My mom and I are very close. In fact, my brothers claim from time to time that she and I have our own secret language only we can understand that excludes all verbal utterances whatsoever and relies solely on the fact that her and I tend to see the world through the same scope or lens. We can spend an afternoon of shopping and without saying a word, I can tell; which clothes she likes, doesn’t like, LIKES but doesn’t think she could pull off, items that she thinks are overpriced (but still wants), if a salesperson rubs her the wrong way and she wants me to step in and distract, if she’s tired, if she spots a person in a weird outfit, and I know that face that accompanies her famous line that always annoys me so much….”Katie, you could just MAKE that yourself!”.
For all this connection between us and similarities with how we view, judge, or interpret places and events in our lives, I am sometimes baffled by how differently we often interpret the media. I never really thought about this until we began discussing the idea of subjectivity in class and how everyone views things differently based on what they’ve experienced in their own lives and certain things that interpellate me or that are obvious to MY eye, may go unnoticed by others because they haven’t had the same experiences.
This past year I took on the task of introducing myself to the show Gossip Girl and proceeded to watch every season. I was hooked and I was sure that it was a show my mom would enjoy as well. I waited until she was a good chunk of the way through the first season to ask her if she had noticed anything in particular about the character of Blair….to me there was a glaring issue that I was sure my mom would also pick up on and I was surprised when she didn’t see it too. There is something about Blair, something that is never addressed blatantly on the show but is every now and then alluded to in a very subtle way. I don’t know if most people would even pick up on it but I see this issue and I know it, I know it right away because I have lived it and I can see the signs from a mile. I fill in the blanks differently than someone who has not dealt with the same disorders and I am time and again amazed at some of the things I see or pick up on that others do not. There are however, the moments or ideas that go unnoticed by me that my mom, with the subjectivity of a divorcee, will interpret in a way that never crossed my mind. I think the fact that she utterly cannot STAND Titanic speaks for itself (like literally, banned from the house). So I find it interesting that two people, who can almost read each other’s minds, can’t read the same storyline.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Office, Bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
The Office never ceases to entertain me with its ingenuity and humor that ranges from the wacky, to the ever-so-subtle. Although the majority of the storylines seem to revolve around the fab four (Michael, Jim, Pam, Dwight), the supporting cast also provides an extensive amount of laughs and prove to be equally as talented as the main stars. However, I noticed a certain trend with these, “Second Bananas”…..(my new favorite phrase, thanks Dr. Kessler). Jim and Pam have always had their struggles with their love life whether it was them actually getting together, getting married, being pregnant before the marriage, or now as they welcome a baby into their life and adjust to being working parents. Somehow everything works out for them, they get through it, they fall deeper in love, and they grow. Michael and Dwight, well, I don’t even really know what to say about their debacles and dilemmas but they always seems to be based on pure idiocy or some weird love connection (whether it’s a girl or Dwight’s mancrush on Michael) but again, everything always seems to work out just peachy.
Now, look at the rest of the characters; you have Stanley, who mostly gets the laughs as a result of Michael making jokes or comments on him being black and lazy, but then there was the whole issue of him cheating on his wife. That’s a serious issue, yet it never really develops or develops him as a character. Then you have Meredith the alcoholic, Creed the psychopath, Ryan the ex-convict/drug addict, and Oscar who was outed at work by Michael for being gay and was given three months leave by the company for fear of being sued. All of these characters (and some of the others I didn’t even get to) have serious issues and yet, they never progress or change the person, these people are left stagnate as the fab four have clearly developed different facets and levels of depth over the seasons. It’s odd.
I love the show so I hate to analyze it….BUT, sometimes I wonder if they bring these issues to the show and let the “Second Bananas” deal with them so that it can be brought up, laughed at, and then pushed back into the corner for another season. Is this good that the issues are given attention, or ultimately damaging when portrayed in such a comic light?
Now, look at the rest of the characters; you have Stanley, who mostly gets the laughs as a result of Michael making jokes or comments on him being black and lazy, but then there was the whole issue of him cheating on his wife. That’s a serious issue, yet it never really develops or develops him as a character. Then you have Meredith the alcoholic, Creed the psychopath, Ryan the ex-convict/drug addict, and Oscar who was outed at work by Michael for being gay and was given three months leave by the company for fear of being sued. All of these characters (and some of the others I didn’t even get to) have serious issues and yet, they never progress or change the person, these people are left stagnate as the fab four have clearly developed different facets and levels of depth over the seasons. It’s odd.
I love the show so I hate to analyze it….BUT, sometimes I wonder if they bring these issues to the show and let the “Second Bananas” deal with them so that it can be brought up, laughed at, and then pushed back into the corner for another season. Is this good that the issues are given attention, or ultimately damaging when portrayed in such a comic light?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
X-Tina, Is That You?
I very rarely tune in to VH1 or MTV for music videos anymore because they seem so irrelevant, BUT on a whim the other morning I just happened upon Christina Aguilera's new music video entitled, "Not Myself Tonight". To begin with, I could barely tell the difference between Miss (or is it Mrs. now?) X-Tina and that of Lady GaGa and the mid-nineties version of Madonna...I remember having such an affinity for Aguilera because of her obvious talent but also because of her distinctive style that differentiated her from everyone else (Britney Spears). Apparently this distinctiveness is no more.
The generic-ness aside, I noticed a lot of different things within this video that were relating exactly to what we have been studying during class in relation to scopiophilia and sadistic voyeurism. The music video touches more than once or twice on the notion of sadism and masochism and also her portrayals of sexuality in a way that appeals strongly still to the heterosexual viewers all the while showing interactions between her and that of the same (and still opposite) sex. Men are turned on an intrigued by her sexual escapades with other women in the video and have the opportunity to narcissistically envision themselves in the male’s position as she sensually interacts with them as well.
I understand the appeal this may bring to viewers but at the same time, I have always been disappointed in how Aguilera distracts from her pure talent by using over-the-top sexual antics to get noticed. Her “Dirty” video back in the day certainly garnered attention for its overtly sexual tone, but I wonder sometimes about how her children will feel as they grow up and see their mother in these necessarily-censored videos. Why is it that someone with so much talent feels that they need to “hyper-sex” their image to get noticed when it has been clear over the years that their talent speaks for itself?
The generic-ness aside, I noticed a lot of different things within this video that were relating exactly to what we have been studying during class in relation to scopiophilia and sadistic voyeurism. The music video touches more than once or twice on the notion of sadism and masochism and also her portrayals of sexuality in a way that appeals strongly still to the heterosexual viewers all the while showing interactions between her and that of the same (and still opposite) sex. Men are turned on an intrigued by her sexual escapades with other women in the video and have the opportunity to narcissistically envision themselves in the male’s position as she sensually interacts with them as well.
I understand the appeal this may bring to viewers but at the same time, I have always been disappointed in how Aguilera distracts from her pure talent by using over-the-top sexual antics to get noticed. Her “Dirty” video back in the day certainly garnered attention for its overtly sexual tone, but I wonder sometimes about how her children will feel as they grow up and see their mother in these necessarily-censored videos. Why is it that someone with so much talent feels that they need to “hyper-sex” their image to get noticed when it has been clear over the years that their talent speaks for itself?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Oronic Advertising Capaign

I am a serious stickler for proper spelling, grammar, the works, and even though I may misstep on occasion or fail to remember when it's appropriate to use the term further as opposed to farther, or lie as to lay....I still have some common sense as to what sounds right and what sounds, well, god awful. Case in point; McDonald's new advertising campaign that features common sayings missing the letter (and symbol of the company) "M", in every tag line. Apparently this is supposed to convey to me that I need to put the "M" back in my mornings.....blegh (that is the typed interpretation of me gagging).
My walk down Dearborn every morning to class is bombarded by these ads and begins to read as an ongoing dialogue of someone who clearly did not participate in their school's spelling bee. It annoys me based on elementary levels of spelling but also because the concept doesn't make sense to me. I mean, do I really want to associate my "Orning Gru blings" or "Orning Co ute" with McDonalds? No, I don't. It's annoying and looks like vandalism. To express an aspect of my annoyance to you, please try and survive the next paragraph.
Dear cDonald's-
Your new advertising ca paign is i possibly annoying and akes y orning co ute that uch ore unbearable. I ust say that your creativity is uber la e and should be ter inated. uch appreciation in advance for your cancellation of this atte pt,
- iss Katie Lynn Stewart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)