Not dead yet April 6, 2007

Just for the record, I will resume my witty and essential blogging whenever possible, probably after exams. I think this is probably the best blog I’ve had yet and it’s only going to get better so… KEEEP READING IT! lol

By the way, there has been some murmuring about starting up (or restarting) a sociology club… is there anyone who would be interested in that and if so, what kind of things would you like to do with a crazy soci club? Marx and beer nights are sounding good to me!

Watching The Illusionist and 5 minutes into it… it sucks. I think.

Zzzap! Zzzap! March 20, 2007

Indeed, most media images of the minority are being produced by the majority.

Well, the Ingham article turned me off when she wrote ’site’ instead of ‘cite’ and my attention was particularly caught by the Horsley article. However, being a liberal with an ‘everyone’s great’ paradigm, it is really difficult for me to discuss ignorance and intolerance because I would rather like to think that it doesn’t happen. But it does, and very much so in the media.
It’s interesting because the article talks back and forth as to whether or not all homosexual people should be grouped into one main category of ‘gay culture’ or whether they should be viewed without such a classification. In favour of the category argument, Foucault is cited as having discussed the historical moment when homosexuality started being seen as a “type of life”. Without taking the extra step and railroading the phrase into “way of life” as the author has done, I believe what Foucault was saying could be viewed as pertaining to individual types of life and in no sense does he allude to a larger cultural formation. After all, Dr. Malacrida who is a huge Foucault fan, told me a while ago that despite the fact that he was gay, he was intensely suspicious of the gay rights movement (since I don’t know the specific reason why, I won’t go further with that but perhaps you can ask Dr. Malacrida if you see her). Therefore, Foucault may not have exactly been in favour of the classification of gay culture, especially since he did not hold the same glorifying view of scientific methods (with their binaries) that the general population does.
But I digress. In order to humour this gay culture argument, I thought about how one would characterize heterosexual culture, which is all around us. Would it be through similar clothes that all aim to seduce the opposite sex? Highly sexual music lyrics directed at the opposite sex (i.e. “I’m Fergalicious, I put all the boys on rock rock…” ugh)? Movies about performing heterosexual acts (i.e. American Pie)? Or the constant adherence by males and females to their gender binaries in order to enact the masculine and feminine, which have built in heterosexual characteristics? But not everyone buys into all of that, not every heterosexual person embodies these characteristics all the time; they too have been created by the majority as dumbed-down heterosexual culture. Just like not everyone is gay in the feminized way homosexual men are shown in the Simpsons clip. Not every homosexual could be on the cast of Will & Grace or Queer Eye!
On the other side of the argument is the non-classification premise, which is hugely supported by queer theory. Now, since we’re all attending class at a university in a small city in an ultra-conservative province, you (like me) might need a refresher as to what this is. “Queer Theory – an approach to issues of sex and gender which has primarily arisen out of postmodernist thought. In emphasizing the ‘performative’ aspects of gender and sexuality, Queer theory emphasizes their unnaturalness. From this perspective, there are no fundamental identities underlying maleness or femaleness, homosexuality or heterosexuality.” (Courtesy of Jary & Jary’s Sociological Dictionary, NOT copied and pasted from Wiki).
Now this fine, except that it leaves me in the same place the most postmodernism does, without anything to work with. If there is no gender or sexuality, then why do we even have an article about it? Why do we have hegemonic heterosexual culture? Postmodernist thought often leaves me feeling powerless because if none of this really exists, but we still enact it, there is nothing that can be done by simply stating that it’s not real! And that, in itself, is really why I cannot draw a conclusion about this article. I don’t believe that all homosexual people are the same and I think that any boundaries our society could draw around a term like ‘gay culture’ would just be too narrow to acknowledge all the different people out there and may only add to stereotypes and prejudices. On the other hand, people’s lives, whether they include homosexual or heterosexual relationships, still embody something real and that must be recognized and not devalued. Therefore, rather than listen to experts on this topic, or even myself and my opinion, I guess I would need to do some research into how homosexual people view themselves before concluding what the media should portray in order for America to view people who are gay.

Here’s the trailer for a movie that the article views as a “wider range” of homosexual media portrayal:

Bonding with Bond, James Bond February 25, 2007

Alright, here is my ‘extensive blog post’ assignment. It is in relation to this article by Russell Smith and about my own movie going experience (that was just to fill in anyone who may be reading this but is not in the class). I am going to take advantage of the fact that this is out in the open for anyone to read, quite different from other assignments, and ask that if anyone comes across spelling, grammar or any other type of error, please leave me a comment so I can further edit it. Thanks, I think it’s great to help people out.
Here goes:

People and Popcorn: A Look at Social Interaction and Movies

Movie watching is an experience that becomes habituated in people if they participate in it enough. Most of us have been going to the theatres since we were toddling around in flashing sneakers and crying about getting the Lion King popcorn bucket. Therefore, I find it fairly easy to settle into a semi-padded chair, lean back, and forget about the people around me whether they are unwashed or not. As a result, I decided to go to the Movie Mill for this assignment because if I was going to be repulsed by movie going it was most likely to happen there.

Being the cheap theatre, the Mill generally has preteens swarming around its entrance with the girls dressed like Fergie and the boys imitating gangsters. People speed through the parking lot, ignorant of any rows of cars, asking for a head-on collision. Even so, I was able to park safely, enter the building with a passive glance at the deviants, and emerge into the foyer with a loud, greasy pizza place on my right and screaming children playing mini-golf on the left. My friends and I strolled up to the ticket booth, pleased there was no line, and then noticed the sign stating “We are preparing for the next show, please buy your tickets at the concession.” As we proceeded on to the next area, lined with moss green carpet speckled with popcorn and accompanied by the din of arcade games, we took our place at the end of a line that was backed up almost to the empty booth where we had been. Five minutes later, tickets were again being sold in the foyer again and the line dispersed into chaotic groups of people moving back and forth, deciding where ticket buying was best, whether or not they wanted snacks and just how to direct their children to the their seats.

I nudged my boyfriend into one of the lines as he stared up at the giant signs. The two people we were with were getting antsy because of the crowd and told us, “Quick, get the jumbo combo, we’ll get the seats!” and it was as though they would stealthily outsmart the crowd to enhance their movie-going experience. We entered, not only with the giant sized, “free refills” pop and popcorn but also – upon request of our high-class friends – with extra cups and napkins for each of us to have a proper and tidy portion. As I convinced them to sit closer toward the back of the theatre for the sake of my people-watching experience, one exclaimed, “Well, at least there isn’t white stuff on these seats back here.”

I took a prompt pee break before the previews in a bathroom that was well over-due for renovations and compelled me to only touch things with papertowel between them and myself. I then returned, settled my feet into the sticky floor and proceeded to watch the film.

Is Russell Smith correct about there being negative aspects to attending a movie in a public theatre? Sure. Did I enjoy myself? Thoroughly.

There is more to the big picture than what Smith comments on. Movie going is a way of getting out of the house, especially in a city like Lethbridge where the nightlife is somewhat limited. It is an enjoyable outing that appeals to many different people; this was apparent from the diversity of age groups, gender, and ethnicities of people within the theatre (in fact, it was more diverse than a person would think for a James Bond flick). People have enough options that they can pick movie genres that suit them and in this way movie going can be somewhat personalized for increased consumer satisfaction. However, Smith may argue that people can bring home whichever movies they desire and then would not need to endure the masses. Therefore, it is primarily important to realize that movie going is a unique social activity.

First, it is a social activity between the people with whom you see the movie. No one at the Mill that evening entered the building, sat down, and stared at the screen like a robot. Rather, people generally sauntered through the ticket and concession areas holding lively conversations that, although they may not have been about anything deeply profound, were a form of bonding. Inside the theatre, five girls behind us passed the time before the movie by making plans for the next weekend and enjoyed commenting on the advertisements that were repeated on the screen, “Look! You could advertise your wedding, then random strangers can come, hah!” The couples put their arms around each other and the families shared popcorn with intricate methods of alternating the bag from one end of the row to the other. On top of these bonding components, films also serve to moderate intimacy between people who go to them. People who may not have a relationship conducive to talking for two hours or the level of intimacy required for renting a video at a person’s house, can go to a movie and feel as though they are putting in quality time without being uncomfortable. This is clear from the quips people often make to each other during the previews or feature film. The two teenage boys in front of us interacted the whole time by quietly exclaiming surprise at almost every action scene by whispering, “Whoa, that was awesome!”

Secondly, movie going is a collective social activity. From a Durkheimian point of view, it could be seen as consisting of many rituals, such as purchasing the sacred tickets, purchasing the snacks, and choosing a seat (Emirbayer, 2003). Such rituals and common actions build up a collective effervescence that ties people together through common emotions, such as anticipation of the film and the desire to enjoy this outing. As a result, a common conscience forms among the collective that shapes the norms of a movie going experience and punishes those who do not abide by them. This was very obvious when a woman’s cell phone went off twice during the movie. By the second time, one of the girls behind us muttered loudly, “I’m going to break that phone” and the boys in front of us glared intensely at the woman. There was a general rustling of condemnation, which died down after she turned off her phone. Thus, this protects the collective experience of movie going and, contrary to the picture Smith paints, keeps it from being an uncivilized feeding trough.

References
Emirbayer, M. (2003). Introduction – Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of modernity. In M. Emirbayer (Ed.), Emile Durkheim: Sociologist of modernity (pp. 1-29). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Quebecois and French Films February 14, 2007

I love Quebecors, and the only thing better than those loveable Francophones is their movies!!! I think the world still does not know this as much as it should so here, I shall share it with you!

If you only see one French film, see C.R.A.Z.Y.

It is a coming-of-age type of story about a homosexual boy growing up in a family with four brothers who are each unique. Not only does the movie have very interesting twists and turns, it takes you back to the 70s and the main character has awesome clothes and music tastes all throughout. I don’t want to give away the rest of the plot so just rent it and stick those subtitles on! Or borrow it from me, it was good enough that I bought it. Here’s the trailer (but it gives away a lot!!):

Secondly, there is Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amélie Poulain (The Fabulous Destiny of Amélie Poulain), which is now basically a classic. It is, in the end a love story (heck, it’s Valentine’s day, go rent it) but along the way there are lots of interesting characters, good laughs and a very interesting plot (something missing in many chick flicks). Here’s the trailer:

La Grande Seduction is about a doctor who ends up having to work at a small fishing village that does not have any doctors. The village goes to hilarious lengths to convince the doctor that it’s not such a bad place and he should stay. Here’s the trailer:

Les Invasions Barbares is a riveting, emotional film about accepting death and cherishing life. Here’s a trailer and it’s actually in English:

So if it sounds like my descriptions are really superficial it’s because I have trouble plugging just about anything. These are great movies and I don’t want to ruin the plot so I just wanted to share a bit about them. Don’t be afraid of subtitles, just plunge in with an open mind and you might enjoy Frenchies more than you expected.

I’m gonna open a can of whoop-… January 21, 2007

So I was driving today and listening to the CBC. Indeed, I would like to state that I do not dislike radio in its entirety since it is one of the only contacts with mass media I have had this weekend. When I tuned in, the announcer (who was prone to interrupting everyone) was talking about violence in the media.

First I will get my frustrations of the way. It was a call-in show, where anyone could voice their opinions. I guess I am a little unsympathetic with people’s innate desire to be heard but I absolutely cannot stand that 75% of people who call in act like experts and say nothing edifying. It is like listening to the one kid in lecture classes (you know they always pop up) who seems to have a comment for everything and needs to voice it to the prof and the whole class. However, instances like that make me think “I am not paying $500 for you to try and teach this class buddy” whereas public, free radio is a bit different. So yes, I will give people a chance, I mean them voicing their opinions is no different than the rush I get from having a personal blog that is pretty centered on my own viewpoints.

Now, more to the point, the announcer (whom we will call Bill) seemed to think that media violence although it is an age-old issue should be reviewed because it is much more far-reaching these days. Of particular concern was the ability of youth the access all sorts of violent images on the internet. I am sure there are a lot, in fact they are probably a lot more accessible than pornography because I have never heard of someone having to sign up to a website with violent content before they can view it though, I understand, many porn websites take this precaution to ward off minors. The thing about the internet is, what can you do? Should it be regulated? Should all parents have filters that function as panopticons on their children/teen’s surfing? What does that do to family trust? And it is not just children who are affected by violence, these images do impact the rest of us. Many people said that it is inevitable that children will come across violence in the media, therefore it is important how we educate them about media literacy and how to negotiate and distinguish these images from reality. I agree with this. Many of us saw some pretty raunchy stuff on television while we were growing up but had to learn how to deal with it. I really cannot go any further in this direction because the internet and its continual expansion truly stumps me in terms of whether and how it should be controlled.

On to the textbook, and I realize this is a reading from last week but let’s humour CBC and talk about things that have been talked about before (note that I missed Wednesday’s class, out of necessity though I wish I had not, and if we talked about any of this I am sorry if I am naively reiterating it). So we have AVGOT and it says…
a) Only violence essential to the plot is allowed. Okay, so what about shows where violence a central focus of the plot? CBC brought up the issues of the Sopranos, which perhaps can be argued to have other components than violence but what about shows like Jackass? Where people just do violent junk to each other for the heck of it:

b) Violence cannot be the central theme in cartoons. Does this include cartoons geared toward adults? Such as South Park, The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad… etc. I’m not sure but I would sure like to know! However, most of these DO show after 9:00pm so that is alright…though parents sure should not give anyone younger than 16 a TV in his/her room. I had a friend that, at the age of 12, would stay up almost all night every weekend watching Showcase religiously. A more focused thought pattern is that on CBC they were talking about how many of the shows/movies that are out there just for people to get kicks off of violence (like kung fu stuff or Terminator) are very cartoonish in a Bugs Bunny kind of way because there are the heroes and the one-dimensional characters that nobody cares if they get blown up or not. So how do regulations deal with shows that are not cartoons but treat the characters as people who are as disposable as animations?

So the other points of AGVOT are in our text and I will not exhaustively pick them apart but I do not think they are followed very closely BUT my TV watching is limited, what I can say is that I watch a ton of movies and if most of them were subjected to this criteria, they would not pass. It always baffles me that the movie ratings are stricter in the USA, did you know that? So something the Americans have rated R is usually only 14A here. I think that is crazy and it has led to my parents renting quite a few movies, thinking they are in for something 14A-ish and then we watch the movie as a family and are subjected to sex scenes that are just downright uncomfortable when you are with your parents!! Boy did they learn quickly!

Another phone-in to CBC did mention the news and how horrid some of the footage can be. I was once watching The National, thinking I am doing my civil duty by being informed, and there was a clip of dead bodies on a beach that had been accidentally bombed in Iraq. The clip was long enough to include screaming and weeping of family members over their dead children. I could NOT watch the news for a very long time after that. Every time there is a school shooting and they show footage I also loose sleep over the violent graphics. This causes me to think about how certain things are condoned in the name of certain causes or in certain spheres. Obviously, violence in the news is permissible because it is real and it is an issue. I went to an art exhibit this weekend and there were many sexual references in a lot of the artwork. That did not bother me but some people had brought their children out and I saw these kids, maybe 5 or 6 years old, staring at the pictures and the parents condoned it in the name of art. Bill, CBC guy, told someone who called in that the difference between senseless killing in entertainment and violence that is alright that some of the violence is artistic.

All in all, I am not greatly offended by small amounts of violence, sometimes it is essential for the plot. I do agree with the desensitization theory in that I am able to watch something gruesome and not really be affected. However, massive amounts of grotesque violence are out there, and probably accessible through the net, so we do need to give some thought to that.