One of the assignments of this course was to go to the Hawai'i International Film Festival. Unfortunately I was unable to complete this assignment so as an alternative assignment I attended a movie at the Movie Museum in Kaimuki.
Depending on which direction your coming from, the Movie Museum is located in a small shopping plaza off of Harding and 12th avenues right past the Cheveron station which would be on your right if you are heading up Harding east towards Kahala. Anyhow, tucked away in on the ground floor of the building which borders Harding Ave. is this hidden jewel on the mauka side -haha I'm so mocal.
Forgetting to check the schedule of what movie was showing when I headed to the Movie Museum to watch a flick on Sat. night solo. What a movie alone is a peculiar thing but if you're going to do it that way . . . this is the place. On saturday, "Somewhere" showed which features Stephen Dorf and Elle Fanning. The film is was directed by Sofia Coppola and is about a Hollywood actor who attempts to reconcile fatherhood with a life of promiscuity and partying.
For more information regarding the film consult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somewhere_(film)
Otherwise, the movie is well put together although it is a slow as a sloth so if you're expecting to be engaged, don't. Honestly, there are a few hilarious scenes which deal with synchronized pole-dancers but otherwise the film addresses the actors daily life in a rather blah fashion. With that said, I suppose if you're looking to do a cynamtic critique of this film it might be interesting considering technique, production code, etc but as a whole the film offers little viewing pleasure unless you emphasize male gaze and the pleasure of viewing beautiful unclad women - the film shows a bit of skin. In this sense, the movie is very Hollywood as -thinking in terms of Mulvey- it captures male gaze -interesting because it is produced by a woman.
Lastly, the movie was a bore so instead of watching it -whoever may read this- I suggest you check out the movie museum as it is a spot that will keep you coming back . . . its BYOB and you can also eat in the small theater. There are four rows of maybe 6? seats so its very small and offers very comfortable reclining chairs. As well you can reserve tickets or the whole theater for parties and events . . . not much space but still a cool place to rent, drink, and watch a movie.
Here is a link with the Movie Museum schedule, address, etc:
http://www.kaimukihawaii.com/d/c/movie-museum.html
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Downtown Girls
I recently rewatched "Downtown Girls" which is a film that I had seen on HPU some odd years ago in addition to watching it in some of my anthro courses at HPU. After a few years of not seeing this film I had forgotten about it yet it inspired me to think about the film in terms of its role in academia.
Currently I am enrolled in teaching techniques with Dr. Whitfield and curriculm is only one of the many topics which we have addressed in this course. For that matter, I have considered "Downtown Girls" as an artifact and its applicability and appropriateness to the classroom.
As of now, I think the film -regressing to my undergrad days- was a useful and exciting artifact -don't get the wrong idea- as it was atypical because of it's divergent nature -oh the implications. Anyhow, while writing another paper I stumbled through my documents and found an assigment I had written on the movie in Anhro 3823 - Taboos.
Reading through this paper apparently I selected my own assignment and did not write according to the assignment which is evident in the following text. Otherwise, after going through Whitfields course and thinking about what to incorporate and what not to incorporate in the classroom I think I would use this material for it exposes very interesting aspects of our culture. Not importantly this is what I wrote for that class:
Gray Space: Between the ears and between the thighs
"Knowingly the assignment is to write about chapters 9-10 of Monsters yet that is not of my interest thus my critique to implication surrounding “Downtown Girls”. My interest is not so much the film itself rather the question which you asked us: “Is this film appropriate, inappropriate, and how does it relate to the concept of taboo?”
In response to your question my answer is yes, yes that “Downtown Girls” is appropriate and does illicit every possibly implication of taboo. More so, is that the content of this film is not outrageous contextually for that our supposed critique is that of academia. In principle, academia, in theory, should be the institution which perpetuates challenge to and expansion of the mind. On this note, in light of Christendom, this film may have been challenging to those of little experience beyond the picturesque nature of what it means to be a secularized conservative American. Likewise, because this film was “challenging” it commands display in light that it is an address more of the construction of “institutional thought products” –the student- rather than the material portrayed.
With this in mind, material such as “Downtown Girls” is priceless as it exercises the student psychologically and poses important sociological questions –how do institutional inequalities manifest? Etc. I’ve studied Cabrillo College and UCSC in California, at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, La Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica and HPU and it is in the context where a professor challenges the student where learning occurs, not through the de rigueur courses bound by the institutions’ conservative nature."
Currently I am enrolled in teaching techniques with Dr. Whitfield and curriculm is only one of the many topics which we have addressed in this course. For that matter, I have considered "Downtown Girls" as an artifact and its applicability and appropriateness to the classroom.
As of now, I think the film -regressing to my undergrad days- was a useful and exciting artifact -don't get the wrong idea- as it was atypical because of it's divergent nature -oh the implications. Anyhow, while writing another paper I stumbled through my documents and found an assigment I had written on the movie in Anhro 3823 - Taboos.
Reading through this paper apparently I selected my own assignment and did not write according to the assignment which is evident in the following text. Otherwise, after going through Whitfields course and thinking about what to incorporate and what not to incorporate in the classroom I think I would use this material for it exposes very interesting aspects of our culture. Not importantly this is what I wrote for that class:
Gray Space: Between the ears and between the thighs
"Knowingly the assignment is to write about chapters 9-10 of Monsters yet that is not of my interest thus my critique to implication surrounding “Downtown Girls”. My interest is not so much the film itself rather the question which you asked us: “Is this film appropriate, inappropriate, and how does it relate to the concept of taboo?”
In response to your question my answer is yes, yes that “Downtown Girls” is appropriate and does illicit every possibly implication of taboo. More so, is that the content of this film is not outrageous contextually for that our supposed critique is that of academia. In principle, academia, in theory, should be the institution which perpetuates challenge to and expansion of the mind. On this note, in light of Christendom, this film may have been challenging to those of little experience beyond the picturesque nature of what it means to be a secularized conservative American. Likewise, because this film was “challenging” it commands display in light that it is an address more of the construction of “institutional thought products” –the student- rather than the material portrayed.
With this in mind, material such as “Downtown Girls” is priceless as it exercises the student psychologically and poses important sociological questions –how do institutional inequalities manifest? Etc. I’ve studied Cabrillo College and UCSC in California, at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, La Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica and HPU and it is in the context where a professor challenges the student where learning occurs, not through the de rigueur courses bound by the institutions’ conservative nature."
Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America
From the Closet to the Loft and Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America share a common element: hybridity. Although From the Closest to the Loft does not explore Spanglish or Spanglish as does the other article, it establishes a platform for the discussion of cultural blending and offers an ideological critique of how marginalization occurs between a heteronormative domgroup and homosexual subgroup.
With this in mind, I’ve selected both articles because hybridity as a theoretical tool can be used to examine other phenomena in a similar way to how I have used hybridity theory to examine Spanglish and Spanglish as linguistic and cultural phenomenon. Take for example the following quotation “the Loft serves to contain queers, and especially queer sexuality, in order to protect the social mainstream from the supposed danger posed by queer “contamination”. In the case of the Queer Eye, this containment is accomplished through a ritual formula that inverts the traditional sequence characteristic of rites of passage. This inversion grants the show’s protagonists permission to enter temporarily the heterosexual mainstream only to be relegated to the Loft’s cultural, geographical, and sexual exile by each episodes end” (Foss, 2009, p. 247).
In Spanglish (2004) a similar code for production is followed but the framing is different. In Spanglish, Flor and Cristina Moreno are two undocumented Mexican immigrants who have moved to California to live the dream. Once Flor leaves the barrio and looks for work in White America and is hired by Deborah Clasky –the first instance of cultural blending evident in the film – the audience is witness to the same phenomena that is portrayed in Queer Eye, i.e. now that Flor is out of the barrio and in white territory as an “other” she is quickly picked from the street and put into a white home to be normalized and this is the same function which the loft serves. For the men who star in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy once they interact with straight America they are placed into a “loft” which serves as a categorical safe place which reinforces Heteronormativity; the Clasky’s home and the fact that Flor get hired normalizes her in terms of whiteness and makes her “safe” just as the loft does to these gay men, it makes them safe.
Further, Spanglish, Spanglish, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and hybridity have another point in common which is that after each subgroup –gay men and Latina immigrants- are marginalized and put into their proper “safe” box, each group is removed from center stage and exiled to their loft after temporarily interacted with heterosexual and white America. An interesting parallel to draw between the two artifacts to further demonstrate what is common between the two productions is that in the Queer Eye by the end of the show the men are removed and watch the success of their work on a screen removed from the hetero context as voyeurs. In Spanglish by the end of the film a similar phenomenon occurs: Flor quits her job and takes Cristina out of private school to move from Beverly Hills back to the Barrio while Cristina narrates the final scenes of the movie. What this brings attention to is that both subgroups are marginalized and reduced to voyeurs, only witness to what occurs on center stage while they watch from the fringes.
Likewise, because both subgroups are depicted in a limited and temporary sense attention should be given to such roles as critiques From the Closet to the Loft; although the normalization of these groups requires they enter the spotlight these roles do not integrate them rather quite the opposite bringing attention to my last point. That is, Hollywood and the producers of such shows follow a narrow code of production which is obviously heteronormative and white which leaves little room for anyone else yet that is a whole different discussion which I do not care to elaborate upon at this point.
Dean, C., & Leibsohn, D. (2003). Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America*. Colonial Latin American Review, 12(1), 5. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
With this in mind, I’ve selected both articles because hybridity as a theoretical tool can be used to examine other phenomena in a similar way to how I have used hybridity theory to examine Spanglish and Spanglish as linguistic and cultural phenomenon. Take for example the following quotation “the Loft serves to contain queers, and especially queer sexuality, in order to protect the social mainstream from the supposed danger posed by queer “contamination”. In the case of the Queer Eye, this containment is accomplished through a ritual formula that inverts the traditional sequence characteristic of rites of passage. This inversion grants the show’s protagonists permission to enter temporarily the heterosexual mainstream only to be relegated to the Loft’s cultural, geographical, and sexual exile by each episodes end” (Foss, 2009, p. 247).
In Spanglish (2004) a similar code for production is followed but the framing is different. In Spanglish, Flor and Cristina Moreno are two undocumented Mexican immigrants who have moved to California to live the dream. Once Flor leaves the barrio and looks for work in White America and is hired by Deborah Clasky –the first instance of cultural blending evident in the film – the audience is witness to the same phenomena that is portrayed in Queer Eye, i.e. now that Flor is out of the barrio and in white territory as an “other” she is quickly picked from the street and put into a white home to be normalized and this is the same function which the loft serves. For the men who star in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy once they interact with straight America they are placed into a “loft” which serves as a categorical safe place which reinforces Heteronormativity; the Clasky’s home and the fact that Flor get hired normalizes her in terms of whiteness and makes her “safe” just as the loft does to these gay men, it makes them safe.
Further, Spanglish, Spanglish, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and hybridity have another point in common which is that after each subgroup –gay men and Latina immigrants- are marginalized and put into their proper “safe” box, each group is removed from center stage and exiled to their loft after temporarily interacted with heterosexual and white America. An interesting parallel to draw between the two artifacts to further demonstrate what is common between the two productions is that in the Queer Eye by the end of the show the men are removed and watch the success of their work on a screen removed from the hetero context as voyeurs. In Spanglish by the end of the film a similar phenomenon occurs: Flor quits her job and takes Cristina out of private school to move from Beverly Hills back to the Barrio while Cristina narrates the final scenes of the movie. What this brings attention to is that both subgroups are marginalized and reduced to voyeurs, only witness to what occurs on center stage while they watch from the fringes.
Likewise, because both subgroups are depicted in a limited and temporary sense attention should be given to such roles as critiques From the Closet to the Loft; although the normalization of these groups requires they enter the spotlight these roles do not integrate them rather quite the opposite bringing attention to my last point. That is, Hollywood and the producers of such shows follow a narrow code of production which is obviously heteronormative and white which leaves little room for anyone else yet that is a whole different discussion which I do not care to elaborate upon at this point.
Dean, C., & Leibsohn, D. (2003). Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America*. Colonial Latin American Review, 12(1), 5. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Gloria E. Anzaldúa
Unable to sleep I find myself thinking about Latina culture and writing a blog, clearly something is wrong with me. On that note, I was browsing through a few links on Gloria E. Anzaldúa after reading through part of Boderlands/Fronteras: The New Mestiza and figured I'd write a bit about what I found.
Gloria is best known for the text mentioned above and for writing as a queer/chicana theorist. Do to physical abnormalities -of the reproductive and endocrine systems- she experienced menstration at a very young age and eventually underwent a hysterectomy.
Born in Texas gloria made her way through college eventually becoming a teacher herself at a few well-known universites with one of them being UCSC. I'm from Santa Cruz where Gloria lived and worked before she died in 2004 due to complications from diabetes.
The following are some of her works:
This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color (1981), New edition: Third Women Press, 2001, ISBN 0943219221
Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza(1987), ISBN 1879960125, Aunt Lute Books
Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Feminists of Color, Aunt Lute Books (1990), ISBN 1879960109
Interviews/Entrevistas (2000), ISBN 0415925037
This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation(2002), ISBN 0415936829
The Gloria Anzaldúa Reader, edited by AnaLouise Keating. Duke University Press. (2009).
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_E._Anzald%C3%BAa
Gloria is best known for the text mentioned above and for writing as a queer/chicana theorist. Do to physical abnormalities -of the reproductive and endocrine systems- she experienced menstration at a very young age and eventually underwent a hysterectomy.
Born in Texas gloria made her way through college eventually becoming a teacher herself at a few well-known universites with one of them being UCSC. I'm from Santa Cruz where Gloria lived and worked before she died in 2004 due to complications from diabetes.
The following are some of her works:
This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color (1981), New edition: Third Women Press, 2001, ISBN 0943219221
Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza(1987), ISBN 1879960125, Aunt Lute Books
Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Feminists of Color, Aunt Lute Books (1990), ISBN 1879960109
Interviews/Entrevistas (2000), ISBN 0415925037
This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation(2002), ISBN 0415936829
The Gloria Anzaldúa Reader, edited by AnaLouise Keating. Duke University Press. (2009).
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_E._Anzald%C3%BAa
Tortilla Soup, Spanglish, and Real Women Have Curves
Recently I have been watching films which deal with cultural hybridity and blending as I've began to focus my program towards writing my thesis on Spanglish - as both a cultural and linguisitc phenomena. Anyhow, in thinking upon Spanglish these three films -Tortilla Soup, Spanglish, and Real Women Have Curves - a nearly indistinguishable plot is portrayed in each . . . that is . . . the films are so similar when recalling them I'm not always sure which idea pertains to which film.
On that note, I have watched Spanglish a few more times - most likely for the reason that I am using it as an artifact for analysis in another course - but also because I need to keep my stories straight. With that in mind, I also rewatched Tortilla Soup and Real Women Have Curves although that was more difficult. On the whole, of the three films Spanglish is far superior in terms of production quality as it reflects Hollywood in every sense whereas the other two films are a bit more trying to watch a second time.
Otherwise, provided this is a blog -informal in structure and content- I wanted to make note of familism or familismo in Spanish. This is a common thread in each of the films with an interfamily struggle protrayed due to collective Mexican norms vs. mainstream white American indivualistic norms . . . of the three films the struggle occurs between the parents -who value traditional mexican norms- in opposition to their bicultural children.
On biculturalism we see a certain multiplicity of self of cultural stratification occur where the children of mexican immigrants struggle to negotiate and reconcile a fluid identity -this is where cultural hybridity comes into play. In all of the films daughters are portayed as opposed to sons. On this note I was thinking that women are most likely cast because they exemplify a matriach which in turn emphasizes the importance of women to the Latino family. Stereotypically, it seems that men are cast into society in a more indivualistic sense -or at least how the latino man is treated is more aligned with how the american male is treated? - whereas the woman always seemed bound to a Latina servitude of sorts . . .
What remains at hand is the question of there being any significance to women (daughters) being cast instead of sons? Do women represent familismo thus are better suited to such a plot? It seems like there are many films like this and much fewer with men . . . perhaps I'm on to something, perhaps not . . . suggestions? Ideas?
On that note, I have watched Spanglish a few more times - most likely for the reason that I am using it as an artifact for analysis in another course - but also because I need to keep my stories straight. With that in mind, I also rewatched Tortilla Soup and Real Women Have Curves although that was more difficult. On the whole, of the three films Spanglish is far superior in terms of production quality as it reflects Hollywood in every sense whereas the other two films are a bit more trying to watch a second time.
Otherwise, provided this is a blog -informal in structure and content- I wanted to make note of familism or familismo in Spanish. This is a common thread in each of the films with an interfamily struggle protrayed due to collective Mexican norms vs. mainstream white American indivualistic norms . . . of the three films the struggle occurs between the parents -who value traditional mexican norms- in opposition to their bicultural children.
On biculturalism we see a certain multiplicity of self of cultural stratification occur where the children of mexican immigrants struggle to negotiate and reconcile a fluid identity -this is where cultural hybridity comes into play. In all of the films daughters are portayed as opposed to sons. On this note I was thinking that women are most likely cast because they exemplify a matriach which in turn emphasizes the importance of women to the Latino family. Stereotypically, it seems that men are cast into society in a more indivualistic sense -or at least how the latino man is treated is more aligned with how the american male is treated? - whereas the woman always seemed bound to a Latina servitude of sorts . . .
What remains at hand is the question of there being any significance to women (daughters) being cast instead of sons? Do women represent familismo thus are better suited to such a plot? It seems like there are many films like this and much fewer with men . . . perhaps I'm on to something, perhaps not . . . suggestions? Ideas?
Friday, April 8, 2011
Genre Analysis
Introduction
At the heart of classical romantic comedies is just that, the heart. Historically, love was the fuel which made the romantic comedy genre burn while celebrating the “power of love to conquer class differences, erase ethno-religious tensions, and dissolve personality clashes” (Doherty, 2010, p. 26). With love conquering all, a classical romantic comedy was characterized not by consumerism or product placement but by “manners and the quirky mating rituals of sophisticated adults in a well-defined social setting. The point of the pas de deux was foreplay and aftermath, not climax” (Doherty, 2010, p. 26). In other words, classical romantic comedy, often referred to as rom-com, is not simply about the wedding but about how the couple got there.
Similarly, unique to Hollywood’s treatment of classical romantic comedy is a relatively narrow production code which operates on a formula which consists of characters that are “predominately white, middle class, and heterosexual” (Johnson and Holmes, 2009, p. 369). Interestingly, one very important piece of the formula that Johnson and Holmes did not initially incorporate was the female variable. With this in mind, it is suggestible that the classical romantic comedies of Hollywood appealed to a relatively heterogeneous audience, i.e. white, middle class, presumably heterosexual, and female. Certainly this is not an absolute yet according to Johnson and Holmes ,“ viewers with similar ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to those depicted on screen may see the portrayals as relevant models on which to base their own behaviors and expectations, whereas viewers with differing backgrounds may identify less with these portrayals” (Johnson and Holmes, 2009, p. 369) therein reinforcing a particular code of production and audience.
Past and present the classical romantic comedies of Hollywood both speak to and deviate from the classical model of the rom-com mentioned above. And although there is exception to this formula – audience, class, gaze, gender, race, and sexual orientation – the romantic comedy all-the-while still emphasizes the pas de deux. With this in mind, the primary focus of this analysis is to shed light upon how There Is Something About Mary which is classically Hollywood and to identify how Coming to America differentiates from the classical Hollywood formula.
Analysis
Coming to America
Coming to America is a romantic comedy although it is not a classical romantic comedy. Coming to America shows an unoriginal and uncomplicated plot characteristic of Hollywood’s classical portrayal of romantic comedy which is fairly predictable: “boy meets girl, and they work through a serious of complications and misunderstandings until they are finally joined in marriage or a union presumed to be headed for the alter” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 163). Furthermore, “the true drama is over character, whether the two leads will be able to work out their differences in personality, worldview, responsibilities, or expectations and discover what the audience has known all along: they are meant for eachother” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 163).
In this sense, Coming to America is a classical romantic comedy as it exhibits classical characteristics of the genre superficially. Yet, upon further analysis there are two fundamental points which distinguish Coming to America from what would be considered a classical romantic comedy. First, Coming to America appeals to a male gaze, i.e. the main character is male and the two other lead roles with most face time are male. Secondly, Coming to America is defies classical expectations of romantic comedy as a genre because the cast is African American.
In accordance with the general theory of Laura Mulvey “plot and spectacle in Hollywood films are designed for the male gaze. The plot portion of the film is a linear storytelling function; this is analogous to the male sex act in its insistent forward motion, its drive for closure and conclusion (Cohen, p. 79). In light of this theory, it is suggestible that Coming to America does just that, it moves forward. In the beginning of the film the main character Hakeem Joffer [Eddie Murphy] experiences a sheltered life as a pampered prince who awaits an arranged marriage to a bride of his royal parents’ selection. As the film progresses, Prince Hakeem expresses discontent with the rose pedals he walks upon, refuses his bride to be, and decides to move forward by embarking upon a journey to find his princess which lands him in Queens, New York. By Hakeem refusing his parents prescribed plan of action and insisting he find his own bride he metaphorically moves forward upon a path or his own direction which can be understood analogously with Laura Mulvey’s proposed male sex act theory. Moreover, by choosing his own path Prince Hakeem reinforces male gaze as he is action oriented and forward moving.
To further the notion of male gaze, not only does Hakeem insistently move forward but he also succeeds by finding a bride while abroad; because Hakeem is able to determine his path and succeed by “winning” the princess of his choice he metaphorically “climaxes” in accordance with Mulvey’s proposed idea and ultimately brings conclusion to the film. On this note, Coming to America is a film situated by male gaze and is moreso a patriarchal comedy as opposed to a classical rom-com.
Not only does Coming to America differentiate from classical Hollywood conventions of romantic comedy in that it is designed for male gaze but it also has an African American cast.
In a broad sense, Hollywood is conservative which is evident in the types of characters which are commonly cast as leads. With some exception, take Spanglish and Coming to America, “romantic comedies portray white, attractive, fairly or very affluent men and women as protagonist” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164) for the most part. Furthermore, “most exceptions to the whiteness of the genre are not all that profound since the female leads are typically ‘light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models’” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).
With exceptions in mind, Coming to America might only be an exception in so far as the eye can see. Although Coming to America casts African American’s they are marginalized by Hollywood’s classical representation of whiteness as both of Prince Hakeem’s brides drive home the aforementioned notion: they are “light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).
With this in mind, Coming to America is more of an exposé of Hollywood’s white ideals. Furthermore, the idea that classical romantic comedy marginalizes by the generic portrayal of whiteness serves as platform to suggest that whiteness is not necessarily characteristic to the genre but rather that it is racist. Driving home this notion, Moddelmog writes that “given that the premise of romantic comedy is that the central characters are wild for each other, the genre seems to have difficulty accommodating people of color unless they deliberately play against stereotypes depicting them as hypersexual and promiscuous. That is, if the leads in a romantic comedy are people of color (especially African Americas), the film must play up their respectability and tone down their sexual passion” (2009, p. 164).
Recalling the plot of Coming to America the film operates precisely in the model described by Moddelmog. That is, Prince Hakeem is a prince, he is refined, plays polo, is cultured, educated, and sophisticated; prince Hakeem is not a sexmonger and when given the chance to “sow his royal seed” he declines. In the scene where Prince Hakeem refuses his royal bride to be, his father takes him aside to talk in the garden which permits Hakeem to express himself and his desires. While attempting to gain his father’s understanding –Hakeem wants to convey that he wants to find his own true love, not be handed one- his father interprets his message as indicative of Hakeem needing to gain experience by tasting the fruits –women metaphorically – of far off lands. Playing up his respectability, Prince Hakeem embarks upon a journey where he finds true love contrary to his father’s perception bringing el fin to the film.
There’s Something About Mary
There’s Something About Mary is a “Hollywood film” as it contains all of the factors which make a classical romantic comedy, classical. First, There’s Something About Mary depicts a hilarious love story between Ted and Mary which establishes an audience which is classically Hollywood: middle class and white. Second, the films conservative script is about romantic, “perceived to be monogamous, eternal, and, of course, heterosexual” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164) coupling which is typical of the romantic comedy genre. Third, it is suggestible that There’s Something about Mary uses female gaze despite Ted’s leading role.
In opposition to Laura Mulvey’s proposed linear storytelling function analogous to the male sex act, Paula Marantz Cohen states that “movies show us bodies in motion, engaging with material things. And romantic comedies engage with material things in a particular way: the glory in them and glorify them; they make them an expression and extension of the self. As such, they appeal to the “material girl” in viewers (male and female alike)—or translating Madonna’s idiom into more academic terms, they appeal to the female gaze” (Cohen, 79). In There’s Something About Mary the heteronormative male gaze is not necessarily the only code for viewing. In romantic comedy, maintains Cohen:
“women gaze as women, disconnected from a conventional male economy of desire, whether or not a man made the film or a patriarchal perspective informs it. What constitutes the difference is that the plot-spectacle hierarchy, which Mulvey associates with the male gaze, is turned on its head. In romantic comedy, spectacle becomes central, and plot, secondary. As a result, these films have been denigrated as trivial or silly, and only recently have third-wave feminists noted that they offer unique pleasures. I want to go further and argue that women watch romantic comedies not just for the anomalous pleasures they afford but for more substantive reasons: to learn how to use the material world creatively and to assimilate things into a style of being that defines and empowers them. I should note that male characters, as well as female ones, often have a material presence and a relationship to things in romantic comedy that has nothing to do with plot (Cohen, 80).
The idea that Mulvey’s theory is turned on its head is evident through various examples in the film. For instance, Mary is played by a very attractive Cameron Diaz who is inherently adorned by long blonde hair, striking blue eyes, and big red lips who recognized by everyone for being beautiful throughout the film. More, is that in addition to being naturally beautiful Mary dresses in such a way that lends reason for why women occupy center stage in the material world of romantic comedy: because she has more accessories at her disposal than her male counterparts (Cohen, 81). Furthermore, “this may be why women tend to be middle-class or above in these films – they need to have access to a large assortment of expressive (and expensive) items” as does mary (Cohen, 81).
Another example of how There’s Something About Mary lends to female gaze and relays female power through adornment and clothing is in the scene where Mary comes home to find one of her stalkers having gathered all of her high heels with the intent of steeling them. In this scene the shoe thief submissively lies on the ground while grasping on to Mary’s shoe collection while she stands above him ordering in an authoritarian manner commanding him to leave her shoes behind which inherently suggests that her clothing yields some sort of power. In Cohen’s words, “high heels, which second-wave feminists condemned as a byproduct of patriarchal oppression, can be the expression of female assertiveness when viewed in the context of these films” (p. 83).
In There’s Something About Mary clothing empowers Mary. Likewise, Mary’s particular style although not flamboyant harnesses female gaze and turns what is seemingly masculine or patriarchally informed upside down. One scene in particular metaphorically compounds Cohen’s idea. After much discussion with a friend, Ted learns that going on a date without masturbating is like “going out with a loaded gun” which can be quite dangerous. With this in mind, Ted takes his friends advice and goes to the bathroom to “unload” his “gun” yet Ted runs into a problem. Having successfully “unloaded his gun” Ted is dismayed because he cannot find his “bullet”. After much time spent searching Ted decides to give up when Mary arrives at his hotel to pick him up for their date. Ted opens the door to a beautiful Mary and they engage in discussion and after some small-talk Mary looks at Ted with a bewildered expression and asks him “what is that on your ear, hair gel?” and without hesitation Mary reaches for the “hair gel” and in one motion styles her bangs with it while thanking Ted because had just ran out.
The “hair gel” scene in There’s Something About Mary brought the film much fame yet this scene film serves as a great example of how the female lead commands female gaze. By taking Ted’s semen to style her hair, Mary metaphorically uses Ted as an extension of herself. What this suggests is that Mary, through the power of female adornment, commands female gaze therein matriarchally informing the audience as she exploits what is ultimately masculine for her superior feminine purposes.
Mary establishes female gaze not by appearing naked of by being a commanding officer but rather through her “clothes and how she wears them that promote her centrality as an eye-catching, in control presence” (Cohen, 84). Together, Mary’s over-the-top hair style and expressive language serve forms “an expressive idea that can serve as permission to women to be themselves – to look and talk in outlandish and idiosyncratic ways” (Cohen, 85) which reinforces the concept of female gaze and centrality.
More is that women want to “find themselves, not reduced or negated, but set off and amplified by a partner who, literally fit them like a well-tailored dress. In most romantic comedies, the consummation of love is signaled by a kiss, a merging of bodies that, incidentally, doesn’t require the removal of clothes” (Cohen, 86). With that said, There’s Something About Mary effectively consummates female gaze and love simultaneously in the famous hair gel scene; Mary finds a partner whose gel perfectly styles her hair –ok maybe it is not a dress but . . . – with the consummating kiss following shortly thereafter.
Conclusion
If there was a recipe for the trajectory for the romantic comedy it would be “Lovely to look at, delightful to know, and heaven to kiss” (Cohen, 87). For the most part, depending on the audience its seems that the recipe holds true. In classical Hollywood portrayals of romantic Laura Mulvey’s narrative theory of male gaze superficially holds true as many films of the past were male produced and or patriarchally informed. In Coming to America prince Hakeem and his fellow cast that have the most face time are male and the plot drives forward for the ultimate conclusion of marriage, i.e. analogous with the male sex act and climax. In this sense, Coming to America follows a typical Hollywood protocol for rom-com production. Differently, at a superficial level the film is seemingly non-Hollywood as it casts African American in attempt to perhaps to portray the genre as not racist and marginalizing but rather equal and inclusive
therefore making it different than what a traditional Hollywood romantic comedy would look like: White, middle-class, and heterosexual.
Yet in advancement of previously mentioned arguments it seems that although Coming to America differentiates in terms of racial casting norms the movie still marginalizes minority cast by portraying them against hypersexual white stereotypes and instead as kings and queens. It seems novel to present a minority in this light at first glance but upon second glance we see that Coming to America is a classic Hollywood production: “light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models’” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).
There’s Something About Mary is perhaps less classical than Coming to America but not at first glance. There’s Something About Mary points to all of the tell-tale signs of rom-com as far as the Hollywood treatment of whiteness is concerned: the cast is all white, middle to upper class, and presumably heterosexual. More is that, Something About Mary reinforces white ideals which leaves little room to see how this film might actually be very different from classical Hollywood models especially with Ben Stiller – Ted – cast as the lead. But, as argued from the position which Paula Cohen takes, Something About Mary defies Mulvey’s classical model for male narrative when Mary styles her hair with Ted’s gel. Indeed, there are many other examples which further this argument still the hair-styling scene epitomizes Mary’s female prowess and gaze.
Coming to America and There’s Something About Mary are both typically Hollywood films in terms of audience design and code production yet the latter may be the less of the two which inherently makes it more of a romantic comedy. Because There’s Something About Mary is able to turn traditional gaze on its head it distinguishes itself from traditional narrative models and that is what most romantic comedies achieve, the spectacle is primary and the plot secondary. Cameron Diaz as lead perpetuates this idea because of her natural beauty and adornment she is able to captivate both male and female audiences in a feminine way. Both films share another element which is that of racism. In Coming to America the cast is marginalized by unrealistic roles and There’s Something About Mary has an all white cast. Ultimately, “romantic comedy is a genre about citizenship, impressing on viewers the form their desire must take for full citizenship to be granted” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 162) and neither film grants full citizenship to everyone thus reinforcing Hollywood’s classical white ideals.
References
Cohen, P. (2010). What Have Clothes Got to Do with It?. Southwest Review, 95(1/2), 78-88. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Doherty, T. (2010). The Rom-Com Genre and the Shopping Gene. OAH Magazine of History, 24(2), 25-28. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Johnson, K. R., & Holmes, B. M. (2009). Contradictory Messages: A Content Analysis of Hollywood-Produced Romantic Comedy Feature Films. Communication Quarterly, 57(3), 352-373. doi:10.1080/01463370903113632
Moddelmog, D. A. (2009). Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?: Hollywood Romance, Citizenship, and Same-Sex Marriage Panic. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 36(4), 162-173. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
At the heart of classical romantic comedies is just that, the heart. Historically, love was the fuel which made the romantic comedy genre burn while celebrating the “power of love to conquer class differences, erase ethno-religious tensions, and dissolve personality clashes” (Doherty, 2010, p. 26). With love conquering all, a classical romantic comedy was characterized not by consumerism or product placement but by “manners and the quirky mating rituals of sophisticated adults in a well-defined social setting. The point of the pas de deux was foreplay and aftermath, not climax” (Doherty, 2010, p. 26). In other words, classical romantic comedy, often referred to as rom-com, is not simply about the wedding but about how the couple got there.
Similarly, unique to Hollywood’s treatment of classical romantic comedy is a relatively narrow production code which operates on a formula which consists of characters that are “predominately white, middle class, and heterosexual” (Johnson and Holmes, 2009, p. 369). Interestingly, one very important piece of the formula that Johnson and Holmes did not initially incorporate was the female variable. With this in mind, it is suggestible that the classical romantic comedies of Hollywood appealed to a relatively heterogeneous audience, i.e. white, middle class, presumably heterosexual, and female. Certainly this is not an absolute yet according to Johnson and Holmes ,“ viewers with similar ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to those depicted on screen may see the portrayals as relevant models on which to base their own behaviors and expectations, whereas viewers with differing backgrounds may identify less with these portrayals” (Johnson and Holmes, 2009, p. 369) therein reinforcing a particular code of production and audience.
Past and present the classical romantic comedies of Hollywood both speak to and deviate from the classical model of the rom-com mentioned above. And although there is exception to this formula – audience, class, gaze, gender, race, and sexual orientation – the romantic comedy all-the-while still emphasizes the pas de deux. With this in mind, the primary focus of this analysis is to shed light upon how There Is Something About Mary which is classically Hollywood and to identify how Coming to America differentiates from the classical Hollywood formula.
Analysis
Coming to America
Coming to America is a romantic comedy although it is not a classical romantic comedy. Coming to America shows an unoriginal and uncomplicated plot characteristic of Hollywood’s classical portrayal of romantic comedy which is fairly predictable: “boy meets girl, and they work through a serious of complications and misunderstandings until they are finally joined in marriage or a union presumed to be headed for the alter” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 163). Furthermore, “the true drama is over character, whether the two leads will be able to work out their differences in personality, worldview, responsibilities, or expectations and discover what the audience has known all along: they are meant for eachother” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 163).
In this sense, Coming to America is a classical romantic comedy as it exhibits classical characteristics of the genre superficially. Yet, upon further analysis there are two fundamental points which distinguish Coming to America from what would be considered a classical romantic comedy. First, Coming to America appeals to a male gaze, i.e. the main character is male and the two other lead roles with most face time are male. Secondly, Coming to America is defies classical expectations of romantic comedy as a genre because the cast is African American.
In accordance with the general theory of Laura Mulvey “plot and spectacle in Hollywood films are designed for the male gaze. The plot portion of the film is a linear storytelling function; this is analogous to the male sex act in its insistent forward motion, its drive for closure and conclusion (Cohen, p. 79). In light of this theory, it is suggestible that Coming to America does just that, it moves forward. In the beginning of the film the main character Hakeem Joffer [Eddie Murphy] experiences a sheltered life as a pampered prince who awaits an arranged marriage to a bride of his royal parents’ selection. As the film progresses, Prince Hakeem expresses discontent with the rose pedals he walks upon, refuses his bride to be, and decides to move forward by embarking upon a journey to find his princess which lands him in Queens, New York. By Hakeem refusing his parents prescribed plan of action and insisting he find his own bride he metaphorically moves forward upon a path or his own direction which can be understood analogously with Laura Mulvey’s proposed male sex act theory. Moreover, by choosing his own path Prince Hakeem reinforces male gaze as he is action oriented and forward moving.
To further the notion of male gaze, not only does Hakeem insistently move forward but he also succeeds by finding a bride while abroad; because Hakeem is able to determine his path and succeed by “winning” the princess of his choice he metaphorically “climaxes” in accordance with Mulvey’s proposed idea and ultimately brings conclusion to the film. On this note, Coming to America is a film situated by male gaze and is moreso a patriarchal comedy as opposed to a classical rom-com.
Not only does Coming to America differentiate from classical Hollywood conventions of romantic comedy in that it is designed for male gaze but it also has an African American cast.
In a broad sense, Hollywood is conservative which is evident in the types of characters which are commonly cast as leads. With some exception, take Spanglish and Coming to America, “romantic comedies portray white, attractive, fairly or very affluent men and women as protagonist” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164) for the most part. Furthermore, “most exceptions to the whiteness of the genre are not all that profound since the female leads are typically ‘light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models’” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).
With exceptions in mind, Coming to America might only be an exception in so far as the eye can see. Although Coming to America casts African American’s they are marginalized by Hollywood’s classical representation of whiteness as both of Prince Hakeem’s brides drive home the aforementioned notion: they are “light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).
With this in mind, Coming to America is more of an exposé of Hollywood’s white ideals. Furthermore, the idea that classical romantic comedy marginalizes by the generic portrayal of whiteness serves as platform to suggest that whiteness is not necessarily characteristic to the genre but rather that it is racist. Driving home this notion, Moddelmog writes that “given that the premise of romantic comedy is that the central characters are wild for each other, the genre seems to have difficulty accommodating people of color unless they deliberately play against stereotypes depicting them as hypersexual and promiscuous. That is, if the leads in a romantic comedy are people of color (especially African Americas), the film must play up their respectability and tone down their sexual passion” (2009, p. 164).
Recalling the plot of Coming to America the film operates precisely in the model described by Moddelmog. That is, Prince Hakeem is a prince, he is refined, plays polo, is cultured, educated, and sophisticated; prince Hakeem is not a sexmonger and when given the chance to “sow his royal seed” he declines. In the scene where Prince Hakeem refuses his royal bride to be, his father takes him aside to talk in the garden which permits Hakeem to express himself and his desires. While attempting to gain his father’s understanding –Hakeem wants to convey that he wants to find his own true love, not be handed one- his father interprets his message as indicative of Hakeem needing to gain experience by tasting the fruits –women metaphorically – of far off lands. Playing up his respectability, Prince Hakeem embarks upon a journey where he finds true love contrary to his father’s perception bringing el fin to the film.
There’s Something About Mary
There’s Something About Mary is a “Hollywood film” as it contains all of the factors which make a classical romantic comedy, classical. First, There’s Something About Mary depicts a hilarious love story between Ted and Mary which establishes an audience which is classically Hollywood: middle class and white. Second, the films conservative script is about romantic, “perceived to be monogamous, eternal, and, of course, heterosexual” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164) coupling which is typical of the romantic comedy genre. Third, it is suggestible that There’s Something about Mary uses female gaze despite Ted’s leading role.
In opposition to Laura Mulvey’s proposed linear storytelling function analogous to the male sex act, Paula Marantz Cohen states that “movies show us bodies in motion, engaging with material things. And romantic comedies engage with material things in a particular way: the glory in them and glorify them; they make them an expression and extension of the self. As such, they appeal to the “material girl” in viewers (male and female alike)—or translating Madonna’s idiom into more academic terms, they appeal to the female gaze” (Cohen, 79). In There’s Something About Mary the heteronormative male gaze is not necessarily the only code for viewing. In romantic comedy, maintains Cohen:
“women gaze as women, disconnected from a conventional male economy of desire, whether or not a man made the film or a patriarchal perspective informs it. What constitutes the difference is that the plot-spectacle hierarchy, which Mulvey associates with the male gaze, is turned on its head. In romantic comedy, spectacle becomes central, and plot, secondary. As a result, these films have been denigrated as trivial or silly, and only recently have third-wave feminists noted that they offer unique pleasures. I want to go further and argue that women watch romantic comedies not just for the anomalous pleasures they afford but for more substantive reasons: to learn how to use the material world creatively and to assimilate things into a style of being that defines and empowers them. I should note that male characters, as well as female ones, often have a material presence and a relationship to things in romantic comedy that has nothing to do with plot (Cohen, 80).
The idea that Mulvey’s theory is turned on its head is evident through various examples in the film. For instance, Mary is played by a very attractive Cameron Diaz who is inherently adorned by long blonde hair, striking blue eyes, and big red lips who recognized by everyone for being beautiful throughout the film. More, is that in addition to being naturally beautiful Mary dresses in such a way that lends reason for why women occupy center stage in the material world of romantic comedy: because she has more accessories at her disposal than her male counterparts (Cohen, 81). Furthermore, “this may be why women tend to be middle-class or above in these films – they need to have access to a large assortment of expressive (and expensive) items” as does mary (Cohen, 81).
Another example of how There’s Something About Mary lends to female gaze and relays female power through adornment and clothing is in the scene where Mary comes home to find one of her stalkers having gathered all of her high heels with the intent of steeling them. In this scene the shoe thief submissively lies on the ground while grasping on to Mary’s shoe collection while she stands above him ordering in an authoritarian manner commanding him to leave her shoes behind which inherently suggests that her clothing yields some sort of power. In Cohen’s words, “high heels, which second-wave feminists condemned as a byproduct of patriarchal oppression, can be the expression of female assertiveness when viewed in the context of these films” (p. 83).
In There’s Something About Mary clothing empowers Mary. Likewise, Mary’s particular style although not flamboyant harnesses female gaze and turns what is seemingly masculine or patriarchally informed upside down. One scene in particular metaphorically compounds Cohen’s idea. After much discussion with a friend, Ted learns that going on a date without masturbating is like “going out with a loaded gun” which can be quite dangerous. With this in mind, Ted takes his friends advice and goes to the bathroom to “unload” his “gun” yet Ted runs into a problem. Having successfully “unloaded his gun” Ted is dismayed because he cannot find his “bullet”. After much time spent searching Ted decides to give up when Mary arrives at his hotel to pick him up for their date. Ted opens the door to a beautiful Mary and they engage in discussion and after some small-talk Mary looks at Ted with a bewildered expression and asks him “what is that on your ear, hair gel?” and without hesitation Mary reaches for the “hair gel” and in one motion styles her bangs with it while thanking Ted because had just ran out.
The “hair gel” scene in There’s Something About Mary brought the film much fame yet this scene film serves as a great example of how the female lead commands female gaze. By taking Ted’s semen to style her hair, Mary metaphorically uses Ted as an extension of herself. What this suggests is that Mary, through the power of female adornment, commands female gaze therein matriarchally informing the audience as she exploits what is ultimately masculine for her superior feminine purposes.
Mary establishes female gaze not by appearing naked of by being a commanding officer but rather through her “clothes and how she wears them that promote her centrality as an eye-catching, in control presence” (Cohen, 84). Together, Mary’s over-the-top hair style and expressive language serve forms “an expressive idea that can serve as permission to women to be themselves – to look and talk in outlandish and idiosyncratic ways” (Cohen, 85) which reinforces the concept of female gaze and centrality.
More is that women want to “find themselves, not reduced or negated, but set off and amplified by a partner who, literally fit them like a well-tailored dress. In most romantic comedies, the consummation of love is signaled by a kiss, a merging of bodies that, incidentally, doesn’t require the removal of clothes” (Cohen, 86). With that said, There’s Something About Mary effectively consummates female gaze and love simultaneously in the famous hair gel scene; Mary finds a partner whose gel perfectly styles her hair –ok maybe it is not a dress but . . . – with the consummating kiss following shortly thereafter.
Conclusion
If there was a recipe for the trajectory for the romantic comedy it would be “Lovely to look at, delightful to know, and heaven to kiss” (Cohen, 87). For the most part, depending on the audience its seems that the recipe holds true. In classical Hollywood portrayals of romantic Laura Mulvey’s narrative theory of male gaze superficially holds true as many films of the past were male produced and or patriarchally informed. In Coming to America prince Hakeem and his fellow cast that have the most face time are male and the plot drives forward for the ultimate conclusion of marriage, i.e. analogous with the male sex act and climax. In this sense, Coming to America follows a typical Hollywood protocol for rom-com production. Differently, at a superficial level the film is seemingly non-Hollywood as it casts African American in attempt to perhaps to portray the genre as not racist and marginalizing but rather equal and inclusive
therefore making it different than what a traditional Hollywood romantic comedy would look like: White, middle-class, and heterosexual.
Yet in advancement of previously mentioned arguments it seems that although Coming to America differentiates in terms of racial casting norms the movie still marginalizes minority cast by portraying them against hypersexual white stereotypes and instead as kings and queens. It seems novel to present a minority in this light at first glance but upon second glance we see that Coming to America is a classic Hollywood production: “light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models’” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).
There’s Something About Mary is perhaps less classical than Coming to America but not at first glance. There’s Something About Mary points to all of the tell-tale signs of rom-com as far as the Hollywood treatment of whiteness is concerned: the cast is all white, middle to upper class, and presumably heterosexual. More is that, Something About Mary reinforces white ideals which leaves little room to see how this film might actually be very different from classical Hollywood models especially with Ben Stiller – Ted – cast as the lead. But, as argued from the position which Paula Cohen takes, Something About Mary defies Mulvey’s classical model for male narrative when Mary styles her hair with Ted’s gel. Indeed, there are many other examples which further this argument still the hair-styling scene epitomizes Mary’s female prowess and gaze.
Coming to America and There’s Something About Mary are both typically Hollywood films in terms of audience design and code production yet the latter may be the less of the two which inherently makes it more of a romantic comedy. Because There’s Something About Mary is able to turn traditional gaze on its head it distinguishes itself from traditional narrative models and that is what most romantic comedies achieve, the spectacle is primary and the plot secondary. Cameron Diaz as lead perpetuates this idea because of her natural beauty and adornment she is able to captivate both male and female audiences in a feminine way. Both films share another element which is that of racism. In Coming to America the cast is marginalized by unrealistic roles and There’s Something About Mary has an all white cast. Ultimately, “romantic comedy is a genre about citizenship, impressing on viewers the form their desire must take for full citizenship to be granted” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 162) and neither film grants full citizenship to everyone thus reinforcing Hollywood’s classical white ideals.
References
Cohen, P. (2010). What Have Clothes Got to Do with It?. Southwest Review, 95(1/2), 78-88. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Doherty, T. (2010). The Rom-Com Genre and the Shopping Gene. OAH Magazine of History, 24(2), 25-28. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Johnson, K. R., & Holmes, B. M. (2009). Contradictory Messages: A Content Analysis of Hollywood-Produced Romantic Comedy Feature Films. Communication Quarterly, 57(3), 352-373. doi:10.1080/01463370903113632
Moddelmog, D. A. (2009). Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?: Hollywood Romance, Citizenship, and Same-Sex Marriage Panic. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 36(4), 162-173. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?
Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay is an article by Debra A. Moddelmog who advances a queer critique of Hollywood by addressesing romantic comdedy as a genere with a very narrow and marginalizing code for produciton. Furthermore, Moddelmog suggests that because Hollywood's romantic comedy genre is produced so narrowly it solicits a particular audience which reinforces heteronormative coupling, romantic and eternal monogomous love, whiteness, and middle class citizenry, as portrayed by the genre. An interesting point to make is that what characterizes a Hollywood as Hollywood is that these films are produced for a general viewing audience -classically- which in theory should apply to everyone in some sense. Superfiscially this sounds ideal as such an idea is all-ecompassing and equal, i.e. there is something for everyone in a Hollywood fill, as such citizenry is granted to all audiences and everyone lives happily ever after. Still this is not the case, take for example the formula which Moddelmog advances for the production of romantic comedy: white, heterosexual, and middle class. With that in mind, what characterizes Hollywood is not that it has a general appeal and application to everyone but rather it is characterized by the perpetuation of racisits white ideals and homophobic norms. I In Moddelmogs' words "ultimately, romantic comedy is a genre about citizenship, impressing on viewers the form their desire must take for full citizenship to be granted" (p. 162). With that said, romantic comedy as a genre leaves no room for any group besides the the heterosexual middle class white person. In a nutshell, if feminist and queer critque of Hollywood catches your eye generally this is a good read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)