Saturday, January 24, 2009
Romance: Something Classic or Something Created?
In a world where we are given a multitude of choice including, but limited to; how we want our coffee at Starbucks, a cereal isle filled with everything from Lucky Charms to organic, no sugar added granola, to the time of day we want to watch a T.V. show or movie (thanks to TiVo), how is it possible to define romance as being classic?
Romance is so subjective that some people may gag at the thought of roses and a candlelit dinner, while others may swoon. Looking at romance novels, it is certain that there are some common themes in the fictional world of romance. Is this what defines classic romance? Sexual interactions that, in the real world, would be considered rape. Men consistently exerting their physical power over women. The desire to "tame" someone. In a realm outside of the romance novel, these things would be seen as misogynistic and archaic. How is it then, that romance novels are so popular? They are a way in which to live vicariously, free from the constraints that are put upon us by society.
The idea of romance seems to be something that has been created and perpetuated in society. We don't need romance to survive, it is not crucial to our being. You can have love without romance, but being romantic is what seems to help someone fall in love. It is still not a need. I don't think our ancestors were worried about being romantic when they were still living in caves, yet the species seems to have survived.
The question of classic romance being alive today cannot truly be answered. If romance is an idea which has been created, can it be considered classic? Is classic romance like that found in Casablanca? Rick puts Isla on the plane and then leaves her. That's not very "romantic", but this film has been dubbed a romantic classic. Or is classic romance the kind that is seen in Romeo and Juliet? All consuming, worth giving up everything to the point where they both end up dead. Yet another unhappy ending for the "greatest love story of all time".
Perhaps romance means avoiding looking at the end result. I imagine that everyone has experienced romance in a relationship, but we've also had those same relationships end. If not, we'd all still be with the first person who seemed to fit our personal idea of being romantic. Romance does still exist today, but whether or not it is classic romance is left to the discretion of the person being wooed.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Classic Romance: No page with that title exists.
"Is the classic romance still alive today?"
What IS classic romance? This is what I found myself asking as I read this weeks blog topic. I actually couldn't come up with my own definition or understanding of 'classic romance'. So, naturally, off I went to search it up on good ol' wiki...wikipedia that is. I typed in 'classic romance' hit search and this is the message I get, "We're sorry, but no page with that title exists". Now I'm stumped. How does one define classic romance? How does one define romance - period? Doesn't romance mean something different to every person? What's romantic to me definitely isn't romantic to past boyfriends (key word: past). So if wikipedia can define classic romance for me then the millions of subscribers to youtube should be able to...right? Well, after searching (yet again) 'classic romance' on youtube this video, of all the videos in the world, was the first hit.
You tell me, is THIS classic romance? (click the link...seriously, you don't want to miss this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=840B27zYfOk&feature=PlayList&p=BA1677255D40C15C&index=0&playnext=1
What IS classic romance? This is what I found myself asking as I read this weeks blog topic. I actually couldn't come up with my own definition or understanding of 'classic romance'. So, naturally, off I went to search it up on good ol' wiki...wikipedia that is. I typed in 'classic romance' hit search and this is the message I get, "We're sorry, but no page with that title exists". Now I'm stumped. How does one define classic romance? How does one define romance - period? Doesn't romance mean something different to every person? What's romantic to me definitely isn't romantic to past boyfriends (key word: past). So if wikipedia can define classic romance for me then the millions of subscribers to youtube should be able to...right? Well, after searching (yet again) 'classic romance' on youtube this video, of all the videos in the world, was the first hit.
You tell me, is THIS classic romance? (click the link...seriously, you don't want to miss this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=840B27zYfOk&feature=PlayList&p=BA1677255D40C15C&index=0&playnext=1
Friday, January 09, 2009
"I Want You"
A clip from the movie Across the Universe portrays the Beatles' I Want You (She's So Heavy) and takes the question "What do pictures want?" to a whoooole new level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwB8QiKWodk
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Paris Hilton's My New BFF
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
What Would You Do?
I just finished watching a show called "What Would You Do?". It's basically just a hidden camera show where unknowing people are placed in a staged situation and their reactions or inactions are caught on camera. A segment that really got my attention was regarding racism against Mexican migrant workers in the United States. An actor was hired to play a cashier at a eatery and 2 Mexican actors would walk in and attempt to order coffee and sandwiches in Spanish. The cashier would respond with really racist comments like "Go learn some English and come back" or "Go to Taco Bell where they speak Mexican". His job was just to be as rude, racist and ignorant as possible and see what the other patrons would do.
There were of course people who stood up for the workers, but there were also people who just stood by and didn't do anything, even when the guys were pleading to them for help. What really shocked and angered me was that there were people, who actually took the side of the cashier. According to the show, 9 out of the 88 patrons did just that. They made comments, and these aren't staged, such as "I couldn't agree with you more, it's house cleaning time" and they would help the cashier to tell the guys to leave, one man even threatened to physically take them out. After, when the camera crew would come out, some recanted their comments and made it seem like that they didn't really mean what they said, or that they were only directing these comments at illegal immigrants, as if that would make it ok. There were others, however, who blatantly admitted that they did not want these migrant workers in the United States, and that they were "stealing our jobs". When one man was confronted and asked whether he thought whether that was racist, he said yes, but still thought that refusing to serve the Mexican men was the right thing to do.
I just couldn't believe what I saw, I mean, I know that racism still exists, but seeing it concentrated and out in the open like that, it was still surreal. Mexicans, and Spanish speaking people are being tossed into one undesirable category by these people. They automatically assumed that a non-English speaking Mexican person must be an illegal immigrant, and that they have no right to be here and don't deserve to be treated like a fellow human being. It simply blows my mind.
I don't know what these people are thinking, but if it were me in that situation, I probably would have gone off at the cashier.
There were of course people who stood up for the workers, but there were also people who just stood by and didn't do anything, even when the guys were pleading to them for help. What really shocked and angered me was that there were people, who actually took the side of the cashier. According to the show, 9 out of the 88 patrons did just that. They made comments, and these aren't staged, such as "I couldn't agree with you more, it's house cleaning time" and they would help the cashier to tell the guys to leave, one man even threatened to physically take them out. After, when the camera crew would come out, some recanted their comments and made it seem like that they didn't really mean what they said, or that they were only directing these comments at illegal immigrants, as if that would make it ok. There were others, however, who blatantly admitted that they did not want these migrant workers in the United States, and that they were "stealing our jobs". When one man was confronted and asked whether he thought whether that was racist, he said yes, but still thought that refusing to serve the Mexican men was the right thing to do.
I just couldn't believe what I saw, I mean, I know that racism still exists, but seeing it concentrated and out in the open like that, it was still surreal. Mexicans, and Spanish speaking people are being tossed into one undesirable category by these people. They automatically assumed that a non-English speaking Mexican person must be an illegal immigrant, and that they have no right to be here and don't deserve to be treated like a fellow human being. It simply blows my mind.
I don't know what these people are thinking, but if it were me in that situation, I probably would have gone off at the cashier.
The Sad State of Celebrity and other thoughts
I find it a little bit ironic that after struggling through all of the first semester to find something blogworthy, a couple of hours of watching CTV in December and a return to class has infused me with an abundance of inspiration... so without further ado:
Today's repeated referencing of Paris Hilton reminded me of a series of conversations I had during the break when it was brought to my friends' attention that I had never heard of Kim Kardashian. To my bemusement, they attempted to explain to me that very much like Paris Hilton, she was famous for, well, nothing, other than being rich. More research revealed the similarities between them to be dizzying.
So my first instinct was to theorize that in our modern day culture, high class alone had become a reason for fame. As we'd learned earlier in the course the middle class often strives to become high class, and this had clearly reached a level of desperation to the point where anybody rich was worth 'worshipping' to a level that enabled them to become even more rich by making otherwise vapid television shows feasible (see The Simple Life, Keeping Up with the Kardashians)
However, as Professor Kalmar is quick to point out one of the most 'appealing' (for lack of a better word) factors about Paris Hilton is the fact that she is vulgar and unrefined, whereas the opposite is usually expected of someone in her economic position. For someone who is in almost all respects 'Old Money' her behaviour can be seen as absurd.
Further inquiry and conversation lead me to the following options to the source of her appeal/fame:
1) She epitomizes consumption but does not have the behaviour that explicitly associates her with the high class. Like it was stated today in class she appeals to that instinct, perhaps even subconsciously - "she has whatever she wants but she's effectively trash - i'm better than her, therefore I could easily find myself in her position or better"
2) She is (pardon my brashness in the following paragraph) a manifestation of the carnivalesque. I mentioned previously her vulgarity. I noticed a lot of people who followed her were in shock and awe that someone so devoid of talent and charisma (at least in it's classical sense, denoting charm. It's undeniable that she has the ability to attract people) could indeed get whatever she wanted.
This was also reinforced by one of my friends who claimed she admired Anna Nicole Smith (prior to her death) because despite being trailer trash she had 'made it', even through questionable means.
Whichever way you look at it, two things are clear to me. The middle class is 1) striving to be high class through enabling these class-less people to reach celebrity status; 2) engaged in some sort of bizarre spectacle that, like a television show or a sporting event allows for conversation and in some cases heated discussion.
Sad as it may sound, Paris Hilton and other trashy celebrities may indeed be bringing people closer together, be it through shared admiration, indignation, or a mixture of both.
Before I ramble on much longer, other CTV induced thoughts:
So You Think You Can Dance: Take something traditionally associated with high culture, add flashing lights, drama, and seemingly ordinary people... voila! High culture into pop culture, but perhaps more rare, pop culture being educational? Fascinating.
Barbara Walters: This TV personality arbitrarily selects a list of the 10 most fascinating people of the past year every year. Take a look at her previous lists and it becomes clear that no one without celebrity status makes the list, and that many of these people disappear from the public eye. Hell, even Siegfried and Roy made the list a couple of years ago for being mauled by a tiger.
Disposable celebrities?
Today's repeated referencing of Paris Hilton reminded me of a series of conversations I had during the break when it was brought to my friends' attention that I had never heard of Kim Kardashian. To my bemusement, they attempted to explain to me that very much like Paris Hilton, she was famous for, well, nothing, other than being rich. More research revealed the similarities between them to be dizzying.
So my first instinct was to theorize that in our modern day culture, high class alone had become a reason for fame. As we'd learned earlier in the course the middle class often strives to become high class, and this had clearly reached a level of desperation to the point where anybody rich was worth 'worshipping' to a level that enabled them to become even more rich by making otherwise vapid television shows feasible (see The Simple Life, Keeping Up with the Kardashians)
However, as Professor Kalmar is quick to point out one of the most 'appealing' (for lack of a better word) factors about Paris Hilton is the fact that she is vulgar and unrefined, whereas the opposite is usually expected of someone in her economic position. For someone who is in almost all respects 'Old Money' her behaviour can be seen as absurd.
Further inquiry and conversation lead me to the following options to the source of her appeal/fame:
1) She epitomizes consumption but does not have the behaviour that explicitly associates her with the high class. Like it was stated today in class she appeals to that instinct, perhaps even subconsciously - "she has whatever she wants but she's effectively trash - i'm better than her, therefore I could easily find myself in her position or better"
2) She is (pardon my brashness in the following paragraph) a manifestation of the carnivalesque. I mentioned previously her vulgarity. I noticed a lot of people who followed her were in shock and awe that someone so devoid of talent and charisma (at least in it's classical sense, denoting charm. It's undeniable that she has the ability to attract people) could indeed get whatever she wanted.
This was also reinforced by one of my friends who claimed she admired Anna Nicole Smith (prior to her death) because despite being trailer trash she had 'made it', even through questionable means.
Whichever way you look at it, two things are clear to me. The middle class is 1) striving to be high class through enabling these class-less people to reach celebrity status; 2) engaged in some sort of bizarre spectacle that, like a television show or a sporting event allows for conversation and in some cases heated discussion.
Sad as it may sound, Paris Hilton and other trashy celebrities may indeed be bringing people closer together, be it through shared admiration, indignation, or a mixture of both.
Before I ramble on much longer, other CTV induced thoughts:
So You Think You Can Dance: Take something traditionally associated with high culture, add flashing lights, drama, and seemingly ordinary people... voila! High culture into pop culture, but perhaps more rare, pop culture being educational? Fascinating.
Barbara Walters: This TV personality arbitrarily selects a list of the 10 most fascinating people of the past year every year. Take a look at her previous lists and it becomes clear that no one without celebrity status makes the list, and that many of these people disappear from the public eye. Hell, even Siegfried and Roy made the list a couple of years ago for being mauled by a tiger.
Disposable celebrities?
