Scene Analysis Of Casablanca Film Studies Essay

Scene Analysis Of Casablanca Film Studies Essay Second Essay Question: Deconstruct a scene from one of the films weve seen this semester. Address how the director used the actors, dialogue, lighting, camera movement, sound, editing, and production design to get their point across in the film. Casablanca was released in 1942 by the director Michael Curtiz. The film was considered one of the best motion pictures ever made. The films actors, strong emotions, and loving triangle all helped out in having a classical film. The last scene in Casablanca where Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) and Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) were saying their final goodbyes as an airplane was in the background setting was one of the greatest scenes in the history of cinematic. Actors: Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart): Rick Blaine was the owner of Ricks Cafà © Amà ©ricain. He apparently appears in the whole film to be a man who is not moved by anyone. He refuses to take drinks from the customers of the cafà ©. He also didnt seem to care about the war and that refugees have gathered in Casablanca. From the start of the film and Rick shows himself as a mysterious and complicated man but on the other hand he is also generous, discriminating, and political. After Ilsa has arrived to Casablanca, flashbacks came across Ricks mind and reminded him of the time they spent in Paris. He appeared to be so much happier than he is without her. Another difference is also that back in Paris he was called Richard. After the attack of the Nazis, Rick and Ilsa agreed to leave Paris together. But Ilsa stood Rick up in the train station, and this was their separation. Rick was in so much pain of what Ilsa did to him and suffered from heartbreak. After that, Ilsa showed up at the bar, Rick reacted so angrily and refused to give her and Victor Laszlo the letters they need of transit. Finally, at the end of the film Rick becomes the hero and he sacrifices his love to Ilsa and his life in Casablanca so that Victor Laszlo can get away with Ilsa and finish his political work. So basically there were three characters that Ricks appeared in the movie with. First, In Paris he was so romantic, then in Casablanca he was hard-hearted, and finally at the end of the film he appeared to be self sacrificing hero (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman): Ilsa is extremely loyal to her husband, Victor Laszlo. She believes she love Laszlo, but on the other hand she also says that she is in love with Rick, back when they were in Paris and also after she arrived to Casablanca. She had a very good reason to tell Rick that she loves him when she was in Casablanca so that she can get the letters of transit that she needs. Her feelings are always dreamy and vague which makes it hard to understand her right. Long time ago when Rick was in Paris, she sent him some letters claiming that she cant see him anymore. And that now can be a proof of her capability to protect her real feelings from those people who loves her. From all the characters in Casablanca, Ilsa was one of the most people who clearly had a lot of pain from the unexpected change of wealth. First of all, her husband Victor got arrested and reported to be dead. Then, when he came, she was supposed to escape with him throughout Europe with the Nazis. After that, in Casablanca she met Rick once again and fell in love with him all over, but unfortunately she was suppose to leave him once again. Ilsa didnt had an easy life, and one of the greatest tragic in the whole film is her fate. Finally, at the closing scene of the film, we can feel that the chances of Ilsa living happily ever after ending do not exist. Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid): One of the main characters in Casablanca is Victor Laszlo, who is the least complicated person. He is an absolute noble hero. Victor Laszlo is a handsome and confident man. His wife was Ilsa and he loves her so much to the extent that when he knew about her and Rick he accepted the fact and claimed he understands. He was ready to give anything for Ilsa to get away safely from Casablanca. Victor likes politics. His want of beating the Nazis is the best ambition for all the actions he ever took. He places himself as a favored to battle through it. As much as Victor Laszlo is priceless to the Allies as much as he is critical to the Nazis. Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains): Louis is not a man of strong opinion, but was a friend to whoever had power. He never likes Strassers believes but he works with him. For a part in the film, Louis was shown as a careless and selfish man who cared about absolutely nothing but himself. He takes advantage of pretty women refugees and usually gets fixed winnings from the casino of Rick. He told Rick not to count on him as a friend, but he couldnt hide his feelings for his friend (Rick). Towards the ending scene of the film, the men committed to their friendship when they committed themselves to the Allied cause. Rick committed by shooting Strasser and letting Ilsa escape with Victor out of Casablanca, while Louis committed by choosing to get away from Casablanca along with Rick. Lighting: The lighting has a great effect on the mood of the whole film. At the beginning of the movie most of the scenes and shots were brighter than when the film came towards the end where they were darker. There was a scene close to the ending scene of the film in Ricks cafà © where Victor Laszlo was taking refuge after the meeting was attacked. The scene inside the cafà © was at night and it had an absolutely low key lighting. The drama of the movie was being built slowly through the beginning up till the end of the movie. The dimness of the film increases the drama and the worry of the viewers more. The shots towards the end of the film become more extreme due to the gap among special parts of the shots. This Chiaroscuro effect also helped in raising the worry due to the clear bright lights and deep dark shades. Against the light of the background, there was Captain Renault, a poster boy, wearing his black uniform. Those two were shots from the final scene when Rick holds Cap tain Renault as a hostage and pressure him into letting Victor Laszlo getaway. Moreover, there was a fog in this final scene in the airfield, that had a gray invading of the scene and actors, which generate a feeling of suspicious. That resulted in making the viewers not knowing how the fight is going to be solved. Here the lighting technique was sharp and differs from the cinematography that is in all the other parts of the film. Sound: The director used the sound in this scene effectively. While filming the movie, he discovered that the sound stage was very small to be suitable to an actual airplane. So he decided to put the actors on a soundstage at Warner Bros where there was no real airplane. He also puts up half and quarter size models of Lockheed Electra 12A. The scene was raped around the machine that produces fog to cover up the artificiality of the background set. In this last scene of the movie, the actors never left the soundstage of the airplane. Also, towards the last scene of the movie, there was a shot that shows very quick two aircraft engines that has dramatic noise from the strong piston engines driving up and the fan spinning round in a high speed. One of the shots was showing the right side of the engine of the aircraft. And the other shot shows the left side of the engine. Along with those shots, the fog was being spread to go with the cloudy smoggy look that covers the rest of the closing scene. The director was so talented in making a great job in sound editing so that the sound of the engines makes the film mix together well with the soundstage of the film. Camera Movements and Dialogue: The ending scene of Casablanca had many camera movement techniques. After Captain Renault (Claude Rains) and Victor Laszlo depart, the camera starts to follow Rick and Ilsa, where it was neither of their view points. The camera was from the side. After that, Rick sends Ilsa to escape with Victor. After a cut away to Captain Renault, the camera builds up again to highlight the remarkable conversation; the camera was also from the side. As the camera follows up again at the final minute it shifts to Rick. Then the camera goes into a series of reverse angle shots first from Rick to Ilsa, then to Rick again, then to Ilsa, then to Rick again, and finally back to Ilsa one more time. The camera shifted either to the face of the person who was talking or to the other person. There was a hidden meaning in these shifts of the camera. It either meant stressing the conversation or drawing attention to understanding what is said. Another frame got both characters (Rick and Ilsa) in, that changed into an analytical point of view shot of Ilsa. Her tears were glowing in her eyes and the feeling of the light was becoming softer at her face. At the same time, Rick was talking to her and said Im not good at being noble, but it doesnt take much to see that the problems of three little people dont amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. After that, Ilsa dropped down her chin, because she felt that she was crushed by fate. Then Ricks hands held Ilsas chin and raised it up again saying Now, now . And this was a close up in the camera movement. After that there was a cut of the point of view of Ilsa, and the hidden meaning here is so that women viewers will be able to understand her situation. Rick said Heres looking at you kid. Then a shot of a close up happened again, where it demonstrates that Ilsa understood that Rick wants the best for her and that she accepted his decision of letting her escape with her husband. Then there was a cut back to the point of view of the guy that she really loves. After that the emotions stopped for a few seconds with a fast cut away to Major Strasser, who is the Nazi commander in charge of Casablanca, who was walking fast to reach to the airport. The camera then goes back to the airport, where a private conversation was held between Rick and Victor who were facing each other. Ilsa was at the background of the scene trying to wipe her tears away. Then there was a fast shot of Captain Renault from Ricks point of view. There was again couple of reverse angles which were used to highlight the speakers conversation. First, from Victors point of view there was a fast cut away to Ricks point of view of Ilsa. Here all three of them were in the frame together. And she backs up what Rick is saying. The shot after that returns to Rick then to Victors face who believed what Rick said and accepted his brave explanation. Then there was a three shot right after the two shots of Rick and Victor, with Ilsa on the right side wiping her tears away and she was considered in the staging position. Then a shot went back to Rick and Victor alone when Victor was saying: Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win. After that a shot went to the engines of the plane. Then there was a three shot of the characters looking at the plane. Then a few series of close ups follows with a great awareness of the eyes of the actors as they act in response to the actions. First, Rick looks at the plane then at Ilsa, and Ilsa looked back at him, then both Rick and Ilsa looked at Victor, then Victor looked right into Ilsa and said: Are you ready, Ilsa?, so she turned her head for the last time and looks at Rick, then at Victor and she said: Yes, Im ready. In this scene Rick is giving up on Ilsa and making her getaway with Victor, and Ilsa on the other hand is accepting Ricks decision in letting her go. Next, a cut to a wide shot of all the three actors appeared. Ilsa stepped in front and the camera movement started following in and to the left to set up some characters significant. For the first time, Ilsa stands next to Victor and Rick was alone facing them. Ilsa said: Good-bye, Rick. Then there was a close up of Ilsas face that softly softened the light at her face and completed saying: God bless you. Next, there was a high angle shot of Rick, the Director is trying to emphasize that we are looking for the first time down to Rick, because Ilsa was gone from his life forever, and was back with Victor. Then he said: Youd better hurry. Youll miss that plane. We were seeing this scene from Victors point of view because now the couple is Ilsa and Victor. After that, the camera was far away from the staging position when Ilsa and Victor were walking away towards the plane. That scene was taken again from Ricks point of view, where he was seeing both of them walking out of his life. And by that he realized the generous sacrifice he has done. After that, the camera showed a reverse angle shot of Victor and Ilsa, as a couple this time, walking to the camera. Then they looked at one another and we can see that Ilsa was trying to hold herself together. And as they get closer to the camera, we see that Victor was slowly cut off when the camera was slowly moving to the left side. The director wanted to focus the attention here on Ilsas face because she was walking away from the man she loves. After that the camera cuts into a close up to Rick alone in the frame (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). After that, the camera cut away to both Captain Renault when Major Strasser just came. Major Strasser tries to make a phone call for help, when Rick asked him not to, but since he didnt respond, Rick shot him. Then the police arrived, and in few seconds Captain Renault said: Round up the usual suspects. Now, Rick and Captain Renault are alone at the closing scene of the film. They watched the plane as it took off from both their point of view and then from a revered angle shot. The director tries here to make the viewers feel the loss of Rick in his eyes. After that another revered angle shot to their point of view appeared then the plane faded away within the fog (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). Finally, Rick and Captain Renault walked away together. Then the camera gets into a crane shot by rising up by looking down in a high angle shot at them as they keep walking from the staging position. Then Rick says: Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Then as they continue walking the music arise (Turner, Casablanca, 1999). As for this Dialogue, the beautiful friendship that will start to begin between Rick and Captain Renault was the last closing sentence in Casablanca. Moreover, the dialogue of Casablanca was all filmed on a soundstage, but that doesnt make it any less of great dialogue. Editing: The editing of Casablanca was attractive and high in excellence. At the closing scene of the film, the close ups of the airplane with the engines represented the scene as if it was in a real airport with a real plane, and was so hard to find out that all of that was acting in front of a fake plane. Moreover, when the shot was on the airplane taking off, it appeared that the first part of the airplane was the real one and the second part was the studio effect. All together, the story, casting, acting, dialogue, staging, music, sound, lighting, camera movement, editing, and production are so great that viewers just cared about whats happening, not about how the film was created and done. Third Essay Question: Some historians argue that films reflect the political and social mores of society at the time of its creation, is this accurate statement? Is the subject matter of the movies weve watched driven by society or does society drive the entertainment industry to create films within a specific moral, social, or political context? Discuss. More frequently, American movies reflected the absolute influence of the society. The industry is willing to sell more products. That case was mainly right when it came to studio era. J. Dudley Andrew, who is a movie scholar, saw and noticed that in The Major Film Theories: A natural rapport grew up between the public which went to the movies weekly and the producers who needed to supply the people with a variant of what they liked and were used to. (Gehring, 1997). Some movies influence society. For instance: Star Wars it still has a continuing force, which was released again in 1997. Gehring, who is a professor and an author of lots of film books, his occupation covered a some of his adolescence of the 1967s which is called dark comedy to get back on the1930s fashion of clothings. Hollywood tries to safegaurd its contribution, because they are not new nor warrantied. Furthermore, the film production is more involved in reflecting societys desires and needs than in directing them. People who puts all the responsibility and guilt on Hollywood for the most part of the societys troubles are not noticing nor considering real life mores and films (Gehring, 1997). The fiction part in Hollywood has been acknowledged for a long time by the majority of critics and reviewers of the genre between high art and mass culture. For the common audience of those fictions, there has been a lot of questioning about the behavior and sexual mortality in the film trade; there was also a concern about the moral value of films and their impact on the society as a whole (Springer, 2008). Some Hollywood movies reflect social attitudes or generalize from specific films. Fictional films are very difficult and hard to make. Social products are completed, distributed, and received by the audience. The critics examine completely in order to evaluate their roles as historical evidence. For instance: it is too risky to take into consideration only some films from a particular period of time as an easy reflection to the American society. Furthermore, the attitudes that are represented in a particular film might symbolize a chain of compromises cautiously designed to be non-offensive. Also, some individual firms and companies might point out indicate very unusual attitudes toward race relations or womens rights for example. Approaches about class, gender, ethnicity, work, and all other aspects of life are represented in fictional films and movies as they are novels and plays. As a mass visual entertainment, those fictional films reflect the social attitudes in a precise dramatic manner. Some movies which were released from 1915 to about 1955 were Americas mainly popular structure of narrative entertainment. At that time, movies tended to be targeted to larger group of audience, who are even larger than most of the audience of plays and novels. Moreover, movies by then reflected social attitudes more precisely than any other medium, as they got into the maximum number of people. The huge amount of audience doesnt necessarily mean that movies in America characterized all points of view. In filming a movie, directors and staff tries to avoid certain controversial points of view in order not to offend a huge number of people. Also, the producers of films try not to insult any wide groups of people and they normally stay away from political controversial, so that they can be able to sell the film internationally to make profit. A film that is driven by the society is basically stating whats really happening in the real world in a movie. Some movie directors try to reflect the picture of whats happening in the world or society by exaggerating a little more. Other film directors might just mirror real life in their movies. Others might be brave and in their movies that they show what is hidden in the society and represent it in their movies. A great example of a movie that is driven by the society could be Casablanca. Since it was filmed during War World II and it has some political and social mores of the society. Another example is the movie Amadeus, since it was a story about the lives of Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri, who are two composers and that was during the latter half of the 18th century On the contrary, some movie director wants to add something to the society or want to drive a new idea or message into it, so they do that in their movies. This is what its called society drives the entertainment industry to create films within a specific moral, social, or political context. Those kinds of movies are more open minded, because it requires more creativity and imagination to come up with something new more than the movies that are driven by the society. Most of those kinds of movies are imaginary movies. Another issue of argument of the same field might be that modern society is addicted to media entertainment. Simply, people in society couldnt live without all the noises, the images, the technology weve reached to nowadays. Media and films might affect society as well. It could have positive or negative influence on people. For example, violence movies might affect children, teenagers, or adults as well. They might get influenced unconsciously with what they watch in those violent movies. It can affect ones moral values, political, and social mores and make them more aggressive. Moreover, films of teenagers drinking or dealing with drugs also affect adolescence negatively. On the other hand, movies that have great morals affect people positively. For example, movies that might deal with family gathering throughout the whole film, can teach the audience the importance and the value of a family. In conclusion, a lot of writers, historians, and people argue about weather films reflect our political and social mores of our society or vice versa. The subject of the matter here is still and will remain a subject of argument and discussion, although it defers from one movie to another. Some movies combine both. For instance, a movie can be driven by society and also could be that society drove the entertainment industry to create the film or parts of it within a specific social moral and political context.

Family Guy and the Good the Bad and the Daily Show

When it comes to the topic of popculture, most American’s will readily agree that TV shows have a great impact on our life and beliefs. Where this agreement usually ends, however is on the question does it make us smarter in the real facts about the American society. Jason Zinger writer of â€Å"The Good, The Bad, and The Daily Show† and Antonia Peacocke writer of â€Å"Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious† both maintain the same view of how harsh comedy is used in both shows.They differ entirely in their portrayal of how the shows comedy is conducted to characterize the life of Americas, Whereas Jason Zinger a psychologist writes about â€Å"The Daily Show how it informs Americans with â€Å"fake† news, but in reality is real news swirled with comedy to emphasize the truth. Antonia Peacocke, a student from Harvard agrees Family guy goes beyond insulting the media, but maintains a reality about society. Both writers agree on n ot blaming the shows for its comedy, but how the public is mature enough to handle the facts.Peacocke expresses how â€Å"McFarland makes an important point: that no amount of television censorship will ever change the harsh nature of reality and to censor reality is mere folly. † (pg). She focuses on the ethos to acknowledge the pride of American society; therefore she explains how people tend to feel insulted when confronted directly. Zinger agrees with peacocke along the same lines how both shows go beyond to explain the American society.Pecocke explains that every show has some educational purposes, and these animate cartoons show â€Å"some aspects of American culture† (pg 303). Haven’t finished need more to add similarities between zinger and peacocke. Many shows have their own way of directing information by educating or entertaining the viewers. Peacocke writes in her article that is all psychological, and that every show has ethic in their show that we can all learn from.In her article she demonstrates us that shows like Family Guy are more than just entertainment, but many people judge this shows as pure comedy and entertainment with no educational purposes. Family Guy shows to their public current life issues, they make these issues entertaining and funny to make their public understand in ways that might offend people but acceptable in society. Peacocke explains how the show makes the public understand though laughter and comedy rather than being judgmental.She further deepens her perspective pointing out shows like Family Guy help people understand the American culture as well as help people understand other ethnicity and other genders through laughter. The news has even found ways to make it entertaining to inform the public of current life issues. Jason Zinger argues that in recent years Americans have â€Å"turned away from mainstream media† (pg) and have turned into alternatives programs to obtain the news. He expla ins The Daily Show informs people in unusual type of way that can be seen as entertaining and educational.According to the article, it argues that many people conclude the show misleads their viewers to think that is a show with no accurate information because of its comedy. Zinger believes that the show is not corrupt â€Å"If uses real news, items , and real stories, whether people tune into to be entertained, to be informed or both †¦ The daily Show shapes people’s perspective on the world† (pg 366). Many shows inform their viewers in a way that can be unusual, thus making the decision whether the source is reliable or not depends on the person.Zinger explains that â€Å"if viewers are tuning into a comedy show to get the latest news I believe that the viewers can distinguish between pure entertainment and the real news† (Pg 367). He opinioned people feel that shows like The Daily Show are misleading the public into having negative thoughts about the cur rent issues because not a lot of information is explained. ; therefore people think this shows only care about ratings. Zinger explains that having these ratings and knowing people tune in more gives the network more reason to give accurate information pg(366).The articles explain how media has found a different way to educate society with information in a new method. Zinger and Peacocke believe every show contains valuable information whether we tune into to obtain news or to relax and be entertained. American Society receives information in many different ways, it all depends where do we want our information. Both authors conclude we gained knowledge in different ways and the media is found its way for it to be entertaining and informative for American society.

Feminism in advertising

In my essay I will scrutinise feminism in advertising. We live in a world surrounded by commercial advertisements. For a very long time advertisers have used tactics such as gender representations for targeting their audiences (customers). It is described by others as the science that capture the human mind long enough to get money out of it. With theories of advertising and their sophistication, my assignment will look at both the advantages and disadvantages of feminism in advertising. Society and social structure are immensely affected by popular culture. Strinati (2004) says, â€Å"in modern setting, popular culture is the culture produced which is commercially created by a few for consumption by many†. Mass media such as television, films, magazines, bus stop shelters, billboards, internet and newspapers are the common forms of communication used by product manufacturers who portray and interpret society. Kellnar (1995, p 5) says â€Å"media is the form of art that teaches us how to be men or women, how to react to society, how to be successful and popular†. These are some of the advantages for manufacturers concerned about the commercial success of their products hence presenting a culture that will be consumed by many. These few points by Kellnar(1995) are some of what manufacturers or capitalists with one thing in mind success of their product use as advantage forcing them to present a culture they believe will attract and be consumed by the most audience. In doing so, popular culture often results in stereotyping people such as women, the disabled and other minorities because depicting them as stereotypes is easy. With advertising as another form of popular culture the stereotyping becomes very bold to ensure fast selling of huge volumes within a short time. To make achieving these targets, manufacturers/ capitalists will not have time to build up their own characters meaning stereotyping must be used. Although these manufactures of these manipulated mass cultural images say popular culture mirrors or echoes the society, the opposite is also true. Unaware the behaviour of society is being affected by these manipulated media images. More and more people are becoming more concerned and worried about how society sees itself and sometimes adapt to these impressions left by this art of popular culture especially feminist who are saying images of women in popular culture are undermining and degrading women. To some extent the feminist concerns are true when you look at what Srinati (2004) says that society does not award the same privileges it offers to men to women. This justifies the argument from feminist regarding the representation of women in mass media. Having started on feminist theory, I will describe it feather more before moving on to how women are represented in popular culture. Feminism speaks for women in terms of social equality for sexes against patriarchy and sexism (Macionis and Plummer 2012). Feminists trying to eliminate gender inequality have four different main theories of feminism, liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism and what Sylvia Walby calls the dual systems of feminism and each responds to the oppression of women in different way, outlining different causes and different solutions. However they also have criticisms. Liberal feminists oppose prejudice and discrimination against that stops women from pursuing their goals (Macionis & Plummer 2012) and Gidens (2009) also says liberal feminism searchers for answers of gender inequality in cultural and social attitudes. It has great support than the other perspectives because it is more tolerant and its views are less threatening to existing values. In Western societies liberal feminists’ plans are to change the political, economic and social systems. Liberal feminists believe that both men and women are not benefiting from gender inequalities (Haralambos and Holborn 2008). Some of its criticisms identified by Valerie Bryson (1999) are basing liberal feminism on male assumptions and norms. The other is emphasizing public life at the expense of private life. Abbort et al. (2005) says liberalism does not explain the exploitation of women, it take no account of structural sources of inequality. Marxist and socialist feminism started from Marx’s conflict theory, blaming the sexual divisions of labour as the barrier preventing women from wealth (Marsh et al 2009) and this Marxist analysis of feminism blames capitalism as the key source of oppression rather than patriarchy, and capitalist as the beneficiaries. Just like radical feminists they have a desire for revolutionary change and want a communist society where production is communally owned. Although Marxist and socialist feminism had a lot of influence during 1970s and 1980s it has lost influence in recent years and some of its aspects have been adopted by other feminists. Just like the other feminist theories it has its own criticisms. It has been criticised for using the masculine theory which does fails to explain of women’s position (Haralambos et al 2008). Its main criticism comes from failing to emphasise how men oppress women (Abbort et al 2005). Radical feminism puts all the exploitation of women on men (Gidens 2009). Radical feminists believe that men are the beneficiaries from women subordination. Valarie Bryson (1999) says radical feminists see women as an oppressed group who had to free themselves from their oppressors in this case men (Haralambos & Holborn 2008, p 101). Radical feminism is criticised for encouraging women to focus on negative experiences with men and for portraying women as good and men as bad. Banks, 1981; Barry,1983; Stacey, 1983; and Vogel,1983 (cited in Macions and Plummer 2012, p 407) say these distinctions describe the problem of patriarchy in different ways and call for correspondingly distinctive solutions for social damage. We already know that societies and individuals take time to adjust to change and to adopt the new routines therefore the representation of women in media can speed up the process of change, as already demonstrated, that popular culture has enormous effect on society. Even though the representation of women in media is largely hidden by capitalism profit making agendas, an exact representation of society would harm the feminist motives. There are other feminist theories like black feminism and postmodern feminism. They are all associated with femininity some with theories that try to put limitations on the way women are portrayed by the mass media. Despite the short comings of social and commercial limits on advertisements, advertisers are always a step ahead in terms of change to social reality and they have proved that they can provide better reflection of social changes than any other media. The truth is advertisers continue to miss-represent the female body and women are still seen as cheap of free labour for house work in spite of all the changes in representation of women over the years. In television adverts for both sexes, men appear 76% more as experts than women (Hasseltine 1982). Hasseltine also says women are often portrayed as mothers or housewives without common sense knowledge about their roles. Recent study (Yoder et al 2008) has proved that although women still appear as housewives, they no longer appear as people without voice and mind of their own instead they are now competent, have a voice and perform professional duties just like the male colleagues. This shows a clear picture of change from the past couple of decades. Although changes in the way women are portrayed on adverts are said to have improved, the stereotyping still remains and are adding worthiness to some of the feminist objections about the portrayal of females in mass media. For examples women were seen as voiceless, passive sexual objects for male gaze, nevertheless today it is still the same, except women are no longer presented as inactive but as desirable sexual subjects who presents themselves in that objectified manner because they want to (Goldman, 1992). This is now post feminism and advertisers still use their narrow ideas that create feminine qualities and feminists are finding difficult to persuade advertisers to change these gender identities because advertisers put so much money towards these ideas and cannot afford to have low commercial results (Cortese 2008) and to achieve high commercial results they must use their femininity ideas. They then persuade a beautiful female in what they call perfect body, slim and tall without blemish. Storey (2003) in his book â€Å"Inventing Popular Culture† calls the advertisers, the ruling class, who constitute themselves under the guise of democratic populism, exploits the art of popular culture and the manipulative art of advertising to promote docile conformism and worship of the new which keeps the consumer in a confused state of changing fashion and insecure about his/her taste. Especially on beauty products, the manipulation of art of advertising is extended by air brushing the women to look extra fine causing women to feel inferior among others. Men as a result of these manipulated images raise the expectation from women which creates more gender stereotyping. Even though post feminism shows women as professionals and not as stupid mothers or housewives, they persist showing them as objects, even in advertisements/commercials meant for the male audience. Female audience have the worst adverts that objectify women for purposes of selling products such as lingerie. Post feminism shows semi naked female bodies that are considered as showing the sexual power of women over men, this in pre-feminism time was seen as offensive (Amy-Chinn 2006). This is one form of feminism that has limitation to the feminist theory of popular culture. Like I said before, feminist objections of stereotyping women are more evident in commercials that sell products for women and in magazines for female audience (Lindner 2004). Research conducted by Lindner (2004) concluded adverts from magazines for female audience stereotyped women 78% more than any other magazines, so if it is true that adverts/commercials are created with the targeted audience in mind, then women find themselves in inferior positions in such magazines and are identified better with such stereotyping. Such advertisements limits the work of feminists and their theory of saying advertisements should reflect social reality become invalid as such advertising do reflect reality but harming the feminist plan. If this kind of female stereotyping is a reflection of society, then there is nothing wrong with the popular culture that presents the female body in such a way. Unfortunately popular culture has great impact on how people carry and see themselves around others. The air bushed female bodies on advertisements will lead to denial of how they look without the manipulation. Individuals exposed to sexist commercials had negative thoughts about their own body image (Lavine et al 1999). This, without the criticism from feminists, is not best for society and its best not to show sexist advertisements which show the female body as an object. It has serious consequences on a lot of women especially the younger ones where it may result in problems like eating disorders, plastic surgeries, locking themselves away from society Another disadvantage of sexiest advertisements is that showing women as sex objects, excluding them from society, can cause men to have negative perception of women. For example (Rosewarne 2005) says criminality can lead to perception of fear in women, and this is not acceptable in society especially from feminists who are fighting for woman to be equal to men. Unfortunately another form of commercials that is increasing masculine power is the outdoor advertisements that sexually degrade women and strengthening their exclusion is on city spaces (Ibid, p67). This cause sexual violence which forces women to reduce their movements and this type of popular culture which creates an environment is not acceptable in society. Feminists need to come up with more powerful arguments that the ones mentioned above to solve this matter that is rising from stereotyping and showing women as sexual objects. Strinati, (2004) says some feminists are campaigning for a female world that excludes men. Gill (2008) says by purchasing underwear to tea or coffee they are representing power and independence. This is also adding to advertisements that are meant for the female audience meaning more stereotyping especially if it’s a woman to women commercials, resulting in feminists failing to field the answer to the problem of stereotyping women in popular culture. In the last 30years changes have happened in favour of women about their representation in popular culture especially the way they are portrayed in commercials. From stupid mother or housewife without a voice in the 1980’s to professional knowledgeable people with a voice in the twenty first century, despite all these changes in the way women are represented in advertisements they still experience stereotyping. Pre feminists saw the stereotyping off women as harmful today, the postfeminist supports the idea of showing the female body as sexual objects saying it signifies the power that the female body has over men. The objectification of the female body is still seen as the main way undermining women’s bodies and the limits found in feminism have made it hard for feminists to out rightly challenge the deception of women in popular culture. In conclusion, there clear evidence that feminists do not agree about the origins of inequality between men and women. They argue that women have always been in a subordination position while some say gender inequalities originate from particular historical events (Haralambos and Holborn 2008). Women have suffered oppression in the past without a voice and today they have a voice but still experience oppression in one way or the other. In advertising we saw objectification of women in advertisements as harmful in the 1970s and 1980s and in the twenty first century the objectification of women in advertisement is still happening but is now called the sexual power of women over men. We have also seen that the stereotyping and portraying women as object is a tool for advertisers trying to achieve their targets for whatever they are selling. Stereotyping the depicting of women has been part of advertising and will continue to be a very useful tool for advertisers. The manipulation of images can have devastating effect on out women living them with all sorts of problems. Finally, feminism is a metaphor for transformation, having s voice, for women who did not have a public voice in the past and it is seen as moving from object to subject (Storey 2009). Today the feminism movements are still tackling the adverting industry with the introduction of new revolution ways to tackle mass media about these images that depicting women as sexual objects.

How To Obtain Happiness - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1050 Downloads: 7 Date added: 2019/05/07 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Happiness Essay Did you like this example? One of the biggest questions we ask ourselves on a daily, is who am I? Who is the I trying to create a life full of genuinity and fulfillment? According to famous philosopher Plato, fulfillment and happiness is only achieved through a matter of priorities. He stresses that it is important to prioritize things that have longer meaning versus things that do not. Meanwhile, David Foster Wallace argues in his commencement that the idea that not worshipping anything in life will lead to being, ultimately in the end, happier. While reviewing both opinions, I was able to come to my own personal conclusion that finding fulfillment in life and happiness can be determined by looking past ones ego and a little deeper into the soul. By prioritizing the wants and desires of the soul, rather than the ego, one can definitely find peace and value in the smaller things of life. To further the topic of ones ego side, it can be easily described as the side that obtains all of the desires in life. While ones soul can also obtain desire, the differences between them are extremely notable. The egotistical part of our human beings, relies heavily on what others, also known as society, think and comment about us. To desire something simply because others said it was what they thought we needed, is cannot be fulfilling. It is not rewarding to ourselves, nor is it easy and natural, to accept what others have opinionated and go along with. Strictly speaking, the egos ideals of desires, fulfillment, and happiness are unachievable since it depends on what an often changing society asks for, causing a situation that cannot be controlled. If one is to ask themselves who they are, responses such as being a friend, sister/brother, mom/dad, artist, athlete, and many more would be given which I like to label the ego side. Yet, if they had to go further than the surface of what they are labeled as, answers such as kind, loving, joyful, and other deeper adjectives would begin to be described. To realize that we are more than what the surface describes, and to reach that deeper realm of the soul, one has to look past the ego cover. We are more than our labels, accomplishments, fails, and any titles. The egotistical side of us, essentially, has been trained to believe that it is the most important and relevant. It is so difficult to look past the ego since it is going against what feels like everybody (society), but pushing past that and finding inner happiness that does not depend on an outer source is incredibly rewarding. To look beyond images, to recognize failures and accept them, to find self love and confidence are all traits of the soul and clear paths to finding happiness. As previously mentioned, Plato spoke on behalf of happiness as prioritizing things that possess longer meaning than those that do not. In other words, Plato values the fundamentals of man rather than the physical aspects of any single thing. The idea of ego versus soul plays a part here, as I would assume Plato would agree that the soul is everlasting. The key components that the soul values, such as finding self love and discovering feelings that come from a place within that already feels good about itself, is what I would classify as a priority that Plato explains is needed for happiness. Furthermore, I believe Platos ideals of happiness and my ideals of the soul are so similar because of the relationship Plato had with Socrates. Plato seeing his friend and mentor in life, Socrates, die to prove his honesty and continuously speaks on behalf of his ideals to others seconds before his death, played a role in how Plato views priorities in life. While Socrates could have blamed the Gods for making him intake Hemlock poisoning and sacrifice his life, he instead takes it as a chance to testify his truths and ideals, inspiring the thoughts and beliefs in Plato that happiness lies within everlasting fundamentals of humans and the soul rather than things that are a rtificial. Moving forward, is evident that when Wallace speaks on behalf of constructing meaning from experience, he wants the reader to use his example of someone who is tired from working all day and having to do groceries to look deeper than the surface and our own self wants and needs. He begins telling the point of view of this character expressing how everyone seems to be getting in his/her way. He also uses the anger of sitting in hour long traffic, and how it can have a negative effect on a mood. In a situation like this, he explains, one should practice changing their thoughts from being so normally negative, to (forcefully) something more positive just from a simple experience like this alone. Keeping Wallaces ideals in mind, the role of worship can be shown by keeping truth upfront. In other words, facing the truths of reality will ultimately be more rewarding to a persons soul, their outlook on life, and certain experiences instead of dwelling on the negatives that ar e so easy to fall into. In relation to my ideals of ego versus soul, I was able to obtain the idea that Wallace wants his audience to fight against that egotistical side and find deeper meanings of situations to help (fundamentally) fulfil the souls desires and wants. With two very similar ideals of how one can obtain happiness, Plato and David Foster Wallace were both able to give me an ideal of my own. Due to the honest death of his mentor, Socrates, Plato begins to believe that happiness is only achieved by grasping onto things that have everlasting meanings. The artificial things in life, he admits, should never be a priority as it will not satisfy the fulfillments and desires underneath the surface of a human. Wallace, similarly, argues that worshipping anything that is tangible and not meaningful, will not be able to quench the thirst of finding happiness. These two ideals were able to get me believing that by prioritizing the wants and desires of the soul versus the ego, e ven though it will be extremely difficult, one will obtain the happiness that is so desperately craved. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "How To Obtain Happiness" essay for you Create order