Popular Music and Politics

As Americans, we are entitled to many different rights, the most popular being the first amendment--free speech. Anyone can say what anything they believe in is how I would sum up the first amendment. Not everyone has to agree with your statements but you have the power to say them anyways. For this final blog I choose chapter 3--Confrontations: popular music and politics. This chapter discusses censorship, political form and popular music as a campaign instrument. All three of these subjects dance around what we all take for granted, free speech.
Our text, Entertaining the Citizen by Liesbet Van Zoonen says that "the history of popular music can be easily written as a history of censorship." Music from the 50's such as jazz, rock and roll, and even Elvis's famous hip swings were all censored to the public. They became more accepted as time went on and other music seemed worse, heavy metal, rap or grunge. I wonder how Elvis would feel today if he saw some of the dancing that goes on in today's music videos.
Musicians do have to be careful of what their lyrics mean because they get blamed for drug overdoses, violent acts, suicides, and mass murders. Can a person not just listen to a song or band because they simply like the music or the talent of the band? It seems obscured to link all drug overdoses or violent acts to the music that person was listening to beforehand. There comes a time when instead of blaming everyone else, we must take a look at ourselves and claim our faults. Censoring all lyrics starts to take away our right to free speech.
This leads me to my next topic: popular music as a campaign instrument. Using music can be a great tool to connecting with people's emotions. Certain songs can amp up the message and can connect with different demographics, but can also hinder your message. When politicians and musicians combine forces they must be aware of the pros and cons that can happen. As Van Zoonen says, "Musical taste and alliances are presumed to communicate lifestyle, social milieu, personality and general capacity to understand everyday tastes of ordinary people." We generally believe that if President Obama and Jay-Z are seen together, then they must be alike. So if Jay-Z likes Obama, that can bring in many young voters or could make those who dislike Obama to dislike Jay-Z. We discussed in class the wrath that musicians and celebrities can go through when they voice their opinions and the masses do not agree.

Raps Artists Mixing Politics In Their Music

My final point popular music as a political form ties into using music to campaign. "The reason for the manifold connections between new social movements and popular music is that 'popular musicians share a cause, rather than an ideology or electoral campaign," says Van Zoonen. This is why it is extremely important for youth to educate themselves on what each politicians stands for instead of voting for the person with the coolest song or most celebrity fans. When musicians join with politicians is it because they believe in their message or because they are trying to get their face out there? This question is hard to answer beings we do not know the musician personally.

The Pursuit of Happyness

Growing up, I have always been told that I can do anything that I set my mind to. I can become anything if I work hard at it and my gender, class, and race do not matter. As I would love to believe that is true, the real world is not that equal. I recently watched the movie The Pursuit of Happyness staring Will Smith, and found many concepts that we have discussed in class; struggling with the class system, the American Dream or Horatio Alger myth and the challenging of masculine ideals.

Storyline

The Pursuit of Happyness is a true story based on the life of Chris Gardner played by Will Smith. The setting is 1981, San Francisco and Gardner is a salesman for x-ray machines but is struggling to make ends meet. Beings he spent the family's entire savings on these machines they have no money and his wife leaves him and his son Christoper, played by Will Smith's son Jayden. Gardner is set on making a life for his child and gets an internship at Dean Witter. Many have applied and only one will get the slot but even before that there is six months unpaid training. While fighting for the internship Gardner is forced to move out of his home making him and his son homeless. Gardner goes through some tough times and tribulations but the ending is nothing but heart warming.

The System

As we have learned from our class discussions, class is a term that is used to categorize people based on their economic status: income level, profession, family lineage, and social standing all play a part in class determination. Hollywood's way of putting an issue about class out to the public is to make a movie about the issue. While it is good that the issue is being talked about, the way Hollywood goes about filming the movie is not always praised.
It is safe to say that Gardner has little to no income putting him in the lower class bracket. When you see his living conditions, it is clear to see that he is living in poor conditions, amongst other poor African-Americans. Hollywood is criticized on making existing stereotypes even stronger when they make moves such as this. Benshoff and Griffin say,

Hollywood films repeatedly construct stereotypical images of American poverty as
endemic to racial/ethnic communities... ...This allows racists the chance to
rationalize poverty as being the fault of those affected by it, and not the
result of racism institutionalized in capitalist practice.

Hollywood uses the trick that if the movie is set back to a different time then now then we can understand why there is a class struggle and racism. People in today's times are struggling everyday with those issues but we are taught to believe we are all equal. If we are suppose to be taught that race and class do not matter, then why are we always shown movies that portray the fact that class does matter? Gardner had to hide the fact that him and his son were homeless and poor, no one would have believed he would be working for Dean Witter.

American Dream and Masculinity

While this movie shows the typical stereotypes, the fact that it is based on a true story of someone out shines them. Gardner has the drive to make his American Dream come true and it is truly inspirational. Benshoff and Griffin define the American Dream as the expression that encapsulates national myths about equality and the free pursuit of wealth and happiness. He radiates the idea of the Horatio Alger myth, the idea that anyone in America can rise to economic success through hard work and the aid of friendly benefactors (Benshoff and Griffin). Gardner works his butt off, not knowing if he is even going to get the job, all to make his son's life better. All he wants is for his son to have a better life than he had. What parent doesn't want that for their children?

While it is touching to see a film about someone inspiring to better themselves, I found more inspiring was that the movie showed a single father, instead of a single mother bettering themselves. The most touching scene is the subway scene where Gardner breaks down after his son goes to sleep. Gardner trying to be that strong rock for his child, but ends up breaking down when things get really bad. This could be seen as a breach in masculinity but I believe it shows that even men are human and allowed to have a moment. Hollywood is not known for showing this emotional side making some to believe that men are not emotional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLwjEtY4uas

At the end of this film, as with many Hollywood blockbusters, everything turns out good for Gardner and his son. He overcomes his struggle with class and moves into the world of Wall Street. Hollywood once again benefits from the American Dream. I am excited to see if the same will happen in the upcoming movie The Soloist starring Jamie Foxx which plays into a similar story line as The Pursuit of Happyness.

The real Chris Gardner with Will Smith and Jayden Smith.

Journal Entry #3

African Americans on Film



For this journal entry I am going to focus on Chapter Four: African Americans and American Films from the book America on Film by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin. In this chapter Benshoff and Griffin point out many stereotypical roles that African Americans were only allowed to play. Here are a few of them--the mammy;an overweight black woman who took care of the white master's children, the Uncle Tom; black house slave who faithfully served his white master, the coon; foolish, jiving simpleton who did everything to avoid work (79). These are just some of the roles that African Americans had to choose from in early films.


As time has progressed many things have changed and African Americans can now have lead roles in films, interracial counterparts and even win Academy Awards and Oscars for not just supporting roles but the lead role. Yet there are still movies being made today which place African Americans back in those stereotypical roles. I'm sure there is a list of movies I could research but the one that I just recented watch is Secret Life of Bees.


http://www.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK//video/screenplay/vi1690829593/


While I had watched this movie prior to this chapter I thought the movie was pretty good and basically about a troubled girl that needs answers about her mother. After reading and discussing the chapter in class is when I started to really dig into this movie.


The story line of this movie is that it is set in South Carolina in 1964, there is a troubled, young girl named Lily Owens (Dakota Fanning) who wants to find out about her mother, who is dead and if she ever really did love her. Her father T. Ray is a drunk and abuses Lily from time to time, verbally and physically. They have a nanny Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson) who watches and takes care of Lily. Rosaleen is the first mammy character that is presented in movie, although I disagree with Bensoff and Griffin's discription that the Mammy has to be overweight. Rosaleen takes good care of Lily and as the movie plays out the two walk into town where Lily is questioned for being with a negro woman. Rosaleen is called the "n" word quite a few times and is jumped and beaten by three older gentlemen for her actions that she took to try to show them she was not a dumb negro. There's many scenes one could pick out to clarify this point but this one in particular shows Hollywoods version of a "race movie." It has all the ideologies that racism is bad but it is a part of our history but it was not that critical to the the movie. It was more of a moment where you feel completely horrified but then realize oh well those things did happen back in 1964 and move on with the show.
Which takes us to when Lily and Rosaleen run away and go to the Boatwright's house. Here August (Queen Latifah) is the more influencial mammy character who takes in the troubled, white girl and Rosaleen to help them. She also looks after her two sisters, hosts the women's church, and runs her own company: those may be things out of the norm for a early film mammy. Now August's sister, June (Alicia Keys) is a black power activist, angry, trusts no white person and is skeptical of this young white girl. June shows subtle hints of blaxploitation. She takes every chance she can get to cut down whites. For example in one scene about a famous white actor bringing a black woman to a movie there was protests and riots happening, June's comment is "Funny how white people hate black people so much when black women raise all their children." She has a valid point there. I just do not understand the problem but then I was not raised during that time period. The movie plays out and so I do not ruin the ending I will just say that Hollywood stuck with what works and left Lily Owens a peaceful and happy ending.
This movie shows a star studded cast, different mammy characters, a character that was somewhat blaxploitated, and is a "race movie" My question about this movie is it hurting the progression of African American actors or were those things necessary because of the setting being 1964 and the race issues at that time?

Womens roles on television

Whether or not we want to accept it, media that affects us is all over. As soon the day starts we are bombarded with advertisements from the radio, television, billboards, internet ads, and even daily TV programs and movies have found ways to plug certain products. With this all being shoved in our faces it is no wonder that people start to believe what is in the ad must be reality. There are many interesting concepts that David Gauntlett brings up in his book Media, Gender, and Identity but I want to focus on feminity, women on television in the past compared to women on television today.

As we discussed in class, feminity can be described in many ways, ranging from good characteristics to very negative. Yet Gaunlett believes that feminity is not necessarily seen as the state of "being a woman"; instead, it’s perceived more as a stereotype of a woman's role from the past (p11). I believe this is due to the fact that women can take on so many roles at one time that being feminine may just get lost in the mix until it is needed. Being so many different role models women start to take on many personalities depending on their surroundings. At home they take on the mother role, while at work they want to be seen as the hardworking woman that can accomplish the same tasks of her male counterpart, yet while out with friends women can let loose a little more, at anytime the feminity switch can flick on.

The idea of feminity has evolved over time just as women's roles in the media have. Women on television in the past had very few roles but the main one was to be the wonderful mother of the wholesome family program. I recall watching The Wonder Years growing up and the mother was a typical stay at home mom that dropped out of college to follow the life of her husband. Married with Children also showcased another housewife mother that spent most of her husband’s money while all he could do was complain about it. Both of these shows had the men working while the wife was suppose to raise the children and have supper on the table by the time their husbands came home. I believe that women were portrayed this way in the media because at this time in society most women were housewives.

However in today's society women are not expected to stay home and live off their husbands, women are not even expected to get married or to have children if they so choose. Women’s roles on television have changed from the housewife to the working woman. Yet the woman's role is still usually a support of the leading character who happens to be a male. Take CSI for example there are two females out of the six member cast. Neither of the women plays the lead role. Women have come a long way from only being a housewife on television and will continue to strive to get the leading roles over men but as we have seen it doesn't happen overnight.