The Show about Nothing, hinted by Gabler...

Neal Gabler's "Our Celebrities, Ourselves" really speaks volumes on "the mark of authenticity" as he argues with Daniel Boorstin on the subject of celebrities. Boorstin believes celebrities are celebrities simply for being well-known, however, Gabler claims that there is much more to that simple statement. Gabler draws the readers attention to how the lives of celebrities follow a narrative pattern that goes "on and on and on" and how many people's lives are consumed with the following of these celebrity narratives. Gabler's subject audience is assumed to be the happy and average middle-class american and he wants the reader and this audience to focus on the tension of "artifice and authenticity." Neal Gabler thinks that the authenticity of a celebrity is really just a type of aura that they project onto society. Nevertheless, Gabler reveals that the narrative these celebrities star in encompass the search to find themselves. And this search is what everyone in society, or the audience, relates to and focuses on when watching and following celebrities through the use of different mediums. Both types of people, celebrities and their fans, engage in this search to find oneself.

Now this real-life melodrama that is the narrative of celebrities has many twists and turns and these narratives come from all types of celebrities. Gabler mentions a few, who range from Jennifer Lopez and Michael Jackson all the way down to John Wayne Bobbit and Joey Buttafuocco. Now why does he mention these seemingly 'nobodies' turned stars overnight? Joey Buttafuocco is known for the whole debacle of his mistress and his wife. But why does Gabler mention him at all? Perhaps it is because that Mr. Buttafuocco seems a little bit realer to society than a celebrity. A celebrity who always has everything going for him or her like money, cars, kids, big house, you name it. So Joey Buttafuocco seems more authentic to the average reader of People or Vanity Fair and his story almost demands attention. Nevertheless, a person in society watches celebrities on the big screen or the tv screen to find himself. He realizes, according to Gabler, that through the celebrity, he can find himself. This made automatically made me think of the show Seinfeld. No doubt is "the show about nothing" a perfect portrayal of daily life. A narrative that everyone can follow and relate to. If you can't relate to every episode of that show, you are not a human being. And that is just me building off of Neal Gabler's ideas and conveying my love for the show Seinfeld. Nevertheless, Neal Gabler may be on to something. 

Rosen's Debate on Self Image: To Brand or Not to Brand

Jeffrey Rosen's "The Naked Crowd" suggests how the crowd, along with the media, creates a demand for exposure. He touches on the differences of 'sincerity' and 'authenticity' as well and explains the two terms in great detail. Rosen explains to the reader that the goal for a person to be sincere is to simply tell the truth at all times. Now for his definition of 'authenticity,' Rosen writes that all thoughts or feelings of an individual should be revealed. Rosen is hinting at how each individual should portray himself as person with no filter. With these two distinct traits, that Rosen wants humans to inherit and develop, everyone will become more trustworthy and more open while true emotions will be revealed.

Now with a more open society, everyone will seem to get along and relate through emotional connections. Rosen draws on this claim a little bit in his introduction about "Portraits of Grief." He discusses how photographs of 9/11 are depicted in the New York Times just days after the horrific event. Jeffrey Rosen tells the reader about how these pictures were supposed to give authenticity and individuality to each one of the 9/11 victims. However, he suggests how these pictures actually take away from the individuality of each victim and rather generalizes them and lumps them in specific groups or personality traits. The pictures were supposed to lay an emotional connection upon the readers of the newspaper but it did just the opposite.


Rosen transitions from these 'Portraits of Grief' and individuality to discuss a similar idea of "Personal Branding." What a reader can gather from Rosen's evidence is that personal brands are merely a competitive device. That is why these self-help books nowadays are so popular because everyone cares about their image. People are telling themselves they need to make a 'brand' for themselves because that is what separates them from another person in the competitive world that we live in. However, this branding of oneself can be a difficult thing to accomplish. The competitive, job-seeking individual must ponder what things he should keep private and what things he should make public about himself. Should he display his true emotions to everyone to seem more 'real' or should he hide them and only project positive emotions to seem more "marketable"? People should realize that it should not matter who they portray themselves as. They should get over their self-consciousness and realize that everyone is self-conscious about something. They should be who they want to be and who they are happy as and the right people will come into their life. This builds on Rosen's "trustworthiness" because you can't be honest with others until you are honest with yourself.

Sobchack's Condition: A Cinema Born Dilemma

Vivan Sobchack's "Postmorbid Condition" discusses how the film industry in present day constantly neglects the meaning behind its violence. The essay also focuses on how there is almost no purpose to all this violence that the the casual movie goer experiences. Sobchack writes about why the average film audience needs "noise and constant stimulation" to make up for this lack of meaning portrayed through violence. The constant bodies being tossed and thrown throughout a scene by fire power and various weaponry should be viewed as "dummies" or "straw men" according to Sobchack. Technology has simply made producers, executives, and directors careless with their movie making and bodies are simply "squandered" throughout many violent film scenes nowadays. Sobchack's Postmorbid Condition is simply something that people experience through modern film and there is no shock factor anymore; they've seen it all.

Vivan Sobchack refutes her own earlier essay from 25 years prior to this one. This begs the reader to ask, which Sobchack should I believe? The one who thinks violence is meaningful? Or meaningless? In this essay, she obviously focuses on how it is meaning-LESS. No longer are people sensitive to recent school shootings and that is a sad thing. Phrases like "Oh, there was a school shooting in Ohio the other day? Well that doesn't sound good," are constantly being heard and mentioned in passive tones and that is scary. This is what Sobchack is kind of hinting at in her writing and how modern movies such as Pulp Fiction and Natural Born Killers have desensitized people in society. These movies are so "outrageous" and "over the top" that they almost elicit laughter. This is not the way it should be and Sobchack is addressing this issue. The one time she does let a violent movie slide, Saving Private Ryan, is because it does serve a purpose because the events of World War 2 were black and white and actions of right and wrong could be easily distinguished. I definitely have to agree with Sobchack on that one and also on how film makers are constantly showing off their latest technology to make death scenes more gruesome and violent. People of society should always take a step back when watching such terrible acts like murder and similar actions should never be viewed in a passive manner and should always be taken seriously.

Cohen the Confuser And His Cultural Codes

Jeremy Cohen's "Monster Culture" covers a great span of information with seven interesting theses. The theses focus on how history is made up of fragments to how Aristotle failed to classify 'monsters' into categories of race because the “monstrous genus is too large.” Cohen is definitely a scholar and his writing reflects that with his word choice and phrasing. He goes on to say how people need to understand different cultures and the monsters they bear. Monsters, who function as alter egos, must be examined within a matrix of relations such as social or cultural. These monsters also question the cultural assumptions of the human race. Some of these assumptions include race, gender, sexuality and our perception of differences. However, it is through the monster that humans can explore their deepest fantasies of aggression and domination; the monster is the symbol of desire. Additionally, Cohen tells us that these much fantasized monsters also ask why have we (as humans) created these assumptions and how do we perceive our world through them.

I believe Cohen, even though very hard to understand at times, has definitely shed some light on cultural perspectives. He talks about these monsters as being a cultural product of the moment in time they were born and he helps the reader understand two narratives of the monster. These double sided narratives include how the monster came to be and what event sprung its ideas and also the purpose this monster serves in culture. One great example he gives is vampires. Vampires have been an issue throughout history but our perspective of them is constantly changing. For instance, to paraphrase Cohen, in the later part of last century movies about vampires could be seen as AIDS awareness to growing adults. Nowadays, Vampires are seen as a racial issue and as a cultural boundary in movies like Twilight and shows like True Blood. However, it is the monster that lives within us that Cohen is constantly alluding to in his writings. Only we as a species can control our acts and the monsters that we create should all be symbols of our behaviors that need to change.

Batman and Robin: The Perfect Match?

Andy Mehurst, I say to you in the words of Bill Lumberg , one of my other favorite characters of all time, (Office Space) "Yaaa, I'm gonna have to go ahead and sorta disagree with you thereee."
The essay called "Batman, Deviance, and Camp" by this guy Medhurst talks mainly about the television show Batman and its "campyness." However, one of his main points that stands out to me is that Batman is a raging homosexual. Where does he get this stuff? I'm calling BS.
Because I think Andy Medhurst is using too many stereotypes to get his point across and frankly it's a little rude. He talks about how men who live together are gay. I'm just going to throw out one example to refute this: Frat Houses.
Moving on,...
Medhurst also talks about how men with fancy flowers in their home and who wear "dressing gowns" to bed can also be seen as homosexual. Now what are these dressing gowns he speaks of? For all we know, as the reader, he could just be talking about bath robes. And I myself have always wanted a bath robe because they look comfy and warm and rather soft, but I'm not a homosexual. Now as for the flowers, maybe Bruce Wayne just wants to please his guests when they come over. So, sorry Mr. Medhurst that my man Bruce is thoughtful and not a jerk when it comes to entertaining and hosting his guests and simply wants his home to smell appealing and welcoming rather than gross and uninviting.

So Medhurst, I ask of you just one more question:
If I didn't LOVE Batman and everything he stands for, do you really think I would have Batman floor mats and have put this (see below) on my car?
Batman is not a homosexual and you should never stereotype any group of people.
You messed with the wrong man today sir.

The M&M that killed Rodney Dangerfield

I recently watched the movie "Natural Born Killers" directed by Oliver Stone, and to say the least, I left the theater feeling a little woozy. Not only was this feeling from Stone's constant changing of camera angles to images of black and white, to cartoons, to home footage, to this and that, he was all over the place. He just needed to take it easy and leave the viewer going home Without the feeling of just getting off the tilt-a-whirl at the local carnival.
But the scene that threw my whole world upside down was when the movie parodied a tv show from the 50s and in the movie it was titled "I Love Mallory."
Never have I seen my boy Rodney Dangerfield portrayed as such a menace, lunatic and quite frankly, a creep. He plays the father in the show/movie who is constantly groping his own teenage daughter (Mallory) and the whole thing just sent shivers down my spine and gave me the creeps.
I mean, I LOVE Rodney Dangerfield and his reputation for one liners but this movie just gives his classic reputation "No Respect" and portrays him in an unfamiliar role of a slob and creep.

Sadly, Rodney's life is ended later in the film by Mickey, the other 'M,' who becomes Mallory's love interest, when he comes into the house and the M&M duo leaves Rodney all bloodied and bashed in the living room and the mother burning alive in the bedroom above.
The movie did however have an interesting climax and ending which is the only reason I'm not giving this thing seven thumbs down. So nice try Mr. Stone, but next time stick to movies you do best, like "Any Given Sunday," and keep my love for M&Ms out of it.

Wrestling: Man's Utopia

 "The Hero"
"TheVillain"
The World Wrestling Federation always possessed more than what most people would think. According to Henry Jenkins, in his essay, "Never Trust a Snake," the WWF always attracted fans through narratives and clever plot twists. The WWF constantly featured protagonists and antagonists that people would normally see in a book or novel. Now I use past-tense word choice because the WWF is no more but while it lasted it produced some of the most interesting story lines around. Working class men could come home from a long day at the meat factory and put their feet up to view more bloodshed. Only this kind was fake; and they knew it. Jenkins mentioned that the increased exaggeration and formation of the WWF characters transformed them into cartoon-ish figures, or even 'Invincible Victims.' He goes on to say the viewer could identify with the wrestler and dream that the WWF was a Utopian alternative.
Now if this viewer were actually able to gather up some change and time to go to a wrestling main event, Jenkins claims all emotions would pour out of the individual. Sitting and cheering for his favorite hero or villain really gave a man a reason to go outside his gender binary. Although the performance in the ring could be seen as 'campy,' it did not bother the fans. This was their Utopian world and their chance to get away from the harsh cruelties of their home and work lives. Mr. Jenkins couldn't have said this better when he claims, "Melodramatic wrestling allows working-class men to confront their own feelings of vulnerability, their own frustrations," (RAW 299). For a lot of men, most men, wrestling brought people together.