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.