F06 :: Feminist Film Studies

America's Next Top Model (ANTM) is thick with gender, race, and class issues. I watched an entire season of ANTM to get the big picture of the show. I was going to watch just one episode, but I was hooked into watching more. The girls selected for the show come from all over bringing a diverse set of perspectives and attitudes. The show does a great job is showing several reasonsfor wanting to become a model. It’s kind of like Real World meets Fashion File with a touch of The Price is Right. In the end, each girl decides if the “price is right� for completely giving up all traces of individualism.

Some of the girls know they're pretty, some don’t, and some don’t care. Whatever their view of themselves is, they all want to be what Tyra and the judges think they should be because they all want to win. One girl battles with the “suggestion� of getting the gap between her front teeth fixed. Originally, she doesn’t want to do it. She knows it’s one of the things that create her distinct look from other women; it’s a part of her individual beauty. She’s told by Tyra and the gang that she’s not marketable with her gap and the gap with dominate any photo she’s in. This is one of the many conspicuous statements about female beauty. Ultimately, whatever Tyra and the judges feel beauty is dictates who stays, who goes, and who morphs to fit their standards.

Race plays a significant role in ANTM. Tyra reinforces black and white stereotypes by making comments like, “Girl, you work that booty like a black girl.� This comment was obviously made to a white contestant. Also, she said something along the lines of “Honey, I can’t believe you can’t drop it better than that.� This comment made to a black contestant. There was a photo shoot where the girls had to dance, and the previous comments were delivered after the shoot.

One girl has a southern accent. She’s out right told that she sounds stupid. That’s one of the positive points of ANTM. There is a focus on speaking correctly. Sounding educated and being educated are important. Not all people with southern accents are ignorant, but anyone will tell you that if you’re on TV appealing to a larger audience you cannot have an accent of any kind, unless, you are to be cast in a specific role which calls for a specific accent.

ANTM is able to get away with their attempts to homogenize beauty with their big budget. They have spent top dollar to persuade the public they know what female beauty is. Tyra isn’t cheap. The rest of the judges probably charge a hefty fee as well. Plus, the models participate in elaborate fashion shoots, stay in a gorgeous apartment, and travel to a beautiful country. It’s definitely the fusion of a glossy fashion magazine and TV. The show is actually glossy! There’s so much beauty.

The clothes and make-up the models wear are the best. They usually wear bright attractive colors and are shot in equally attractive settings. The image on the TV would still be pretty without the women. However, having a little or in some cases a lot of skin across the screen only helps the show. Who doesn’t love a half-naked-potential-super-model?

Also, who can argue with Tyra? She’s a super-model for Pete’s sake! Of course she knows what it takes to be a super-model. This gives Tyra her “mama knows best� attitude about everything. The girls just eat it all up. As a result, the public eats it up. Tyra has stacked credentials in the fashion industry and that’s why she’s hosting the show.

America’s Next Top Model has figured out the combination for a long running hit. They have a big budget, big names, and a big mouth. The show doesn’t make apologies. They know they are creating a “universal beauty.� They have the sponsors and the jobs to let them get away with it. The winner of the show gets a huge modeling contract with a huge modeling firm. If they didn’t know what beauty was this couldn’t be possible. They have an air tight opinion of beauty. Sure, you have the right to disagree, but that’s not going to get you paid or get your face in Elle magazine, and it won't stop them from dictating who does.

Posted by Matthew Shapiro at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

If you already dislike rich people then this isn’t the show for you. I watched an episode of Mtv’s “My Super Sweet Sixteen� with the daughter of hip-hop/R&B artist Cee-lo. The premise of this show is to watch a rich spoiled young girl or boy have their parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their 16th birthday party, so they can make a big deal and feel special about themselves. But in the episode I watched the young girl seemed to have no concept of money or working for anything. First she was only turning fifteen, not sixteen and she was still able to keep me watching with her continuous it’s my party and ill cry if I want to attitude. By having shows like this one where a parent spends over $180,000 on a party for their fifteen-year-old daughter it illustrates the where are values rest. The stereotype that the upper class sees themselves as elitists is completely reinforced in this show along with the idea that money equals love. Everything that is wrong in society shows up here.
“Yet RTV constants generally understand that moral weaknesses, body flaws, and intimate betrayals offer the most thrilling evidence of “reality� in the genre.� Myra Mendible, Humiliation, Subjectivity, and Reality TV. I feel that this quote is the direct reason why this show is made. Moral weakness seems to be the driving force behind this one. Where a young girl and her parents have so much money it’s the only way they can communicate. By buying her daughter everything she is giving her “attention� making for a thrilling type of reality. At the end Sophie is given her 180,000-dollar present of a car that she wont be able to drive for at least a year.
With all this in mind we can critically look at who is making this program and the motives behind it. MTV has a lot of power and this show puts it to good use. The content of the show revolves around money, and though editing they market it most towards girls. The title is sweet sixteen, no guys ever really look forward to having a sweet sixteen party even though some are on the show the majority is girls. But the whole show is sparkles and pink glitter. The cuts are fast and always have voices or music going over them to keep your attention. The music is pop crap and radio crap hip-hop, it’s the same music that is always playing on every other MTV show. So by being able to recognize this style it is almost as though MTV is putting their stamp on it. Even at the birthday parties the kids parents go though all the trouble of getting the artist that are on MTV, its kind of like a big add. By directing all of this towards girls it’s setting up the idea that the nicer your possessions the more popular you’ll be, like you can measure your friendship by how many people go to you party. By spending hundreds of thousands of dollars you make all the friends you’ll ever need.

Posted by Alexander Brown at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

View image

OK so this is the second time I have typed this because the first time it did not work and erased everything.
So I watched Hogan Knows Best 3. It is about Terry Hogan who used to be a famous wrestler in the 1980’s and tried to break into film. He now is on this reality show about his family who is Linda the wife, Brooke the daughter and Nick the son. It is about their everyday lives which I find funny because I am sure their lives have changed a great deal since they started this show. The show tries to be like every other show- like the Osborne’s on MTV. This show shows them as one happy family. The mom and dad are in love. The dad is overprotective of his daughter and won’t let her date. The son breaks the rules and is encouraged to chase after the ladies. Mostly the show is about how famous they are (now) and what that means for them everyday. I watched an episode about Brooke mostly. She was trying to get into the Music business. She was in the process of rehearsing and shooting her music video.

Continue reading "Hogan Knows Best" »

Posted by Erica Koby at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OK so this is the second time I have typed this because the first time it did not work and erased everything.
So I watched Hogan Knows Best 3. It is about Terry Hogan who used to be a famous wrestler in the 1980’s and tried to break into film. He now is on this reality show about his family who is Linda the wife, Brooke the daughter and Nick the son. It is about their everyday lives which I find funny because I am sure their lives have changed a great deal since they started this show. The show tries to be like every other show- like the Osborne’s on MTV. This show shows them as one happy family. The mom and dad are in love. The dad is overprotective of his daughter and won’t let her date. The son breaks the rules and is encouraged to chase after the ladies. Mostly the show is about how famous they are (now) and what that means for them everyday. I watched an episode about Brooke mostly. She was trying to get into the Music business. She was in the process of rehearsing and shooting her music video.

Continue reading "Hogan Knows Best" »

Posted by Erica Koby at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched an episode of America’s next Top Model (ANTM). ANTM can be categorized as a competition reality show. It was created by Tyra Banks (the supermodel) in 2003. It originally aired on UPN but is currently on at 8pm Wednesday nights on CW (which is a merger between WB and UPN). Tyra is one of three executive producers of the show, a mentor to the girls in the competition, as well as one of the judges of the competition. There are usually about fourteen girls or so that began the competition. Each episode, the girls are taught something new about modeling like how to look sad but sexy or how to walk the runway. By the end of the episode the girls have to use what they learned in individual photo shoots. A panel of judges looks at each photograph and chooses who is strong enough to stay and who should go home. They begin to just rip apart each girl from head to toe making comments like “her nose looks piggy in this shot� or “she is showing no emotion in her eyes.� The panel of judges includes a runway specialist who is male, an old school female model, a male photographer, a male photo director, and Tyra herself, who sits at the judging table completely glamorized (make-up, hair, outfit) as if to say “this is what you should be aspiring to become.� There are twelve writers/directors of this show, so I wonder if the judges debating on camera about who stays and who goes is real. When a model is informed that she is “still in the running to becoming America’s next top model� she is called before Tyra who is standing on a pedestal, looking down on the model and informing her on what she did good or, more often what she needs to do to improve her appearance. The winner of the competition gets a $100,000 modeling contract with Cover Girl and a photo spread in Elle magazine, so of course, the show is sponsored by Cover Girl. I found that this show has a multitude of gazes. There is, of course, the gaze of the photographer, who was male. The gaze of the photographer is paired with that of the photograph director, who is watching every shot taken on a computer as it is happening. The job of the photo director is to tell the model how to switch up her poses and how to connect with the camera and in this show is also a male. These two double as judges and each model is aware of this while they are posing. We are sometimes shown that the other models are looking on to find out how well the posing model is doing and to hear what sort of praises or the lack there of that she receives from both the photographer and the photograph director. The camera sits side be side with the other models as if we too are one of the competing models watching the shoot. A slightly more complex gaze is that of the “main� camera from which we gain our insight into this “reality� show. There is also the gaze of the entire judging panel as well as the models viewing themselves in photographs. This gaze is interesting in that the models are usually shocked at how they look often times indicating that they don’t recognize themselves. This show has really caught on in other countries. Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Scandinavia, Thailand, Turkey, and the U.K. all have started their own top model shows, some of which are already on their third season.

Posted by Alicia Sims at 5:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

Hogan Knows Best is a part of vh1’s “Celebreality� block. The Hogan family is Hulk (Terry) and Linda with two children Brooke (16-18 years) and Nick (14-16 years). Terry is an overbearing masculine figure. Brooke is treated different then Nick, Nick is allowed to date and is encouraged by his father to hit on and pick up women. One episode Terry is jealous of his sons relationship with his girlfriend and sends a “Hotter� 18 years old girl over to ask his fourteen year old son out. His Daughter Brooke is not allowed to date until she is eighteen, according to Terry all guys are after one thing, sex which he is teaching his son to only think about. The show perpetuates gender inequality by Terry’s thinking he needs to shelter his daughter from boys because he feel she is unable to handle her self while his son is almost pushed into dating, like most fathers he is protecting himself from thoughts of his daughter being sexual and stifling her growth as a person. One episode Brooke is allowed to go on a date, her father places a GPS tracking system in their car to track her, and she is only allowed to go into public areas already planed out. In later episodes Brooke is attempting a pop music career, her father fights all the way against making her sexual. The over sexed media battling an overbearing dad, a corporate system, and a Father battle over the sexual identity of a 17 year old women, she is unable to decided her sexual representations. This creates an completely unrealistic sexual identity, a sweet, pure virgin that is extremely sexual. With pop singer in the late nineties (Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera) conveying the same message a virgin playing sexually promiscuous. No matter how sexually liberal or conservative Brook herself might be it is clear that her family and our culture have denied even the tamest of romantic experience, now promoted as sexual it is clear that she has no representation of her sexuality. Her sexual identity is being decided by the Men in her life.

Posted by Christopher Rose at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What makes a TV. show reality? I watched the Ali G. show for this posting, and some would say it’s not true reality. I don’t think any reality TV show portrays reality; instead they are all themed around the illusion of depicting real life. The makers of any reality TV have so much control over editing, camera work, sets, casting, and episode construction that real events are always skewed in favor to a marketable product. If reality TV was life like, it would be so boring nobody would watch it! Also, when people know they are on camera they are performing, acting out an identity that they or someone else has created for them. This identity forms a loose script for behavior.

Now I turn to the Ali G. Show, an evolved reality show with 3 characters all played by the show’s British creator/writer Sacha Baron Cohen who tours America exploiting ignorance, racism, and sexism with out discrimination or shame. He pokes fun of every aspect of culture, from New York to Texas to Hollywood. He makes fun of bigots, feminists, patriarchy, sports fans, homophobia, patriotic people, and anything else you can think of. And why does he do this? I think he is showing the real American way of living, however varied and ridiculous.

His first Character is Ali G, a white British rapper who thinks he is black, and is lacking understanding of the English language and quite a few brain cells. He asks really stupid questions during the interviews he does, and people take him seriously because he has a camera and an HBO show. But people also think he is really challenged mentally, so they let their guard down, and it’s very interesting and entertaining what comes out.

His second character is Borat, a man from Kazakhstan. He tours America in search of learning the culture. Most people react without surprise when the “foreigner� talks about his culture, where he has insestual relations with his sister, has no running water in his town, and talks about his “krum�. He is perverted, embarrassing, and primitive. Is this offensive to real-life people from Kazakhstan? Usually, but I think the real message is how many Americans view people from former soviet countries. In the episode I watched Borat goes to a karaoke night in a country western bar and sings “a song from his homeland� called throw the Jew down the well. The whole bar is singing along by the end of the song, which at first I thought was really funny, but looking back it is just a disappointment. Borat also goes to a wine tasting class in Texas, where he makes very good friends with the two men giving the class. After heavy drinking from all three men, the waiter comes in to bring more wine. As the (black) man leaves the room Borat asks the (white) men is that man was their slave. The reply was “we can’t call them that anymore�.

The third character, Boris, is the host for the German gay-TV station. He generally shows off the shallow inconsistency in the fashion world, and his favorite it to exploit homophobia. He travels to Miami Beach during spring break, and does a segment with some frat boys who are all about the party atmosphere. They yell P-A-R-T-Y and jump around, slapping butts and showing off their large muscles to Boris. At the and of the segment taping he thanked the guys for being on Gay-TV, at which point they all get really angry, start yelling and freaking out. Boris also attends the annual patriotism fair/conference in the southern part of the country. He does and interview with one of the participants. He ask the man, “what does freedom mean to you, as an American?� The man explains freedom is about being free to do whatever you please, so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else. Boris act like he understands and says “oh I get it, so like I would be free to walk down the street and hold hands with my boyfriend?� the man said no, that is not freedom or American and quickly ended the interview.

To watch a clip of the show: http://www.hbo.com/alig/video/. Watch “peace� to see a fashion show segment, its very funny.

Posted by Emily Burt at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The reality T.V. show that I watched was My Super Sweet Sixteen. This T.V. show is classified as a reality, news/documentary and it is shown on MTV. All the episodes take place in the same area. According to Wikipedia, "The parties are often set in the same towns. Locations that have featured two or more teenagers include La Jolla, California; Newport Beach, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Beverly Hills, California; New York, New York; Scottsdale, Arizona; Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; Miami, Florida, and Erie, Pennsylvania." When trying to find a list of the people who work on making this T.V. show the lists that I came across seemed to be different for each episodes. It seems as though they hire different people to prep each episode or a few episodes and then they get someone else. This episode was about a girl named Chelsi. She is a thin girl with long brown hair and a very pretty face. She knows she is hot and makes sure that everyone knows she is. Chelsi wants this party to be all about her so she is requiring everyone to dress in a white toga while she wears one that is brightly colored. She wants there to be a gaze on her. To prep for her party she has her dress personally made for her, when it isn't what she wants the first time she demands that a new one is made. She then goes to the gym to recruit four men to carry her into the party. In order to pick them she asks them to take off their shirts and the camera looks up and down their bodies. This is the only part of the show where there is a female gaze. Before her party she also has pictures taken of her and her girlfriends. She is the typical stereotype of a snotty, rich girl who has to have everything her way. You see this many times as she is constantly complaining when things aren't going her way or when she isn't getting all the attention. She asks her dad for a car for her birthday because she says that everyone is expecting her to get one. He says he wont but in the end he gives in to her and gets her one. This show is all about teenagers who get what ever they want. It is mostly directed toward teenage girls but there are some teenage boys on the show getting whatever they want. This show is a stereotype creator. Here is a link to some of the reactions of viewers: http://www.tv.com/my-super-sweet-16/show/33149/summary.html

Posted by Renee Wrobel at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched an episode of The Girls Next Door, a show on E! that follows Hugh Heffner’s three girlfriends in their life after being on the cover of Playboy. Many of the shows on E! strive to reveal the lives and stories of celebrities to the world, and in the case of the Heffner girls, their goal is to create humor by drawing from many of the preconceived notions the general public has about Playboy models. The episode I watched was called “Career Dazed� and focused on the girls’ career aspirations of modeling, acting, jewelry designing, and broadcast journalism. Unlike other dating reality shows, the three women featured in this show are not competing for the affection of the bachelor, who is actually only separated from his wife and celebrating his eightieth birthday, but they are content with sharing a romantic relationship while they’re just really good friends with each other. The three women seem to take on specific roles in the house as defined during the opening credits. The first, Holly, plays the role of a cheerleader turned glamour girl, the second, Brigit, a scholarly graduate turned domestic housewife, and Kendra, a tomboy type athlete turned teenage brat. The opening credits to the show are very animated with bright colors and the characters resemble bobble-heads creating an image of something unbelievable and incredibly superficial despite the fact that it’s considered to be reality TV. The music and sound affects added into the scenes contribute to the atmosphere and attitude that the director is trying to convey, such as music that would fit a 50’s family sitcom to create the mood of a happy, traditional home despite the irregular family life and excess wealth as well as using climactic music to bring drama to normally uneventful affairs, creating satire and entertainment for the audience.
As the girls gain more and more recognition and are given the opportunity to excel in their “careers� as public reality TV figures, the message becomes clear that being beautiful is all it takes to succeed in life. All three women have long, platinum blonde hair and Barbie-like figures that are perfected through tanning and makeup. While they are exploring various interests, Brigit mentions that she has a master’s degree in communication studies and explores her new opportunities of broadcast journalism. Rather than highlighting her talents however, they show every mistake and retake necessary to prove that despite college degrees she really is still just a dumb blonde Playboy model. Kendra, the youngest of the three has admittedly the least aspiration towards a career outside the world of modeling and speaks of her enjoyment in being able to have fun while she’s young. However, once again they take what she says in front of the camera, editing it to match what they record her doing at other times, such as having dog responsibilities (showing it her “pimp cane�), doing things she doesn’t want to do (taking a shower when she’d rather continue prancing around in her underwear), and of course her goals (getting a grill so she can be more “gangsta�). However, when she is in a photo shoot for muscle magazine, she is told that she was chosen because they needed someone with personality because the body builder she’s paired with seems to have nothing much past the physical, doing what they can to draw stereotypes of models in general this time (anything he says is inaudible or not included in the cut). Of course during the shoot itself, the photographer makes it clear just how important the physical is as he constantly gapes at Kendra and compliments her perfect body.
As Alison Graham-Bertolini states in the article Joe Millionaire as a Fairy Tale: A Feminist Critique, “Editing convincingly establishes that the women consider this opportunity more important than anything else in their lives. Their degrees, careers, and loved ones are marginalized for the chance to accomplish what is being touted as women’s primary objective, marriage� (Graham-Bertolini, 342). In the same way, the three women in The Girls Next Door are edited in a way that mocks their career goals as something unnecessary and something they are generally incapable of anyways. Instead, they're presented as three "girls" who would really prefer to frolic around in lacy pink underwear with their 80-year-old boyfriend and that the idea of doing something that interests them is just a silly, dismissive idea that Hugh allows them to indulge despite how unrealistic it is.

Posted by Lisa Peplinski at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night I watched an episode of America’s Next Top Model. (As a few people have also written about this show, I will forgo an explanation of the premise.) What I find different about this show compared to other Reality TV shows is that the girls are competing for a job, so the whole show is sort of like a weird prolonged job interview. In this way, I do not think that the show is quite as humiliating as others--Fear Factor for example, in which people do and eat outrageous things for money. In the article on RTV in our course packet by Ross & Moorti, they discuss how participation in RTV programs is a form of humiliation. While not to the extent of other shows, humiliation is still seen in America’s Next Top Model. The whole show is basically revolved around the bodies of women, and for some, this focus could be embarrassing, but for the girls who would apply for this show, they take pleasure in being looked at. The humiliation really comes in at the end of each episode when they stand before a panel of “experts� and are judged based on their bodies, faces, and photographs. At the mercy of these experts, the girls will take all the harsh comments that the panel dishes out and are expected to be grateful for the opinions of such esteemed individuals. It is sad to see women being so blatantly judged based on their bodies, and I hate to think of the message this show is sending young girls who watch it.
One thing that stuck out for me in watching this show was the fact that two of the contestants are just 18 years old. They are twins (one of which was kicked off), and it was just said in passing that they are only 18. (I am not sure of the ages of any other participants) But this seemed sad to me because these are really just young girls who are thrown into this demanding, critical situation. It is worrisome that their bodies are such a focus at this young of an age, because they might not always be so thin yet they put so much value on their appearance.
One other thing that I have thought about in regard to this assignment: Many people will say “Reality� TV, putting quotes around “reality� as if it is not actually real. While I have done this too and definitely understand how so many “reality� shows are far from the reality that most people live, I think there is something to be thought about in the fact that this truly is reality for the contestants of these shows. Even though the shows are made for entertainment and so much editing takes places that what the viewer sees is a manipulated product, the participants in these shows are in fact living these experiences and this is their own reality, this is their life…just something I have thought about.

Posted by Colleen Straiton at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We are all guilty of watching at least one reality TV show during our lifetime. Since I have started college I have not had much time to watch much TV, but during high school and during the summer, before I had a job, I watched them constantly. The ones I enjoyed most were makeover shows. But I watched shows from Extreme Makeover to Fear Factor. And when I was in the early years oh high school, I watched a lot of dating shows- the one I watched most often was Elimidate. So I decided to visit my younger days by watching another episode of that for this assignment. And looking back at that I hope I only watched it because there was nothing else on. So here is how it works, the show starts out with four flawless looking girls and one guy, and the point of the show is for the guy to eliminate one girl every round so he can be with the last one (the girl he likes out of the four). So the whole time you are watching four, skinny, barely dressed girls competing for this one man’s attention. There are two things wrong with this picture; one, the TV show attracts the attention of a young audience like me in high school, and it presents the idea that you need to look a certain way (skinny and flawless) and you need to dress a certain way (barley dress at all) in order to gain a man’s attention and approval (as if your existence depended and revolved around that). Second, is showed beautiful women going out of their way to please a guy. Basically the point was not to be eliminated, so they were to do anything that the man asked to stay in the game. If that meant it was necessary to strip and get into a hoot tub with a man and three women you did not know, then so be it. If it meant making out with the guy on demand, then that’s what you have to do. So it taught young girls to do what is necessary to get that one man you are after, even if it means degrading or humiliating yourself.
The women on this show were usually white, skinny, with nice hair, flawless skin, and perfect teeth. They were usually very scantly dressed to show off their “perfect� bodies in order to impress the one man they are trying to get. The men on the show were usually between the average to good-looking range and, of course, were pleased with the idea that multiple women are competing for their affection and would bend over on demand. It portrayed women as weak and slave like (that they have to correspond with the man’s every demands). It is even more disturbing when these women got into fights over the man. One particular episode, one woman got out of her seat and went to spell her drink on another one because the man asked her to do something daring and that woman was bothering her. In another episode two women got into a fight and one of them tells the other that she is not going to take her seriously because she is fashion retarded for wearing white after labor day; are you serious, all that for some guy. Just like Marla Harris said in Gender Trouble in Paradise (Hotel), or a Good Woman is Hard to Find “…women are readily typecast by fellow contestants as bitches, flirts, sluts, and nags.� Imagine how many girls actually watched this in high school? What kind of message did they receive, be a slave to male dominance?

Posted by Saly Abdalla at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.mtv.com/ontv/dyn/realworld-season18/series.jhtml
I watched the first episode of the 2006 “The Real World� – Denver on MTV. “The Real World� was created for MTV by Jon Murray and Mary-Ellis Bunim of Bunim-Murray Productions and Jon Murray serves as the Executive Producer. Jim Johnston and Joyce Corrington serve as Co-Executive Producers of “The Real World: Denver.� Drew Tappon and Jacquelyn French are executives in charge of production. The Real World is a reality show about “7 strangers living in one house� with different personalities and beliefs. The punch line of the show is to “find out what happens when people stop being polite� to each other. I have 2 categories for the reality shows: the “real� reality TV and the “constructed� reality TV. In my opinion “The Real World� qualifies as the constructed reality because of the amount of editing required. Interestingly, there were no names of the camera or editing crew to be found. I feel that the show has gained this much exposure mostly because of the efforts of the camera and the editing crew. These 7 strangers live in a house with cameras located everywhere, leaving them no privacy. Their days are taped 24/7 and that’s when the editing crew steps in to piece together an episode. They have to take hours and hours of footage and determine what they should include in the 30-45 minutes that will air. This is where the “construction� of reality begins. The camera crew accompanies the cast where ever they go. When the cast mates go clubbing is when the crew uses hand held cameras – to be able to keep up with the events. I find it interesting that whenever there is conflict – it will air. Sometimes we even see how things are taken out of context through editing. We will never know the “real� cast mates – we will only see them in the way that the producers want to portray them to us and what sells in our controversial world. From the bars they go to, to the clothes they wear – the cast mates are coached or provoked to unknowingly frame themselves as a certain personality. The only chance we have to get to know them is the “confessional� style room. This is where the member of the cast can come to, lounge on comfy pillows, and have a heart to heart with a camera. I believe it is even more complex from there because the camera serves as a therapist. But the gaze of the camera is the gaze of the audience – that member of the cast lets us into his/her personality and issues. Further, that same cast mate lets us use their gaze onto the other cast mates. We, as an audience, use their gaze to see what that cast mate sees in their roommates. I think it is a very complex exchange of looks because every cast mate gives the audience a chance to do that. In the same sense our gaze is persuaded by theirs.
So, we meet the cast of “The Real World� – Denver. In the premiere episode, Colie, Jenn, Tyrie, Alex, Brooke, Davis, and Stephen move into their fabulous new house in Denver and waste no time getting to know each other. I have noticed that all Real World seasons have a basic recipe for a conflict. You have Brooke, the southern belle; Jenn, the “crazy�, anything goes, ex-cheerleader; Colie, the girl that likes to party and make out; Tyrie, the large black male with great sports ability; Stephen, a conservative, very religious, anti-homosexual black male, Alex, the hot white playboy; and finally, as Tara Kachgal said: “Look at The Real World. There's always a gay teen on there." - The white, homosexual, religious male – Davis. The stage is set for conflict right off the bat when Alex hooks up with Colie and Jenn in the first 48 hours. And things heat up when Stephen tells Davis he thinks it’s wrong to be gay. In this episode MTV has stepped up and is focusing on the relation of religion and homosexuality since that was the main point of the first episode. The problem I am having with this is that the presence of a homosexual in this house is supposed to be normal and accepted since MTV launched its anti-discrimination platform in 2001. But that is not the case. Even Davis himself is uncomfortable to come out to his cast mates and essentially remains in the closet. Before he was put on the spot with a question, he was willing to hide his sexual orientation so no one else was uncomfortable to live with him in this house. Even Brooke, from the beginning of the show kept asking who was gay. As she put it: “It is more fun and interesting if someone is gay. I am disappointed that no one is."
I am disappointed that, as an audience, including myself, we have come to the point where unless there is someone on the show can be humiliated or rejected for something they are or they believe in - it is not fun or interesting for us to watch. I had a psychology professor that once told me that as humans, we are afraid of not being accepted for who we are and because we can witness on TV what happens in certain situations, we can choose to be ourselves or not. So what kind of an example is The Real World to us that instead examining the relationships between strangers, we are willing to sacrifice our own beliefs so we can feel normal by watching someone that is not like us be rejected in front of the whole nation? Tara Kachgal describes “The Real World� as: “The absence of overt television portrayals has reproduces youth homosexuality as deviant and other, achieving what some term, symbolic annihilation."
I think the biggest issue with shows like this one is that teens that are watching them can be persuaded by them tremendously. A gay teen may have watched this episode and felt ashamed of being gay because it was not accepted by some of the cast mates, and more importantly, it was not fully accepted by Davis. According to bell hooks we need to look closely at motivational representation. From my understanding, everything we see - from still pictures, to reality shows, and to the movies – is shown to us for a reason. Someone is “buying� what they portray. We have to be critical of how we choose to use that representation because someone always creates it.

Posted by Nodira Ismoilova at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't generally watch reality tv, partly because I don't have cable, but also because I find most of it to be uninteresting and trashy. However, one show that I actually did watch more than 5 minutes of is Flavor of Love. The premise of the show is a typical Bachelor type show, but instead of the normal bachelor, it features Flava Flav. On the Bachelor, the man who is the bachelor is rich and attractive with a wide appeal. On Flavor of Love, Flava Flav is a not very well known musician who is known more for his eccentricities than his music. He is not very attractive, he is short and wears strange clothing, but somehow VH1 found a group of women who want to date and even marry him. Flavor of Love is a warped version of the Bachelor, but whether it is trying to emulate or mock the Bachelor is unclear. Certainly the format is similar, but the people make it more comedic than romantic. Many of the women who are trying to be with Flav are pathetic and strange. Why they are attracted to him is not clear. As far as celebrities go, Flava Flav is not that famous, sucessful or rich. If Flav is just considered as a normal guy, he is far from handsome and does not seem intelligent or cultured. The only thing he has going for him is that he is somewhat famous and rich and seems to be a nice guy. As in the Humiliation article by Mendible, the humiliation of these women is clear. They are portrayed as strange for even wanting to be on the show and marry Flav. On top of this there are the typical fights over Flav that occur on most bachelor shows, which seem even more pathetic because they are fighting over Flava Flav. Many of the women seem so desperate to be with anyone that they would do anything to be with Flav. Mendible says that a trait of humiliation in reality tv is that, "the victim is made passive and conscious of the humiliating act, while perpetrators must be aware of the victim's condition and derive satisfaction from it." (336) Everyone on the show is aware of the humiliation going on, Flava Flav, the women and the writers/producers. Not surprisingly Flav enjoys the humiliation when they are fighting over him, and the women enjoy seeing others be humilated as long as its not them. When fights ensue many of the women stand back and smile. Not only is this show humiliating for the women because of embarassing situations like fighting, but the fact that they have no choice but to like this unattractive man and fight over him is demeaning. The women have no agency and can't decide during the show that once they get to know Flav that they aren't interested in him, they must fight blindly for him. Obviously they do have a choice, the choice to be on the show or not, but once they decide to be on it they must play along. Like the Bachelor, Flavor of Love perpetuates gender stereotypes and encourages a heterosexual norm, but in addition to this it humiliates women even more by having them compete over someone not especially desirable.

Posted by Nora Goustin at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I will admit that Laguna Beach is a guilty pleasure of mine. The show starts with a black screen that tells the audience “the events and the drama are real�. Aside from the opening proclamation, you would never know that the show is reality. The show is missing one of the key stamps of reality TV, the confessional. At no point do the characters acknowledge that they are being filmed. The audience is supposed to feel as though they are simply observing the lives of the rich and fabulous teens of a hip California city. The full title of the show is ‘Laguna Beach: The Real OC�. The show came out about a year after the OC had been in syndication. I am guessing that this was MTV’s shot at bringing back the audience they may have lost because of The OC’ s popularity. It seemed to work. Laguna Beach has had a very similar following. The show is shot almost as if it is The OC. On of the markers that it is not are the titles that flash across the bottom of the screen to inform the audience whose drama they are watching. The main characters Kristin, LC and Stephen get the privilege of just their name popping up when they enter a scene. The rest of the cast is always labeled in relationship to these characters. Lo is always presented and Lo: LC’s friend. My personal favorite was Dieter: Stephen’s wingman. The show is shot like a sitcom, with typical MTV tunes in the background. It caters to the chic dream of living a stylish west coast lifestyle. Being rich without being famous.

I think the reason I enjoy the show so much is because of Kristin's character. Kristin, like the majority of the shows characters, is self absorbed and superficial. What I like about Kristin is she is refreshingly honest (in Laguna Beach terms) and she has a sort of no nonsense attitude. Men drive almost all of the main female characters on the show. Characters like LC, and Jessica spend each episode obsessed with boys, how boys see them, what they can do to make boys happy and what girls they will need to step on to get to the boys. These girls accept mistreatment and humiliation from the boys on the show, in hopes of getting back together and winning their affections. Time after time Jessica's boyfriend cheats on her, or is simply mean to her, and yet she always runs back to him, even if they are broken up. This makes the show very frustrating to watch. As a woman it is painful to see the things girls do to themselves and others for guys, especially guys who clearly do not care about them.

Kristin on the other hand reverses these stereotypes. She drives much of the story. Guys are always vying for her attention and when she is sick of a guy then she is sick of the guy. Through much of the first season Kristin determines the course of the relationship between her and Stephen, while Stephen determines his relationship with LC. Although Kristin is sometimes mean insensitive and promiscuous, she presents a refreshing opposite to the passive and submissive female characters. Although Kristin can be selfish, mean and insensitive she, like the boys, gets away with it. Kristin’s character represents a rise in gender equality. She is able to handle her sexuality the way men have for many years. Marla Harris discusses gender equality and sexual liberation. She sites that other shows, such as “Paradise Hotel� feature women who are driven by their own sexuality and will step on anyone they can to get what they want. This reality TV show depicts a young woman who is funny, beautiful, and well liked behaving in the way she wants to. She is in control of her sexuality and relationships. Although the setting leaves something to be desired, the show is a small step in the right direction in terms of feminine sexuality.

Posted by Allison Rogne at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you ever heard the term “Fashion police?� Growing up, it was often used in my house when my dad would wear things that made him look un-kept, and not flattering. Hosts Stacy and Clinton of the television show What Not to Wear can be considered fashion police for Americans today. While watching and analyzing an episode over the weekend, they made some interesting comments and helped a woman improve her self esteem.

The woman on the episode I watched, Christina, was in her late 30’s but “tried dressing like she was still 20.� She was in need of assistance with improving her style. With the help of the show, she walked away with a new sense of pride and power. Stacy, Clinton, and the rest of the What Not to Wear staff helped this lady immensely. They started by analyzing her outfits from the past couple weeks. While watching the videos they had of her and going through her clothes, she realized that some of the things she wears are not flattering to her. It was never the case that they brought her self esteem down; they were very helpful and always had productive criticism.

After Christina discovered her style could use an adjustment, What Not to Wear was more than helpful in finding her clothes that were figure flattering, stylish, and comfortable for Christina. They took into consideration her personal style interests but explained to her why some things are not appropriate in certain situations. Instead of only criticizing Christina, Stacy and Clinton were helpful and made productive comments. They also overcame an issue that is largely at hand in today’s society. As discussed in the “Introduction: Gender and the Plus Size Body,� society is trying to accept every size. But Sujata Moortia and Karen Ross say different, what in my opinion is really the case.

“To me it seems clear that “size acceptance� is limited only to the “average� rather than to all sizes…And yet there are surely many women like Wann, whose weight is no physical impediment, but whose bodies are deemed “unacceptable.��

Stacy and Clinton do a good job of accepting Christina’s body shape and helping her feel good about herself as opposed to making her feel like she needs to change.

Where some might criticize What Not to Wear, they do a good job at empowering women and helping them feel better about themselves. Watching this episode and others in the past, the end of the show is almost always positive. The women feel great about themselves in real life situations, not just when going to a party or a big event. They often end up having a new feminine side they are often excited to show off to their friends and family. They have a new appreciation for themselves and have confidence that was not present before their makeover. To be able to have self confidence is one of the most difficult things for women in today’s society. What Not to Wear helps many women overcome the low self esteem some say they have or simply give those that do not have low self esteem extra confidence they did not know they had within them.

Posted by Kelsey Buckley at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

‘Project Runway’ has typically been called an “un-reality� reality television program since it purports to be a contest literally based upon one’s skill, yet it is also a reality television program intrinsically bound up in the industry itself – that is, whatever skill you may have, you have to be marketable, and marketable to a specific audience that ranges from Nicky Hilton to the “sophisticated� women who shop at Banana Republic. As if it’s not blatant, the marketable audience is a white audience. Therefore when I saw several reruns of the second season, I paid specific attention to the token black designer, Zulema Griffin; it may also be key to note that Griffin is a dark-skinned black woman, not light-skinned. To note: Asian women are often featured, though they are edited to appear docile, hardworking, and relatively silent (Season 2 winner Chloe Dao had perhaps one sequence, which focused on her feelings on being referred to as a "patternmaker (aka seamstress)" rather than a designer – so despite her chops, which garnered her the win, she was not flashy enough to be a persona of note). It is two specific episodes that I think embody the idea that a television program bound up in fashion, where black womens’ bodies are commodified as objects, it is the occupation of the creative position that dredges up messy questions of gender, race, sexuality, and class, and how the reality machine works to create biased, contrived portraits of their contestants.
In doing some background work on Griffin, I discovered an interview she did with The Advocate in which she talks about how her lesbianism was completely written out of the show, yet, when she applied as a contestant, they required dating history “10 years back.� She stated not thinking it was of any import whether she was a lesbian or not, but in the assumption that the male contestants on season 2, including Tim Gunn, their mentor/critic, and Michael Kors, one of the mainstay panel judges, there is no shying away from the fact that there is an unspoken norm that gay men seem to inherently “belong� in the fashion industry. In a telling scene, Griffin is pitted as hooks’ “Sapphire� (hooks, 202) against fellow contestant, and gay man, Nick, wherein he continually refers to her as a “bitch� for stealing his model. In yet another episode, Griffin is teamed with fellow white female designer, Kara, and Griffin’s incessant nagging and hard-assing reduces her to tears, and near inability to function. In short, rather than being played off to soften an [absent] black man, Griffin was shored up as a controlling Sapphire, and relentless at that; however, it seems merely to me that she is forced to fight to be taken seriously as a black lesbian designer in an industry that wants their designers largely white, and often men, and their gay designers almost solely in the form of white men.
The episode in which Griffin is “Auf-ed,� the challenge is to use “inspiration� to make a garment. She photographs a black woman on the street wearing a dashiki, and utilizes the inspiration of African form and tradition to make a dress. She is chastised for its “frumpiness,� stating that it doesn’t – altogether now! – make the model look thin[ner], as it just a "sack (aversion to not specifically Euro-Western design)" and is therefore criticized for being technically inferior. Tim Gunn states that her failure was in using “another dress� as her inspiration, rather than something wholly new (denying the meaning behind her inspirational choice as a black woman). The most telling parallel for me in explaining this aspect of design is in the 3rd season when Michael, the token black designer and crowd favorite (as opposed to Griffin as Sapphire), is continually told that his skill is in “sportswear,� and that he shouldn’t bother with “evening wear.� This brings up the argument Ann duCille makes in saying that the “Black ain’t yar; it’s yo,’� and that the black body “is quintessentially cast(e) as...the ‘low-Other.’� (duCille, “The Colour of Class: Classifying Race in the Popular Imagination,� 412) In short, Griffin was in a way doomed to be relegated to designing street wear at best, and her attempts at high fashion, or haute couture were misunderstood because it is simply unimaginable to think of couture as anything but white (it was the couture challenge that nearly “Auf-ed� Michael). (Ibid, 410)
To speak of lesbianism for a moment, if “fashion� without any addendums is read in part as gay, what would lesbian fashion look like? According to Guy Treaby of the NY Times, “It is the subtle incorporation of butch femme dualities...into mainstream fashion that most clearly signals the influence of gay women in the garment industry,� and the mixing of “street and high-end fashion,� creating a “tomboy glamour.� (Treaby, “The Subtle Power of Lesbian Style,� 1-2) It is the same trite notion that being gay implies being able to draw equally from masculinity and femininity, and that gay/lesbian fashion will be a natural incorporation of the two: yet, while lesbian designers (I’m assuming these lesbians are white) are apparently working over womenswear to make it meatier, gay designers (at least on PR) are given free reign to glam up women (since menswear is not part of the competition in general). So, where does Griffin fit into this industry? In my mind, the competition gives her a canned role as a controlling black woman unwilling (or incapable) to sway to the demands of the show and its prescribed “level� of design, yet it also seems a result of simply, not quite knowing what to do with her. If high fashion is so strictly white, male, and by extension gay, then where is a black woman lesbian identity to fit? Relegated again to the lower echelons, she is booted off the show as an example of the ‘low-Other’ whose inability to ‘pass,’ or fit into codified notions of the industry, simply cast her aside.

Posted by Beth Chekola at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Over the Thanksgiving break I spend about 30 minutes watching an old rerun of The Real World: Austin. Their show starts off by an introduction which claims that “this is the true story of seven strangers picked to live in a house and have their lives taped. Find out what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real.� In my personal opinion I thought the show was extremely superficial in regarding to how “real� their lives were suppose to be. The show to me is very phony because a lot of what we see on T.V is edited to make it look like it all happened in a certain timeline. All the houses have cameras everywhere, and there's a clause in the contract of each housemate that says they're not allowed to go places where the cameras are not allowed in. Having cameras everywhere, I would assume that everyone puts on a certain act. Anyway in the show, there was a lot of drama, arguing, fighting, bitching, sex with strangers and drunkness. Throughout the show, the seven people living in the house demonstrates the concept that gender is indeed socially constructed and performed through their behaviors, how they carry themselves, what they wear, how they speak and what they do.

The episode that I watched was basically about one girl by the name of Johanna who is unclear about her love between Wes and a local bartender. On the subject matter of gender performance, Johanna was always emotional and did a lot of crying because she didn’t really know what she wants whereas Wes was always aggressive and acted tough and masculine. This image represents the stereotypes that women are weak and fragile whereas men are strong and stable.

Whenever going out, all the girls (except for one) are dressed in short mini-skirts, revealing tops and in high heels. The girl who didn’t wear such clothing (whose name is Lacey) was obviously the least popular one in the house and she is what I would consider to fall in the category of cultural imperialism. As Iris Marion Young stated in The Scaling of Bodies and the Politics of Identity, “cultural imperialism consists in a group’s being invisible at the same time that it is marked out and stereotyped.� Lacy is consider as deviant or the other just because she isn’t girly and feminine enough and as a result the guy in the house find her to be ugly and unattractive (hence the fact that all the other girls have some sort of relationship/bond with the guys in the house except for her). Regarding to look, The Real World has never hire a girl who is fat for the show and it seems like the show is always trying to add at least one person of color (tokenism) to downplay diversity. All in all, throughout the show it’s evident that the girls act in a different way from the guys. The girl being girlish and the man being manly. This goes to prove that the way people act reinforce their gender status as what it is to be a women or a men and as Tara Kachgal quoted “like talk shows, reality television potentially puts into questions rigid orthodoxies supporting “proper� gender and sexual identities� (The Real World).

Posted by Pang Xiong at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Shocked really doesn’t describe my feeling towards the way this reality television show projects beauty-- ashamed might come close, but appalled would be much more accurate.
This show follows two doctors, Dr. Ray and Dr. Diamond, through their patriarchal practices in Beverly Hills as they help their patients become ‘normal,’ and ‘perfect.’
What is considered perfect inside this fabricated TV. world is disgusting-- both the doctors home lives (which are detailed to fill time during the show) are mirrors of this negative image. For example, multiple times throughout the episode Dr. Ray makes note of his ‘93 pound’ wife as genetically blessed, then continues to ignore her on all other fronts. She is merely there to give the show one more pretty face, or perhaps attract viewers by displaying the humiliation caused by her marriage-- either way her role in the episode causes a saddened headshake. Dr. Diamond makes less of a show of his trophy wife, but in this episode he was trying to convince her to quit her job (also a practicing physician) so she could stay home and take care of their childless new house. This show screams backward, and reflects the increasing problems our society has with how they look.
The two people actually receiving surgery procedures were west coast exotic dancers. They both felt the surgeries would increase the amount of money that they made at work by giving them the ability to feel sexier and more confident on stage. Jay wanted his nose straight, and Liz wanted new breast implants. Both patients were coerced by their doctors into a larger procedure than originally planed. For Jay it was a new chin, and for Liz it was a much bigger implant than she had planned on.
It made sense to read that the number of plastic surgery procedures has increased over the past twenty years, but I couldn’t believe how much. According to the Bordo article the number of annual procedures in ’89 was around 700,000 while twelve years later that number had jumped to 8.5 million. She attributed the increase to the willingness of doctors to commit procedures purely for aesthetic reasons, and not actual health benefits. The way Dr. Ray and Dr. Diamond push their practice of perfection on their patients reflects that trend.
Even without a barrage of tasteless commercials and advertisements, Dr. 90210 pumps an unrealistic, unhealthy, and unobtainable body image onto its viewers. What I want to know is why people are tuning into such a show? Is it actually believed that this type of entertainment has no effect on people? Look at what happened in Fiji-- look what is happening here. The correlations are not hard to make, but the public continues to tune in. WHY?

blog augmentation:::

okay, so I watched this episode two more times in order to catch some of the context and form aspects of it and now I'm even more disgusted with TV than before. As far as filmic construction goes, I noticed that all the shots in-between scenes where either of expensive cars, or headless skirts gyrating down the beverly hills sidewalk. Also, the time spent telling the story of the female dancer was over twice that of the time spent telling the back-story of the male dancer. I guess cop uniforms and latin spandex don't get the ratings that pole lessons and censor blurs do.... or is there something else going on here??
This led me to wonder about context-- who was benefiting from this show, and it was quite interesting to find out that at the end of this atrocity of an episode no credits rolled. Are the producers embarrassed? Are the writers ashamed?
Fortunately for me I am now finished with this assignment and can once again go back to ignoring all the mind mutation that goes on between viewer and television screen. However, I thought I'd leave this electronic space with two quotes just to document why I turn my head from primetime.

dr. diamond in regard's to jay's nose:

" your chin is a little bit weak, i think an implant would really give you a more masculine look"

dr. rey in regard's to liz's chest (okay i have two for him because this guy was wacked out)

(while liz is under the knife) "just look at how ugly that is... ugly. ugly. ugly."
(post surgery interview) "in about a month liz's swelling will go down, and she'll have that really beautiful seventeen year old look"

WHAT THE YUCK!!!!-- and i'll just leave it at that.

Posted by Fletcher Barnhill at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Myra Mendible, in “Humiliation, Subjectivity, and Reality TV,� writes that in 1996, Avaishai Margalit said, “humiliation involves treating human beings as if they were ‘merely things, tools, animals, sub-humans, or inferior humans.’� In “America’s Next Top Model,� the contestants could not fit this definition more perfectly. They are not “people� (although Tyra’s infrequent bonding/therapy sessions with the girls may have you think otherwise). They are “models.� They are there to stretch and morph and make-up their bodies and faces until they look like a product, a tool, for selling clothes. They are told throughout the series, by judges, photographers, and fashion designers, that they are “canvases,� blank slates, there to be molded into the client’s vision, regardless of the actual person and emotions and intellect beneath the skin. They are tools. The means to an end.

And they are often humiliated. Alessandra Stanley wrote in the New York Times in 2002, “humiliation is the unifying principle behind a successful reality show.� In “America’s Next Top Model,� the contestants are constantly shown as stupid, inept, and odd, despite being recognized for a perceived beauty. In front of judges, they’re critiqued for not having enough personality. For making a biting comment to a photographer. For being too “porn-star looking� or “boring� or “adolescent.� In photo shoots, where they’re made to pose in painful looking, odd, poses, sometimes in front of wide animals, like a bull, which often causes them to run in fear, and appear idiotic on screen. When learning how to walk down a runway, they’re laughed at and made fun of when their walks aren’t up to par. And the viewers, along with the show’s judges, often laugh along, enjoying watching these “beautiful� women display their imperfections, thus making the audience feel better about themselves.

The women are also blatantly ranked, in a “scaling of bodies� that is, ultimately, the point of “America’s Next Top Model.� Not only do the judges rank the contestants bodies, but in Episode 10, of season seven, the models are asked to point out, in front of each other, which model they think has the most and least potential. In this way, the contestants are forced to rank and demean each other, a move that causes distress for the women who live and work together on the show, and ultimately, more drama for the viewers at home to salivate at.

Posted by Kristen Mueller at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Reality TV show entitled “The Girls Next Door� is a show in which cameras follow around three playmates, Bridget, Kendra, and Holly, as they live their lives in the playboy mansion. All three of the women are about the same height, have long smooth and shiny blonde hair and have all admitted to having boob jobs. The three playmates act like they are ‘above’ everyone else in the sense that they are the queens of their castle, the playboy mansion. The three women have three different personalities. Bridget is the girly girl who loves the color pink, cute little animals, and talks in a very high pitch voice. Kendra is the athletic girl who loves to talk about sports and can be seen as the “bitchy� girl who is often times complaining. Holly is the “housewife� type girl who wears pearls and acts as a mother figure to the other two girls and is shown to be actually dating Hefner. Even though the women are shown to be more then one dimensional, none of the women cook, do any housework or work of any kind so they can be seen to be utterly ‘useless’ without their looks which is the only thing that the women need to worry about. The main thing that these three women have in common is that in the show they are constantly showing off their bodies in some form or another in every outfit that they wear, which illustrates the shows dominant male gaze. To sum up the type of people that are on the show these four main characters all share the same intersectionality by being all white, rich, and straight. Iris Marion Young’s article “The Scaling of Bodies� is a perfect article to explain this TV show’s situation of narrowing down the ‘acceptable’ appearance of women to a slim minority. The three women are shown as the perfect example of what sexy women ‘should’ look like and how in effect these women should act. There are no women on the show that are above as size 4 in pant size and below a C-cup in bra size. The way that these women are ranked is only on the appearance of their bodies. Even though Bridget, Kendra, and Holly are each shown to have different personalities whenever Hefner is in the room all the women kiss him, smile at him, and agree with whatever he says or tells them to do. The episode that I chose to watch was one called “Fight Night� in which the playboy mansion hosts a night of boxing matches and invites all kinds of sports people and celebrities. During “Fight Night� the women literally transform into objects or animals (the bunny) when they put on their bunny costumes and pose for the cameras while holing signs that say “Round One� or “Round Two� of the boxing match. In one scene where a male sports star approaches Hefner to shake his hand he completely blows of the three women even when they look at him and smile as they shake his hand. The ironic part of this scene was that Hefner had no idea who the man was and Kendra the sports fanatic had followed this man’s career and was just dying to meet him. However since Kendra was a playboy bunny the man obviously treated her as an unimportant object and passed her by in order to talk to Hefner. Another aspect of this episode is that the outer appearance of the women boxers and the playboy bunnies are bluntly compared when Hefner’s old girlfriend from the 60’s says to her sex therapist, “Are those girls?� while pointing to the women boxers. This section of the show sends the message that if you don’t look like a playboy bunny then you will be assumed to be more masculine then feminine. In this episode along with appearance discrimination there is age discrimination. Hefner admits to not dating women over the age of 24. This sends a message to the viewer that being young is always seen as better then being older because men like younger women better than older women. Another aspect of the show is that no males are shown on screen unless there is an attractive woman in the same shot. This further proves the male gaze dominates the show’s production.
The film theory aspects of the show enhance the beauty of the women. There is always high-key lighting that allows the women’s bodies to be shown off in every shot. There is also some backlighting used in one scene with the playmate Bridget where she is shown as particularly innocent with a halo of light surrounding her long blonde hair coming from an open window in her pink themed room. A Long shot and a medium close-up shot are the main types of camera techniques used. The long shot allows the women’s full bodies to be seen from head to toe and the close-up shot is used during the commentary of the women who talk directly at the camera in a type of interview/diary part of the show where they share their feelings about what is going on at the moment. Medium close-up shots are used rather than close-up shots because the viewer ‘has’ to be able to see the playmate’s breasts in every scene, even in the commentary part of the show. Also a high angle shot is used most often when the playmates are in a scene so that the viewer can see more of the upper cleavage and down into the playmate’s shirts, allowing the viewer to have a voyeuristic gaze. Directive sound or live sound is used because the TV show is shot like a documentary where the cameras follow the subjects around filming them at all times.

Posted by Stephanie Scott at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

The reality t.v. show I decided to watch was a rerun of the season 2 finale of the Flavor of Love show. For those not familiar with this show, it is about an old rapper named Flavor Flav and he is looking for a girlfriend. There's about 10 to maybe 12 women staying in his mansion with him and they are competing against each other to be his one and only. In the finale, there were two women left, New York and Deelishis. I find this show highly disgusting and a horrible reputation for women. When it comes to the "gaze", it is almost impossible to argue that the gaze is not a male gaze. You can see the camera zooming in on the women's bodies as they are in bathing suits or kissing Flav and on top of him. I also noticed this notion of the Jezebel, which is a concept developed by Kimberly Springer in her article "Waiting to Set It Off". The Jezebel is a slut, whose presence is to only serve the sexual needs of a male counterpart. The women on the show would have sex with Flav. A lot of the women seemed to not care about their bodies or their self-dignity. The black women on the show just further represented the stereotypes in today's society and were a great disappointment to me being that I am a black woman. They were loud, ghetto, and violent, and some portrayed themselves as easy hoes. They represented what Springer also called the Sapphire. Although the show did have some white women in it, I just think it was a further breakdown in the representation of black women. All this show did was further concur society's painting of black women: voluptous body and violent.

Posted by Alexandria Grim at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While watching America’s Next Top Model earlier this week, I became fascinated and appalled with it. A show about young women competing for a top modeling career, America’s Next Top Model is promoting female self reliance, but in a patriarchal structure based upon an ideal perfection of their greatest asset, the body. Tyra Banks, world famous model, talk show host, and executive producer of the show, mentors these young women on how to make it in the modeling system; giving advice to achieve perfection, she helps build self-esteem and confidence in the girls before each shoot. But soon comes the humiliation in dissection of each girls shoot. I do not believe this humiliation is unnecessary or particularly bad. Each participant is striving to show her full worth for this job; they all knew what they would be in for. As stated in another blog, its like an extended job interview, and the critique is what helps to refine the girls’ skills. Mary Mendible states that one, “ Must know s/he is being humiliated and the perpetrator must be willfully exercising that power.� Tyra as a perpetrator is truly aiding these girls by humiliating them to promote progress, but its unfortunate that it is so harsh; or so it seems. The reality of these RTV shows is not necessarily all that goes on behind the scenes. It is pretty well known that hundreds of hours of footage are taken, and only a fraction are selected to be shown, but this is what makes it interesting for the viewer. The writers and producers of the show tweak the footage to create an engaging drama that will bring in the money. The camera angles, lighting and timeline of final piece are very constructed, giving the viewer a very unreal reflection of the true reality of these girls lives. They are constantly bombarded with cameras (made up of male gazes), exposed to harsh instigated drama between the participants (intended destruction of others) and striving for the title of the ideal beauty(which is all a matter of perspective). “The film image,� as McCabe states, seeks, “to naturalise what is only a projection of patriarchal ideology.� These girls are submitting themselves to the undervaluation of women in order to succeed. Many are forced to give up their morals in order to win the competition based on patriarchal ideology, an ideology in which they will never be the permanent best.

Posted by Stephanie Hagen at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The reality television show that I watched this week was the show America’s Next Top Model. This is a show that takes the desperation of women to become “something big�. This show allows women to humiliate themselves in the hopes that they may become America’s Next Top Model.

As disgusting as this show is to sit through and watch I must admit that I have a strange addiction to it and I must watch this show every week. I really do not understand my obsession with the show because the way it is shown to the audience is something that is suppose to be inspirational to women, but it actually makes you feel kind of horrible about yourself. The show makes you feel horrible about yourself because it shows these women with the impossible body types, yet they are suppose to be real women from around the world that have somehow achieved this perfect body type.

When it comes to the gaze of the show, I believe it is definitely a male gaze. I really do not see this show empowering women, but rather it breaks them down. I have been watching this show for a while and in almost every season that have one “real� woman in the season. One episode from this season they had one girl, Anchal, who was bigger than the other girls on the show, however still a tiny women, and all the other “models� talked about how fat she was and how her body was not good enough to be a model. Another illustration of how this show is shown through a male gaze is the choice of pictures that they take of the girls. In the very first episode of the season there first photo shot was a naked photo shot. The girls had to sit naked in front of the world and directly in front of many individuals they did not know. This sounds somewhat empowering, to the fact they are taking charge of their sexuality, however most were uncomfortable, and when they did not want to do it they had to worry about getting kicked off the show.

Posted by Amanda Amundson at 8:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The reality show I watched was the premiere episode of the second season of Breaking Bonaduce. The show chronicles the relationship between Danny Bonaduce, and his wife Gretchen. Last season Dany was drunk, high, and 'roided up. He went to rehab, and hopefully got his marriage back on track. This episode mostly featured Danny's trip to Mexico, but recaped many off the events of the first season. The highlight being when Danny is enraged that his wife is attending a bachelorette party with male strippers. This is extremely hypocritical, as in addition to the drugs and booze, Danny is also a sex addict, and has cheated on her in the past.
The gaze is used a lot in a scene where they recap Danny almost cheating on his wife the last season. The camera travels around a bar lingering on nearly every scantily clad woman. It is so over the top that for most of the girls you never see their face. The camera pans up and down focusing on their legs and breasts.
Breaking Bonaduce is part of VH-1's Celebreality group of shows. Like most of these shows it was heavily influenced by shows like The Osbournes, and The Surreal Life. These shows are really at their best when the people are acting nuts. At this point these shows are so commonplace on TV, that the crazy antics on all the shows often times seem like performance.
The crazy antics are also lacking in this episode. The second half of the program showed brief clips of how crazy Danny will be in the future episodes. In these scenes Danny is tossed out of the house, only to have Gretchen bring him back. The show portray's Gretchen as a victim of Danny's overbearing personality. This is highlighted in the scene that concludes the show where she and their therapist gang up on Danny for being nuts. I don't know if he ever hit her, but Gretchen seems to have battered wives syndrome, she keeps going on with this loser. I wonder if it is all performance on both their parts. Gretchen plays the part well. The audience sympathy is with her, but why should it be? Clearly it is in her best interest financially to stay with him, the reality show is produced by both of them, and the show only works if he has something to go crazy about (her).
I woulld say that overall that the show does not portray women in the best light. They are either seen as sex objects, or with Gretchen as an almost willing victim in what appears to be an awful marriage.

Posted by Alexander Holler at 8:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently watched one of my friends old recordings of an episode of the Real World: Key West, which I haven't seen. I have watched bits and pieces of the show from time to time, but not in a steady manner because I never really got into reality tv. While watching the show, I took notice in the way that all of the characters represent stereotypes that typically clash with the other personalities on the show. In this season of the Real World, there is a group of four guys and three girls. One girl has an eating disorder and is very emotional (she also has an abusive boyfriend), another girl is high maintenance, and the third girl seems extremely independant and opinionated. Amongst the guys, there is a guy that seems opinionated and rebellious, an openly gay guy, a succuessful hispanic student, and another strong willed guy. In the reading by Tara Kachgal, it is stated that almost every season has woven in a gay character. She states "The inclusion of gay and lesbian characters "within the tribe" is politically significant, given the mobilization of neoconservative and neoliberal discourses to construct
sexual minorities as anti-family and anti-child (Lee Edelman 1998)." This is important to look at because it seems that the producers of the show are attempting to appeal to most every group and the inclusion of gay characters is supposed to further come off as being 'real' within the stratosphere of the show. I think some of these personalities were chosen because they would characteristically clash with one another during the show. One of the central themes of this season revolved around Paula, who is the girl that seems to have an eating disorder. She has problems with it throughout the show, and that seems to be prevelant in regards to the gaze. The girl seems to fear the way other people see her, which forces her to harm her body by refusing to eat at times. She is a very emotional character in the show, and she often clashed with John (one of the guys in the house).

The episode I watched was one in which the crew goes out for a night on the town and hits up a local club in Key West. During the night, John is hooking up with a girl at the club when Paula seems to pop up and basically steal the girl away from John. John, being a very opinionated individual himself, takes a great deal offense to this and they clash once they return to their place. The ensuing argument leads to further specualtion about Paula and her problems in her life with her abusive boyfriend. Once she sobers up she basically tells John that she was shielding the girl from him because a part of her wants to protect her. John then declares that he is not her abusive boyfriend and all kind of seems to get well for a while. This is just one example of the many problems that pop up during the course of the show. I think one other idea of feminist theory regarding the gaze deals with the women of the show. This goes for all seasons, but they usually tend to put girls on the show that could be regarded as eye candy for the viewer. This basically ensures that viewers will continue to watch the show and develop a loyal following. All of the girls are different looking, all have different problems and personalities, and they usually have distinctive features that make them stand out to a viewer. This typically goes for guys on the show too, but I think it is more noticable in the females on the show.

Posted by Jacob Deibele at 3:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The final two "bachelorettes."

My hour of reality television experience was with this season of The Bachelor, in which Prince Lorenzo was down to the last three girls. I found the way the show tries to construct reality very interesting. Many of the women who have already been eliminated act out of their own character just to appeal to the bachelor himself; out of desire to win or to be the best. It seems as though these women are looking for some kind of love, a love from the bachelor, even though it is not real. In addition to this, most men do not date three girls at a time and immediately following, chose the one he will marry and spend the rest of his life with. The thought of how difficult this would be for any person to do supports the fact that the entire construction of the show is very unrealistic. One construction of reality that came close to the actual situation was the interaction with the families of the final three girls. The parents of the women make their best representation of who they are and the true character and personality of each candidate comes out around the people who they were raised around. This particular reality television show has a strong angle of “scaling of bodies�; while observing all of the girls who had been eliminated during the introduction, along with the remaining ones, the similarities were easy to see. All of the girls, except for one Italian, came from the United States and were very beautiful – in the eye of popular culture and media. Each of them had long and shiny blond or brunette hair and a great smile. They were all thin and tall with beautiful eyes, and without a sense of their personalities, didn’t have many distinctions. In each and every episode, all of the women were made up perfectly with the right colors and amount of makeup and the perfect hairdo. In order to emphasize this point, an article written by Gust Yep and Ariana Ochoa Camacho called “The Normalization of Heterogendered
Relations in The Bachelor� contains a very relevant statement that is extracted from the visions of the actual producers of the show. This block quote was taken from page two of this article.

The Bachelor clearly reinforces current US standards of female beauty and objectification of the woman's body. In the first episode, Mike Fleiss, Executive Producer, tells the audience about how the women were selected: "Most importantly, they have to look good in the hot tub." The women undoubtedly submitted to the "tall, young, fit, and thin" beauty standard as one of the participants observed, "All the women are beautiful, gorgeous, and skinny." Although the bachelor typically described the women as "amazingly beautiful" and "extremely intelligent," the show focused on their physical appearance—body shape, clothing, make-up, and hairstyle. The women were mostly presented as objects of the male gaze. This was accomplished through two primary techniques. The first uses visual approaches that scan and scrutinize the women's bodies with the camera focusing on the women's breasts, buttocks, and legs as they dressed, entered and left the pool, or disrobed to catch the bachelor's attention. The second technique utilized plot devices that created situations for the women to expose their bodies such as pajama parties, water rides in an amusement park, and interactions in hot tubs and pools. In a number of these shots, the women's faces were absent or de-emphasized as they became interchangeable body parts for public consumption. On the other hand, reflecting the asymmetrical power relationships, the bachelor's body was hardly the object of scrutiny. The bachelor was presented as the subject of the gaze complete with agency and control of every situation in the show.

Another idea from feminist theory that is brought up in this particular article is the idea of the male gaze. The Bachelor is one of many Reality TV shows that imply a heavy use of the male gaze. The camera is used to focus on the general beauty of the body and face of each woman from the man’s point of view; such as scanning her from her toes to her head. Most scenes are filmed with the camera pointed at the candidate and not at the bachelor himself, unless he is directly speaking at it. Not only this, but many of the scenes are filmed with the women in their bathing suits, especially when the couples are on exotic vacations. If only in real life we were all able to fall in love with the right person for us, no matter who they are or what they look like, on exotic vacations and with all expenses paid.

Posted by Amanda Mrotek at 1:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The reality TV show that I chose to watch was My Super Sweet 16. I choose this show because I have watched it many times before; I, along with many other female viewers, don’t necessarily like this show, but am somehow drawn in every time it is on. This show is definitely aimed at young girls and women, as most of the people featured are young women (just turning 16). This show features girls that the audience loves to hate; all these girls fit perfectly into the stereotype of “spoiled little rich girl�. They have never had to work a day in their life and their parents pay for their designer clothes and hair styles that cost hundreds of dollars. The particular episode that I watched featured a girl named Nicole, a slightly heavy, but still attractive young girl with long dark hair. The party that she planned had circus performers and professional dancers. Before the party Nicole tries on many dresses, trying to figure out which looks best. She ends up buying four, each one costing thousands of dollars. She does this because she knows that everyone at the party will be looking at her, especially during her entrance into the party, and she wants to look as attractive as possible. This is an interesting representation of the gaze, because Nicole knows that everyone will be looking at her and actually encourages it; she thinks of it as a good thing, unlike many other examples of the gaze that have been discussed. Her mother describes her dresses as “dainty�, and Nicole describes them as “sexy�, both traditionally desired aspects of a woman. After choosing dresses to wear, Nicole flies to Hawaii to have a certain stylist highlight her hair, and then spends hours before the party have professionals apply makeup and style her hair. In the chapter, “Commentary and Criticism Introduction� Karen Ross and Sujata Moorti discuss how Joe Millionare “glamorizes traditional notions of appropriate demeanors for women, and normalizes ideas about roles acceptable for women to assume and the goals women should aspire to.� Although this show is very different from Joe Millionare, I believe it has a similar effect. The girls on this show do not spend money that they earn themselves, but money that a man (at this point in their lives their father) gives to them. These girls do not aspire to become more intelligent, become successful, or do anything important with their lives; they aspire to look pretty and have someone take care of them and continue paying for their designer clothes. In Myra Mendible’s chapter, “Humiliation, Subjectivity and Reality TV� she discusses a survey done by Psychology Today which reported that fans have a desire to see [and imagine] prestige and status. This show allows them to see young girls that have a high status, simply because of their parents’ money. This causes a reaction of jealousy and sometimes hatred from the audience, which the creators of the show take advantage of. They know that the audience loves to hate these girls and that is what brings in the viewers.

Posted by Annette Bonner at 1:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s been a while since I’ve seen cable television… this assignment was a great opportunity to catch up on my MTV while I was home for break. I ssswatched the Real World: Denver. I used to watch the real world all the time. The great thing about it is that it’s relatively predictable, yet still somehow manages to keep you hooked. It’s been on the air for eighteen seasons and the show is considered to be the leading creation of the "reality television" explosion of today… and not that I’ve watched all eighteen seasons, but I have seen my fair share and I feel the producers have the casting to a science which leads to the inevitable drunken drama. This show is on MTV, which is probably the most watched television of teenagers in the United States, and I don't think that is too big a generalization to say so, which means they have to have a "hit" show. According to an article I read in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the day after the season premier “The Real World Denver is about seven people from around the country living in a totally cool Denver house designed for fun. From the get-go, they have little more on their minds than getting loaded and, well, sex.� This season we’ve got three girls and four guys. All the members are attractive and in their twenties. This touches one the ideas of Young's "Scaling of bodies" because the girls all are relatively skinny, with long hair, wearing makeup and the guys are athletic with nice bodies. The show contorts to the stereotypical image of what society thinks is "attractive." You’ve also got your minority groups in there, the two black males and the gay guy so that the show isn't considered as "racist" or "prejudiced." The show is essentially about exploiting kids in their twenties to see the reactions of living with complete strangers with different viewpoints on certain subjects for entertainment. The producers want to put people on the show who are attractive for several reasons. One, because they want the cast member to be attracted to eachother. It makes for good television drama which in tern makes for good television content. I feel like people will also be more inclined to watch the show if they are attracted to the cast members as well.

This first episode basically introduces us to the cast members. Throughout the episode, there were several comments, other than the obvious and expected sexual comments, that I found particularly interesting. Brooke, the “cute� southern girl, stated when asked what she thought the rest of the roommates would be like that “there will probably be someone gay because there always is.� And the other was kind of a voice over when all the roommates were introducing themselves in the house by one of the two black males: “I just assumed I was going to be the only black guy in the house.� I thought they were very important, and proved to be later in the episode when Davis is forced to spill the news that he’s the sole gay member of the house during a dinner conversation and his roommate Stephen is offended by that. He confronts Davis saying that he doesn’t agree with him being gay and Davis says it’s not something you choose, just like Stephen didn’t choose being black. It just is. In the article on WebCT by Tara Katchgal “Look at the real world: there’s always a gay teen on there,� it referenced a writing that “argued that The Real World deployed narrative strategies to engender conflict between…� two of the cast members. This can be related to Bell Hooks' idea of "motivated representation," as I feel that this might have been the intentions of the producers and that this was a deliberate result of type casting. We shall see more as the season progresses though.

In a previous post, Nodira Ismoilova discussed the different views of reality shows as either being “real� or “constructed� reality. I agree with the opinion that the Real World is "constructed" reality. Not only for the editing, but also for the intentions of the show. In the past there used to be members on the show under the age of 21 who could not go to the bars. Now all the cast members are conveniently 21 and can legally drink, get drunk and make terrible decisions that they might regret. I think the editing is just a direct result of time constraints and for the purposes of allowing the viewer to follow the plot without the extra everyday activities that don't pertain to the storyline. Although, I guess the editors to get to choose which storyline will be more interesting for the show. I do, however find the camera angles, transitions and smoothness of the editing to be done quite beautifully.

Posted by Nicky Cebertowicz at 1:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently I watched an episode of America’s Next Top Model. The show is hosted by Tyra Banks and is about women who want to become models. Each episode they are given a different modeling task. This particular episode they were made into things from the side show at the circus. The point was to make them look ugly and still take good pictures. To add to this drama they all live together in a big house and fight amongst each other often. At the end of each episode they are judged by Tyra and few others and the person that did the worst job with their shoot is kicked off the show and everybody cries for a while. The thing that got me about this show is a look into what modeling actually is. Most of the girls on that show, even the ones that are considered the best, are in my eyes, not as gorgeous as you think when you hear supermodel. The thing that gets me the most is that when they get all made up in fancy clothing and have their pictures taken, the pictures look great. This means too things are going on. The beauty of these women lays on the expensive make-ups and props and that there is a bunch of computer stuff going on after the picture is actually taken. I knew these things were going on but actually seeing it happen really made me realize. The bad part about this is some girls/women are looking at supermodels as role models for how to look. And likewise men look at supermodels as the way they want their wife to look. The problem comes in because there isn’t a possible way for a real person to look like this all the time. It is an impossibility and so some women are striving for something that can not be accomplished. Its fine if they want to make their pictures up all fancy with computers but it is unhealthy for almost everybody to look at.

Posted by Andrew Gilb at 12:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have always thought that Dr.90210 was possibly one of the most ridiculous shows on television, but after watching an episode critically it got more ridiculous then I thought possible. Dr.90210 is a show that documents people’s journeys through plastic surgery. It begins with the consultation then the procedure, and concludes with the follow up visit. I have watched the show in the past as a way to pass time, or as a show to fall asleep to. This assignment forced me to look at the show critically and all of the negativity the show exudes.
The episode I watched chronicled the journey of two twin sisters who both wanted to get breast enhancement surgery. The episode began with one of the twins coming in for a consultation, then the shot faded out and showed her at home talking to her sister about the surgery. The twins proceed to have a bitter conversation about how if one got enhancement surgery they would no longer be the same, and one may get more attention then the other. The two sisters were already beautiful (at least by the standards society sets) they had long blonde hair, tan complexions, thin bodies, and had very proportionate breasts for their bodies. Needless to say both girls end up getting the surgery, and having breasts put on their bodies that looked absurd.
The whole episode got me thinking about the emphasis society, and women put on the importance of looks and appearance. Why did two sisters who were already attractive have to alter themselves to be confident? In the world of advertising, media and marketing today there is a huge emphasis on beauty, and the importance of being beautiful. It is almost implied that in order to be appreciated, and embraced in society you must be beautiful. The show Dr.90210 just hits this ideal home. It shows men and women, mostly women coming in to see these doctors who they believe can make them more appealing as individuals through cosmetic enhancement. Shows like Dr.90210 are used explicitly to show that people’s insecurities are toyed with and that there is a strong belief especially in America that changing your physical experience changes your worth as a human being.
The episode I watched really brought me back to Iris Marion Young’s article: The Scaling of Bodies and the Politics of Identity. In the article Young discusses bodies, and how society has put together a system of ranking/scaling bodies based on sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, class, etc. this relates to the episode of Dr.90210 I watched because the twins had such a distorted view of what beauty was/is. They were girls who by many societal standards would have been highly regarded based on their appearance alone. They were already included in a group of people who did not have the pressures of racism, classism, and sexism beating down on them. But even with all of the things they had going for them there was a sense of needing more to be better. If they had not had the surgery hey would have felt unacceptable to the world. It is a shame that these pressures exist in society and even sadder that they exist between sisters. It has become trendy to stop by the doctors office in the morning and have a new body/face by the evening. This concept goes against the grain of feminist thought. From my understanding of the material covered thus far in class, feminists are striving for recognition of talent, and of societal worth for women. Shows like Dr. 90210 do nothing but hinder these aspirations. In fact they set them back. Women believe that changing their physical appearance somehow gives them more worth. Women are not giving themselves the credit they deserve. Women should strive for acceptance of their bodies and self, not for a quick fix that leaves them exposed to society as women who could not believe in themselves enough to remain who they are.
There will forever be people whose existence is based solely on their appearance and shows like Dr.90210 help to further distort these people while making networks big bucks.

Posted by Jen Rodgers at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

To summarize the episode “Brooke’s Dating Game� Linda (Brooke’s mother) is thinking out loud about whom her 18-year-old daughter should be dating. This thinking out loud turns into a competition between Linda, Nick (Brooke’s brother), and the Hulk. They all try to find the perfect man for Brooke. Not surprisingly Brooke goes with the plan and meets all three men that her family has chosen for her. Nick finds a young, skinny, car-loving guy like himself, Hulk finds an aspiring wrestler, and Linda calls up the 25-year-old model that worked with Brooke on her music video. In the end Brooke goes for the model, again no surprise.
It is probably safe to say that most normal families would not make a competition out of trying to find their daughter a boyfriend, especially at the age of eighteen. But since this is a reality show, and because “RTV viewers place a very high value on both revenge and competition� according to the information Myra Mendible found in a study conducted for Psychology Today and put in her article “Humiliation, Subjectivity, and Reality TV� it would make sense that the Hogan family makes life interesting by turning Brooke’s dating life into a game. Most likely if the Hogan family was not being taped for a reality show, this competition to find Brooke a perfect man would have never even been started. Hulk was not very keen on doing it right after Linda mentioned something. It was not until a little later in the show that he thought it would be fun. What probably changed his mind was a producer saying that they needed something interesting, like a competition, to make a show interesting and worth watching and that he would have to go along with the competition. Because the reality TV show viewers crave competition, especially when it involves relationships and sex, Hulk had to compromise himself and his family to appeal to his audience.
The use of the voyeuristic gaze is very apparent throughout the show. Brooke meets the model third and decides to go on a date with him right away. When she comes back from changing the camera’s pro-filmic event is a shot of Brooke’s tiny black dress and all her skin. What it interesting to note is that Brooke’s father is conservative and doesn’t want his little girl to show much skin, but gradually Brooke wears less and less clothing the show has gone from season to season. Linda does tell Brooke to put some more clothes on, but she only puts on a small shirt. Clothing, or lack of clothing, is a big ordeal in reality TV. In the last scene of the show, Brooke is on the beach with her model boy and he is sweating up a storm. She tells him to take off his shirt and he does. In this scene the voyeuristic gaze has been transferred from Brooke onto the model.
Hogan Knows Best is filled with motivated representations, which are one of the main reasons people watch the show. The Hogan’s family “participation should be seen as a voluntary mode of sanctioned humiliation which they regard as a necessary part of becoming famous for 15 minutes� (Karen Ross and Sujata Moorti, “Commentary and Criticism Introduction)�. Karen Ross and Sujata Moori were commenting on women who are on reality shows to find a husband, but I think it also pertains to the Hogan family because the Hogan family is also humiliating themselves by the way the dress, how they act, and how the treat one another. Overall, this episode was similar to the others because it uses Brooke as an object or even a puppet for the satisfaction of the viewers.
The form of the show, summarized in one word is very "camping." Even Brooke Hogan said that "We're finally having fun as a family. It's sad that a drag show pulled us together" according to the imdb website (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468996/). Because the show is on VH1, it makes sense that it is cut together with hip music and the scenes are cut together in somewhat of a music video sort of way. The ransitions between shots are of the family members either in fast pace soing something like waving or moving their hips. The graphics are bright orange, red, and other bright colors. The show is filmed with a music video approach. Time is constructed fast paced, probably because if we watched any point of time (scene) for more than 45 seconds we would be board to death. The editing is done in such a way to bring out each family memebers main characteristic. For example any footage they have od Brooke looking like a dumb blonde or showing some skin they put it. Overall the editing follows most of the reality shows that are put on VH1 and MTV.
Occording to Wikipedia, Hogan was offered a reality show "prior to his famous WrestleMania X8 "Icon vs. Icon" match with The Rock in 2002" but he refused. It was only untill he saw what reality shows and TV shows were doing for popstars such as Britney Spears that he decided to do the show to support his daughter Brooke and get her name out there. With this idea in mind, it makes perfect sense that Hogan went along with Brooke's dating competition. Many of the episodes are centered around Brooke and her up and coming career. Hulk probably would not have allowed Brooke to partake in such revealing photo shoots and crazy dating games if it was not for the reality show. I am pretty sure that the Hulk would never let he daughter go out in a pink bra (like the one in the photo above) if it were not for publicity.

Posted by Alysse Johnson-Strandjord at 11:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

VISIT THE MTV REAL WORLD WEBSITE!
This weekend I was reintroduced to cable television at my parent's house and decided to watch the new Real World Denver. This season seems very similiar to the last seasons in that the cast contains at least one homosexual character. Davis is this season's homosexual male castmate from Georgia. Initially, the other cast members assumed that Davis was a typical straight, blonde, frat boy. Until Davis was put on the spot and asked about his sexuality, he kept it quite. Now that he was directly asked in front of everyone, though, he proudly admitted himself gay. Not without explaining the hardship he had gone through the year before in his southern baptist religion and with a mother who undeniably told him he was going straight to hell. In typical Real World form, the castmate sitting directly next to Davis during his outing to his roomates happened to be a very religious guy named Stephen that was completely against everything and everyone homosexual. He felt that there was no room for homosexuality inside the church, and similiar to Davis' mother, thought Davis would go to hell. The ever-apparent tension between the two castmates heightened to a very direct arguement. According to Tara Kachgal's article found on the website, "The program's articulation of sexual freedom to democractic self expression and empowerment is continually troubling and conflicting...reality television potentially puts into question rigid orthodoxies supporting 'proper' gender and sexual identities." Stephen feels that heterosexuality is the only option. Because Davis is homosexual, Stephen feels like he can not fully accept him as a friend. Yet, oddly enough, before Stephen found out that Davis was, infact, homosexual, he had only nice and positive things to say about his southern-baptist, first-found-friend in Denver...Davis.
There's a particularly heated scene that really captured the intense argument between Stephen and Davis. In it, Stephen blatantly tells Davis that he doesn't think it's right that he's gay. He goes on to say that Davis can not and should not be accepted by the church because of his homosexuality. Davis retailiates commenting on Stephen's race. Stephen, however, claims that that is different because he didn't choose his race like Davis CHOSE his sexuality. This brings on a whole other argument about sexual orientation being chosen or inherent.
All in all, while I was watching just this one episode of Real World, there were two huge issues concerning race and homosexuality. It almost made me feel bad for the castmates because they are ultimately chosen and put into a situation based on how much drama and arguments they could potentially get into. Not suprisingly there are stereotypically: one gay roomate, two African-American roomates, and the "hott" guy, those are the men; and then three gorgeous, outgoing, single females. Each roomate sets their life out there, and the Real World producers seem to find that one other roomate that will completely clash with the first. Obviously this makes the best tv and that's understandable, but when I really sat and analyzed what was happening, I thought it was really kindof sad that Davis, for instance, was put on the show as a homosexual man and purposely paired with a roomate completely against his lifestyle.

Posted by Mikaela Knox at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched one hour of The Simple Life, a reality-based show about Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton. They are known as two rich socialites who do not have a care in the world, and party all the time instead of holding down jobs. In the episodes I watched, the two young women are taken from their luxurious lives and given only a pink pick-up truck and an RV and their mission is to take a road trip across the country staying at different families’ homes and the only money they have is from the jobs they work along the way. The two jobs they worked in the episodes I watched were rodeo cowboys and members of a mermaid water show at a local water park.
What seems to be the main goal of this show is taking Nicole and Paris out of their element and mocking them as they try to live the “simple life.� Even more than this, the tone from the families on the show and the narrator was that these two women were not fit for the working world – from this show, the audience could feel superior to them because they knew how to work for a living and had morals, as opposed to Nicole and Paris. Even though they are incredibly wealthy, without their money Paris and Nicole could not survive. As Myra Mendible argues in her article “Humiliation, Subjectivity, and Reality TV,� the audience feels somewhat superior to the people who are being humiliated on the reality show, because they are embarrassed or are being judged in some way. Through the Simple Life, the television audience can create a sense of superiority of Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton, by feeling more intelligent and suited for the “real� world.

Posted by Claire Eastwold at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched the episode “Heavy Petting� from The Girls Next Door which is a show about the lives of Hugh Hefner and the playmates that live in the mansion. During this episode, there were two parties. The first was for all of the dogs; some of the girls decided to throw a birthday party for all of the dogs. They bought a dog cake and dog pizzas and everyone ate out of dog bowls. The second party was the Easter party where thousands of eggs are hidden and the children of old playmates and friends go Easter egg hunting. Overall, the show revolved around the animals and getting ready for parties.

What bothered me about the show were the outfits. All of the girls, no matter what they were doing, wore shirts that accentuated their chests. Hair and makeup was always done perfectly. Every girl’s hair was platinum blonde and most wore pink all the time. They all spoke about wanting to be mothers or that they felt motherly because they took care of the animals. There were no persons of color in the house; even at the Easter party there were no guests of color. It was a white, rich, male-dominated event.

The camera did not look only at the girls’ faces. If there was a close up, it was always the girls’ face and chest. There were many chest shots when the girls were doing something or even as a transition to another shot. The gaze of the camera, according to Laura Mulvey, was scopophilic. According to Mulvey, Freud “associated scopophilia with taking other people as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze� (Mulvey 37). This opinion describes accurately the nature of the gaze upon the girls. This scopophilic gaze, “arises from pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight� (Mulvey 39). Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze is apparent within the filmic construction of this show. The women on screen are there for a male’s pleasure in looking.

These girls are searching for feminine fulfillment. All associate the future as being married and having children and the mansion is just a stepping stone to getting there. Some don’t see marriage but only see children and becoming a mother. Being a mother is very important to them. Betty Friedan describes the housewife in Feminine Mystique: “She had found true feminine fulfillment� (Friedan 199). Friedan describes housewives from the 1960’s as those who were told that, “all they had to do was devote their lives from earliest girlhood to finding a husband and bearing children� (Friedan 198). I believe that this ideology runs within the girls from the show. They see their future as a housewife with children and with ‘true feminine fulfillment.’

Posted by Jessica Englund at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The new bachelor includes a "prince" (who knows where from or how important he is), and a group of females that want to fall in love with this "prince." In my opinion, how corny is it to have a group of women suck-up and pretend to be so in love with someone they know has money? It is all about the gold-diggers and desperate women. However, the whole show is focused on how this prince preceives these seamingly perfect women, who all happen to be in love, or falling for this prince. This show always seems to fall in line with the entire Laura Mulvey male gaze. The females in the show are required to be passive, because showing signs of no interest would undoubtfully get them eliminated. The camera eye constistantly follows these women as an object. Especially through what they are wearing, and highlighting on certain parts of their body. They are subjectified to events that are unfamiliar (and uninteresting), and they pretend to love the cirumstances even though when in private commentary, they can admit to the ackwardness. The females all have an obligation to be passive and optomistic about situations they would normally not be a part of. The gaze is for males to say, "these women will do whatever I feel like doing, and whatever I say to do." It is an extremely sexist show, but most importantly it objectifies women as being passive and gazed upon as inactive and submissive. The male is always in control, and is the spectator of these females doing as he wishes. In the end, the most important thing is the money, and objectify your feminitity by indulging in activities that are sexist and unnecessary like private hotel rooms.
I read over the reality TV article about the bachelor on our website, and I agree that there is a lot of strict hetereosexual tendencies. There is no room for homosexuality because the entire show is about our male voyuer gazing upon these women, while they are have no choice in their future romance with the prince. Reading that this is one of the most popular shows (or at least in 2003), makes it obvious that the audience is probabaly hetereosexual, and we are all a bunch of male voyuers gazing upon the female body in parts and wanting to be the prince in order to decide which sexual female is most deserving. We don't necessarily care that the prince is lame, or yuppy, we only care that the winning female embodies all that is pure, sexy, and heterosexual. The camera says the most about this type of spectatorship because we see scenes with the male and femals in hot tubs, and pools and beautiful dresses; focusing on mainly legs breasts and seemingly perfect bodies. The camera moves slow with the women because like Mulvey says; the female stops the narrative. However, the entire show is shot with "god-like" angels as if we are somewhere we shouldn't be, and seeing something that is secret. This show was definately produced because of its competition eliments, but also because of its ability to reaffirm male hegemony and "popular" hetereosexual beliefs and lifestyles.

Posted by Jillian Schwantz at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched an hour of E!’s Dr. 90210, which focuses on plastic surgeons working in the Los Angeles area. The opening title sequence shows images of a doctor in surgery garb then it cuts to a camera and a woman stepping out of a car and onto a red carpet. We then see pieces of a woman’s body, focusing on the “beautiful� parts; lips, hips, small of her back and tip of her butt, and her neck and shoulders and her body is covered in drops of water. We then see images of palm trees to remind us, as if the title weren’t enough, that the show takes place in California. The graphic for the show replaces the "1" with lipstick to further symbolize patriarchal views of beauty (the idea that women need to alter their appearance in some way to be desireable and attract a mate). While the show is categorized as “reality TV,� the fact that all of the people on the show are “beautiful� and that it is based in a city that is notorious for producing a fake and unrealistic culture (i.e. films, Hollywood, the Beach Boys song, “California Girls,� etc.) leaves the viewer with a skewed idea of what reality really is.

In her article Humiliation, Subjectivity, and Reality TV, Myra Mendible states, “RTV contestants generally understand that moral weaknesses, body flaws, and intimate betrayals offer the most thrilling evidence of ‘reality’ in the genre,� the second of those being the focus of Dr. 90210. The article also focuses on the fact that persons participating in "reality" television shows know that there is going to be a fairly substantial element of humiliation on their part, and that humiliation may either come from the person or from clever editing by the producers. There were two women featured in this episode: Bea, a competitive body builder, and Jacki, a girl who had all of her breast tissue removed to avoid breast cancer and needs breast reconstruction surgery. These "body flaw" issues are a form of humiliation for the two women because they are embarrassed to be seen with them. They feel the need to correct what they see as problems before they can live fulfilling lives.

Bea has only 5% body fat and therefore her chest is mostly muscle. She wanted to get the surgery to “enhance her professional image� and “enhance her on stage.� She believed that getting breast implants would help her win more competitions, however just before her surgery she won a regional competition. Basically she has found that no matter how much bodybuilding she does, she can’t create the perfect body and will need to pay for one.

Jacki had previous breast surgeries and wanted one more to correct mistakes made in the past. This problem has caused self-esteem issues for her and affects every aspect of her life. She works at a restaurant where her outfit consists of a lingerie top that barely covers her bra and shows most of her chest (I find myself asking, if she has a problem with the way her breasts look, why does she have this job?). She can’t get into a relationship because she doesn’t like the way she looks. She said, “what’s the point of getting in a relationship when I know it won’t get intimate?� She also says that after her surgery, she will fall in love, get married, and have babies. It seems that getting the surgery will make all of her dreams come true and end all of her problems.

Both of these young women are quite attractive before their surgeries and it seems that the show is presenting the idea that you cannot naturally have the perfect body, you have to get plastic surgery to achieve what you want.

Posted by Jessica Shoemaker at 3:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

America’s Next Humiliated Young Model
By Lara Healy

< For over an hour I sat and watched as Ms. Tyra Banks picked, poked, chided, and eliminated young American girls. They wanted to be the next top model in America, and they had all decided that being on the reality show was the way to make their dreams become a reality.
I had seen the show before, or had it on in the background while I studied or cooked, however, I had never sat down with an intentionally critical eye and watched each second. I was disappointed with myself for not having noticed previously how the women were treated and ultimately humiliated. They were promised “The Dream�, but in order to achieve it they needed to have: the eyes, the hair, the face, the body, the desire, the knowledge of the industry, an edge (but not too much), something that sets them apart, a ‘non-commercial’ face (whatever that means), and numerous other ‘requirements’ that Tyra spouts off throughout the episode.
When these women sign up for America’s Next Top Model they have stars in their eyes, and dreams of becoming famous, but the reality of reality TV is not so dreamy. They are channeled through a grueling selection phase just to become a participant. Where the judges project their gaze on the women and select the ‘best for the job’ through a disgustingly organized scaling of bodies.
On the episode that I saw (which was one of the later ones in the season) Tyra showed the camera an evaluation card from the initial judging period for the season. Next to the girl’s name all she had written was a big red “NO�. Obviously the show wouldn’t survive without the competition aspect, but to see the leader of the show so blatantly disregarding the same types of women she is trying to empower makes a very clear statement. “You should only be confident and strong if Tyra Banks believes that you should be!� Wouldn’t it be refreshing to live in a community where programs were made according to Avishai Margalit’s point of view? “An ideal of universal human rights independent of individual achievement or status, a society where the “dignity� of individuals relies only on the fact that they’re human beings� (Mendible pg. 335)

“Myra Mendible, considers the usefulness of the concept of humiliation in the game show as genre, arguing that our interest in watching other being humiliated is an essential aspect of the success of sub-genre “survival� shows…[she]…asks whether, for women in particular, participation should be seen as a voluntary mode of sanctioned humiliation which they regard as a necessary part of becoming famous for 15 minutes, regardless of the fact that they receive highly critical attention to their bodies and their attitudes towards men and money� (Intro in Course Packet Pg. 1).

Humiliation is the name of the game on this reality monster. To further injure the young women’s self-esteem the challenges they are asked to participate in force decisions between reaching the goal of America’s Next Top Model or holding on to morals. The show is continuously asking the women to strip completely bare in front of the camera, or seductingly embrace a strange man or fellow model while being naked. For many of the women this request puts them in a very difficult position. On the episode that I watched there were four women left, and the nude photo was the next challenge. Two out of the four girls decided not to participate in the photo shoot because it went against their beliefs. However, only one of the two was eliminated that week, and it was the African American woman. The all American blonde haired woman was able to stay in the competition for another week although she too did not have a nude photo shoot.

Fredric Schick says that the “defining characteristic of the process is that the victim is made passive and conscious of the humiliating act…and the perpetrator must be willfully exercising…power� (Mendible pg. 336).

These same women that were told to walk with their heads held high, to show the world that they are important, strong, and confident were cut-down by the people who were previously lifting them up. The people in charge, like Tyra, were and are subjecting these women, and when they are non-compliant they are voted off.

My final vote:

Humiliation + Hypocrisy = America’s Next Top Model

P.S. I found this great web-site...it is kinda a Top Model Bashing Site, but it does drive the point home...give it a look!

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/articles/category_1186.html >

Posted by Lara Healy at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Flava Flav!

Love it or hate it--the Flavor of Love is on VH1.

This "reality" TV show (or as VH-1 dubs it "celebreality") pits women against each other (physically and mentally) for the "love" of an old rap star named Flava Flav. The show completely objectifies women. Remarkably, the women in this show eagerly chomp at the bit to give away their pride and self-esteem. This could be a result of conditioning throughout their lives or the fact that they are all, in fact, gold diggers to the nth degree.

The basic format of the show reinforces the patriarchal system of dating. The man, Flava Flav, has all the control over any and all decisions--including whether to keep someone around. The contestants also exhibit the exhibitionism and projection of a perhaps regressed desire that Mulvey describes of women and men alike through their fights and sexual conquests.

The contestants use sex overwhelmingly to gain favor with Flava which turns the show into the Harem of Love. Perhaps this could be aimed at the males in the audience as a projection of a regressed desire. The gaze utilized in this series does nothing but support that claim--especially through the screening process. You could have a picnic on her ass! Flava and the audience receive a strong scopophilic gratification by watching this program (Mulvey 39). The actual film construction of the piece is very bare bones--a two person crew consisting of a camera operator and a sound engineer give it its shaky and/or real feeling to the show.

No matter who you are, you will receive pleasure from looking at bodies. It's the nature of life. But looking is powerful. Flavor of Love is no different as we sit in a powerful position that can scale bodies based on features and traits of the women presented to us. Beauty and attractiveness are defined and reinforced through this show (Young 123). This can translate into our everyday lives and therefore perpetuate the status quo.

Why do women watch this show? Perhaps the Flavor of love shows an oversexed nature of the women. Women identify with a women who lives in puritanical societies that frown upon women seeking sexual gratification. These women use sex to get what they want--either Flava, money, fame or all three. Or maybe it's all just one big freak show we now call entertainment.

In the end, love is never truly an issue, but rather used as a means to legitimize the actions on the program. This program creates an “illusion of reality� that aligns itself closely with the fictional cinema. Libido and ego drive this show through Flava and the responsibility to identify this falls on us (Mulvey 39).

VH-1's stake in the activities and the show's program is based on the dollar. Truly his show is not about creating high moral fiber or challenging any status quo. It uses the tatics used by patriarchy to generate revenue.

Posted by John Komarek at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched an episode of Bridezillas on the WE network (Women’s Entertainment). I chose to view this show because the commercials for it have always bothered me. There is always a woman incredibly mad, rude, usually screaming, and the show portrays her as mentally ill or insane. The show’s website also makes comments about these women being monsters and insane and there is an interactive game where you can “whack� people who give the bride trouble such as the mother-in-law or the chef.

This show is based on the stereotypical bride. She is presented as a control freak and someone who is mentally unhinged, perfectionist, self-centered, bossy, violent, and rude. Except for a few minutes at the beginning of the episode, the only time we see the husband to be is when the bride is yelling at him to do something. The show follows the bride around and we see her yelling at her friends and family, crying, and even throwing temper tantrums. The obsession for everything to be perfect also pertains to how the bride looks. In the episode I watched, one bride, who appeared to be a thin, healthy woman, is seen going to and from the gym and eating low calorie food so that she “looks perfect� on her big day. The other bride featured in the episode had lost 80 pounds for her wedding. Laura Sloan Patterson discusses the exclusion of plus sized brides from the “mainstream American bridal fantasy� in advertisements that portray plus sized brides in distinctively different images than slimmer brides. “Unlike her slim sister’s ads, which are free to show Bridezilla levels of contempt for the audience, the PSB’s image indicates an obligation to show happiness, even gratitude, in the face of marriage,� (Patterson, Why Are All the Fat Brides Smiling?). If this bride had not lost 80 pounds, would she have been featured in the show or would she be expected to just be grateful? Should Bridezilla-like behavior be acceptable for anyone?

As much as I don’t like this show however, I did notice a few positive aspects of the show, at least in comparison to other wedding-related reality television shows. As Judith Halberstam points out in her article Pimp My Bride, “All the shows have refused to test the waters of interracial dating.� However, the episode of Bridezillas that I viewed did feature an interracial couple. The show also appears to feature brides from different socioeconomic statuses. Unfortunately, whatever economic background the bride is from, it appears that they all go into debt to pay for the wedding. So while the show may feature slightly more diverse characters, it still does not present many positive images of brides or women in general.

Posted by Tegan Conway at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Is TLC’s hit show, “What not to Wear� transforming women into an image that isn’t true to their true character? The strategy is simple: hosts Clinton and Stacy select people volunteered by their friends to receive a wardrobe and style make-over. The people shown in this program often appear to dress normal enough, but through the keen eyes of “top Hollywood fashion consultants,� these people have a terrible choice in everyday dress attire. The way someone dresses is often seen as an expression of one’s personality. When others come in and tell a person what they should and should not be wearing, I believe it forces that person to re-evaluate their themselves to bend to the will of the others, that person then becomes untrue to themselves.

From the get go, this show is full of upbeat dance music. The show rarely has any men on, I guess men have a much better fashion sense than women after all, or maybe this programis geared towards women and designed with them in mind. This show’s fashion faux pa victim is Kristy. She is described as, “A frumpy legal assistant.� So what’s Kristy’s problem? She wears too much black, her shoes are too rectangular and her glasses are too old (they’re from 2003). When we first are introduced to Kristy, we see that she is shy, quiet, and very self-conscious about her body (she is a few pound over-weight). Overall, Kristy lacks confidence in herself. Kristy (like everybody on the show) agrees to give Clinton and Stacy complete control over what she will now be wearing. What she will be wearing are likely to be styles found in the commercial advertisements that station TLC runs in the time slot. Various product placements of clothing items and other beauty products are laced throughout the show. The show airs at 12pm, 2pm, 9pm and 11pm. The show seems to jump around the "prime time" line up of shows it would have to compete with if it aired earlier in the morning or the 7 o'clock to 9 night programs. This way, theshow can catch it's main audience after Desperate House Wives and Grey's Anatomy and other shows with predominately female veiwerships.

When the show’s hosts describe Kristy, they use words such as “fun, young and vibrant.� They are giving her an identity. From observing Kristy throughout the show, it is obvious that she is not a “fun, young, and vibrant� type of person. She is actually quite conservative and honestly dull, she claims she doesn’t like to stand out and be noticed. If this how she describes herself, why do Clinton and Stacy tell her that she is the opposite of what she is? She dresses in dark, unrevealing styles because she doesn’t want to stand out, not because she doesn’t know how to dress. Something that I found completely ironic about What Not to Wear is its commercial on TLC. In the promotion for TLC and the show, host Clinton sits in front of the camera and explains to us that “we are constantly bombarded� with the thoughts, views, and opinions of others. Clinton tells us that we should be unique and be ourselves. What? If everybody should be themselves why do they need a show to tell them that they shouldn’t be dressing the way they like, rather, conform to the styles set by a changing society? The show obviously contradicts its own promotions.

When Clinton and Stacy tell Kristy what to wear, she looks down at the floor and grudgingly goes along with it. This is not Kristy’s identity. The hosts also tell her how to hide her weight through different clothing options. As Kristy tries on new clothes, the camera is quickly jumping around her body and the fabric, giving extra attention to her stomach and curves. There is a segment near the end wear Kristy (or who ever the victim may be) strike various poses as the camera pans up and down her body while her face makes us believe that she's trying to act/appear "sexy". They even go as far as to change her make-up, hair, and eyebrows, all in an attempt to make her more appealing to the values of society. This is an example of the scaling of bodies. In this theory, a common prejudice is that society only values the fit, thin and beautiful people, not the overweight and unattractive. The show is centered around the message that this make-over will change the lives of those selected for the better, bringing the person new successes. Wouldn’t it be better if the overweight (women in general) were judged more on their charisma versus their appearance.

“Acceptance will not result in healthy female bodies, though, unless accompanied by rigorous and on-going critique of women’s representation in the media.� (The Body is the Message, Cara Woods. Gender + Plus size Body).

The gaze present in this show is surely male. The camera is constantly looking up and down the body of Kristy. One could argue that this only to show off the clothing styles (which is the clear intention). The counter to this is that the camera stops and focuses close in on Kristy’s chest and hips. Objectification of the female body in Western culture produces a multitude of negative consequences for women.

“Increasingly, researchers have investigated diverse samples of women and demonstrated a variety of detrimental effects associated with self-objectification including increased body shame, appearance anxiety, disordered eating, self-surveillance, and diminished mental performance and capacity to achieve peak motivational states.� ( A Test of Objectification Theory: The Effect of the Male On Appearance Concerns in College, Rachel M. Calegero. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28 (2004).

In the end, Kristy is happy with her new look and the choices that Clinton and Stacy made for her. I still find it a little troubling that she disregarded what she was comfortable wearing to appease the opinions of those who believe they know the only acceptable way to appear in public.

Posted by Stephen Kuzj at 9:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

“Once upon a time there was a charming young bachelor searching for the woman of his dreams,� states a man’s voice at the commencement of ABC’s The Bachelor Rome. This hit romance reality TV show, currently in its ninth season, adds a new twist to this fairy tale search for true love. The young bachelor is real life Prince Lorenzo Borghese from Rome. He’s educated, polite, athletic, and portrayed as perfect. Yet, he feels as if women don’t love him for him, but for his title. So why not go on TV and announce to the entire world that a Prince is looking for a Princess to call his own? This will really help eliminate all those women looking to fulfill their life long fantasy of marrying Prince Charming.
In the Bachelor, one man must select from 25 women in his search for a happy ever after. These women are “chosen� based on their intelligence and personality. Yet, every last woman is tall, skinny, gorgeous, and looking as if they just stepped out of a salon. They become the object of the male gaze. In Kaplan’s article, Is The Gaze Male? she states, “[Men’s] gaze carries with it the power of action and of possession,� (121). This is evident in all scenes that require the women to remove clothing. In this single episode, there were two scenes involving water, which can be very sexual, and the removal of clothing. As princess #1, Jen, is taking off her clothes revealing a string bikini. As she gets into the hot tub, the camera scans her body in slow motion, focusing on her breasts, butt, and legs. This also occurs during a scene when Princess #2, Sadie, and Lorenzo are scuba diving. This underwater shot lingers on her bikini clad body. In both instances, Lorenzo’s body is hidden completely, not even his swim trunks are shown. It’s as if the gaze is Lorenzo’s, living out any man’s dream, watching nearly naked women swim. Possessing the control, Lorenzo is then able to determine which of these women he is physically and sexually attracted to and whom he should select as his own.
In Yep and Camacho’s article The Normalization of Heterogendered Relations in The Bachelor, they discuss how The Bachelor reinforces heterogender structure in which “privileging men and exploiting women, in the institution of patriarchal heterosexuality� occurs. This is apparent because 25 women are vying for the attention of one man. In this episode, the last three contenders went on overnight dates, one on one with the bachelor. All destinations emphasized love and romance with time stopping shots of candle lit dinners, full body massages, rooftop gardens, and sunsets. Lots and lots of sunsets. During these dates, all three women gushed and fawned over Lorenzo, spilling their hearts out saying that they all have “really strong feelings� towards him. In all instances he replied that he felt the same. In the end, Lorenzo had to use his proactive power and select two women to stay. All in all, Lorenzo, the male gets all the power and control while the women are analyzed to the core on “wifely� qualities.

Posted by Stephanie Boekhoff at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The BBC’s reality show “What Not To Wear� constructs a reality in which there is only one correct way for women to look. The show enforces this construct by humiliating contestants who do not look “correct.� If Alessandra Stanley’s argument that "humiliation is the unifying principle behind a successful reality show" is correct, then “What Not To Wear� can consider itself a truly successful reality program.
The entire point of “What Not To Wear� is to humiliate women into modifying their appearance according to a normative standard, all under the guise of “helping� them. In the episode I watched, the hosts, Trinny and Susannah, “madeover� two women. The first woman entered the show wearing bright clothes and a fake ponytail. The program began with the hosts telling her that the reason she wasn’t getting hours at work was that her co-workers were probably embarrassed to have her working reception. Then the woman watched a tape of her husband making fun of and laughing at her appearance. This constitutes humiliation under Avishai Margalit's definition, in which humiliation consists of treating people as "merely things, tools, animals, subhumans, or inferior humans". When Trinny and Susannah sat this woman down and had her taped watching a video of her husband laughing at her they were definitely treating her as an inferior human. Then the hosts gave the woman a two minute demonstration on what she “should� wear – the colors, the shapes, the lengths, which bits of skin to cover, and which to show. Then she was sent off to shop alone. The next day the hosts came to review the woman’s purchases. They humiliated her blatantly, making fun of her new clothes in a variety of colorful ways, including comparing an outfit to a “gaudy toy at the funfair.� This humiliation is intentional on the part of the show. Even if the intentions of giving women a set of rules to govern her appearance are benign, telling these rules to her in two minutes and then expecting her to understand and act on them immediately is setting her up for failure.
The hosts then chose an outfit for her, replacing her usual pinks and reds with blacks and blues, and covering up all of her skin, much of which was exposed when she entered the show. She hated the outfit, and told the hosts that. They told her that they were right, that she had to trust them, because they understood what women should wear, and she didn’t. This is another example of the hosts treating the contestant as inferior, and thus humiliating her. This is also an example of why the humiliation of this woman is considered socially acceptable. The show and the hosts portray the humiliation of this woman as “helping� her to stop humiliating herself by dressing how she wants. They act as if they are enabling this woman to leave the margins and enter mainstream society, which most viewers consider constructive. The truth is that “What Not to Wear� further marginalizes contestants by covering up their difference, stifling their individuality, and forcing them into the mold that mainstream society pushes on all women. Marginalization and humiliation are not the only ways in which “What Not to Wear� abuses women. Even if Schick’s argument is correct, and people can be humiliated without losing self-respect if they behave according to their “ideal standard�, it does not apply to contestants on “What Not to Wear�. The first woman was forced to change her ideal standards to match the standards of the hosts. This was displayed blatantly twice on the show. When looking at a pair of pants that she liked, but did not follow the “rules�, the woman asked the camera, “should I be good or shouldn’t I?� This displays a lack of self–respect, as she acknowledged in this comment that her sense of style differed from that of the hosts, and also that their opinions were “good� and hers were not. Later on the show, the woman said of a new outfit that the hosts had chosen for her, and she didn’t like, “Once I get used to it, I’ll be able to carry it off better.� Under Schick’s definition, this woman has then surrendered her self-respect by not behaving according to her ideals, as well as being humiliated by the hosts, making “What Not To Wear� the ultimate degrading experience.
Myra Mendible argues that the content of reality shows “reflects the underlying logic of our social order.� I would argue that this content reinforces and perpetuates this logic as well. These arguments make “What Not to Wear� even more disturbing. Not only does this show humiliate the contestants into changing their appearance to fit a normative standard, but it reflects the social construct that women in society at large must look a certain way or else be humiliated. Why can’t there be more than one socially acceptable way for a woman to look?

Posted by Angeline Andersen at 4:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night I watched an hour of Texas Cheer Moms, a new reality show on TLC. This show is about a group of girls on a cheerleading team and their mothers. This show takes place in Waco, Texas where, “it’s an honor and a matter of pride when your son is a part of the football team or your daughter makes the cheerleading squad� (TLC website). All of the girls on the team are white, skinny, and tall. They all wear heavy make-up and designer clothes. Their houses are typical suburban with a dash of classic southern style, with huge family portraits in gaudy frames. Many of the girls on this program are obviously spoiled and explode in a fit of tears when they do not get their way or are spoken to rudely. They are the obvious queen bees of their lives and their school. What is almost worse are their mothers, whom are a clique of teased hair women with ‘midway high school’ sweatshirts, heavy eyeliner, and a deep interest in their child’s ability to tumble. These women seem to be only interested in their daughters’ lives. In Kristy Fairclough’s essay “Women’s Work? Wife Swap and the Reality Problem� she talks about reality TV’s portrayal of women and homemaking, “…Wife Swap achieves nothing except to further emphasize the fact that women should be natural homemakers by virtue of their gender…�. This can also be applied to Texas Cheer Moms because the mothers are mostly homemakers, and there is no talk about other jobs.
One of these women, the mother of Meagan who has been cheerleading since she was 3, seems to care more about her daughter’s weight and cheerleading abilities than her education. This show, like many others, pays great attention to the girl’s weight and body type. In Laura Mulvey’s essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema�, she states that “the conventions of mainstream film focus attention on the human form�. In the beginning of the first episode there is a segment focusing on Meagan’s weight. She is forced by her mom to “get in shape� before the upcoming cheerleading season, even though she is quite skinny. In Iris Marion Young’s essay “The Scaling of Bodies� she states that, “Beauty in women, like beauty in men, is a disembodied, desexualized, unfleshy aesthetic: light-colored hair and skin, and slenderness�. There is a definite scaling of bodies in this show; all the girls are pressured by each other, their mothers, and their coaches into being skinny and blond.
This show bothers me because of the incessant use of stereotypes. As I mentioned before the moms are obsessed with their daughters and don’t have a life to themselves. They are “typical� suburban moms. The girls only care about wearing the right clothes, and having the right friends. They are not worried about their education at all. Most of these girl’s dreams were to become cheerleaders. In my opinion, women should be able to choose what they want to do, from cheerleading to construction working. But this show is demeaning to me because it makes it seem that all girls just want to be cheerleaders, and should want to be like cheerleaders.

Posted by Alison Havey at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Whitney Schulte at 2:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched an episode of Laguna Beach titled “Kiss and Don’t Tell�. This show airs on MTV and follows the lives of high school students from Laguna Beach, CA. This particular episode was about some of the stars that went to San Diego for a night. One of the guys, Cameron, “hooked up� with a girl named Tessa, who was the reason they went down there for her modeling. It was a big deal because Cameron is kind of dating someone else, Jessica, and, therefore, it was seem like he was cheating on her to the audience, although Jessica does not know.
Stereotypes run rampant throughout this show, and this episode was no exception. First there was the stereotype of women are not as strong as men. This was portrayed by Cameron and Jessica at the gym. They showed her as being weak and a complainer. Another stereotype shown by the directors was that women are easy to fall in love. They show Tessa just smitten with Cameron after only one night together. Meanwhile, Cameron just sees her as a “hook up� and goes back to Jessica the next day.
Another portrayal in this show is the obsession with perfection. Every character has gorgeous hair that looks like they have their own stylist. Their clothes are right out of the magazines. They are fit and petite. Their nails are manicured and their feet perfectly pedicured.
This show is the perfect example of what Myra Mendible talks about in her essay on humiliation. She explains how many of the people on reality tv subject themselves to humiliation because the fact that millions of people are watching makes them feel extremely important (336). It elevates their status and helps them keep their self esteem because even though things may hurt them on the show, they know people are watching and it helps them think that people care (336).
I think this has a lot to do with the people on Laguna Beach. They are ordinary people, however, their lives are taped and viewed and the audience plays right along in with their drama. It makes them feel like they are celebrities and so they act like them, even though they are not. They are just reality tv stars.

Posted by Maggie Sullivan at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

For this post, I’ll be discussing the gender stereotypes in “Wife Swap.� First of all, I have to explain the show’s crazy premise. In “Wife Swap,� two families basically exchange wives for two weeks. Certainly, high ratings demand that these families be completely different from each other in regards to their values, creed, race, class, etc. For the first week, the wives live by their new family’s rules. In the second week, however, the wives introduce their own rules that their new family must follow. When the two weeks are over, the wives and husbands meet face to face to exchange their experience. The meeting generally gets pretty loud and emotional. Although some families choose to change their lives for the better after the show, I think that most do very little and/or decide to go back to their usual ways.
The most obvious problem in this show is in the title itself: “Wife Swap.� Therefore, husbands are essentially exchanging their wives like objects/animals which enforces the stereotype that men are superior to women—a contributing factor to a “patriarchal culture� like the McCabe article (“Woman is Not Born, but Becomes a Woman�) suggests (McCabe 3). In the article, de Beauvoir argues that this kind of male dominance “is responsible for generating and circulating self-confirming parameters that institute gender hierarchies and sexual inequalities.� Thus, “He,� the man/husband, becomes the “Subject� and “Absolute,� while “she,� the woman/wife, is the “Other�--the “object� (McCabe 3-4). The Fairclough article (“Women’s Work? Wife Swap and the Reality Problem�) continues de Beauvoirs argument that “Wife Swap� centers on the stereotype that a woman’s “place in the home� is the kitchen: “Wife Swap achieves nothing except to further emphasize the fact that women should be natural homemakers by virtue of their gender... the men are portrayed as doing little of the domestic work and often emerging from the program as heroes, whilst the woman appear as either impossible controlling or exploited doormats� (Fairclough 345). In essence, the show focuses on the craziness that a woman must handle inside the home with the children, and the countless chores that must be completed before the husband comes back from his job. It is interesting to note that Wife Swap was created by a man (Stephen Lambert), and airs on ABC—which is owned by Disney, a company that promotes the traditional family. Thus, with a male perspective and Disney’s influences, it is clear to know why Wife Swap’s content runs in such a patriarchal manner. Furthermore, hand-held camera shots create a very intimate and real portrayal of the families—a behind the scene access into their lives. Also, reactions shots are incorporated in order to heighten the emotional aspect of this family centered show.

Posted by Elizabeth Bodnia at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I watched an episode of America’s Next Top Model. A group of supermodel hopefuls compete, one being eliminated each week, through photo shoot critiques. The women are judged solely on their looks, what is desirable, sexy, or cute in their physical features. Not only does the show promote objectification, but also brings the ideals and standards for a woman’s physical appearance into pop culture. The judges exploit what a model should and should not look like and have a set of standards for the women’s appearances. Iris Young, in “The Scaling of the Bodies� writes about many of the hierarchical standards that cultural imperialism imposes on women and other groups, that they are “assessed according to some hierarchical standard.� She explains that beauty standards are instilled by a hierarchy and that “the normalizing gaze of science focused on the objectified bodies of women.� It is cultural imperialism that has decided what a “normal� or ideal woman should look like. The judges on America’s Next Top Model are looking for the ideal woman’s body. The six models remaining all have long hair, are tall and very thin.
All the contestants on the show are thin and tall. I believe the show starts out with one plus-sized model, but she never lasts long. Sujata Moorti and Karen Ross, in “Gender and the Plus-size Body� discuss “size acceptance� in our media, “it seems clear that ‘size acceptance’ is limited only to the average rather than all sizes. This troubles me despite that acceptance of bodies rounder or shorter than those of straight-sized models is underway.� The models on America’s Next Top Model that make it through many shows, enforce a standard involving “size-acceptance�; promoting what is an ideal and most accepted body for a woman. Moorti and Ross express their concern with the trend of “size acceptance� and its current meaning, “movement to a middle-ground rather than true size acceptance- the acceptance of all shapes and sizes of all people, rather than the idealization of some, the acceptance of the average, and the denigration of others.� This show exploits the standards for a woman’s body and then marginalizes other, “less desirable� bodies beneath it.

Posted by Rachel Lawson at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

1 - Watch (at least) one 30 minute episode of "Reality" TV

Focus on one particular episode from a "reality" TV show focused on or targeting women, young girls, or queer audiences. Makeover, weight loss, plastic surgery, model competition, sweet 16s and others would be great choices. You can choose to watch something you watch often (but watch critically or you can choose something you would absolutely not watch unless you were forced to).

If you do not have a television or access to TV or cable, you can visit the FMC lab and you can purchase a show off of itunes Store for $1.99 (with a credit card or debit/credit card). To do this, launch itunes, click on "itunes Store", go to "TV shows". They have a "reality TV" category, or choose by Network like "MTV" or . They have plastic surgery shows (Dr. 90210), MTV shows (Sweet 16), TLC shows (What Not To Wear), and Bravo (Black.White.).

2- Analyze the episode using a feminist intersectional analysis and key concepts from feminist film/media theory

Analyze the show using the feminist theory and film theory you’ve read thus far. Use concepts of gaze, intersectionality, identity, stereotypes, “scaling of bodies� / ranking of body type, skin color, hair texture, hair length+ , representational practices (construction of characters/caricatures, stereotypes), constructions of "reality", or any of the "issues" discussed in the course that you see reflected (or ignored) in the show you watched.

3 - Use theory to support your ideas/claims

Browse the .pdf files from the special issue of Feminist Media Studies focused on feminist analysis of “reality� television on our WebCT course site. Find an article that can add to your “reading� of the show you watched. You are also welcomed to find an alternative scholarly article to help analyze your viewing experience.

Select a few relevant quotes from any applicable course readings and at least one passage from the additional article (from Feminist Media Studies or other relevant scholarly article) that you chose to read.

4 - Post your 300 to 500 word entry, that cites at least one scholarly essay, by noon 11/27.

Your entry should be 300 to 500 words (about a double spaced page). Suggestion: type in word then cut and paste into blog entry to get word count, spell check, and to back up your writing.

Posted by Rae at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)