Video games make us all losers

In the article Jesper Juul discusses how losing in video games affect people and how is a sort of human instinct to want to win in the game no matter how many times one loses. he discusses how games are set up where players tend to prefer games that are somewhat challenging, and for a moment it can sound as if this explains the paradox players like to fail, but not too much. Juul also talks about the feeling that losing in a game is. that is that feeling in a game makes one feel inadequate.  a feeling of inadequacy is unpleasant for a person, and it is odd that we choose to subject ourselves to it. on the other hand even though video games give us a sense of  being inadequate they also motive us to play more in  order to escape the same inadequacy and the feeling of escaping failure. over all he talks about the way video games work in our mind and why. When I was reading this article I thought about my little cousin he is a gamer and he loves playing destiny. at time he would get at so much into the game that he wouldn't rest or sleep until he beat the level or the entire game. moreover, when he failed certain task on the game he would feel disappointed and wouldn't rest until he past the level. is crazy how much control over someone's emotions and mind a game can have.

Piracy is a route to Freedom

While I realize piracy has become a bigger phenomenon over the last two decades, I think it'll become even more problematic. After this week's discussion, I didn't realize that piracy overseas isn't exactly the same as it is here. On US soil pirating a film is economical. People do it to avoid the 13 dollar movie tickets that are deemed insane. However in other parts of the globe it's a matter a little deeper. America is lucky to be built upon certain values,including freedom of speech and no restriction on our media content (besides the FCC). Other countries don't have that sames views as the US, therefore there are government and cultural stipulations that don't allow the same freedoms that you and I have. American culture maybe frowned upon and seen as another source for imperialism but for those under certain oppressive systems its a chance for self-expression.
When domestic films and fandom find themselves among international audiences, it becomes more than just profit and entertainment. It's a look into another culture and another life so far away. I think thats why American action and adventure films are so popular around the world. More than just thrills are being offered,this sense of escapism through film comes to light. Our films like Avatar and Hunger Games mean more to international audiences, because there's another world on screen. Piracy gives those this experience. So while its illegal and problematic in its own way, in the end I think it breaks boundaries.

Video Games Makes Us All Losers

Jesper Juul explains that no matter how much we may lose in game we still have the urge or better yet the desire to keep trying to beat the level you are on. This is due to the fact that humans can't stand the fact of losing. Losing makes us feel less of ourselves and we must succeed in winning to feel better about ourselves. The point Juul was making is that we all play video games and the whole point to video games is to overcome the obstacles thrown in front of us. To succeed pass these levels we will have to lose a few times to get use to the level and get the feel of what needs to be done to move on to the next level of the game. Losing in a video game makes us all losers because we must lose to win. Failure is what drives us to want more. God of War for the Playstation2 was one of the most challenging games that I have ever owned in my entire life. The game took me 3 months to beat. No one knows failure until they have played this game.

The Common American Pop Cosmopolitan

        The Jenkins text describes the idea of the Pop Cosmopolitan, and builds on the concept which was first introduced by a University of California, Berkeley, text in 2004. Jenkins himself writes that Pop Cosmopolitan is "someone whose embrace of global popular media represents and escape route out of the parochialism of their local community" (Jenkins, 1). I enjoyed the article and agreed with many of the points made by Jenkins within the text, but I cant help but notice that he seems (at least, in my interpretation) to present the pop cosmopolitan as somewhat of a rarity, or as if such a person was an anomaly within the general public.
       This was somewhat surprising me, as I would actually disagree with Jenkins in this aspect, as I would assume that the vast majority of the general public, specifically the American general public, would embody this image of the pop cosmopolitan. Jenkins noted the girl in the convenience store as a pop cosmopolitan, and the middle eastern teen using an American Photoshopped photo as anti-American propaganda is a pop cosmopolitan. But I would classify the man questioning the girl, and the people wearing the shirts as pop cosmopolitan as well, and why wouldn't they be? They have still been effected by, of have embraced some aspect of another culture at one time as well most likely. Even something minor or something the average American would consider civilian like ordering Chinese or Italian food, or watch some sort of content containing subtitles, could be considered, at least so some level, pop cosmopolitan. I quite frequently eat food of other cultures, occasionally watch foreign movies, speak a mostly broken mangled form of Spanish, traveled out of the country, and have fond childhood memories of playing Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh with friends. I don't feel like any of these things are unusual in the slightest, and is fairly typical American male behavior. American culture itself is built on the cultures of those who first arrived here before us, so I feel it should, in fact, be assumed that the average American is, at least to some level, a pop cosmopolitan, and that this kind of person is in fact not a rarity or far from the norm, which I got from the Jenkins article.

We Are Only at the Beginning...

Whether we like it or not, America is a capitalist society, so naturally when we speak of any American industry (especially the film industry), we can assume that they will want to make as much money as they possibly can, as fast as they can. They want to appeal to as many people as they possibly can, while still appealing to mainstream idealistic standards (which are the real demons here), regardless of the repercussions to any individual or group. Unfortunately, that is capitalism. (Sigh...)

Beltran would probably not agree entirely with my opinion that the American film industry is reflective of it's society, and would likely rather address the problem within the industry itself rather than with those who consume the media in their respective audiences, but as stated earlier, the film industry wants to make money, and as such they must give people what they want. Therefore is it not primarily the fault of the audiences?

As proof I believe that we as a country are only now starting to become socially conscious and accepting of a more cosmopolitan representation in media, which is why this question is being raised, and why there is a continued effort within the film industry to increase ethnic representation, and no longer make it ambiguous.

Beltran does quite a bit to critique the system and demonize an industry, but offers little suggestion as to how to fix the root of the problem. Still, at least the topic is discussed and can lead to a further understanding of the matter as we are still only approaching the next stage of our societal consciousness... and as that continues to expand, so too will our representations in film and other media.

Racial Ambiguity

Stars are often known to be who they are because of the roles they play. This is due to the fact that stars do not have their own identity. Stars are forced to live how people would view them to live. This subject reminds me of the game "The Sims"  because in the game you can create a life of how you want the person to live and react in everyday life. For example: Colin Kaepernick is a racially ambiguous icon because even though he was adopted and raised by a white family, the NFL still views him as a black man. Kaepernick is known to bring more black quarterbacks and create a golden age for them. Kaepernick to some has been viewed as a Latino man but after finding out his father is African-American the view if him changed. People started to treat him differently and Kaepernick was trying to hold on to his identity of being his own individual. People don't view him as a black man but a mixed man. This shows that him being a famous quarterback, people will view him however they want. Kaepernick may fight the fact to stand up for his own identity but he still has to appeal as something great to the world.

Jackie Chan as Pop Cosmopolitanism

In Jenkins article on Pop Cosmopolitanism, he talks about how American pop culture draws off of and incorporates cultures worldwide but more specifically, Asia. One culture that Jenkins mentioned briefly was Hong Kong action movies, and I want to elaborate this a little more using the example of Jackie Chan movies. Jackie Chan was a Hong Kong actor and most of his movies were aimed towards being action films. Even though the culture of these movies fed from Chinese culture, they were also very "American". One of the most notorious aspects of Jackie Chan movies was his kung-fu which is an important part of Chinese culture. A good example of American and Japanese cultures clashing is in Jackie Chan's movie "Rush Hour". In this movie, Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) comes to LA from China to find a Chinese girl who has been kidnapped and ends up becoming partners with James Carter, played by Chris Tucker.  This movie demonstrates how the two cultures kind of clash in some ways. The character of James Carter at first has a hard time understanding what Chan is saying because of his Chinese accent, also Chan's character is portrayed as being more serious and as being smarter than the American guy. I think that this movie "Rush Hour" portrays ways in which American culture uses Asian culture in media.

Racial Ambiguity And a lack of Identity

Racial Ambiguity. Interesting subject when it comes to portrayals in the media. The media allows for artistic and self expression through various ways. So after the reading and the lecture on racial ambiguity, I was left with a lingering thought; Then who are you? Stars that come off as racially ambiguous are more often put in roles that leave a question of their identity to be unanswered. This leaves the viewing audience with the conclusion that they have no identity. Your features and dialect don't pertain to one ethnicity so you can be type-cast as anyone  or rather white, or bi-racial. There's something troublesome in this. It seems these stars are without an identity or they can't choose one for fear of alienation. Even as progressive as society has been through the decades it seems as though most of the A-list stars/actors are white. Therefore that leaves some identity crisis and problems for those who are racially ambiguous in Hollywood. 

 Do the accept their whole heritage? Or do they forego it so they may obtain more roles? In a business were there's majority, being left with a the option to be this or that seems like the trump card. You can do whatever! But, who are they? Where do they lie? When the camera is off, when they are behind closed doors, who are they?  Falling to one side or another you're forsaking some experiences, and in the end our experiences define our identity. To take a role or to be seen in the spotlight as racially ambiguous is task to maintain all present identities. Actors who are bi-racial typically lose apart of themselves in the spotlight. "Latina/o representation can in fact be in danger of being submerged and homogenized in star promotion that whitens and denies Latina/o, African, and indigenous ancestry and appearance while exalting the multiethnic,"(Beltran, 170). Doesn't seem like there's an upside, identity is lost and experience is meaningless. 

Columbus Was a Cosmopolitan

In “Pop Cosmopolitanism,” Henry Jenkins states pop cosmopolitanism as “someone whose embrace of global popular media represents an escape route out of parochialism of” their “local community” (Jenkins, 1).  Jenkins also says that the typical cosmopolitan will “embrace cultural difference, seeking to escape the gravitational pull of their local communities in order to enter a broader sphere of cultural experience” (Jenkins, 2).  To me, Jenkins wants his readers to think of pop cosmopolitanism as a person who leaves their own community that they are comfortable with for a different culture all together.  The typical cosmopolitan today in intrigued by international “food, dance, music, art, or literature” (Jenkins, 2).  Throughout the reading, Jenkins wants to emphasize  “how and why Asian pop culture is shaping American entertainment” (Jenkins, 2).  

I think that Henry Jenkins would have called Christopher Columbus a cosmopolitan.  This is because as Columbus was a world traveler, he was very intrigued with the outside world.  He wanted to know and learn about different people, different technologies, and different land.  He wanted to leave his world, in which he was comfortable with, and explore a new one.  Even though he actually didn’t discover America, he opened the threshold to the exploration of two mighty continents.

Pop Cosmopolitanism

      I think it's so important to understand that the media depicts ethnicities and cultures in so many ways that they aren't, but unfortunately this is what people think that the ethnicity that is being victimized acts in this sort of way, basically people become ambiguous to other cultures.  This is exactly why so many people around the world are trying to change who they are by changing their last names, getting plastic surgery to look less of 'what' they are, lose the accent that they were born with and essentially wear this veil where they are trying to have and seem more white and less anything else. We are engulfed with a preposterous amount of violence that is performed by minorities left and right, which of course we know that is controlled and altered by corporate convergence, where they control all the smaller media companies below them.
    I think that I can also speak for many people when the media alters things like movies, tv shows, music and any other sort of media that represents another culture.  Especially when it comes to the voices that are being used to speak another language. But unfortunately, and this doesn't only apply to the American culture, but as Jenkins mentioned, media imperialism relies on four forms of power, being economic, cultural, political, and psychological, in which I agree with 100%.

The Convergence of American and Asian Culture: K-Pop and its Fans

In Jenkins's take on pop cosmopolitanism, he states the definition of a modern pop cosmopolitan as "someone whose embrace of global popular media represents an escape route out of the parochialism of their local community." In other words, someone looking for a different experience from the culture they live in and absorb every day. Increasingly, one form of foreign media is becoming a cult favorite among those known as otakus, or "weeaboos," which is the more derogatory term for fans of Asian culture: Korean pop music, or "K-pop" as it is commonly referred to. For a basic overview of what K-pop is like stylistically and musically, think back to the boy bands of the 1990s; extremely dance-centric, often donning flashy costumes and putting on elaborate performances both in videos and live, and most songs having a fast electronic dance beat. However, many of K-pop's lyrics are in Korean, which most Americans do not study or understand. So how has this genre become so popular? As Jenkins states, the convergence of global media has given rise to a new form of pop cosmopolitanism; pop cosmopolitans "embrace cultural difference, seeking to escape the gravitational pull of their local communities in order to enter a broader sphere of cultural experience." In layman's terms, it is because of, not in spite of, the distinctly un-American nature of K-pop that fans are drawn to it. It is flashy and entirely based on style over substance, with serious ballads and slow songs very rare. One particular girl group that has become popular in America is Girls' Generation. A publication in New York Magazine stated that Girls' Generation fans admitted to liking the group for its members' looks and personality, not their music. A fan stated to the magazine that when Girls' Generation was onstage, there was sometimes the illusion that they were looking at them personally. This perfectly sums up the appeal of much of Asian media; different styles and a completely different feel than American media, which is built on flaunting a degree of wealth that almost seems designed to make those of a lower class feel even more aware of their inferior standing. It is something different and new, which pop cosmopolitans thrive on

Pop Comsopolitanism

In Thursday’s reading “Pop Cosmopolitan” by Jenkins he talks about Japanese culture and how it was brought into American Culture. He further talks about how various aspects of the culture are being brought to the United States and how they are Americanized by changing small details, like in the example he gives, in Pokemon. Media Producers of Pokemon changed the Japanese dumplings to Americanize doughnuts. They do to this because they want to make the show feel more accustom to American people viewing it. He also talks about how media companies are doing this less and less as we become more openly accepting to other cultures.

This article was interesting to me because I guess I wasn’t aware that media producers changed details of shows or movies to make them feel more “American”. To me I don’t think it would make the difference of using dumplings vs. doughnuts like in Pokemon, it not like you don’t know that it isn’t Japanese. I feel as if we are always borrowing ideas from other cultures, American is made up of immigrants, so my question is… What is truly American?

Also I find it interesting that American media producers feel the need to alter the media they are taking from other cultures, but many of those cultures don’t alter American made media other than language. I went to Mexico and they had all the same movies as in America, but what shocked me even more was they were viewing them in English, they had them in Spanish as well, but my Mexican cousin said that many preferred to view them in English because they were unaltered and actually in the actor/actresses voice, as where the other was in a translators voice.

I think a lot of our media uses aspects from Japanese culture. For example, in class we watched Boondocks. The show very much reminded me of anime because of the its style. First it was a cartoon with very exaggerated features like large eyes and heads, much like the style of anime. I think producer found Amine worked well in the US with certain groups and used a similar style to appeal to others and even people who like anime style. 

Progressive Representation in Film History

The essay on ethnic ambiguity, as well as the class discussion today forces one to consider how various ethnicities have been represented over time--as well as who has performed those instances of representation. I was thinking of the career of D.W. Griffith, and how a short progression of his filmmaking  seems to mirror the progression of racial representation in Hollywood, both playing into the worst of filmic misrepresentation of race, as well as downright celebration of racism, and underlining certain genuine positive attempts at social progress and ethnic visibility in Hollywood, be those attempts ill-conceived or still even retaining elements of regression on their own. In Birth of a Nation, Griffith undoubtedly glorifies the Ku Klux Klan as seemingly important heroes of America's history. There are also many outlandish instances of black face in the film. In an attempt to rectify the racist message which he had perhaps inadvertently perpetuated with his film, or perhaps in response to backlash against the film directed towards him by more progressive individuals or groups within society and within Hollywood, ostensibly to prove he was not a racist, the next major film he made was Intolerance, with which he sought to tackle the film's namesake issue by examining multiple forms of intolerance throughout history and the negative effects of that intolerance.

Even more significantly, however--at least socially, is Griffith's Broken Blossoms, in which--in 1919--Griffith depicts, for the first time ever in film history, the blossoming of an interracial relationship. And while the film does much in the way of promoting common facets of Orientalism (the actor playing the character (credited as The Yellow Man) is in fact a caucasian actor in "yellow face," and the film plays upon common misconceptions, or wide-spread images of Asian culture, such as Buddhism, exotic Asian clothing and opium dens), the fact that an interracial relationship was being portrayed at all in Hollywood in 1919--and what's more in a intentionally positive light, with the couple achieving happiness which is ultimately ruined by the prejudice still rampant in society at that time. It seems to me that Hollywood as a whole has, more or less, undergone a similar progression to these three films in Griffith, and perhaps it is a necessary progression- from cartoonish racial depictions which are incredibly offensive and even overtly racist, to narratives which seem to be more progressively leaning yet still skirt around instances of actual portrayal or representation of minorities, to active attempts to promote ideas of racial equality and grant representation to minorities on film--and yet still propagate, if unintentionally prejudiced ways of thinking. Perhaps ethnic ambiguity is the next phase in this progression.

The third phase seems to be analogous today to recent depictions of transgendered peoples in mainstream film. This sudden influx of trans character visibility in Hollywood has simultaneously been praised for bringing awareness to issues which have hitherto been largely ignored, or depicted in cartoonish or negative ways, and condemned for being what many consider to be a modern-day version of Blackface, in which cisgender actors are frequently chosen to portray transgender people instead of actual transgender people. Dallas Buyers Club comes to mind as a recent example, as well as the recent announcement that Eddie Redmayne will play a transgender woman in another upcoming hollywood films:

http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/eddie-redmayne-takes-on-role-as-first-trans-woman-to-h-1654303162?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Instances like Broken Blossoms, Dallas Buyers Club, and this new film are both regressive and progressive. Perhaps this is a necessary dichotomy- even the most progressive of texts will always exhibit strains which are indicative of the prejudice that remains in society in which is exists. The moment instances of such progressive texts are truly devoid without prejudice is the moment at which society has achieved total tolerance--which will never happen, as tolerance, rather than being an absolute quality to be achieved, is something that can only be worked towards, and improved. Media texts, and the ways in which they tackle representation of various members of society, will always be reflective of the society in which they are constructed.

Pixar films and the Bechdel test

The AV Club has a piece up about how ten of fourteen Pixar features fail the Bechdel test, and only one (Brave) has a female protagonist at all.

The author isn't condemning Pixar or saying the films are all bad because of this gender problem, but pointing out how the company, which prides itself on rich storytelling, has room to grow and expand its storytelling to include more interesting female characters.  


food for thought!

Rosalyn Sanchez in Devious Maids

In the reading “Ethnic Ambiguity in the Era of Dark Angels” by Mary Beltran, Beltran discusses the different ways that Jessica Alba and Rosario Dawson are portrayed in films. She explains that based on Jessica Alba’s features she can be perceived without an ethnicity attached and has been casted to play more white roles than Rosario Dawson. Dawson however, is always perceived by audiences with ethnicity because of her phenotype and can only be casted for certain roles in film. After reading these comparisons made by Beltran, I was reminded of Roselyn Sanchez who plays Carmen Luna in Devious Maids. In Devious Maids Sanchez plays a driven, hardworking, Puerto Rican maid who is striving to succeed in her singing aspirations. She’s very motivated and will do anything to make her singing career happen and although devious maids does shed some light on some of the discrimination that Latin women face in real life, typically Sanchez is shown with her attractiveness being a main focus and has only been casted for certain roles similar to Rosalyn Dawson based on her heavy accent and ethnic features.  For instance, she has played a secret agent in Rush Hour 2 and a kidnapped undercover CIA agent in Act of Valor, despite these two similar roles, her ethnicity is something that will always be attached to her the same way it is for Rosario Dawson. Roselyn Sanchez was also featured in Fabolous’s music video for his song Make Me Better  ft Neyo in 2009 and in this video she plays the role of a strong tough women ,which is similar to her role in Rush Hour 2, and she is seen as complimenting Fabolous and “making him better” with her looks being showed in an exotic way which catches an audience’s attention.

Stardom Down To A Formula

            While there are many ways in which celebrities come to receive there star status, it seems that the majority of which, particularly in the film industry, come from a single outstanding performance which turns commercially successful. It isn’t all that unusual hear of “one hit wonders” in music, where a band has one song blow up and go huge and then subsequently fall back into obscurity, or where one particular TV star excels in a certain role but fails to make the jump into cinema. I feel this is fairly rare in cinema however, where one roll can cement someone at a pop icon over night. I would assume this is because once that one actor or actress has a successful roll, this is used as a formula to turn out more successful films with that person in that specific kind of roll, simply because its been proven to be financially successful.One person that comes to mind almost immediately is Bruce Willis, as he had several rolls in romantic comedies, one of which was a bomb in the box office and one of which was moderately successful prior to his roll in Die Hard, which grossed $81M on a meager $22M budget. Once big studios/producers/managers/agents see the successful formula they clamor to maintain this image and to continue to use it. Since Die Hard, Bruce Willis has been in over two dozen action films playing the same tough/badass/hero roll that he had in Die Hard itself. Even films that are not action based market his roll in accordance to this persona. In the trailer for The Sixth Sense, Willis, who is a major character in the film, is almost never shown unless he is in the midst of a high-octane action shot, often edited to push this to an even greater extent. Once filmmakers and financers noted the “Bruce Willis” formula, they fleshed it out as much as they could, and still continue to do so, as Willis, even with his age, is still set to star in action films up until late 2015, and it would not be surprising to see more follow, simply because of this success formula. Because of this, Willis has spent just over two decades building on this badass image that was first presented with his role in Die Hard in 1988. This image has gone beyond film too, with Willis having publicly supporting the U.S. Military. He has gone over to the Middle East multiple times to visit troops, donated 12,000 boxes of girl scout cookies to deployed members of the Navy in the Middle East, even expressed interest in joining the military to fight in the second Gulf War, but was dissuaded because of his age. This all ties into this character type, and while there is a good chance that he genuinely enjoys this kind of thing, I would assume that his managers, agents, etc. definitely played a significant roll in the presentation and coverage of such matters, because it sells, and because this kind of activity would being more validity to this character, because why would you want to watch an average guy play a badass roll when you could watch an authentic badass play a badass roll? The Bruce Willis example is just one of many that I can think of like this (Stallone, Eastwood, Statham, S. Jackson, Neeson, Schwarzenegger, etc.), especially in the action genre.

Stars As Specific Images

Richard Dyer makes some really compelling arguments in his piece describing the relationship of the celebrity in relation to the media. Dyer states that this relationship is made up of key components, including the promotion/publicity, the body of work (or films that they have been in), and criticism/commentary on that body of work or actions taken by that celebrity. I believe that all of these qualities are essential for the relation of celebrity and media, but we must also account for the fact that the media is not always accurate; by that I mean the celebrity may put out a false image that is not necessarily who they actually are as a person. Dyer doesn't really account for this, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether he is using his description to achieve a total knowledge of the celebrity. However, I think if posed with the question he would argue that the actual persona/o of the celebrity is not essential to their meaning in a cultural sense, and that the message formed by the media is all that really matters, be it good or bad in the end, due to a social removal or disconnect from the celebrity to their fans. Their identity becomes synonymous with their careers and they are socially isolated as people. Perhaps this is why so many celebrities seem so lost in their personal lives.

Postfeminism

"You don't need a man, you are the man, If you don't stop you will be forever alone" this is the quote from Think Like a Man that came to mind while I was reading this article "Post-feminism and Popular Culture" by Angela McRobbie. In this film and in many other films we are told that we are unable to be strong powerful woman unless we are willing to be labeled "a bitch" or even "a man." In this movie in particular there is a woman named Lauren who is a C.E.O of her company and makes a six figure salary. While talking with her friend Candance during dinner she says how she should not have to lower her standards because she is an independent powerful woman and if she was a man then woman would flock on her, her friend Candance then reassures her that yes, but since she is a woman it makes men flee rather then flock. My question would be, why would a woman have to be told that she is unable to be powerful and independent because it will scare men away from her success. In the movie Steve Harvey even says that "the independent woman" needs to lower her standards if she truly wants to find love because the men want to be the provider and once they feel like they are unable to be that since the woman makes more then the man will want to leave. She does not want to lower her standards, but in the end of the movie it shows herself lowering her standards by giving herself up to love and the male character Dominic. This happens in many movies such as Pretty in Pink, when in the end a strong independent woman changes her style and role to be with a man, and in the Ugly Truth when Abby gets lessons from Mike in order to get the attention of a man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8vxExfofIo
   -Talk between Candance and Lauren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htyDkxfdaLc
    -The ugly truth "women need beauty to show some type of full success"

Heavenly Bodies

This week I choose to read “Heavenly Bodies” by Richard Dyer. I found this article very interesting. It has a lot to do with many of the readings we have recently read in class. They all relate to movie stars or super starts and how they are portrayed. Heavenly bodies focus on movie stars and how their image is built. Stars are produced by the media industries and Hollywood. Dyer discusses the development of a movie star, he explains that star are ultimately made for profit. Dyer states above all they are part of a labour that produces films as a commodity that can be sold for profit in the market place. He basically explains that stars star out as raw material and are built into these version of “heavenly bodies”that producers wants them to be. Just to  later use to produce another community, a film. Dyer compares the making of a movie star to Karl Marx idea of capitalism. How the individual is lost and how a star is just a machine. Stars are built for profit and are just a product to sell. When I read this article I couldn’t help but connect to many celebrities we see in pop culture. One of the celebrities I thought of the most was Miley Cyrus. I think Miley fits into this category because she has so many producers and whole team of people who work to build her imagine. She started out as raw material and now is transformed into a star. Everything that Miley Cyrus is has been built by her team. She is no longer a singer/ actress she’s a brand.  The whole Cyrus Corporation is a huge factory and I related this to the thoughts of Richard Dyer.

Stars and how they are perceived

The way stars are perceived is usually what movies they play in the most. Suspense and Action/Adventure catches my eye in a few stars. For example, a person who would be perceived as a somewhat ignorant/arrogant man is Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson has starred in some fantastic movies in his lifetime but how he is perceived today is a great actor but most people see him as ignorant more than arrogant. Jackson is only known to be ignorant because he is obnoxiously loud and he doesn't care what he says. This makes me like him more as an actor and a person even more. Suspense and Adventure is Jackson's specialty because he can play the hell out of Nick Fury in the Marvel films and Pulp Fiction made people fall in love with him. His part in Django as Stephen was fantastic and just plain hilarious but the magazine articles named him ignorant because they said he could have done better and not played the part of an Uncle Tom. What he portrays in movies might not be how he actually acts in real life. Publicity for a star like Jackson is a big thing because it gets him payed and he is put out into the world as a famous man no matter how people perceive him. The media sets the tone of the life of a star. Rather its in movies, sports, etc. The media wants the world to view the star in what they see on the screen rather than how the star truly is behind closed doors.

First Wave vs. Third Wave Feminism

Many who are "antifeminists" or simply refuse to label themselves as feminists cite the reason for their opposition as what they perceive as a growing element of misandry in the feminism movement, particularly highlighting examples they find on Tumblr or other forms of social media. There is even a Facebook group titled "Women Against Feminism" who give explanations such as "I can take responsibility for my own actions," and "If I get drunk, have sex, and regret it the next morning, that's not an excuse to cry rape." In some ways this opposition is understandable in the wake of a slimming gap between genders, however the forefront of the feminist movement in the early 1900s was a very different animal. Women were still perceived to be biologically different from men, the more emotional sex, but this was made out by women not to be a disadvantage, but an advantage, in the polls, because they were more in tune with emotional needs. This was their platform when campaigning for suffrage, and for the most part it worked, because even women in the movement were admitting to differences from the male sex. Second wave feminism is what most people think of when they think of feminism, however, and this was when the radicalization caused a backlash that continues to this day. Interestingly enough, though actual bra burnings have never been proven to have occurred, some still cite this rumor and exaggeration as way to make all feminists seem like misandrists. Finally, there is third-wave feminism, which is what we are working with today. This is the age of "riot grrls," of "lipstick feminism," and of a focus on sexual and personal freedoms. A movement against slut-shaming, and victim blaming in cases of sexual assault, and for more women in positions of power. Where is the line drawn, then, between a cause for equality, and plain misandry? The difference is: where one woman is fighting to have the same rights as a man, another is screaming about how women are the superior sex and having fantasies of male genocide

Thursday's Reading- Celebrity Image

In this week’s reading “Stars as Specific Images” Richard Dyer talks about how celebrities are portrayed according to promotion, publicity, films, and criticisms. We see these used all the time with today’s celebrities all the time. So I very much agree with the article and Dyers ideas. I think celebrities are used so much in various TV commercials and Ads because it helps sell an objects, people view it as “if this famous person, like Kate Walsh, dyes her hair with Garnier box dye, so can I”. This is beneficial toward the Gariner but also add to her image as a celebrity, saying that she endorses the use of box hair dye. Honestly, I think she does it for publicity aspects as a job, because what rich person would choose to use a cheap box hair dye, when they can get beautiful salon dye. Also, I think it is a way of humanizing her image. To say although she is a rich and famous celeb, she’s just like the average woman trying to stay beautiful. Celebrities today I feel are most shaped or formed by publicity. Publicity is huge whether it is true or not. Publishing’s in magazines, online, or even news coverage all comment and add to celebs image. Often times I feel like they have very harsh and bring down some of the celebrities or falsely portray them as people by leaking false or person information. I feel like this happens all the time with Kim Kardashian. I feel like media is always portraying her as a bad person, with bad publicity. But, do they really know the type of person she really is, do we? We only get and know of how media shapes and tells us she is as a person.

Marilyn Monroe as a Specific Image

In the article, "Stars as Specific Images", Richard Dyer pick apart the aspects of a star in the mass media. The first aspect he talks about is promotion. This is where media texts are deliberately used in order to put out a specific image for a star. "It includes (i) material concerned directly with the star in question...(ii) material promoting the star in a particular film" (pg. 60) The first one deals with things like images in fashion, how they look in public, etc. The second one is more like movie posters, magazines and stuff like that. The second aspect is publicity and this differs from promotion because it's "not deliberate image-making" (pg.61). Publicity is mainly through the press in texts such as gossip columns, radio interviews, and television interviews. Dyer explains that "The only cases where one can be fairly certain of genuine publicity are the scandals" (pg. 61) He also says the "The importance of publicity is that, in its apparent or actual escape from the image that Hollywood is trying to promote, it seems more authentic" (pg. 61) Dyer goes on to talk about film and the idea of the vehicle. This is when a film is built around the star's image, "a situation setting or generic context associated with the star" (pg. 62) The final aspect that Dyer talks about is the criticism and commentaries. "This refers to what was said or written about the star in terms of appreciation or interpretation by critics and writers." (pg. 62) The critics express "a widely held, pre-existing sentiment or view about a star. More frequently, however, they contribute to the shaping of 'public opinion' about a star." (pg. 63)
I think that the majority of stars' images are really defined by these aspects that Dyer talks about but I want to focus on Marilyn Monroe specifically. Marilyn Monroe was promoted as being a sex symbol and this is largely demonstrated by her roles in her films. This demonstrates the idea of the vehicle because a lot of Monroe's characters were based around her image that was always promoted. Monroe also had a wide variety of publicity. She struggled with image problems, depression, as well as drug problems and this was largely publicized and critiqued. When Monroe passed away from a drug overdose, this became a very big publication.