Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Knocked up



This week our classmates shared their presentation of the film “Knocked Up” which happens to be one of my favorite romantic comedies.

This film can be seen as both traditional and non-traditional romantic because it’s a story about two strangers (Seth Rogen, Katherine Heigl,) who meet each other at a club, have sex, don’t see each other for months and then try to figure out what they are going do with their lives after they realize they are going to have an unintended pregnancy. After struggling to figure out if they are compatible enough to stay together, they finally do, which is totally traditional.


Seth Rogans Character is a lazy, nerdy immature pot smoking jobless guy, where As in Katherine Heighls character is everything opposite.
Her character is smart, beautiful and has a career in television business to develop.
A classmate pointed out that the only way Seth Rogans character was able to get the girl in the first place was because she was “under the influence of alcohol” when they had sex.

Overall I think this was a good example of radical romance.
Not really the traditional boy meets girl, boy peruses girl, boy gets girl boy looses girl boy wins girl back.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Responce Paper




He’s Just Not That Into You…

The film He’s just Not That Into You directed by Ken Kwaspis can be seen as a perfect example of radical romance in the 21st century. The movie is about nine people who are attempting to discover their ideals about love and relationships. The radical comes into play when they realize their own ideals and desires are completely different from those of their chosen partner. The center and main character of the film is a young woman by the name of Gigi who seems to continuously misinterpret the behavior of her romantic partners. With the help of our class texts I will discuss how this film portrays women, men, and relationships in the 21st century and will attempt to break down some of the radical issues the characters are facing through the film.
The central character in this film is an aggressively dating single young woman named Gigi. Gigi seems to always misread and misinterpret the actions and comments from her dates which make her believe they are in fact interested in continuing a relationship with her. After a date with Alex, her sought after new boyfriend, she goes into a panic when he never calls her back. She constructs a million and one ideas and comes up with countless excuses to reason this. After giving Alex and their wanted relationship an immense amount of attention and effort she comes to terms that she is done wasting her energy and is ready to move on. When this occurs the roles of both characters seem to switch. Alex now becomes obsessed with Gigi because of the lack of attention she is giving him and their relationship. This relationship can be seen as radical because Gigi did not receive the attention of Alex until he realized she was no longer interested. This can be related to the socially constructed stereotype of men wanting what they can’t have. Gigi’s actions can also be seen as post feminist. “Orr suggests that post feminism stresses the ability of women to make personal choices.(Barker 284) Gigi was able to finally and maturely make a decision to walk away from an imaginary relationship she had created.
Another radical relationship that occurs through this film is that of Janine, Ben, and Anna. Ben and Janine are married, but are starting to have difficulties in their marriage. Ben meets and begins a friendship relationship with a young yoga instructor named Anna whom he instantly becomes attracted to. They soon find out their feelings are mutual. They continue a flirtatious friendship under clearly false pretenses. Sure enough they begin to have an affair. While shopping with his wife Janine, Ben decides to reveal to her that he’s slept with someone else, Anna. Thought she is in fact devastated she actually blames herself for his actions and tells him she is willing to salvage their marriage. This relationship is also radical in various ways. Ben decides to have an affair with another woman breaking his marriage vows and not respecting monogamy. In Barkers science of sex, he explains how men are greater risk-takers and have higher propensity to find multiple partners. (Barker286) He also goes on to state that women are more verbal, cooperative and organized. We see this in the film when his wife, after finding out he has been unfaithful, decides to rationalize instead of turning to panic. She keeps her composure, begins to explain to him how she may be at fault for his actions and how she is still willing to work on re constructing their broken marriage.
Unlike most romantic films this films intent is to explain to the world that men are not complicated individuals. In regards to love and relationships, there are no mixed messages If he doesn’t ask you out, call soon after your date, or wants to come up to your apartment after your date, then he is just simply not that into you. “Men are less inclined to verbalize emotion.” (Barker287) Men are biologically better at expressing emotion through action rather than verbally. Women’s natural defense mechanisms allow them to come up with reasons as to why a guy never called. It’s a way that women keep from being overwhelmed by negative emotions but also keeps women with a denial mentality. The characters and the relationships they are representing are ones that are taking place in today’s 21st century.
In barkers Gender, Representation and media culture he explains how sexes are being understood by means of representation. “Sexual identity is constituted by ways of speaking about and disciplining bodies.” (Barker 306) Films such as these, allows us to create our image of the modern man and woman. It allows us to create stereotypes.”A stereotype involves the reduction of person to a set of exaggerated, usually negative, character traits. ‘Stereotyping refuses, essentializes, naturalizes and fixes “difference” (Hall, 1997c:258). (Barker307) This particular film creates stereotypes of women to be very dependent on relationships and men. They portray them to be anxious to please. They are presented as overly emotional and sentimental creatures. “Now, woman has always been man’s dependant, if not his slave; the two sexes have never shared the world in equality. And even today woman is heavily handicapped, though her situation is beginning to change. Almost nowhere is her legal status the same as man’s, and frequently it is much to her disadvantage. Even when her rights are legally recognised in the abstract, long-standing custom prevents their full expression in the mores.” (Simone deBeauvoir)





Beauvoir, De. "Simone De Beauvoir The Second Sex, Woman as Other 1949." Marxists Internet Archive. Web. 14 Oct. 2010. .




Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008. Print.



Behrendt, Greg, and Liz Tuccillo. He's Just Not That into You: the No-excuses Truth to Understanding Guys. New York: Simon Spotlight Entertainment, 2004. Print.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The System Of Objects



“Blake: That watch costs more than you car. I made $970,000 last year. How much'd you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing.”

In this scene we see the character of Blake from the movie Glengarry explaining to another real-estate agent that his Rolex is more valuable then the other agents car. Then goes on to explain how much money he’s made in the past year. “ You see pal, that’s who I am, and you’re nothing. “ The watch, the money, and all the material things he owns is what makes him. Because the other real estate agent owns nothing of value, he therefore is nothing as a person as well.
“If we consume the product as a product, we consume its meaning through advertising. “ Jean Baudrillard

In Baudrillards The system of Objects we see that although we in fact as consumers acknowledge the severity of our capitalist society we continue to want what others do not have. Baudrillard explains that people continue to follow this system of consumption because it has become a construction of self-fulfillment.


Ironically, what many of us aren’t aware that we as consumers of all products and followers of these companies are the ones inhibiting them with the power to do these things. The makers of these products have well constructed the evolution of the product and their companies. Which ever way brings the most money, is what works best. Clearly, Investors and makers of these products make their consumers feel the “Need” to attain them because of popular demand. The consumer base (today’s society) has fallen addicts to many products they feel they “NEED” in order to function. All abstract things such as phones, coffee, I pods, have incredible power over many peoples daily lives. Because we as consumers chose to follow this cycle, we are in fact own disablers and party at fault.