American Politics & Pop Culture

Movie Ratings-Do they Serve Hollywood or the Public?

The problem with today’s film rating system is two fold; one, it’s too subjective and two, the ratings carry only vague meaning. Because of this, the Code and Rating Administration, also known as CARA, has been the subject of heated debate for some time. Films such as Medium Cool, If, and Midnight Cowboy have all been rated X: For Adults Only; when in fact they’ve been seen by many as being tamer than many R rated films from the same era. So, it seems fair to ask, “Can CARA be improved?” or even, “Should CARA exist? Does it serve a purpose?”

The answer is yes, yes, and yes. As stated by Richard D. Heffner, chairman of CARA, “We’re only the messengers telling the parents what we think they’ll consider an R.” (Moria, 2) It’s clear to see that CARA does censor films. If they did, I would argue that they shouldn’t exist. CARA rates films, and the ratings serve a distinct purpose. The ratings allow parents to make decisions about what films their children should or shouldn’t be able to see without having to watch the film first. The problem with the rating system, as stated in my opening paragraph, is that the ratings are too subjective and carry too vague a meaning.

In order to improve the system, there must be a firm set of guidelines that can be followed in order to make an objective rating decision. The actual rating letters can only convey meaning if they’re assigned to films in a consistent fashion. Also, since the ratings exist to help parents make decisions they should be more descriptive in nature.
There are two main categories that cause a film to be rated a specific way. Those two categories are violence and sex. Some parents are okay with violence and some parents are okay with sex. A movie could be rated R because it is sexual in nature or that it is violent. The parent making a decision about whether or not their child should be able to see a film cannot make an informed decision that reflects their views. Because of this, I suggest that the rating system could be improved by specifying why a film received a specific rating. For example, an R film that is R due to violence and not sexuality should be rated an Rv film. Also, an R film that is R due to sex and not violence should be rated an Rs film. If the film is both violent and sexual it should be rated Rvs. This method allows parents to make decisions that better match their own personal views.

Moria, Hodgson. “Movie Ratings – Do They Serve Hollywood or the Public?” The New York Times (May 24, 1981)

Posted by John Erck at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by schr0845 at 11:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Nadell, in his article, “Boyz N The Hood: A Colonial Analysis,” gives us an overview of the symbolisms and illustrations in John Singleton’s “Boyz N the Hood,” as well as the struggle of African Americans in a historical/colonial context. Nadell’s main ideas deal with how Euro-American capitalism has had negative effects on the development of African Americans as a people, how a “warfare” has been made against the progress of Black freedoms by our government, and how the drug problem landed in Black communities and has since rendered violent conflicts.

Nadell begins with his opinion that “the oppression and exploitation of African and Third World labor and resources” has been influential in fueling American capitalism over time. This is a logical deduction when thinking of the times of the slave trade and the forced labor of African Americans in southern American states during the colonial times. Later on, Nadell describes how African Americans have been considered an “externalized cost” that only brings down the power of capitalism, implying the “warfare” attitude against black people by the majority in our nation’s history. From a colonial point of view, this would also seem logical, however in present day it is recognized that African Americans and other minority groups have become a viable part of the American workforce.

As Nadell analyzes “Boyz N the Hood,” he largely points out the problem of illegal drugs and its relation to violence among many black communities. According to Nadell, a “driving force of the within-group violence depicted in [“Boyz”] is the illicit narcotics trade.” However, we are informed that the CIA was responsible for the original import of opiates and other narcotics to the United States. The trouble began once the trade spread into black and other minority communities, “a most serious blow to the Black liberation struggle.” Relating to our class discussions, this problem was most likely a factor of the LA riots and the corruption of the LA police force, which also is seen in “Boyz”, and could also possibly contribute to ongoing racism against black people in this country.

Concerning the topic of racism, Jeremy Stoddard points out that: “Critical race theorists argue that racism pervades American institutions and is “endemic in American life.” Stoddard infers here that the views of Americans have changed, making racism out to be the “endemic” that African Americans and other minorities once were, according to Nadell. Stoddard idealizes the image of Americans here, at least these “race theorists,” as it is certain that many forms of racism still exist today, but are perhaps less noticeable.

Overall, Nadell uses examples from “Boyz N the Hood” to summarize well the effects of American capitalism, the introduction of drugs, and other hindrances to the struggle for liberation amongst black people over time. His consistency with history and realizable contextual evidence make for an informatively persuasive read.

Posted by joh02361 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For this assignment, I read the article called Movie Ratings – Do They Serve the Hollywood or the Public?, which was written by Moira Hudgson. Basically the author attacks the issue about the film ratings that we have in the society today and how these ratings are affecting the community and public in general. In the article, he compares the ratings back in the earlier days to the ratings that we have now. He believed the major change that occurred in the rating was the changes from X-rated to R-rated films. All the filmgoers, or people in general, tends to watch more of PG and R rated films today as it was stated in the article. Since these statistics are true, the industry or the studio are forced to make a film that are PG or R rated (that’s what the MPAA would call it…) because obviously they would make more money. I believe that’s one of the issues I think that needs to be solved because the priority for the studio is to make some bucks, not the public. In addition, with all the disorganized procedure that are going on in MPAA can also be harmful and inappropriate for the children that are not old enough to watch the adult contents. With all these kinds of problems flying around, it makes the film industry to focus on their job more difficult because their relationship with the public could go downhill. But was it necessary for people to change the rating from being X to R? Mr Romero said that “they should say V for violence or S for sex,” instead of calling it PG or R because I think those copyrighted trademarks can be confusing sometimes and it would make it a lot easier if they say the film is rated S (sex), for example. Maybe X would have been too much of a broad rating, but if there is no standard system for MPAA to rate films, it would make sense for them to have the films rated in the way which Mr Romero stated. Basically I just want to say that if MPAA have concerns for the public and the children, they should look closely at their system in order to receive positive feedbacks from the public. The last thing that they want to do is to have the children watching the inappropriate films because of the wrong ratings. The priority for them should be “people”, not the bucks. If we could see some changes within the organization in the next couple of years, the rating system that they have might become useful or they should just change the whole system in order to ensure the protection from the under aged children.

Posted by katay007 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the reading Movie Rating- Do They Serve Hollywood or the Public by Moira Hodgson, asks readers to examine if the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) services the film goers and parents or the Hollywood business. The article doesn’t have a thesis statement but one main question, which is stated in the title and to help reader answer the question, the Hodgson explains how the MPAA works and points out some controversial argument associated with the rating system. After reading the article I would argue that the movie rating system by Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is not designed to service the public but Hollywood.
Hodgson starts out by illustrating that the MPAA has improved the rating system since the 1970’s. MPAA now looks at violence more carefully as they do sexual content. Hodgson stats “ X ratings which used to be conferred mostly for sex are now used to designate violence as well” (2) Hodgson states even though the MPAA has made improvement, still the rating system is not helpful for the public or for parents in identifying what the movie contains “there are those who find the ratings so vague- there is not indication whether an R rating is for sex, violence or language, and no indication why a PG has been awarded.” (Hogson, 1)
For the most part this MPAA rating system is business, movies with the X rating don’t get any advisement in the media and most movie theater don’t play movies with an X rating. In addition “Members of the national Association of the Theater Owners, comprising about 85 percent of heaters, will not show unrated films” (Hogson, 4) Hogson explains there are small number of filmmaker who don’t submit the their film to the MPAA still make money by using their own rating system. The MPAA rating system is not only biases, but also influenced by big corporation “there have been complaints by producers that the rating board is softer on the giving X rating to the larger companies.” (Hogson, 6)
Hogson, explains that MPAA is a form of censorship, that comes between the movie goers and the films. I would also agree it is a form of censorship based on the politics and money. The article was very interesting, it had great points that supported the film we watched this week.

Posted by mula0013 at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Boyz 'n the hood is a film that shows the hard life and rough area that many African Americans have to grow up and live in throughout their lives. James Nadell in his article,“Boyz N The Hood: A Colonial Analysis”, discusses the isue of racism from the African American aspect and how they are always looked at or treated differently from the White Americans. Nadell also comments on the drug trade and the way that the people looking in on it believe that it is the African Americans who are responsible for it , when they only have a very strong part to play.
The young African Americans that are shown in Boyzz n the hood are always being watched and in some kind of danger. Even they are shown to be up standing citizen's, trying to get into college, they always seem to be in some kind of danger. We see them being pulled over by police, who are mainly shown as white people are an occasional black cop who wants to show everyone that he is greater than they are. They are pulled over for no apparent reason, other than being African American. Also in the area there is always the treat of being shot, as we hear the gunshots throughout the film. Nadell say that this is typical and comes from the days where the African Americans were brought over from Africa and Europe to be slaves for the white people of America. These days are long passed but some people still class the race as being inferior to white people.This is why they find it harder to get away from the stereotypes that they once had. An example of this is shown in American History X when Derek is extremely against minorities and African Americans in particular.
The other point that Nadell talks about is the drug trade.He points out that the people who are really behind the drug trafficing are the White Americans, possibly the government. Even though it has not been discussed in class much or even brought up in the film a lot, apart from one scene where Furious tells his son that African Americans dont have the boats or planes to get the drugs in. as Furious says here, they dont have the funds to get the drugs in to the country. They are merely the tip of the iceberg as they distribute and sell it to the people who want it. This is why they get the name for the drug trade as trhey ar ethe only ones who are seen doing anything with them.
Overall, i think that Nadell touches on and goes in good detail on the race issues that we have seen and discussed in the class. I think that his article and the topic of race and racism that we talked about for three weeks are very well connected.

Posted by culve018 at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Moira Hodgson’s article, “Movie Ratings-Do they serve Hollywood or the public?”, inconsistencies of and objections to the MPAA’s rating process are examined. Although the article was a bit dated and riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, I found many of the points to be very interesting, and a relevant corollary to the film we watched recently in class, “This Film is Not Yet Rated.” Hodgson details the differences among the ratings and an overview of how guidelines for each have changed in the years since their inception, as well as assorted people’s response to and opinion of them. Also examined is the role of ratings within the film industry itself and the politics of assigning various ratings to films.

Over time, Hodgson says that the ratings board has become more lenient on sexual themes and more stringent on violence, although many interviewed in “This Film is Not Yet Rated” would say that there is still much to be done to tone down gratuitous or potentially damaging violence. Language has been a fairly consistent qualifier for a harsher rating, but Mr. Valenti, head of the MPAA, says it can be the most difficult to rate, commenting that “if you’re a born-again Baptist in Mobile and the rating says some mild language and you hear the Lord’s name taken in vain, you’d feel you’d been tricked” (3). Language presents another issue as well. Because it can be used more easily than sex and violence without affecting the storyline, it is often included gratuitously to garner a stricter rating. Hodgson comments that “G (suitable for general audiences) is today considered box-office poison for many films on the grounds that the G can be equated with kiddie movies which arouse little interest among the majority of moviegoers” (2). Former chairman of the Code and Ratings Administration Richard Heffner responds to the issue by saying, “I frequently have the feeling the filmmaker has dropped in one of the harsher, sexually-derived words to get an R” (2). It’s an unfortunate reality that the ratings board has this type of control over the output of filmmakers. In this way the ratings board inevitably serves the film producers, who are able to bend the raters’ decision to their will by including gratuitous content.

Although the article mentions the possible inclusion of an intermediary rating between PG and R, “R14” as suggested by Steven Spielberg after complaints in response to his PG “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” it wouldn’t be until 1984 that the PG-13 rating would be introduced, providing an alternative to the restrictive “R” when less offensive content is present. The article also makes note of people’s complaints that reasons for ratings are not given. As of 1990, brief explanations are included with the rating. One look at the new “Iron Man” on the MPAA’s web site reveals the reason, “Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content.” Another complaint of the X rating being commonly associated with pornographic and otherwise sexually explicit films has been addressed by renaming the rating as “NC-17”, which films can earn typically for extreme violence, as well as sexual themes.

Posted by dunh0037 at 10:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“It is hoped that this essay will contribute to a new focus on the increasingly close connections between popular culture and politics in the post-war period.” Overall, Timothy Brown’s article Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and “Nazi Rock” in England and Germany examines the effects of the evolving musical and cultural tides in relation to the skinhead movement from its 1960’s origins to the 1990’s.

The original skinhead movement began in England in the 1960’s. Originally, it was categorized by “its working-class origins and its upper-class pretensions” as it emphasized an “upwardly mobile.” Along with this, the music of the subculture was primarily that of reggae music most common to black performers. Soon, this musical genre became synonymous with the skinhead culture and earned the name “skinhead reggae.” Finally, in the early 1970’s, the skinhead way of life was on the decline.

Under the influence of punk rock, the 1970’s was a time of rebirth for the skinhead culture. Their music soon came to be known as “Street Punk” or “Oi!”. Along with this, the culture began as a force in the political realm as it moved to heavily represent right-wing politics. A style change was also experienced at this time as a greater emphasis was placed on masculinity with members styling tall boots, military surplus jackets, tattoos, and cropped hair.

1980’s became the decade of the skinhead migration from England to Germany as the group maintained its right-wing views while at the same time adopting an even more prominent Neo-Nazi standard. Drinking, shouting, casual sex, and fighting became staples in the subculture as the “image of manliness, hardiness, and togetherness” was highly emphasized in order to maintain the skinhead look and identity to further promote the Aryan race.

Looking at this article and the transformation of the skinhead culture in relation to the music and various other aspects of culture was highly reflective of the overall semester for me. While reading, images of American History X continually ran through my mind as I thought of Derek, Danny, and their Neo-Nazi gang clad in military jackets, boots, and shaved heads on a mission for white supremacy.

One of the overriding themes I gathered from Brown’s ideals was that of the masculinity of the Neo-Nazi subculture. The skinhead revolution began in the 1960’s and 1970’s, which was the approximate time of the hippie movement. Although the early skinhead years were marked by less violence, many ideals still conflicted between the hippies in America and the skinheads of England and Germany at this time. First, as one of the overriding indicators of culture, the music between the two groups differed. Compared with the deep reggae tones and later punk rock of the skinhead movement, the lyrical melodies of the hippie songs seemed simple. Next, as hippies sported long-hair and an almost feminine way of life, the skinhead culture was marked by cropped or shaved heads with masculinity as one of its core values. Contrast between the high ideals of materialism in their striving to reach the top of the pay scale and the hippie’s lack of material thinking were also highly visible in this article. Finally, as the skinhead movement emphasized violence and anti-racism, the hippie movement focused on love and peace among all individuals.

Posted by basse044 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hooks argues that Madonna tries, or does, use black culture as a way to express another side of herself. He believes that Madonna thinks of this ‘other identity’ as an ‘added spice’. Hooks believes that Madonna envies black people and tries to use that to her advantage.
I enjoyed reading Hooks’ article. I found her perspective of Madonna and how she interpreted what Madonna said very interesting. I am not black and would not have interpreted some of the things Madonna has said in the past the same way that Hooks did. Madonna stated in an interview that she ‘wanted to be black as a child’. (Hooks, 1992). Hooks response to this statement by Madonna was, “It is a sign of white
privilege to be able to "see" blackness and black culture from a standpoint where
only the rich culture of opposition black people have created in resistance marks and
defines us. Such a perspective enables one to ignore white supremacist domination
and the hurt it inflicts via oppression, exploitation, and everyday wounds and pains.
White folks who do not see black pain never really understand the complexity of
black pleasure. And it is no wonder then that when they attempt to imitate the joy in
living which they see as the "essence" of soul and blackness, their cultural
productions may have an air of sham and falseness that may titillate and even move
white audiences yet leave many black folks cold.” (Hooks,1992). I found this statement very intriguing. I could feel the pain and disgust that Hooks has for Madonna, amongst others, when they speak about things that they have no background or knowledge about.
Hooks also makes other great points throughout her article. One example is her discussion about Madonna, amongst other famous white people, that demonstrate ‘blonde ambition’. She also defends Madonna in the fact that she is like other black women who suffer from ‘internal racism’.
I did not agree with everything that Hooks said. I do not know Madonna personally, but I do not think that she is trying to put down or disgrace black culture. Her attempt at a ‘crotch grab’, imitating Michael Jackson, could have been misinterpreted by Hooks. Perhaps Madonna was paying tribute to a great performer instead. I think that Hooks took some of Madonna’s and actions out of context, but she does make valid arguments. I would be interested in reading more articles written by Hooks in the future.

Posted by hanl0083 at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The film review on "This Film is Not Yet Rated" published by the New York Times states that this documentary is entertaining, yet it does not address many practical questions about the movie ratings system. Such as, 'does this ratings system help at all?' and 'how this system could be improved?' The writer of this review points out that Kirby Dick, the director of the film, does not present a piece of work that delves into all sides of the story. Although this might be the case it is made clear that this is an entertaining film and it does bring up some issues that are important for the public to take notice of. This article discusses a film that brings the idea of censorship to a head.

This article relates back to a lot of what was done in class this semester. Censorship in the United States has always been somewhat of an issue. Freedom of speech is allowed in the US, yet there are some restrictions. Many times throughout American history censorship has been used. In the 1960's the counterculture movement was beginning to explode and people were saying how they were feeling and were very open with their thoughts and sexuality. Many people of the time felt this information should be somewhat censored and not brought up. This can be seen in many of the films made in this time period. These films were entertaining and light-hearted. Few, if any, films of this time addressed the many social issues that were being introduced to society.

Censorship is always present in our society. From every idea, to genre of music or type of film - questions of censorship can always be raised. Many people are against censorship in all forms and many people agree with some types of it. This article relates to many ideas from the semester because many ideas in US history have in some way, shape or form been censored before being accepted by society.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bernard Beck in his article “Your Worst Nightmare: The Seige, American History X, and Our Views of Enemies, Foreign and Domestic” critiques the way in which we, as a society, allow drama into our lives, and how much we should actually engage in its consumption. He starts by stating that drama is naturally entertaining, and states that most audiences love to hate villains in a movie. “Children and adults, we get as much if them as we can. So we are always in the market for fresh versions of the exciting conflict that makes the process possible.” Beck believes that this process of viewing conflict and watching villains is most effective when the situations are closest to home, “such as the struggle for survival, danger to loved ones, an attack on our deeply held values, or the persistence of injustice.” (19) Obviously this is true, most of the films made today touch on these topics, but in an exaggerated and dramatized form. Why would anyone want to watch a boring film about something they could care less about? Even “sci-fi” films touch on the basic foundations of a personal struggle. Beck then focuses his attention on a more specific topic, our affinity for villains we can easily recognize, predators whose intentions are made clear in the film, and provide a platform where our own deepest fears and shames can be represented. He also claims that American audiences like to watch villains that represent the “others” that we may also fear in our actual lives: foreigners, terrorists, anyone different or perhaps intimidating to our accepted versions of American life. “Their differences are an insult to our understandings of right and wrong.” (20) However, in this day and age, Beck believes it is difficult to construct a villain because of increasing multiculturalism in society. “It becomes very difficult to cast a member of any group in villain’s role.” He further exploits his thesis by presenting two specific examples in film The Seige and American History X.

Beck believes that these films are good examples of creating the drama and villains audiences desire, and, therefore, have been met with ambivalent receptions by audiences and critics. However, they succeed in the conflicting demands of society (creating a recognizable villain while remaining unbiased) by portraying “their suggestions of ambiguity about the identification of the villains.” (21) Although the movies are both loaded with heavy and extreme illustrations of violence, the dually situated nature of the violence ultimately cancels out any reasonable condemnation of guilt. Beck ends by agreeing that although moviemakers may underestimate American audiences’ ability to take any film with a “grain of salt,” you still can’t assume to know how a particular group of people may feel about their representation in a film. We have witnessed this first hand, for example, in the film Boyz ‘N the Hood: no one can really conclude whether or not the film realistically portrays the life of an urban black male – other than an urban black male that has lived through similar circumstances. Even then, however, he cannot speak for an entire group of people.

Posted by rinas001 at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the film, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, we find a man that is feisty and intellectually engaged in a new documentary that’s trying to uncover the wrongdoings of The Motion Picture Association of America. This man is named Kirby Dick. He is an individual that insist on uncovering this organization as a whole; since it is a remarkably secretive. We find that Mr. Dick has recognized the changing standards with the showing of women sexual pleasure parts of how the MPAA rate movies. For example, the film “The Cooler” show a women’s pubic hair or just even talking about certain outré practices in “A Dirty Shame” were threatened to become an NC-17 films. This really defeats the filmmakers that have contracts to create certain ratings, but can’t because of the rating the film is given. The standards usually compel the filmmakers to cut their films, which could potentially forfeit the height of the plot.
Standards are standards and it shouldn’t matter on the sexual gender as to whether the movie should be moved from R to NC-17. We find that this is discrimination against women in the film industry. There are just as raunchy of films that talk about sex with men or show a man’s butt in them and one doesn’t see an NC-17 rating on the cover. Now a day we find that the standards to ratings have become looser and have let things in that are kind of inappropriate, but that is our culture. We find DVD cases on the store shelves that are rated R, but are also uncensored. What’s this about? Like in the article, aren’t they worried about “thematic elements” being harmful to children?
Today it is known that children know more about sexual culture than even my generation (age 21) knows. We have 12 year olds getting pregnant and wanting to keep the child. Yes, this is the prime age for women’s bodies to carry and birth a child, but it doesn’t mean that they should. I can’t remember what study it was, but they say that because there are such limited spots to play outside or are not encouraged to go outside is the reason that these young children are taking in all this information from television, the internet or even video games. They don’t get the interaction in the brain between other kids that they don’t grow in a way we used to. So in this film if Mr Dick lets the MPAA create a culture that does hide the kind of sexual parody we may create a world where our next generation of children will create those motor skills that this generation lacks.

Posted by carr0445 at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Nadell in his article Boyz N The Hood: A Colonial Analysis discusses the films impact and value that was lost on the mainstream public. He does this by analyzing three factors of the issues the film addresses: “the demoralizing effects of Euro-American racist capitalism on the material and psychosocial existence of the African American masses; the low intensity warfare waged by the Euro-American state apparatus against the Black liberation struggle; and drugs in African American communities” (Nadell, 447).

This argument is supported by Nadell’s discussion that blacks have been under the oppression of whites ever since the expansion of capitalism, thus creating a Third World in which blacks were forced into slavery and colonialism. This oppression has led to many of the issues still faced not only by blacks but all minorities such as “life expectancy, infant mortality, median income, poverty levels, unemployment rates, and quality of education” (Nadell, 449). These are all issues that we discussed at length in class while watching Boyz N The Hood and American History X.

The violence illustrated in Boyz highlights the vicious cycle of violence and homicide that blacks faced in the inner city. Nadell feels that there are two reasons for this cycle, instrumental demand and racial self-alienation. His definition of instrumental demand is what most would understand at first glance, violence used to gain material or benefit. Racial self-alienation, however, refers to the hatred those under oppression feel towards others as a result of their situation. An example of this Nadell discusses is the black police officer who violently hated those of his own race.

The colonialism as a result reinforced the only capitalist idea for blacks under this social oppression, drug trade. Because narcotic trafficking was viewed as a black issue by white society, little was done by the government to deal with it. This further reinforced the idea that blacks were gangsters and were the corrupt, while it can be argued that the elitist white society that created this environment truly holds the blame. Nadell concludes, however, that while Euro-American colonialism led to this situation, the African American people are ultimately responsible to “remedy these maladies” (Nadell, 4611).

I liken Nadell’s viewpoints of black society to depression. When one is in a state where they feel helpless, the idea that there are opportunities can seem impossible. Change and breaking the viscous cycle history repeats is incredibly difficult. Boyz N The Hood and American History X did an excellent job in discussing these challenges and how when in the moment change may not happen overnight. When change does happen for the positive, it is important that the new ideals are reinforced so that history may not repeat itself.

Posted by char0018 at 07:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Boyz N’ the Hood was made to show its audience the current status of what an African-American has to go through everyday to survive. Living with poverty, being influenced by drugs, and living a life of violence is not life that any family wants their kids to experience. This movie is an narration of the economic status of living as in African American in the United States.James Nadell, the auother of “Boyz N The Hood: A Colonial Analysis,” states “The reverberations of this low intensity warfare program and the American racist capitalist system that gave rise to it are felt to this very day and are inextricably linked to the very phenomenology dealt with by Boyz N The Hood.” Nadell discusses three different crises that are used in the film and each is analyzed in his article. The first two crises revolves around the issue of racism and how it effects the society psychologically. Having neighborhoods being watched over by a helicopter and police driving quite frequently just convinces the mind that you are not living in a decent place. Many individuals may even believe they are living in some kind of jail. Being stopped by the police at night for no apparent reason just makes a person question the police's judgment. Those are examples of everyday life displayed in Boyz N' the Hood. How can you beat this racial profiling? Having pride in your culture and your neighborhood. We witness the neighborhood have barbecues and social get together to display their cars. "This"African Americans become immersed in a social substance that filters the toxic elements from the racist American indoctrination system, preserving the basic human impulse toward self-love and self-creation, individually and collectively, as a review of the related literature indicates." Making the best of your day hides the struggle it may seem. The third crises that this article examines is the drug dealing in local African American neighborhoods. The distribution of drugs in neighborhoods, such as the one in Boyz N' the Hood is the typical place where one may want to find narcotics. "African Americans do not control the means of narcotics production, refinement, or international transshipment, and only marginally control the retail, low-end domestic distribution networks." Many believe, such as Malcolm X, blames the government for bringing in the drugs to this country. Nadell assumes that most of America recognizes African Americans to be drug dealers, which is very low on Americans end. Boyz N' the Hood was produced to show the audience of America what is really happening. James Nadell helps readers to understand the current ongoing struggle an African American is forced to endure when living in "the Hood."

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 06:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Your Worst Nightmare: The Siege, American History X, and Our Views of Enemies, Foreign and Domestic by Beck Bernard

This paper states something that is very conceptually interesting: “Dramatic entertainment must have villains” “drama must have conflict at its core”. This is fundamentally descriptive of human nature. A movie that does not have a villain, or at the very least conflict, it is not in human nature to find entertaining. Sadly many films are simply marketing different forms of conflict in order to get its audience’s attention.

As the paper states the conflicts that catch our attention are things we care about such as struggle for survival, danger to loved ones, attacks on our values, or injustice. In movies it is the threat to these things that invokes anxiety and excitement to its viewers. The article shows how minority groups are a perfect example of a group of people who can be made into the villains of films. As many of the characteristics of these groups are not well understood they can be twisted to conflict with our values and beliefs thus providing for a perfect setting in which to have conflict. These themes are extremely effective when they portray what is going on in the real world and instruct the viewer about the actuality of the situation such as in American History X. The minority is set up as the villain but at the same time we learn to understand the villain throughout the movie.

With the state of America as it is now with so much political correctness being enforced it is difficult to depict minorities in anything but a positive light, for if you do it will be heavily contested. Instead, it has become a common movie selling technique to instead glorify minorities, or use the film to lessen stereotypes against minorities thus gaining praise for the film. This current setting makes it difficult to cast any group as the villains.

As is shown in the article it is the need for conflict in the film that brings about the argument to whether or not American History X is a anti-racist film. Out of necessity for a villain the minority is cast in this role, and during film problems with this casting is reversed. Despite this, all of the anti-racist messages are in a way overwhelmed by the initial success of the portrayal of the minority as the villain even though by the end they are no longer portrayed as one.

If it were not for the need of conflict in a film it would be much easier to portray minorities and those being maltreated in a positive light. However due to human nature this is not really a possibility as very few, if any people watching the film would have any interest.

Posted by andre368 at 05:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Moira Hodgson, the author, attempts to demonstrate how MPAA rating decisions had been changing in regards to sex, violence, and language.
She begins by presenting examples of films from the 1970s (though, it should be noted that Midnight Cowboy was from the late sixties) that garnered an X rating. She contends that these films, were they released presently--that is, in 1981, the time she is writing this article--they would only be R rated. This idea is based on examples that demonstrate how sex had become less X-rated, and more commonly R; while violence and language immediately signal that a film should at least be rated R. She then analyzes some of the behind-the-scenes players in the ratings business such as Jack Valenti and Richard Heffner. She asserts that of the "154 films rated R in 1980, 38 contained one single element, such as a word, that netted this rating" (Hodgson 2). This idea brings up a "zero-tolerance" attitude that she sees the MPAA having; yet, this is despite the newfound tolerance for (softcore) sex. Finally, she seeks to show who these ratings are for--as the article's title suggests. She presents several differing opinions, but closes with Jack Valenti's statement that the ratings system does good for both groups because it authoritatively centralizes ratings.
This article is interesting for several reasons. In terms of academic dialogs, conversation between scholars about ratings, this article comes from an interesting time period. Written three years before the PG-13 rating was introduced, the writer is dealing with the vast difference that separates PG and R. This gap is probably one of the major things that contributes to shifting ratings in this period. As she writes, a single word or scene could change the entire rating of a film. She also brings up the idea of art; which Jack Vilenti quickly dismisses saying, "'every director thinks what he has done is special, and it's difficult to tell him it's a piece of garbage.'" However, Hodgson seems to defend the idea of at least context, as in, how the potentially offensive material is presented. Boyz n the Hood, which we watched in class, only presents violence as a necessary element demonstrating the problems and dangers of life in South-Central. Similarly, Hodgson says Raging Bull, a film whose violence was integral to the film, earned an R rating regardless of the necessity. What she does not say is how much the different ratings can affect public opinion, advertising, and many other features of a film. This discrepancy, though, is probably only the result of a writer studying too soon; given another ten years, her perspective on her own time would have been much clearer.

Posted by aretz008 at 03:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Movie Ratings-Do They Serve Hollywood or The Public?, Moira Hodgson argues that regulations on films serve as a form of censorship. She begins by bringing light to how movies were first rated and the reasons behind ratings. She makes a very interesting point when she talks about how a movie on homosexuality (“Cruising”) received an automatic X while another film (“The Postman Always Rings Twice”) with “steamy sexual gropings” did not earn an X. This is a clear example of when a rating may go behind what’s simply pictured on screen. Rather than assessing the film solely on its content, the film was also judged based on the ideas it brings forth. I definitely don’t think this is how it should be. We have seen throughout this class the effect of media on popular culture. By restricting producers in this way, we are limiting what gets out to the public. It’s interesting however that producers use this very system to sell more copies of their films. This is also discussed by Hodgson. She sums up the stance of many producers when she says that they “actually manipulate the system to gain the ratings which they believe will be most helpful in the marketing of their films.” She discusses how sometimes a movie maker will add just one harsh word in their film which will give their film a higher rating. For example, among the 154 films that were rated R in 1980, 38 contained “one single element, such as a word, that netted this rating.” She goes on to talk about censorship and how gives quotes from the CARA chair who says that “There has to be some respect for the people who live between Beverly Hills and New York. We don't have to accept their tyranny, but we must try and satisfy their will without turning to the ultimate tyranny - censorship.”
I think this article was very interesting and I agree with Hodgson in that the rules and regulations of MPAA serve as a form of censorship. I especially like when she says that “the ratings system devised in 1968 by the motion picture industry in an effort to forestall an outbreak of community censorship has reflected a general loosening of community standards.” Its interesting to note that the ratings are based on the “contemporary opinion of parents.” By asserting this, the chairman of CARA is really expanding the limitations of the ratings. It doesn’t seem that there’s a set of rules, rather everything seems very subjective, which can lead to obvious problems. Overall, I really enjoyed this article and thought that the author had many valid points.

Posted by mahmo024 at 03:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nadell suggests that three interwoven features lay at the roots of the tragedies in Boyz in the Hood: effects of Euro-American racist capatilization on African-Americans, Euro-American low intensity warfare against blacks, and drugs in African-American communities. Nadell makes many good points to support this thesis throughout the rest of his aticle. Basically he suggests overall that the impoverished blacks are made so due to forces out of their control, due to reactions to these forces that they could control but don't know how to, and due to the vicious cycle they've fallen into due to history and lack of opportunities.

Nadell talks about how European capatilism has always been fueled by exploitation of third world cultures and in a sense, African-American communities represent an internal third-world relative to America as a whole. He mentions how the CIA was in charge of taking care of the narcotics situation while they were simultaneously facilitating the inward flow of opiates. Boyz in the Hood's Furious Styles points out that blacks are the lower end of the narcotics production-- they don't have the plans or boats to get the drugs, they're just the retail portion of the process. Clearly white forces are behind most of this exchange.

While many people would argue, not unlike American HIstory X's Derek, that blacks ultimately are in charge of their own lives and haven't they gotten enough time to "get over" the impact of slavery already? Yet this article and the movies we've watched in class tell a different story. Doughboy doesn't want to be the way he is, he sees that his life is unsatisfactory and at times he seems to deal with an internal struggle to do better: the end of the film shows him throwing away the rest of the alochol he has routinely drunk throughout the rest of the movie, but then we are told just minutes after that that he gets murdered a few weeks later suggesting that even with good intentions, it's hard to break free of the vicious cycle.

Posted by bergm150 at 02:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The article written by the New York Times Some Material May Be Inappropriate or Mystifying, and the Rating May Be as Well reviews the documentary of This Film Is Not Yet Rated directed by Kirby Dick. This documentary is viewed by the New York Times as intellectually engaging however does not answer tough questions as to what does some language mean and are thematic elements harmful to children. This article talks about how Mr. Dick tries to uncover The Motion Picture of America Association secretive organization. Mr. Dick hires private detectives to sit outside and scribble down licenses plate numbers of the MPAA secret members. The documentary material includes “interviews with filmmakers and scholars, clips from movies that have run into trouble with the board, and occasional sound bites from Mr. Valenti (Scott, 2006)”.
Mr. Dick proceeds to uncover inconsistencies from the MPAA organization. Testimonies from film directors show that the MPAA is very inconsistence with the rating the give. There seems to be no process to their ratings. “The record of its recent decisions suggests
a special squeamishness about depictions of female sexual pleasure and a picayune
fastidiousness about certain body parts. A glimpse of Maria Bello’s pubic hair, for
instance, threatened to doom “The Cooler” to an NC-17. But then again, “A Dirty
Shame,” John Waters’s 2004 film, received the same rating just for talking about certain
outré practices while showing almost no skin at all (Scott, 2006)”. This article gives some of the inconsistence examples from This Film Is Not Yet Rated to demonstrate what Mr. Kirby uncovers. The article states that the MPAA is a “process that often involves guessing just what those standards are (Scott, 2006)”. The New York Times film review by Scott goes on to say that while this is a very intellectual engaging film its clear that Mr. Dick is one-sided clearly defending the film makers. The New York Times feels that Mr. Dick narrow scope focused on movie going and movie making was frustrating because the Times felt that there were other important issues that Mr. Dick could have incorporated into his film.
This article review by the New York Times does an effective job of accurately representing this film. The New York Times interpretation of how Mr. Dick’s scope was too narrow could not have been more correct. There are other issues that people would like to know about like how parents are supposed protect their kids from the inconsistencies of these ratings. Mr. Dick focused too much on the artistic element and would have liked to seen how this rating system could have been improved. This article film critique did an outstanding job in the review of this film and gives an intelligent view point.

Posted by towar003 at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is easy to watch the film, Boyz N The Hood, without grasping the full meaning behind its racial undertones. Nadell makes a deliberate effort to ensure that the significance of the characters’ behaviors is fully comprehended. Nadell accomplishes this task by dissecting the film, breaking it down into its raw components. He first explains the ways in which Euro-America has effected the African American masses, expanding on this with the hand that White America has played in the struggle for African American communities in the United States.

Many White Americans tend to fail to comprehend the hand that Euro-America has played in exploiting African Americans, leading to the lifestyles they live today. James Nadell states that “Euro-American capitalist expansion has in greatest part been fueled by the oppression and exploitation of African and Third World labor and resources” (Nadell, 448). This makes for an interesting perspective that “the enrichment of Euro-American and European elites” goes hand-in-hand with “the corresponding underenrichment of Africans” (Nadell, 448). Industries, financial institutions and mechanisms of American and European businesses were capitalized with the profits derived from the slave trade and colonialism; “The wealth of the Europeans is our wealth too…The wealth which smothers her is that which was stolen from underdeveloped peoples” (Nadell, 448). It is easy to remain ahead when you start ahead, as Euro-America has; however, if you are an ‘underdeveloped’ people, you will remain behind because you have been exploited from the very beginning. Is it any wonder then, that life expectancy, infant mortality, poverty levels, unemployment rates and education quality are so vastly unequal for African Americans in comparison to Whites (Arrigo, 2008).

Nadell expands on this notion of Euro-American overtaking and concurrent “pacification program” by explaining that European and Euro-American excellence was exalted to the degree that it degraded “African and African American modes of existence” (Nadell, 450). It was not enough for the ‘settler’ to overtake the land of the ‘native’, they subsequently demonized the ‘native’ by negating any and all of their morals and values, making them the root of “absolute evil” (Nadell, 450). It is no wonder that White racist societies consistently reinforce the “Anglo-Saxon ideal in the minds of Blacks,” creating destructive feelings of self-hatred and cultural genocide in Black communities (Nadell, 451). The White Supremacist racist is the fuel that feeds the fire in the cycle of reciprocal hatred; one that continues to pull the Black community down, while nurturing and uplifting the privileged White Anglo-Saxon.

Consequently, the ‘real criminal’ in this cycle of destruction is the narcotics trade of the ‘hood (Nadell, 452). Furious exhibits an astonishing portrayal of the mainstream White capitalist media as the real criminal, controlling the means by which African Americans obtain drugs. Narcotics are dispersed throughout the African American communities in an effort to destroy the population from within, while it is “willfully and scandalously ignored by mainstream” media (Nadell, 452).

James Nadell has excellently portrayed the real criminals in this discussion about a film that seems to portray Black youths in the ‘hood as the ‘bad guys’. It is not until one dissects the root of the ‘colonial relationship’ between the ‘colonizer’ and ‘native’ that it becomes clear why African American communities are full of violence, drugs, and resentment toward the White mainstream capitalist media.

- Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Eschew the Unscrupulous Scrupulous
The author Moira Hodgson is arguing that the rating system is not serving the industry, but is hurting it. And she somehow seems to have a contempt for public interest, as if it really doesn't matter in the end. If true,such ideas are, let's face it, small minded. Her thesis is "In the past decade, the rating system devised in 1968 by the motion picture industry in an effort to forestall an outbreak of community censorship has reflected a general loosening of community standards." She seems to have an overall critical view of the system and the people working for it. Her argument is almost entirely critical of the MPAA and the CARA with no two-sided analysis or judgements. I suppose she believes the ratings and the system that creates them like the director Kirby Dick also seems to believe that from a producers or director's standpoint, the rating system is in need of reform or eradication altogether. The overall article talks at least a little about the history, politics, and economics or legal business surrounding the "system." She also talks about some key power players and a number of examples of films that she and others too may believe are contradictory to the motives or the ideology the system operates with. For example, she mentions Mr. Valenti the longtime president of the institution, or Mr. Stern a hired psychologist who ran the board for several years in the 1970's. Some of the films discussed briefly are "Caligula" for an "X" rating being converted to an "MA" rating. She talks about why some "R" rated films are given the rating based on language or violence, like "Outland" or Raging Bull." I think this article fits squarely in the tradition of almost all the films and articles we've seen and read in class so far from what I can see in one important way. It is the familiar ideological perspective of being critical of some institution of power or entity in a one sided way. One sided meaning takes no serious look at the opposing side of ideology that's either in support of the institution of power or entity, or is counter-critical of the article being read or the film being watched. Any film from "Citizen Kane" to "Double Indemnity" being one sided and critical of journalism, the American dream, to "Apocolypse Now" or "Dr. Strangelove" taking a critical or satirical look or regard at the government or the Pentagon, to "Easy Rider" and "Boyz-n-the Hood" or "Talk to Me" being critical of America's inability to change and their stubborness, etc. All of these perspectives from what I can see have almost no context in which they have been taken in. There is no contrast, just one-sidedness. And that's not to say that the one side they do represent is without merit or justification. For example, to say that this article is critical of the rating system and the power that the institution has to force its rules or agenda on anyone making film is like the Pentagon in "Apocolypse Now" or Citizen Kane running a newspaper it is totally unjust and is run by crooks that one can so easily see they're just out looking for themselves and they're not really looking out for everyone that's the public or even those that are in service to them and we have no choice but to rebell against them until we overthrow them like a never ending French revolution and every revolution is like the French revolution is one way of looking at it. But I'm not sure that that should be the end all be all that it is when one reads articles or watches films like this only.

Posted by dahme012 at 07:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This article talks about the race discrimination in L.A. and how music played a part in keeping groups together and pushing them apart. The article takes us back to the 1940’s where it started with the zoot suits. The Bureau of Music was made to control with kinds of music would be allowed. This organization was supposed to “bring proper music to the people of the city.” This meant no R&B or anything associated with minorities.
The article talked a lot about the discrimination of Mexican Americans along with African Americans. In class we mainly talked about the discrimination of African Americans. I want to go back to the zoot suit riots. In the first three weeks of this class we read an article that talked about how by wearing the zoot suits they were making a statement. In the 40’s money was limited and these people were wearing suits with excessive fabric, they were not being conservative. Some owners of stores that sold zoot suits were getting in trouble with the law. This reminded me of something Alexs said during our discussion. It’s the same reason why the hip-hop culture wears their pants on their ass and hats to the side. They wanted to make a statement by the way they dressed and they weren’t going to do it in a way that was republican. “We’re tired of being told we can’t go to this show or that dance hall because we’re Mexican or that we better not be seen on the beach front, or that we can’t wear draped pants or have our haircut the way we want to” (Macias, 695).
All of these new rules that the Bureau of Music were making were to make the minorities more like white suburbia. This has been a theme throughout our class. During the Cold War everyone was considered to be communist, WWII it was the Japanese, and even the Beatles shook up what the government wanted to keep as a “civil” America. Any group that was different from strait American whether it’s hippies or hip hop was treated as a virus and they needed to be disinfected. Blacks and Mexicans were often arrested for disturbing the peace. When they claimed they were doing nothing wrong. To me I think disturbing the peace really means, if you make white people feel uncomfortable.
To me the Bureau of Music is a conforming tool. Every movement that has taken place is represented by a group that looks different and is acting different: the hippies with their music and hip-hop with its dance and rap. The Bureau wanted to sensor it. Make it okay for their youngsters to listen to. Just like in the movie This Film in not yet Rated, even today they are still trying to keep us from the truth of reality. They have been doing this for a long time, all they way back to Double Indemnity. This is why I like Talk to Me; Petey tells it like it is. I don’t know why our country wants to hide us from the truth; I think it’s only hurting us in the long run.

Posted by robak003 at 06:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A.O. Scott, author of "Some Material May be Inappropriate or Mystifying, and the Rating System May be as Well" states "The little boxes that appear at the bottom of the print advertisements are sometimes helpful . . .but they can also be mystifying" (1).

This article examines the documentary, "This Film is Not Yet Rated", which analyzes the rating system of films (i.e. PG-PG-13) and the various criteria (if any) that these rating systems are based on.

The documentary uses various tactics to analyze the film board such as interviews, movie clips, and sound bites. Eventually they even hire a spy to get "inside information" on the various rating board members.

The article goes on to describe how the rating system is a mystery. As evident from the documentary, many inconsistencies are found from the rating of one film to the next. For example, after comparing two films, one with explicit "female sexual pleasure" and one with just talk of sex, they both received the same rating.

Therefore, what makes one film PG and the other PG-13? The answer to this question is fuzzy, which makes one wonder, "if there is not a fixed criteria for rating films, what influences the rating system?"

The answer may lie with popular culture. For instance, the example above states that two films with very different content are rated the same, one dealing with "female sexual pleasure" and the other merely with talk of sex. Is popular culture more or less accepting of "female sexual pleasure" as opposed to "male sexual pleasure"? Either way, popular culture has a hand in deciding movie ratings.

Popular culture influences many other issues discussed in class, for example we examined the power Hollywood (driven by pop culture) has over the content of films. They have the ability to reinforce the values and beliefs of the mainstream if they choose to. In addition, we witnessed the power the government has over film content. This was especially evident during WWII when the OWI controlled all information that went into the U.S. (film, media etc.)

Thus, throughout history, we see that pop culture influences everything from Hollywood filmmakers, to film ratings, to government decisions. The list could go on and on, and will continue to do so until society learns to not take everything they see and hear at face value. One must question the authenticity and motives of mainstream America.

Posted by dollx040 at 05:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The article, Music and the Anti-War Movement, by James Perone chronicles the music of the Vietnam War era. Perone, begins, by dissecting the first of the anti-war music which was mainly focused on an abstract view of war and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. He discussed a lot of Bob Dylan’s songs including “Blowin’ in the Wind” and the song “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” by Pete Seeger. Perone said of Dylan’s song that he brought an “ . . . anti-war, anti-discrimination, anti-apathy message to millions (p. 36).

As the years of progressed and the country became more opposed to the war in Vietnam, the songs reflected the sentiments. Songs became stronger and more accusatory. Left-leaning protest singers tried to sway the government not only through their songs, but also through letters. For example, Joan Baez sent a letter that told the government she would not pay sixty percent of her income tax because she did not want it to go towards military funding.

Oddly, songs that were gentler were able to make an impact as well. Songs such as John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance” and Cat Stevens’s “Peace Train” reflected the “ . . . extent to which objection to Vietnam had become part of general American popular culture” (p.57). It is interesting to look at the changes that took place in lyrics and sounds as the war progressed and American sentiment towards the war changed.

Music was especially crucial in 1970 after the Kent State protests and killings. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young wrote an extremely memorable song followings these events called, “Ohio.” The song was about tin soldiers that represented the National Guard and also placed the blame on President Nixon for the killing of four innocent college kids. Perone wrote that, “his lyrics suggest, in a veiled manner, that the events should serve to galvanize the movement against the prevailing power structure, while simultaneously acknowledging that the situation in America has evolved to the point that the soldiers are now being used against citizenry” (p.62).

This era in history stands apart from all others because of the sheer number of anti-war songs produced. As Perone chronicled the changes in music during this era, the reader is able to understand how music affected citizens and at the same time accurately represented historical events.

Posted by swens389 at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“Boyz N the Hood: A Colonial Analysis” by James Nadell attempts to describe the ways black culture of the early nineties, depicted in Boyz N the Hood, was affected by the exploitation of Euro-American capitalism on the African race, the conflicts between blacks and whites during the “Black liberation struggle” (447), and the drug trade conspiracy facing black culture. Nadell starts off the article describing the ways black culture of the Boyz N the Hood generation was affected by the slave trade when Africans were first brought over to the Americas. The slaves were exploited for capital gain by the whites and this position of power that the whites held affected the black race psychologically because as time progressed, even though the slaves were eventually freed the power was still unofficially held by the whites. This was seen in Boyz N the Hood by the separation between the blacks in Tre’s neighborhood and the predominantly white controlled police force. The exception being the self-hating black police officer, which Nadell says his “hatred of and violence against the very Black people he is supposed to serve and protect is primarily an expression of his own internal conflict with his blackness” (461). I agree with this as Nadell uses it as an example of the black on black conflicts shown in the movie. This analysis is very relevant to the material in other readings and the discussions talked about in class. The black on black struggle was a big part of the Rodney King riots in LA because many of the businesses destroyed in the riots were those of black ownership.

Nadell then describes how the drug trade in the African American communities was linked with a conspiracy theory, which was universal to the “hood”. Nadell connects this to the scene where Furious tells Tre about how blacks only participate in the buying and selling, but the transportation of the drugs to America is completely independent of the black community. This part of the article is less relevant to the material talked about in class because the theme is really only mentioned once in the movie. The topic is important, but I think Nadell did not really connect the topic well to the film because after watching Boyz N the Hood I did not see the drug trade portrayed as a large theme.

The next topic of the article is the colonial origins of racist terms used in the movie, and how they evolved into the derogatory names seen today. The analysis here is good, and it is relevant to the film and some of the class materials. The most important part of this being the hateful words used in the movie towards women. Doughboy continually calls the female characters “hos” and “bitches”. These words were negating what the women’s movement of the 1960s and 70s had tried to prevent, so the use of them by the black characters perpetuates the thought that the black community was alienating itself from the rest of the country. This is somewhat relevant to the class topic of isolation in Los Angeles of the black community. With the lack of transportation, the inner city neighborhoods were not exposed to things outside their own community. Overall, Nadell’s colonial analysis of Boyz N the Hood was partially relevant to class topics by the mentioning of black on black violence, the degradation of women, and the colonial origins of both of these.

Posted by kuni0018 at 05:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Maria Hodgson argues that Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rules and regulations to films can be viewed as a form of censorship to film-makers as well as to producers. She presented good arguments in favor to this system but also presents the fall backs to MPAA decisions. The article itself tells us about films that are able to bypass the rating system because it is not mandatory. It also tells us about Hugh Heffner’s change of his movie from X to R in order to sell more copies. The article finally tells us about the system of G rating to X rating and what they mean. Not only how they are reflected in the MPAA but how society views the movies as either ways of advertising or ways of enticing the viewers.

One of the points the articles addresses is that with out the such organizations like the MPAA a dark curtain would fall on the creativity in cinema. So we are supposed to believe that an organization who, she said it herself, that is not mandatory to get your movies passed thru did not exist that people would have different opinions on their film making abilities? I mean I can see why the author tells us about films like Hugh Heffner’s film and why he needed to change the rating, but to go to the extreme and label film-makers as people affected by this rating as a censorship is a little extreme. I am not saying that film-makers should go crazy and start placing anything on the screen, I am just saying that creativity is not at compromise from this rating system. This article is a little dated because some of the rules have changed for films and what can be rated a PG compared to a R is very different. The author does offer insight into other ratings, such as MA and PG-13 that didn’t exist at the time but do exist today. All in all the authors arguments are supportive but coming to the conclusion that creativity is affected is not something that is at compromise, especially in today’s society with the newest rating system impositions.

Posted by remy0004 at 09:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Throughout history there have been many forms of cultural oppression, creating a dire need for a response. Social groups, such as minorities and European immigrants focused on their own cultures ideologies, such as music, spirituality, and their families, in order to fight off forms of oppression, discrimination, and racism. Although a wide assortment of cultural ideologies have formed a meaning of resistance against oppression, political and gangsta rap music artists were successfully able to urge Americans to pay less attention to the cause of rioting, and instead, focus on institutional discrimination, poverty, and governmental negligence. In the article “Popular Culture as Oppositional Culture: Rap as Resistance,” Theresa Martinez suggests that “political and gangsta rap music artists of the late 1980s and early 1990s were utilizing a bold form of oppositional culture in protest and condemnation of perceived racial formation, institutional discrimination, and urban decay in the inner cities” (Martinez, 266). Through the systematic domination of non-European people, European immigrants struggled against the social, economic, and political forms of discrimination, which ultimately led to the formation of institutional discrimination.

By means of controversial rap and hip-hop, musical artists were able to draw attention to resistance of an oppositional culture through the cultural expression of racial development and inner-city decay. The inspirational, yet sometimes contentious lyrics of rap and hip-hop music brought about an awareness of the nation’s social problems, as well as producing forms of riots that left society in shock. A main point brought about by author Tricia Rose is the controversy of public space, or territory, and the challenging fight of what can be said and within which physical space. For instance, Rose describes rap music as being a “hidden transcript,” in which the lyrics challenge inequalities (Rose, p.100). Rose continues on by arguing that, “Cultural expressions of discontent are no longer protected by the insulated social sites that have historically encouraged the refinement of resistive transcripts” (Rose, p.101). Rap and hip-hop music receive much scrutiny because they challenge dominate social norms/ideologies, yet at the same time, they are readily available to audiences all around the world. Although hip-hop and rap are seen as being controversial, especially in terms of territorial matters, the mere fact that they are able to promote global equality through the sounds and messages of their lyrics is phenomenal. Through creative expressions and voices, rap and hip-hop are able to create a sense of power and belonging through an excursion into different cultures.

Posted by eisl0005 at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)