RELFECTION \ ALICE & ATALANTA

ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010)
ATALANTA (FREE TO BE YOU AND ME)


I feel confused reading the Tolman/Higgins article and using it as a lens to watch Alice in Wonderland. In Tim Burton's version, Alice is twenty years old. She is not a child and she is not a teenager. She looks her age for the most part. But she doesn't engage with the world as an adult - she engages with Wonderland and 'real land' as a sexless adult and is treated as such - hence she functions as a child.

I can interpret this as Alice being the ultimate good girl - she is a female of a sexual age that is denying her sexual desire which forms part of her identity as the movie's heroine. None of the movie's characters show sexual interest in her (with the exception of Stayne - whom I didn't even realize was Crispin Glover until I just looked up the spelling of the character's name on IMDB!).

I also can interpret this as a retelling of a classic story in which the character in the original book and previous film versions was a (nonsexual) young child.

Burton chose to age Alice to develop the engagement dilemma - positing arranged marriage as a prison that will hamper our heroine's creativity and righteous will (same as in Atalanta).

But does Alice reject marriage because she is a nonsexual good girl?
Or does Alice reject marriage because she is a bad girl - she will not bow to male desire but will make her own choices?

I think it's both. Our society does increasingly value female spunk (ESPECIALLY hypothetical spunk!) as it also values demure and asexual girls.

Burton and Atalanta capitalized on both.

REFLECTION & QUOTES \\ TOLMAN & HIGGINS: HOW BEING A GOOD GIRL CAN BE BAD

TOLMAN & HIGGINS: HOW BEING A GOOD GIRL CAN BE BAD

ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010)

ATALANTA (FREE TO BE YOU AND ME)

I began to read Tolman and Higgins’ article agreeing with virtually everything they wrote until I read their analysis of the sexual acts discussed by Jenny, Sharon and Paulina. I particularly disagree with their analysis of Jenny’s explanation of her experience. Before I explain my reaction, let me summarize their article and highlight some passages.

Tolman and Higgins begin by discussing the consequence of sexuality for women in general:

When women act as sexual agents, expressing their own sexual desire rather than serving as the objects of men's desire, they are often portrayed as threatening, deviant, and bad. Missing is any affirmative account of women's sexual desire. (P 205)

 Discussing teenage girls specifically, the authors identify the rigid roles available to girls engaging their sexuality with boys:

(1) bad girls, if they have been active, desiring sexual agents or (2) good girls, who have been passively victimized by boys' raging hormones. (P 206)

 The authors focus on the legal ramifications of this cultural story, particularly with regard to nonconsensual sexual acts, explaining how the burden of proof for these crimes goes beyond establishment of non-consent to require demonstration that the victim is not a desiring sexual agent in general.

The good girl’s attempt to exercise her responsibility to regulate male sexuality is encoded in the requirement of non-consent to sexual intercourse. Proof of consent, however, frequently depends upon establishing an absence of desire. To be a victimized good girl and therefore entitled to protection, a girl or woman must both resist and lack desire. (P 209)

After analyzing the experiences of three specific cases, Tolman and Higgins conclude that an “affirmative discourse of desire for adolescent girls” is needed.

Such a discourse must recognize, reveal, and then reject the good girl/bad girl categories as patriarchal strategies that keep girls and women from the power of their own bodies and their bonds with one another. It should center on all girls' entitlement to their sexuality, rather than focus solely on the threat of lost status and respect or diminished safety. (P 221)

 I agree with all of the author’s arguments and analysis described above and I agree with much of their interpretation of Sharon and Paulina’s stories. I do take some issues with their re-telling of Jenny’s experience.

I agree with the author’s ultimate interpretation how:

In the moment, Jenny was not able to hold onto her knowledge that she did not want to have sex because her own desire has never been available as a guide to her choices. We suggest that not feeling desire is one way to cope with the good girl/bad girl dichotomy. Were Jenny not subject to the good girl standard that prevents her from attending to her own sexual feelings, perhaps she would feel desire in some situations, and her lack of sexual desire could operate as a clear signal to her, perhaps leaving her less vulnerable to such confusion. (P 215)

 I think this assessment is in total sync with the article as a whole. I agree that many girls don’t possess strong sexual agency because our patriarchal system benefits from it, creating confused and passive sexual acts.

I don’t agree with the author’s assessment of Jenny’s “no” told to the boy she has sexual intercourse with for the first time. On page 213, Jenny explains her feelings in a stream-of-consciousness method about engaging in sexual intercourse, focusing a lot on her choice of partner, and to a lesser extent her judgments on the experience as her first.

I think the authors reduced the social and sexual interaction to a contract bound by a verbal words. Regardless of whether Jenny is disappointed that she had sex, her verbal cue was isolated out of an experience that was also filled with psychological and emotional cues in the form of physical behavior. Human communication does not consist primarily of verbal cues, especially when a social interaction is occurring that is primarily physical (sexual). While I completely agree with the authors that Jenny lacked sufficient sexual agency to clarify to herself whether or not she really wanted to engage in sexual intercourse – and I agree that this is a systemic problem – I don’t think there is anything to suggest this act was nonconsensual based on Jenny’s telling.

 The authors go so far as to ask, “Was Jenny raped.” They interpret her experience, suggesting that Jenny…

Seems to wonder whether this experience might somehow be connected to rape. She may associate this experience with rape because the word signifies something about what it felt like for her, a violation. Although she stopped saying no and apparently assented nonverbally to the act, this sexual experience was not related to any feeling of yes on Jenny's part. Jenny's experience of having passively consented and of having been violated suggests the disjuncture between consent and desire in women's experience, a disjuncture that likely heightens Jenny's confusion over how to interpret what happened to her. Such confusion prevents Jenny from speaking clearly in the first instance about her desire and from later interpreting what happened in a way that acknowledges her own resistance. (P 216)

I agree that this “sexual experience was not related to any feeling of yes on Jenny’s part” but I don’t think she apparently assented nonverbally to the act – according to what Jenny said, she did assent. I think there is merit to Jenny’s words when she says, “I mean I could've said no, I guess and I could've pushed him off or whatever 'cause he, I mean, he wasn't, he's not the type of person who would like rape me or whatever. I mean, well I don't think he's that way at all.” Jenny is saying that she could have pushed him off and not had sex with him, and that he likely isn’t the type that would have ignored a hypothetical physical rejection.

I think the author’s focus on Jenny’s ‘no’ missed their point – it is an indication that she didn’t have the agency to assert her objection, or to even clarify if she had objection. While I understand Jenny judging her experience as a “first time,” I think the authors play into the overvaluation of sexual encounters, especially for women, which seems at odds with their article in general. Women and teenage girls have sexual desire, and as such the ‘first time’ doesn’t need to be evaluated with the same lens that views a woman ‘losing her virginity’ as a high-priced transaction.

TALKING POINTS #3: CHRISTENSEN

I am giving myself a 'bye week' for a full blog post...

These are my questions/issues for class

A few criticisms/misunderstandings:
- Christensen seems to oversimplify the roots of the evils she discusses, as if they were manufactured in a particular place at a particular time by the powers that be at Disney, Mattel and Nike. .."

- On page 33, the author discusses the fantasy objectives involved in many of the films and stories. I agree wholeheartedly that the fantasies can be misguided but I think the purpose of fantasy in the world is to create a myth of non-representation - imagining a place or time or new person that you could be... that's a vital resource humans have, particularly the ones that aren't fortunate.

I do agree strongly with a statement on page 131 describing how non-white girls can easily see examples of racism but the gender inequities remained more invisible.

TALKING POINTS #2: RESTORATION OF ORDER

“Hip-hop Sees No Color: An Exploration of Privilege and Power in Save the Last Dance“

Leslie A. Grinner

Race/Gender/Media: Considering Diversity across Audiences, Content, and Producers

Rebecca Ann Lind, ed.

Allyn & Bacon (2009)

Pages 180-187

Certainly, Save the Last Dance follows the same formula as have so many Hollywood movies before it, using an “order, disorder, and restoration of order” narrative structure. (P 181)

I appreciate this boiled-down synopsis. The phase of “order“ precedes the movie for the most part. Sara (white) was a student and ballet dancer living with her mother in the suburbs with the goal of attending Julliard. Derrick (black) was a Georgetown-bound student “rising above” his urban South Side Chicago lifestyle where he has an unwed teenage mother for a younger sister and a juvenile delinquent for a best friend.

The phase of disorder is prompted by the death of Sara’s mother, forcing her to move to Derrick’s neighborhood where she befriends him at school and becomes romantically involved with him. Disorder is characterized by clichéd cultural and racial clashes between Sara and her fellow students, including Derrick.

I find the restoration of order to be the most interesting of the three phases.

The producer (filmmaker, author) has chosen characters and circumstances to change, sets forth a disruption, and ultimately chooses to remove her characters from their circumstance and place them within another of her own construction.

So what ideologies are revealed through the restoration of order chosen by the producers of Save the Last Dance?

Grinner does not expound upon this as much as she does the first two phases (order, disruption) but does offer the following analysis of the film’s conclusions to reinforce the SCWAMP ideology rampant throughout the film:

• “Malachi falls prey to a life of crime and ends up in jail” (P 184)
• “Derrick runs away from (criminal activity) to support Sara during her audition” (P184),
• Derrick’s goodness is marked by his rejection of Blackness in the form of both Malachi and Nikki and his selection of whiteness in the form of Sara” (P 185)
• Sara’s father becomes a “good father” by the film’s end (P 186)
• Derrick is accepted into Georgetown
• Sara is accepted into Julliard

Grinner establishes that much of the SCWAMP ideology runs throughout this film – Derrick is rewarded for adhering to the ideology characterized by the domination of straightness over homosexuality, of Christian values, of whiteness over other, of physical able-bodiedess over dis-abledness,  of masculinity over femininity, males over females, and property-holding over the capital-less.

Much of Grinner’s analysis points to the SCWAMP superiority complex, but does note that with respect to able-bodiedness, “physical ability is highly valued in (this) film dedicated to dance…in fact this is the only area where Blackness is considered superior because it is Sara’s mastery of hip-hop that ultimately secures her acceptance to Julliard.” But Grinner is right to quickly point out that blackness – particularly male blackness - has long been associated with superior physicality and athleticism, often at the “exclusion of other attributes.” (P 185)

Question/Comment/Point to Share:

For those that know the film – can you identify any of its attributes without abandoning the SCWAMP framework? One of my thoughts: learning hip-hop increased Sara’s capital – ultimately the film seemed to view hip-hop as a valid art form that increased her value as a dancer.

TALKING POINTS #1: MEDIA AND IDEOLOGY

Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences

David R. Croteau and William Hoynes

Pine Forge Press (2002)

Chapter 5, Pages 159-168

A few points that I thought were key for me to remember…

Ideology as normalization

The sheer repetition [of pictures of social interaction and institutions] on a daily basis can play important roles in shaping broad social definitions. ...In essence the accumulation of media images suggests what is “normal” and what is “deviant.” (163)

This statement early in the chapter encapsulates the subsequent explanation of Stuart Hall’s notion of hegemony: one dominated – and not just reflected but re-presented - by mass media. Leading to the common-senseness discussed on page 166..

Spectacle of the Bizarre

The media can become part spectacle of the bizarre. The ideological influence of media can be seen in the absences and exclusions as much as in the contents. (163)

For media messages falling outside of “dominant ideology” but represented by mass media – they are positioned in opposition to the dominant culture, for the spectator or consumer to look at from the outside – not identify with. Even as you may identify with the bizarre, you are being taught that it isn’t the dominant, accepted mode.

Hegemony

Power is wielded…in an arena of culture I the realm of everyday life where people essentially agree to current social arrangements. (page 166)

Hegemony operates at the level of common sense…forming a ‘core’ of a person that isn’t pure or natural or truthful but is itself a social construction.

Criticisms…

While these short pages successfully conveyed a few basic concepts of media and ideology, I thought it was poorly written and used hackneyed examples. In contrast, the excerpts of Stuart Hall on page 169 jumped out of the page as taut and exciting writing.

Beginning on page 160, the article set out its own strain of dominant ideology – abandoning the notion of cultural contradiction and complexity that I think even a freshman media studies student would grasp. Croteau and Hoynes' first two examples of “groups scholars are interested in studying the images of” are women and African-Americans, thereby establishing a dominant culture of white maleness. Writing an exclamation point at the obviousness of it, I read on hoping for a savvier take. ALL examples cited throughout the pages we read were white males or white male scenarios: Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Eminem, Priest, Last Temptaton of Christ, school shootings, George W. Bush, William Bennett.

When introducing an alternative media example (to showcase the “media battle”), the authors even use the language “other examples include” and go on to specify “female television characters.” Eminem wasn’t referred to as a male rapper, a white rapper, a rural rapper. Secretary of Educaton William Bennet wasn’t referred to as the male Secretary. While I understand the very point of the article is to explain hegemony through basic examples, the word “female” wasn’t necessary to include in the sentence if the actual examples of media contest regarded single motherhood and lesbianism.

But we know real challenge to hegemony isn’t about that – we know that the very issue of not being a white straight man is often the issue itself. Savvier authors would have explained the basic concepts of media, ideology and hegemony without their own dominant ideology (or maybe it’s their perceptions of their audience’s ideology) being so uncomplicated.

The chapter is written by two white men, cites only white male scholars, uses almost exclusively white male media examples, and posits the remaining three examples with a modifier: female, African-American.

Murphy Brown's son would still be a teen in 2011 - 19 years old!

Question for Class

I'm curious about the drawn-out "war" and battlefield" references. I understand the terms being used within popular culture when discussing media, but I'm not familiar with them being used in any scholarly way. I understand this is a textbook and not a scholarly text, but the extended metaphor seems odd. I am wondering if anyone knows if these "culture war" terms are academic terms...