It all began in New York City in 1969. An opportunity for expressing the sexual freedom for some, or just a meat market for others, the Gay Pride Parade has become one of the most complex and controversial popular manifestations in the last four decades. From an objective perspective, a superficial analysis of these events show it is understandable that a fierce opposition to Gay Pride events has appeared both within the LGBT and the mainstream population. Drag Queens, music, glitter, floats with semi-naked hyper-muscular guys, and all kind of outrageous, tacky and freak manifestations assail the conscience of respectable citizens. Some of the Gay Pride detractors claim that these events clearly damage the public image of the gay community and promote a commonly linked identification between gay and lesbian people and sex and promiscuity. . This identification fuels the stereotype of “gay, promiscuous citizens” in contrast with respectable citizens. Even within the gay community people have differing views on these events, those who support these events (are considered promiscuous) and those who do not accept this behavior (considered regular end respectable gay citizens by the rest of the population). However, do they have the same opposition to the attitudes showed by the wide majority of the assistants to carnival events? Obviously no, so that may entails that those who in order to “defend” the gay and lesbian rights attack these events have some deep motivations like (why not?) disguised under political correction homophobia.
Let’s analyze all the elements that take place in these parades. First of all we have to take into account that it is a parade, in other words a manifestation of something. Glitter, color, noise, techno music, banners, feathers, performances, drag queens…the aesthetic character of these elements is more than obvious. There is a common visual and sensual component in all the elements that come together in these events. Surrounded by a festive atmosphere these elements widely appeal to human emotions, included sexuality in order to spread their real message. That is why common sense tells that this is no more than an empty, superficial celebration; a tribute to sex and lust. However, all these components share a common style that has deeper social, cultural and political implications. These flashy and exaggerated characters appear as a natural reaction to thousands of years of invisibility for the gay and lesbian collective. They demand their place in a society that has been thought of as strictly for heterosexuals. Above all, the components of gay pride parades share communicative goals. They want to express something by sparkly colors, noise and exaggeration.
Is this the correct way to fight for the normalization of gay and lesbian rights? May be not, but it is the natural reaction to the oppression suffered not only in third world countries but also in “tolerant” and “developed” societies by the gay and lesbian collective. This festive, colorful atmosphere also hides years of pain and resentment. I completely agree with those who claim that these events are tacky exaggerated and obscene. I would like to see the moment with these tacky manifestations are not necessary, however, that moment has not arrived yet.
viernes, 9 de octubre de 2009
miércoles, 7 de octubre de 2009
The Beatles, part of the capitalist machinery?
A critical review of the music video “Rain”
No way. That is the first thing that comes into my mind after reading this: "The Beatles did about as much to represent the interests of the nation's young people as the Spice Girls did in the 1990s." I cannot stop shaking. Posh Spice can be compared with John Lennon? No… Things get worse when I find out who has talked about such nonsense, David Fowler, a renowned Cambridge University historian. A cold sweat comes over my forehead.
Fowler supports the idea that The Beatles exploited fan worship, mindless screaming and nothing more than a passive teenage consumer, as away of gaining acclaim and notoriety. They were part of the capitalist machinery and their success was a result of the economic abundance that favored this passive consumption.
Here lies one general binary. We can consider The Beatles as part of the capitalist structure that established the patterns of the following commercial music trends or as a revolutionary band broke the structures of the common sense that ruled during the 1960s. In my opinion, The Beatles led a cultural revolution that broke the structures of society and the way music was understood. However, we can also tell that the Beatles imposed standardization in music that exploited successful musical features to commercial exhaustion (Adorno). I am going to analyze the music video “Rain” from the Beatles that was first shown in 1967. I am aware that during the 1960s music videos did not have the same aims that they started having after the 1980s but this video is one of the first conceptual music videos in pop music history.
The video starts with general shots of the members of the band walking around a green garden. They are all dressed in black modern ¨1960s styled¨ suits. These shots are followed by some close-ups and low angles of all the members of the band. The clip does not tell any story, it is just focused on the members of the group. The importance of the “stars” plays an important role in this video. I would also like to emphasize the great number of extreme close ups of some of the accessories of the members of the group (sunglasses, rings, anklets…). After reading Professor Fowler’s article, I cannot stop thinking about the commercial purpose of this video. These kind of video clips helped to establish a revolutionary fashion style that was followed by millions of young people around the world. This led us to the commercial purpose of the music video. Who were the interpretive communities of these kind of videos? Critical thinkers or just screaming and passive consumers?
I think that an infinite number of conclusions can be deduced from this music video. This is the beginning of a process that has led popular music to a wild consumption market where music producers only understand about profits and marking plans. Were the Beatles aware that they were founding this phenomenon? We will never know…however I will always enjoy listening to their songs again and again.
No way. That is the first thing that comes into my mind after reading this: "The Beatles did about as much to represent the interests of the nation's young people as the Spice Girls did in the 1990s." I cannot stop shaking. Posh Spice can be compared with John Lennon? No… Things get worse when I find out who has talked about such nonsense, David Fowler, a renowned Cambridge University historian. A cold sweat comes over my forehead.
Fowler supports the idea that The Beatles exploited fan worship, mindless screaming and nothing more than a passive teenage consumer, as away of gaining acclaim and notoriety. They were part of the capitalist machinery and their success was a result of the economic abundance that favored this passive consumption.
Here lies one general binary. We can consider The Beatles as part of the capitalist structure that established the patterns of the following commercial music trends or as a revolutionary band broke the structures of the common sense that ruled during the 1960s. In my opinion, The Beatles led a cultural revolution that broke the structures of society and the way music was understood. However, we can also tell that the Beatles imposed standardization in music that exploited successful musical features to commercial exhaustion (Adorno). I am going to analyze the music video “Rain” from the Beatles that was first shown in 1967. I am aware that during the 1960s music videos did not have the same aims that they started having after the 1980s but this video is one of the first conceptual music videos in pop music history.
The video starts with general shots of the members of the band walking around a green garden. They are all dressed in black modern ¨1960s styled¨ suits. These shots are followed by some close-ups and low angles of all the members of the band. The clip does not tell any story, it is just focused on the members of the group. The importance of the “stars” plays an important role in this video. I would also like to emphasize the great number of extreme close ups of some of the accessories of the members of the group (sunglasses, rings, anklets…). After reading Professor Fowler’s article, I cannot stop thinking about the commercial purpose of this video. These kind of video clips helped to establish a revolutionary fashion style that was followed by millions of young people around the world. This led us to the commercial purpose of the music video. Who were the interpretive communities of these kind of videos? Critical thinkers or just screaming and passive consumers?
I think that an infinite number of conclusions can be deduced from this music video. This is the beginning of a process that has led popular music to a wild consumption market where music producers only understand about profits and marking plans. Were the Beatles aware that they were founding this phenomenon? We will never know…however I will always enjoy listening to their songs again and again.
We aren't Van Wilder
If someone had asked me, one month ago, what the first idea that would come into my head when I thought about American University, I would probably have answered beer. Yes, I know I sound silly and that this reasoning is not true for all college students but I guess that I am another victim of American college films. Since John Hughes started making films like “Weird Science” or “The breakfast club” in 1985 a great amount of “acne-films” have helped to feed teen’s imaginations around the world. Why do we imagine an American college with beers and cheerleaders? Why do teenagers around the world dream of becoming the local football star and marry a blond cheerleader even if they have never played football before? I am aware that I am simplifying this fact (not every teenager around the world has the same stupid dreams), but these identifications do happen. Besides mediocre plots and flat characters, these films represent an interesting phenomenon in popular culture. Why does this Americanization of the ideal college happen? Why are these stereotypes made? What binaries work in these movies? There isn’t a unique answer for these questions, cultural studies work on a slippery field, however, I have analyzed a film called “Van Wilder” in order to provide an approach to these issues.
Van Wilder has been in college for more than seven years and he doesn’t want to graduate yet. From this common plot follows 90 minutes of easy gags and a fussy love story. Everything is stereotyped. Van Wilder falls in love with Gwen Pearson, the blonde but smart journalist who is trying to write an article about the life and the popularity of Van, however, the preppy Richard Bagg, Gwen’s boyfriend, is always trying to make things difficult for Van. There are constant references to sex and alcohol along the film. Two opposite binaries work in this movie; Richard and Van, they are both struggling to get the perfect girl. The two characters represent two different ways of life. On the one hand Richard wants to become a doctor and he is the leader of one of the most prestigious fraternities on campus, on the other hand Van is a party animal. The way fraternities are represented is immeasurably exaggerated: the clothes they wear, their hair, the way they treat freshmen students. They’re the rich bad guys. In contrast Van, although rich too (this is an interesting point) is the cool guy and the only thing he wants is to help his friends. I would also like to analyze another fact portrayed on the film, race. At a first glance this film tries to be politically correct and show a multiracial college community. Van’s best friends are a black and Hindu student. However, is this accidental? Of course not, this is not and innocent choice. Lots of American college films use black or latin actors as supporting actors, but they are just the white male main character’s best friend.
In my opinion Vin Wilder is a perfect example of how simplifications are made and how we just accept them. These kind of film just try to simplify a complex and rich environment like an American College, and they just help to fed the common topic that students just have sex and beer in their minds.
Van Wilder has been in college for more than seven years and he doesn’t want to graduate yet. From this common plot follows 90 minutes of easy gags and a fussy love story. Everything is stereotyped. Van Wilder falls in love with Gwen Pearson, the blonde but smart journalist who is trying to write an article about the life and the popularity of Van, however, the preppy Richard Bagg, Gwen’s boyfriend, is always trying to make things difficult for Van. There are constant references to sex and alcohol along the film. Two opposite binaries work in this movie; Richard and Van, they are both struggling to get the perfect girl. The two characters represent two different ways of life. On the one hand Richard wants to become a doctor and he is the leader of one of the most prestigious fraternities on campus, on the other hand Van is a party animal. The way fraternities are represented is immeasurably exaggerated: the clothes they wear, their hair, the way they treat freshmen students. They’re the rich bad guys. In contrast Van, although rich too (this is an interesting point) is the cool guy and the only thing he wants is to help his friends. I would also like to analyze another fact portrayed on the film, race. At a first glance this film tries to be politically correct and show a multiracial college community. Van’s best friends are a black and Hindu student. However, is this accidental? Of course not, this is not and innocent choice. Lots of American college films use black or latin actors as supporting actors, but they are just the white male main character’s best friend.In my opinion Vin Wilder is a perfect example of how simplifications are made and how we just accept them. These kind of film just try to simplify a complex and rich environment like an American College, and they just help to fed the common topic that students just have sex and beer in their minds.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
