Trailer for my first feature film!

Hey guys! So last summer I was a PA in the art department on The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2.  It was the first feature film I had worked on, and learned A LOT... including a lot of dirt on the four main actresses.  This was really the first time I was exposed to celebrities on a regular basis (meaning everyday) because lets face it, we see celebs on the street in LA, but how often do we have conversations with them and see them at work?  It was an awesome first experience, and all of the actresses were actually very friendly, when they weren't together.  Let's just say that since the first film they've all got a little more diva in them.  Anyway, check out the trailer and go see the movie when it comes out this summer.. and look for my name in the credits!! =)

http://sisterhoodofthetravelingpants2.warnerbros.com/

Your Governator and You

Hi everyone,

Please watch the end of Terminator 2 before class on Thursday. It's available for viewing in the cinema library.

Thanks,
Courtney

A request from your TA...

Hi guys,

Could those of you who don't blog under your real names please drop me an email telling me who you are? It would be very helpful in the grading process.

I'm not going to post my email address on the blog. It's on the syllabus, though.

Also, if you weren't in class yesterday: I have your midterm. And you can pick up a copy of the final project assignment from my mailbox (4th floor of Lucas).

Thanks,
Courtney

Celeb Sighting!

Like most people in this class, after being in LA for a few years, I've become indifferent when it comes to celeb sightings. But today during my lunch break at work, I stopped at Le Pain Quotidien in West Hollywood and while waiting to pay, I glanced outside only to see Katherine Moennig aka Shane from The L Word walk up to the patio. Granted, L Word has become a poor excuse for what it used to be but Shane has remained the best character and it's still one of my favorite shows. And in a repeat of when I saw Sarah Michelle Gellar, I got all confused and flustered because this was a sighting that I actually cared about and of course could do nothing but awkwardly stare. I wanted to say something but this is LA and acknowledging celebrities as, well, celebrities is a big no-no, especially during a meal. Plus she seemed keen on being incognito so I left and although I'm sad I didn't say anything, the sighting at least made my horribly boring day of database entry a little more entertaining.

Response to Robots_Are_Neon post

Actually, Neverland Ranch was saved. MJ re-financed the ranch, but many of his exotic animals had to go. I think that Neverland Ranch is a great example of why MJ could not stay in his peak height of stardom forever. The ranch is a child's fantasy and MJ clearly never was able to have a childhood, so as a result he tried to recreated it for himself and other children. He is clearly a confused man as he never was able to slowly develop into his own identity. This is why today he see him as half-black-half-white, half-male-half-woman, half-man-half-child. Someone who is so confused about his being could never be stable enough to maintain super stardom forever.

Reading Response - Robeson and black masculinity in film

Dyer's analysis of Paul Robeson as across-over star in Heavenly Bodies was so extremely descriptive that I found myself feeling the same pull to Robeson's star power that the whites and blacks of the 1920s and 1940s felt which made him a huge cross-over success (even though I have only seen his films one or two times). Robesons's persona, as explained by Dyer, is extremely complex as he was able to please both black and white audiences during the pre-civil-rights era. it is clear that Robeson was an immensely talented man for any race (as an academic, football star, and singing and acting star0, but his jump to stardom led him to represent different black identities for different fan bases. To blacks, Robeson embodied the flock culture of their society and stood as an example of success (academically, physically, and artistically) in a white dominated world. To whites, Robeson was revered as a naturally talented performer who was excepted as civilized because of his ability to control his "brute' qualities with beauty and gentleness (as seen in his films). Robeson was able to maintain interracial fan base because his persona was strong enough to signify him as an ideal black male, but his gentle temperment kept him from becoming a threat to white audiences. dyer mentions that once Robeson began to choose rougher roles, his cross-over appeal quickly faded, therefore keeping the white dominance of Hollywood intact.

No star today can perfectly parallel the career of Robeson, but a black star that I feel is equally popular with white and black audiences is Denzel Washington. Washington, like Robeson, often plays roles of powerful characters who are able to keep their brute (used lightly here) characteristics under control. Washington therefore is not a threat to black or white audiences, but instead seen a beautiful presences on the screen. He has extreme sexual presences with all audiences (as did Robeson), but is still and controlled on the screen. But, unlike Robeson, Washington is able to inhabit leading roles with characters that are extremely active within the plot of the story because unlike Robeson, Washington is able to challenge white authority in films (while all the while keeping a civilized persona, unlike how black rappers are portrayed).

Robeson l aid the foundation for black actors, like Washington, to inhabit an identity of intelligence, athletics, artistry, and grace, to be well-respected by their peers, and to overcome to boundaries of race.

Reading Response 2, Week 9: Where Have All the Women Gone?

I found Dyer’s chapter on Paul Robeson interesting because his argument illustrates the notion of the “crossover” star as one who embodies ambiguity and who must be read and/or contained within a variety of discourses. I couldn’t help but wonder who are crossover stars today and immediately thought of people like Will Smith, Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan, which brought up perhaps a more significant question: why are crossover stars predominately male and who would be considered a black female crossover star?

In exploring the treatment of Paul Robeson’s star image, Dyer makes a strong argument for the ways in which Robeson’s containment paralleled that of women within patriarchal society because patriarchy situates both minorities and women as non-active, passive groups in society (112). But Dyer’s discussion rests on the treatment of all women and not of black women specifically, which I found interesting. Because after all, not only are crossover stars like Halle Berry, Queen Latifah, and Beyonce (the main stars I came up with) minorities but they’re also women and thus represent the ultimate Other in our white, patriarchal society.

As Dyer argues, in order to have crossover appeal, a star has to maintain a certain level of ambiguity to be accepted by a variety of audiences and all three stars embody either racial or sexual ambiguity. Of these stars, I find Halle Berry to be the most interesting because she’s the only non-white person to be included on the top ten list of highest-paid actresses and for what, exactly? Yes, she won an Oscar, which is all you need to become a 10-20 million dollar actress these days (cough cough Reese Witherspoon), but what is her specific crossover appeal?

I would argue that like Michael Jackson or Will Smith, her appeal is her potential whiteness. Halle is more light-skinned than others (she's half-white) and her racial ambiguity is underscored when seeing her in more “traditional” white roles such as a Bond Girl in a James Bond film. I think that this ambiguity has allowed her to occupy the high position she does because her presence in Hollywood among the A-listers can reaffirm Hollywood’s (and by extension of that, the country’s) progressive liberalism in a non-threatening way because although she is black, she’s not so black that she poses a threat to dominant white culture. I would argue that Beyonce’s stardom has followed a similar track because she can be whoever the audience wants her to be: a strong, successful black woman for the black community to embrace or a strong, successful woman who is light enough to not appear too threatening to mainstream culture.

On the other hand, there’s Queen Latifah who may not be as universally famous as Beyonce or Halle Berry, but who can be considered a female crossover star domestically as she has managed both film and music careers that appeal to black and white audiences. Although she started out in hip-hop, Queen Latifah has moved into acceptable genres within mainstream culture: her music has gone from hip-hop to jazz and R&B while her film career has moved towards comedy. Yet the media still works to contain her power by focusing on her weight (which separates her from the 0s and 2s that dominate Hollywood) and by speculating on her sexual orientation so that ultimately, she is a star that the media represents as truly the Other in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation. Dyer poses the question of how dominant white society permits black stardom and I think looking at stars like Halle Berry and Queen Latifah illustrates this because we manage these stars by removing their threat (i.e. perceiving Halle Berry as more white) or by placing them outside the norm/dominant ideology that they can hold a place in culture without doing so fully because that would mean embracing the other, which is the greatest fear of all.

Reading Response # 4: Week 10

(The transforming image of Michael Jackson: 1978 (Jacksons), 1983 (Beat It), 1984 (King of Pop))

This past weekend, as I was reading Mercer's article "Monster Metaphors", I continually found myself jotting down notes in the margins that pertained to a thesis project I am developing on Sci-Fi/Fantasy Teen Genre film of the 1980s (Night of the Comet, Teen Witch, The Labyrinth). What kept striking me about Mercer's article was its approach to Michael Jackson not as simply a celebrity but as a complex code of self-reflexivity and genre blending. It became clear to me that the inspiration of the article for my seemingly unrelated project was not nearly as fleeting as I had assumed. Michael Jackson's performances during the 80s and immense cultural impact, I realized, is writ large over the pop-centric musically-fused ultra-stylized teen films I am analyzing and vice versa. The question, of course, was then which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Michael Jackson's Thriller success propel the teen camp film genre or did the desire for the genre propel Jackson?

In so many ways, Jackson can be read like the text of a film - especially in terms of the ideology and codes represented in the films of the New Hollywood Blockbusters. Jackson's fame was fostered from the "safe" musical traditions of Motown (The Jackson 5) in the early to mid 1970s and, then, with the release of "Off the Wall" (1979) and "Thriller" (1982) he rocketed into superstardom with the advancement of his own hybridized style (both physically, fashionably, and musically) with futuristic fashion, synthesized sounds of the latest audio technology, and borrowed dance and visual elements from avant-garde and experimental artists (sophisticated miming techniques, bold makeup, and pioneering Hollywood cinematic practices). Considering the trajectory of Hollywood cinema at the same time, the comparison is ripe for investigation. The Blockbuster developed out of a basis in Classical Hollywood Theory but achieved its mega appeal through the adoption of New Hollywood principles of style and genre codification. Not to mention that the target audience of both the Blockbuster and Jackson was increasingly profitable American teenager market through the genre of, as mercy terms it, the "teeny-bopper pop." (p 300) In this way, Jackson can be seen as a star equivalent to the Blockbuster film. The commercial success of each reliant upon each other and each creating, when synthesized with High Concept marketing, unstoppable in fan consumption.

Keeping in mind the question of cross-medium influence, I think that one characteristic made overtly clear in the difficulty of identifying a source of inspiration is that the 1980s really mark a convergence of popular culture into an almost indistinguishable amalgamation of constantly breeding and branching metatextuality. As Mercer lays out, the Thriller music video was constructed by the director of An American Werewolf in London and thus could be said to be a bi-product of cinema alone (and the horror genre) but even within that film, pop music plays a key role in the communication of the American culture represented in the narrative. From this point on, pop music and teenage narratives become inextricably linked (the litany of John Hughes films amongst them). The chain of influence goes far beyond these two mediums alone. I seem to remember a time when the line to Star Tours (or was it Spacemountain) in Disneyland even had a video cameo by Jackson as a sort of guide (not to mention his own featuring spot in the 3D Captain Neo attraction) and his brief appearance in Back to the Future: Part II). Within Jackson's iconography alone, one can read the transformations of the culture and the dreams/desires of his audience. He borrows from not just an American tradition of music and film but from many diverse spheres of influence and, more importantly, in consciously challenging the accepted conventions represents a specific 1980s ideology - a forward projecting fantasy of the future (toward a globalized culture where art is pop and race, sexuality and gender are pooled into a homogeneous ambiguity). I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that the complexity of Michael Jackson's stardom derives from the diversity of his image and, in many ways, its metaphorical standing as an embodiment of the confounded arrangement of a disenchanted yet commercial teenage youth culture of the 1980s. But is he a product or a leader in this context? His amazing physical and vocal performances seemed to inspire and awe his fans to respect his almost superhuman (revolutionary? evolved?) talent and his flare for creating new styles and pushing boundaries of all conventions presented him as an idol (if not ideal) of a generation growing in size and scope but without any unifying direction or goal (unlike the preceding 'Hippie' generation). But what of his "fall from grace"? Did Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" disappear because his image was no longer favored; no longer needed? Did he simply push too far in his unconventional choices and finally pass the line of acceptability? What do his changes to personal appearance and style suggest about his High Concept viability from his early career to the height of his reign? (Did he truly create a bridge between the racial divide as Mercer suggests or does his preference for a "Europeanized" look subvert a further appropriation of Black culture by socially dominant Anglo culture? Could Jackson have preserved his individuality in style if his represented ideology of homogenization was realized? Was the idea of the future Jackson fostered a future of equality or a future of anonymity?)

Reading Response: Monster Metaphor Notes on Michael Jackson's Thriller

Michael Jackson is a person who represents mystery and the bizarre.  A man who is a musical and dancing genius and yet cannot publicly save his image if his life dependent on it.  Starting from when he attempted to make a point about race by using his body to cross the skin color barrier which ultimately led to so much plastic surgery abuse that his nose fell off during a live performance.  But this is all the modern Michael. The first Michael, we will call him Michael 1.0 who was black represented Masculinity and specifically through the Thriller music video, Kobena Mercer points out a lot of interesting points to illustrate this comparison.

To start, one of the most interesting aspects of the music video is that fact thats its style is not a typical video featuring the band or artist who are playing the song with their instruments and something happening. This is way more of a short film where things happen to Jackson who is playing a character as well as the lead singing star.  The ability to do the video in this style is most likely only because of the success of the previous singles and the huge following to Jackson, because as Mercer says, at this point, Jackson does not need to prove himself, so he can afford to explore something creatively.  This leads to furthering his success because the video got noticed for being such a critical success, as well as a commercial one. This political power and financial security is one of the many ways Jackson gets to show off his masculinity.  Since typically, its always about how much money and power one has, at least in the land of Scarface, which gets used to this day for people to compare themselves to measure their personal Success.

Visually speaking, the video has very specific elements which can directly be seen as the measurement of manliness.  First, MJ is taking out a girl on a date (weird if he did that today) and makes her go to a scary movie, which is typically an adrenaline risque macishmomove for a guy to take a girl out to. The irony is that he is starring in the film which he turns into a werewolf, a form of dog which usually a dog is paired with a masculine symbol, the same as a cat is symbolic for femininity. She clearly is not having a good time which MJ takes pleasure in,but after she walks out of the film, he comforts her because he can admit when he is wrong, like a real man.  He then turns into a zombie, where he is able to show off his amazing dancing and scare her even more.

Of course, the director, John Landis, is the same director who did American Werewolf in London and used the same impressive make up special effects created in that film for this video, which helped win its critical success.

But where is MJ Today, well like the rest of the family, money is turning out to be a problem and he is losing his infamous creepy Never Land Ranch. Ironic?  What does this tell us on masculinity? Seeing as that cinema is one of the biggest creators of ideologies, why do stars like MJ fall, and some fall ever so hard.  I think that says something for men being the way they are, which is the tough strong person who is pretends to be unemotional yet on the inside deals with issues of the contrary all the time, a perfect relationship to the actor or star for their displaying of incredibleness sometimes only leads to failure.

Watch This Indian Version of Thriller ASAP!

Rob Schneider is..... The Clubber

I was out at S Bar in Hollywood the other night and a very short man with a beanie on his head and an incredibly attractive woman next to him walks up to the bouncer and drunkly stumbles and claims his friends are inside.  The woman informs him he is wrong and needs to go to another place, but low and behold his friends, who were not from this country walk out and greet the man.  The man happens to be Rob Schneider.  Of course immediately the only thing I could think of is the South Park Episode about him, but that is neither here nor there.  When I got inside the club, he was no where to be found, nor was his entire entourage.  Later on as we were outside, him and his whole crew of friends and body guards all got into a total of 3 limos that were sitting parked in front.  Where did they do?  If celebrities are going to go through he hassle of being in the public and then go into VIP secret rooms on the inside, what is the point?  It should be noted that no one seem to care that he was there nor was there any paparazzi., and he is really short.

Hey everyone! Hope you all had an fun spring break. I actually spent mine at work and stumbled across this article I thought all you Britney Spears fans would find interesting. The article discusses the recession in the paparazzi due to Spear's good behavior. It appears that Spears resting and returning to "normalcy" is killing a multi-million dollar industry. This fact astonishes me. It is crazy that a star can hold that much economical power, and that fans will pay anything to follow the life of someone like Britney Spears. Do we really glorify stars so much to the extent of "sacrificing" millions of dollars to see pictures of them?

Read the article here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23748133/

P.S. Britney is making yet another comeback tonight on TV. I wonder how it will go...

What happens in Vegas...ends up in blogs

I just got back from a couple days in Vegas, great fun, and of course the class was on my mind as Elvis was everywhere. But something else really struck me there, a show in our hotel called American Superstars, which featured celebrity impersonators. I was first struck by the line-up, some givens were our class favorites, Britney, Elvis, Michael, but also Christina Aguilera and Tim McGraw? A little research and I found that some past performers included some that seemed right like Madonna, but also randoms like Ricky Martin, ZZ Top, and Charlie Daniels. I’m not sure Daniels qualifies as a superstar. Also odd to me (I had a lot of time to think about the ads in just about every elevator ride to the 37th floor) was the patriotism of the posters, that often featured the performers in front of an American flag. Are these stars so great that it should make us proud to be Americans? Most of them, Britney, Michael, Elvis, were quite troubled individuals, but somehow their great talent and showmanship should make us well up with patriotism. Also, I was appalled that this show has been going on for years and so they must fill up the seats, and it costs $50! (Although I think that includes a dinner buffet… oh Vegas). I can’t imagine anyone paying $50 to see a bunch of fake celebrities, let alone enough to warrant hundreds of shows. Are we as a society so desperate with celebrity fever that we will not only pay huge amounts of money to get a glimpse of the actual people, but fake celebrities too? I guess the existence of “American Superstars” shows that at least several dozens a night in Vegas are.

Celebrity Sighting

I went out to the Magic Castle with my best friend on Thursday night since she was visiting from out of town. She was extremely excited to have her first and only celebrity sighting of her visit. She spotted Topher Grace from across the room. While she didn't actually approach him she was very excited to actually see him. I thought it was a really strange experience because I hadn't actually heard of him before then, but she turned red and started giggling as soon as I pointed out her excitement over a celebrity encounter.
One of the things I noticed while we were out in LA this week was that she noticed all the beautiful people that I normally overlook in everyday life. It was really interesting seeing a celebrity with someone from out of town because even though I live in LA I wouldn't have been able to identify him, but she lives 3000 miles away and spotted Topher Grace from across the room.

Michael Jackson Is Still Amazing

In honor of Michael Jackson week, I'm posting the video of the inmates at a prison in the Philippines doing the "Thriller" dance. I'd be surprised if anyone hasn't seen this yet since it was on the news/is the epitome of all that is awesome in the world, but just in case, here it is and no, I don't actually know how to embed videos on this site:

Thriller - Philippines Inmates

For me, the shock of the video isn't even the fact that this great number of prisoners are perfectly executing the "Thriller" choreography but rather it's the fact that the video so clearly represents the magnitude of Michael Jackson's stardom. It has been 25 years since Thriller first came out and a video like this makes it seem like no time has passed whatsoever because MJ has remained relevant and iconic, even in the face of his personal life that has overshadowed his music career.

Celebrity Sighting

After complaining that I never see celebrities in my supposedly Celebrity Ralphs, who should I see at the deli counter on Friday but...John Landis, director of Jackson's "Thriller" video.

As he was actively engaged in ordering lunchmeat, I did not approach him.

Reading Response #2

I am posting way early because I am sad and didn’t go anywhere for Spring Break (but if I finish all work in the first half, I can relax and fool around the second half!)

So, I was very excited to see the article about Michael Jackson and Thriller, because I was obsessed with that album, song, video, all through my childhood (my sisters and I made up dozens of dance routines and little plays to “Thriller” alone). The first thing that struck me about the article was just how prophetic it was. Mercer writes, sometime in the late 80s, about how his sexual ambiguity, his efforts to look more white, his mental instability, and his child-like demeanor that “has culminated in the construction of a Peter Pan figure.” All of these initial suspicions have since developed in ways Mercer probably could not have imagined – Neverland ranch, the multiple molestation charges, and the crazy amounts of disfiguring plastic surgery.

The article also inspired me to watch the “Thriller” video in its entirety for the first time in probably ten years. After reconnecting with its awesomeness, I saw the gender codifying Mercer describes. What I found interesting when watching was all the ways in which the proprieties and expectations of romantic courting and gender roles were represented. The opening film within the film, which Mercer talks about, that places them within the 1950s morality, demanding that the girl be coy and the boy be the respectful initiator. This is demonstrated in the way she asks “so, what are we gonna do now” instead of just saying what’s on her mind, and when he very politely asks her “to be his girl.” Then comes the line “I’m not like other guys,” Mercer discusses at length, signifying to the girl and the audience, that he is not overly masculine, sexualized, aggressive, or disrespectful. But then as it turns out he is the werewolf, which is all of those things as it makes her into the victim.

What is even more interesting is when it steps into the contemporary time, which is assumed to be more realistic and liberated, but the roles stay the same. She is scared and leaves the theater, signaling her weakness and passivity, and he comes out to walk her home and protect her from whatever could come out. But as the rest of the video proves and the lyrics of the song, he is still in the possession of the monstrous, aggressive sexuality. When he is in the polite (sexual urges repressed) mode he embodies the regular Michael, but when he is in sexual pursuit (in actions or the song lyrics which I never before realized were sexual) he becomes the monster (werewolf or zombie) attacking the girl (victim). This is even in the very last scene when he nicely offers to take her home and since this connotates the possibility of some action, he looks back with the monster eyes. To me this doesn’t show that male sexuality is monstrous, but that the forced occupation of gender roles, respectful initiator and coy, and sexual roles, aggressive pursuer and chased victim, can have some scary consequences.

Pre-Spring Break Irony...

So I'm not sure what to make of the fact that my mom emailed me this...today.  It was under the subject line, "Ultimate Redneck Mansion"...

In addition, in response to the discussions we had today about the correlations between Elvis and Britney, I now find this image extremely disturbing...

Enjoy your Spring Break everyone!  See you in 2 weeks!

mini Elvis

My son as Elvis, circa 2003....

Reading Response #2

Mainstream White Trash.

Sweeney's article about Elvis and White Trash culture gave me a greater understanding of Elvis, his popularity and legendary status in today's world. The explanations that he gave concerning White Trash culture was all to real. I felt bad for myself because I can remember seeing people that match his exact descriptions! Living in Texas and now Colorado has given me a Southern perspective of white trash in the South, but also the migration of the ideals and rituals of the originally Southern based culture. Last week's movie was the first time I had ever seen more than short clips of hips gyrating from Elvis Presley. I had never really had any interest in him, and blashphamey to the spiritual impersonators. The comparing of Elvis and Bill Clinton and Rosanne had me absolutely confused, but after his further examination, they all really did seem to fit together in meeting the desires of the public. I believe that is what makes a star become iconic and larger than life, when they hit the right cord in the mass' desires. This is part of the reason why stars fade, some quicker than others, because the desires of society change. The time when Elvis was alive was a time when the marginalized became the center of attention, as contradictory as that really is. As Sweeney discussed, he dealt with race, sex, rock 'n roll, war, and eventually drugs and excess. All of these things were the issues that society faced in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Now, his image and icon have shifted. In his death, he is viewed as a symbol and embodiment of the marginalized becoming important and a point of focus. Most people do not dress up in white jumpsuits with big jewels and belt buckles anymore, but there are still people who want to express themselves and be outside of the social norms. Elvis' image as morphed over time into representing those types of people since he first became a star.

I would also like to thank the Leavey staff for helping me get my account working again so that I could bring you this post!

Star Sighting...or, Meeting.

I intern three days a week at Sony Pictures in their creative advertising department and since they are doing the trailer/poster for "Pineapple Express" (a Seth Rogen/James Franco action movie about weed), I got to meet James Franco and watch him re-record some of his lines for the green-band trailer. Basically, I have been a huge fan of Franco for years so I think I'm still comprehending the fact that I even met him! It was interesting because he looked really different than normal...he had reddish hair and a brown mustache, a look I've never seen on him before. It was almost unrecognizable. That probably helped because I think I would have been much more starstruck had he looked like he does in all his movies. Besides the fact that I'm a big fan of his, I was really excited that I actually got to see him work. He did dialogue recording in a sound booth while we watched. He was really funny, somewhat quiet, and seemed very chill (although he was about 40 minutes late arriving at the vendor). The only thing I was surprised about though was that he had an assistant. He didn't strike me as someone who would have one, for some reason, maybe because he seems very laid back. Either way, it was definitely the best part about my internship thus far and he is one person that I never ever thought I would meet!!

Another Reading Response

Honestly, I never really thought of Elvis as white trash. Gaudy, yes. Flamboyant, unquestionably so. But white trash? Maybe its because I never thought of white trashness as being a subculture; I thought it was more of a stereotype.

I also thought of Elvis, especially during his heyday, as extremely masculine, too, because of the images of thousands of girls fawning and fainting over him. Sweeney’s article argues that white trash masculinity, which must only be applicable to Elvis’ later years, is based in a ‘castrated aesthetic,’ where men attempt to compensate for their lacking social status by ‘collect[ing] junk and show[ing] it off.’ So, Elvis, ‘the king’ himself, is considered emasculated?

While Sweeney’s stereotypical definition of white trash is NOT, in my opinion, applicable to Elvis’ entire career or persona, her discussion of the relationship between black and white trash culture does seem relevant. Elvis did successfully exploit the black culture that he experienced while growing up in the slums, as is evident in his musical style. Elvis’ poor upbringing did marginalize him from society, thereby putting him on the same level as blacks, who constantly live on the outside of southern society. But does his seamless blending of black and white music make him white trash or revolutionary? Does living as a social outcast imply white-trashness?

Elvis’ overt sexuality is also apparently a characteristic of white trashness because of the close association of black culture (which is associated with sexuality because of their link to slavery and hard labor) to the white trash ‘subculture.’ Personally, I think Elvis’ overt sexuality is a reaction to the explosion of Freudian psychology following WWII and the sexual repression of the conformist 1950’s. Elvis capitalized on sexuality in order to sell a persona, which, in my opinion, is not a white trash characteristic, though people tend to associate ‘white trash’ individuals with ‘inbreeding, degeneracy, and criminality.’

So in conclusion, I think this article was founded on a flaw: ‘white trashness’ is a stereotype, not a subculture. Sweeney liberally reinforces prejudices with false notions cultural collateral, and unfairly tags Elvis as the idol of white trash. I am forced to admit, I suppose, that Elvis’ late eccentricity could be associated with this stereotype, but I think its unfair to undermine his revolutionary career with notions of emasculation and social alienation.

Reading Response #2

I was fascinated by Sweeney's article on "White Trash" (in fact, I couldn't help but read excerpts of it to my friend)! The references to the Carnival culture and the Northern elitist's who condemn it immediately brought to mind the irony of the middle class intellectual's appreciation for Shakespeare.  When Shakespeare's plays were first performed at London's Globe Theatre in the late 16th/early 17th centuries, the audience that stood around the stage were notorious for their "carnival" behavior.  People drank, spat, yelled at the actors, danced, sang, and (in some accounts) partook in sexual acts during the performances.  Prostitutes lined the bank of the Thames in front of the theatre and pubs and caverns were full of drunk Englishmen and women.  The performances themselves were influenced by the energy of the rowdy audience.  The way these performances have been described to me, they were much like Dionysian festivals, or a "celebration of collected bodies" (Sweeney, 255).  This atmosphere is a far distance from the often stale, tedious Shakespearean performances that can be seen in regional theatres throughout the United States.  Having grown up seeing Shakespeare's plays at the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis (the best patron endowed theatre in the United States), I can't imagine the predominantly white, middle class, baby-boomer audience having any appreciation for how the plays were originally performed.  I would watch in frustration as parts of the show that were written to be explicitly sexual were smoothed over in a bland, poetic fashion that had nothing to do with the author's original intention. It is as though (much like Elvis), Shakespeare's works have been assimilated into elitist American culture on their own terms.  I think this assimilation can be seen throughout American culture.  The liberal middle class can accept the gay couple who move in next door and spend their time throwing neighborhood bbqs and landscaping, but resist and condemn the gay culture that thrives in urban centers.  The middle class seems to accept all things that are de-sexualized, be it Elvis, Shakespeare, or homosexuality.  It appears that the middle class's bodily struggle (referred to by Sweeney) has chosen power and discipline as opposed to evasion and liberation.  This can be seen in many aspects of our society.

Star Sighting

I had a friend in town who is from the East Coast.  He had read that "all the celebrities go to Newsroom Cafe" and insisted that I take him there when he arrived for his visit to Los Angeles.  Though initially disappointed by the lack of actual "glitter" associated with the spot (and its location across the street from The Ivy on Robertson), he still tried to see past the sunglasses and baseball caps to identify a celebrity.  As we sat outside and ordered our incredibly expensive (though delicious) meal, Rachel Zoe (or as Perez Hilton calls her, "Raisin Face") walked into the restaurant and toward the bathroom.  I had heard of her (embarrassingly enough) from Perezhilton.com, and knew that she was the stylist for a number of celebrities including Jennifer Garner, Mischa Barton, Nicole Richie, and Lindsey Lohan.  I have to say, her notoriously sour demeanor was apparent as she walked in a seemingly angry huff toward the ladies room past a hostess who initially asked her if she would like to be seated.  Her size shocked me.  She was a tiny woman (I've heard she suggests her clients take Aderol or, shockingly, horse tranquilizers to stay slim) and was an orange tan.  After her bathroom stint she walked, head down, abruptly out of the restaurant.  For some reason, my overall feeling after this sighting was to think "I hate LA." Hmmm...

Thai Elvis

For those of you interested in the cultural significance and influence of Elvis, you don't need to travel to Graceland or Vegas -- just take a trip to Palms Thai restaurant, where you can hear Thai Elvis perform. He's got the hips, the hair, and the oh-so-fabulous outfits down, not to mention his spot-on imitation of all of Elvis' vocal inflections when he sings. This place is not to be missed...

Reading Response #4: Historical Truth and Popular Media

How appropriate that in the week of our take-home midterm on Dyer and cultural contradictions, we read about the King - the King of cultural contradictions that is. Sweeney and Spigel describe an icon that is both "a saint and a sinner"; a Demerol-addicted drug enforcer for Nixon, a sex-driven Gospel singer, a White Trash pop icon, and one of the most popular stars in America, who was never quite accepted in the "in crowd."

Spigel focuses on one aspect of the King's fame - his impersonators. She calls them the “holders of unofficial history” who comment back on the "confusion and alienation of our time." They embody popular memory, opposed to historical truth. This dichotomy between historical truth and popular memory is introduced on p. 180 and developed throughout the article. Whereas popular memory is defined by its multiplicity and subjectivity, historical truth is based upon a linear, black/white presentation. However, as I understand it, I don't think this delineation is accurate. Popular memory has that same sense of linearity and black/white fact as historical truth. Imagine if an Elvis impersonator were to show up in a tailored suit asserting that Elvis was, at heart, a businessman. This history of Elvis would not be permissible. Other impersonators and fans would question this depiction asking for proof or any type of evidence. They would challenge this depiction by looking at the multiple other impersonations, all of whom seem to resemble one another thereby affirming that their majority depiction of the King must be accurate, must be “the truth.” It is popular history (even more so than historical truth) that has a clear desire of answering "what really happened." American’s obsession with autobiographies, celebrity blogs, even a very class like ours that sets to understand and dissect celebrity personas are all attempts to get to the "truth." So I think to say that popular memory embraces multiple versions or interpretations of the past is incorrect - we are all still striving to embrace the one "true" story of the past. Subjectivity and multiplicity do not define popular memory, they complicate it. Do you think this is true, or do you feel that popular memory is in fact more subjective than historical truth?

Also, just a few other questions to consider that arose with the readings (perhaps we can talk about them in class):
- Sweeney mentions forms of White Trash that are accepted by mainstream (and even upper-class) audiences, what are the characteristics that make this transition possible?
- impersonators legitimize their act by having seen Elvis perform, does this mean impersonators will cease to exist once the current generation of impersonators (the last one to see Elvis perform) die? how can post-1950s fans legitimize an impersonation other than watching his films?
- Spigel asserts that Elvis impersonation mirrors religion through identification and over-identification with Elvis/God, gender hierarchy, etc., how do cults fit into this comparison?

Little girl's all grown up...

Is anyone else seriously disturbed by the type of media attention Miley Cyrus receives? Not all of the media attention, but the content of it? Just today, on perezhilton.com, she was the face to the headline "STD's Rife Among American U.S. Teenage Girls," in which Perez goes on to refer to her as a skank. Seriously, an adult man writing an internet blog about the sex life of a fifteen-year-old -- usually this is the stuff we hear about on "To Catch a Predator," but because she's a star, it's okay? I love my celebrity gossip, Us Weekly is my guilty pleasure, and I have very little sympathy for stars who whine about the paparazzi chasing them -- most of them have their managers notify the papparazzi as to where they'll be, just so they can stay photographed and relevant -- but when it comes to the way female child stars are being written about and perceived, it creeps me out. Back when Ryan Gosling and Britney Spears were on the Disney channel, they dressed like kids, acted like kids, and were mostly watched by kids. We never saw them wearing Valentino to the Oscars -- they got to be child stars, for child viewers. What message are we sending to the little girls who worship her as Hannah Montana, but then see her befriending train-wreck Lindsay Lohan, wearing couture, and sporting loads of make-up and dyed hair? What is the hurry to thrust this young girl into the world of adults? Let her get her driver's license first, maybe even reach the old age of eighteen before speculating on her sex life, Pervy Perez.

Reading Response to Sweeney's White Trash Article

To start, I had a very difficult time taking this article seriously.  Whether that is because my brain is fried due to a work overload or because I simply disagree, the verdict is still out.  Coming from a small farm town in Southern Illinois with 500 people, you can trust that I know all about white trash, or at least the stereotypes attributed.  In high school, we even had “drive your tractor to school” days, in which they allowed John Deere tractors to be parked on the practice football field.  Our mascot was the Midget, and Confederate flags decorated bedrooms, car bumpers, and t-shirts.  I had never associated Elvis with white trash before reading this article, and despite being to Graceland once as a child, I really only associated the place with being haunted.

            Sweeney’s argument around White Trash to me sounds completely outlandish.  It reminds me of a lecture Todd Boyd once gave when speaking about Eminem.  He mentions that in some cases, rap and hip-hop are not race-defined, but rather class defined.  He gives Eminem as an example because Eminem grew up in projects and rapped about poverty.  It’s this that allows him to be respected in the industry more than other rappers who may have grown up more privileged.  As for Elvis, since he grew up in a more impoverished area as well, and borrowed from black music and dance, he was widely accepted by whites and blacks alike.

            I guess the closest thing we have to an Elvis could be Britney.  She’s commonly refered to as white trash with her shoe-less gas station stops, cheeto addiction, and gum chewing.  In addition, it looks like she’s got a tragic ending in store just as Elvis did.  What does this say about people coming from the impoverished people in the south who essentially go from rags to riches?  What does this say about our society in general after such cases of social mobility causing tragedy?  I find it all very interesting, yet I still see this as an issue of class in America, not race.  Thoughts?

B-List Celebrities aren't worth it

This entry will be short because I am actually taking a break from working on the midterm, BUT I thought I would share that I recently experienced an interesting celebrity sighting and even more interesting social observation from it.  I was at Winston's the other night, a popular bar in West Hollywood, when I noticed John Cho (Harold & Kumar Series), sitting in the corner at a VIP table with a friend.  NO ONE was paying attention to him whatsoever, and I suppose thats how it should be, he is just a normal person, living a normal life and wants to socialize on a normal Friday night.  Later on that evening I get a bbm (instant message for blackberry customers) from a girlfriend of mine wanting to know if Winton's is "poppin", at this point, there are a lot of people so I tell her to come over.  She and and another friend of ours arrives and greet us to which she informs us she needs to make the rounds to see if she knows anyone here.  She comes back empty handed, takes one more glance around and rudely lets us know she has to stop by some other places before the night is over.  Now mind you, this is a girl who loves to see and be seen.  She rates a place by who is there if there is a chance of rubbing shoulders with someone famous, I'm sure in desperate hopes some male celebrity will fall in love with her and she will get to live the life of lights and glamor.  Apparently, John Cho was not important enough for her or for that matter anyone else in the bar.  I find this interesting: what makes a celebrity get that allure? Being Crazy? Punching Paparazzi? I mean, this guy didn't even have the paparazzi tailing him, yet he is in one of the biggest modern youth/stoner cult films ever. What reminded me about this whole incident was I at the magazine stand and he happened to be on the cover of something, I forget what publication specifically it was, but something of a household name. Ironic? I think so.

Perez Hilton

First off, I'd just like to put it out there that I am not ashamed to admit that I am indeed one of those every so often, if not daily, visitors of Perez Hilton’s celebrity blog; and I plan on devoting the entirety of this blog to his magnetism for passing constant judgment on stars and celebrities. It’s no little known fact that Perez receives millions of hits per day, reaching both sides of the spectrum from regular people like you and me to A and Z-list celebrities (and their managers/agents/publicists) like Winona Ryder to Kathy Griffin and even more recently, musician Keith Richards. Furthermore, this just goes to show the complete coverage Perez and his blog-staffers end up dedicating to hot celebrity gossip, regardless of whether or not the particular celebrities he’s blogging and getting catty about are even worth our time (recently, he had a posting on the whereabouts on former star of TV’s Blossom, Mayim Bialik). Lately I’ve been thinking about how much of an influence he truly is in this day and age of blogging. I know this sort of comment is widely established and discussed, yet I can’t help but be in continuous awe of the power he actually wields (or perhaps the amount of power I allow him to infiltrate my life and thoughts). Obviously, his progression and catapult into the spotlight has been both negative and positive, ranging from civil litigations over slander to getting the greenlight to his own TV show on VH1, but for the most part he maintains a steady presence in the media. Today while perusing his site I noticed several postings dedicated to ailing actor Patrick Swayze, who has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. One of these postings in particular urges visitors of the site to follow the example of the blog-staffers who recently purchased Swayze’s Dirty Dancing 80’s hit, “She’s Like The Wind”, on iTunes as a tribute to Swayze by getting the single to #1 on the iTunes charts. Their goal as I understand is sort of a social experiment, apart from wanting to acknowledge Swayze’s lesser-known contributions to pop culture. Will it work? I asked myself. Will this seemingly forgotten, yet delicious, 80s track arise a phoenix, dust off the ash, and climb to #1 on the charts? Does Perez really have that much clout, or is he just as unsure of his own power as the rest of us and is testing the waters? Thinking back to the late-90s, I remember a time when comedian Tom Green (of MTV’s “The Tom Green Show” fame..and btw, does anyone remember Drew Barrymore being married to him?!) and TRL ruled the airwaves. On the show, Green debuted his music video for a song aptly titled, “Bum Bum Song.” He made it his personal goal to try and get his video to #1 with the likes of boybanders, ‘NSYNC, and rapper, Eminem, in all their fame and glory, and oddly enough, Green was actually successful in his quest, with the help of the ample viewers tuning into not only TRL, but also his own pre-Jackass inspired show. At that age, I was intrigued that someone of his standing and “importance” in society could get so much collective support from the youth, yet on the other hand, pondered the potential that he- or anyone of his popularity for that matter- had in making some sort of positive/contributory difference in the world. Fast forward to today and the youth is spending most, if not all, their time on the Internet instead of plopping down in front of the tube. From Tom Green to Perez Hilton, who else will receive the baton in this parade? Additionally, Perez continues to post about the state primaries and the looming presidential election and its no secret his affinity for presidential hopeful, Miss Clinton. Is having him as a widely public supporter a hit or a miss? And clearly, Perez doesn’t dictate or reflect gallup polls, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder the following: 1) how much influence I allow him/let him permeate my life and thoughts through his blog; 2) how much influence he thinks he has and; 3) how much influence Perez truly has.

Media and a Celebrity's Safety: When is it too Far?

I know Prince Harry is not a film star, but he is a celebrity and I think what happened to him this week brings up issues that go all the way back to Elvis' military service. This week two magazines (one in Germany and one in Australia) leaked that Prince Harry has been fighting in the frontlines in Afganistan since late December. There was a strict agreement between the media and Harry's General (who let him fulfill his life's dream by fighting with his regiment) to keep this a secret for Harry's safety.

No one had a clue he was over there since December and we were fine - why did the media have to compromise his safety!? I was really upset when I saw this story on CNN and every other news outlet you can imagine because I was horrified of seeing a new story the next day that the Taliban targeted Prince Harry. Luckily, he was put on a plane immediately and is now safe at home.

Celebrities have been going to war for ages. Sure Jimmy Stewart and Elvis were not political figure heads, but still they were American icons and had they been targeted in a war, it would have had an impact in American citizens' hearts (adding much fuel to the fire). Do you have an opinion on celebrities/stars going to war? What do you think about media disclosure of their whereabouts in war?