Fran06’s Weblog

About a month ago, I witnessed a documentary which I found highly disturbing, It was a documentary entitled ’Guys and Dolls’ which ultimately proved very shocking. The valley of the dolls responsible for such latex love was situated in California, with the manufacturers shipping around seven dolls a week worldwide. (http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/reviews/2006/guysanddolls.htm)

The program was based upon a handful of men mostly from America who had brought life sized dolls from an internet company. Creator of which stated he was ‘flattered his creations were able to fill such an emotional space in the lives of his customers, considering them to function like insoles do in shoes. For those guys incapable of talking to girls, “sex with a rubber doll [was apparently] better than never having sex at all”.

These dolls were scarily life like, specifically made to weigh and feel like a real women, there limbs could be shaped into any position so the dolls could sit, kneel or stand. The real fright however came when I saw actually how life like the dolls really were, they were physically perfect and epitomised that of the ideal curvaceous women, with extremely large and perfect breasts the dolls embodied that of the idolised female form. The issue that these men were using and abusing the dolls as sex slaves really sickened me. The fact that the men could buy the ideal, dress them in any manner of clothing put them in any position and then do what they wanted with them sexually, actually made me feel quite nauseous. The dolls were merely used as inanimate objects for sexual debauchery an issue which really made me wonder if this was the ideal woman males fantasised about. The men could do as they liked with these dolls whenever they pleased, the dolls were merely created to be looked upon and abused, harbouring no voice could these dolls be the women of the future?

Laura Mulvey once stated that women were the ‘bearer of the image’ to men. Her theory seems to compliment the issue of the dolls quite well as she implants the notion of the male gaze and talks about the way men prey upon and view women as merely figures of sexual attraction. Is this really the case? After viewing the documentary Guys and dolls I am inclined to believe her!

The question stands are these men buying and abusing such dolls for serious power trips, maybe the feeling of being in total control of the doll makes them feel a sense of dominance over a submissive female figure that cannot speak. Or are all four of these rather peculiar men merely harboring an emotional space, wishing to deny themselves the morbid fear of being alone, nursing worried fears about real women being unfaithful to them, are they just afraid of being perceived incapable by real women.

http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/reviews/2006/guysanddolls.htm

Mulvey, Laura, (1992) ‘Visual Pleasures and narrative cinema’

Though what I am about to write offers little conventional theory or substance towards the notion of audiences, it owes more to my own path of thoughts and the writings of Tobias Jones and his book ’Utopian dreams’.

Though I am still going to address matters of the audience it will be done so in a rather unconventional manner. Neither rooting back to highly thought of theorists or following a certain route, My ideas come from within founded purely upon my own perceptions with the occasional thoughts from Jones thrown in, apologies are made in advance for the slight peculiar manner of my interpretation!

“The promise of happiness has created an epidemic of depression. It’s us who are being consumed not the objects [of consumption]. Postmodernism is the hidden fuel of the consumer culture. It allows everything to be erased, replicated, replaced, Nothing even aims for permanency or perfection and thus the throw away buy again society finds its cultural justification: we’re constantly buying because were cool chameleons we’re ceaselessly changing dressing up to assume new roles. We mustn’t ever hint at commitment, because that would be the death knell of rights and choices. That way no door is ever closed to us, no purchase or partner ever precluded.” (Jones, 2007)

This paragraph written by Jones made me think about the ways in which new technologies like the digital camera have aided the buy in throw out type culture of the new consumerist audience. The Statement Jones makes about the consumer culture of today, initiated my thoughts towards the matter that technologies have founded and influenced this type of culture. Thinking of many a high tech device which could replicate and replace the more conventional outdated mode of technology, I am going to concentrate on the Digital camera and the way it promotes throw away type culture by allowing its users to erase, replicate and replace pictures.

Once only endangered by the sun photographs could only be erased by slowly fading over time now the machine is the photographs main enemy culling photographs instantly.

The first digital camera made for the consumer level market was the AppleQuickTake 100 model dated February the 17^th 1994, it worked with a home computer via a serial cable. (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldigitalcamera.htm)

With the digital camera having many more advantages to that of the normal film orientated camera it quickly outsold its predecessor, with the general consumer market placing a higher emphasis on immediate gratification, the digital camera did just that, allowing pictures to be viewed or deleted straight away the digital camera became very popular with this new type of buy in throw out consumerism. With the emphasis on the fact that pictures could be quickly and easily moderated, deleted and even replicated the new consumerist audience favoured it straight away.

 The digital camera had become a huge success, However  although the digital camera has its advantages like everything in life there is always a flip side to such advancements in technology and digital photography is by no means any exception. With these new technologies allowing us the freedom of erasing old pictures and replacing them with new better shots, We have become as Jones states a society obsessed with throwing away the old and buying in the new. At present nothing seems sacred or sentimental with the creeping commercialism of new technologies like the digital camera, memory can all to easily be deleted from ever existing. With every picture easily erasable, replicated or replaced via the click of a button, it is easy to see why there is know longer any permanency to life. As the new digital realm is now very much a present feature in the lives of many, it would seem that digital photography may be partly to blame for the buy in throw out type culture Jones talks about.

These new cameras for instance eradicate the need for sentimentality, pictures that don’t quite meet the criteria can be easily discarded of straight away, lost forever they seem to exist only in the realms of cyberspace never to be seen or judged by the naked eye again.

Being of the sentimental type I do find this new buy in throw out culture of society to be quite a harsh regime. Although obviously at times I have thrown pictures away, sometimes I have found this process harder then I initially thought it would be. I can of course see how some pictures that are blurry or take on the shape of someone’s finger can be easily discarded, however when pictures are taken of members of the family I find the deleting process much harder to undertake. I remember a time not so long ago when I was scanning over a picture of my mother, it was admittedly a rubbish photograph, I’d captured her looking the wrong way, with hair blown in the wind and eyes immovable in full blink. However I still found myself thinking twice about throwing the picture away. It seems stupid but just being able to delete the picture, discarding it like it was waste made me feel quite ashamed. Just because the picture wasn’t going to win best in show it still didn’t seem right to toss it heartlessly towards the rubbish bin, throwing it away like some piece of junk owing nothing to sentiment. Being that it was a picture of the one person who had bought me into this world, I really couldn’t discard it like some empty crisp packet, so I decided after much contemplation to keep the picture and to this day it sits on my window sill, teaching me that memories are priceless however hazy they may initially appear.

Although digital photography has meant that pictures are destroyed before they even go to print a point which benefit’s the recycle industry, I still feel the digital camera has aided the rise of throw away culture. The modern consumer audience of today tend to be uncaring of the memories associated with certain pictures, a fact I find quite sad as Pictures to me are like bottled time, there the only link back to the past and the only gift we can bring to future generations.

Jones, Tobias, (2007) ‘Utopian Dreams’ in search of a good life,’ Faber and feber limited.

(http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldigitalcamera.htm)

After examining audience such as those of the general pubic and the consumer audience driven by the mass media, I now feel I should like to delve further into the captive film audience. Concentrating on a certain type of genre I have chosen to examine and critic the animation films of Walt Disney. The films of which seem to of become a powerful force in creating childhood culture all over the world. Presenting a worldview based on innocence, magic, and fun, its products are endorsed by parents and enthusiastically cherished by the innocence of youth. (Pettit, Mickey Mouse monopoly) Dedicating my blog to the king of Capitalism I wish to concentrate mainly on Disney’s ‘The Lion King’ as I believe this is the film which best embodies underlying capitalist ideology. Hoping to prove that Disney does propagate subvert capitalist regime within his films I hope to explore how Disney introduces this theme within his films via the old, villain vs. hero stereotype.

The most troubling fact about Disney animation is the issue that this power is directed primarily at those least able to resist it or critically evaluate it, e.g children. (Pettit, Mickey Mouse Monopoly) A fan base who will have been lead to understand the films to be little more then light entertainment with that all so important happy moral ending. Aiming his films at mostly the younger generation I am interested to outline in what ways I believe Disney advocates capitalism throughout his animations. With the films being undeniably aimed at that all so important young and naïve audience, Disney immediately holds the upper hand. For instance as youths I believe the majority of us wish for immediate gratification, young children always seem to have less patience and want everything there and then. This audience I believe is perfect for sitting and unquestioningly absorbing the hidden agenda behind the soft and cuddly caricatures which hide Disney’s campaign . With the children who watch these types of animation quickly becoming fans and finding there own favoured character they will quickly take on board and digest the films deceptive narrative. However what really seems to become evident when watching the films, admittedly from my own perspective, is the darker issues that seem to emerge from a strictly capitalist basis, a theme which sadly shadows the mass majority of Disney’s animations.

Though in the past Disney has been successfully renowned for promoting and enhancing old morality fairy tales, what the consumer fails to notice is that initially Disney changes a lot of the emphasis of the original tales. Not only do the films advocate morality they seem to constantly and purposely select themes that promote ideologies which will ultimately prove useful to Disney’s mass Corporation and in due course that all important capitalist society. Seemingly against independent, artistic communities, Disney’s animated features simultaneously soften and dispense underlying messages to their selected audience of class hierarchy, and sexuality.

In the Lion King, Disney relies on our systematic cultural fondness for royalty and the domineering class, a point which is portrayed by the use of visual metaphors within the animation. ‘The Lion King’ reflects a typical capitalist regime portraying well how the ruling class of a capitalist system constructs its subordinates. This seems all to evident within the opening scene of ‘The Lion King’ whereby a more mature audience could not possibly mistake the social order. Within this scene named ironically the ‘circle of life’ all animal species bow before ‘Pride rock’ towards the rightful king shortly the heavens open and a divine light shines on the new lion cub, future heir to the throne. The future king is held before a whole host of worshipful and bowing beasts whose contentment and very existence depends on the preservation of the established and rightful hierarchy. What appears unmistakably evident here is that the pride of lions represent the bourgeoisie consumer class in society and the bowing creatures stand for the subservient producing, proletariat class, who are drugged into believing in the capitalist work ethic of ‘work hard and you will be successful. A myth seemingly brought about by capitalist ideology which ensures the bourgeoisie have a constant hard working labour force to exploit and reap financial reward from. (Artz, Global Media Journal)

Within social order hierarchy seems to indicate status according to certain qualities those of worth, ability and authority. Within Disney however these values are combined with kindness and beauty, each hero or heroine is highly promoted within Disney being habitually good, conventionally attractive, worthy, and ultimately powerful while in service to the narrative’s social order.

Within Disney’s animations the visual metaphors of good and evil seem extremely transparent: while the hero and heroine as stated previously are always noble and attractive by their birth status, villains are privileged and titled due only to the misplaced magnanimity or whim of their legitimate superior. Villains are always portrayed as unattractive, semi-elite social nonconformists; Scar for instance from ‘The lion king’ is King Mufasa’s disgruntled brother, ineligible for legitimate succession; In each of these narratives and others (e. g. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Fox and Hound), the dominant class within Disney only seem to produce good souls, never abusing their authority. This is understood visually by the soft and cuddly caricatures that Disney creates. The King, and his son, Simba, are brightly drawn, muscular and smoothly curved; the villainous uncle, “Scar,” is drawn with very dark features, his face is angular and he is abnormally thin as is the rest of his rather dejected, disfigured body. Likewise the hyenas who are unmistakably working class, are also angular in figure a distinct sign of the impoverished state they live in. The use of sharp lines and dark colours to highlight the bad guys is a very clever technique used by Disney to furtively project the message to their young audiences that abuse is always found within those elevated beyond their goodness, villains who try to desperately reach beyond their own status to disrupt the social order e.g. the underclass.

But, alas, according to true Disney legacy such villainy is always undone, because as Disney promotes, only elites can triumph, with there being “no upward mobility” in Disney lands, In Disney’s world of the dominant, class rules always apply. Rulers may change amongst the elite from Mufasa to his son and next inline to the throne Simba, but the rules and ruled will always remain. Within Disney’s essential law, the only just rule is class hierarchy. Nothing is resolved until the preferred social order is back in place. No one ever lives happily ever after until the chosen one rules again. All is chaotic and disorderly in the pride lands of ‘The lion king’ until ‘Simba’ returns as rightful monarch. Even nature tends to withhold its bounty, pending the suitable social hierarchy. (Artz, Global Media Journal)

Villains can sometimes attain power, but as non-elite, false leaders, they are always ill-equipped to rule. Their reign is always disastrous and short lived following the return of the hero who is always destined to save the day and maintain the rightful order of the hierarchy. Evil is quickly expelled in Disney lands where the films always end happily and well ordered. The masses of which then rejoice and happily resume their subservience upon the triumphant defence of the hierarchy. This pleasant and repetitive narrative verifies the virtue of hierarchy from a capitalist perspective. For instance such films instil within their young and naïvely based audiences the idea that illegitimate rulers will always be defeated, whilst at the same time emphasising the fact that the overthrow of the ruling class will always result in disaster. This common capitalist myth ensures that the subordinate labour forces will never try to breach their working class boundary or aim higher due to the threat capitalism places on failure. (Artz, Global Media Journal)

Not only does Disney implore Capitlaist ideology within his films but so too seems to place high emphasis on stereotypical gender representations for his male and female animated caricatures. Admittedly coming from a feminist persepctive however there can be know doubt that the films are highly sexist in favour of the animated male characters. For instance all female characters in Disney movies present a distorted version of femininity they have always highly sexualized bodies, coy seductiveness, and are always awaiting their male hero to rescue them from distress. Snow White immediately feels the need to clean the dwarfs cottage and look after there every need in order to ingratiate herself with her male counterparts. Ariel in ‘The little mermaid’ gives up her voice in order to win the heart of the prince with her body, again it is the female who changes her initial ways to fit in with the male gaze. Even the supposed strong female fighter type characters like ‘Mulan’ who almost single-handedly wins the war returns home to be, Yet again romanced by another hansom steed. It is almost as if Disney is advocating the point that all females should live their lives in conjunction to male wishes. They can evidently play the heroine type role for a certain period within the animation but to stereotypically fit the gender representation cut out for them by society they must always be able to fit neatly back into their allocated slot to nicely ensure the happy ending with prevail. (Pettit, Mickey mouse Monopoly)

Sun, Chyng and Picker Miguel, ‘Mickey Mouse Monopoly, – Disney, Childhood and corporate power’      

Pettit, Robert, B, ‘Study Guide’

Artz, Lee ‘Global Media Journal, Animating Hierarchy: Disney and the Globalization of Capitalism,’ Purdue University Calumet Hammond, Indiana

Finding myself endlessly ambushed via the constant repetition of girly magazines in society lately, I have become accustomed to having to fight my anguish at the mind numbingly boring and superficial advice these magazines aim or rather force upon their female adoring audiences. Being female myself I find it difficult to understand why the majority of the female race are seduced so easily by the media into buying such magazines.

What I find even harder to comprehend is the issue that the women who buy these magazines are aiding the mass slaughter of their race by consuming such jargon on a daily basis, there appetite for such tripe appearing greater then the famished.

Can such females not see that by consuming such magazines they are in fact aiding the constant appearance battle that seems to be monopolizing society at present? Proving us slaves to the media’s advertising world and leading women again back to their olden day state of oppression and ‘the feminine mystique’. ’The Feminine Mystique’ being a phrase coined by the founding mother of modern feminism Betty Friedan who suggested ’women are kept from growing to their full human capacities, deprived of meaning, fulfilment and self discovery by the beguiling mystique that surrounded femininity, motherhood and housewifery. (Friedan quoted in Tooley, 2002, p2) Women it would seem have become the manufactures dream readily under constant pressure via such beauty magazines they seem to be helping propagate the superficiality to other readers rather then fighting against the oppressive media sphere. Seeming unable to see beyond the consumerism they are buying into daily, the female adoring fans of such magazines seem trapped in a vicious circle of materialism and appearance over intellect.

What I fail to understand is how women who have fought so hard and long for equality and the liberation to free ourselves of all our previous ‘domestic drudgery’ (De Beauvoir quoted in Tooley, 2002, p61) can fall so easily back behind the bars of oppression. Though we are now liberated from our once captive housewifery status it now seems we are exploited via different means by the mass media. Becoming sexual exploits of the magazine we are sadly yet again slaves to what Laura Mulvey would call the male gaze. Will there ever be a time when women are championed for their intellect and ideas rather then merely being seen as sexual toys for men to devour and sadly destroy.

Branded the advertisers dream, Certain females these days seem to live, love and abide by the criteria set out by fashion magazines, the cosmopolitan seems to of become the new bible! What ever happened to individualism: believing and following the self rather then the majority? Individualism at present seems to me at an all time low, sadly extinguished via mass corporations who seem to be able to put a price on any thing or anyone.  

If only room 101 was a real realm! Alas!

Beauty magazines only make you feel ugly! However such magazines seem to have sadly gained a mass army of ignorance, conquering inner beauty, for the claims that external beauty is the way forward! By airbrushing their models to death, they falsely advertise foundations in order to give off a flawless impression to their mass audience. Who will in turn like true devotee’s fall for this false advertising technique, buying into the product in order to try and embellish their faces like those they idolize in magazines. What they fail to notice is that the models do not really look like this, there imperfections are cleverly concealed and covered up by airbrushing techniques in order to advertise the superficial rather then the real.

Sorry I promise this feminist rant is nearly over!

Not only is it girly magazines which highly seem to offend me but the endless television documentaries which seem to be dominating our screens lately all of which are undeniably aimed at women. Program’s such as ‘How to look good naked’ and Trinny and Suzanne’s ‘What not to wear’ for example are to some females viewed as THE program to watch. WHAT! Are we supposed to look upon these fools with ore, like their some form of higher goddess coming to save us from our fashion nightmares!?

Does it really matter? All they seem to bring to our television screens is yet more supposed consumerist wisdom which will turn females into the ideal, the fantasy rather then the real! Women appear to of become definite targets for media manipulation, viewed in magazines daily they now appear as more of a product then a separate living entity, the ultimate aesthetics product a point adhering to Simone de beauvoir’s famous quote ‘women are not born they are made.’

Many a female in contemporary society seem to have become a type of puppet on a string, driven by their domineering media puppeteers in order to end individualism, through consumerism.

I call for Revolution against the magazine, before females become the new media infected mimes, providing free entertainment without a voice.

Tooley, James, (2002) ‘The Miseducation Of Women’ Continuum, London NewYork

As a member of the public myself, I find we are constantly being bombarded with questions throughout the day via the media which generally go unanswered and even unnoticed. Whilst dedicating a little of my thought to this fact I started to think about the question of audience an issue which has been readily open to discussion in recent seminar sessions.My thoughts now ambushed by theories of the audience, I succumbed to asking the question ‘who is the audience?’ These thoughts I latterly discovered would not easily leave me, sitting next to me throughout my journey and originally coming to me when the lights fused suddenly on the bus.