AVATAR...the review

So after all the buzz about the movie "AVATAR," I simply couldn’t help myself and fell into the movie frenzy. At first I had ruled it out completely…I just wasn’t willing to pay money to go watch some funky aliens but boy was I wrong. I finally watched the trailer after the movie had been out for 4 days and I just had to go see it. I unlike the many who chose to watch it in IMAX, was content watching it in just 3D (This makes me feel better okay! I wasn’t willing to watch it after 3 days since that’s how long IMAX tickets had been sold out for….booo people).

As I went into the movie theatre, I announced to my boyfriend I was officially putting on my media glasses. I felt a movie with content like this had to be closely scrutinized J

PLOT

James Cameron really hit a homerun with this one…the plot was amazing. It really brought to light what happened in America with the American Indians as well as what happened with Africans. This was ingenious to me, how the Na’vi people represented different types of people groups, not just the American Indians who we pretty much drove out for the sake of territory. I loved how it showed that the Na’vi people were intelligent and had even higher intellectual capacities than the sky people. This was necessary since for decades some have justified colonization as a means of “civilizing” indigenous creatures whose primitive ways of life is limiting. The movie did a good job of showing the reality of wealth driven agendas especially when it comes to super powers bulldozing over smaller ones.

WHAT I QUESTIONED

GRACE

Even though Grace, the scientist who was later killed, was portrayed as a “good guy,” I questioned her motives when it came to the school she ran with the Na’vi children. This was only slightly highlighted with a picture that Jake Sully found of her and the kids. I thought the ideology behind this was that it’s okay to interfere with the lives of indigenous people groups, as long as we’re providing them education. They need that.

JAKE SULLY

Now I know everyone fell in love with this character but I do have a few things to say. Is it just me, or Jake Sully was another John Smith character from Disney’s “Pocahontas?” Don’t get me wrong, I understood that he turned around and helped the Na’vi people, but why was he the hero? Why couldn’t the other guy who hated Jake in the beginning be the hero (sorry I forgot his name). Why does an outsider always have to be the hero? Why does he have to be the savior? And of course he takes the girl and the other guy who I mentioned above is all of a sudden in the shadows. Also, at the end, am I the only one who wondered why Jake stayed behind and became one of the Na’vi people. The script read, “in the end, the Na’vi chose a few sky people to stay behind.” I feel like this is where it should have been made clear that Jake was never going to be a part of them…because he really was one of the sky people and for things to be somewhat back to normal, he had to leave too.

Apart from a few things I questioned and the group of noisy young people who almost ruined the whole experience, I really liked the movie. It may even be my movie of the year, though there’s not much competition seeing I never really go to the movies anyway…HA!

Merry Christmas everyone!

PS: Why is there nothing on google for this movie? I had to steal the picture from a good friends blog (Kevin M). Oh..by the way, the picture is from the movies official website

http://www.avatarmovie.com/index.html

You've been BAMBOOZLED!

Spike Lee's, "Bamboozled" is probably one of the most racist movies I have ever watched. However, it addresses issues that need to be talked about when it comes to the representation of African Americans on TV. His movie is a satire, and it probably took me a while to understand it even though Pierre De LaCroix clearly mentions what a satire is at the beginning of the movie. It's definitely not a, "sit down with a big bag of popcorn" movie or a date night movie. I did though watch it with my boyfriend as he is one of Spike Lee's fan's.
I think "Bamboozled" addressed 2 major issues:
The misrepresentation of blacks in the hands of white producers, directors etc
And "Black Situation C0medy" in general....is it really genre that can be set apart from the history of black representation in the past.

Robin Means Coleman, whom I have grown to love, addresses this issue of blacks being told to act black and given scripts by white producers and directors on how they should act. Should black people be really told what to do and how to act in the show? Does this not lead to negative stereotypes being regurgitated over and over again. This is what happened when it came to Amos'n'Andy in the past. They were originally in "black-voice" over the radio but when TV's began appearing in most households, the people who had originally been the voice overs had to train the African-American's who then went on and acted on TV. They were portrayed as buffoons and coons. It was just so wrong. In one of the scenes, they are all sitting around a table and it's just white people trying to help with the ideas of a black comedy. More representation is needed not only with actors and actresses, but behind the scenes to in-order for blacks to be portrayed in a way that is consistent with their histories and ways of life (Means Coleman, 2000).

Another issue I think addresses is the genre of "Black Situation Comedy." When I sit down and watch a black sitcom, I am almost always guaranteed of stereotypes that will be perpetuated. For may people, the idea of sitting down to watch and laugh at black people is so reminiscent of minstrel times. Should we really be doing this? Pierre De LaCroix played by Damon Wayans says in one the scenes at the end of the movie, "just make to keep them laughing." Really??? Why should we be laughed at? Hasn't this happened for the last 2oo or so years since slavery? I'm not saying I don't love comedies but I question the ideologies ingrained.

Well that's my 2 cents...Farewell for now my fellow blog-followers :)

People of Color

Wilson & Gutierrez article “Advertising and People of Color,” really opened my eyes to a number of issues I wasn’t observant of. ( It’s funny, I just went to the refrigerator to see if could find other incriminating paraphernalia that would fit into what they were talking about). I believe it’s always an issue when people within a certain race or ethnic group are unable to control what is released about them. People of color in films, movies, magazines and other media related outlets are having their stories told by powerful white producers who are in the driving seats. Wilson & Gutierrez also talk about the fact that these products which often have the “other” race are being marketed and designed with a white audience in mind. This is even more disturbing to me.

This ad for Aunt Jemima Pancake mix was unbelievable. I can’t believe that at one point people actually had these kinds of things on their shelves. Then again, they probably thought it was upholding the black mammy. After being mistreated behind closed doors while raising someone elses children and cooking for the family, she probably saw this as her chance to shine. This probably goes the same for Rustus who supposedly a black chef in Michigan. In one picture I found online, he’s educating a group of black children about his secret recipe.
How about this comic that I came across. It really is crazy that this kind of stuff was out there and around for a while. What were they thinking?
The link below will probably give you a closer reading of the comic.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY07vNSTJbH-99a5t4lxd5DykOehyphenhyphenbePWzQdCzOYBJStnaD2uzB3wDnnG1Mvu7jsCPHJ2SVsN5ZT3hFxXWlXNjYhDTqCmm8PalYKnJ2bthUCwysonN5ObWw60wWZokhP3qY8l1gmKYASmh/s1600-h/Aunt+Jemima+comic.jpg

Here’s another example I found online that the authors talked about from that period. I’m sure if we look in our cupboards a little more carefully, we’re sure to be surprised.

According to the authors of this article, companies pitching their products while stereotyping individuals has been done forever, and I agree. I think this is even the case with women always being used in commercials for cleaning products and vacuum cleaners. This may be the argument that my other fellow bloggers may use when it comes to somewhat justifying this, but I think when it comes to race or ethnicity, it’s a very sensitive topic. This is particularly so because those different ethnic groups have a history of mistreatment here in our country.

In high school, we were the Indiana Indians. Twice a year we would all gather in the high school gymnasium at a Pep rally and show “school spirit” singing “Go Indiana Go…!” Just as we would finish doing the wave all the way around the gym Jimmy would come out. Jimmy was a student at our school who had down-syndrome and he was always the Indian who would then come out dressed like an “Indiana Indian” and take a lap around the gym at the beat of the drum with the cool music behind it. It was all good right? WRONG! I’m actually quite embarrassed that I ever partook in such events and used the black shoe polish under my eyes. Somebody tell me what I was thinking!? I also question why we always used Jimmy each year to do the famous run around the gym at the pep rally. It just seems so wrong thinking about it now.

Below is a picture of my high school...with the Indiana Indian on the school board.

King does an excellent job at bringing out both viewpoints by his online analysis. It really is interesting how some people are so passionate and yet, in my not so significant opinion, are so completely wrong. I think of what it would feel like having someone come out on a field dressed up in “black face” and pretend to be black and have everyone sing black spirituals. It really is that sensitive and I think people should start looking at it like that.

Hip Hop...you're totally in or you're out!

I grew up in the suburbs when I lived in Africa. Most people don’t think of African countries as “white,” but where I grew up, this was definitely the case. However, I went to schools there with a number of white people and black people, it was pretty much even. Hip hop in my teen years was what got you the card to join the “in crowd.” If you could dance, you were cool…but it had to be Hip Hop. There, both black and white kids enjoyed Hip Hop without the pressure of an opposing race telling them it wasn’t for them. In fact, all of my white friends listened to some Hip Hop along with Pop music which was fine with everyone. This is where I agree with Kitwana, that most white kids who listen to Hip Hop don’t necessarily want to be black...they just love the music or enjoy dancing to it.


It was interesting when I came to America and entered the high school system here. Hip Hop seemed strictly a black people thing and if you listened to Hip Hop as well as white, you were definitely trying to be black…WHAT? I never understood this! Upon my arrival, many of my peers assumed that just because I was black I knew how to dance and of course I listened to Hip Hop music. I was soon deemed not “black enough” but the few blacks that were in the school when they realized I didn’t eat, live, sleep Hip Hop. To me, music was music. Kitwana talks about how when we speak about Hip Hop today, we are also referring to the “Hip Hop language, fashion, style, sensibility and worldview.” This explains a lot to me because all of a sudden, I realize why it was so hard to be an American Eagle wearing girl and listen to Hip Hop every once in a while. I even remember losing my “black card” according to my black peers when was humming Carrie Underwood’s song, “Jesus take the wheel.” It was crazy…how do you lose your black card when you’re black?

The many faces of Hip Hop culture. What to wear if you’re a girl:
First, get the latest kicks…

Get the latest clothing by a Hip Hop icon. It’s even better if their logo is visible for all to see:

Get yourself some Timbs…a staple in Hip Hop culture:

Sooo….later on I used Hip Hop as a way to rebel when things at home were getting a little crazy. My parents have always thought it was a lot of noise and so I started “jamming.” It’s funny…I even went out and bought a pair of Timberland boots and a few Baby Phat clothing pieces to prove to my black peers that I was indeed black. I began using words and phrases like hola, it’s tight, catch you on the flip side, hommie, crib, jack…the list I endless. For some, Hip Hop is a sign of rebellion like Kitwana talks about and boy did I feel empowered which is what he talks about too.

Hooks tells it like it is...

To be totally honest, I was really taken back by Hooks title and I was dreading reading the article. After I did, I was really glad that I read it and even shared some of Hooks thoughts with my boyfriend. Being black, I don’t think I realized just how much black women specifically are over-sexualized which is kind of ironic but so true. I appreciated how honest Hooks was about how black women are depicted even though it had me sitting at the edge of my seat most of the time. I agreed a lot with Hooks when she was talking about the black “butt” specifically. I have never fully appreciated this fascination and the more and more it’s glorified by the media, the more I cover up or shy away from everything associated with it including the all too common, “black pride.” An example of "butt" pride is below.

I have always been a fan of the underground “love your body” campaign but it seems so hard to do when you’re a black woman. You’re automatically classified in the “she loves her butt” campaign, especially if you have the curves to support what they’re saying, which has always been a personal problem. When Nelly first came out with his “Apple Bottom” jeans, I was really happy that they had begun making jeans for women who are a little curvier on the bottom. I went out to the mall and went into “Against all odds” and tried on a pair of Apple Bottoms. I was disappointed because it over emphasized the behind more than it did accommodate my curviness. As I soon realized, the goal of these jeans was to do just that, over emphasize the glorified “butt.” One of my favorite performers of all time is Beyoncé because I believe she is the ultimate performer, but I must say every now and then I question if she really needs to be “bootylicious” in all her songs. Somehow along with other black female performers, she believes she needs to do as many butt shakes as she can in order for people to like a song. I, particularly, am tired of this and don’t think it’s necessary. Not because I don’t appreciate curvy bodies, but because I think that the mentality behind it is distorted.


It makes me sad that I can’t think of one black female artist who hasn’t over the course of their career been overly sexualized except for people like India Arie. Just look at the array of pictures below. It really is the total distortion of the black female.

Alicia Keys above...and Rhianna below.

How about this surprising picture with Serena Williams as she poses nude in the ESPN magazine. It’s not enough that they highlighted her butt enough during her tennis matches. I’m particularly upset because of this image though because it just seems like a way to put her back in place because she has so many successes. It seems totally unnecessary and for me she just went from hero to complete zero.

I agree with Hooks that we need to come to that place where our system provides new and fresh representations of women’s bodies that aren’t overly sexualized and this may mean crossing traditional boundaries. Yes, we are sexual beings as created by our creator but we’re certainly not objects.

Black TV

Christine Acham’s article on “Prime time television and the struggle for Black Power” was very interesting. It was interesting first of all to hear that after all the misrepresentations or poor integration of blacks and whites on TV during the years of The Jefferson’s and Polly among a few, The Cosby’s was still criticized. It’s true, it did show a family that seemed pretty content as if it were a perfect world for them, but perhaps that was a first step in helping the black populations realize their potential. For years black had been “put in their place,” with stereotypes that didn’t quite represent black life or didn’t have much integration and it was time for a more positive view of blacks.

Another interesting thing in the article was the fact that many TV stations on cable refused black sitcoms and dramas. I didn’t really realize the extent of this. Looking at today, what is it like now?

I found this article online from the Washington Post with the same topics Christine Acham was talking about in her article. It comments on how black shows are being pulled from prime-time television…even in 2009. The article features people who have observed and worked in black TV with different views. One believes that in black shows, one doesn’t see the suburban black but my more of the urban. It’s an interesting article and fits into what we’re talking about today.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/06/tv-casts-diversify-as-black-shows-dwindle/

Race representation

I pondered on the thought Barker brought up…that race is a social construction and that without its representation it doesn’t exist. I believe there is a lot of truth in this. The very families we grow up in are the representations we need that shape our social constructions of race. It then makes me question how we come to define who we are within that race. Surely the people who look like us and are then represented on TV must have some kind of influence in how we end up viewing ourselves. I remember growing up and my dad loving the show “Sanford and Son” which really was about black unemployed men acting buffoonish. I would sit and watch attentively at the way everyone acted, how the black men were portrayed.

Surely this represented a notion of the black race and how they were seen. Without representation such as this along with many others, I probably wouldn’t have begun the thought process that some black people are ignorant, which is sad. This can also be seen as stereotyping which more than not Barker states is often negative. African amer icans have for a long time been represented as “naturally incapable” and lazy.
The sitcom Sanford and Son showed that exact negative stereotype of blacks.

Fast forward to now, and you have Tyler Perry with his black comedies like Meet the Brown, House of Payne and even the Madea series. Spike Lee recently stated that he thought Tyler Perry’s shows were a whole bunch of “coonery and buffoonery.” He thought that it brought him back to the days of “Amos n’ Andy,” another sitcom involving black men behaving badly. Though I know many people were outraged by this, I wonder how much of this is true. The black population back when Sanford and Son came out generally liked the show too and found it quite funny. It took a while for them to seen the negativity involved because it was “entertaining.” This is Tyler Perry’s claim to fame for his plays and comedies…they are entertaining and funny. One need only youtube any of the Tyler Perry shows to see what I mean. But how much of that goes a little too far?

The posted video is Tyler Perry’s response after the criticism made by Spike Lee on 60 minutes:

Thelma and Louise thumbs up!

I really can't say I didn't enjoy Thelma and Louise. So much so that I wanted to blog about right after watching it, which is now. It had so many different aspects to the movie that I thought needed to be brought up, especially in 1991 when the movie was released and had such great success with nominations for 6 Academy Awards and then ultimately winning best screen play. I can see why it appealed to so many in those days.

This movie for me represents women's liberation from patriarchal control. Running away from the society that conforms and limits them because of "being a woman." Thelma, who begins the movie wearing a dress with many layers to it, strips this image as the movie progresses. She strips herself away from her idiotic, controlling, abusive husband and discovers a world with Louise were she doesn't have to listen to any man. Even when her husband tells her on the phone to come back home after she's been missing for a couple of days, she lays it on him with the F bomb and hangs up the phone.

Louise in a way is transformed too as she denies the proposal from her boyfriend, realizing finally she doesn't need to be married to be happy. Essentially, she had run away to teach her boyfriend a lesson, but slowly she realizes that to be happy you don't need a man. And so maybe a change of ideology occurred with her.

OH the truckers. I loved how they explicitly made sure they addressed this problem. Even today, running outside for me means knowing i'm going to get all kinds of whistles, beeps and silly cat calls. WHY?? So unecessary and degrading. Many times school bus drivers do this to me the most. I wish they understood just how low you feel when you're beeped at or followed down the street with someone's head halfway out the window saying "who knows what" to you. They addressed this quite nicely very much. I just wish they could make every other man on the face of the planet who STILL does these things to apologize too.

I agree, the male representation sucked and not all men are misogynistic barbarians but for this period I think it's okay to cut some slack a little. In a time when raped women weren't being believed, sexism was at a high, violence against women was high, and women were represented in just the homely motherly light, this movie did more than liberate women...it gave them a louder voice.

Masculine

all about men

Masculinity

It’s not a surprise to most of us what David Gauntlett points out when one looks through a men’s magazines at first glance. Stereotypes are reinforced concerning what generations of us all have been taught men like and dislike. Gadgets and gizmos fill the pages often beside the scantily clad woman; sports and other outdoor activities are heavily featured. Something I hadn’t thought about however, are the way topics are talked about in male magazines. Jackson et al talks about what she and her team saw while examining these magazines for their book.

I believe she brings up some very good points to talk about such as how men are talked to in male magazines, often in a jokingly way or with an air of silliness. This supposedly protects men’s masculinity because of an apparent stereotype that says men don’t like being told what to do. Gauntlett disagrees with this rash statement saying that most men are pretty aware of the messages they are receiving through the jokes and irony. I would disagree. I don’t believe the average man is aware of the fact magazines are trying to “protect their masculinity.” I do believe that these magazines are quite successful
Through asking my boyfriend what he saw in different messages in male magazines, he seemed oblivious to what was taking place in the script. Oblivious of the underlying assumption, that is. I know this is just one persons opinion, but I really did need one smart man to prove my point. Of course there is the process of selective reading, but to assume that everyone reads the magazines in such a manner is false.

Jackson also talked about sexism in mens magazines and how it’s still very present. Gauntlett brings out the argument that men are present in womens magazines as well in very provocative poses, and so it’s thus not fare to pick out one magazine and say that sexism is present but forget it’s also present in the other. Gauntlett even begs the question subtly: For how long are we going to use the oppression excuse? I would say, forever. Women have a history of being oppressed, and though it is true that women and men both show provocative pictures of each other in magazines, it’s never “the same” kind of oppression because of the history involved with women.


In the picture below, we have a Maxim model and beside her a male model for Cosmo. Even their stance is different. He looks more assertive, confident and less submissive even though his shirt is off. How can we even begin to compare and say that womens magazines are on the same level as men when it comes to sexism. I disagree!

The "Kick Butt Era"

I like to call the era of the second appearance of John Whedon’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” the “Kick Butt Era.” I say the second appearance because clearly the first time we saw it on our TV screens it was not consistent with what we thought Whedons message was all about...a “feminine” (word used lightly) young lady who will not be taken advantage of. This run of “Buffy” resonated to what most of us admired most about third wave feminism. The addressing of “contradictions and challenging the second wave’s essentialist mindset that seemed to emphasize that there was somewhat of a “universal feminine identity.” A blonde, attractive girl can “kick butt.”

As Rachel Fudge states in her article “The Buffy Effect,” hit close to home for a number of teens who liked her somewhat apparent “subliminal” messages. The “high school horrors” were all dealt with from what drugs can do to you to dealing with gangs. Surprisingly it even managed to hit home a little alluding to the problem of parents who “don’t understand.” As a whole, it did a lot for women everywhere, still very much living in a patriarchal society’s and giving us a little hope that we can “kick butt” too, not like men, but in our own way. I often avoid the term “just like men” because it seems to imply that men are the standard… that I aspire to be them when really I just want to be fully me.

Rachel Fudge raises up really good points when it comes to what I call “the medias diluting” of a potentially incredibly strong message. Yes, Buffy wore tank tops, and lacy underlay’s, but that’s not all the Buffy “Kick Butt era” was about. As always, everything has to be twisted! Instead of people actually heading to the message of “learn to defend yourself, you can be beautiful, smart and strong willed, don’t let men take advantage of you,” it’s become a “let’s play pretend while wearing a tight see-through tanktop” movement.
What young women think is making them look tough is actually part of a plot to keep them down. Sad!


It was interesting to read about the beginnings of Lara Croft and how she was appealing to both men and women, according to Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky in “The Phenomenon of Lara Croft.” I grew in the time of “Street Fighter” and “Teken 3” and both had representation of women in them but it always seemed the girls just didn’t have as much virtual power as the other characters. The guys didn’t normally want to fight with the girl fighter because her image was too “sweet.” Lara Croft, being that she was able to appeal to both sexes, transformed the virtual world. Her background also gives off a strong, independent feeling within any woman who may like her especially as she didn’t go with societal norms to marry and have children like her parents would have liked. Such is the case with many women today who are forced into situations because of societal roles for women.
I also like the fact that her hobbies aren’t the ordinarily applauded hobbies that society deems fit for women, shooting and free climbing. Like Buffy, Lara Croft showed that women, even the animated ones, can be strong, beautiful, smart and not be a man to prove it.

Thats not real to me!

The glittery shear makeup, the pale pink blush, the L’Oreal, Revlon and Clairol hair products fill teen magazines and these products supposedly are for “every girl.” These “must haves” will make a girl glow, light up her eyes, make hair soft and shiny. So you go to the grocery store and fill your basket with some of these products and upon applying the makeup, alas, you look ashy. Unexpected results, but maybe Revlon’s riveting shampoo will “give your hair that rich, moisture filled look you want.” Maybe not…your hair is officially fried and as dry as a bone. What’s a young African American to do with this dilemma? Or maybe she has to soon realize that the ads, the lifestyles presented, the makeup products along with the hair formulas, are not for “every girl” but for the white teenager.

Lisa Duke and her article entitled “Get Real! Cultural Relevance and Resistance to the Mediated Feminine Ideal” highlights some of these inconsistencies African American teens face when presented with teen magazines such as “seventeen” that talk about how the literature is for “every girl” when really the truth is it’s only for white teen girls. As the girls went through the magazines, they raised some of the same sentiments I’ve felt over the years. Can John Frieda really be my hairstylist? Probably not, not only would his products burn my hair, but I’d probably have to have a deep conditioner afterward after all the sulphates fry my luscious locks. None of the products advertised seem to be for African American hair. Even “Carols Daughter,” a top product for African American children and adults and whose products have been featured on the Oprah show seem absent from pages that supposedly can apply to “every girl.”

Not only are the products that are esteemed to have the “powerful punch” not ones that African American girls can use, it seems the lifestyles and scripts aren’t ones the average middle class African American can identify with either. They just aren’t real.

All girls are “presumed to have identical interests and an equal need and desire for such.” At one point in the article Duke asks, “If teen magazines imply any girl can be beautiful and socially successful with their help, what does the relative absence of black girls say?” This said after the girls in the study noticed just how absent black girls were in the teen magazines they were looking through. To me, it clearly shows the mentality of the 1950’s and 60’s when black girls/ women weren’t deemed to possess any real type of beauty. Nothing seemed inherently beautiful within them. This is what the absence of products, representation and cultural relevant scripts seems to be saying. It’s no wonder that studies show black girls rating themselves higher when it comes to their self esteem, which I truly believe.

When it comes to the 5 stage process of racial identity of preencounter, encounter, immersion/emersion, internalization, and integrative awareness, I think I identify with the internalization stage when a girls racial identity becomes “solidified and blended with her personal identity.” I’ve reached that point where I don’t have to be embarrassed or feel bad that I wear braids with extensions at times and at times I wear a fro, I can’t wear shear lipstick or gloss because it won’t show or will make my lips look ashy and that I put oils in my hair every other day. Teen magazines really need to step it up a little not just concerning diversity but product representation as well.