It's true dear readers. The end of the semester is near, which means I've had little time to compose my thoughts on pop culture the way I'd like. I have a running list of topics that are set to be developed as soon as I dig myself out of my piles of grading and admin work due before May 1st. Until then, I turn the debate over to you Popademic followers!!
Since I'm participating in a karaoke flash mob in about 15 minutes, I'd love to hear your most entertaining karaoke stories -- who you've seen, what they sang, etc. Leave them in the comments, and I'll put together a post of "best of" including my top five karaoke experiences throughout the years.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Pop Culture Tidbit: Fashion Fads from Japan
In an effort to explain some of the cultural difference between Japan and the United States during a guest lecture this week, I used the following image. Test your PhotoHunt skills to see what’s wrong with it:
If you’re interested in seeing what all the fuss is about, go read this New York Times article. I used the example to illustrate different cultural orientations to appropriateness in public contexts, and as a way to understand approaches to conflict (attack vs. retreat) as culturally bound. I think it worked pretty well. :oD And in case you want another point of reference, here's a fun little video.
If you’re interested in seeing what all the fuss is about, go read this New York Times article. I used the example to illustrate different cultural orientations to appropriateness in public contexts, and as a way to understand approaches to conflict (attack vs. retreat) as culturally bound. I think it worked pretty well. :oD And in case you want another point of reference, here's a fun little video.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Book Club! - The Help
Completely shifting gears from where I’ve been lately, I should disclose that I have, in fact, become a little old lady in my mind. I joined a book club. I am by far the youngest member, but so far I’ve quite enjoyed it! Perhaps this is a result of being in a profession where I am always about 10 years younger than my peers, so I’m used to it. I actually missed the last meeting where we discussed our latest read The Help, so I thought I’d talk through my thoughts here instead. Technically, New York Times bestsellers count as pop culture, right?
The Help is a series of blended narratives exploring life in the South during the 1960s, with an emphasis on African-American housekeepers and their relationships with the white families they care for. Although the layered narrative approach had the potential to alienate and further exacerbate racial stereotypes/tensions, I thought the author did a good job of balancing those issues in a way that brings in a casual reader. Perhaps my favorite moment of the book was when one of the African-American women explained very carefully how you never, ever crossed a white woman. The series of events she articulates align tightly with our cultural understandings of “mean girl” behavior among white women – passive aggressive ways of controlling the behavior of other women, particularly with respect to the relationships they build and sustain with men. I also enjoyed the undercurrent of education throughout the book – one of the main characters teaches the white children in her care to think in “colorblind” terms, in a sense, emphasizing that the progress we make on race relations (or any other kind of social acceptance for marginalized identities) begins in educating the young to think outside the boundaries of what society currently defines as acceptable within any cultural moment.
It really is a wonderful read – I picked it up here and there before bed for several weeks. There were plenty of places to pause if I needed to, and plenty of spots to keep me glued to the page if I had more time to invest. If you’re looking for a well written text with poignant social themes without the heavy-handedness of a lot of social commentary fiction, this book is for you!
The Help is a series of blended narratives exploring life in the South during the 1960s, with an emphasis on African-American housekeepers and their relationships with the white families they care for. Although the layered narrative approach had the potential to alienate and further exacerbate racial stereotypes/tensions, I thought the author did a good job of balancing those issues in a way that brings in a casual reader. Perhaps my favorite moment of the book was when one of the African-American women explained very carefully how you never, ever crossed a white woman. The series of events she articulates align tightly with our cultural understandings of “mean girl” behavior among white women – passive aggressive ways of controlling the behavior of other women, particularly with respect to the relationships they build and sustain with men. I also enjoyed the undercurrent of education throughout the book – one of the main characters teaches the white children in her care to think in “colorblind” terms, in a sense, emphasizing that the progress we make on race relations (or any other kind of social acceptance for marginalized identities) begins in educating the young to think outside the boundaries of what society currently defines as acceptable within any cultural moment.
It really is a wonderful read – I picked it up here and there before bed for several weeks. There were plenty of places to pause if I needed to, and plenty of spots to keep me glued to the page if I had more time to invest. If you’re looking for a well written text with poignant social themes without the heavy-handedness of a lot of social commentary fiction, this book is for you!
Monday, April 5, 2010
Film Roulette
I’ve been sick lately, so I’ve had quite a bit of downtime to catch up on pop culture stuff. I’ve had less time to write about it because in between watching things, I’ve been sleeping. So here’s a quick Monday run down of some short, under-developed thoughts about films I’ve seen in the past several days.
The Ugly Truth – Terrible script that reinforced awful gendered stereotypes of dating. Decent chemistry between Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler. I just about cried when I saw the news that Heigl will star as one of my favorite crime novel characters Stephanie Plum – if there was a worse casting decision ever in the history of Hollywood, I’m not sure what it was! Oh yeah, that’s right, Hayden Christensen as adolescent Vader.
Where the Wild Things Are – Kind of brilliant. Dark. Twisty. Not at all what I was expecting, and it now makes sense why so many people disliked it. Certainly not a film for young children. I need to watch it a second time because I’m still not sure what to make of the sand scenes.
2012 – Here’s an idea. For every scene in this film that is completely and totally unrealistic or implausible, take a drink! You’ll be through a six pack before the first half hour is over, AND you’ll still have over two hours of film to look forward to! Try not to black out. Seriously, John Cusack. Fire your agent.
Love Happens – On a related note, Jennifer Aniston, what happened to you? This film should have been a drama about people dealing with grief and loss, which would have been great with Aaron Eckhart as the lead. Layering in a terrible romantic comedy B-line with a parrot was just ridiculous.
I have a bunch of random TV things too, but I need to get moving to catch up with everything else I’ve missed the past few days. So, wander back over here later this week.
The Ugly Truth – Terrible script that reinforced awful gendered stereotypes of dating. Decent chemistry between Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler. I just about cried when I saw the news that Heigl will star as one of my favorite crime novel characters Stephanie Plum – if there was a worse casting decision ever in the history of Hollywood, I’m not sure what it was! Oh yeah, that’s right, Hayden Christensen as adolescent Vader.
Where the Wild Things Are – Kind of brilliant. Dark. Twisty. Not at all what I was expecting, and it now makes sense why so many people disliked it. Certainly not a film for young children. I need to watch it a second time because I’m still not sure what to make of the sand scenes.
2012 – Here’s an idea. For every scene in this film that is completely and totally unrealistic or implausible, take a drink! You’ll be through a six pack before the first half hour is over, AND you’ll still have over two hours of film to look forward to! Try not to black out. Seriously, John Cusack. Fire your agent.
Love Happens – On a related note, Jennifer Aniston, what happened to you? This film should have been a drama about people dealing with grief and loss, which would have been great with Aaron Eckhart as the lead. Layering in a terrible romantic comedy B-line with a parrot was just ridiculous.
I have a bunch of random TV things too, but I need to get moving to catch up with everything else I’ve missed the past few days. So, wander back over here later this week.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Pop Culture Rewind: Stand By Me, River Phoenix
When I think of films that completely defined the 80s for me, several come to mind. It’s a sign that I’m getting old when I mentioned one of my favorite films, Stand By Me, to a couple different students last week who stared at me blankly. Then to say, “you know, with River Phoenix and Wil Wheaton?” and hear, “Who’s River Phoenix?” – it sort of just makes me cringe. Granted, I shouldn’t hold this against them. After all, several of them weren’t even born when the film came out. Sailor hadn’t even seen it, so we dialed it up this weekend while I was couch-bound with a stomach bug. I love coming back to pop culture at different moments in your life – it almost always retains some of the original impact, offers a sort of nostalgia for the past, and can shed light on what you’re experiencing now.
Quick recap for those not in the know – Stand By Me is a film released in 1986 based on the Stephen King short story “The Body.” Directed by Rob Reiner (who most recently directed The Bucket List, and whose credits include other classics like Misery, A Few Good Men and The Princess Bride), it’s a coming of age drama about four boys growing up in a small town in Oregon. The main characters are played by River Phoenix, Wil Wheaton, Corey Feldman and Jerry O’Connell with other significant roles played by Kiefer Sutherland in his hoodlum/punk phase pre-Jack Bauer awesomeness and John Cusack back when his career wasn’t a farce that needed a time machine. When the boys learn the location of a dead body, they embark on a two-day journey that helps them learn about life and death.
What I remember about the film from my first experience is that a) I was in love with River Phoenix, b) the dead body was a lot scarier, and c) I felt kind of sad that I was a girl, because boy bonding looked way cooler than girl bonding. I guess that makes sense if I’m watching this in middle school. What interests me about it now in retrospect, after years of critically analyzing media, is how timeless the story is – the trials and tribulations of growing up, defining identity from adolescence to adulthood, and the pain of loss that never goes away. We also have a kind of cultural obsession with childhood friends, though this nostalgia may be tempered by today’s technological ability to remain “in touch” with so many from our pasts. The performances turned in by Phoenix and Wheaton fill the screen and perfectly capture tortured youth searching for ways to define existence. Phoenix explained his experience on the film saying, “I realized that what I was creating was going to live on far longer than anything of me as a person. The characters are more powerful than the person that creates them.”
Also, revisiting River Phoenix is spooky. He spoke to a lot of people, and saw things about culture that went largely unnoticed at the time (check out this interview where he claims the celebrity culture of Hollywood is out of control). Halloween of 1993 was crazy. The news of Phoenix’s death surprised a lot of people, but I distinctly remember feeling numb – numb from the shock and from the eerie sense that it made sense at the same time. From everything that surfaced both before and after his death, it’s a strong possibility that Phoenix was bisexual – or if not, at least sexually experimental in ways several youth didn’t have language for in the 80s – and in several public appearances in the early 90s, it was clear he was into drugs. And maybe that’s why I always had this strong affinity for him – seeing something behind the eyes that produced riveting performances, knowing that something darker was underneath.
Substance abuse, suicide and depression are rampant among LGBT youth, and the prevalence of drug or alcohol use among bisexual youth is 340% greater than the rate among straight teens. Though rates of addiction and depression have decreased for LGBT youth in recent years (which I firmly believe is linked to increased media representation and language to talk about sexuality), those youth growing up in the United States obviously still live in a cultural climate that is hostile to any non-heterosexual identity. It’s hard. It’s a terribly hard existence, and it’s little wonder that Phoenix (or any other young person living in that time period) would look for ways to escape. Everyone does stupid things in their teens or 20s, but for youth struggling with depression, substance abuse or self-abusive behavior, there are a series of double-binds in place that make it hard for things to ever feel any better. I lost a family member, a friend, and saw many other people I knew go through these issues. It’s a constant barrage of wanting to help, feeling helpless, hoping for understanding, and encountering judgment in return. It affects your life every day, even after those people aren’t part of it any more.
So, I never KNEW River Phoenix – this is entirely my speculation/narration as to what his presence meant to me and how I make sense of it in retrospect. And I do feel the absence of his presence a little bit each day, the same way I feel the absence of so many other wonderful people who touched the world in ways they probably never knew. It’s fitting that Phoenix’s character’s death is what prompts the retelling of the story in the film – that those stories will always “stand by” us as part of a cultural legacy, a legacy I hope youth can learn from to make their lives better today.
(Because I touch on some pretty weighty issues here, I wanted to make sure the following information was available – if you are (or someone you know is) struggling with depression, addiction, or other self-abusive behaviors, please check out the resources available through organizations like Hopeline or TWLOHA.)
Quick recap for those not in the know – Stand By Me is a film released in 1986 based on the Stephen King short story “The Body.” Directed by Rob Reiner (who most recently directed The Bucket List, and whose credits include other classics like Misery, A Few Good Men and The Princess Bride), it’s a coming of age drama about four boys growing up in a small town in Oregon. The main characters are played by River Phoenix, Wil Wheaton, Corey Feldman and Jerry O’Connell with other significant roles played by Kiefer Sutherland in his hoodlum/punk phase pre-Jack Bauer awesomeness and John Cusack back when his career wasn’t a farce that needed a time machine. When the boys learn the location of a dead body, they embark on a two-day journey that helps them learn about life and death.
What I remember about the film from my first experience is that a) I was in love with River Phoenix, b) the dead body was a lot scarier, and c) I felt kind of sad that I was a girl, because boy bonding looked way cooler than girl bonding. I guess that makes sense if I’m watching this in middle school. What interests me about it now in retrospect, after years of critically analyzing media, is how timeless the story is – the trials and tribulations of growing up, defining identity from adolescence to adulthood, and the pain of loss that never goes away. We also have a kind of cultural obsession with childhood friends, though this nostalgia may be tempered by today’s technological ability to remain “in touch” with so many from our pasts. The performances turned in by Phoenix and Wheaton fill the screen and perfectly capture tortured youth searching for ways to define existence. Phoenix explained his experience on the film saying, “I realized that what I was creating was going to live on far longer than anything of me as a person. The characters are more powerful than the person that creates them.”
Also, revisiting River Phoenix is spooky. He spoke to a lot of people, and saw things about culture that went largely unnoticed at the time (check out this interview where he claims the celebrity culture of Hollywood is out of control). Halloween of 1993 was crazy. The news of Phoenix’s death surprised a lot of people, but I distinctly remember feeling numb – numb from the shock and from the eerie sense that it made sense at the same time. From everything that surfaced both before and after his death, it’s a strong possibility that Phoenix was bisexual – or if not, at least sexually experimental in ways several youth didn’t have language for in the 80s – and in several public appearances in the early 90s, it was clear he was into drugs. And maybe that’s why I always had this strong affinity for him – seeing something behind the eyes that produced riveting performances, knowing that something darker was underneath.
Substance abuse, suicide and depression are rampant among LGBT youth, and the prevalence of drug or alcohol use among bisexual youth is 340% greater than the rate among straight teens. Though rates of addiction and depression have decreased for LGBT youth in recent years (which I firmly believe is linked to increased media representation and language to talk about sexuality), those youth growing up in the United States obviously still live in a cultural climate that is hostile to any non-heterosexual identity. It’s hard. It’s a terribly hard existence, and it’s little wonder that Phoenix (or any other young person living in that time period) would look for ways to escape. Everyone does stupid things in their teens or 20s, but for youth struggling with depression, substance abuse or self-abusive behavior, there are a series of double-binds in place that make it hard for things to ever feel any better. I lost a family member, a friend, and saw many other people I knew go through these issues. It’s a constant barrage of wanting to help, feeling helpless, hoping for understanding, and encountering judgment in return. It affects your life every day, even after those people aren’t part of it any more.
So, I never KNEW River Phoenix – this is entirely my speculation/narration as to what his presence meant to me and how I make sense of it in retrospect. And I do feel the absence of his presence a little bit each day, the same way I feel the absence of so many other wonderful people who touched the world in ways they probably never knew. It’s fitting that Phoenix’s character’s death is what prompts the retelling of the story in the film – that those stories will always “stand by” us as part of a cultural legacy, a legacy I hope youth can learn from to make their lives better today.
(Because I touch on some pretty weighty issues here, I wanted to make sure the following information was available – if you are (or someone you know is) struggling with depression, addiction, or other self-abusive behaviors, please check out the resources available through organizations like Hopeline or TWLOHA.)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Reading Old Navy and Verizon Commercials
I don’t generally talk much about advertising because it’s not really my area, but in my recent run of catching up on TIVO, I noticed two commercials that really got under my skin as a critic for very different reasons.
The first was actually brought to my attention by a feminist media critic, who in passing asked if I’d seen the latest Old Navy commercial (I hadn't seen it at the time, and just now caught it). They’ve been doing these commercials with “modelquins” which have bothered me on and off.
Not that Old Navy’s advertising has ever been a model of ethical responsibility, but this particular ad is REALLY disturbing. I understand it’s a spoof on America’s Next Top Model or whatever. I get it. But what is really being represented here? A “real” girl wants to be judged and accepted by the “fake” modelquins? And told she’s not good enough? Given the barrage of images shown to women advocating that they look like supermodels, is it any wonder we went one step further to say, “we really don’t want you to look real at all – please figure out how to pose and stand like a mannequin.” The biggest “secret” among most tween and teen girls is that they are all on diets of some sort, many of which lead to full blown eating disorders as a result of the way media continually makes women feel as if their bodies are unworthy of occupying social space. So, Old Navy. Not funny.
The second commercial that’s really irking me is this Verizon commercial. The point of the commercial is to highlight Verizon’s coverage AND your ability to stalk people! It shows a mom who is “letting her daughter go shopping alone” for the first time, only to then show that her daughter is not actually alone because the mother can use the Verizon network to track her. Now, I’m not entirely against having such a feature for an emergency, like if your daughter doesn’t come home that evening – but the image presents woman as being a good mother by micro-managing her daughter, and implies that if you don’t track your children, you’re probably not being a good parent. I hate how this dovetails into a culture of helicopter parenting where kids are taught that they don’t need to be responsible in a sense because parents are always going to be there to bail them out. At the same time, any parent who tells their kid to explore the world without this micro-management is a lunatic for allowing their child that much freedom. If you’ve done your job teaching your child to make good decisions, is shopping at a mall (especially the clearly upscale, suburban mall represented in the ad) really a situation where you’d need to stalk your daughter? And what's more, it's not used for a son. It's used to track a daughter, implying the patriarchal notion that women need to be hovered over and cared for (and perhaps that we can't make good decisions).
Yes, these are the things I think about when watching television. Sometimes I wish I could turn my brain off!
The first was actually brought to my attention by a feminist media critic, who in passing asked if I’d seen the latest Old Navy commercial (I hadn't seen it at the time, and just now caught it). They’ve been doing these commercials with “modelquins” which have bothered me on and off.
Not that Old Navy’s advertising has ever been a model of ethical responsibility, but this particular ad is REALLY disturbing. I understand it’s a spoof on America’s Next Top Model or whatever. I get it. But what is really being represented here? A “real” girl wants to be judged and accepted by the “fake” modelquins? And told she’s not good enough? Given the barrage of images shown to women advocating that they look like supermodels, is it any wonder we went one step further to say, “we really don’t want you to look real at all – please figure out how to pose and stand like a mannequin.” The biggest “secret” among most tween and teen girls is that they are all on diets of some sort, many of which lead to full blown eating disorders as a result of the way media continually makes women feel as if their bodies are unworthy of occupying social space. So, Old Navy. Not funny.
The second commercial that’s really irking me is this Verizon commercial. The point of the commercial is to highlight Verizon’s coverage AND your ability to stalk people! It shows a mom who is “letting her daughter go shopping alone” for the first time, only to then show that her daughter is not actually alone because the mother can use the Verizon network to track her. Now, I’m not entirely against having such a feature for an emergency, like if your daughter doesn’t come home that evening – but the image presents woman as being a good mother by micro-managing her daughter, and implies that if you don’t track your children, you’re probably not being a good parent. I hate how this dovetails into a culture of helicopter parenting where kids are taught that they don’t need to be responsible in a sense because parents are always going to be there to bail them out. At the same time, any parent who tells their kid to explore the world without this micro-management is a lunatic for allowing their child that much freedom. If you’ve done your job teaching your child to make good decisions, is shopping at a mall (especially the clearly upscale, suburban mall represented in the ad) really a situation where you’d need to stalk your daughter? And what's more, it's not used for a son. It's used to track a daughter, implying the patriarchal notion that women need to be hovered over and cared for (and perhaps that we can't make good decisions).
Yes, these are the things I think about when watching television. Sometimes I wish I could turn my brain off!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Sam Tsui & College Musical
Well now. This blog did more traffic with my random pop culture tidbit than any other entry, and it took significantly less time to develop than other posts. This is either because Sara Ramirez is hot, or I need to use pictures more often. From now on, I’ll be cribbing more images from the net.
In a completely unrelated follow up, I wanted to bring some attention to a talented guy I discovered randomly on the Internet: Sam Tsui!
Actually, Sailor discovered him when bored at work and looking for something that would make me laugh. Given my interest in pop culture, my obsession with Glee, and general love of all things college, he found this little gem – HYSTERICAL! A great blend of the High School Musical narrative codes with satirical college humor. I was so impressed with Tsui’s voice that I decided to find out more about him (read, research/stalk him on Google, which is how all good pop culture junkies do it).
Apparently, Sam is a student at Yale, and his musical exploits are chronicled by his friend Kurt Schneider. This interview gives a bit of background on the guys – basically, they were messing around like most college students do, but given that both are ridiculously talented, their musical covers of popular songs have gone viral. Part of what makes them awesome is that Sam sings a number of parts – often times five or six harmonies – and Kurt layers them together in video montages that are really quite well done. Some of my favorites include the Glee version of “Don’t Stop Believing,” an awesome rendition of “Fireflies” (that I actually enjoy much more than the original), and a wicked fun melody of Michael Jackson songs. The guys recently released an album on iTunes (which I downloaded the first week it went live) that includes all of these tracks and more.
Their work is definitely a Broadway/theatrical style of singing/production, but it has solid pop appeal. Its success is most likely related to its ability to capitalize on a cultural moment where traditionally campy, theatrical representations are anchored to kid's culture and youth movements. But that's as far as my theoretical read is going today, so, if you’re looking for a fun distraction, check them out!
In a completely unrelated follow up, I wanted to bring some attention to a talented guy I discovered randomly on the Internet: Sam Tsui!
Actually, Sailor discovered him when bored at work and looking for something that would make me laugh. Given my interest in pop culture, my obsession with Glee, and general love of all things college, he found this little gem – HYSTERICAL! A great blend of the High School Musical narrative codes with satirical college humor. I was so impressed with Tsui’s voice that I decided to find out more about him (read, research/stalk him on Google, which is how all good pop culture junkies do it).
Apparently, Sam is a student at Yale, and his musical exploits are chronicled by his friend Kurt Schneider. This interview gives a bit of background on the guys – basically, they were messing around like most college students do, but given that both are ridiculously talented, their musical covers of popular songs have gone viral. Part of what makes them awesome is that Sam sings a number of parts – often times five or six harmonies – and Kurt layers them together in video montages that are really quite well done. Some of my favorites include the Glee version of “Don’t Stop Believing,” an awesome rendition of “Fireflies” (that I actually enjoy much more than the original), and a wicked fun melody of Michael Jackson songs. The guys recently released an album on iTunes (which I downloaded the first week it went live) that includes all of these tracks and more.
Their work is definitely a Broadway/theatrical style of singing/production, but it has solid pop appeal. Its success is most likely related to its ability to capitalize on a cultural moment where traditionally campy, theatrical representations are anchored to kid's culture and youth movements. But that's as far as my theoretical read is going today, so, if you’re looking for a fun distraction, check them out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)