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.'"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.