Another one of those beer commercials..

I have this thing with beer ads that just gets me every time. I will laugh at the commercial, knowing that it is being completely sexist while selling the product that people--their audience, which in this case is mostly men--will buy anyway. Is it really necessary to put a man's significant other--a woman, as it is in this commercial-- and to be completely heterosexual as well? Men will tend to watch these commercials and most likely agree with the message they portray: buy this beer, love this beer, and your woman will love you. It also demonstrates the lack of appreciation of the opposite sex. The man will automatically know why he loves his beer but will he instantly know why he loves the one he is with? Although this commercial is exaggerating actual situations, it says a lot about American society and how heterosexually inclined it can be. Not all men are straight. Not all men love beer.

So, again. Why do I laugh at this commercial? I guess it is a bit funny.. and possibly there is some truth in man's lack of ability in putting into words why he loves the one he is with.

Dads on Glee

As I was watching Glee Tuesday night, I realized something strange and which happens often in some television shows--Rachel's parents have not made an appearance on the show, they have only been mentioned. I am not sure exactly what this could mean, but there are a few reasons that her dads are M.I.A. to the audience and yet completely present to Rachel. One could be that showing a gay couple living together in a more committed relationship is too controversial for the network. However, this does remind me of Modern Family, where Cam and Mitchell are the adoptive parents to baby Lily; there could be a difference in showing two men raising a baby than two men raising a teenager. Another reason could be that Rachel's dads haven't necessarily been needed in the story line. I didn't think so until a couple of weeks ago where she repeatedly talks about who her mother might be and really the only reasonable way she could have found out is by asking her parents about it.

I'm a fan of Iron Man

Last night, I saw Iron Man 2 presented in the IMAX Experience, which to me was just played on bigger screen, with a much much louder volume capacity. Besides the constant loudness throughout the whole film, I was reminded of Laura Mulvey's article Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. I couldn't help but have an analytical look on how the main character, a man named Tony Stark, who is also known as Iron Man, is the epitome of the ego ideal for men everywhere. He's strong, successful, and he leads a double life that everyone in LA and around the US seem to be comfortable with. He protects the nation against any danger thanks to the abilities that the Iron Man suit allows him to utilize. Not only is he liked by the public as a hero, but all of the women just melt at their feet at the sight of him. Another aspect of the Mulvey's article that I was reminded of is the kind of scopophilia that Stark presented towards a woman character, Natasha Romanoff. She's mysterious, beautiful, and she sparked a sexual desire in Stark. The scene where Stark first meets Romanoff clearly displays the fetishistic scopophilia that Mulvey discusses. Close ups on Stark's face when he first sees Romanoff, and then immediately switching to close ups on Romanoff's face and body prove to be fetishistic scopophilia. At that instance, the audience is getting the three I's, the camera showing us, the audience, what the character, Tony is seeing.
Although I was analyzing everything throughout the film and kind of narrating in my mind what I was going to write here, I did enjoy the film for its action-packed scenes and witty one liners given by various characters of the story.

I'm a little scared

Miley Cyrus recently released her new music video titled "Can't Be Tamed" (if you have not had the honor of watching the video, I have gladly posted it just for laughs) and may I just say that she is not the Hannah Montana I once ignored. She is a whole different person and she seems to be trying to get a hold of her own, finding out who she is, testing the waters with what she can artistically and musically do. I do not completely agree with that last sentence I wrote, but I am giving her the benefit of the doubt. She is only human, people make mistakes, blah blah blah. On another note, I do not quite understand her. She goes from this perfect, innocent image of a girl to a wild woman dancing around in feathers. Did I miss something? If I’m just a little confused by this, imagine what a 10 year old girl who looks up to this Hannah Montana character must feel. Her once singing idol in jeans and a wig, is now something rare and puzzling as this music video. Frustrations and confusion aside, I'm not sure if what she has is talent or just really good publicists.

The Most Interesting Man in the World

I wasn't introduced to these commercials of The Most Interesting Man in the World until this weekend and I'm glad that I was. This is a good example to work with Laura Mulvey's article, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. In the clip, we see that the man--the most interesting man in the world-- is the focus of the situation. In the first few seconds, the man is lifting two women sitting in chairs with his bare hands. The women we see throughout the commercial seem to be attracted to this man even though he's doing things that aren't necessarily realistic. Throughout the commercial, the man has the focus and the power. The women are just smiling and enjoying what the man is doing. Even the man that is sitting with them at the end seems to admire the "most interesting man in the world."

Not only does this address classic Hollywood, but it also touches upon the idea of American ideology. For men, drinking Dos Equis beer will make you the most approachable and interesting. This is a kind of false consciousness that when one drinks beer, there is a lack of inhibitions which allow for people to do things they wouldn't normally do.

You Have 0 Friends :(

South Park is infamous for pointing out American society's hegemonic norms, their faults, misconceptions, and ridiculousness. In this clip from the episode "You Have 0 Friends," Stan is forced by Kyle to create a Facebook account. Besides being completely hilarious, I think this episode speaks volumes of some of the hegemonic norms of our generation, which are based on technological advances focused on social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter. Not only is it important to have a Facebook account, but having the most friends or followers is what we are supposed to strive for. This idea of having the most friends or being the most popular is creepily similar to high school. The popular kid always had the most friends. Where does this hegemonic norm come from? Power (money) is everything according to Marx, and if having the most friends makes one feel powerful, then they are the acceptable crowd. "You Have 0 Friends" criticizes the fact that people are so easily sucked into fads or trends. It points out that relationships can be real, outside of the internet world. Though South Park has the tendency to exaggerate topics and situations, this one seems to be quite accurate to me.

Simon Fuller, make ME a star..

I'm a huge hulu.com fan who loves to grab some snacks and sit back in my bed to watch whatever television show episodes I've missed out on during the week. A couple weeks back, though, I stumbled upon an online only show streaming on Hulu every Tuesday. It's called If I Can Dream and its creator is Simon Fuller, the guy who's guilty for American Idol. The idea of the show is that Simon Fuller changes the lives of 6 fresh talented faces, by letting them live in an enormous home in LA and having 60 cameras recording them 24/7. These young chosen ones have one thing in common: a dream. Don't we all? It doesn't seem plausible for Americans to be getting the same message from the media: only certain people have a chance to fulfill their dreams because they are attractive and because Simon Fuller will make it so.

Don't get me wrong, Justin, an aspiring singer/songwriter and one of the faces of If I Can Dream, is talented. He can kind of sing and perform, but he doesn't seem to have the qualities a true musician has. So why did Justin get picked over other millions of wanna-be musicians? Is it because he has beautiful hair and a jaw line that make women swoon?

As I watch more and more of this show, it only reinforces the idea to many Americans that success and becoming famous only happens to a few handful.. So the more you audition for American Idol, the more you'll become a star. Whatever happened to getting your big break the old fashioned way and really getting down and dirty to make your way to the top?