RSS

Category Archives: Cultural Critique

Giving Judgment a Pass

11 Oct

Have you ever been accused of being judgmental?  The accuser usually has flung the “judgment” handle as a reflex.  Teased apart, the accuser usually means to say; “Yikes, that hit a bit close to home.”

Calling people judgmental, and meaning it as an insult, is a new phenomenon.  The antipathy of judgment seems to have cropped up in that organic garden which has also sprouted trophies for every player and honor student bumper stickers.  Everyone is above average!  Now clearly, in our most logical moments we can all agree that to be a force for good in the world you need to have judgment.  I don’t think the casual bon mots of “don’t judge me!” “you’re so judgmental!” are really meant as the rallying cry of a movement.  No thinking person actually would posit that humans are meant to go through life NOT processing information coming into their senses.  I suspect these cries are more of the “I’m too fragile to process your opinion” ilk.

What’s stunning about this development is that it seems to have happened during the cruelest of trends in entertainment and media.  How many television and radio shows, have ridicule as their raison d’etre?  How many magazine and newspaper articles are at their core, simply picking on people.  A governor’s weight is made fun of in the news cycle!  And lo, what the internet has wrought.  Websites dedicated to the fine art of snark.  Quasi-anonymous (they need to use catchy handles, so you know whom to consider pithy) posters, take an obvious glee in simply maligning others.  They are like an uncontrolled infection, leaping from opportunity to opportunity.  Few people, excluding shock jocks and cable news pundits, would ever spew the venom they do.

We, the spectator, are not much better.  We watch, with glee; the accidents, the vulgar child-killer trials, the reality shows, the talk shows.  It is our appetite for some bastardized form of schadenfreude that drives us to “Addiction” “Intervention” “Hoarding.”  We watch these shows because they are the ultimate judgment.  “You there on the television, you are not normal.”  We have a voracious appetite for ridicule when it serves our purposes.  But when judgment is not for entertainment purposes?  Or not cruel, but instead, instructive?  That’s just too harsh.

Truth is, critique is only welcome if it is in the abstract (film, theatre, television, restaurant reviews) or about others.  But in real life?  All finger paintings are works of genius.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 11, 2011 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wait! But If You Act Now

07 Oct

There’s been some buzz recently about the “advent” of embedding advertising in entertainment.  Evidently, research indicates that people don’t like to watch commercials.  Crack research team, eh?  So embedding product placement seems to be the new radical solution to DVR/Tivo fast forwarding.  How in the world is this a new idea?

I still remembered my fevered distraction in watching the film Million Dollar Baby (2004.)  And no, not because of the hammering over the head obviousness of the failed attempt of melding two short stories, but by that damn soda machine.  I think it had its own stylist, or at least trailer.

While I can understand how placating it is to the client, product placement is just so counterproductive.  Not only am I not interested in purchasing the car being given its own role in a primetime television show, I can no longer take the product, the show, the characters or even the poor exploited actors, seriously. Really?  An equity member actress having to extol the virtues of the parallel parking features “in character.”  That just seems punitive to me.  Perhaps a newer generation will be lulled into the embedded advertising, but I was raised on overt label covering in television and film.  How many “cola” cans, “Heerios” boxes, “McBurger” cartons have we all seen?  Before that trend of course, there was the overt sponsored program.  “We are the men from Texaco…”  But alas, that was a simpler time.

I can’t help but feel that embedding is the first quiver of a death throe.  Towards the end of its 72 year run, the (excellent) daytime drama Guiding Light created a convenience store set stocked with Procter & Gamble products.  When the industrial sized Folders can appeared on the restaurant counter, they knew, I knew, Springfield was doomed.  It made me question the solidity of Procter and Gamble as well.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am susceptible to advertising.  No sooner did we have a television room in our family than I was clamoring for that toothpaste with the stripes and fabric softener sheets (I was a strange child.)  My mother, otherwise impervious to pop culture, or fashion, actually dressed my sister and I in Pepsi-Cola jackets.  These were red, white & blue baseball-style cotton jackets festooned with the soda logo.  As the younger of the sisters, I wore that jacket for 4 years.  And I was thrilled, dear reader, I was thrilled.  I admit, at the tender age of 10, I fell hopelessly in love with the Pillsbury Dough Boy; the impish giggle, the soft pliable belly, the association of impending baked good.  I’ve also witnessed my brother’s longing for Snuggle.  I can still hear his plaintive cry: “But is Snuggle a boy or a girl?!”  Once grown to a consenting consumer age, I devoured teen magazines to discover what I should covet.  What twisted little advertising genius discovered teenage girls’ desire to smell strange?  Love Baby’s Soft, Lemon-Up shampoo, fruit flavored lip gloss.  Damn it, I wanted it all.  But sometime around the social studies advertising curriculum (8th grade?) it was difficult to not feel a bit cynical.  I had never stepped foot in a Wendy’s before, and a quest to find the beef, wasn’t gonna change that.

My suspicion is that advertising is most influential on me (and perhaps you) when it takes on an educational role.  Tell me about this new product, and why I need it.  I may give it a try (hello Swiffer! nice save Procter & Gamble.)  But so much of what’s being advertised is not new.  And being new, no matter how confusing and weird (i.e., the Tiffany key and now, lock) is no guarantee to sway me.  And when the advertising is annoying?  You just lost me as a potential customer.  So if I am the last person you want buying your product (and I may very well be) I encourage more humiliation of actors and actresses and definitely invest in some pop-up ads.  Oh, and while you’re at it, airbrushed a very over-exposed former television star, and I will so not buy your fortified water.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 7, 2011 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s What Walk

04 Oct

It seems that squeezing my eyes shut and mumbling; “la la la la” is not going to make the “slut walk” go away.  The fact that it has spanned two continents (already) means it can no longer be ignored.  For those of you in the enviable position of knowing not of which I speak, do let me elaborate.  Under the guise of feminism, women are organizing walks to protest the sexualization of women.  They engage in these demonstrations while dressed as scantily as weather, the law, and their own wavering sense of decency allows.  They have christened these protests: Slut Walks.  The organizers claim they are “reclaiming” the word.  (To the ghost of Elizabeth Cady Stanton; “I’m really sorry you have to read this.”)

For fun, let’s dissect the obvious, feminists never owned the word slut.  In fact, no woman, feminist or not, ever owned the word slut.  The word was created and flung by men who resented any display of female sexual power or choice.  I have no problem with the word per se, in fact I think far too much is made of political correctness of language (which in essence is putting an artifice on top of an artifice.)  I suspect this “reclaiming” claim is to give political resonance to an action that is difficult to explain.

Sexual (or any) violence against anyone is never excusable.  The walkers are attempting to point out that there is no such thing as “asking for it” which of course is accurate.  I support any attention to violence (sexual or otherwise) but I’m not comfortable with the intentional linkage of a woman’s appearance and her risk of victimization.

Unless you live in a very religious community, you’ve probably noticed (ahem) a certain shift in fashion, over the last ten years or so.  We’ve all bemoaned (and by “we” I mean Bill Cosby) the wearing of a gentleman’s trousers far below his gentles.  I’ve yet to hear anyone posit that men are more subjected to violence (sexual or otherwise) by virtue of the fact that they dress like an idiot.  But what of the women? This summer I have seen frontal, backal, gentles, everything a woman has to offer on the streets of the city.  In the workplace I have seen shirts cut so low they could only be called pasties.  I have been seated across from women and could discern what style of waxing she preferred.  Oh, if only I were exaggerating.  Let’s face it, private parts are no longer private.

I will never be convinced that dressing uber-scantily has anything to do with sexual empowerment.  I also don’t believe that teenager girls servicing teenage boys has anything to do with sexual empowerment.  I do believe that we are experiencing a crushing backlash to the second wave (1970s) wave of feminism.  One need only listen to lyrics, or tune into one more sitcom in which the sloppy overweight unattractive doltish man is married to a gorgeous pin-up, to get the message.  It’s no coincidence that women are sexualized and marginalized in pop culture while making earth (and glass ceiling) shattering progress in the real world.  Being a man is not the greatest guarantee of lifelong success and dominance, it was once.  Is it any wonder that television is bubbling over with 1950-1960s shows (The Hour, PanAm, Mad Men, Playboy?)  We could package them all in a dvd boxed set named; “remember how great it was to be a man?”

So while I applaud the notion of women coming together to march for political awareness and cause, I don’t think this is a well thought out endeavor.  Has violence towards women spiked?  I don’t know.  But I do know it only adds to the objectification of women to even suggest that her appearance has anything to do with potential victimization.  I would be thrilled at the opportunity of dusting off my protest shoes, but will not do so if that is all I’m wearing.  The current phenomenon of dressing sexually is too distressing to take lightly.  It is irresponsible and unseemly to equate the phenomenon to victimization, and violence is abhorrent and should never even remotely be suggested to be incited by the victim.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 4, 2011 in Cultural Critique, Style

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Trick-or-Treat

23 Sep

This is a preemptive strike against the annual Halloweenphobia that is about to rear its ugly (non-masked) head. While the retail chains have been stockpiling orange and black merchandise the populace rumblings have begun to stir. It seems that every year yet a new way to safeguard children from self-directed Halloween fun is unearthed. First, trick-or-treating became chaperoned, then there were the full blown bans on trick-or-treating, with tragically depressing “parties” in their place, then costumes at school were banned (I ask you, how is a person supposed to trick-or-treat on their way home from school?!,) recently there was no trick-or-treating on Sundays (is that a Lent thing?) and my all-time, number 10 on the insanity Richter scale: Halloween pedophile alerts. I’m no criminologist, but I’m just gonna throw this out there: really?! Do people think the “strangers with candy” thing is Halloween on steroids?  ( A) children trick-or-treat with friends, not alone B) pedophiles prey on the vulnerable and the heinous crime involves befriending C) stop watching so much SVU.

What is so ridiculously ironic about the Halloween bogeyman paranoia (on a holiday that celebrates the bogeyman) is that the same adults who are wrapping their sainted cherubs in bubble wrap are dressing like working girls (or like children if they’re men) and drinking in excess. But I digress.

Halloween is a wonderful adventure and learning opportunity for children. Weeks are spent creating costumes and organizing trick-or-treating gangs and routes. Navigational skills are utilized while mapping out the greatest candy-per-footstep ratio. Learning to speak to adults (who, gasp, are strangers) is intimidating but a necessary skill. There’s nothing quite as awkward as that first “Trick-or Treat” of the evening. For all of you now shaking your head with smugness and muttering; “she just doesn’t get it.” I assure you I do. Learning to be confident and assertive with adult (strangers) is the BEST way to safeguard a child from victimization, be it peer-to-peer bullying or the unthinkable.

As far as candy tampering (rare as it is) no candy is eaten until the little goblins arrive home. Loose candy, apples and baked goods must be tossed, if the giver is not a family friend. We live in a world of terrifyingly real foodborne illness, manufacturer’s tainting, and flawed engineering of safety products. We don’t spend our lives in fear of these hazards, or in fear of asteroids for that matter. I don’t think we need to create some Willy Wonka’s evil twin fantasy and destroy a wonderful beneficial holiday designed for children.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 23, 2011 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

As Seen on T.V.

14 Sep

Today’s (primetime) television listing includes such small screen gems as; Fatal Honeymoons, Survivor: South Pacific (Bali Hai?), Dance Moms, Real Housewives (insert gated community), Sons of Guns: Oh my G-d a Canon, Confessions: Animal Hoarding, True Life: I Have Acne.  These are just a small sample of what is available to the discerning television viewing audience of our fair region.  But wait, do not rush to cancel cable, there is also a tiny Isis delivered glimmer of hope in today’s listing: Kate Plus 8: The Finale.

Cheekiness aside, I actually find this programming abomination somewhat comforting.  For one thing there is the utter truth in advertising that exists in these shows and ones like: The Dumbest Stuff.  No one is trying to pose as something they simply are not.  That is always deliciously refreshing.  Do I think Edward R Murrow would quit smoking if he knew that network news shows now cover; Celebrity Secrets: A Model Life, sure.  But I am also so bold as to suggest that Mr. Murrow would discover the joys of public broadcasting and the BBC.

Aside from the utter lack of pretense of inexpensively produced “reality” shows they provide a valuable litmus for our culture.  To my mind there is no difference between seizure inducing television, fast/junk food, and licensed designer products.  As a nation, we have a Big Gulp appetite for cheap crud.  Why is this (old news) encouraging?  Because if we can connect the dots, we can begin to make better choices about how to address social issues.

Consumer debt, like obesity, is spreading like the plague.  Some portion of our nation’s massive consumer debt is due to buying too much.  (Stunning economic analysis, I know.)  For decades, we have been on hyper-drive extolling the virtues of being Rich and Famous (oh what Robin Leach has wrought!)  We can not feign surprise that a celebrity obsessed culture now exists.  In the 1990s, we saw the ascent of television shows, songs, and magazines, whose general raison d’etre was to pitch (formerly obscure) brands as “must haves.”  Did anyone ever need to know what a Blahnik was, or be hypnotized into believing it had intrinsic value?  Not surprisingly, once the consumer appetite was created, the knock-offs could not be far behind.   I am actually a proponent of (legal) knock-offs (i.e., H&M,Topshop.)  Usually, not such a fan of disposable clothing, I find these shops help to quench a thirst for photo spread apparel.  There is a (more relevant) secondary function of these shops as well.  In theory, if faced with the mass-market ubiquity resulting from say, Missoni for Target, a consumer epiphany can not be far behind.  “Is the “famous” “designer” (insert item) actually better than another (insert item,)” the consumer then asks him/herself.  Make no mistake, there are huge disparities in craftsmanship, materials, styling in fashion, but there is no relationship between those factors and the size of the team of publicists hired by a designer. Once that realization occurs, the uber-marketed brand is simply not as desirable.  So the proliferation of cheap knock-offs, could in fact work to curb excessive consumer debt.  I suggest Public Service Announcements (PSA) which show who the people really are that are buying these items.  This would not be that different than the substitution of the burly Malboro Man, with the guy attached to the oxygen tank.

While we’re on the subject, how about the same PSA marketing campaign for junk/fast food?  Not unlike the restrictions put on liquor and cigarette advertising, how about rules of engagement for food-like products?  There are the easy black-out restrictions (i.e., no advertising sugar laced or processed food to children: ever.)  But then there are the more creative (and flat out enjoyable) approaches.  How about anyone shown serving, being served, or ingesting sugar laces/processed food, looked like they actually eat it?  Or for every advertisement for sugar laced/processed food, equal space (and resources) must be given to visually accurate depictions of people; on dialysis, oxygen dependent, or mobility impaired.  Severe?  Absolutely, but this is war.  We’ve spent decades convincing the public that cheap crud is appealing.  It’s time use the same approach and ingenuity for the good of society.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on September 14, 2011 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →