Re-filming and still to film

So far we have filmed about half of our final video. We've decided to keep the 'Hamlet' implicit, and focussing on the 'general' story.
Some of our scenes we didn't film on a tripod, or we did but the ground was uneven, forcing us to re-film. These were predominantly 'moving shots' in the middle of town, where a tripod would have been awkward. Our supervisor gave us advice on what she liked and what could be improved. She advised us to make a solid plan on what to film over the next couple of weeks. The black X's mark what I can film by myself (Ophelia shots) in my own time with much complexity or expenditure. Shots marked with a * indicate what we aim to film on Sunday before the holidays.

The Media, Collective Identity and the Feminism It Shuns

In today's age, the media can be seen to construct and make collective identities more so than in previous years.  Every day, we surrounded by the media, influencing our thoughts and the decisions we make.

In print media, we are bombarded with the images of sickly thin women posing in underwear, telling us that is what it means to be a woman and this is what men want. This could not be further from the truth. Magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Glamour and FHM create the identity of women- tall, thin, hot and preferably blond. In recent years, nameless cover models have been ditched for high-flying celebrities such as Scarlett Johansson, Kate Moss and Megan Fox. The media depict these women as attainable, alluring sirens for men, who then project these unrealistic fantasises on real women. Not only do men want this, but it then provokes women to become these succubus-like creatures. Women  are misrepresented as being these 'people', when in fact these women are in the minority and tend to have had 'some work done' and now look like a Barbie, or have  had all humanity airbrushed into oblivion.  This change, or misrepresentation is known as 'mediation'- the lens of the media distorts the true image into something completely different.

The same goes for non-print media such as television, film and music videos. Women in mainstream television and film are forced to fulfil typical female roles: wife, mother, flirt/lonely and looking for love, femme fatale. Rarely is a woman seen in complete control without a man, examples being the film 'The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', 'Kick-Ass' and 'Stoker'
However, the main misrepresentation of women comes from mainstream music videos. Look at any Snoop Dog or Kanye or Lil' Wayne and I guarantee you will see a half-naked woman dancing or gyrating in front of the camera. This disgustingly inaccurate portrayal of women does not seem to offend the vast majority, it is totally, unquestioningly accepted.  Yet somehow, Robin Thicke's music video 'crossed a line.' Personally, I have seen far more sexually aggressive music videos. What may have pushed 'Blurred Lines' over the edge are the 'rapey' lyrics:

However, some argue that the media's influence on us is limited. We have the free will to disobey what the media tell us, we can wear striped jeans with a chequered shirt and flip-flops if we want to, we have the choice. Also, the media is run on money- if you don't have the cold, hard cash that the media thrive on, you won't be as affected. You may see elements on them in daily life, but you have the choice taken from them, their identity won't be as constructed/influenced. The only question with this is, how far does this free will go? And how do we know the media are not influencing us on a subconscious level? 

* U N F I N I S H E D *

Feminist interpretation of music videos – 2012/3

Mainstream music videos typically depict women in a sexualized and unrealistic way, playing into the male fantasy. British film critic Laura Mulvey discovered a theory that she terms 'the male gaze' which focuses, among other things, on how men view women on the silver screen. Although written for film, the theory can be applied to music videos: see below.

I also wrote about Mulvey and the film SuckerPunch. See a previous post.



Lily Allen's video and lyrics are a near parody of today's music industry, parodying various artists in her 'Hard Out Here' video including Robin Thicke, Nicki Minaj and Jessie J. Lily told people that the song was meant as a dig at the industry's expectations of women to be sexually desirable objects. She said: "[It was] Meant to be a light-hearted satirical video that deals with the objectification of women within modern pop culture. The message is clear."

The video represents women as what they are 'meant' to be, what they usually are in conventional music videos: dancing, smoking, sexualized actions, working in a kitchen, having money thrown at them. The operation/liposuction scene at the beginning corroborates this- various men and the industry tells her that she needs to look a certain way in order to be successful. At one point, Lily assumes the male role. Wearing a fur coat and standing in front of Rolls Royce she throws money at the women dancing/twerking around her and mimes having 'doggy style' sex with one of the dancers, beating her butt. It is so conventional and exaggerated that it becomes the opposite. Naturally, all conventions are adhered to in order to provide proper context in order to mock. Within the lyrics, women presented in as opposites: "Don't need to shake my arse for you because I've got a brain"juxtaposed with "If you're not a size six, then you're not good-looking"

The representation of women in this music video, after analysis, is atypical. The lyrics of the song focus on women working to get what they want, a positive message: 'You wanna a Maseratti? You better work bitch.'  Yet the 'characters' sexualized attire (lingerie and BDSM inspired clothing) juxtaposes this, conforming to the conventional music video, detracting from the message of the song. BDSM is typically associated with dominant/submissive practices and Britney follows this, presenting herself as a dominant over others. The video also uses the typical 'male' conventions such as fast cars, explosions and skimpily dressed women. Another obvious convention that is adhered to is the use of product placement- Beats speakers by Dr. Dre are seen 'harnessed' into the mouth of a woman, S&M style. A Bulgari perfume bottle is also seen at the very beginning. Britney also addresses women as 'bitches', a word some feminists argue is an example of causal misogyny. One could however argue that the very definition of feminism is to allow the freedom of choice for women, including language and clothing. Sadly, this message is again not usually brought to light, especially in mainstream music videos where women are typically told what to wear, as seen with the controversial 2011 Slut Walk. Much like Allen's music video, there are virtually no men- all dancers are female.   Britney is represented dominant, fearless (standing in a pool infested with sharks), in control woman- she challenges her sexuality by engaging in various practices with other women.  Britney sports her typical blonde hair, an obvious contrast to the dancers black hair. This concept of singling out a person, making them appear 'special' dates back to Ancient Greece-unique warriors such as Achilles and Alexander the Great were also believed to be blonde, setting them apart from the masses. Camera angles tend to be long/wide, mid or close-ups, none are visibly canted to emphasize power or sexuality. Long shots are used to show the choreography and the clothing that the 'empowered' women wear.
In terms of Laura Mulvey, I feel that parts of the theory fall down, but some aspects remain. Mulvey writes that a male viewer identifies himself with the male protagonist of the film and thus, through his eyes, objectifies the woman. Fortunately, there are no men to identify with, allowing the women to empower themselves thusly. In this case, women are the 'rulers' objectifying other women, which can be seen as 'controversial'. 


*U N F I N I S H E D*

Animoto Video Explaining Narrative

I made this 30 second video on Animoto to explain our narrative.Our narrative has changed from the previous post.
After a discussion with our media teacher, we decided that our original narrative was somewhat vague, focusing more on aesthetics than an actual story. In addition, we had planned to film at night, which proved to be rather difficult. Our storyboard no longer reflects what we actually have and will film, making us produce this video to show the amendments made to the narrative.


Narrative For 'Closer To You' Music Video

Sexualization of Men? *unfinished*

Panic! At The Disco's music video for 'Girls/Girls/Boys' (fairly) recently hit the web, re-creating D'Angelo's 'Untitled'. As having learned in the theory side of this course, music videos typically objectify women, yet Panic! and various other artists also sexually exploit men, or at the very least, use men's bodies as as a focal point.



Panic! At The Disco- Girls/Girls/Boys
This video focuses only on Brendon Urie's body, tantalizing the viewer with barely appropriate shots that just about cover his dignity. Although Urie remains the only subject, the video does not appear boring. The changing shots and Urie's movment paired with his emphasis of the lyrics make for a very unusual video. Although he is not directly sexualized by what happens in the video, he is seuxalized by those watching the video who infer, by his lack of clothing, that he is 'sexy'. Here, Mulvey's theory of the male gaze can be subverted to the female gaze.


 
Pet Shop Boys- Rent
Although the video does not directly exploit men, the lyrics present an unusual relationship: a wealthy woman provides her male lover with all things material.







Madonna- Material Girl

*U N F I N I S H E D *