Sputnik Mania

The SIFF film I saw for my final blog is called Sputnik Mania. Basically this film showed how the first satellite launched into space my Russia threatened America and spread paranoia about bomb threats and communism. Sputnik was a satellite launched to orbit earth by Russia in 1957. It was the very first satellite ever launched into space. The satellite really had no purpose, but America feared the Russian's growing technological power. The satellite was supposed to be for the sake of science, but America saw it as a demise of Russian bomb threats. Sputnik was actually found out to be large enough to hold a bomb. American's grew more fearful as sputnik circled around the globe, over the United States. Since America was seen as the most powerful and technological country in the late 1950's, this scientific breakthrough by another country proved America to be behind. President Eisenhower issued that America must launch its own satellite in order to level out with Russia. Russian communist at the time of Sputnik were also threatening world order and demolition of America and capitalism. Though these threats and Sputnik had nothing to do with one another, the two stirred panic in many American homes. American businesses, homes, and schools built bomb shelters and practiced bomb drills several times daily. President Eisenhower said in a speech that there must be a way America can build a satellite to trump Sputnik, but ideas at the time were few. Of course there were many satellites waiting to be launched by the US army but Eisenhower refused to do so. Eventually an inventor working in the army launched his satellite which successfully launched, after one try that failed. Along with the launching of the satellite came NASA, which proposed that space work be for the sake of education and not war. This made the inventor who created the American satellite mad, but eventually he himself became part of NASA. At the end of the film Eisenhower launched the first message into space on a recorder, which then can be heard by anyone around the world. The message promotes peace and a Christmas greeting.

This film can be tied into our film class in several ways. One being the issue of capitalism and communism. At this time, communists were seen as taboo and anything communist threatened America's power. America still lived by the American dream and needed to always be the top nation. When Russia proved to be more advanced than America, especially since they were communist as well, sounded trumpets in America and immediately provoked a comeback with no previous exploration or idea as to why Russian launched Sputnik in the first place.

Homosexuality and stereotypes

There is something I've noticed quite a bit in our American culture. Being completely gay, lesbian, or heterosexual is almost more acceptable and taken seriously than bisexuality. I've also noticed that bisexuality is often trendy among younger teens, making those who are actually bisexual fade into the crowd. Now, I'm not saying that those who claim to be bisexual aren't, but I've noticed that many young girls will call themselves bisexual even though they have no interest in the same sex. Basically they are just faking it because their favorite celebrity claims to be. Celebrities such as Megan Fox, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry claim to be bisexual, but are they really? Or are they saying so just for a publicity stunt? A female friend I have has had a steady girlfriend for three years and has had boyfriends as well. She is actually attracted to men and women, even if she tends to prefer women over men. She always complains to me how the trendiness of bisexuality in the media makes her relationships look like stunts for attention. Now I see the glamorization of homosexuality in media to have good and bad points. Some good points would be the exposure and acceptance that homosexuality has now in media. It is okay to be gay in Hollywood, which is quite a span since the 20's and 30's where being gay was seen as completely nuts and often portrayed in extremely camp fashions. As we enter 2012, I see more portrayal of gays and lesbians in sitcoms, television and literature. It is great! But, there are downsides to this glamorization. Some negatives would be how those who are indifferent to homosexuality views homosexuals based on what is presented to them through movies. Now those who accept homosexuality view the outrageous and hilarious ways gays are presented in movies as a way of mocking gay stereotypes from the old days of Hollywood. It is all for fun and not to be taken seriously. But, those who really have no opinion of gay culture see these outlandish stereotypes and take it as backup for their hatred of homosexuals. Many see these ways that the media interprets homosexuals as truth for every gay and lesbian. This is often seen with bisexuality. Since homophobic individuals see bisexual celebs and see it as a trend, they will not take those who are actually bisexual seriously. Perhaps we should take sexual orientation a little more seriously and not just throw around therms that don't apply to a certain individual.

Bisexuality hasn't just been seen in today's culture either. In the 70's, bisexuality was brought to light with the glam rock era. Musicians such as Marc Bolan, David Bowie and even Mick Jagger were all accused of having same sex relationships or affairs. 

I guess my point is that sexual orientations should be taken with more seriousness than it seem to be. The lightheartedness can still leave gays and lesbians in a place where they aren't taken as seriously and heterosexuals because of the trend label thrown on them. 

Children's sitcom shows and presentation of wealth

Though I stopped watching channels like Nickelodeon and Disney years ago, I have noticed a trend whilst flipping through the TV channels. Out of sheer curiosity, I watched an episode of a show called ICarly, about some girl who goes to school with her two friends and has her own internet show. Not only does the show have horrible writing, it also depicts a very unrealistic "apartment" that the girl Carly lives in. This apartment has a fancy elevator, huge rooms, a huge view outside, large fancy kitchen, and everything else to imply that Carly and her brother must somehow be VERY wealthy to afford. But that's not it, Carly also goes to a school where everything is state of the art, and all the children are decked out in designer clothes (product placement too). Though the show doesn't say anything about wealth or income, it is implied that Carly and her friends are wealthy. A lot wealthier than the children who are probably watching the show. Though I was really young, I remember that shows in the late 90's like Even Steven or Boy meets World all depicted middle class average families. Now it seems as we dive into the 2010's, families are being depicted as wealthy and luxurious. The women in these shows always have the best makeup, clothes and hair,  just for attending school. Though the actresses (and actors) are probably in their 20's in reality, in the shows they're depicted as young teenagers. Another example would be this show called Wizards of Waverly Place (trust me, I'm not proud of admitting that I've actually heard of/watched these shows). The home of the main characters, the little restaurant they own, clothing on their back and lifestyle all indicates wealth. This new show on Disney "Victorious" (thank god I never watched this one, I just researched it hee hee), is about a girl who goes to an art school. The school, her home, and her clothes all show that she is wealthy. I have noticed out of all these shows on children's television, no one is depicted as being average middle class, with problems that expand beyond scoring that guy or chipping a nail. I feel that these messages of "if you're wealthy, you're happy" is bad for children, especially those who come from poverty. I feel that television shows for children should be made to make them feel good about themselves, but instead we present them with the ideas that everyone else is wealthy but you. This relates to what was discussed in class about the depiction of wealth in the media. The American dream is to be wealthy. The wealthy are always discussed in media, while the poor never seem to exist.

Just some examples of shows I've found. I have found about 15 all together but I will only post some. You will see the trend. 

[1]

[2]

[3]

 [4]

[5]



See, what did I tell you? Too many shows about rich kids on TV. Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing WRONG with kids who come from wealthy families, I'm just saying that this trend of shows shows children that being wealthy means being popular and being happy.

Citations

[1] http://www.thecriticalcondition.com/2010/01/27/icarly/

[2] http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail?pid=134689

[3] http://www.disneydreaming.com/disney-tv-shows/wizards-of-waverly-place/

[4] http://www.partybus.bz/Suite_Life/index.html

[5] http://www.fanpop.com/spots/austin-and-ally/images/27870795/title/austin-ally-photo

Ashton Kutcher as "Raj"...

[1]




I just found this article about five minutes ago while I was browsing around the UK news site daily-mail.com. Apparently Ashton Kutcher stars in a commercial where he is depicting a very stereotypical Indian man in a dating video along with some other characters. Here is the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DLdobzj_9_I

Now, as I watched the video, I noticed all the stereotypical ways he was depicting the Indian man. First, he says that he is a Bollywood Star, and I've noticed that Americans have been conditioned to associate Indians with Bollywood. The way he painted his skin darker to portray someone of Asian descent  strike me and remind me of the depiction of black face that we saw in The Jazz Singer. Even though I know this commercial wasn't purposefully made to taunt Indians or anyone else, it shows how we as a country are so conditioned to seeing white portrayal of other ethnicities that we hardly notice that something is borderline racist until an article tells us it is. I have noticed this trend in other movies as well. In the 2007 film, The Love Guru, Mike Meyers portrays a Hindu man in a very stereotypical white veiled view.  Here are screenshots from the movie.

[2]

[3]

[4]

By the way, the actor in the last frame is actually the man who plays Gandhi in the very famous 1982 movie. Kind of funny how he goes from playing a wonderful man who defies all stereotypes to playing a stereotype many years later. My findings relate to the articles in America On Film about stereotypes of Native Americans and Blacks. There is a section on portrayal of Asian Americans on Film too. The stereotypes in all of these sections relate to the stereotypes I see in portrayal of Indians in film. Americans always seem to depict Indians as being magical, spiritual, violent, and obsessed with Bollywood and belly dancing. Indian women are always sexualized in American culture too. Kind of how Latina woman and Asian women are depicted as exotic and sexy in American Culture. The media is unfortunately a large source of where Americans get their ideas of people from other countries. If you ask many Americans about Indian women, they will think of someone like Aishwarya Rai, one of the most famous Bollywood Actresses shown in American television.  She is always depicted as being very sexy in films so Americans get the sense that all Indian women are like this and start to treat foreign women as objects instead of individuals based on the movies they see. I think we as a people need to start seeing everyone as individuals instead of letting ourselves clump different people into groups.

Citations

[1] http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20120503/ashton-kutcher-online-indian-ad-120503/

[2] http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25213879/ns/today-entertainment/t/love-guru-cinematic-bed-nails/#.T6NG7tViZ1w

[3] http://mimg.sulekha.com/english/the-love-guru/stills/the-love-guru29.jpg

[4] http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-

Most beautiful people...

Lately I have seen a lot of articles on the internet about electing people as the year's "most beautiful". To me, these contests seem useless. For example, Beyonce Knowles was recently named the "World's Most Beautiful Woman" by People magazine. Now to be honest, I have no idea what that title means. Does it mean most physically attractive or spiritually attractive? Whatever it is, most young girls will take it as meaning physical beauty. Is the media focusing too much on physical beauty? Everywhere you look, there is always someone being praised on being physically attractive, and not enough people being appreciated for things that really contribute to the world like medical findings and humanitarians. Here is a picture of the issue of People magazine with Beyonce on the cover:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJZpqr__J5GRzEYr-CdusxITzwCw?docId=fda03b2fd2e645a0b7326b97c9d3877f

 

The whole magazine is about physical appearance. The media is obsessing too much on physical appearance and women are suffering because of it. With beauty being so emphasized, it's like women (and men) feel that it is all they're worth. This makes me sad because your appearance is a roulette. You don't know how big your nose is going to turn out, or how tall you will be. I think praising people for something like big eyes or big boobs is useless because they didn't do anything to accomplish that (unless you include plastic surgery).  A study done by the National Institute on Media and the Family  shows that "53% of American girls are unhappy with their bodies"[1] and that "40% of 9-10 year old American girls have tried dieting"[2]. This is ridiculous because 9-10 year old girls shouldn't be focused on their bodies. When I was 9, I wasn't remotely self conscious of by body, and felt no pressure to be thin and pretty. That was about ten years ago now, and it's shocking how things have changed. 

 Citations:


[1]  http://depts.washington.edu/thmedia/view.cgi?section=bodyimage&page=fastfacts


 [2] http://depts.washington.edu/thmedia/view.cgi?section=bodyimage&page=fastfacts

Dove's Social Missons...

Dove’s real beauty campaign is supposed to explore the issues of low self-esteem in girls, and the impossible standards of beauty imposed by the media. But is it strange that as this company is telling young women to love themselves for who they are, they are also promoting products such as special shampoos and lotions claimed to make one look “gorgeous” after use?

On Dove’s website there is an article and section entirely dedicated to the cause as seen here: http://www.dove.us/Social-Mission/default.aspx

The website looks innocent enough, discussing the issues girls have with themselves and giving advice to mothers and parents about strengthening their bonds with their daughters.  Also a few activities and videos scattered about. But isn't it funny that to support the cause, one must buy products of Dove's that are used to enhance appearance. Now, shampoo and soaps can be debatable. Those who use shampoos and soaps would defend that they are used not for vanity, but for horrible smell. But, getting rid of your horrid stench and de-greasing your hair is all part of maintaining a good appearance. It's not just the fact that Dove is selling soaps to young girls, but it's really what the shampoos and soaps claim to do for appearance. Actually, right as I pull up the hair care section of Dove's website, I get this first ad that is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. 

"Get gorgeously well-defined, bouncy curls that last as long as you do" [1]

Here is a screenshot as well.

http://www.dove.us/Products/Hair/default.aspx

 Is it necessary to add the word "gorgeous" in the description? These products claim to promote self esteem in girls, but are playing off the insecurities of women and girls to sell products.  

Here is another ad, this time for lotion. just look at this picture. You can tell the woman is too shiny to be real. She has clearly been photo shopped to look perfect. Apparently this lotion will help you feel extra beautiful. Something insecure young girls might want, huh?

http://www.dove.us/Products/Lotions/default.aspx

 After a young girl sees these ads, she could be confused. She may be thinking 

"I will not be beautiful like Dove says unless I buy their products." 

This is the sort of mindset that beauty companies want you to conform to, regardless of whatever charities, causes, funds they stand for. There is one more section of this website that I would like to explore, Dove for Men [2]. Going through this part of the website, I don't see any emphasis on mens beauty. None of these products are claiming to make men look more "manly" or "hot" or what have you. There are no underwear clad models, or lush descriptions of products. 

I do see one thing though. Why does Dove think men need to have their own separate line of soaps? Can't men smell like flowers and sunshine, or do we still live in the 1930's? How come there are no male examples in the campaign for real beauty articles? Young boys feel self conscious as well growing older. Not to go off topic any further, my point is that Dove doesn't seem to be as grounded in their campaign as they claim to be. But it's hard to put all the blame on them. Products sell on the basis that customers feel they need them. How can Dove try to throw a campaign for accepting oneself while still trying to pursued the public into buying their products? 

Cited

[1] http://www.dove.us/Products/Hair/default.aspx

[2] http://www.dove.us/Products/Men-Care/default.aspx