Celebrities and Consumerism

It is so evident that our definition of a “celebrity” has definitely changed. Reality TV allows people to become famous that aren’t necessarily professional entertainers. As we discussed in class, what it actually takes to become famous is now really hard to define.

I’m a sucker for gossip columns and magazines. While poking through them I realized that there is something common between all the people who are most talked about. Though some are entertainers and some are not, the celebrities that are in the news are those who are SELLING something. Kim Kardashian was a difficult celebrity for us to define, but she qualifies because she has a brand around her name that markets clothing, fragrances, diets, home/bedding, and more. Another person I see in the gossip magazines a lot is Jessica Simpson. Though she was a singer she hasn’t produced an album in years. However she does market a large brand of clothing, footwear and fragrance. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are much the same. Justin Bieber is huge in entertainment news right now and although he is an active singer he also represents all kinds of products from food to fragrances to NAIL POLISH! All popular celebrities seem to have some kind of brand synergy around there name and it is such a blatant nod at consumerism.

Having worked an internship in the news, I know that celebrities are interviewed or talked about when they have something to promote. Having celebrities on air  increases ratings and celebrities usually have a tie to some product. It forces me to ask the question: what are we idolizing? The person or the products? I’d have to say it’s the products.

Harry Potter Fandom

I found our discussion of fandom really interesting today. After class I thought of the perfect example of fan fiction that I wish I would have brought up in class. Months ago I somehow came across a Harry Potter Musical on YouTube. It’s not just one video; it’s in parts totaling to an over 2 hour performance. Someone or some group wrote, produced, directed, and acted in a full theatrical performance of the musical they wrote that was performed before a live audience, taped with multiple camera angles, and put on YouTube. The musical contains multiple original songs, dancing, and involves only characters from the franchise. It is VERY comedic and actually really funny. I’m not even a huge fan of Harry Potter but I enjoyed it. It is interesting that they are able to use these characters without violating copyright laws however there is a message at the beginning of the video that reads, “This fan musical is produced and performed solely for the personal, non commercial enjoyment of ourselves and other Harry Potter fans.” It has over 8 million hits on YouTube and has not been taken off YouTube after three years of being on the website.

I think a large part of why fandom exists is that people spend large amounts of time consuming certain media and after consuming it they feel some type of connection to the characters and their world. Because others feel the same it allows them to create communities where their identification with these created “worlds” can live on. I also think that because of our new ways of consuming media it allows this fandom to go on long after the initial release of the media. I got into the show LOST years after it began through its availability on Netflix and became interested in what people were saying on fan forums long after the show stopped airing.  New media allow media texts to continue to be consumed and the connection to their world can live on.

Here's a link to the musical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmwM_AKeMCk

Depictions of the Working Class in Music

Today’s documentary taught us about the ways television depicts the working class. One depiction showed them as uneducated, lazy, and happy with their life as simpletons. Shows like Jeff Foxworthy’s “Blue Collar TV” and “King of the Hill” celebrate the life of a “redneck”. I realized that country music does the same thing. Gretchen Wilson’s song “Redneck Woman” proclaims how proud she is to be a redneck. The lyrics talk about drinking beer in the back of a pickup truck, her preference for wearing clothes from Wal-Mart, using the expression y’all, and toting a baby on her hip. They say that people may look down on her but she doesn’t care. She encourages her audience to chant “Hell yeah” to being rednecks like her.

This is another example of how the media portray working class citizens. In this song they even urge them to be proud of this kind of lifestyle. It almost seems like it’s a way of exploiting the working class by asking them to proclaim pride in their status as a “redneck” and also listen to music that makes them out to be this way. It is also interesting to me that Gretchen Wilson, who could have grown up working class, certainly does not live this kind of lifestyle now. She certainly has too much money to be claiming she shops at Wal-Mart! Yet she puts on this persona of an uneducated “redneck” in order to make money and makes her audience feel this way about themselves.

Lady Gaga Does Madonna

Bell Hooks video discussion on popular culture brought up MANY intriguing points! But what stuck out to me were her comments made about Madonna. She discussed how at the beginning of her career, Madonna made a stand that she would not portray the ideals of females in pop culture and would step out of the mold to represent all things different. She would become one of the faces of the women's movement. However, later in her career as she got older, she began to sell out and start conforming to what female pop stars typically are in pop culture. To Hooks this shows her desire for more money and more fame despite already being a rich woman. Her greed overcame her vision of being different.
This instantly made me think of Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga attempts to represent loving yourself no matter who you are. She portrays sexuality in an ambiguous way to show that their is no right or wrong person to love, and no right or wrong way to express yourself. Many people follow Lady Gaga because she embraces being different from the mold. She has often been compared to Madonna for these reasons and even resembles her physically in some ways. But my question is: what will happen as she grows older? Will she give in to conformity in order to further her career once her "gimmick" runs out? Or will she continue to do things differently than everyone else or retire from making millions of dollars. We may not know the answer to this for awhile, but after listening to Bell Hooks I have to say I'm very skeptical.

Say Yes to the BEST!

I don't know why, but "Say Yes to the Dress" is one of my favorite shows. I'm not even getting married any time soon, but I just love seeing all the different wedding dresses. However, after reading Steinberg's article that links consumerism to Barbie and all her products, I now see the vast ways consumerism is instilled within shows about weddings.
On "Say Yes to the Dress" their motto is, "It's easy to say yes to a man, but saying yes to the dress is way harder!" It places importance on material things such as having the perfect wedding gown over choosing a lasting relationship. And the weddings gowns on this show are not affordable! It's hard to find a dress on that show for anything under $2000, and the women often have emotional breakdowns if they can't afford the dress of their dreams. It tells the viewer that having an expensive gown is important and looking for a dress on a strict budget won't fulfill your dream. This show airs on TLC which has a lot of shows about weddings that also place importance on having a dream location, the best food for your guests, the most creative decorations, and first rate entertainment. These things add up but they fulfill an ideal that shows like this make which tells women that their wedding is the most important day of their life and HAS to be PERFECT.
"Say Yes to the Dress" enforces other ideals such as having a heterosexual relationship and wearing white  to a wedding. It also says that brides have to be young. Often times when an older bride comes in the consultants have trouble finding her a gown that goes well with her "age". In the many episodes I've watched, there was one lesbian couple that came in both intent on wearing pants in their wedding but because the salon didn't offer pants, they persuaded one of the women to wear a pricy white gown. It's a shame there aren't more shows about having a wedding on a budget or planning untraditional weddings for homosexual couples, middle aged couples, or just ANYONE!

Hunger Games Adaptation Gives Way to Cultural Racism

I'm proud to say I was one of the millions of people who went out to see The Hunger Games this past weekend. I was thrilled by how closely the movie was to the book and its ability to stir up so much emotion, power, and tears in my case! The next day I found a startling article online. Apparently after the movie debuted Twitter and other social media blew up with "racists" who were outraged that some of the main characters were portrayed as black in the movie. There were tweets such as "I didn't picture them as black when I read the book and it made their death less sad" or "Rue wasn't supposed to be black, stick to the book!" The article did a good job by going back to the text of the book and showing that the race of Cinna (played by Lenny Kravitz) is never brought up and the races of Rue and Thresh (played by African American characters as well) are also not mentioned but they are described as having "dark skin and hair".

My interpretation of this is that the author of the book originally did not include race in the text because the book was written about a period of time far into the future. My guess is she wanted to make her interpretation of the future using the concept of abstract realism: that far into the future people are on a level playing field and race does not exist. However, this worked against the author the same way Jhally argues that The Cosby Show hindered blacks during the time of its run. Many people who read the book and saw no description of race assumed all the characters were white. Then, upon viewing the movie, their ideas of cultural racism came out as the black characters fell below their expectations of the character they imagined because they have ingrained thoughts that blacks are inferior. On a personal level I was angered by this article when I read it. But based on the concepts we learned today in class it is much easier to see how this outbreak of "racism" (which should really be called prejudice!) could have happened.

If you'd like to read the article it can be viewed here. The comments section incites an interesting conversation as well!

Foreign Exchange Students as the "Other"

In class we talked about the concept of “eating the other” or “getting a bit of it” in which media portray males as sexually attracted to foreign women in which they seek out sexual encounters with these women and ultimately treat them as commodities. I came across a clip from “Married… With Children” that demonstrated exactly that. The family brought in a foreign exchange student for the simple fact that doing so would get them $500 a month. This is an automatic form of commodification! She was portrayed as French and very attractive although we never actually learn anything about her. The son in the family instantly invites her to stay in his room showing his sexual attraction to her. At school, all of the boys are instantly drawn to her. Being angered by this, the daughter in the family convinces the exchange student that she should skip class to get her to fail her courses and have to return home to France. The exchange student is ultimately portrayed as stupid and the sabotage inflicted upon her goes unpunished making her seem like an object in the storyline.

I feel as though sitcoms are very guilty of relying on these types of stereotypes for their humor. They get cheap laughs by using stereotypes in incredibly unrealistic situations from which the characters never see any repercussions. I’ve probably seen the “exchange student gets all the boys” in shows about high school a hundred times. Sitcoms also see some of the highest ratings in television so we know these agendas are being spread. It seems like innocent joking the way they portray stereotypes but in reality they are reinforcing what I think to be harmful norms.

If I Were a Reality Show, What Would I Be...?

As a big fan of reality competition shows, Project Runway is one of my favorites. I’ve kept up with it for years and re-watch episodes on day-long marathons. The other day I was watching a new episode and my mom said to me, “You’re really into this show lately, have you been thinking about taking up sewing?” For whatever reason I was very confused; why would I be taking up sewing? I have absolutely zero interest in learning to sew or attempting to design my own garments. But it makes sense that someone who watches fashion competitions constantly may be interested in fashion, right? Wrong!

The airwaves are littered with reality shows that deal with all kinds of professions and hobbies. There’s a show for cupcake baking, fishing, antique picking, tattoo artists, hair styling and everything in between. And while a lot of these shows may attract connoisseurs of these professions, a lot of them don’t. Not everyone who watches America’s Top Model is themselves a model or photographer and not everyone who watches Orange County Choppers rides motorcycles. This got me thinking about the uses and gratifications model of communication that we brought up on Tuesday. People watch these stories to relax and follow the narratives or sit back and be their own judge of the competitors’ work. They follow the drama between characters or marvel at the work characters do.

For me, I like Project Runway because it’s something I can put on to escape everything else. I follow the relationships between designers and see what clothes I would like to wear. I may never be a clothing designer and don’t even desire to but I’ll still tune in to the show every week. If these types of shows only attracted viewers who have a background in that field they would probably fail to make ratings; there are only so many antique pickers in the world! Lucky for reality shows, it’s pretty hit and miss as to whether they become popular or not, but they have uses and gratifications on their side. Who knows what niche hobby will be the next TV sensation!

Orientalism and the All American Muslim

Watching the video on Orientalism made me think back to one time when I watched an episode of “All American Muslim”. It is a documentary style show on TLC that focuses on the lives of Muslim immigrant families. The episode I watched took place around September 11^th and highlighted how these families remembered and thought of the day. It brought up a lot of discussion between the families about how they constantly feel the need to apologize for their faith or remind people that they are not terrorists because they suffer from a stereotype influenced by Muslim extremists. Just wearing a hijab, which we discussed as something that can be empowering to a Muslim woman’s faith, is also a dead giveaway that she is a Muslim and therefore can be associated with a terrorist. I wish I could tell the people on the show to watch the video on Orientalism, and they would realize that the illusion people have about Muslims doesn’t just come from September 11^th, but from a long history of stereotyping the Middle East as a mysterious or dangerous place.

I grew up in a suburb of Chicago that is very diverse and home to many Muslim immigrant families. I befriended a girl who is Americanized like me in every way except for one: she comes from a Muslim family and was born in Palestine. I remember once asking for clarification of where her family was from saying, “Where were you born again? Pakistan?” She wasn’t mad, but she was very firm in correcting me that she was from PALESTINE. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but I now realize why she was so firm with me. As Americans we are taught the differences between France, Germany and Britain, but we learn little about the differences between Middle Eastern countries. The media often lump together situations from this part of the world and label them all as “a Middle Eastern terrorist act”. It’s easy to see why the people on “All American Muslim” feel so misunderstood. And it’s a shame that one part of the world encompassing multiple countries with years of different religions, histories, and cultures all get lumped together in such a negative way.

Christine A.

Pop Culture + Politics = The Daily Show

This week I watched the epitome of intersections between pop culture and politics: The Daily Show. Though it is a comedy program hosted not by a journalist but by a comedian, a majority of people who watch it do consider it to be their news source according to a study done by the Journal of Communication Inquiry (Baym & Jones, 2010).
The episode I watched commented on a current political news story; that the Pentagon has changed military rules to allow women positions in the military closer to the front lines. The show comments on videos of actual journalists, politicians, and experts covering this story. The videos they choose show experts who are against this change by the Pentagon using two different positions. One, that men in the military will now feel obligated to protect t the women in the military, and two, that combining men and
women in the military will increase the amount of sexual assaults that take place.

As communication scholars, we know that these positions both reinforce feminine gender stereotypes by categorizing women as weaker than men, and being sexual objects to men. But what John Stewart did with these stories was very interesting. He mocked these experts and used satire to show how
ridiculous these standpoints actually are in our society. In effect, he actually reduced these people to something of characters rather than experts. He took away their power and challenged the stereotypes they reinforced. By making them elements of pop culture instead of real respected figures, The Daily Show makes something new out of news.

To watch this clip, click here.
Baym, G., & Jones, J. P. (2010). A dialogue on satire news and the crisis of truth in postmodern political television. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 34(3), 278.

-Christine A.

The Kardashians and Political Economy

Have you ever been so sick in bed that you watched an entire marathon of something that you would never otherwise watch? That was me this weekend; stuck at home with a cold and with nothing interesting to watch but Kourtney and Kim Take New York. I’ll admit that I’ve caught clips of the show before but never watched so much in one sitting. I decided that given how much crap the Kardashians get about being famous for nothing and being useless overpaid and untalented that I would figure out why people are actually watching this show. I assume that they are because the show continues to have new seasons and the Kardashian name is huge to pop culture.

What I got from watching wasn’t much. I observed people in a lavish hotel room wearing full-on fashionable outfits sprawled out on couches. Complaining. “Scott bought a piano he can’t play,” “Kourtney is obsessed with couponing,” “Kim can’t figure out if her best friend is gay,” “Chris is being insensitive about it”. All played out while laying across furniture speaking in the most unemotional uninflected voices.

It wasn’t until class on Tuesday that I had my A-HA moment as to why people actually watch this.  We discussed Marxism and the theory of a political economy.  According to the theory, we have a false consciousness that if we work hard enough, we can become rich and part of the ruling class. We never revolt against the ruling class because they are who we aspire to be and we never infringe upon them because of our hope that someday we will be in their position. It all made so much sense. People watch the Kardashians as a way of looking ahead to a lifestyle that they hope to someday have. They yearn to someday be at a point where they can wear expensive things yet have nowhere to go and nothing to do but complain about trivialities. Unconsciously, people want the carefree yet glamorous lifestyle the Kardashians lead and believe that eventually they will attain it. They might even think to themselves, “When I’m that rich, I won’t be as stupid as them, and I’ll actually deserve it.” Those who watch this show can justify it however they want claiming that they watch to laugh at how stupid it is but I think the reality is this show demonstrates the political economy at work. After all, is watching this show making you richer? Or is it padding the pockets of Kourtney and Kim?

Cultural Hegemony and Family Guy

As we’ve discussed in past weeks, pop culture can often work to reinforce existing stereotypes and cultural norms in our society. Comedy in film and television often comes from poking fun at different aspects of society or the people in it. A number of things are safe to poke fun of while other things are considered “going too far”. Our society has come to accept a number of controversial topics as comedic, even things like gender and sexual preference. However, one topic that is usually strictly off limits to poke fun at is the disabled population. That’s why I was so surprised to watch one particular episode of “Family Guy”.

“Family Guy” is a comedic cartoon for adults that focuses on a “typical” family. It plays on Fox during prime time so it reaches a pretty large mainstream audience. The show forces the viewer to accept unconventional family roles; the father Peter acts like a child, the baby Stewy is a genius and works various jobs and drives a car. The family dog walks around on two feet, drinks coffee and dates while the other children play a minor role in the show.

On the episode I watched, a deaf woman starts working in Peter’s office and his coworkers all find her attractive. It leads them to believe all handicapped women are hot so they start a “Disabled Night” at their bar. The bar hosts an array of women in wheelchairs and prosthetics and Brian, the dog, meets an attractive blind woman who he begins to date.

Some of the notable controversial moments of the show involved Brian tricking his blind date into believing they went to exotic destinations as well as a friend of Peter’s who is in a wheelchair asking his wife to commit suicide with him. My first question was, “How is this show getting away with these things?” It’s a very popular show that has been around for at least ten seasons so it has a good track record. On the other hand, I started thinking of cultural hegemony. We are trained to understand what is acceptable on TV and what is not, but this show seems to have no concept of that. I know people enjoy it, but how come I never hear them talking about it? Are they simply too afraid to bring up the controversial topics that “Family Guy” dives right into? In my opinion this show challenges cultural hegemony jumping out of a pattern of what is accepted in mainstream society and addressing basically anything it wants to. However if it doesn’t get people talking, other TV shows may not follow suit and the societal norms “Family Guy”  aims to break will continue.

Heidi and Seal Broke Up! No Marriage is Safe!

I’m not ashamed to admit that I keep up with celebrity gossip. I’m a sucker for People Magazine and I’ve gone as far as following E! News on Twitter. And anyone who keeps up with celebrity news knows this past week, (Gasp!), Heidi Klum and Seal broke up. Now I was personally surprised to hear this, but even more surprising to me was how shocked people really were! People who have never even met this couple were truly upset by this news and Twitter blew up with tweets like, “I really that those two were SOLID” and “If Heidi and Seal can’t make it, no one can”.

The truth is, celebrities are commodities and their relationships are too. Magazines, talk shows, and more make big bucks off the lives of celebrities and hot hookups or shocking breakups make the most.  We base our lives off what celebrities tell us; what to wear, how to act, and how to act in relationships. Have you ever read an interview with a celebrity where they talk about their relationship like it’s the most effortless thing, only to instantly compare yourself to them and feel your relationship inferior? THEN a month later you find out they broke up! WTF!

Celebrity marriages are notorious for breaking up. It’s not really that hard to believe when almost half of ALL marriages end in divorce. But maybe there’s more to it. Celebrities are commodities and their image can be bought and sold, so perhaps their relationships are just the same. Seal has now been on two different talk shows talking about the split (and adding that his new record is coming out!) Kim Kardashian’s notorious 72 hour marriage was blatantly accused of being all for publicity and ruining the institution of marriages. As far as I’m concerned most celebrity marriages could fall into this same category. 

The most important thing to remember is not to compare yourself or your relationship to the glamourrazzi. You’re probably happier than they are J.

-Christine A.

TV Does Nothing for Relationships!

This week in class we watched the pilot episode of a show called “Work It” that reinforced gender stereotypes heavily. It portrayed the man of the house as the one who needed to be the breadwinner while it portrayed women as silly, clueless and only capable of power through their sexuality.  It depicted a stereotypical man drinking beer at the bar with his friends while the stereotypical nagging wife would always forgive him in the end, especially when he brought her material goods as an apology.

It related a good deal to the show I chose to watch this week known as a “The Bachelor”. I actually do watch this show on a regular basis, mostly because I find it ridiculous, over the top, and funny. The show places a large group of women with one man and allows him to choose through a series of overly romantic dates who he would like to marry. The show is very adamant about the fact that any of them could find “true love” without ever addressing the obvious notion that finding true love on a reality show is just silly.

On the particular episode I watched, Bachelor Ben took one of his bachelorettes on a date where the climbed to the top of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco. The girl overcame her fear of heights and was ensured that their relationship could last because Ben was able to comfort her through her fear. It reinforced the idea that men are saviors and supporters to women. What I also found interesting about the show is that there is never any discussion of jobs, locations, or anything that might affect these possible relationships in the future. Ben is also in his 30’s while all of the women are in their 20’s. Hmm.

The thing I will take away from both of these shows is that they play a role in telling women what their role should be in society. “Work It” constantly depicts the wife in a kitchen and the working women shown are never actually working but socializing instead. “The Bachelor” asks women not to consider their future mate’s job, credit, family, or friends, but be dazzled by the romantic locations he (or the show he is on) may take them.  Good or bad, they make a difference and DO affect behavior within society.