Are Female Hero's Punished?

Woman King is a historical fiction movie that features an all-female warrior unit of the Dahomey African Kingdom. These women are the king's guards.

Nanisca, the Agojie General, can be heard in the first 20 minutes of the movie giving a moving monologue to the newest group of enslaved women that they saved from the Oyo soldiers. In this scene, the captive women are allowed to join the female army and have the opportunity to earn money, have respect, and have their voices heard. If they choose these unheard-of privileges, they also forfeit the privilege of marriage and children.

“We fight or we die. We fight for Dahomey, for our sisters, for our great king. You will be revered. You will be paid for your work. Your opinions will be heard. No tribe or kingdom in Africa shares this privilege. For this honor, we live out our lives in these palace walls. We take no husband, We will bear no children.”

In Sellnow’s Feminist Perspective, Nanisca’s character would be seen as an oppositional radical feminist. She is the subject and also the hero in this story. One might ask themselves if hegemony is also being reinforced in this movie. Even though Nanisca, is a revered warrior in her kingdom, she still answers to the male king, and her “freedoms” are not equal to the lead male role for most of the film.

Radical feminist rhetoricians might say that Nanisca is “being punished for breaking the hegemony rules by stepping outside the object role.” At one point as a young warrior, she had been captured and assaulted nightly. The sexual assaults led to a pregnancy. Nanisca ultimately gave up her daughter out of fear of being kicked out of the Agojie army. After all, the Agojie warriors vow to bear no children. This furthers the myth that women cannot have positions of power and be mothers.

In your opinion, do you feel that the media perpetuates the idea that women will ultimately be punished for breaking hegemony rules?

Encanto and Feminism

  The first time you saw the Madrigal sisters from the Disney Movie Encanto, who were you drawn to? This week I wanted to look at each of the Madrigal sisters and identify ways that they either reinforce or fight the feminist perspective. 

The oldest of the Madrigal sisters is Isabella. She is a classically beautiful and feminine character. In this way, she reinforces the patriarchal view that women are to be appealing to look at. She is also supposed to get engaged to the town dreamboat, which also reinforces the practical view of a classic family. Despite her start, she has an awakening in the movie where she steps away from the classically beautiful flower growing that she’s known for, and steps into growing more creative plants such as cacti. She also ends up telling her finance that she doesn’t want to marry him. Both of these actions show Isabella taking a more feminist approach by stepping outside of her expected role as the beautiful and perfect eye candy. 

The middle sister in the Madrigal family is Luisa. Lusia screams feminism the second you see her, as her character steps far away from the typical dainty build given to female characters. Lucia has the gift of strength, and as such is shown with a very muscular build. It is interesting to note that the animators had to fight Disney for this representation. While Disney didn’t see anything wrong with one of their female characters having superhuman strength, they didn’t initially want her to stray from the typical female physique given to their characters. Luckily the animators won out and people everywhere fell head over heels for a character Disney didn’t think people would like! You can read more about this in the article below. 

https://insidethemagic.net/2022/01/disney-didnt-want-luisa-muscles-outselling-isabella-lp1/

I also wanted to briefly mention the main character of the movie, Mirabel. While it is becoming more common in Disney movies it is still worth mentioning that Mirabel does not have a story focused around a love interest - there isn’t even a love interest for Mirabel in the movie. This definitely screams feminism as it shows the success of a female character outside the support of a man. The question I would like to pose is: What are some of your favorite female characters and how do they reinforce and/or fight the feminist perspective?

Feminism in Schitt's Creek: Representation and Equality

The Sellnow reading discusses heteronormativity as “stigmatizing gay people and morally deviant and bad. Othering in this way oppresses lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and groups”.

Father and Son creators, producers, and stars of the show, Eugene and Dan Levy have managed to create not just a sitcom that has a cult-like following but has also been praised for its representation of diverse and marginalized communities. One aspect of the show that stands out is its portrayal of feminism and its positive portrayal of LGBTQIA+ people.

The show follows the story of the once-wealthy Rose family, who lose their fortune and are forced to move to the small town of Schitt's Creek, which Father, Johnny had previously purchased as a joke. The main characters include the patriarch, Johnny, his wife Moira, their adult children David and Alexis, and the town's residents. None of the family members want to be in the town and all are struggling with the move from living in a mansion with a staff to now living in a rundown motel.

One of the most prominent feminist characters in the show is Alexis, the daughter of Johnny and Moira. Despite her privileged upbringing, Alexis is shown to be fiercely independent and ambitious. Throughout the show she decides to finish her high school education and then get a college degree. She takes on various jobs and business ventures throughout the show and eventually decides to open her own Public Relations firm, which in she is very successful. She also has a number of relationships, but never allows a romantic partner to define her or hold her back from achieving her goals. At the end of the series Alexis has the opportunity to return to the lap of luxury and be taken care of financially once again by her parents. Instead, she decides to stand on her own two feet and go to New York by herself to pursue her career.

The show also addresses issues of sexism and misogyny through the character of David, who initially struggles with toxic masculinity and a lack of understanding of women's rights. Through his relationship with his partner Patrick, he learns to become a more empathetic and respectful person. David the eldest of the Rose’s children describes his sexual orientation using a wine analogy  “I like the wine, not the label”

David’s parents, Johnny and Moira are depicted and being nothing but supportive of their son’s sexuality. This scene is a great example of how this show has helped to portray LGBTQIA+ people, their families and support systems as regular people that want the best for their children. What a powerful line “...we can’t tell our kids who to love”. What is even more impactful is that this line is delivered from the small town’s mayor who is portrayed as bumbling and most of the times clueless. 

Two more examples of positive representation for LGBTQIA+ characters is when David’s partner Patrick comes out to his parents, with nearly a whole episode dedicated to this.

The second example is actually the finale of the series, when David and Patrick get married. It is a very sweet and emotional, and yes of course, funny scene.

Overall, Schitt's Creek showcases strong, independent, and dynamic women who are not defined by their relationships or societal expectations. It highlights the importance of equality and representation in media and is a shining example of how feminism can be seamlessly integrated into a comedy show. The show's positive representation of women, LGBTQIA+ people and their empowerment is a refreshing change of pace.

My question to you is do you agree that we need more of this kind of representation in the media?

A Sitcom Situation

Sitcoms are a fun time many turn on in order to turn off their minds. It doesn’t take long to figure out what is happening in any given episode, the plots aren’t difficult to understand, and not a lot is required in terms of mental engagement. For those reasons I am going to take a closer look at two of my favorite sitcoms but through a feminist lens.

Full House (1987-1995)

The sitcom Full House was seen as unconventional and unique for its atypical family dynamics. A dad and his three daughters lose their mother, leading to Uncle Jessie and Best Friend Danny stepping onto the scene. These three girls are being raised by three men, a cultural feminist perspective shining through this narrative easily. The men are shown doing things typically seen as a women’s tasks, like chores, cooking, and raising the children. However, I would say it is an inflected oppositional reading of this cultural text, as the dominant ideology of heteronormativity is still seen through actions of certain characters. An example is Aunt Becky, who is a mother figure for all the girls and is seen being better than the men at certain things like “girl talk”. I liked how Sellnow mentioned Cultural Feminism can be a positive thing, because Aunt Becky was also a hardworking, empowered, and happy career woman. So the things she was good at in the home only emphasized, it didn’t detract, from good things about her as a woman.

Brooklyn Nine-Nine (2013-2021)

The sitcom Brooklyn Nine-Nine broke multiple stereotypes and was pretty pro-feminist. While it began with most, if not all, leadership positions within their police precinct being filled by men, by the end of the show a woman was in a top position of power. I’d say this show ends on a radical feminist note. Jake is the main character and Amy is his love interest. They begin in the same position of detective; both are passionate and good at their job. By the end of the show however, they get married and have a baby, but Amy also continues to climb the leadership ladder. Jake makes the decision to be a stay-at-home dad. What I find radical is this would have seemed like a sacrifice for either character, but both are seen as capable and happy either way. Jake and Amy both would like to stay and nurture their child more, both would also like to excel at their job. They made the decision it would be more beneficial if Jake stayed home.

The perspective I found hard to pin point in pop culture was the Marxist Feminist perspective. While I think that perspective would be easy to spot in real life, does anyone know of a sitcom that shows this perspective?

Victoria's Not So Secret Problem

Victoria Secret was quite patriarchal in nature in that despite the company’s customer base being mostly women, their models being solely compromised of women, and many of their in-store employees being women, the company was run with several men in positions of decision making.  

For example, the former Chief Marketing Officer for Victoria Secret, Ed Razek, was quoted saying that the Victoria Secret show does not use trans models “Because the show is a fantasy. It’s a 42-minute entertainment special. That’s what it is.” (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/victorias-secret-backlash-ed-razeks-comments-trans-size-models-spark-outrage-1160446/)

Whose fantasy is it then?

When the attention started to center on how the show failed to include plus sized models. Razek claimed that they did try to do a plus size show in 2000 and that “no one had any interest in it, still don’t.”

I am a marketer. This is a man who sincerely believes that what is popular and marketable stays stagnant over the course of the 20 years since he made that show. He was also incorrect on the public’s general interest on the topic of model diversity, with the public voting with their wallets to support brands that value inclusivity. Victoria Secret on the other hand clung to forced beauty ideals.

I remember my good friend was assigned to speak to Victoria Secret marketing representatives and advised them to be more inclusive. They refused to follow the advice until they literally had no choice. They did a speedy rebrand that pleased no one, with the original fans already disenchanted by the poor product quality, and the new generation already pouring money into companies like Fenty and Aerie.

Unlike Victoria Secret, these companies focused on marketing that made women feel good rather than telling them what men like. This objectification is often referred to as the “male gaze”. Instead, these brands focused on featuring diverse models, emphasizing the comfort of the undergarment product rather than its sex appeal.

In the video provide, “Miss Representation” Jane Fonda states that if our media “consciousness is determined by men, we are not going to make any progress.” This falls in line with Razek’s comments as he was a gatekeeper for what the show presented to the world. In the same video, Jennifer Pozner explains how media packages their products in a way beneficial to advertisers and then blames people for finding issue with the advertisements since they are simply "giving the public what they want."

Do you think that these smaller startup companies only exist because advertisers see inclusive marketing as the new way to stay lucrative? Are there metrics out there that can measure a company's feminism levels and if not, how would you measure how feminist a company is?

I'll Be There for You..Maybe

With the recent release of the Friends reunion, I started rewatching the show in its entirety.  All of the characters have storylines that can be critically dissected, but from a radical feminist perspective, the most intriguing to me is Monica and “Fat Monica.”

Monica is portrayed as a successful, conventionally attractive, and thin female, but we learn that growing up, she was fat and believed to be unattractive.  Her weight struggles in highschool are brought up frequently throughout the show, highlighting the ways that being fat was negative for her but being thin is overwhelmingly positive.  The show doesn’t try to massage the narrative and repeatedly refers to Monica in high school as “fat,” even dressing Courtney Cox in a “fat suit” to generate laughs at Fat Monica’s expense.  Fat Monica almost tips over a couch and is always eating sweets.  In an alternative episode, she is depicted as a fat adult and, therefore, a virgin.   

Fat Monica has no success with men, including Chandler, the object of her affection, until she loses over 100 lbs. and becomes "Skinny Monica."  Reinforcing the perspective that women need to be thin and have a particular body to please men and have relationships.  In addition, it reinforces the masculine hegemony that men, like Chandler, should not be attracted to women that weigh a certain amount, further controlling the destiny of women not deemed skinny. 

The feminism portrayed isn't limited to Monica's interaction with her male friends, but her female friends also call out the times she was overweight and perceived as lesser.  In one scene, she is told by her friend Rachel that she is the one who left a valentine in Monica’s locker during school and not the boy she thought did because “hello..like he was really going to send her one?  She was a big girl.”

The Friends Reunion highlights a fan base that reminisces about the show’s relatability and how formative it was for them in key moments of life, but what did it teach them about the types of women that deserve love?  What does the show teach women about relationships and their bodies?  I’ll be there for you as long as you’re thin and good-looking?  

Buffy: The Ultimate Representation of Third-Wave Feminism - Chaz A. Collard

    You don’t have to be a child or teen of the 90s to know of the legacy that is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Many will remember her as a Liberal Feminist or possibly a Radical Feminist (Sellnow, 2013). I argue that she is a strong Third-Wave Feminist. Third-Wave Feminism focuses not only on women’s issues but also on a variety of standpoints (Sellnow, 2013, p.142). Standpoints relate to our understanding of the world based on our class, gender, race, sexual identity, and so on (Sellnow, 2013, p.142). If you haven’t seen this series in its entirety then I don’t know why you’re wasting your time on graduate school. Take a sabbatical and enjoy all seven seasons, and you’ll find Buffy is a truly, well-developed, three-dimensional character. Sure, she can take down even the gnarliest of demons with her superhuman strength and medieval warrior training, but she’s also been known to swoon over her crushes, obsesses over her appearance, and gossip idly. All of which traditionally fall into male or female stereotypes. Buffy, and the show as a whole, embarrasses both the masculine and feminine traits which we all possess. Even if we aren’t always willing to admit it. Her feminine traits are never shown as a weakness, always a strength.

    This allows us to relate to the characters on a deeper level more easily and likely contributed to Buffy becoming a popular culture icon.  At the time these themes were seen as representations of feminism. Now 26 years since its inception, it has grown to be much more than that. The forces of evil serve as a metaphor for hegemonic oppression, whatever that might be for us as individuals.  Whether it's the patriarchy, unequal pay, parents, society, or the high schools we attended that quite literally felt like a “Hellmouth.” We all have the ability to channel our inner, slick-talking, demon slayer as a form of personal empowerment. By leaning into the third-wave feminist perspectives and destigmatizing the feminine we are able to be our true selves. Thus Third-Wave Feminism benefits us all, regardless of gender, sexual identity,  race, class, or background. 

In January of 2022, allegations against Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, made headlines. Whedon was accused of being verbally abusive to co-workers. Numerous people described his behavior on set as overbearing. Two co-workers said he called them fat while they were pregnant, one of them being Charisma Carpenter who stared as Cordelia on both Buffy, and Angle, the Buffy spin-off. Do you think these negative statements against the female body nullify the feminist narratives that Whedon created? Additionally, how important is it to separate the art from the artist?

 

“Pop” Music vs. Theodor Adorno

 

Pop music – the title of this genre makes it easily identifiable.  The term “pop” is short for “popular” music and has been known as music that appeals to the masses on a grand scale.  It’s the sort of music that inadvertently makes heads bop, hips move, and lips mutter lyrical art.   Could anyone be opposed to such a product of mass culture?  If your name is Theodor Adorno and you are a German philosopher who helped term the phrase “culture industry,” (Storey, n.d.) then you would be in direct opposition to the preponderance of “pop” music.  You would be of the belief that the “culture industry’s” products and processes have two distinguishable features – homogeneity and predictability (Storey, n.d.)  

To give further context about Adorno, he was a musicologist and composer “Theodor W. Adorno” (2023), so his thoughts on music were heard through a musically trained ear.  It is of no surprise then, that he was indeed critical in his essay “On popular music”, making three specific claims about the genre (Storey, n.d.).  Before we go into any detail about each of them, I thought it would be a fun exercise in symbiotic contrast to match “pop” songs with the specific claims Adorno believes about popular music.

Adorno Claim #1 – Popular music is “Standardized” – “once a musical or lyrical pattern has proved successful it is exploited to commercial exhaustion.

You better believe it – some that come to mind are Queen’s “We Are the Champions”, “Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor and Bon Jovi’s “Livin on a Prayer.”   Three classic pop culture hits with musical patterns which literally and figuratively “struck a chord” with mass audiences and have continued to maintain popularity despite their now decades old release dates.

Adorno Claim #2 – Popular music “promotes passive listening” – promotes search for escape.

Passivity is hardly on exhibition here, but songs most relevant to this are “Dreams” by Fleetwood Mac, “Imagine” by the Beatles and “What a Wonderful Word” by Louis Armstrong.  These are songs that by mood, intonation, and lyric transform listeners to a space outside of their own realm.   While the rhythms may seem passive, the action they enact and allow the listener to envision is a transformation of music into thought.

Adorno Claim #3 – Popular music operates as “social cement” – manifests into rhythmically obedient and emotional types.

Rhythmically obedient songs that “dance in distraction” into the rhythm are “Ice Ice Baby” by Vanilla Ice, “Hit Me Baby One More Time” by Britney Spears and “I Want to Dance with Somebody” by Whitney Houston.    These are songs whose beats are unique, and their only distraction is getting lost in the beat and losing your sense of self for a brief minute!  Emotional type songs that fit the bill are “All by Myself” by Celine Dion and “Hello” by Adele.

These “pop” songs speak for themselves while ironically and symbiotically contrasting Adorno’s claims of popular music. “Pop” music vs. Adorno – who prevails to you and why?

 

References

Storey, J (n.d,) Cultural theory and popular culture: an introduction. University of Sunderland, 5th                 Edition, 62 - 70.

Theodor W. Adorna. (2023, January 15). In Wikipedia. Theodor W. Adorno - Wikipedia

Popular Discrimination and Comic Book Movies - Chaz A. Collard

 Comic book movies are inherently anti-bourgeoisie as they do not contribute to a higher form of thinking. (Fisk, 2005). We as viewers can always predict who will win, most major arches, and rarely enjoy an underlying moral. These movies are cranked out by the Hollywood industrial complex in line with popular discrimination. Popular discrimination is concerned with functionality rather than quality, for it focuses on the potential uses of the text in everyday life. Three main criteria underlie this selection process: relevance, semiotic productivity, and the flexibility of the mode of consumption (Fisk, 2005, p. 216).

These are highly relevant in today’s pop culture, semiotic productivity is upheld by members of the fandom, and the mode of consumption varies depending on the theatre, streaming service, or the rare DVD. Comic book movies are exploited under capitalism and therefore proletariat (Fisk, 2005).

The vast majority of individuals fall into the proletariat category. Thus relating to the comic book superheroes, as in battle these characters' only significant economic value lies within their labor power (i.e. their ability to physically fight). While a work of art not produced for mass markets could be seen as more challenging to enjoy such as The Divinci Code (Fisk, 2005). If you remember at the time of its release, it was never actually intended to become one of the best-selling, stand-alone books of all time. Its take on the Catholic church was seen as difficult to read and offensive by many in the audience. 

Do you think most media today is designed to be simplistic and somewhat two-dimensional so that a global audience can insert themselves and their personal experiences more easily? A famous example of such would be Stephanie Meyers’ Twilight. It has been argued by literary critics that she deliberately gave little to no personality to the character Bella so that the target audience to imprint themselves on her. Causing them to feel like they were the star of the story.

Rom-Coms: Trash or Treasure?

 

Romantic comedies are one of my favorite film genres. The guy always gets the girl, there’s always a challenge to overcome, good conquers evil, etc. Yet the very reasons why I love these films, are why highbrow critics would completely dismiss them. In an essay by John Fiske titled “Popular Discrimination” he describes how many popular television, books, and movies are criticized for their conventionality, superficiality, obviousness, predictability, and simplicity of thought.

On one hand, I can understand where these critics are coming from. The predictability in this genre, like many others, can be monotonous and mindless. But sometimes a piece of feel-good fluff is all a person needs to escape the challenges of daily life. It can be too much at times. There are even popular romantic comedy tropes that sometimes make us laugh and swoon, even though also make us cringe or roll our eyes. Three examples of this we find frequently are: The player who falls in love, the “Meet Cute” and the Big Lie that is Exposed.

Player In Love- Jacob falls for Hannah despite his womanizing ways in Crazy, Stupid Love

Meet Cute- Steve Saves Mary's life in The Wedding Planner

Lucy falls for Jack after lying about her relationship with Peter in While You Were Sleeping

Even though we can predict these storylines throughout the film, their popularity illustrates how much people like them anyway. For that reason, people who are making these films are following a winning formula. This process aligns with what Fiske’s essay states, “Popular taste tends to ignore traces of authorial signature and focuses rather on generic convention, for genres are the result of a three-way contract between audience, producer and text. A generic text meets not only the current needs of its audiences but also the production needs of its producers.” These stories are open and generic, and they allow the audience to interpret and imagine the events however they prefer.

Fiske’s essay expands on this with “This necessary openness of the popular text is due not only to its conventionality but also its superficiality, its lack of depth. Its appeal is all on the surface, so the ‘meanings’ of that surface have to be supplied by the reader.”  So the lack of depth may allow for more imaginative interactions with the audience.

All things considered, romantic comedies are not what one would choose if you’re looking for something intellectually stimulating. However, after a long day at work utilizing my intellect, a mindless rom-com can hit the spot for my entertainment needs.

What popular culture genres do you like that would fit into the same generic mold as romantic comedies; and would you consider them less valuable than more classical texts, films, shows, or genres? Why or why not?

Basic Characters

As discussed in this week’s PowerPoint, the Frankfurt School believed that all mass culture is identical and predictable. The Frankfurt School taught that the function of mass culture is to organize our leisure time. This organization was compared to the way that industrialization caused the organization of the mass’s work time. 

Today I want to discuss a few common character tropes in the media. Character tropes can serve a purpose, as having recognizable traits common across many pieces of literature can help viewers easily categorize and recognize characters. However, these tropes can also cause people to similarly categorize much more complex and multifaceted individuals that they come into contact with in real life. 

One example of a common trope is that nerds wear glasses. Nerdy characters (or characters at least recognized for being smart) often wear glasses. Examples of characters that wear glasses include Arthur, Velma, and Dwight. Elle Woods from Legally Blond donned glasses as part of her makeover for law school. An example of this trope causing damage to individuals in real life would be the bullying of kids with glasses and labeling them as nerds. Another example of this trope causing damage to individuals in real life is people feeling insecure about wearing glasses because they feel it makes them look ‘nerdy.’ 

Some of these tropes can also blend and mix with stereotypes. One example of this would be the ‘smart kid’ in a class being Asian. An interesting example of media that switched this expected trope around is “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody.” The show cast an Asian to play a dumb rich girl and a blond American to play a smart hardworking girl. These two tropes of the dumb blond and smart Asian can also cause damage to individuals in real life as people are lumped into categories of what another person thinks they should be based on their appearance. Here is a link to an article titled, “Unintelligent Asians are Smart for Television."  

My question to you is; what character tropes do you often recognize in the media; and what are the benefits and disadvantages to that trope? 

The Reveals of Commodification in American Advertising

    The Frankfurt school argues that Popular Culture is a tool for reinforcing cultural and social authority. Through control of the Culture Industry, “elites” can manipulate the “masses” by standardizing cultural outputs. The Frankfurt school puts little faith in the abilities of the working class to overcome the elite’s control of the Culture Industry. The Birmingham School, by contrast, gives more confidence to the masses. Raymond Williams identifies that the masses can be a positive social force, a challenge to commodification. Hall goes on to claim that popular culture actually emanates from the working class, giving authenticity to popular culture. The elites often commercialize popular culture but do not always do so successfully.

    In 2017, Pepsi attempted to commodify the Black Lives Matter movement by creating an advertisement that borrowed imagery from the anti-police brutality marches. The commercial starred Kendall Jenner who walks through a group of social protestors and offers a Pepsi to an officer. The officer takes the drink and smiles, leading the protestors to rejoice. The masses quickly rejected this commercial, seeing it as a tasteless attempt to mimic and profit from a serious social movement of the masses. It was insulting to insist a simple soft drink could cause protestors and law enforcement to put aside their conflicts and unify. The widespread rejection of this commercial led Pepsi to pull it from use and write a formal apology. The masses rejected this example of commodification and rallied as a positive social force.

    The history of tobacco advertisements also provides insight into the social force of the masses. The advertising of cigarettes on television was banned in 1971, with smokeless tobacco seeing the same restrictions in 1986. Resistance continued in 1992 when the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act of 1992 banned tobacco advertising and sponsorships at sporting events. Advertising tobacco products at sporting events would be a means for the elites to sell their products at events that are representative of popular culture, promoting the existence and purpose of the Culture Industry. Laws that prohibited the advertising of tobacco put an end to this action of the elites.

    These legal changes benefit the health of the working class, even when at the financial cost of elites, evidence that the working class can actively resist the efforts of the Culture Industry. However, as an alternative, one could argue that the decision to end tobacco advertising at sporting events was an action promoted by elites because they have an interest in having a healthy working class.

    This leads me to my question. Is the long campaign to prohibit tobacco advertising at sporting events a representation of the Frankfurt School, where the elites constructed and managed the change; or, is it a representation of the Birmingham school, where the masses challenged the Culture Industry and championed a win?

Discussing Repetitive Cliches or “Tropes” in Romance Novels & Movies

Discussing Repetitive Cliches or “Tropes” in Romance Novels & Movies 

“In Adorno & Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment and Mass Deception," they argue that the details of many of our popular culture texts are interchangeable.  Basically, what they are referring to are the cliches that exist within different types of artifact.”

I have seen this repetition of similar elements in popular culture through trending romance novels. With BookTube and BookTok becoming a popular form of social media for reading communities to offer and receive reading recommendations, many book influencers offer the “trope” of the romance novel in their description before recommending (or not recommending) the book. 

These tropes in romance novels seem to be interchangeable – this “certain structure tends to emerge over and over again.” So what is a trope and what tropes are there?

A romance trope is “a plot device or theme used within a romance novel giving a recognizable starting point to the story that a reader can recognize.”
https://www.shereadsromancebooks.com/romance-genre-and-romance-tropes-guide/#:~:text=A%20romance%20trope%20is%20a,using%20this%20common%20plot%20device.

Some popular tropes include enemies to lovers, love triangle, forbidden love, forced proximity, opposites attract, mistaken identity, love at first sight, friends to lovers, childhood friends to lovers, fake-dating, and more. The film Harry Met Sally might claim “opposites attract,” while the novel Twilight is known for its love triangle between Bella, Jacob, and Edward. These tropes aren’t revolutionary, as “forbidden love” could be used to describe the romance of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.
https://neverenoughnovels.com/2022/02/22/romance-tropes-list/

So here are the major questions:
Romeo and Juliet was written in 1597, so how have we not gotten sick of the forbidden romance trope after all these years? How have the repetition of these tropes not ruined the theme of romance completely? 

Logistically, we should be tired of it. But perhaps it is the familiarity that allows us to relate (and after all, don’t we all want to relate to a fairytale-esque romance?) and truly connect with the story. 

Additionally, shouldn’t the sharing of the “trope” be a major spoiler and dissuade the reader from picking up the novel altogether? It would seem that it takes the mystery out of the plot and gives it all away. Instead, revealing the trope seems to do the opposite. In a world filled with over-consumption and a plethora of reading options, describing novels by a quick trope is an easy and efficient way for readers to find a novel that they will most likely connect to and enjoy the most. In the beginning, it may be fun to not know how the characters will fall in love, but a well-read romance reader will quickly be drawn to and discover their favorite tropes. 

What are your favorite tropes? Do you agree or disagree with giving away the trope in romance novels and movies?

Popularity is being on top.

        Adorno and Horkheimer argue that power is situated at the top. They also say that everybody will behave per their determined indexical level and choose the category of mass product turned out for their type (Powerpoint). Under monopoly, all mass culture is identical. The people at the top are no longer interested in concealing monopoly. As violence becomes more open, the power grows (The Culture Industry). LSU's gymnast Olivia Dunne has seen this firsthand. She used her art and ability as a gymnast to expand her social media following. She could do this because of the NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) legislature. The legislation allowed NCAA college athletes to profit from autographs, sell merchandise, or create brands. Her power in the sports industry has grown to a point where she no longer has to prove her art because she has become a business magnet. Dunne is not the subject of the culture industry but is seen as an object by young men. Individuals desire to get closer to objects, which is why she has created a following at meets by young men (The Culture Industry). Her following has grown to the point that it's affecting the school meets and away competitions. 

        High-level athletes are watched and followed as much as popular television shows and movies. The athletes are creating a culture of being the best of the best possible. The mass culture created by professional sports has driven its supporters. Justin Jefferson was not the football player to generate the mass-produced touchdown griddy, but his take on the griddy has spread far and wide in the NFL. The perfect similarity is the absolute difference. Touchdown celebrations have been a common practice that has created a culture in the NFL. It is questioned when a football player scores a touchdown and doesn't create a celebration scene. Do you think it would be easy or difficult to accept if the NFL banned touchdown celebrations? Touchdown celebrations are a repeated behavior that viewers can easily expect while watching games (Culture and Masses).

        

        One of the few proofs of good taste that the masses have yet given (Culture and Masses). What do these three athletes have in common? They are all performing well and situated at the top of their sports. All three athletes have created a personal brand, but they all show similarities with other athletes we have seen in the past. Can you think of an athlete in history that shows similarities with these three famous athletes?

 

She's Out of My League

 In Adorno and Horkheimer's Culture Industry they mention "Not only are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types, but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change.  The details are interchangeable" (p. 3). 

After ruminating on that sentence for some time I kept coming back to the cliche of the average looking guy or even the poor guy getting the beautiful girl that is very clearly out of his league.  There even is a movie called "She's Out of My League".  Where an average looking guy somehow ends up with an extremely attractive girl.

What about the movie Hitch where Kevin James somehow ends up with another beautiful woman?

Or Aladdin, who was extremely poor and somehow ended up with Princess Jasmine?

One of the running jokes in the movie The Other Guys is how very pretty and sometimes famous women are incredibly attracted to Will Ferrel's character much to the dismay of Mark Wahlberg's character.

Or what about Adam Sandler somehow being married to Jennifer Aniston in the movie Murder Mystery?

These were just a few examples that I came up with while not really even trying to look hard to find these cliches.  They sure do seem to appear that the details are interchangeable. 

This cliche is so prevalent and seemed very real that to me as a high school senior I truly thought that if Taylor Swift could just meet me she would fall in love and we would get married.  The culture manufacturers offered me a false idea and I bought it hook, line, and sinker.

My question to you is, what are other cliches have you noticed in entertainment after this week's readings?

Reading: Leisure Activity or Capitalist Con?

Last year I set a goal to read 55 books during the year. Much to my surprise, I ended the year having read 65 books, surpassing my ambitious goal by a whopping ten books. My past reading goals have typically been in the range of 30-40 books, so 55 books felt like a stretch. Sixty-five felt unthinkable. What makes this even more astounding is that I achieved my largest reading year to date while also attending grad school and working full-time. I never expected to find that much time to read leisurely.

I will admit a large amount of my reading was what most people would call “fluff” reading. Romcom and fiction are my favorite genres and while not all the books I read are light and fluffy, most are because I needed an escape. Grad school is no walk in the park and coupling that with 40+ hours of work per a week, I need something light and easy.  A way to relax. Something with a predictable happy ending. These books are what Adorno would classify as ‘standardized.’ We all know that two characters are going to meet, fall in love, have some difficulty in their relationship which in the end they work out, and then they live happily ever after. 

While discussing the Frankfurt School of thought, John Storey said, “The function of the culture industry is therefore, ultimately, to organize leisure time in the same way as industrialization has organized work time…work leads to mass culture; mass culture leads back to work.” Storey paints the use of mass (pop) culture during leisure time in a negative light throughout his article while touting “authentic” culture (e.g., attending the symphony or opera) as the pinnacle of culture. 

My undergrad is in music, so I am very familiar with “authentic” culture. Since graduating I have continued to attend symphonies and operas, and while I thoroughly enjoy them when I go, it does require work. I have to seek out opportunities and then while there I cannot be a passive participant. I must engage in the music if I want to have a good experience. Every time I go, I feel uplifted and grateful that I went, but does that mean it is a “better” leisure activity than my confection reading? 

At first, I was frustrated that my choice of leisure activity could be seen as a capitalist con to get me back to work, but then I began to think that if other areas of my life require more intellectual stimulation, like grad school, maybe it was okay to participate in a formulaic mass culture pass time. Do you believe all mass culture leads back to work or is there a time and place for mass culture that can be seen in a more positive light? 

Hallmark Movies : The Same Story Every Year

There are few things in life that my mother loves more than cuddling up by the fire with her cozy blanket and hot chocolate while watching her favorite holiday hallmark movies. My saying is, "if you have seen one, you have seen them all." Every year it's the same story. Big city journalist/news reporter moves to rural small town to find a new "story" to save her career and instead she finds a "new" man of her dreams. 

One of my favorite social media influencers, Trey Kennedy posted a wonderful video that vividly demonstrates the predictability that proceeds from every Hallmark movie. 

This relates to Adorno and Horkheimers belief of pop culture and the influence that it has on society as a whole. The Frankfurt school of thought believes that, "two key features of the culture industry are predictability (once we hear a the first part of a message we know what's coming next) and homogeneity (all mass culture is identical). They also believe that art has become so accessible that it has lost its rare value and is no longer unique. There is no better example of this thought than Hallmark movies. Each one is the most predictable story ever, yet for some reason every year more and more of them surface on Netflix, Hulu and all the major streaming platforms resulting in millions of views. 

I believe that we as a society have become desensitized to quality media. There is so much of it being thrown at our faces all day long on social media that we have forgotten what made media special and unique in the first place. Our attention spans are getting smaller and smaller. Because of this we almost crave media that is predictable. Because we have lost the spark and interest of creating and cultivating our own theories and opinions. It is much easier for someone on our Instagram feed to tell us how to believe, act and think. So when something comes out that is new and creative we do not know how to handle it. Another great example of this is MARVEL. They have completely taken advantage as us as the audience by releasing way to many mediocre movies that lack creativity because we still go and spend the money to watch them. 

All of this leads me to the questions I have for all of you. Do you believe that we as a society depend on predictability in media and culture? Has it come to a point that we subconsciously prefer this type of media over new media that would challenge our core thoughts and ideas?

The Better Title For Avatar 2: Avatar 1 But Under Water

**Spoilers are included, if you have not seen the movie, and plan to, I would advise not reading this.

    Throwing it way back to 2009 when Avatar first came out, it was NEW and it was FUN! There was no other movie like it before! Humans traveling to another planet had been done. Humans communicating with aliens had been done. But humans traveling to another planet and being placed into a body created from the native alien and a human hybrid--had never been done before. So it was no surprise when it made records when it was released. Flash forward to 2022, the world was excited to say in the least when a sequel was released following the legendary movie. 

    The movie was advertised incredibly and gave insight to some new characters that would be presented. The second movie was going to be about the family of Jake and Neytiri, and their adventures! Many people were very excited to see how this was going to pan out, and what these new adventures were. Although many fans were disappointed within the first few minutes of the movie when it is discovered that the same villain exists. He dies at the end of the first movie, and so it was a little disappointing to see that the producers brought the same villain back instead of creating a new one. It was this moment that viewers could start to predict almost the entire plot. If the villain was the same, would the whole story be too? 

    According to Storey's Frankfurt School, there are two key factors to the culture industry. One is homogeneity, and the other is predictability. They say that all culture is basically the same, and because of that--it is usually predictable. They also mention that sometimes activities that usually are pleasurable (like watching a movie for example) can become boring due to the fact that it doesn't require any effort to predict what is going to happen. I feel as if this is exactly what happened with the second Avatar movie. 

    Although there are new characters, and Jake and Neytiri have to leave their people, and the basic plot of the movie is the exact same--it is just done with the water Na'vi instead of the Jugle Na'vi. The whole movie is them trying to get away from Colonel Miles Quaritch, who will do anything to kill Jake. He invades villages, destroys them, and battles anyone and everyone in order to achieve this purpose. Granted, there are new characters and events, but my point is that the whole movie could be predicted as soon as the same villain returned. There are crazy battle scenes--very similar to the first movie. Then, it ends with the Na'vi defeating the colonel, and finally finding peace, which is exactly how the first movie ended. In my mind, the movies are almost identical, but this one is under water. I feel like this could be predicted from the very beginning of the show, which was a huge let down for me. 

    In the movie industry that we currently live in, do you feel like a lot of movies being created are just the exact same story being retold with a few details being changed? What are some examples of predictable movies that you have seen? 

    

Taylor Swift's Ticketmaster Fiasco and the Demoralization of the Proletariat

Taylor Swift is riding high. Ticketmaster? Not so much. The recent brouhaha regarding Taylor Swift's upcoming concert tour provides a fascinating case study on cultural theory, popular culture, and the culture industry. Following the much-hyped 2022 release of Midnights, Taylor announced her first stadium tour in several years, Eras. Die-hard Swifties and casual fans alike queued for Capital One and Ticketmaster presales. 

What happened next? It's safe to say that Taylor Swift broke the internet. Fans waited in virtual lines for hours, only to be kicked out of the queue as they approached their turn, or even after they had tickets in their carts. It took days to sort out the mess, and many fans were left ticketless--or at the mercy of StubHub and other bot-fueled resellers. Ticketmaster apologized to fans on November 19, four days after tickets went on sale. Taylor Swift noted in an Instagram story that the fiasco was, essentially, not her fault, #sorrynotsorry. And the Justice Department opened an investigation into Ticketmaster's dominance in the industry. 

This week, legislators spent three hours questioning Live Nation's (Ticketmaster's parent company) president and CFO about the incident, and this is where things get a little absurd. One by one, older, mostly male, entirely white legislators quoted Taylor Swift's lyrics, noting that Ticketmaster should look in the mirror and acknowledge "it's me, hi, I'm the problem, it's me," or that monopolies are a problem that the U.S. knows "all too well." 

Adorno and Horkheimer (1944) considered cultural monopolies, like today's Ticketmaster, to be "weak and dependent in comparison" to "the most powerful sectors of industry--steel, petroleum, electricity, and chemicals." While that was certainly the case in post-war Europe and the United States, it seems to be much less so in 2023. Ask Taylor Swift and her fans. 

As Senator Richard Blumenthal said during Tuesday's hearing, "I want to congratulate and thank you for an absolutely stunning achievement. You have brought together Republicans and Democrats in an absolutely unified cause." While the notion of regulating monopolies is at least closer to the Frankfurt School of thought (absent full-blown Marxism), the attempt to use Swift lyrics in the hearing plays as cringey and more than a little desperate--a way to temporarily placate the masses who are rising up in a pop culture revolution. Of course, this is exactly what the Frankfurt School argues keeps the masses in their place--isn't it? Do you think the hearings (and the cringe-inducing lyric quoting) are part of a bigger social and cultural attempt to continue to keep Swifties and other members of the public in their place?

Parked Out By The Lake: Predictability in Country Music

A common belief held by many is that all country music sounds the same. While this isn’t exactly true, it is hard to deny that many of the songs share a common style.

This ties into what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School stated about popular culture. According to Adorno and Horkheimer, “All mass culture is identical,” (62). Another point that was made was how most popular media is extremely predictable. Both of these points sum up a common stereotype that is cast upon country music. Luckily, there is a great example that tests this.

Parked Out By The Lake is a song by Dean Summerwind which sounds like a typical country song.

Except it's not.

If you listen carefully to the lyrics you’ll notice that it’s simply repeating “I’m parked out by the lake, eighty miles from Santa Fe” in different variations. A word or two may be changed up, but the basic premise is the same.

However, the rhythm of the song changes throughout. It follows the routine of a typical country song. The song starts off slow with only a guitar and Dean’s vocals. Before long the song reaches the chorus, where the music is swelling and even somewhat emotional. The song sounds familiar in its tune, even though it's technically an entirely new song. Despite how the music makes listeners feel, the lyrics stay exactly the same.

The song is a parody of country music as a whole, as it tries to showcase the predictability of the genre. It follows all the typical beats and notes, as it tries its best to emulate the sound of all country music.

This song is a great example of homogeneity and predictably as proposed by Adorno and Horkheimer, as it seamlessly blends in with the country genre. It’s only when listeners listen intently to the lyrics that they realize that it is actually a parody. Of course, not all country music is the same. There are many things that set country artists alike. It's just interesting how this song preys on the idea that they all sound the same, and to great success.

What do you think about the predictability of media these days, especially with country music? Do you think it’s a bad thing that mass media is all very similar?