It seems like this blog is becoming a forum for me to talk about things that we talk about in my courses. Today is no different... I found out today that there is a website that is actively voting for the worst contestant in American Idol (creatively named Vote For the Worst). In class we talked about how this is a subversive, dare I say, punk, act.
My prof was making the point that this action of voting for the worst, in essence kind of screwing with the producers' intentions, is an act of defiance within what limited choice we have as viewers. I guess that's one possible reading of this website. It is indeed going against the grain of the majority of America, but when going against the grain involves some 3 million people, it kind of loses some of the effect. Interestingly enough, at least last week, the worst contestant also happened to be a pretty boy. Apparently his hair is the object of various women's affections. Who knew?
I, on the other hand, don't think it's too subversive of an act. Sure, you are telling the people that be to fuck off with their traditional screening process, but we have to remember some things here. This dude made it to the final 12 or 11 or whatever number we happen to be at. He is in the "top" 12 singers in the US this year. He is not by any means bad. Vote for the Worst explains how the screening process works when interviewing masses of people before the actual judges get to tear them apart. Regardless of the workings behind the empire, Sanjaya had to jump through countless hoops to get to where he is. Voting to keep him in the show doesn't affect anyone. Sanjaya wins of course. The website wins because they carried this dude to the end. American Idol even wins. See, in the last 6 seasons, no one really notable has been created by the show. Even if Sanjaya has a less than stellar voice, modern technology and the capriciousness of the RIAA makes it almost impossible to release an album with a truly shitty voice. Don't worry, America, they'll do some recording magic on his voice to make it sound up to your par.
The biggest problem I have with a subversive reading of this website is the "canned rebellion" feel to it. Ooooh, you're voting for the shittiest guy in a talent competition. Who's telling you to vote for the guy? The owner of the website. How is that any different from having Paula, Simon or Randy tell you who to vote for? Or even voting for someone because they are from your home town? Democracy is the biggest sham in this show. There's an illusion of democracy, but really, it's nowhere near what the Greeks had in mind. Instead of following one shepherd, Vote for the Worst is following another. And, as I pointed out earlier, the ends makes no difference. American Idol is all about the means. American Idol is a television show, and like every other television show on earth, it exists to sell itself, to get ratings. American Idol isn't accountable, as far as I know, if they produce a talentless bastard. What's more, I think I can name more rejects from the show (Mr. Hung anyone?) than winners. All American Idol is accountable for is making money. That's why the illusion of voting is so important to this show. The more people voting, the more people involved in the Great American Idol Machine, even if you aren't watching the show. (I guess the truly subversive act would be to vote for the worst without really watching television - there you're paying money to screw the voting system while not really getting any enjoyment out of it. But still - who's getting the money? Again, it's all about the means, not the ends).
In the end, the messed up voting, subversive or not, will probably have no effect. 3 million people out of the 33 million that watched it last week can only hold on for so long. So, Sanjaya, with your undeniably weird name, good luck next week, because you can count on being shitty for only so long.
Mar 22, 2007
Mar 12, 2007
Everybody's Got Something to Hide
I love this commercial. It's pure genius. And probably not for the reasons it was originally intended for.
This commercial originally aired during the 2007 Super Bowl, an obviously coveted and expensive time-slot for commercials. The understanding of this ad depends largely on one thing: its intertextual reference to a Nelly video clip (I may have just gagged a little typing that). Anyways, for those who don't know what I'm talking about, the music video is below.
All right, so, what do a car commercial and a shitty hip-hop music video have in common? Almost nothing, but it's the reference between the two that gives the commercial almost all of its meaning. We start with the obvious. Both of them begin with an opening shot of a car rolling up to some locale; in the commercial it's as mundane as a crosswalk, in the music video it's a club of sorts. In the music video, Mr. Nelly gets accosted by scantily clad women who progressively take more and more clothing off, that is, until they hit the acceptable limits of nudity on broadcast television. In the commercial, the exact same happens - or well, not the exact same. The commercial's comedic element stems from the fact that it is women in the car, rather than a single man, and that men are rushing from everywhere to take their clothing off in front of the car in yet another parody of the hot-babe-washing-the-car-with-her-breasts gimmick.
This is where things begin to get interesting. Because of the intertextual reference between the two clips, most obviously the song of the first being an abbreviated version of the second, a little mental work is in order, as dictated by the clip. The car is the easiest place to start. Especially in our culture, and especially in advertisements, the car is a symbol for masculinity. That much is obvious. I mean, how many car and truck commercials have there been espousing some form of the perfect masculine man? Exactly - thousands. The commercial does this identification doubly; by alluding to the music video, it places the stripping men in the position of the stripping women, while placing the car, a simple surrogate, in the place of Nelly. So, right off the bat we have men racing over to strip for another man. I'm sure that this was all intended in the preferred reading. The queer reading continues throughout the commercial, climaxing at the end when showing a semi-naked cowboy coming up to play the guitar for the car. The cowboy has always been a rugged individual, a frontier man. His manliness is such that he's the basis for the hardboiled detective, another frontier, solitary man. Both of these archetypes hold the idea of masculinity very close to their cores, often being complicated when surrogate characters are placed in the role of the archetype. Regardless of all its history, the cowboy at the end has come to serenade the car, the central man, in his skivvies. The cowboy is also another intertextual reference, in this scenario, to the subversive cowboys of Brokeback Mountain, subverting further the archetype of masculinity held by the frontier man, in effect humanizing him.
The commercial also seeks to subvert certain racial tropes, though it does so less conclusively. Ostensibly, every kind of man is shown: the young white yuppies, Asians, a black man, an old man, a cowboy, etc. No man is apparently free from the allure of the car, regardless of where their parents decided to have too much wine at dinner. Here the commercial stands in contrast to the original music video, where only a certain type of black woman is shown: was anyone surprised by the fact that they were all curvy and at the very least good looking? The commercial however, makes no claims of the sort; the old guy is bizarre at the very least, and I'm sure no one is off to give themselves the low five when the fat guy comes on near the end. However, for all the good that the commercial does trying to blur the lines between racial stereotypes, the lines between class stereotypes are still well drawn. Obviously the car is aimed at a certain segment of the population, namely, whomever the fuck can afford it. Therefore, it would be totally out of place to show a homeless guy removing his rags as he approaches the car. Also, notice the Asians getting off a tour bus - these people are obviously rich enough that they can afford a pleasurable trip to the US. I'm sure Chevy is dying to get their Yen.
Before we start hailing the commercial as totally subversive, there are still several elements that still continue to do the work of the patriarchal capitalism which we seem to be so fond of. Notice when the men approach the car, the women inside the car lock the doors. They're essentially locking themselves inside the body of a man, confining the reality of their existence within the commercial to whatever defines the man/car in the first place. They can only go as far as the man exists, only see what the man sees, only hear what the man hears. This works so as to diminish the female figure within the commercial; she is worth only as much as the man allows her to be worth. Additionally, her economic worth is solely based on the attraction of other men and not women. Men stripping near the car translates into dollars and cents for the car, which in turn may trickle through to the women inside. It is very clear that in the commercial, the women's sense of self-worth is clearly defined by the car's worth. Furthermore, the car's worth in the commercial is shown to be measured sexually. The women inside the car are mere objects of an object, a sort of second tier object, and their definition can only come as objects of sexual desire. The commercial excuses its previously aforementioned homoeroticism by locking the women in the car, therefore giving the men a target. Within the realm of the commercial, the women are less than the car, which in reality is a man. Also, contrast the beginning of the music video with the beginning of the commercial. In the former, Nelly is alone, while in the latter there are three women. This equation further works to diminish the value of the woman with respect to the man; in this case, she is worth one third of what he is. Patriarchy reasserts itself once more. The physical strength of the women also comes into play when they lock themselves in the car. In the music video, Nelly has no problem dealing with the women all around him, making it so stifling that it forces him to remove his clothes, as well as those of the women around him. The women, however, need the protection of the man against the hoards of men coming at them. The swarming imagery shown when the camera takes a bird's eye view is reminiscent of sperm swarming around an egg. The sperm imagery is metonymic for the original erect phallus where it came from. The phallus in the commercial has so much power over three women that it requires another man for protection, which interestingly, in perpetuating the patriarchal position of the commercial, ends up alluding to the homoerotic undercurrent present. In the club, the phallus alone is able to deal with the women, commanding their appearances and emotions.
I'm going to go ahead and bet that the college student who came up with this commercial (it was the winner in a competition) had no idea what he or she was getting into. Ah, the subconscious is a wonderful thing.
This commercial originally aired during the 2007 Super Bowl, an obviously coveted and expensive time-slot for commercials. The understanding of this ad depends largely on one thing: its intertextual reference to a Nelly video clip (I may have just gagged a little typing that). Anyways, for those who don't know what I'm talking about, the music video is below.
All right, so, what do a car commercial and a shitty hip-hop music video have in common? Almost nothing, but it's the reference between the two that gives the commercial almost all of its meaning. We start with the obvious. Both of them begin with an opening shot of a car rolling up to some locale; in the commercial it's as mundane as a crosswalk, in the music video it's a club of sorts. In the music video, Mr. Nelly gets accosted by scantily clad women who progressively take more and more clothing off, that is, until they hit the acceptable limits of nudity on broadcast television. In the commercial, the exact same happens - or well, not the exact same. The commercial's comedic element stems from the fact that it is women in the car, rather than a single man, and that men are rushing from everywhere to take their clothing off in front of the car in yet another parody of the hot-babe-washing-the-car-with-her-breasts gimmick.
This is where things begin to get interesting. Because of the intertextual reference between the two clips, most obviously the song of the first being an abbreviated version of the second, a little mental work is in order, as dictated by the clip. The car is the easiest place to start. Especially in our culture, and especially in advertisements, the car is a symbol for masculinity. That much is obvious. I mean, how many car and truck commercials have there been espousing some form of the perfect masculine man? Exactly - thousands. The commercial does this identification doubly; by alluding to the music video, it places the stripping men in the position of the stripping women, while placing the car, a simple surrogate, in the place of Nelly. So, right off the bat we have men racing over to strip for another man. I'm sure that this was all intended in the preferred reading. The queer reading continues throughout the commercial, climaxing at the end when showing a semi-naked cowboy coming up to play the guitar for the car. The cowboy has always been a rugged individual, a frontier man. His manliness is such that he's the basis for the hardboiled detective, another frontier, solitary man. Both of these archetypes hold the idea of masculinity very close to their cores, often being complicated when surrogate characters are placed in the role of the archetype. Regardless of all its history, the cowboy at the end has come to serenade the car, the central man, in his skivvies. The cowboy is also another intertextual reference, in this scenario, to the subversive cowboys of Brokeback Mountain, subverting further the archetype of masculinity held by the frontier man, in effect humanizing him.
The commercial also seeks to subvert certain racial tropes, though it does so less conclusively. Ostensibly, every kind of man is shown: the young white yuppies, Asians, a black man, an old man, a cowboy, etc. No man is apparently free from the allure of the car, regardless of where their parents decided to have too much wine at dinner. Here the commercial stands in contrast to the original music video, where only a certain type of black woman is shown: was anyone surprised by the fact that they were all curvy and at the very least good looking? The commercial however, makes no claims of the sort; the old guy is bizarre at the very least, and I'm sure no one is off to give themselves the low five when the fat guy comes on near the end. However, for all the good that the commercial does trying to blur the lines between racial stereotypes, the lines between class stereotypes are still well drawn. Obviously the car is aimed at a certain segment of the population, namely, whomever the fuck can afford it. Therefore, it would be totally out of place to show a homeless guy removing his rags as he approaches the car. Also, notice the Asians getting off a tour bus - these people are obviously rich enough that they can afford a pleasurable trip to the US. I'm sure Chevy is dying to get their Yen.
Before we start hailing the commercial as totally subversive, there are still several elements that still continue to do the work of the patriarchal capitalism which we seem to be so fond of. Notice when the men approach the car, the women inside the car lock the doors. They're essentially locking themselves inside the body of a man, confining the reality of their existence within the commercial to whatever defines the man/car in the first place. They can only go as far as the man exists, only see what the man sees, only hear what the man hears. This works so as to diminish the female figure within the commercial; she is worth only as much as the man allows her to be worth. Additionally, her economic worth is solely based on the attraction of other men and not women. Men stripping near the car translates into dollars and cents for the car, which in turn may trickle through to the women inside. It is very clear that in the commercial, the women's sense of self-worth is clearly defined by the car's worth. Furthermore, the car's worth in the commercial is shown to be measured sexually. The women inside the car are mere objects of an object, a sort of second tier object, and their definition can only come as objects of sexual desire. The commercial excuses its previously aforementioned homoeroticism by locking the women in the car, therefore giving the men a target. Within the realm of the commercial, the women are less than the car, which in reality is a man. Also, contrast the beginning of the music video with the beginning of the commercial. In the former, Nelly is alone, while in the latter there are three women. This equation further works to diminish the value of the woman with respect to the man; in this case, she is worth one third of what he is. Patriarchy reasserts itself once more. The physical strength of the women also comes into play when they lock themselves in the car. In the music video, Nelly has no problem dealing with the women all around him, making it so stifling that it forces him to remove his clothes, as well as those of the women around him. The women, however, need the protection of the man against the hoards of men coming at them. The swarming imagery shown when the camera takes a bird's eye view is reminiscent of sperm swarming around an egg. The sperm imagery is metonymic for the original erect phallus where it came from. The phallus in the commercial has so much power over three women that it requires another man for protection, which interestingly, in perpetuating the patriarchal position of the commercial, ends up alluding to the homoerotic undercurrent present. In the club, the phallus alone is able to deal with the women, commanding their appearances and emotions.
I'm going to go ahead and bet that the college student who came up with this commercial (it was the winner in a competition) had no idea what he or she was getting into. Ah, the subconscious is a wonderful thing.
Mar 11, 2007
Sucke(red) into Consumerism
You know something is wrong when both Bono and Oprah advocate it. Here you have two individuals with a ridiculous amount of media power actively seeking out new trends and items to consolidate their image on television. Around this time last year, Bono sought out leaders of the economic world in order for them to get behind his Product Red bullshit. The expected result was that people would wear their charity on their sleeves, so to speak, and buy common products branded a little differently, ie. colored red, in order to help promote awareness of AIDS in Africa, amongst other things. The coolest thing about this campaign is how polarized people are. I've brought it up in my cultural studies classes twice now, in two different classes, and both times the whole classroom basically erupted into mayhem, mostly in defense of this noble campaign.
Perhaps I should explain my disdain for Product Red. In and of itself it seems like a sweet idea: you're buying stuff that you'd normally buy and for no increased price, a percentage of the profit goes towards a charity to help out Africa. But, of course, nothing is in and of itself. The frontman for this sham is Bono, later to be helped out by other media darlings such as Oprah or Kate Moss, which immediately should be the first red flag. Sure, there could be an argument for Bono and Co., believing that these people truly want to help others in need and are selfless people, sublimating their own needs for others. If you don't find anything wrong with the previous statement, I'd suggest removing your capitalism goggles and seeing the campaign for what it really is.
First of all, we have the basic drive behind the campaign: essentially, we are goaded into buying a Product Red product simply because it is "charitable." This is where Bono and Co. are very crafty. Take the Red iPod Nano, available in 4GB and 8GB, which sells for the exact same price as a similarly sized iPod, though with this one there's a sense of satisfaction with the purchase. How could anyone really walk into a store, look at the red Nano, look at the blue Nano, realize they're the same price, and take the blue one, knowing full well that the red one contributes a mere 10 dollars to Africa, at no extra cost to you? Unless you have a strong aversion to the color red (read: it clashes with your outfit), there's no real reason to be an asshole. Most of the Product Red items are similar to this: the cost of being nice is not put on the consumer, rather, it's placed on the corporation. Bono is a capitalist genius. Corporations have long taken flak for being mega-jerks, caring only to sign the bottom line with a dollar sign. Yet, now they so gracefully donate some money to Africa. Super.
Bono and Co. have totally made charitable consumerism fashionable. Just take a look at items being offered in Red: Gap clothing, Armani sunglasses, iPods, American Express Cards, Converse shoes... the list drags on. These are not really products that put functionality over form; there's a reason full-sized iPods aren't offered in Red - Nanos, sunglasses, and trendy clothing are all pieces that define a person's sense of fashion, their social position in the world and their ever elusive "cool" factor. Not only that, but now you're a Humanitarian. Awesome - just like Bono.
There's something almost sickly about offering charity through consumerism. It's kind of excusing consumerism, advertising, and capitalism by going against their foundations; instead of being stereotypically cutthroat and self-indulgent, they get to be a little good for once. It's free advertising for the rest of their line - Product Red has gained a lot of media coverage, which is prime time for these corporations to slip in a few shots of the rest of their wares. But here is exactly where the problem with Product Red lies, even if the above could be excused. Most of these companies are giving a percentage of their profits towards the campaign. How disgusting is that? It's not like these corporations are relying entirely on the sales of Product Red items. They're still selling their regular merchandise right next to it - that's the genius of Product Red - you can "choose." Hell, in the case of Apple, you can't even make the argument that it costs them shelf space - the red Nano is sold directly from Apple, usually through the internet. So, my question is, why don't these corporations, if they survived economically pre-Red, offer 100% of the profit? I understand that they have to pay certain overheads - manufacturing costs, labor, shipping, etc, but after that, the corporation only stands to gain. If, as Bono would love to have you think, Product Red is such and awesome thing, why wouldn't the corporations go all the way? Break even and offer whatever is left to AIDS research. But no, they need to take a percentage of the profit as well! Why? So the fucking CEO can go to Hawaii twice this month?
Whenever I bring up Product Red in my disturbingly cynical classes (which I love), it seems like I'm going way to far with my cynicism. Interestingly enough, it's always the female population of the course that totally lambastes me, using Oprah as a foundation for their counter-argument. I mean, if Oprah says it's charitable, it's gotta be true. This woman holds a tremendous amount of power over women in North America (and I guess any household with satellite television): what she says goes. I'm pretty sure that she could build an army of women in about a week, all toting her O magazine, ready to become better, truer women. The counter-argument always starts out along the lines of "at least they're doing something." Sure, next time you see a homeless person, take out your wallet, make a show of counting your bills, and give him a nickel. If these multi-million corporations are going to do something, it'd better be a lot bigger than anything I could muster up. As a side note, Bono once put forth a plan for industrial countries to set aside 1% of the taxes they collected to help towards third world relief, and then proceeded to move U2 to the Netherlands, where taxes are much lower than Ireland. Awesome. Anyways, back to the mob of angry girls. Most people seem content to throw 10 dollars Africa's way and forget about it forever, only noticing the color red when coordinating their outfit. The most disturbing thing about this whole campaign is that it's only made 18 million dollars so far, despite having spent over 100 million on advertising; perhaps people should shop a little more. I won't lie, I've spent zero dollars on AIDS relief. At least I'm honest about it.
Perhaps I should explain my disdain for Product Red. In and of itself it seems like a sweet idea: you're buying stuff that you'd normally buy and for no increased price, a percentage of the profit goes towards a charity to help out Africa. But, of course, nothing is in and of itself. The frontman for this sham is Bono, later to be helped out by other media darlings such as Oprah or Kate Moss, which immediately should be the first red flag. Sure, there could be an argument for Bono and Co., believing that these people truly want to help others in need and are selfless people, sublimating their own needs for others. If you don't find anything wrong with the previous statement, I'd suggest removing your capitalism goggles and seeing the campaign for what it really is.First of all, we have the basic drive behind the campaign: essentially, we are goaded into buying a Product Red product simply because it is "charitable." This is where Bono and Co. are very crafty. Take the Red iPod Nano, available in 4GB and 8GB, which sells for the exact same price as a similarly sized iPod, though with this one there's a sense of satisfaction with the purchase. How could anyone really walk into a store, look at the red Nano, look at the blue Nano, realize they're the same price, and take the blue one, knowing full well that the red one contributes a mere 10 dollars to Africa, at no extra cost to you? Unless you have a strong aversion to the color red (read: it clashes with your outfit), there's no real reason to be an asshole. Most of the Product Red items are similar to this: the cost of being nice is not put on the consumer, rather, it's placed on the corporation. Bono is a capitalist genius. Corporations have long taken flak for being mega-jerks, caring only to sign the bottom line with a dollar sign. Yet, now they so gracefully donate some money to Africa. Super.
Bono and Co. have totally made charitable consumerism fashionable. Just take a look at items being offered in Red: Gap clothing, Armani sunglasses, iPods, American Express Cards, Converse shoes... the list drags on. These are not really products that put functionality over form; there's a reason full-sized iPods aren't offered in Red - Nanos, sunglasses, and trendy clothing are all pieces that define a person's sense of fashion, their social position in the world and their ever elusive "cool" factor. Not only that, but now you're a Humanitarian. Awesome - just like Bono.
There's something almost sickly about offering charity through consumerism. It's kind of excusing consumerism, advertising, and capitalism by going against their foundations; instead of being stereotypically cutthroat and self-indulgent, they get to be a little good for once. It's free advertising for the rest of their line - Product Red has gained a lot of media coverage, which is prime time for these corporations to slip in a few shots of the rest of their wares. But here is exactly where the problem with Product Red lies, even if the above could be excused. Most of these companies are giving a percentage of their profits towards the campaign. How disgusting is that? It's not like these corporations are relying entirely on the sales of Product Red items. They're still selling their regular merchandise right next to it - that's the genius of Product Red - you can "choose." Hell, in the case of Apple, you can't even make the argument that it costs them shelf space - the red Nano is sold directly from Apple, usually through the internet. So, my question is, why don't these corporations, if they survived economically pre-Red, offer 100% of the profit? I understand that they have to pay certain overheads - manufacturing costs, labor, shipping, etc, but after that, the corporation only stands to gain. If, as Bono would love to have you think, Product Red is such and awesome thing, why wouldn't the corporations go all the way? Break even and offer whatever is left to AIDS research. But no, they need to take a percentage of the profit as well! Why? So the fucking CEO can go to Hawaii twice this month?
Whenever I bring up Product Red in my disturbingly cynical classes (which I love), it seems like I'm going way to far with my cynicism. Interestingly enough, it's always the female population of the course that totally lambastes me, using Oprah as a foundation for their counter-argument. I mean, if Oprah says it's charitable, it's gotta be true. This woman holds a tremendous amount of power over women in North America (and I guess any household with satellite television): what she says goes. I'm pretty sure that she could build an army of women in about a week, all toting her O magazine, ready to become better, truer women. The counter-argument always starts out along the lines of "at least they're doing something." Sure, next time you see a homeless person, take out your wallet, make a show of counting your bills, and give him a nickel. If these multi-million corporations are going to do something, it'd better be a lot bigger than anything I could muster up. As a side note, Bono once put forth a plan for industrial countries to set aside 1% of the taxes they collected to help towards third world relief, and then proceeded to move U2 to the Netherlands, where taxes are much lower than Ireland. Awesome. Anyways, back to the mob of angry girls. Most people seem content to throw 10 dollars Africa's way and forget about it forever, only noticing the color red when coordinating their outfit. The most disturbing thing about this whole campaign is that it's only made 18 million dollars so far, despite having spent over 100 million on advertising; perhaps people should shop a little more. I won't lie, I've spent zero dollars on AIDS relief. At least I'm honest about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
