Quiz Cinema 3

Marxist-Leninist

A very complex interpretation of Marxism that Lenin brought with him when he took over after the Revolution. He was sent on a train by the enemies of Communism, hoping the guy was so bonkers he would ruin everything. Instead, he built an empire. Russian communists had to negotiate to maintain power, eventually transitioning the country toward capitalism in modern times. There is an uneasy truce between the old, hard-line communists and the modern capitalists. Lenin led the Bolsheviks.

narcissism

According to psychoanalytic film theory, this involves identifying with characters onscreen, and is one of the visual pleasures associated with cinema. In this context, it refers to a pleasure with yourself created when a film encourages the viewer to identify with the main character - we then feel like we are experiencing the adventures and accomplishing the super-deeds of the hero. Any self-love one might have to varying degrees will then be puffed up due to the extraordinary experiences one is feeling like they are doing. This is very pleasurable to people, especially if they have a deep need to love themselves because of being a loser in real life, or think so highly of themselves that they need an extra boost to indulge their self-love. In other words, it works a little on anyone who plays along, but for some individuals, it can have a very powerful effect. And as it is aimed at males in most films, it has the strongest effect on them. You feel you are the center and the king of it all. It is particularly seductive because you don't do anything to feel like that - you just sit there and pay money. Like a drug, it is a kind of cheat or shortcut to feelings like elation or satisfaction.

gender roles

Are socially learned by both genders. They are conditioned by ideology and culture. Society teaches the roles and encourages certain behavior so patriarchal privilege remains. Masculinity is rewarded for being aggressive, leading and showing no emotion, for instance, and punished for going against that.

hollywood today

Battles are waging over the new exhibition outlets - DVD, cable and the web. Studios want to control these outlets and not compensate anyone for them, claiming they are not part of any old agreements. WGA, DGA and SAG have held strikes over this money and demand to be compensated for their work that studios are making huge profits on through these new outlets. Independent films still need corporate access to distribution, exhibition and marketing channels, as the costs are too great. They cannot make enough money to stay in business without them, but to get them they must deliver Hollywood type blockbuster formula products that promise them big profits. That is what people want to see, they argue, and that is what everyone else is making: So make it, or I will choose theirs. The big companies are snapping up independents and making them wings of their own huge corporations, essentially controlling them and dictating what prestige and serious art pictures get made. Even former indies are buying up their competitors - Lucas at Lucasfilm has become essentially an old style mogul along with Coppola. Runaway productions are another area of concern - not only are studios and corporations hiring free agents increasingly on a temporary basis to do work and make films - along with the "independent" production model that already grew from the studio collapse - but they are also simply picking up and moving entire productions outside Hollywood or even the US to avoid unions altogether. They will go to other states like Texas, Florida or North Carolina, for instance, where labor is cheaper and unions are not as entrenched. Or they will go to Mexico or Canada and escape the union regulations and labor costs completely. As no one boycotts these films or refuses to see them if they are not made in America, it works. They pay less, get more hours of labor, and have less safety for the workers, so their profits increase. Titanic, for instance, was shot in Canada. This is the same thing going on in the economy at large, with Ford or Nike setting up shop in Asia or cheaper markets for profits. This outsourcing, farming out and total relocation in some cases, is good for short term profits, but it devastates the home economy. People lose jobs, the economy suffers and people have less to spend on the films - at least in the US. For some companies, though, they do not care - they just go global. They simply tap into another market and sell the products to them. They lift that economy with new jobs, tailor products for them and continue making profits. The globalization of companies essentially ends any loyalty to a home market unless that market proves it will make money for them - either by buying the product no matter how or where it is made or by doing their labor for them cheaper than anyone else. Sometimes it is cheaper to make different parts of products in different countries, then ship them elsewhere to be assembled, then ship them to markets at still other places to be sold. They factor in taxes, transport costs, labor, time and other factors and find it pays to engage in these practices. Hollywood is merely following good business practices when it does this. However, it hurts the home economy while lifting foreign markets, degrades the unions and skilled workers in America and possibly shifts the film's focus to be broader in appeal (simpler visually and intellectually so anyone can understand it quickly) and even tailored to different markets. This threatens the cultural element of American films, possibly leading to films that are washed-out and boring due to having to be understandable to massive amounts of people all over the world at once, or spending American creativity and resources on dealing with other cultures while ignoring our own. Such a seemingly simple thing as saving a few bucks can have very real, complex and long-lasting consequences. What do you think about this? Is it no big deal? Should companies be allowed to do whatever they want for profit? If there should be limits, what are they and who decides? Is Hollywood different in some way, or should it follow the same rules as any business? Is our cultural heritage, not to mention economic well-being, threatened by such practices? Is it unavoidable? Should Americans give up their current lifestyles and offer to work for less and live more humble lives to stay alive in the global economy? The rest of the world has always accused the West, and especially America, of hogging all the resources, living beyond their means at the expense of the rest of the world and living unsustainable lives that the rest of the world cannot enjoy - so they want us to stop being wasteful, live more simply and share more. Is this reasonable? Do you think it will ever happen, or will America simply find another way to live it up and keep the party going longer? Is it inevitable we will have to scale back our lifestyles? Is it desirable, possibly? What is the future of our society, class consciousness, films and economy as you see them?

Male bias

Both of these 2 main modes of visual pleasure have a male bias in a patriarchal society and in the patriarchal film industry. Viewers primarily identify with an active male hero who looks at and acts upon a passive female. It is aimed at the male viewer, and all others must adapt to the male gaze that objectifies women, or else they will get no pleasure - or less than the maximum, at least - from the films.

Dot com bust and 9/11

By the mid 90s, the internet and computer revolution was dominant. By the late 90s and the turn of the decade, it collapsed. 9-11 was another blow to the economy. The current economic climate resulted from Bush's policies of deregulation and massive deficit spending. Sound familiar? The housing bubble and subprime mess grew from the government's support of a policy of trying to get poor people to become home owners instead of renting by offering them initially cheap loans even though they had little ability to pay them back. The adjustable rate loan payments rose over time, eventually causing them to default. Their lack of collateral, steady jobs and a general savvy with taking on and managing large debt insured they would default and the properties would foreclose. The banks, mortgage companies or anyone owning the securitized debts - another befuddling Wall Street practice exacerbating the whole mess - were left high and dry if they defaulted. And they did. In massive numbers. When the housing bubble finally burst - decades in the making - the drop in prices and personal equity led to the financial sector melting down. This reverberated throughout the economy and led to other sectors melting down. Job layoffs followed, which further hurt people's finances. Coupled with the drop in housing prices, people ended up paying mortgages for far more than the property was worth. Their stock holdings plummeted, and their personal savings vanished. They spent less, of course, and more sectors of the economy faltered, leading to more layoffs and the cycle continuing in free fall. Companies downsized, laid off people and then even went bankrupt, got taken over or went out of business totally. The government had to step in and try to stem the flow of blood, but many people had already lost their homes, many companies went bankrupt, personal savings vanished as the stock market tanked, home prices fell, foreclosed properties shot up and unemployment rocketed up. The Recession was complete, returning the country to a frazzled state that was reminiscent of a couple of decades earlier. Capitalism came under attack again, just like during the Great Depression. Wall Street's greedy capitalists were blamed, not the system. Just some bad seeds who gave out the bad loans. A few overzealous financiers who dreamed up overly complex security ideas to make ever more profits. Greedy stock speculators who short sold for profit no matter the harm to others. The government could step in and with good capitalists fix the problem. The system was OK. The media singled out some major criminals like Madoff and AIG executives, blaming them for bilking people or taking profits for shady practices that hurt the economy. The government has used the chance to bring out a bunch of social welfare programs, step up regulation and try to calm people about capitalism still working. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and see if Hollywood uses evil capitalists as easy villains much like during the Depression. Keep an eye out in a theater near you. Can capitalism manage its hegemony and negotiate its hold on power? Do you blame government deregulation in the first place for allowing the bankers and financiers to create the mess by not watching them and punishing them for such practices and stopping it all sooner? Do you blame government for out of control spending and not being careful to spend only what it took in, in effect mirroring consumers who ran up huge credit card debts buying things they could not afford and spending money they did not have? Is the fact that our debt is owned by many Chinese people who knew how to save and invest while we spent and lived way beyond our means troubling in any way to you? What can be done? Pay attention to how films and the government try to ameliorate and downplay this crisis - how they gloss over things, rationalize, blame some bad seeds and continue pushing the American Dream (like Bush ceaselessly badgering people to keep shopping amidst the trauma of 911 - essentially sowing the seeds of this current mess by mindlessly encouraging people to spend when they should have been more cautious, and when the government should have been more frugal and careful). Who is served by these things continuing on as they are? What group gains the most from mindless spending, from people going into debt, from free market capitalism staying in power? Is a policy like Obama is proposing that changes taxes and makes it harder for people to amass huge fortunes a good thing? Or will it simply make it more difficult for anyone to ever challenge the fortunes the elites now have, thus keeping those in power now in power for a long, long time (Obama is part of that group now, by the way). Has he effectively kept himself and his pals and their families in the catbird seat for generations to come, or is the policy good? What are your views on these complex issues?

sex role discrimination

Division of labor is the norm, with men taking the power positions and women assisting. Even though women are just as or more educated and make up over half the population, they have much less power in society, and their representation in film both on the screen and behind the screen is paltry comparatively. The tradition is that a woman stays at home to do domestic chores and tend to kids, not men. Women are thought to be unsuited by nature to professional positions. They can find work as secretaries or minor assistants but find a glass ceiling in both pay and title. Some critics argue they get less pay and responsibility because they are not as good as investments for the company - they tend to quit when married, complain about their "time of the month" which cuts productivity and then take massive breaks for having kids, often quitting, even. They also are traditionally believed to be preoccupied with getting married, so they drain energy away for it and then drain energy away for the kids. These "womanly problems" are cited - at least behind closed doors - for not giving them leadership positions or equal pay. They argue that the training is wasted on them if they quit, they cannot maintain the energy of men over time and do not deserve equal responsibility or pay. Is this fair? Is it true? Even if it there is some truth in it to some degree, could women still outperform specific men in specific areas? And is there any truth to it, anyway?

Social Problem film

During the 40s and 50s, there were a number of films made that criticized American life - but as the Red Scare spread, these films were altered. For instance, film noirs ended up with detectives hunting down commie spies. Any attack of the system became suspect, so people were afraid to openly declare any problem with American society for fear of being branded a commie. They felt pressured to celebrate capitalism and materialism to prove they were patriots. Elia Kazan had the early title of king of the social problem film - he made films about anti-Semitism and racial discrimination in American society. Ironically, he was one of the most notorious cooperators with HUAC in Hollywood. He ruined many people by naming names. Some thought that perhaps his former critical stance against American society made him feel a need to overcompensate to save himself? It is hard to say. Some look at his film, On The Waterfront, as being about his own case. In later years, Stanley Kramer would become the defacto king of the social problem film.

movie palaces

During the early days of films, it was a low-cost pleasure for the lower classes. Peep shows and nickelodeons were mainly for immigrants and the working classes. Themes of the early shorts were showing how the rich helped the elite, how different rich and poor were and how police were corrupt and idiots like in the Keystone Cops. There was a key shift from the early arcades to the eventual movie palaces - huge ornate theaters built to make filmgoing seem like a special, important experience and to try and court the middle class, catering to their dreams and desires instead of just the lower classes. The stories and characters in films shifted to highlight middle class values like working hard, chastity and temperance with a slight anti-union sentiment and pro capitalism ideology.

Indies

During this new period of rampant consumerism and blockbusters in Hollywood, there was a growing group of filmmakers who saw things differently. They wanted to make socially conscious films that dealt with mature themes and subjects. They wanted to explore more complex characters, minority issues and examine society more closely in films that ignored or rejected typical Hollywood formulas. They made low budget films and released them on the usual art house and film festival circuits. New technologies like digital video, cable TV and DVD helped them, as would computers. The independent movement that grew as a reaction to the bloated Hollywood product during the 80s peaked in the 90s. By the 90s, the policies of deficit spending and deregulation threatened a new recession. As things turned ugly, the Clinton era began and new iconic character emerged to counter the Yuppie. One producer emerged as king, churning out a steady stream of high quality, edgy, exciting films that raked in awards and cash - Miramax. They sort of became the central focus, an indie studio in many ways. Everyone wanted to get a project at Miramax. The main exhibition point was the Sundance Film Festival. Every independent filmmaker wanted to get their film shown there to try and attract a major studio distribution deal, or any kind of distribution deal. For global markets, the Cannes Film Festival was still king. Sundance also ran a film workshop called the Sundance Institute, bringing in young filmmakers and helping them work with other professionals to develop their promising projects. Getting a film shown at one of the major festivals was the first step to getting it shown in wider release and an ultimate home video or DVD release. Only major studios and corporations had the money necessary to make prints or copies of the films, market them in the media and ship them out to exhibition outlets, much less convince those outlets to take the products. Getting the attention of these multi-national conglomerates who had all of these various companies already in their control was obviously the only way a filmmaker could succeed on a wide level. Clearly, such control over the industry leads to a kind of chilling effect, rendering whatever these major corporations decide they want shown or said as a veritable law. If filmmakers do not please them or offer something they do not want, they simply block them effectively from reaching the market. This economic censorship is unhealthy for competition and creativity. Many complain this has gutted films and resulted in a boring, safe, profit-driven business that lacks an edge or any teeth. Cable TV also started becoming a major showcase of films. Sundance started their own TV channel and further showed independent films. Together - Miramax helping to produce the films and Sundance helping to nurture and showcase them - these two forces formed the core of the indie movement. Eventually, some argue they became victims of their own success - eventually becoming part of the industry and turning indie films into mere niche-market extensions of Hollywood. Alternative festivals sprang up by people disgruntled with their inability to get into Sundance, while Miramax started buying up smaller competitors and was accused of behaving like a studio that produced increasingly formulaic product and thwarted creativity in the marketplace. Where is the independent film movement today? You have to look at people using digital video on their own, editing online and releasing their films over the computer by streaming or download. There also more mainstream attempts - LucasFilm is pioneering the use of digital video for shooting films and exhibiting them, but the costs are beyond normal humans. Films like The Blair Witch Project used the internet to publicize their film and stir up interest - it was marketing genius and led to it being the most profitable film ever released based on cost to produce at that time. There are also numerous no-frills groups of filmmakers who simply pick up a camera, shoot films with their friends and release them on DIY (do it yourself labels patterned after music groups who do the same for their albums) or over the computer, posting clips or shorts to video hosting sites, offering downloads or making their own websites and uploading their film directly there to be watched.

new waves

During this period, the counterculture developed a taste for alternatives to American propaganda and Hollywood products. The New American Cinema and underground films were popular with them, and they also embraced foreign films. There was a growing art cinema movement around the world during the post war 50s and into the 60s, and they also played at art houses and film festivals. This exposure led people to discover more about different cultures and also find out about new movements going on. The first films they saw were from the European Art film masters like Bergman, Bunuel and Fellini. Then, the New Waves hit. First was the French New Wave in the late 50s and early 60s. This group of critics turned filmmakers revolutionized the way people saw and made films. They used new technologies, focused on new subjects and experimented with new styles and forms. Godard, Truffaut and Chabrol became famous around the world. New Waves sprang up all over - England, Germany, Japan, Africa, Brazil. New stories were being told in new ways, and cinema was looked at as the major art form of the twentieth century. Young filmmakers in America, already stimulated by the New American Cinema and underground movements, started to go to film schools in large numbers for the first time and study all these films by the late 50s and early 60s. When the counterculture exploded by the late 60s and young people everywhere demanded films speak to them more directly, these individuals were just starting to come out of their film programs and were looking to utilize all they had been learning to make their own films. It was a kind of perfect storm - the studios had been failing for years, film was developing as an art form and a huge new audience base was ready and willing for a new kind of film in America

masculine privilege

Essentially, women struggle with the limits of gender roles while men are rewarded. This condition is endemic and invisible in society. Men rarely notice how easy their life is, the same as whites in general in this society. However, some men struggle who cannot show emotions, find it difficult developing intimate relationships and suffer illness silently. They die more often and sooner than women. They also suffer from provider anxiety if they are not rich or famous enough and feel they let their family down. In the end, they are trapped by their roles, too, spending a lot of energy trying to prove they are real men and not women.

Counterculture

Everyone who was dissatisfied with America throughout the 50s combined in one giant movement during the early and mid 60s. They all came together to attack the corporate economy that was taking over. They rejected the Vietnam War and all joined together for their various Civil Rights fights. They focused on the military industrial complex as a common enemy in America, something former President Eisenhower himself had warned about. They accused this capitalist, American, white man entity of controlling policy and exploiting the poor. They pointed out how Vietnamese peasants and the American poor were fighting the war and dying for the imperialist aims of the elite in America. The boomer generation - the babies born at the end of WWII's explosion of life affirmation - saw society as corrupt and evil from top to bottom. They wanted no part in it and dropped out of it to pursue things they thought were important aside from working soulless jobs that supported the system and mindlessly accruing material goods. These young rebels rejected American capitalism and sought new lifestyles with more meaning. They lived on communes, practiced free sex with anyone, intermingled with other races, took drugs and wandered around. Many quit their jobs, dropped out of school and rejected their families. They sought new forms of art and entertainment that reflected what they were doing and thinking. Rock and roll became their soundtrack, especially psychedelic rock for a period when sex and drugs exploded - referred to as the Summer of Love in 1966 and thought to be the true peak of the movement, especially in London and San Francisco. What they read, listened to and watched were different than what their parents liked, and the need to create films and music for them became big business. Music first tapped into them as a market, but it took films a little longer to find the right style, voice and subject matter that would strike a chord with them. Filmmakers eventually did, though, when the studios were finally desperate enough to try anything new that might promise to help them tap into the new audience and make profits again.

sound films

Hollywood made the transition to sound during this period, and the high costs of getting the equipment to make the films and show them in theaters forced many to take big loans from NY banks. This was part of the impetus causing studios to lay off workers and slash salaries, as they had to pay those loans off while attendance was slipping with people losing their jobs all over. During this period, the Classic Hollywood Model of filmmaking became firmly established, and the mass production methods of the studio system kicked into high gear, creating what many think to be the best made and most entertaining series of films ever made. By catering to people's dreams and offering escapism, whatever little money people had they spent on this major entertainment force.

modern masculinity

Ideals of real men evolved from rural agrarian family lords making things on their own and owning and controlling it all to isolated urban citizens beholden to others who own and manage industries in which they work at repetitive, boring jobs. They used to build their own house, raise their own food and make their own clothes. But in the Industrial Age, they had to work for someone else at jobs not connected to such basic things and use their wages to buy those things. The fact that women could work many of those jobs led to confusion and stress for men. Traditional ideas of masculinity were fading and needed to be updated so people could relax and the whole gender system didn't collapse, thus jeopardizing those on top. How could they spin it so men could still feel dominant and everyone else would buy into it?

patriarchy

Ideology that states men and masculinity have privilege over women and femininity. The Classic Hollywood model privileges men and men's roles, making them powerful action heroes, and women are shown as the romantic love interests who wait to be rescued. The formal elements - editing, sound, cinematography, visual design, etc. - also privilege men, constructing images of how men and women are supposed to look and act. They reflect the way the culture in general demarcates the sex roles. It is a hegemony, which means the power of men is dominant and maintained over time by negotiating and adjusting to various pressures and the times. Capitalism and Film Industry privilege men and are run by them, including Hollywood. Men are central to the narratives, the films are produced by men, men finance them, studios are run by them and the directors and most powerful stars are almost all men. Corporate America finds women unsuitable for leadership.

sexualized female

In films, the female body is carefully prepared to attract maximum sexualized attention from the heterosexual male spectator. This sexualized body thing is put on display in most films, with plots contrived so women characters, even if the leads, are forced into underwear, diaphanous gowns or bikinis. They prepare the hair, costumes, makeup and all aspects of the body to play up assets that sexually attract men and downplay any problem areas - the same as in photo shoots for ads and magazines. Camera techniques are employed to enhance their visual appeal. Filters and gels on the lens hide wrinkles, certain lenses can hide a bad nose, specific angles for profiles that are better, lighting to make them seem alluring and stellar or heavenly, etc. The three-point lighting system was specifically designed to make stars appear luminescent, giving a kind of halo effect or glowing outline as if light is radiating out from them. The lights separate her from the set and call attention to her and certain parts of her body. She is arranged and constructed so she seems radiant and attractive to the male gaze. Women are things to be looked at in films, arranged to look pretty and passive. Men drive the story, chase goals, accomplish great feats and win the girl, who typically just sits there or gets in the way even. This cliché is that a woman is actually a problem for the narrative that needs to be dealt with or solved. She slips and falls while the male hero is trying to save them, or she is an outright bad girl femme fatale trying to emasculate and destroy him. Either way, her main function in the end is to be looked at and desired. She exists to be adored. If she refuses to return the gaze, she gives up her right to be real, to have flaws, to exist on her own, to refuse the Queen role and act as her own agent. But if she is aware of her allure, she knows she has this power and can use it to destroy men, anger them, shame them, break up their friendships, make them frustrated, fight and basically upend the whole social order. Men resent this mysterious power as much as they are fascinated by it, so clearly they have to do something about it lest it dominates them. How can they reassert their perceived control and contain this female ticking time bomb?

production code

In the 30s, civil and religious groups complained about what films were showing - the Jazz Age debauchery during the roaring 20s and the crime films, for instance. They mandated that a middle class morality be front and center in Hollywood, and that optimism was important for the good of the country's spirit. The New Deal was working, and people supported it. Faith was being restored in US institutions, class antagonism was waning and the mood was shifting in the country. Happy endings became de rigueur. Capra's films pushed populist views and showed that the American Dream was still alive and well despite its hard knocks. People wanted and needed to believe these myths, so Hollywood pumped them out. Faith was being built up again, and the institutions of the system, like the media and film, were doing their part to get the people to once again settle down and accept the base of society in America - capitalism. As the 30s neared the end, capitalism had withstood possibly the greatest blow it could to its legitimacy, and it was still rolling along. Quite a feat. Why do you think it was able to do this? Were people fooled? Or is the system simply the best, no matter the flaws, and it will win because it deserves to?

guilds

In the early 30s, artists formed their guilds, stressing they were not unions. This was seen by some, especially laborers trying to make their unions work, as class snobbery by the artists wanting to distance themselves from them and get better deals on their own without having to worry about labor. SAG, WGA and DGA eventually formed

Red Scare

In the late 40s and 50s, big business started accusing labor of being commies. During the postwar period when the Soviets rose as America's greatest threat, commies were seen as the greatest enemy. This Cold War made people paranoid of commie infiltrators, so anyone who was not happy or different was suspect. In 1947, the HUAC Congressional hearings were set up to root out possible communists - or commies - and solve the issue once and for all. They wanted to investigate if charges of commies infiltrating industry were true. Hollywood was included in this, and studio executives took the chance to try and clear out troublemakers and gain power over the unions. They named names of people who they thought were commies - the union organizers and those most successful in leading workers against them. People became scared for their jobs and lives and started going before the committee and naming names of anyone they could to save themselves. Many names were added to a Blacklist of people who were not to be allowed to work due to fears about their negative influence. The committee finally indicted and imprisoned 10 writers and directors who invoked their constitutional rights not to speak in front of the committee - they became known as the Hollywood 10. Americans in general did not care about this and willingly gave up their rights to free speech, thought and assembly. The anti-commie propaganda of the time had so scared everyone that they simply did what they were told and attacked anyone they were told was bad. All the people who joined unions or leftist groups during the horrible Depression were now traitors. There was also an anti-Semitic strain in that commies became equated with Jews for some people. Gays were also tossed into the pot. Being a gay Jewish commie was not only thought to be the most Un-American thing in the world, but basically all the same thing. The paranoia of the Red Scare was irrational and out of hand. Rumors were enough to get you in trouble. The Jewish Hollywood moguls had to distance themselves from any accusations, so they willingly did whatever they were asked. They drew up the infamous Blacklists, effectively ending the careers of thousands of people who were remotely even considered to possibly be commies. Some people had to employ Fronts during this period to work at all - they asked friends or hired people not on the Blacklist to pretend like they were creating their work. Some used pseudonyms, others went into theater. Hollywood used this to their advantage to keep power - they simply threatened any union organizers talking about strikes by saying that they would accuse them of being commies. Unions feared losing what little power they had achieved, so they went along with it.

New American Cinema

In the late 50s and early 60s, Beat artists started making films with 16mm cameras. Clarke, Rogosin and Cassavetes were the most famous. They focused on working class characters, social issues and were made with very low budgets. They played their films at film festivals and art houses. Cassavetes acted in mainstream Hollywood films and used his money to make his own films - like Shadows, one of the main films of the movement. Cassavetes made the most accessible films from the group, but some of his were rarely seen by anyone outside of his own circles. Some groups also made collective documentaries to inform people about what corporate controlled news media were ignoring. Many of the films were shot with a documentary style, and many played with the form of films.

gender ideology

It is passed around consciously and unconsciously. One main battleground that people say they notice in society is with language. Our words expose the sexism in our society, they argue. In some Romance languages - French and Spanish - nouns are gendered. English has gendered pronouns. There is a sexist bias in many words like mailman, mankind, cameraman, etc. It assumes man is central and most jobs are for men. Women have to stay out or accept it. In recent times, words have changed - do you agree with this, or do you think it is no big deal? Men are referred to as men, but women often get girl, honey, baby. Although, at certain times some men referred to other men as dude, including women, or honey baby - certain hipster characters. In general, though, the language and words reveal a level of what is appropriate behavior and respect shown. Men can call women what they want, even demeaning them or belittling them, while women must show respect. Other things are subtle like the saying "real men don't eat quiche" - thus it is a feminine food somehow, while "steak and potatoes" is a guy meal. In France, the words and ideas for milk and eggs are gendered feminine. What do you think about these things? Is there anything to it? Do you notice more, even?

Westward expansion

Like society in general, filmmakers yearned to be free of east coast rules and traditions. Specifically, they wanted to escape the patent rules that hemmed them in and threatened to thwart innovation and competition. They saw it as undemocratic and a monopoly. So, they went as far as they could away and set up shop in the middle of the desert in California. Los Angeles was wide open at the turn of the 20th Century, with a lot of desert right up to the coast. No one could really control them or oversee them, so they were free to crank out films and build an industry from the bottom up. People in general were trying to escape the rules of banks, big city industry, Wall Street and the general entrenched managers and owners running everything. Labor Unions were started to help people, but they were resisted and fought all the way. Certain spirits wanted to travel, set up their own rules and take risks. Much like those who fled Europe, the westward pioneers in general were searching for something new they could call their own and stamp as their own. The film industry mirrored those sentiments in many ways.

cinderella myth

Many narratives relay this message, that women must change themselves to conform to an ideal beauty standard so they can get their rich Prince Charming dreamboat to rescue them from their otherwise hollow, dreary, pointless lives. If he sees her and wants her, she wins the "prize" - so she better be ready by making herself look right. This makeover myth is entrenched with tons of films and stories in the culture stressing how changing the ugly duck into a swan will make the men stare in amazement and gawk. Thus, women get the clothing and hair outer shells, the makeup face painted over the real face and the plastic surgery and dieting to literally sculpt the body into the proper form.

WW2

Most of the films made during the war period were various types of propaganda - either to get people to join up, hate the enemy, understand the need to fight, spur the economy, get to work or just push the American way as superior so everyone felt good and on the same page. We needed to create many tanks and guns and so on, so we needed people to help. In general, workers were in demand, so they got better pay and safety. However, there were some wildcat strikes not sanctioned by unions and there was some war profiteering by companies gouging others in a time of need. One key was that women were urged to work and fill the gaps left by men fighting and dying. In general, the period was one that united classes, genders and races - a common enemy tends to do that. But it doesn't last, and then the social problems return. As the war ended, men returned and wanted their jobs back, so women were told to go back into the kitchen. Racial strife flared up again, and class distinctions settled back in with workers and companies fighting with each other for money.

psychoanalysis

Mulvey used Freud's theories and ideas as a framework for a lot of what she was arguing, so it will probably be necessary for you to do some outside research on him and his ideas. It is impossible to reasonably summarize his work here, so make sure you look up his basic ideas on the internet or read up on him a little to help you better understand Mulvey's work here. Freud's theories are hot potatoes in feminist circles, as he really took his lumps in the 70s and 80s from them for being sexist and ignorant to women's issues and specific problems. However, his reputation has survived, and his monumental works are still holding up to this day. When Mulvey tapped into him for her work, she took some criticism, but many feminists embrace Freud for the genius he was, although with reservations. Freud is a controversial figure in feminist academics, so it might also help you to study a little on that, too, as you study Mulvey's work here. I have included links to introductory information on both Freud's basic theories and his reputation in modern feminist academic circles. Feel free to pursue your own information, though, as it will only help you with your studies in this class, and many others.

internalized sexism

Once this all seems normal and natural and someone accepts it on the inside to live their life by, the have internalized the ideology. We are then locked into the narrow roles whether they hurt us all or not. If we deviate we are punished, if we feel or think differently, we have internal identity confusion and may even end up hating ourselves. Men can never express emotion and therefore suffer sadness and depression alone - a typical bottled-up dad who dies of stress-related conditions. Women must sacrifice their careers no matter how fulfilling they are and be housewives, leading to lives of quiet, frustrated depression like a typical suburban, unfulfilled mom. On a personal level and social level, the strict, limiting roles and definitions wreak havoc on many, yet, they persist. Why? Is there some truth to them? Do they work overall, even if they are made up? Why would they work? Were they made up simply because we noticed most people liked them and operated best within them? Or were they arbitrarily created and enforced to keep men on top and women down? If so, what can be done about them? How can we change? What are some specific changes you would like to see? Is it up to a few brave individuals to simply reject the limits and do as they please, leading others after them? Or must we work together to change society overall from strong groups committed to forcing the changes? Will men in power ever willingly do anything that will lessen their power? If not, how can it be done without their consent?

Political hegemony

One unit dominates and maintains that dominance over the others in a group. They must ultimately control the threat of force to win.

US constitution and Bill of Rights

Our most basic rules and laws state that all men are created equal, but historically that clearly meant all landowning, white men. Minorities, the poor and women were not included. The Bill of Rights details many freedoms that are considered sacred, and the numerous Amendments to the Constitution detail the various battles people have fought over the years to be included. We have the freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the right to pursue happiness, among others. We are free to do and say as we wish. The limits are if it impinges on someone else's freedom - and in America, it is tied to money. The more you have, the more ability you have to be free and happy.

escapism

Out of the Depression came the Classical Hollywood Cinema model and the golden heyday of film. They had big productions values, elaborate musical numbers and rich people displaying glossy possessions. They were catering to filmgoers dreams in this period, providing lush escapism. There were some films that questioned capitalism and were more realistic, but the films mostly offered up sheer escapism as an antidote to the harsh world outside the theater walls. People paid to escape their dreary lives and wallow in something that took them away from it all, at least for a couple of hours.

virility

Pop culture helped out. President Theodore Roosevelt put forth the image of the modern man who walked softly but carried a big stick, like he exhorted the country in general to do. He excelled in the military and helped build an outdoor athletic male cult, suggesting it was manly to be outside in nature doing active things. Brute strength and heavy manual labor were manly things that bestowed virility. This masculine ideal included working class men, and they thus felt less likely to challenge the capitalist ideology that had essentially enslaved and emasculated them. Their boring, repetitive, prison-like jobs were now looked at as manly somehow, and by doing them and providing for their families, they were real men. A lot of racial minorities worked these hard jobs, so they also calmed down. Women were discouraged from pursuing the jobs, being told only real men could handle them and implying women who tried were somehow not real women, therefore. Also, as the jobs were thought to be hard, dirty and dangerous, the men got paid more to do them. So, there were rewards economically and socially for men in the system.

rosie the riveter

Rosie the Riveter was a propaganda figure of WW2 that promoted women as strong and capable of working in a factory.

Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema

She is a famous 70s film academic and feminist scholar who today teaches. She wanted to examine film form to see how women were specifically filmed and edited in Hollywood, how their bodies were presented to the camera and spectator, and how it was different for males and females. She wanted to find tools to investigate the cinematic representations of gender and how social differences could be understood by studying films. She was looking for the specific ways Classical mainstream Hollywood manufactured images of women and how they generated visual pleasure for viewers, mainly males.

sole mulvey questions and concerns

She seems to ignore gays and their pleasures, as they might tend to synthesize narcissism and voyeurism. Her psychoanalytic base has been attacked as flawed, especially for feminist issues. She doesn't deal with some modern films that flip the gender of the hero in some genre blockbusters, thus flipping the gazer and object. Thelma and Louise showed Geena Davis' character gazing at an objectified Brad Pitt character, and men hated the film. Men refused to engage or identify with the two women. Men in general never experience women's films and female ways of seeing. Therefore, women who are trained to see the male POV know men and how they think better. Of course, the male POV in most films is at the level of an idiot Neanderthal, so not sure what they really learn from that. Also, Mulvey's idea that the subjective shot creates an absolute identity link between character and spectator has been questioned. Some can refuse this link, identifying with secondary characters or the director, even. Spectatorship is a free-floating and complex process that perhaps needs more study.

gendered expectations

Society defines the sexes and their roles - how they act and look. What does it mean to be a man or a woman - how do you look and act, what can you do in society, how is femininity and masculinity constructed? You are expected to conform, and if you do not, you will not fit into society. Society either has to broaden its views or you have to alter what you want to do so you fit in. If someone deviates from expectations, how are they treated? Have the definitions of masculinity and femininity changed over time? For the better? How have traditional notions of gender been negotiated as you see them? How are traditions still reinforced today in films and media? Are they good or harmful? What does it mean to be a man or women today? What is expected? Is it good or bad?

underground cinema

Some groups made even more challenging and experimental films. These were urban avant garde artists at the forefront of the countercultural movement brewing in America during this period. They rejected Hollywood form and content completely. They were artists first and foremost using their materials in any way they saw fit to express their vision. They made extremely low budget films, often improvised scenes and ignored mainstream cinematic logic when assembling their imagery. He even created the Factory - his home and work base that held events and churned out art products, including films, much like the old Hollywood studio system. They truly represented an alternative to Hollywood. So much so, that Andy Warhol even create his own alternative Warhol superstars to star in his underground films. He was a pop artist who worked with his friends and played on the idea of the Hollywood myth, saying anyone could be a star - he went one better and made drug users, homeless hookers and transvestites the stars of his anti-Hollywood films. Another filmmaker, John Waters, satirized the middle class in his low budget films and also used marginalized people as his stars, including a huge overweight transvestite. All of these films tapped into new channels of distribution and exhibition to get their films to the public - film festivals, parties, concerts, art houses, midnight screenings, schools, museums, etc.

Russian Revolution

The Romanov Dynasty ended in the February revolution of 1917. This dethroned the imperial tsar who got them into WW1. The October revolution toppled the provisional government that was set up to be a weak compromise between those wanting big changes and loyalists to the tsar. The Russian Civil War pitted Bolsheviks (the Reds - made up of the main workers, soldiers and masses) versus Mensheviks (the Whites - the moderate minority, linked to the allies of WW1 and pro-tsarists). The Reds won.

Force

The direct physical compelling of someone to agree with what you want them to say, think or do.

Social hegemony

The dominance and maintenance of that dominance of one social class over the others. They persuade, coerce or force the others to agree with them, using the press, schools, family, church and arts to influence others. They use the courts, police and military to force them ultimately, if necessary. The threat of force is the final weapon.

Salt of the Earth

The most famous example of a social problem film. This 1953 film was made by people on the Blacklist who had nothing more to lose. It was an independent film that used real locales, nonactors and a documentary style. It attacked capitalist exploitation and told the story of Mexican American workers striking at a mine. It was pro-working man and portrayed the owners as racists. It also dealt with gender issues, as women picketed and tried to overcome the divide and conquer tactics of the sexist owners. It had some traits of the famous Soviet filmmaking style - Socialist Realism. Seen as a socialist film, right wing vigilantes tried to disrupt filming, and mainstream theaters refused to show it. It is remembered today as a curiosity and a cult film.

nostalgic hollywood blockbuster

The new studio model was still different - creative, independent producers used studio money to make their own films, then the studios distributed the films to exhibitors and marketed them, based on certain cuts they would demand. Once the new blockbusters started raking in money - like Planet of the Apes, The Exorcist, The Godfather, Jaws and Star Wars - people were desperate to get in on the act. Planet of the Apes showed how effective a new blitz marketing campaign could be, even playing ads on TV. Big weekend releases also proved smart business. Synergy and product tie-ins, especially with Star Wars, proved to be as lucrative as anything else. Sequels and copies flourished. Conventional genre formulas became popular again, and directors strove to make good, old-fashioned entertainment. They backed away from attacking capitalism and society, instead reviving the old Horatio Alger myth with films like Rocky and Saturday Night Fever. They showed a more realistic American Dream with working class heroes working hard to get a better life, ignoring the institutions blocking the hero. They showed capitalism as working for everyone, ignoring race or class. Blaxploitation films hit in the early part of the 70s, and were curiously implying poverty was racial, not a class thing. The theme was to downplay capitalism's negatives and make America seem like a harmonious place that was still the land of opportunity.

Power

The perception that force can be used to compel you to agree with what someone else wants you to say, think or do

the 3 gazes

Therefore, the main gazes involved - camera, character, spectator - are all male. Viewers pay money to see female bodies displayed in a certain manner that is designed to give males pleasure. Women viewers must identify with either this male gaze POV or with the objectified woman. Real women are marginalized in the process, ignored in favor of images of objectified women.

film school brats

These are a generation of filmmakers who rose to prominence in the 70s after having studied film at universities, including Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas, et al. This is what the young filmmakers fresh out of film school were called. They were young, often had little real world experience, were snobs about the films they were studying and were eager to prove they were serious filmmakers and artists. They took their small budgets and directives to tap the new youth market and ran with them. During a brief period of experimentation, any young filmmaker who could talk a good game about European art cinema, the countercultural issues and seem to be cool or hip was given an at bat. They were often sophisticated and self conscious, the first generation to learn about film and culture links in film schools. They mostly wanted to make leftists political films and change Hollywood. AIP, headed by Roger Corman, was one of the first independent companies to make a splash, offering a number of the young film school students a chance to make their first films - usually low budget genre films. One main independent company, BBS, was set up by a rich kid Hollywood player, Bert Schneider. They made a documentary called Heart and Minds that attacked US policy in Vietnam. American Zoetrope was set up as a filmmaking commune by Coppola in San Francisco. They were looking for new ways to make films and focused on creativity instead of making money. That doomed them in one of the all time arch capitalist businesses of all time - Hollywood filmmaking. The first successes that really tapped into the new market included Bonnie and Clyde, the Graduate, The Wild Bunch and Easy Rider. Many of these films tapped the new market because they dealt with similar young outsiders, or else rebels battling the establishment. They used experimental techniques and incorporated more sex and violence. Easy Rider capitalized on the Beat's "hit the road" ethic and the countercultural attacks on US society. There was a lot of pessimism and attacks on the US. They stressed that chasing the American Dream was empty and misguided. Most of the films were being made by small independent production companies who got a little financing from the studios but had to shoot them on their own. They then delivered the finished film to the studio, who then accepted it based on certain cuts, often. These battles over cuts became increasingly legendary. Once accepted, the studio marketed it, distributed it and made sure it got exhibited in theaters. The new hits that made money, the new emerging star directors and actors and the new model of filmmaking all formed the New Hollywood.

labor unions

These are groups of workers who band together to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. Hollywood as a business resisted giving anything to unions, which they saw as limiting their freedom to conduct business as they wished. These were people who fled the rules of the East Coast, so to see them arrive on their shores was not a happy thing. They disparaged the members by calling them commies, anarchists, foreigners - whatever they could to get public opinion against them and justify them resisting having to pay more for labor. They called union agitators un-American. The main ones are: IATSE - made up of all the behind the camera workers, and AMPAS - a sort of fake Union set up by Hollywood executives to make it look like they were working things out. A class system was set up within the working community - the owners were the upper class, the artists became the middle class and the working class was the labor. This divide and conquer strategy pretty much worked, as distrust and disdain were sown between them when one got concessions the other did not. They no longer saw a common cause against the executives and started fighting amongst each other for the limited benefits that were to be offered. Other problems included offering one union something and thus making other unions mad at them, some unions growing bigger and crushing or absorbing smaller ones who were making it difficult for them to win battles, studios starting the hiring of nonunion workers to save them troubles and finally organized crime getting involved in the whole mess.

masculine ideals

These are learned in a patriarchy through dads and father figures, homosocial groups like sports clubs and teams, frats or the military. You have to learn and embody the proper images and behavior, consciously and unconsciously studying and copying the patterns. We then rehearse, perform, reinforce and teach these fantasy ideals to each other. This male bonding process occurs in specially-created spaces within these homosocial group meetings to handle self doubt and pump up confidence. They help each other by competing and pushing - not loving and nurturing. The media and sports events show male athletic superiority, so many try to measure themselves and copy these ideals. Ads also teach a lot about what things to buy to be a man. In images, men are usually active and powerful and are sexually desired by women for these qualities of dominance. Hollywood films also teach a lot of this. Men are the center and active, women are looked at and serve as prizes for the male's displayed dominance. Most film's are men's films by default, with women's films only those rare "chick flicks" that take on their problems and emotional stuff. Westerns, gangster films, action adventures and war films teach men how to look and act, proving themselves and succeeding by violence and dominance. The industry is also controlled by men as a patriarchal business - the leadership positions, the technical crews, the guilds that teach men how to do things are all male and exclude women in general, as well as minorities in general to some extent.

gangster

These became popular during this period, not surprisingly. They depicted men who had given up trying to make it within the system. They turn to crime and battle the government and big business they no longer see as working for them, or even working at all. These anti-heroes were seen by some as rebels attacking the base of corrupt capitalism. However, the code of cinema made sure that if they transgressed the rules, no matter how much fun they had or how justified they seemed, they were punished at the end so people understood crime did not pay. Many simply saw these thugs as arch-capitalists who didn't even bother to play by some of the rules the rest of society did - they merely competed ruthlessly and tried to make money and buy things and be successes. This pessimistic film genre was a precursor to the film noir, which would reflect an even darker time to come.

pre-code films

These films were Hollywood films made between 1930-34, in the years before the Production Code was enforced with the Seal of Approval provision.

homosocial groups

These groups are non-sexual same sex groups based on friendship, loyalty, love or shared interests like fraternities, sororities, sports teams, sex-segregated military units, etc. These are same-sex groups that do a lot of the conditioning and educating about gender roles in society. Sports clubs, frats, sororities, classrooms - they are divided into 2 camps by sex and gender expectations. Male groups are thought to be better at everything. This foments a kind of war or Battle of the Sexes as we psychologically define ourselves against each other. Masculine is not feminine. Binary opposites are a popular way to look at it, like with Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus phenomenon. People swear these differences are innate and true, but overlook the long history of the patriarchy and society in generally constructing and maintaining the gender definitions. It is simple and easy just to accept this tradition as natural and normal and follow it.

hollywood myth

This became very important in America over time. It stated that anyone could make it, not just WASPs. Poor immigrants ruled Hollywood - moguls who grew studio empires from small ghetto nickelodeons. Stars also came from nowhere, plucked from obscurity after being noticed in public. These romantic success stories were all over the new fan magazines, which constantly told people they could make it, too, perhaps. People started quitting their jobs and rushing to Hollywood to get discovered or make it big.

Divine Right

This doctrine is based in Christianity and states that God blesses wealth and bestows on the those who rise to the top with the divine right to rule others. It is a kind of Darwinian, somewhat ironically, ideology that says pretty much the winner deserves it, the losers suck on it. Those in power have the divine right, so you should not question them or try to stop them. This is convenient for those in power, of course, especially in a religious society. But if those in power seem to be making rules that hurt everyone else for their profit, or if some members do not follow that religion, tensions will arise. And they do. This claims you are better before you compete and more deserving before you prove it - it works to stop competition and says something about you is inherently superior and deserving of being on top. You want others to agree to this and let you do as you wish, while they have to compete for whatever they get.

half the narrative

This fact that the woman is mainly to be looked at and is a such problem for the male-driven narrative (and males in general) is developed further by Mulvey. When the female is displayed perfectly to be looked at, males will have to look and the action will be brought to a halt while everyone gawks at her. The male can't help stopping and gawking at a beautiful, hot woman - the extreme of this is men staring on the street at women. In this culture, and many in the world, men seem to be fascinated by and fear hot women. This is a certain power, actually. She doesn't act in any way to impact the narrative, but her sexual allure gives her the ability to stop the narrative in Hollywood films. This is therefore a threat to patriarchal dominance, as it can take over things if not dealt with, controlled or contained in some way. Mulvey finds that the male characters have 2 main ways of dealing with the female's power in Hollywood films

editing

This formal technique is heavily used to achieve these effects by creating relations between objective and subjective POVs. An objective shot has an omniscient POV in which you clearly see the scene. A subjective shot takes on one specific character's POV, showing only what they see and tying the viewer to them. We see the world through their eyes, inside their head, and we pretend we are them. This most basic building block of classical Hollywood storytelling carries and encodes gender dynamics. Males look and females are looked at as objectified things for their pleasure. This recreates the Quattrocento perspective from painting, taking the viewer inside a character's viewpoint that is the center of the film world created - the most privileged position of power as the hero.

Quattrocento style

This is a European painting style that emphasized three-dimensionality and perspective. This was the most popular style during the European Renaissance, used to create a sense of perspective and three dimensions. The world was represented on the canvas for one viewpoint. Whoever was gazing at it was the center of the world. As it was commissioned, created and made for men, this essentially empowered the dominant patriarchy. Men are posited as the center of the world and in total control and privileged. Other culture's arts are more abstract and open.

Runaway productions

This is a US film production made outside the country in order to exploit cheap labor.

Maoist

This is a brand of communism in China, after Mao took over when Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan. His various policies like the Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution didn't work out so well, but the system he put into place is still going, albeit with many negotiations necessary in order to maintain power, including capitalist reforms in modern times. A fascinating history.

Femme Fatale

This is a common woman character in film noir who leads a male character to his death.

male gaze

This is a concept of feminist film theory that argues that all the looks associated with classical Hollywood cinema - the look of the camera, of the characters at one another, and of the spectators at the screen - are either male or assumed to be, thus resulting with women only being looked at and objectified by this. Men control the gaze, women are the objects of their controlling gaze and do not return it. They exist to please the male who has the privilege of gazing at them as they wish, expecting them to either provide them with that pleasure or vanish. As film productions are male-dominated, males are usually making the films, looking behind the cameras and telling women what to do in front of them - arranging them for their desires, instructing them to enact the stories for the male characters they want to be and displaying their bodies for their pleasure.

Woman's Films

This is a genre that focuses on alleged "women's issues" such as romance, courtship and parenthood.

White Trash

This is a pejorative term used to describe poor people of Caucasian descent. Poor rural "White Trash" from the "New South" were shown as heroes in films as the economic resurgence of the area occurred in the 1970s. Northern business moved there to avoid regulations and unions, and poor whites became the new working class heroes fighting the establishment. Races united for the most part to fight the bosses and get better lives.

Rugged Individualism

This is a popular phrase in American culture that champions the lone citizen taking responsibility for his or her own success.

slacker

This is a slang term for young people in the 1990s who chose not to pursue high-paying careers. This was a downwardly mobile urban loser who rejected the American Dream and materialism in a strong reaction to the 1980s. They held easy jobs, chose grunge music and fashion over prettified pop and shopped at thrift stores. They rejected the Hollywood formula films and sought out movies that explored deeper themes and showed an alternative reality - indies and foreign films. Some of these slackers goofed off on computers and became millionaires with their ideas. The Clinton Presidency provided a government surplus, and this helped to pump up the economic bubble that was rising, obfuscating class struggles in the culture in general and leading to a sort of heady playtime, a little like in the 80s.

Class system

This is a social structure that assigns people to specific groups based upon wealth, social standing and heredity. A way to divide people up by class standing and social worth. You form a large part of your identity by your place in the system. This will categorize people's social standing according to economic status - income, profession and inheritance. The British and US systems are closely linked. Historically, feudalism declined, nationalism rose, common law rose, the printing press circulated new ideas, Christianity rose and politics shifted to accommodate all that, along with the growing merchant and middle class. The middle class are like the middle managers - they serve as a buffer between the elites and the laborers. They basically get paid off by the elites to manage the lower classes for them, while they sit back and enjoy a life of luxury. The middle class in some way proved themselves to the elites either by performing better or being loyal, and they were lifted up a notch. People rarely gain entrée into the elite class without being born or willfully brought in, but it does happen. Mobility between the lower and middle classes is most common. The lower classes have split into gradations of upper and lower, as well, as people are keen to always seem a bit higher than someone else, or to feel they can attain the next level. The elites are merely rich or super rich. The expectations of someone from a given class are radically different, and the way they are treated varies greatly. Those above have a vested interest in dividing people to avoid solidarity and more easily control them. They historically thwart unions of any kind, unless they are in charge of it and can manipulate it for their own "team". Frustrated by a lack of mobility and opportunity, not to mention humane treatment, many revolts spark up over time whereby the lower classes look to topple the elites and establish a new, fairer political or social system. The Russian Revolution, The American Revolution and the Khmer Rouge were all revolts that had differing causes and radically different outcomes. Your place in the system will color your life, possibly even dominate it, especially in certain countries like India. In America, it is a little less pronounced in relation to social justice, perhaps, but strongly noticeable economically, nonetheless. Some general statements can be examined about the three main class divisions

Yuppies

This is a term used to describe economically acquisitive and career-oriented people in the 1980s. By the 1980s, the blockbuster model was dominant in Hollywood and society. The Horatio Alger myth was everywhere, with tales of loser heroes rising to the top against all odds to make it in America all over the cinemas. Conspicuous consumption and materialism were everywhere in America preaching that consumerism was fun and good. The message was that the system was perfect, and the new iconic image of the typical American became a Yuppie - a young, upwardly mobile, urban, conservative person with a good job, lots of money and lots of stuff.

Military Industrial Complex

This is a term widely used by the counterculture to describe the economic connections between American corporations and the armed services, thus linking civilian industry to the business of war.

capitalism

This is an economic system that promotes competition between businesses without government regulation, ideologically measures one's worth and success by material wealth and is the dominant economic system of the US. This is the dominant economic ideology in America and the West. It stresses economic competition between individuals. Today corporate capitalism rules the land, which stresses competition between companies, which individuals join. It is so pervasive, no one notices it anymore. It just seems natural. Social worth is equal to economic standing, success is equal to wealth and power - what you can buy. Material wealth is the main goal - buying land, cars, jewels, and clothing

Upper class

This is an elite club that one usually only enters by birth or willful invitation. Rare individuals rise up with some great stroke of fortune - like a lottery win or invention - but they are never fully accepted and always considered nouveu riche interlopers. This is the exclusive white WASP patriarchal core of European and American power. These are the owners of land and businesses, the one percent who have amassed most of the wealth and power in society from the early days and do not give any of it up easily. Their ancestors usually ruthlessly built empires or out-competed everyone else to rise to the top, and then their families lived off of their wealth for generations, cycling amongst a small number of clans over the years. Inheritance is the key to wealth, titles, social connections and power, as only a rare few people actually build empires. Most live off of those empires for as long as possible, relying on the working class's labor and the middle class's management to keep them there. They tend to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods in the nicest areas with huge properties and mansions. They have multiple homes, enjoy the best of everything, travel, go to the best schools and make sure to help their fellow elites in a tight social net designed to keep them in power and the rabble out. They will only give away a piece of their pie if they see an advantage in buying someone out to maintain their power without uncomfortable pressure, and will resort to force ultimately to protect their assets and privileges. As most politicians come from this class, or at least rely on them to win, they enjoy political favors that keep them in power and policies that keep them rich and make it difficult for others to amass fortunes or compete fairly with them. They tend toward monopolies, old boy clubs, secret back-room deals and corruption, as there is nothing fair or democratic about maintaining powerful empires at the expense of supposedly totally free market competition. They resist inheritance taxes and look for ways to position themselves at economic points where the majority of humans simply must spend their money - food, housing and health. If they control those areas economically and control the political and the military areas of society, they can only be dethroned by a revolution. Those rarely pop up, and even more rarely succeed, so for most people, the elites will endure for generations in their areas.

American Dream

This is an expression that encapsulates national myths about equality and the free pursuit of wealth and happiness Individuals are free to pursue happiness without social or economic blocks - to then get the white picket fence and 2 cars and so on. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity for all people - minorities, women, everyone. It pushes an ethic of rugged individualism, in which an individual must take responsibility for their own success or failure, regardless of the social blocks or personal problems they face. This leads to a resistance to shared class identity, effectively splitting individuals from unions, groups or families at some point and encouraging them to go it alone or else they are weak and their success is not fully legitimate. Ironically, the elites, who promulgate this ethic as much as anyone, take all the help they can get, relying on inheritances, social networks and favors from economic benefactors to rise up and keep their power, while encouraging everyone else to refuse the same help to avoid looking corrupt or weak. It is rather idiotic and is a textbook weasel maneuver to simply keep power at all costs. Other cultures do not worship this cult of individuality like America does - in Asia, they happily live with their families until they marry, sometimes forever, for instance. They find it odd someone would not, while in America we all live in separate apartments, sometimes thousands of miles apart - we are separated from friends and family, each paying rent, food and other bills alone that could be pooled and easier to manage. And each struggling to meet others and start another family, even though we already had one. And that family will then be socially torn apart and scattered. We make the best of it, but many parts of the world find it curious and dangerous behavior. It seems normal not to cooperate, and weak to stick with your family and not go off to do your own thing. People admire this idea, and the idea of helping the weak or less talented is seen as parasitic and weak. You cannot trust others and must climb to the top and stomp them.

Voyeurism

This is sexual pleasure that comes from looking at another person - it is one of the basic visual pleasures of cinema, according to psychoanalytic film theory. This refers to deriving visual pleasure from looking at others in a sexualized way, like a peeping tom. The key is the people being watched are not aware, giving the watcher a sense of power and control. Film is pretty much predicated on this in general. A convention of Hollywood is for the characters not to break the fourth wall and acknowledge the camera, thus maintaining the voyeuristic framework. Some films do break this convention on purpose to disrupt this facet of the film process, as certain filmmakers believe it to be unhealthy. Again, this is usually aimed at males, with females being watched in sexual ways. This can become a very powerful attraction for males when contemplating going to the cinema - they know what kinds of ego boosts and voyeuristic pleasures they can expect for their money.

Protestant work ethic

This is the belief that hard work will lead to earthly success and heavenly favor. This comes from Europe - the reformation of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany and the Church of England breaking from the Pope in the 1500s. They were rebelling against Roman Catholic extremes and tried to set up a fairer religious code to live by for everyday people, claiming the Church had lost touch with the common man. They saw excess, corruption and worse. Martin Luther led the Reformation movement, and many branches of Protestant interpretations of the Christian faith flourished after that. As the movement considered the common man, and therefore working classes, against the elites of the Catholic Church, the work ethic that they had became important to society in general. It plays into the idea that idle hands are the devil's workshop, and the Lord helps him who helps himself. Hard work is looked upon as necessary for survival by the lower classes, especially, and they pass that idea along as an almost religious belief. It tends to lose value the more one rises up the class system, so hard work is looked upon as a bad thing and something to be avoided by the elites. This is all somewhat stereotypical thinking, of course, but this is the general idea. In America, a country that came into being when people fled Europe because their religious interpretations were attacked by the established Church, it is natural that the Protestant work ethic came over along with the faith. It is established here, now. During the Colonial period, hard work and being devoted to labor equated being good and devoted to God. Hard work brings rewards now, and later God will reward you. Also, if you are poor, God was punishing you. Ignorant and lazy people were sinners. And charity was thought of as a sin, not something natural. It was against God's judgment. This was a tricky capitalist tool, in essence, that stated that if capitalism failed anyone, it was their fault, not the system. The system helped you achieve your potential and be in line with God. This failure in the system has an implied criticism of a person. Poor people feel this implied criticism against them, and they overreact often, over-stressing things like masculine strength and virility to compensate in one of the only ways they can. The culture of machismo has its psychological roots here in working class culture, white or not. This also feeds into the stereotypes of disenfranchised minorities being poor, lazy, corrupt and dumb because of their race and ethnicity, not the capitalism system unfairly punishing them. Racism does create disparity when hiring and promoting, though, as the various groups take care of their own and discriminate against others. White patriarchal capitalism tries to obscure these problems and uphold this complex social, economic and cultural dynamic with them on top. They blame the individual for social problems and hope they agree. Those on top will always refuse to admit the system causes prejudice, greed, ignorance and economic exploitation,because then they have to say that about themselves, admit they are wrong and change - with them losing power. This does not usually happen.

middle class

This is the class of administrators and managers, those who run the businesses and companies of the elite and essentially help control and oversee the working class. This is a white collar class who need to prove their worth by gaining an advanced degree in some area or outperforming everyone else. They lack inheritance and social connections to rise up to the elite class, but they can console themselves by rising to the upper middle class level, retiring early and living comfortably, while helping their friends and family thrive, as well. They live in the suburbs, dress the same, are cautious and don't make waves. It is thought to be a mainly white WASP class, historically, but is increasingly mixed. Most people identify themselves with this class and aspire to it, whether that is actually possible or not. This is the white picket fence, two car, two child, one dog, one cat, retires at 65 or earlier American Dream class, for better or worse.

femininity

This is the cultural expression of female gender, often associated with passivity, nurturing, emotionalism, etc. The traditional notions say that women are small, quiet, passive, emotional, nurturing, nonaggressive, dependent and weak. When children are playing together, does this really seem true across the board?

Socialism

This is the economic and ideological system which balances governmental regulation of industry, equitable distribution of basic human resources and free market enterprise. This is between capitalism and communism. It is egalitarian, and the state owns everything publicly. It is somewhat utopian in that everyone will work as they can, and everything will be distributed fairly - as needed. It seems to consider people angels, which is nice. But how realistic is that? Can people be brought up like this? Social democracy is a mixed economy - a welfare state which tries to mix forces like capitalism and other approaches, not a revolutionary process.

Communism

This is the economic system in which the government controls and distributes material wealth equitably among all of society's members. This comes from Marx. It states that a Proletarian Revolution of the low and working class will eventually dominate. There will be no class and no state - all will be equal in an egalitarian society. Everything will be commonly owned - the means of production and property. Policy will be made democratically. Lenin's Bolshevism essentially defined it.

hegemonic patriarchy

This is the fluctuating state of patriarchal dominance. This process involves allowing some new idea into the fold as long as at the end the status quo is OK. In general, male superiority is supposed to seem natural so no one even thinks about it or talks about it. No one should question it - along with other dominant ideologies like racism and capitalism. No one should notice how gender is rehearsed, reinforced and performed. But they are always in flux - varying and colliding as ideals about gender definitions and roles battle for legitimacy and acceptance. Studying films can reveal how social constructions of gender roles are formed. Films help naturalize, teach and develop ideas about gender in society, and they show how masculine ideals shift over time. The idea of a real man varies as the dominant patriarchy hegemony negotiates standards of gender so it can keep everyone from questioning it or getting upset and just accepting the status quo and ultimately leaving them in place on top.

Horatio Alger myth

This is the idea that anyone in America can rise to economic success through hard work and the aid of friendly benefactors, named after pulp novels written by Horatio Alger that repeatedly asserted such themes. This grew from dime novels that told stories of young, poor street urchins starting with nothing and climbing the ladder of success by their own get up and go attitude, wits and hard work. This was a key element of the American Dream and appealed to people all over, telling them they could make it no matter how lowly they were. It especially appealed to low class men who were losers. And in America, making it meant getting all the stuff, which was everywhere as the streets were paved with gold and it was the land of opportunity. For most, a much harsher reality awaited. However, when someone did make it, the story was trumpeted, as it was good PR.

sexism

This is the ideology that promotes one sex as inherently better than another, commonly referring to the belief that men are superior to women. This is discrimination based on sex. It is harder to see in society than racism or class discrimination. It is based on the belief that one sex is inherently superior to another - men over women in America. Some women reverse the discrimination and believe women are superior, although this is not commonly practiced, as they rarely have the power to do anything about it.

Working class

This is the labor class, those who perform manual labor - the heavy, difficult, dirty jobs that no one else wants to do. They generally are thought to be poorly educated, to lack ambition and not to care about the finer things in life. This is the blue collar group that works in heavy industry, gets drunk, fights and compensates for a lack of power or status by acting tough and trying to show off their physical prowess. The culture of machismo is most heavily pronounced in this class, and it is thought to be mainly a minority-comprised class in America, with poor whites making up only portions of it. They tend to live in poor rural areas or urban ghettos, where they often are forced to live next to pollution centers or the worst parts of town. Their neighborhoods lack opportunities, so they spiral down into crime havens and become dangerous zones that the other classes flee from. Whether these stereotypes are true or not for any given individual in this class or others, they have endured over time.

Colonial period

This is the period when Europeans settled America, from 1500-1700 - the Spanish, British, French, Dutch, Swedes and Finns mainly. They practiced Imperialism and Colonialism during this period. They had a Puritan ethical code regarding sex, a Protestant ethic regarding work and used slaves and indentured servants as a base of their economy, which served as the foundation of the US. They used racism to justify economic exploitation. They used sexism to justify controlling women and denying them equal rights, treating them and all minorities, including the indigenous people, as second class citizens at best. Many towns, groups and families in America built great wealth with this system of exploitation in place, and today they still enjoy the benefits of what was built then, while the victims' families still are hindered by their lack of sharing in the wealth of the labor and resources that were taken or stolen. This is a main point of contention today, as this is being brought more and more into the light. The legacy of that period cuts two ways - the winners and losers. Should anything be done about it? Or is it in the past? Is it possible that one family who gained by these actions and beliefs could still be enjoying benefits tied to that period? Could another family still be held back all these years by the negative costs it took on their ancestors? If it is possible, should something be done to make up for it, and thus make society more fair and harmonious? Is that fair to expect people who had no direct connection to the winners and losers to settle it? If so, how best to proceed? If not, does this mean the losers will just have to suffer and the winners get to enjoy it? Can society go back and redress such social ills, or are some things too far back or too complex to correct now? Can we seriously go back and make up for every wrong, or are some things so big and important that we must as a society do something to show we disagree and will not let it happen again? What do you think?

gender

This is the social role assigned to males or females in any given historical culture. This refers to societal, cultural and historical roles associated with the male or female sex. They are social constructs whose characteristics are determined culturally. In America, how men and women look and behave are determined by the patriarchy. By setting these limits, females are encouraged to be inferior and discouraged from trying to get power. They try to argue that science and biology determines this, not social constructs. That way it seems normal and people are less likely to challenge the status quo. Medical science today agrees that some is biologically determined but most of the daily differences are cultural constructs that have no legitimacy and no reason to exist other than those in power prefer them. Our sex is formed by genetics - which at times can be complicated in and of itself with indeterminate genders, hermaphrodites and some mutations - and our gender is learned and then enacted. We make ourselves up each day, pick out our costume and then go act our part every moment. No matter how much was forced on us, we still choose to do it.

marxism

This is the system of economic thought based on the writings of Karl Marx. This ideology was also developed by Friedrich Engels. It is predicated on class struggle that will change society to its most advanced state, with each working as they can and taking only what they need. It is a system used to form the base of society and an alternative to capitalism. It states that the superstructure contains ideological institutions that grow from the base, like laws, culture and media. They reflect and endorse the system that produces them. Things like racism and sexism have economic imperatives at the base in capitalism. Male supremacy is justified when women are treated like property traded from the father to the husband. The institution of slavery during the Colonial period grew from the base, which used racial stratification to justify the raw exploitation of people. Films create representations that support the capitalist base because they grow from it.

Urban Industrialization and Modernity

This is the trend in modern society away from rural, agrarian values toward urban industrial society. People tended to work at robotic, meaningless jobs in polluted inner cities. Technology was looked at suspiciously as it led to wars and dehumanizing work. The Modern era brought angst, wars on unimagined scales, inner city crime, pollution of the natural environment and countless social ills like drugs, domestic violence and prostitution. This brought a resultant yearning for nostalgic, illusory simpler times, when things were easy and clean. It is this constant back and forth that spurs occasional flare ups of pop culture mania, innovation and a hearkening back to populist views and nostalgic rhetoric about the "golden days".

investigation and punishment

This is, according to feminist film theory, one of the ways male characters and male spectators control their fear of women. The male character diminishes and negates the female's power by uncovering and unveiling her mysterious allure. He tries to figure out and control the dangerously beautiful woman with a more intense gaze - staring harder to penetrate her armor, trying to crack her shell and reclaim her. He strives to learn all her secrets to then beat her down and gain control. He wants to break her so she will support him and his authority and not challenge it. If he solves this so-called mystery but she still retains or threatens the power to resist and upset him, he must punish her. He tries reestablishing male dominance by imprisoning her, killing her - symbolically or literally - or ruining her in some way. He can marry and put her in a cage at the home, smother her with controlling "love", have her locked up as a criminal - like in many noirs, basically snuff out her energy by undermining her confidence or controlling her with money or even fear and abuse. If she fools him and tries to win over him or destroy him, like femmes fatales in noirs, the code of patriarchal cinematic justice demands she be destroyed. In a film like Vertigo, you have a classic set-up of the hero being fascinated by a female - shown through sensual, subjective shots of the woman he is following and staring at. Women take on certain defenses to avoid this eternal battle - they wear a burka and give up, they get fat or cut their hair short, they focus on kids and do nothing else - but these are all defeatist strategies to exit the battle or just give up to the social pressures. They are not productive for anyone and not conducive to a harmonious society in the end.

new hollywood

This refers to Hollywood in the 1970s and after when it once again became economically successful via blockbuster filmmaking, saturation booking and saturation advertising. By the 1970s, counterculture dreams were already merging into a middle class ethic or fading away. Nam ended and Watergate hit, the economy slumped and Civil Rights battles settled down a bit. The working world and reality started calling on the boomer youth generation, and they sort of dumped their anti-capitalism revolution. The film Brats themselves followed suit and fell into traditional studio system patterns. The brief window of experimentation and young directors getting a shot all over the place ended. Coppola became essentially a mogul at Zoetrope, trying to make money and be a part of the industry. He realized he needed the studios and banks to make money. The commune was dumped. Commercial hits took precedence over experimentation. By the mid 70s, a string of huge blockbusters took Hollywood by storm. They were sheer escapist genre fare, and their huge box office forever ended the period of experimentation and ushered in a new, entrenched studio system we still have today.

Colonialism

This refers to a country or group directly settling, ruling and exploiting another. They establish a colony there, install a puppet government or a member of their group to control the indigenous population, and then have them essentially work for them and give them the benefits of their labor and resources, while they give them the benefits of their technology and civilization. They use Imperialism to control them by force if need be, and cultural imperialism to sway their hearts and minds with all kinds of products that push their ideologies and way of life as superior and desirable. By getting them to buy these products, they can get a lot of the money back they paid them to do their work in making the products in the first place. They can also eventually brainwash them into believing they are superior and their own culture is lesser, thus having them go around and essentially pushing their ideologies for them to their own families and friends. It is like a neat remote control effort to dominate others and get rich. Except it ruins lives and drives an entire culture into the ground.

Cold War

This refers to antagonism between the US and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies from the late 40s to the 80s - it never erupted into full-scale battle, but espionage, sabotage and nuclear buildup were common factors.

CGI

This refers to computer generated imagery. It was initially thought that the process of using computers to do tedious, repetitive work would make the filmmaking process more user-friendly and efficient. Like in all areas of the economy, it simply ended jobs - extras could be rendered, sets painted in and costumes digitally altered. Those who do the work must be highly trained and still perform repetitive, tedious tasks. They have to be paid for their training and long hours, and there are often huge teams of them working on even the smallest of effects. Added to that is the fact that many people do not like the fake look of films that rely heavily on such computerized graphics and special effects - some say CGI has been the worst thing in cinema, destroying the illusion and warping the reality, not to mention altering the economic landscape so blockbusters that can afford to pay such teams are the only ones accepted into major distribution and exhibition channels. They see the films as looking like elaborate cartoons or comic books, not to mention the fact that many of them are actually about such subjects.

film noir

This refers to genre or style characteristics of 1940s postwar films, in which obsessed and greedy individuals double cross one another amidst shadowy sets and distorted camera angles. In the late 40s, a type of dark, pessimistic crime film was becoming popular. The French film critics first noticed them being made in America and gave them the name. They had their roots in popular pulp novels that told lurid stories of murder, betrayal, sex and drugs. American life was being equated with the dark underbelly of inner city crime. Greed, violence and despair were the main themes. The hardboiled literature was made popular by writers like James M Cain (The Postman Always Rings Twice), Dashiell Hammett (Sam Spade novels) and Raymond Chandler (Phillip Marlowe). Their anti-heroes engaged in bribery, blackmail, murder - anything for money - or were involved in uncovering such crimes. They usually got upended by some femme fatale - a sexy, worldly young woman who was evil and intent upon ruining everyone in her path. The films reflected these same themes and had dark, unnerving imagery. They were set at night, shot in dirty locations and focused on dark subjects and lost souls. People were economically trapped, living lives of quiet desperation and totally doubting the American Way. The American Dream was a failure and modern man was awash in a sea of existential despair. They made illegal, immoral plans to escape their misery and get rich. Things erupted into violence and always ended with death and more misery. Some think of these films as social problem films in some ways - they did criticize the American way and often exposed such usually hidden ills as domestic violence, drug abuse and sexual dysfunction. But most people look at them as mainly entertainment. Critics still today debate what exactly film noirs are - a genre, a stylistic and narrative tendency, a subgenre or a film movement. Watch a few and see what you think.

corporate conglomerates

This refers to large often multinational and economically intertwined group of companies that work together to maximize profit and undermine competition. During the 1960s, the new corporate conglomerates that were slowly starting to dominate the economic landscape in the West were taking shape and solidifying their power. A few massive global companies were buying up smaller competitors to cover all angles and essentially stomp out competition. They saw opportunities with the failing studios and snapped them up. Executives were moving in and out of these studios during the time, desperately looking to tap into the new box office that would bring profits and save their jobs. They finally decided to turn to the new young filmmakers coming out of film schools, as they had film savvy after studying the new waves that were popular all over the world, and they were young and in touch with the counterculture. They gave some of them their first chances and hoped they could tap into the massive boomer counterculture market. They were given pretty much free reign to make whatever films they wanted. Their budgets were small, so they had to be efficient and creative. These young filmmakers brought all of their influences and desires to make important, artistic films to the Hollywood market, plus their youthful outlook.

gender identity

This refers to one's sense of one's own gender. Developmental studies find that kids by age 6 develop an inner sense of themselves as male or female. They get these ideas from ideological institutions all around them hammering them with constant images and rules about how they should look and act, what is proper for a lady or what is the right way for a man to act. Their family, church, school, media and pals send these messages out consciously and unconsciously, stating them as good practices, ordering them to do them or simply frowning or avoiding them if they "misbehave". These rewards and punishments shape the individual, and almost everyone conforms so their life is smooth and they can coexist and thrive. From the very start of birth the pink and blue blanket stuff is shoved on us, girls are told to be ladylike and quiet and given Barbie dolls while boys roughhouse and get Tonka trucks. If you fail to conform, you are teased and shunned - like a boy playing with dolls or a girl who is a tomboy. Weak, emotional men are made fun of, and strong woman are demonized. However, sensitive men are tortured more than sporty girls, because women are thought to be at least trying to move up the traditional hierarchy while such a boy is going down. In this way all of society polices the gender roles, and traditions are established in the culture, as well as helping the sexist hierarchy become firmly strengthened and maintained over time. The shaping process reinforces differences and teaches us how to literally find our place in the social web.

fetishization

This refers to over-investing something with erotic value and one of the ways, according to feminist theory, that women's bodies are displayed in films. This refers to an excessive emotional and sexual investment in a specific object or part of an object. For instance, in a foot fetish, someone focuses their sexual desires on a specific body part, not the whole individual. Or someone who has a fetish for a woman dressing up a certain way and acting out specific scenarios - a stranger or a police woman, etc. Freud pioneered our understanding of this, suggesting the process was tied to male fears of a lack of control. The male psyche is trying to get control and power by obsessively focusing on an object that can be controlled. We objectify women so that they are less of a threat, not full, capable human beings. We try to keep them subordinated by singling out and fetishizing certain areas of the female body as the center of male heterosexual desire. Men of different eras tried different tricks - the 40s were legs, the 50s breasts, the 90s butts, etc. In film, editing is used to break women's bodies into smaller objectified parts - close-ups of legs, hair, breasts, etc. Then, subjective shots of men looking at them set up patterns. Many films only introduce women as a body part - we only see the legs, butt or a series of shots of their body parts. This is suggesting that is how we see women - not as full humans but as these bits and pieces of eroticized things we focus on for male sexual pleasure. Films break the female body down into individual parts and values some more than the whole. The patriarchal society and film industry refuse in this way to recognize women as whole entire beings. They exist as composites of fetishized body parts only to appeal to the sexual desires of men. What do you think about these ideas of Mulvey's? Are they true? Do you notice them in films? Do you think she is seeing things incorrectly? Can you provide any counter evidence? Do you notice these same things playing out in the real world, too? Can you provide any examples of men doing this around you or to others? Do you think it is a problem? If so, what can be done about it?

masculinity

This refers to roles and behaviors associated with being male in any given culture, associated in the West with strength, leadership ability and the restraint of emotional expression. Traditional notions say men are big, loud, active, non-emotional, aggressive, strong and leaders. Are all men like this in your experiences? Are they more often like this than women?

sex

This refers to the biological aspects of being male or female - such as chromosomes or physical characteristics - as opposed to gender. This does not refer to sexual acts, but the bio-chromosomal makeup of humans. The male sex has XY chromosomes, and the female sex has XX chromosomes. Every embryo is female, and the Y chromosome is only switched on to shape the male fetus during gestation, usually as chemical signals wash over the organism - like testosterone, which then changes certain body parts. In this sense, the male is a kind of mutation - but as they hold keys to reproduction, they cannot easily be "corrected". Sorry, ladies! Although, science is working on that with various methods to create life and stimulate development without the male's input.

virgin-whor* complex

This refers to the ideological approach to women found in western culture, it defines women in simplistic sexual terms as either a good virgin or a bad *****. Society in general developed this from these simple-minded, culturally constructed codes. A man could only marry this paragon of Victorian womanhood, but he would have sex with a *****. This led to some confusion, as you might imagine, if one wanted to have sex with the virginal woman or started falling in love with a so-called *****. Likewise, if the women themselves started feeling different urges counter to their stereotyped roles, it also created havoc.

objectification

This refers to turning a person into a sexualized object, like the way the male gaze in Hollywood films is said to objectify women. Women were not portrayed realistically as complex individuals, but as objects with no will or subjectivity. A naked woman does not usually look at the camera or viewer, thus denying her own agency.

Reaganonics

This was President Reagan's economic strategy for the nation, characterized by deficit spending, corporate deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. This was a system by the President to fight the lingering recession of the 70s - he pushed the American Dream, said complaining was un-American and engaged in rather hypocritical massive government deficit spending to stimulate the economy. The national Debt rose, but he claimed a trickle-down effect would make sure the money circulated through the economy - from the rich to the poor - and revive the country's fiscal health. A massive policy of deregulation also followed with laws ending federal guidelines and oversight on things like trade, pollution and mergers. The mess is still being dealt with today, as people and companies did not regulate themselves and the rich amassed huge fortunes that grew the gap between rich and poor bigger than ever. His policy of Star Wars, or massive spending on a space defense system that the Soviets could never hope to match, is credited with the downfall of the Soviets. Capitalism was said to have won the ideological argument because of this absurd fact - akin to settling a complex theoretical debate with a fistfight in the playground. This perceived victory of capitalism over communism further made people giddy and happy about individual indulgence and spending. Consumerism was almost looked upon as a religion or a political act that affirmed America and its capitalist, democratic principles. Another interesting development was the rise of political action committees and think tanks on Capitol Hill. These independent organizations championed various political causes and lobbied politicians to support them,. They represented blocks of voters like the NRA or corporate interests like the pharmaceutical industry. Some merely represented organizations like the conservative party. Their job was to influence policy to shape the country the way they wanted it, and to send out a message to the public that swayed them to their cause. The power and influence they ended up holding infected every facet of political life in America, and thus society in general. Everyone was wary of this influence, but they were afraid if they did not join in they would not be heard. This system was looked at as corrupt and un-Democratic by the rank and file in the US, but as business as usual by those in power. These groups were used to build political teams and networks of power, allowing people a chance to be heard and to link with others. They made lots of money and enjoyed great power. Debates still go on today about whether or not they have subverted the democratic process and corrupted the American electoral process to a point of ruin. Others see them as practical and argue anyone can join one or start their own and take part in the process. What do you think? The films of the era showed young with disposable income, hip rugged individualists who celebrated consumerism, girls chasing rich boys and the middle class comforts as all important. Computers and the internet began to gain momentum, and by the 90s, people were hailing them as the greatest thing ever. Internet companies were springing up everywhere and an almost insane economic bubble grew up around them, with young start-ups raking in millions of dollars for pretty much any idea remotely connected to business on the web. 20 year olds were CEOs, and everyone wanted in on it, pumping up stock prices and IPOs to ridiculous amounts before the company even had a solid business plan or line of products, in some instances merely having one neat sounding thing or even just an idea. People lost their heads, so to speak, and pumped the bubble up way too far.

legion of decency

This was a Catholic group founded in the 1930s to protest against sex and violence in Hollywood films, resulting in them issuing their own film ratings.

HUAC

This was a congressional committee that investigated communism in the US in the 1940s and 50s.

Beats

This was a movement of 1950s writers and filmmakers who critiqued American consumerism and suburban conformity. This refers to beatniks, a group of cultural rebels and artists who were dissatisfied with American life in the 50s and sought to create a more genuine and exciting reality through passionate living and new art forms. They were anti-status quo painters, writers and avant garde filmmakers. People like Kerouac, Frank and Ginsberg attacked materialism and hated middle class phoniness. They traveled around like gypsies, didn't try to get 9-5 jobs or accumulate possessions and enjoyed life in the moment. They ascribed to a kind of existential philosophy, which grew out of the French experiences with the concentration camps, occupation and the resistance during WW2. The Beats welcomed gays, minorities and women into their group, and they set the groundwork for the counterculture that would explode in the 60s when the postwar boomer generation came of age.

Paramount Consent Decrees

This was a series of landmark 1948 cases that broke up the classic vertical integration of Hollywood. Their monopoly was ruled unconstitutional and bad for competition. When the Big 5 studios lost their total control, their profits slipped, and their painful declines began. This legal ruling is looked at as the beginning of the end of the golden period of Hollywood, although it would take a while to play out. They were also losing viewers and money to TV during the 50s, and their usual audiences were moving to the suburbs, setting up new patterns of viewing. Constant battles with unions were also taking a toll on profits. The heyday was over, and they would stumble through the 50s and 60s on life support until something new came along to save them.

NIRA

This was a set of federal initiatives issued during the Great Depression that aimed to revamp American business practices and invigorate the nation's economy.

Puritan values

This was another movement of purity against Roman Catholic Church extremes. It is a series of behavioral codes designed to curb excesses and keep people level-headed and out of the path of wrongdoing. They encourage not being noticed, not drawing attention to oneself and not displaying vulgar, sexual desires or violent tendencies. One is to dress sedately, conduct oneself properly and live a rather austere, hard working, quiet life. Deviating from this leads to excess and ruin. It is a kind of middle path for one to take through the trials, tribulation and temptations of life. Of course, the elders have made the mistakes and try to tell this to the young, but the young usually have to make those mistakes on their own before they can truly get behind some of the ideas. Therefore, the value system tends to be pushed by old people onto young people, and that dynamic drives a lot of mainstream society. During times of not wanting to appear to be excessive in any way, and certainly when settling a continent and having to work hard just to survive, a strict, austere value system makes sense. Once people began to thrive and relax more, though, the values seemed archaic and unnecessary. There are still people who ascribe to these ideas, but most of society no longer feels the need for such severe behavior. Not engaging in premarital sex is a big dividing line between some members of modern society, though. And issues like gay marriage and abortion are way off the Puritan radar. These issues are far from resolved in American society and will have to be battled over for years to come, if not forever.

Industrial Revolution

This was the historical era in which multiple new mechanical and electrical inventions were developed, leading to factory-based mass production of consumer goods replacing individual artisanal production

feminism first wave

This was the movement of feminism that happened roughly at the beginning of the twentieth century, centered on issues such as woman's suffrage and birth control. The industrial revolution transformed society at all levels, and that included the way men and women thought about each other and were defined. Urban women could get their own jobs and not marry if they wanted. They could do jobs when machines handled the hard labor, and they earned more money. They could go out more on their own to eat and enjoy themselves. This new independence naturally appealed to them, and they enjoyed it. The real first wave of feminism arose during this period, as women were keen to establish equal rights with men in society and stop being doormats. Suffragettes fought for the right to vote and won it in 1918-1920 with the Constitutional Right to Vote. Contraception also increased, allowing people to have more sex in general. As this was growing, society was getting nervous that the moral order was being upended. Moral reformers reacted to this and tried to change it. Hollywood joined the fray and tried to scare women into behaving by showing white slavery films and by showing loose women as criminals and insane who risked ruin by being immoral and having fun against traditional gender roles. The white slavery films of the 1910s posited the curious view that white women were naturally the best prize for anyone in the world, and all men naturally would want them the most. This was coming from a white male dominated society and film industry, of course, so it was no surprise their desires and concerns were automatically assumed to be central for everyone on the planet. The idea pervades society, and some eventually buy into it and perpetuate it.

Populism

This was the rural ideology of the late nineteenth century that critiqued industrialization. This is a movement toward agrarian values and collective brotherhood. It reflected rural discontent with the Industrial Revolution and Modernity. It developed as a political reform movement from the 1890s. It attacks selfish money grubbers and links Christianity and Patriotism. It casts moral, hard working simple folk versus a corrupt modern elite who are evil. Politicians always try to speak to this core when they want to seem genuine and "down-home real".

The Great Depression

This was the severe economic crisis that affected the US from the stock market crash of 1929 until the start of WW2. By the early 1930s, the whole country was facing the Great Depression. Savings were lost, banks failed, jobs vanished, homes and farms were foreclosed and people ended up destitute and homeless. Unchecked capitalism had run amok and was under attack. The new enemies of society were greedy businessmen, amoral stock speculators, corporate executives and bankers who let free market capitalism go too far. President Hoover refused to let government intervene and punish anyone, even calling out the military on WW1 vets who were marching on the capital to protest conditions. In Hollywood, attendance fell and studios went into debt. They were also failing on loans for costly sound conversion. The layoffs and pay cuts radicalized many workers, as they did in America in general. People started calling for alternatives to Capitalism - like Socialism and Communism. They wondered if wealth corrupted people and if money might not buy happiness. They wondered if the system was an unfair way to distribute rewards for hard work, if it was a rigged game. President Roosevelt's New Deal started many programs to help the economy recover and temper capitalism - farm subsidies, welfare, setting a minimum wage, maximum hours, social security and other such programs and letting workers organize and bargain collectively with a chosen representative. The studios avoided a legal challenge to their oligopoly over the industry, though. The New Deal policies were a hegemonic negotiation that allowed capitalism to stay in power. The line became that it was not capitalism that failed people, but a few bad capitalists who pushed it too far from their own greed. So, the good capitalists can save the day and the system can stay in place, with the government helping. Roosevelt slid in some socialism and welfare policies for people looking for security. People stopped pressing so hard for radical changes, then and accepted the new and improved system. This ability for capitalism to survive such a scare and a total meltdown is impressive. And it is not an isolated instance. It has happened at other times, including 2009. The current economic meltdown has been spun as if it was a few bad seeds who caused it, not the system. Madoff did it - a few greedy AIG executives went too far. Unscrupulous subprime mortgage lenders did not follow policy. The system is not bad, just a few bad capitalists ruined it. We have to get them out of the way and let the federal government and good capitalists save the day. We don't need a new system, it is fine. Sound familiar? What do you think about this? Is the system flawed and in need of change? Is the government slowly changing it toward a social welfare state? Is that good or bad? Do you see the Depression and current recession as linked? Is it because capitalism is not fair? Do you think it is fair that athletes are rewarded so much more than plenty of people who work much more difficult, dangerous jobs? Is the system exploitative, and is the game essentially rigged to benefit those at the top? Are such meltdowns simply always going to happen because those in power are always pushing things too far? If so, what can be done? In 2020, we had a pandemic hit the economy, but rapid and stunning Fed stimulus rocketed markets back up to all time highs, improbably, despite epic unemployment and shut down economies. What is going on? Can it last? Or is another brutal shock coming?

modern film analysis

When analyzing a film by this point in the class, at least, you should be looking for these things: who funded it, who released it, who made it, what is the subject and what is the attitude toward it by the filmmakers, are the characters diverse, is a community of diversity shown, who are you asked to identify with the most and why, what is the ultimate message of the film, are any stereotypes used, what type of film is being made and if it is a genre - how does it handle the myth, conventions and icons, what are the deeper messages and themes and how powerful and clear are they? You should be able to ask and answer all of these in relation to all of the films you watch by this point, and you should be willing to do research and discuss with others to find the answers.