma to take care of his sick sister. This person literally says that Forney is too smart for this town and figures that he will leave as soon as his sister dies to finish college and pursue a more challenging career. This disparity between educated northerners and slow southerners is one of many examples of how filmakers stereotype southerners. Another example is in a scene with actress Joan Cusack who plays the blunt music agent Ruth Meyers. Character Willy Jack Pickens (Dylan Bruno), the father of Novalee's child, pursues a music career after he ditches Novalee. When he encounters Ruth Meyers (another non-southerner) and tells her his name is Willy Jack Pickens, she says "I bet you didn't even have to make that up, did you?" (IMBD.com). This response implies that he is the epitome of a stupid hick because he even has the perfect stereotypical hick name to go with his lack of brain cells. In fact, every hick character in this film as a hick name: Novalee Nation, Lexie Coop (Ashley Judd), Thelma 'Sister' Husband (Stockard Channing), Mama Lil' (Sally Field), and Americus Nation (Mackenzie Fitzgerald).

The Filthy Critic, who gives us the impression that he is a Southerner, writes his angry and uncensored critique of this film on his website. Entertainment Weekly film critic Own Gleiberman mentions in his review of this film that this is just another movie about "poor white...southern characters". See for yourself the results of using a stereotype for the entertainment of an unsuspecting target audience.