Friday, December 26, 2008

A Curious Case of...

Well, after attending a preview screening over a week ago, I shall now write a post about the recent release "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". I warn you now that there could be spoilers within this article, so perhaps go and see the film before you read ahead. I am not a fan of the reviewers who go out there and spoil little details about a film. But I am not a fan of film reviewers in general. A puzzling statement? Perhaps, as I am indeed doing something similar, but its the "I hate this film and consquently you will too" film reviews, and the whole snobbery that goes along with it. Oh well, thats out of the system. And now for some hypocritical writings:

Months before its release, Ben Button has been touted as one of the years best (and by some critics) one of the decades best. So let's just say that this film is a tad beyond anticipated. Immediate award season buzz can often disappoint audiences when the eyes actually hit the screen, however, I can only say that Ben Button is truly one heartbreakingly beautiful story.

The main gist of Ben Button is that Brad Pitt is born an old man and ages backwards, meeting Cate Blanchett as a young girl, and then again later on "meeting in the middle", thus creating an unusual situation of Brad Pitt getting younger as Cate Blanchett grows older. I've heard that apparently half of the budget was spent of the CGI aging effects. And lets just say that to this film, these effects have the utmost significance, adding slight plausibility to the unbelieveable story. Roger Ebert, gave the film a little 2 1/2 stars out of the usual 4 that most Oscar bound films receive. He went on about the impracticle idea of how someone could age backwards. Now, we do know that Mr. Ebert has been in and out of hospital lately, and so perhaps this could be a fair reason for such a comment. Because it's not like films and stories are a creation of fiction. According to Mr. Ebert, films must be heavily plausible. So, I guess according to Mr. Ebert, there would be a lot of film that must be baloney. Perhaps every Disney movie ever made.

Ben Button was originally a short story written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, yonks ago, and that's just the start of the amazing crew behind this film. You've got an adaptation by Eric Roth (Forrest Gump, co writer of Munich), David Fincher as director (Fight Club, Zodiac) and a wonderful score by Alexandre Desplat (The Queen). Acting snaps go to the quite wonderful cast of Brad Pitt (he has an innocent, boyish romantic charm about him in this), Cate Blanchett (wonderful by default as always) Taraji P. Henson (absolute scene stealer!) Tilda Swinton (what is it about this woman that makes her fascinating?) and Julia Ormond (that girl from the remake of Sabrina...where the hell did she go?).

Watching this 3 hour epic, which did not feeling that long, was a feast for the romantic at heart. The story was so beautiful, and piecing together the pieces make you realise how well this film was made. Snaps go to the cinematographer and Fincher, and just everyone in general. This highly successful collaborative effort is an example of what happens when everything goes right.

But after writing this, I wonder what substance does it add? I criticise reviews, and consequently make some myself. Hypocrisy leads to guilt, but I just needed to get this out there. If you can get anything from reading this, I hope it is to see THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Reviews

Now, you see, I could be really smart and conscientious and write a really professional looking review. However, I cannot be bothered. And so, in its place comes....

BODY OF LIES
As a cinema student, I find it hard to switch off from theories and ideas and such that circulate in class. Bad habit or good habit? Who knows, but let's just say that the words Post Apocalyptic Cinema kept ringing through my ears during this film. I could go on to explain why this was the case, (i.e. giving you a brief synopsis). However, I will not waste the time. I went into this film without seeing a trailer and without hearing much word about it, which can often be the best way to go into a film. Instead, I went into this film with the hopes of another good Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott collaboration with the added bonus of Leo DiCarprio. Well, perhaps that was too much to expect. Gladiator was amazing, but was I honestly expecting more gold. And it failed to deliver. I'm not going to go into heavy detail with plot criticisms or even any other criticisms. But this was not my film. The ideas were too complicated and confusing. Dialogue was derivative and simple. Acting was fine, but the first ten minutes should have the tagline of "watch Leonardo wear a fake beard and pretend to be Fidel Castro." I just trailed off, so much to the point where I did fall asleep. So, unless you enjoy complicated and nonsensical stories with a tiny bit of terrorism, co-ercion and themes of betrayal and trust, etc., stay away from BODY OF LIES.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE The same night, after seeing Body of Lies, I went and saw the new Bond. Going in, I was pretty sure that Bond would look good at best compared to Body of Lies, and I was not disappointed. In fact, I will go as far to say that I loved it. Perhaps even more than Casino Royale. Which is a big statement, and one that would require another viewing of each film, but to me, it was perfect. The only exception being that it was a tad too long, but that can be forgiven. It was just the perfect Bond film. It has all you need. The enenemy, the hero (still, with a bit of edge, but less edgy than in the previous), the helper (M), the sultry Bond girl and a fast paced script with well handled direction. One thing that I've almost forgotten about was the Bond song. I was looking forward to what the Jack White/Alicia Keys collaboration would sound like, and let's just say that I was sitting there, quite sadden and disappointed in the Bond opening titles. So many times now, we have seen such classic songs with such classic artists. Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, GoldenEye. It's not easy to get the Bond song right, but when it works, oh boy, does it work. And it did not in Quantum of Solace. And what does Quantum of Solace even mean? I understand that oil and water played a part of the film, but it still escapes me. However, despite the crappy song, I was pleased to see the names of Paul Haggis (co-writer) and Marc Forster (director) in the opening. They did a wonderful job, as did Craig himself. I won't go on much more, but this was the perfect popcorn action film for me, who is not a huge action afficiendao. And that is saying something!

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Pre-emptive reviews are back!!

As some of you may know, I often will write a few sentence reviews on films that are screening currently that I either have seen, want to see, or want to avoid and hate like the plague. So here it comes again!

AMERICAN TEEN Okay, I've never heard of this. Got no fudging idea what its about, but the title almost puts me off. The synopsis that hoyts.com.au gives us is "A documentary on seniors at a high school in a small Indiana town and their various cliques." Gee, that sounds like every fucking teenage aimed film under the earth. NEXT!

BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA The catchy little song on the ads hooked me in for about 3 seconds. Interest gone.

BODY OF LIES Fuck yeah! Ridley Scott, Leonardo, Russ. I kinda cream myself here. I have no idea why I haven't seen this yet. Maybe it's because I've been a hermit living in an iso-tank?

BRIDESHEAD REVISITED Maybe the only
reason why I would see this would be for Emma Thompson. And thats still a maybe!

BURN AFTER READING Give me time and I will give this justice. Just one more week!

CENTRE STAGE 2 As if.

CHOKE Okay. I may be more excited about this one than Burn After Reading and Body of Lies put together, for many, many reasons. The main being Angelica Huston. She is a goddess and I bow down to her, my queen of all things shiny.

DEATH RACE Am I the only person on the face of the planet who couldn't give a flying fuck about Jason Stratham? The one public sex scene in Crank was about all I could take.

DISASTER MOVIE Scary Movie 2 was about the last funny one of these parody movies. And even that's pushing it. Wanna see real parody? Hire some Mel Brooks films. And Flying High. True genius!

THE DUCHESS Does Sofia Coppolla's Marie Antoinette ring a bell? Not that I've seen this, but perhaps I'd go for the sex scene that it promises. Thats all.

DYING BREED
Heard good things about this little Aussie horror film.

EAGLE EYE I think the synopsis says it all: "A young slacker returns home when his overachieving twin brother dies mysteriously. Both he and a single mother find they have been framed as terrorists. Forced to become members of a cell that has plans to carry out a political assassination, they must work together to extricate themselves." Yeah, I think not...


HOUSE BUNNY
I've actually heard that Anna Faris isn't too bad in it. But thats about it....

HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS AND ALIENATE PEOPLE There are so many things that should make this look appealing. But alas, I do not wish to get closer. I dunno...

IN BRUGES So far the only thing I've heard about this film is that Colin Farrell is not his usual crap self. Well, after seeing A Home at the End of the World, I don't know if I can go near him ever again. Actually, Miami Vice was far worse!

JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH Remember that time when Brendan Fraser was cool? No? Well, there was a sm
all window. I mean he was George of the Jungle! But now....

MAX PAYNE Nah. And it's now that I realise that I don't want to see the majority of these films. HAHAHAHA

MIRRORS It looks like a nice little shitty thriller. Like Shutter. That was a nice little shitty thriller.

MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR
From what I heard, this should have been a straight to DVD release. And that is probably where I will view it.

MY BEST FRIEND'S GIRL Hmmm....maybe a drunken guilty pleasure film? I mean, it has Alec Baldwin. Alec Baldwin! He has such a close proximity to Tina Fey right now! TINA FEY I TELLS YA!!!!!

NIGHTS IN RODANTHE Now, how in the hell do you say this title? Every time I see it all I can think of is rhododendron. Therefore this film to me is called Nights in Rhododendron. Thats catchy!

ROCKNROLLA Now, I do deserve to be shot for this, but I have yet to experience a Guy Ritchie film. I know, shoot me know. One day soon the cherry will be popped!

SAW 5 Shit that was fast. Once again, I have catching up to do....

SEX DRIVE
Well, it's a catchy title for me, but I naturally know that there will not be anywhere near the amount of sex that this film should require. Therefore. BUHLUHHHHH (Rasberry sounds)

STEP BROTHERS
Maybe, but Will Ferrell is starting to loose his edge. At least this one isn't another sport themed one. And John C. Reilly is cool!

WALL-E
So fudgingly cute! But as discussed with a fellow cinema buff, it has a little agenda. But nothing wrong with that. WALLLLL-EEEEEE! A must see.

WILD CHILD
Julia Robert's niece. That's all.

THE WOMEN
Another "why would you do this?" I'm a big fan of Annette Bening and pre fucked up nose Meg Ryan (yes, I even liked In the Cut) but no. You don't do this. See the original. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Monday, November 10, 2008

ACADEMIC POSTING: Media Monsters: the shadow

How is the personal shadow and the collective shadow represented in the television show Dexter - about a fictional serial killer Dexter Morgan – and within the case of real life convicted serial killer Myra Hindley?


There is much public fascination behind serial killers and the sport of their choosing. Crime related serialized television shows and special interest documentaries have been seen to dominate the small screen within the last few years, as seen with the lage amount of programs such NCIS (2003- ), Border Security (2004- ), Bones (2005- ), and the franchises of C.S.I. and Law and Order which populate the airwaves. In early 2008, Dexter (2006- ), a Showtime Network American series premiered on the Australian free to air network Channel Ten. Based on the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay, Dexter focuses around the world of serial killer Dexter Morgan and his rationale for committing his crimes. The idea of Carl Gustav Jung’s shadow appears heavily in this text, not only within the character of Dexter, but through the audience’s projections of their own feelings towards the serial killing character. Within this essay I will deconstruct the ideas of the personal and collective shadows in relation to Dexter, in the purposes of understanding what the shadow means to the audience as active participants engaging in a text. How do audiences deal with seeing the shadow? Do they indulge in it and see their own faults or do they subvert the shadow and cast Dexter away as evil. I will also use the case of Myra Hindley as an example of a woman that the repressed collective shadow of a society chose to classify as pure evil and subhuman, thus choosing to ignore the shadow’s potential within themselves.


The shadow within Dexter Morgan

From an early age Dexter Morgan had a particular fondness for killing. His father, seeing that nothing could stop the insatiable urge of Dexter’s, chose to train him into killing those who deserved to be killed. From the very beginning of Dexter’s life there is a moral ambiguity. What constitutes whether something deserves to live or die? These are questions that only Dexter can answer, and the audience is left to watch and judge. Within the pilot episode of Dexter, the victims of Dexter’s compulsions are shown as bad, evil serial killers (one being a choir director killing young boys, the other being a snuff film star and director.) In comparison, Dexter is a charming, good boyfriend who has a reputable job in which he is an expert (blood splatter analyst.) He seems like a normal guy. However, Dexter is a sociopath. He is incapable of feelings. Michael C. Hall, who portrays Dexter notes that he is a character “that claimed to be without fundamental human traits.”[1] His sociopathic tendencies allow him to commit such acts of murder as “sociopathic behaviour is simply human behaviour minus that certain something – soul, heart, - that separates us not from the animals but from the robots”[2] Despite this sociopath status, Dexter does seem to know what is seen as right and wrong. When describing the acts that he commits “Dexter describes being “half sick with the thrill, the complete wrongness,” when the “dark passenger” inside him takes command.”[3] Here, the personal shadow has been identified.


The shadow is a side of a person’s inner being that can show the darker side of their personality where “all the feelings and capacities that are rejected by the ego [are] exiled into the shadow [and] contribute to the hidden power of the dark side of human nature.”[4] The personal shadow shows all kinds of potentials and is “part of the unconscious that is complementary to the ego and represents those characteristics that the conscious personality does not wish to acknowledge and therefore neglects, forgets, and buries”[5] Dexter’s urges could be seen as the urges that exist within the shadow. One could almost argue that Dexter’s indulgences in his urges are a healthy form of expression. But at the same time, the shadow is seen as the unconscious feelings, and expressing them could be just as bad as not acknowledging them. Once again, another question comes to the surface of the viewer. Is it better to act on what the id and the shadow feel, or to repress them? The answer is neither. The shadow must be understood, but not necessarily exercised. If not, the shadow becomes repressed and then psychological damage can be caused and a lack of understanding can occur when considering whether people such as Dexter Morgan and Myra Hindley are pure evil. Part of the confrontational thematic aspect behind Dexter is that it allows people to see Dexter’s personal shadow and perhaps subconsciously their own. Sara Colleton, executive producer of Dexter subtly mentions that “deep down, there’s an id that, if left unchecked, could lead people to behave in a way that’s very similar to Dexter.”[6]


The shadow that Dexter exposes in its audience

Within Dexter’s world, he sees a lot of heinous crimes. Working within the Miami Police Department sees “normal life [as] portrayed as so demented that a serial killer’s personality is not very much different from anyone else’s.”[7] It is perhaps only in this murder soaked world that we can see Dexter as normal. But Dexter is not the traditional hero. In fact, Dexter is not really a hero at all, but an antihero and viewers like to see an antihero. Weeds (2005- ) is another Showtime series where the protagonist has a questionable moral rationale as she (Nancy) is a pot-dealing suburban mother. Weeds’ creator Jenji Kohan notes in Joshua Alston’s Newsweek article:


Heroes show us how we’d like to be…antiheroes show us how we actually are. There’s so much social pressure on people to portray this perfect image, and most people are failing because the standards are so high. It’s sort of a relief to see someone who isn’t living up to that standard but is doing their best and having moments of triumph. It’s very relatable.[8]


However, anti heroes usually have a redeeming feature. Syracuse University’s Robert Thompson sees that “there is a glint of hope that Dexter could redeem himself, a key component of a successful antihero.”[9] It is this redeeming aspect that keeps Dexter relatable and not subhuman. Part of Dexter’s redeemable features is that from the outside Dexter Morgan appears to be normal. However, it is the inside, secret and private world of Dexter Morgan that is different. But if a seemingly normal man can commit such atrocities, then perhaps every other normal looking person is capable of such acts. It is the ordinary, normal day life that Dexter tries to expose as just as abnormal. In one episode Dexter says, “Want a real glimpse of human nature? Stand in the way of someone’s mocha latte.”[10] It is the collective shadow that the creators of Dexter are trying to highlight. The potential of every persons shadow can be released as “the beast in us is very much alive-just caged most of the time.”[11]

Despite this shadow that is somewhat uncontrollable, Dexter is very much in control of everything that he does. He manages to resist the urge to kill his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend as he “vile but not a murderer”[12] Sara Colleton mentions the irony of Dexter’s character by saying that “he does live his life by a very strict code that he carefully adheres to, and viewers can respect that.” While Dexter is proving that serial killers can be likable and just as normal as your next-door neighbour, the case of convicted child killer Myra Hindley proved a little different in the public sphere.


The Shadow within the case of Myra Hindley

Myra Hindley became one of the most infamous names in female serial killers. However, it was her gender, rather than her actual crimes, while still disturbing and horrifying, that led to her conviction by the public as pure evil. It was her femininity that Helen Birch mentions that “unleashed from its traditional bonds of goodness, tenderness, nurturance [and] strikes at the heart of our fears about unruly women, about criminality, and about the way gender is constructed.”[13] However, there is also a tendency for a society to brand something that they do not wish to understand or accept (the shadow) as subhuman, a monster and pure evil. Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams note,


While most individuals and groups live out the socially acceptable side of life, others seem to live out primarily the socially disowned parts. When they become the object of negative group projections, the collective shadow takes the form of scapegoating, racism, or enemy making.[14]


It is the idea of a woman, who is supposed to be the protecting maternal figure and not the killer that stirred up the collective shadow within society. People chose not to admit that perhaps each person may have a darker side, and that perhaps a normal person is capable of committing these kinds of crimes. This repression of the shadow led to Myra Hindley being branded evil. And despite the fact that she was an accomplice to her boyfriend’s desires, she still received more attention than he did, and this relates to gender and the shadow.


Dexter Morgan and Myra Hindley are closely related, despite one being real, and one being a creation of fiction. It is the shadow that they have in common and the reaction that their actions cause within the audiences that digest their stories. Questions of morality are raised in the case of Dexter. Is Dexter a good man doing bad things or a bad man doing good things? While there can be no denying of the crimes that these two figures have undertaken, it is the reactions of the audiences that we can learn from in an attempt to understand what the shadow is, and how it affects not only ourselves, but the people around us. While we can be distanced from Myra Hindley and the crimes she committed, we are also related to her in that we are reminded of our own potential for ‘evil.’[15] The shadow cannot be ignored.


Bibliography

Alston, Joshua. "Sympathy for the Devil; Homicidal? Yes. Charming? Absolutely. Meet Showtime's Dexter, TV's latest, and perhaps most twisted, antihero." Newsweek (Oct 30, 2006): 61.


Birch, Helen. ‘Myra Hindley and the Iconography of Evil.’ In Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation, edited by Helen Birch, 32-61. London: Virago Press, 1993.


Tyree, J.M. "Spatter pattern." Film Quarterly 62.1 (Fall 2008): 82-5.


Zweig, Connie, and Jeremiah Abrams. Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature. New York: Putnam Publishing Group, 1991.



[1] Joshua Alston, "Sympathy for the Devil; Homicidal? Yes. Charming? Absolutely. Meet Showtime's Dexter, TV's latest, and perhaps most twisted, antihero," Newsweek (Oct 30, 2006): 61.

[2] J.M. Tyree, “Spatter pattern,” Film Quarterly 62.1 (Fall 2008): 85.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams, Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Hunan Nature (New York: Putnam Publishing Group, 1991), 17.

[5] Ibid, 18.

[6] Alston, 61.

[7] Tyree, 83.

[8] Alston, 61.

[9] Ibid, 61.

[10] Tyree, 85.

[11] Zweig and Abrams, 21.

[12] Tyree, 82.

[13] Helen Birch, “Myra Hindley and the Iconography of Evil” in Moving Targets: Women, Murder and Representation, ed. by Helen Birch (London: Virago Press, 1993), 32.

[14] Zweig and Abrams, 20.

[15] Birch, 53.

Stupid NBC

Yeah, NBC just took off all the Tina Fey-Sarah Palin clips. Why would you do that?!?!??!?!?!?!?!!?

Well, i'm sure you can do a youtube search for them. Classic gold!

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

SNL: Palin Visits

ACADEMIC POSTING: Soap Opera versus Action Series: The active male meets the passive female

Within the world of television, certain genres of shows are created that are seen to appeal to a particular gender and therefore geared towards that gender. The daytime or primetime soap opera or serial are made for a female audience. The action series are made for a male audience. But of course, this does not mean that the desired audiences are the only ones who consume the texts. To say that only women watch soap operas and only men watch action shows would be beyond a generalization, but also ignoring an audience that is representative of not only one gender (as men constitute one third of the soap opera audience[1]), but of age, race, class and sexuality. While there are some quite obvious differences in the styles of soap operas and action series, there are also a huge number of similarities. Within the action series, these similarities are subtly coded to some, and obviously coded to others, but regardless, there are coded elements of melodrama that occur within the text. The purpose of this essay is to identify the melodramatic elements that occur within both soap opera and the action series by using examples of the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE, formerly WWF) wrestling and primetime series such as 24 (2001-), Dynasty and Desperate Housewives (2004-) in order to establish the differences and similarities of the two types of shows. (1981-89)


What is melodrama?


Over the last thirty years, the term melodrama has evolved into a genre that was quite different from its original meaning. Melodrama and its conventions had been seen to be typified by the idea of ‘the woman’s film’ where a lot of crying occurs under very hyperbolic and melancholic music. Ben Singer notes that the term ‘melodrama’ in its current day stance refers to “a set of subgenres that remain close to the heart and hearth and emphasize a register of heightened emotionalism and sentimentality.”[2] But what about the meaning of melodrama in the past? John Mercer and Martin Shingler notice melodramas earlier origins in film (circa 1910 to 1970) were related to “thrillers with face paced narratives, episodic story-lines featuring violence, suspense and death-defying stunts. Dastardly villains, heroines in peril and daring adventurous heroes.”[3] However, over time these elements became less known to the genre of the melodrama. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, feminist film scholars identified melodrama in relation to ‘the woman’s film’. However, it is Steve Neale’s reconstruction of the term in the 1990s which identified the key components of melodrama:

(i) conflict of good and evil (ii) eventual triumph of good over evil (iii) hero, heroine and villain as principal types (iv) demonstrative and hyperbolic aesthetic (v) episodic, formulaic and action-packed plots with fate, coincidence and chance playing a major role (vi) ‘situations’ forming moments of dramatic revelation or display.[4]

It is these components that were central to the melodrama and were present within both the thrillers and gangster films and ‘the woman’s film’ and we can see these components existing in such action series as 24 as well as in primetime soap operas like Desperate Housewives.


As well as seeing the evolution of the melodrama genre, it is also important to note the importance that the audience plays within making or recreating a text (or in this case, a genre). Across time, audiences have played a part in making certain genres popular, as ultimately, audiences are the ones who the texts are made for, and they are the ones who consume the texts, therefore they must enjoy the text for it to continue being produced. Mercer and Shingler talk about the important role that an audience has in determining the success of a genre where “the development of a specific genre or ‘film cycle’ requires a consistently positive audience response to its style and content, its associated stars, directors, plots, props and settings.”[5] The enjoyment within melodrama not only sees the audiences having excessive visceral responses (whether it be crying in a drama or being thrilled in a suspense), but also allows for the spectator become agitated from seeing extreme moral injustices and “being profoundly disturbed or outraged when [seeing] vicious power victimizing the weak, usually involving some kind of bodily violence.”[6] These reactions help the audience get caught up in the storm of what is known as the masculine melodrama.


Masculine Melodrama


Henry Jenkins talks about the masculine melodrama of the WWE in relation to melodramatic coding. However, it is important to note the presumed elements of the action series before we identify the melodrama within the text that changes the traditional idea of an action series. The most structurally noticeable part of an action series is that most of the story is contained to one episode. The Law and Order franchises are good examples of a contained episode where the narrative story is resolved at the end with one big climatic scene, thus closure is achieve. However, with my two case studies, closure is not always reached at the end of each episode, especially within 24, where each episode usually ends on a cliffhanger. It is these elements of an open ending, multiple characters and disjointed time sequences that are usually attributed to a female based soap opera. 24 and WWE are not simply the traditional action series, but comment on much more than this. 24 sees Federal Agent Jack Bauer fighting against terrorism, trying to save the world, all within the time period of one day. There are 24 episodes per season and each episode is seen to be a consecutive real life hour in the one day. While the character of Jack Bauer is a man’s man fighting the global scum threatening to erase the democracy of the United States, he is also a very troubled man. In the first season, while killing all of the necessary people to save the world, Jack’s wife and daughter are kidnapped, and his wife is then killed towards the end of the first season. Jack is seen holding his wife Teri while crying. While he is the typical action hero that we see in such 1980s action series as Miami Vice, his breaking down over his wife’s death is an uncharacteristic moment within the idea of a typical action series. Thus the new style of action series is born where the traditional heroes have internalized anguish that inhibits them from being completely immune to any type of pain whether it be physical or emotional.


Within the WWE world, the spectacle element of an action series is played upon very strongly. Jenkins interestingly makes note of the traditional ideas of sport versus melodrama, where sport is linked to the male affect to “physical prowess, competition and mastery” and melodrama is linked to female affect to “domesticity, sentimentality, and vulnerability”.[7] Jenkins also makes note of sports soliciting aggressive and noisy externalized emotion through shouting, cheering and booing, compared to the passive and quiet internalized emotions of crying that is featured within melodrama.[8] But despite these rather noticeable differences, there is a lot of melodrama featured within WWE wrestling.


Jenkins notes the ideas of WWE wrestling as the “ageless struggle between the “perfect bastard” and the suffering hero.”[9] These ideas relate back to Steve Neale’s idea of good versus evil within melodrama where there is a hero and a villain, as is the case within WWE. However, one difference between melodramatic soap opera and melodramatic wrestling is that there is much more of a spectacle within the narrative as the “externaliz[ing] emotion map[s] the combatants’ bodies and transform[s] their physical competition into a search for moral order.”[10]


The narrative, similar to 24, is one of the many melodramatic elements that turn “televised wrestling into a form of serial fiction for men.”[11] The open ended narrative featured within WWE wrestling allows for stories to continue over many months, allowing for the fights and disputes to follow through to big matches where the viewer is ultimately rewarded for following the conflicts and melodramatic tension between certain players, therefore resolving the narrative and providing closure to the consumers, (and subscribers; this being a central reason for marketing and money making schemes). One reason that Jenkins sees for the success of the WWE wrestling is that it rebels against the traditional ideas of the male, setting up an “alternative means of releasing and managing masculine emotion while preserving the myth of the stoic male”, allowing men to engage in serialized melodrama while at the same time engaging in a sporting spectacle.[12]


The Melodrama in the Soap Opera


The melodrama seen within soap operas are much less coded than in action series and rely on the knowledge that the show is a soap opera to escape true ridicule, as in the world of the soaps, nothing is ever close to the truth. Jenkins notes that “melodrama explores the concerns of the private sphere, sports those of the public. Melodrama announces its fictional status, while sports claims for itself the status of reality.”[13] These ideas all relate back to ideas of passivity of the female and the activeness of the male. Some shows such as Desperate Housewives highlight the vulnerability of suburban housewives and mothers who seem to be lost in their own desperation, and also adhere to the ideas of melodrama relating to domesticity. But then there are soaps such as Dynasty and even The Bold and the Beautiful (1987-) where women hold high corporate positions and are just as concerned about their careers as they are about their lovers.


Even soaps hold high gender distinctions as usually the women are thin and beautiful, and the men are strong, tall and muscular. But despite this, the men also break down and cry and become as vulnerable and passive as the women do when confronted with an emotional situation. The elements of the soap opera that relate to the passive female must be noticed. The melodramatic soap opera is played out in the private sphere, another difference from the WWE wrestling, where everything is out in the open. The idea of the incessant crying thus relates back to the passive female, internalizing emotions. Along with these stylistic elements, the narrative conventions see soaps as episodic, featuring many characters, having an open ended narrative that continues gradually throughout the show where closure is not achieve at the end of an episode, and cuts back and forth between these characters stories, as opposed to the so called few characters and single plot lines that the action series traditionally adheres to.


It is the multi strand narratives of the action shows like 24 and the WWE wrestling shows that see a similarity in the style of soap operas and action series. While some television shows still adhere to the traditional male-action series and female-soap opera series, there are both action series and soap operas that feature multi-narrative strands with open ended narratives, many characters and disrupted time sequences. The two forms of television shows blend into one another, as 24 and the WWE wrestling illustrate. Despite this, melodrama does not seem to take anything from their masculinity. Similar to the Rambo’s and Terminator characters within the Reaganite 1980s, the characters of WWE “have made themselves so spectacular that they…verge on comic representations of themselves”[14] while at the same time still holding potency as strong, muscular heroes that have internalized anguish which will sometimes result in a breakdown, whether it be over a lost match (as in WWE), or the death of another character (as in 24). What we understand of melodrama is that it can take many forms and it manages to permeate through television shows in some form or another, whether it is in a gangster film, in a televised wrestling match or in a soap opera featuring predominately women.


Bibliography



Bernstein, Alina. ‘Representation, Identity and the Media.’ In The Media Book, edited by Chris Boyd, Oliver Boyd-Barrett and Hilde Van Den Bulck, 259-299. London: Arnold, 2002.


Jefford, Susan. ‘Terminal Masculinity: Men in the Early 90s.’ In Hard Bodies: Hollywood, Masculinity in The Reagan Era. Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1994. 193-206.


Jenkins, Henry. ‘Never trust a Snake: WWF Wrestling as Masculine Melodrama.’ In Sports, Media and the Politics of Identity, edited by Aaron Baker and Todd Boyde, 48-78. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997.


Mercer, John and Martin Shingler. Melodrama: Genre, Style, Sensibility. London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2004.


Singer, Ben. Melodrama and Modernity: Early Sensational Cinema and Its Contexts. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.


[1] Alina Bernstein, ‘Representation, Identity and the Media’ in The Media Book, ed. by Chris Boyd, Oliver Boyd-Barrett and Hilde Van Den Bulck (London: Arnold, 2002), 272.

[2] Ben Singer, Melodrama and Modernity: Early Sensational Cinema and Its Contexts. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 37.

[3] John Mercer and Martin Shingler, Melodrama: Genre, Style, Sensibility. (London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2004), 6.

[4] Mercer and Shingler, 30.

[5] Mercer and Shingler, 5.

[6] Singer, 40.

[7] Henry Jenkins, ‘Never Trust a Snake: WWF Wrestling as Masculine Melodrama’ in Sports, Media and the Politics of Identity, ed. by Aaron Baker and Todd Boyde (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997), 53.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Jenkins, 48.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Jenkins, 50.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Jenkins, 53.

[14] Jeffords, 176.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Here it comes again

Hey all!

No new posts in a while. Perhaps it's writer's block. Or laziness. Or stressful essays at uni, but more will come when the time is right.

But until then. Here's some more Tina Fey as Sarah Palin with Amy Poehler as Katie Couric.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Sarah Palin & Hillary Clinton on SNL

Here in this video we see Tina Fey return to Saturday Night Live as Sarah Palin, and what a match! Also notice Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton (I don't know how you could not). Just purely hysterical. I attempted to write a blog about Sarah Palin a little while ago, and perhaps I still will, but right now, the small window of timely commentary has passed, and I'm waiting for something new to happen so I can write something that seems fresh and not repeated.

But until then enjoy the beautiful comedic genius of SNL


Friday, August 29, 2008

White Lady Funerals

The following blog must be partially taken as a joke. It is not written to purposefully offend "White Lady Funerals" and any claims of racial bias or bad taste are purely of the opinion of the blogger.

Some of you bloggers out there may have seen a particular type of funeral ads by the "White Lady Funeral" company that has been circulating the television sphere. Now, perhaps it's because I've been watching a lot of Six Feet Under lately (which is worthy of a blog in itself) but I took particular notice to this one funeral company that was offering it's services.

Their mission statement (as seen on their website, click here to see more) is as follows: "Our aim is to provide excellent funeral service to families of every race and religion. We are a dedicated team of women who offer the assurance of absolute support and professional attention with genuine care. We are committed to the training of our staff in all areas of funeral service with the vision of providing the best service available in this honourable profession. Because our families are our highest priority, our mission is to provide this service with honesty, care and respect."

From their advertisements on television, the services offered are that of white ladies being grief counselors, funeral directors and pallbearer's while wearing all white and disgustingly ugly hats. Now the first thing that comes to my mind when I see this ad is that it is offensive. I understand it is called "White Lady Funerals" because they are women dressed in white. But let's get a little beneath the surface here. While it may have been no intention to be racially prejudicial, (as they claim in their mission statement, they serve "every race and religion") the idea of a black family sending out invitations for a family member's funeral to be held a "White Lady Funerals" seems beyond comical and quite unlikely.

It's interesting when you include colour representation into the mix. It is accepted that most people generally wear black to a funeral. These "White Lady Funeral" staff members are in all white. The colour black usually symbolises darkness, death, unhappiness, evil. White is the colour of purity, peace, innocence and good. So, the idea of "White Lady Funerals" inadvertently says that the colour of their uniform symbolically combats against the evil of death (black) and will bring peace to the grieving process.

The idea of women wearing white may seem innocent enough, as does the point of the business in providing a service that is done best by women (as seen in their view), but how you would feel if you weren't either white nor a woman. It's the name that is the problem here. It goes back to such archaic and racist ideas, mostly segregation. The name implies that it is ONLY white women who can provide this service, and perhaps the only gender and race it will provide for. I'm sure that the services of the "White Lady Funerals" are quite sufficient, but I think they may need to seriously rethink their name if they want to represent and serve a wider base and come into the 21st century, where we have apparently come so far when it comes to civil rights.

So while it may seem like I'm calling "White Lady Funerals" white supremacists, think about the reaction it creates in you, or people you know. Are you offended? Have you been to a "White Lady Funeral"? Is this a fair reaction or an unfair and exaggerated one?