Posted on behalf on Katelyn Bermudez:
American culture is completely saturated by drama. The political process and office of the presidency is an area which has not escaped this reality. Since Washington’s first inauguration the media has been overcome with a strong interest for the president’s personal life and what the position entailed. Naturally with that interest and the advancement of technology, movies and television shows about the president were to be expected.
There are of advantages about the presence of these shows. An increased interest in the presidency and American politics in general can help people become interested in the governmental system. Donnalyn Pompper pointed out in The West Wing: White House Narratives that Journalism Cannot Tell, that these fictional dramas allow certain aspects of presidential life to be demonstrated that journalists are not able to share in a news story. “Scripts aim to tell “not what happens, but to reveal how it happens.”(Pompper 4). The issue however with shows such as the West Wing are that they create false expectations and beliefs about the American political process and set standards for current presidents that may be impossible to attain.
For example Pompper states that “the fictional oval office inhabitants consider public service a worthy, noble pursuit, and they work there because they hope to do good, not because of personal ambition.” (Pompper 4) If these expectations are seen by viewers and the cultivation theory is applied, Hollywood then sets unachievable standards which can lead to unhappy Americans and low approval ratings.
As Rick Shenkman editor of HNN points out, “badly as Hollywood often presents the presidents, it has had an enduring impact on how we see them, how they behave, and even, in a few cases, on who won…Hollywood's depiction of American presidents is by and large a record of failure.” (Shenkman)
It will be interesting now to see how the current presidency will be portrayed in the future. As such as historical president, Obama will always be respected and seen as an important figure as the first African American President. This fact about him should be respected and demonstrated. That being said though, it will be interesting to see how much that role becomes demonstrated in Hollywood. Also I wonder if it will overshadow elements such as his low approval ratings and policies which have passed. Like any predecessor only time will tell. (http://hnn.us/articles/1749.html)
Monday, November 15, 2010
Casting Call for…Mrs. President?
Posted on behalf of Kailyn Corrigan:
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=9&sid=20a7ecd6-44e5-4282-8604-ccebbed64177%40sessionmgr11
With mid-term elections behind us, there exists… the future. The future of our government’s leadership is unknown—a little too unknown if you ask me. Previous possibilities varied from right to left, old to young, east to west. Demographically there were far less chances for change. The 2012 Presidential election now welcomes demographic changes such as, race (Obama), religion (Romney) and most notably gender. Sarah Palin, to all of Hillary’s probable dismay, has thrown the presidential gender card up for grabs. A leader whose typical traits are listed as “dominance, aggression, self-reliance and personal control” in terms of masculinity in Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s article “First Impressions of Sarah Palin: Pit Bulls, Politics, Gender Performance, and a Discursive Media (Re)contextualization” is what we and the media have come to expect and characterize our presidents as in media and movies. What then happens if we have a female president whose femininity culturally represents sensitivity and warmth?
As Quinnipiac University Polling Institute asks in their first question “Thinking ahead to the 2012 Presidential Election, if the candidates were Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?” we are forced to consider the feminine impressions Palin has made on America. As I read Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s journal article in Communication, Culture and Critique, I was forced to consider the movie Independence Day however random that may be. If using a female president, would she become friends with the aliens? Would she run away with a full face of make-up?
The study conducted used gender portrayals of Palin through network appearances, gatekeeping, a random sample of videos and the narrative. She was coded as feminine, masculine and neutral. She was predominantly noted as a “mother,” according to the study, but “beauty queen” was also mentioned. These conclusions forced me to consider Giglio’s article “Hollywood and Washington: The Marriage of Film and Politics.”
The introduction of this reading explores a hypothetical movie writing scene about an American President. The themes they search for are “political intrigue;” “sex;” “war” and a “happy ending.” Do you think that a movie centered around a female president would carry the same motives? Would a movie about the “American President” still be a concept, or hugely different depending on the sex they decide to use. Would they use a female president at all? I ask these questions based on the fact that Harp, Loke and Bachmann featured a study in which our most seemingly popular female Republican is most commonly portrayed as “motherly.”
In a sense, does this then confuse the connotative definition of the “American President?” Taking into consideration Giglio’s article, the “First-Impression of Sarah Palin…” study and the recent mix of celebrity/ politics, I feel a president’s gender will have a much larger impact than many would expect before considering the media. Do you feel it will be difficult for a female president to escape the “sexy librarian” mold, even inside the Oval Office walls? I think it would also be interesting to see the study conducted, using Hillary Clinton as a subject. Would she be considered “motherly?” I plan on watching the show Commander in Chief, featuring Geena Davis as President of the United states to explore this topic.
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=9&sid=20a7ecd6-44e5-4282-8604-ccebbed64177%40sessionmgr11
With mid-term elections behind us, there exists… the future. The future of our government’s leadership is unknown—a little too unknown if you ask me. Previous possibilities varied from right to left, old to young, east to west. Demographically there were far less chances for change. The 2012 Presidential election now welcomes demographic changes such as, race (Obama), religion (Romney) and most notably gender. Sarah Palin, to all of Hillary’s probable dismay, has thrown the presidential gender card up for grabs. A leader whose typical traits are listed as “dominance, aggression, self-reliance and personal control” in terms of masculinity in Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s article “First Impressions of Sarah Palin: Pit Bulls, Politics, Gender Performance, and a Discursive Media (Re)contextualization” is what we and the media have come to expect and characterize our presidents as in media and movies. What then happens if we have a female president whose femininity culturally represents sensitivity and warmth?
As Quinnipiac University Polling Institute asks in their first question “Thinking ahead to the 2012 Presidential Election, if the candidates were Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?” we are forced to consider the feminine impressions Palin has made on America. As I read Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s journal article in Communication, Culture and Critique, I was forced to consider the movie Independence Day however random that may be. If using a female president, would she become friends with the aliens? Would she run away with a full face of make-up?
The study conducted used gender portrayals of Palin through network appearances, gatekeeping, a random sample of videos and the narrative. She was coded as feminine, masculine and neutral. She was predominantly noted as a “mother,” according to the study, but “beauty queen” was also mentioned. These conclusions forced me to consider Giglio’s article “Hollywood and Washington: The Marriage of Film and Politics.”
The introduction of this reading explores a hypothetical movie writing scene about an American President. The themes they search for are “political intrigue;” “sex;” “war” and a “happy ending.” Do you think that a movie centered around a female president would carry the same motives? Would a movie about the “American President” still be a concept, or hugely different depending on the sex they decide to use. Would they use a female president at all? I ask these questions based on the fact that Harp, Loke and Bachmann featured a study in which our most seemingly popular female Republican is most commonly portrayed as “motherly.”
In a sense, does this then confuse the connotative definition of the “American President?” Taking into consideration Giglio’s article, the “First-Impression of Sarah Palin…” study and the recent mix of celebrity/ politics, I feel a president’s gender will have a much larger impact than many would expect before considering the media. Do you feel it will be difficult for a female president to escape the “sexy librarian” mold, even inside the Oval Office walls? I think it would also be interesting to see the study conducted, using Hillary Clinton as a subject. Would she be considered “motherly?” I plan on watching the show Commander in Chief, featuring Geena Davis as President of the United states to explore this topic.
Presidential Character
While reading the articles for this week, I really got stuck on the particular article by Peter C. Rollins entitled “Hollywood’s Presidents.” While I was reading this, I naturally kept thinking about our current President, Barak Obama, and the obvious struggle he is having both with the bi-partisan congress and within himself. In the United States, our President must be able to strike a balance between being a figure head for the country, and being an effective and progressive leader, successfully getting the two parties to compromise and enact legislature beneficial to all. We can see how when he was campaigning, he was running on phrases and rhetoric that the American people would respond positively to, as they truly did want a change after being in a war and watching the economy slip away. However, you cannot simply have the rhetoric and not back it up with a solid stance on the policies that will make that change happen.
Rollins mentions this in his article when he explains what happened in the movie, “The American President.” President Shepherd is accused of having an affair by his opponent, and at a press conference Shepherd said, “’Being president of this country is completely about character (260).’” “He comes back against his Kansas opponent with dynamic policy positions on free speech… with an economic focus rather than silly rhetoric… with an initiative on global warming… and with stiffer gun controls (260).” Although fictional, as Americans this is exactly what we want in a President. Someone who is obviously human and make mistakes just like the rest of us, but is able to triumph over any negative backlash with his ability to enact policy, supersede the divide between the parties, and lead the American people. I think President Obama set out to do so, but failed to prepare enough to endure the almost even split in congress and the backlash from Americans who are in rough economic times.
An article from the New York Times also mentions this. Although from the Opinion section, I believe this particular article explains some of what most of America is feeling right now. The article makes an interesting point about the promises of transcendence made by Obama in the campaign, but he was not expecting the fight he would be confronted with in our bi-partisanship. The question now becomes, can he back up his rhetoric with dynamic policy? Can he fight and prevail? Other questions I propose to you are after reading the Times article, do you think he can put up a successful fight? What about the way he handles foreign policy?
Also, we often see present presidents’ characters attacked, but once out of office they almost take on an ideal character. We’ve seen this countless times, starting with George Washington himself. In the clip of President Bush’s interview with Oprah he believes the same will happen to him. Do you agree? How do you think President Obama’s character will be viewed when his presidency comes to an end? How much of a role does integrity and strength of character play for you when deciding who to vote for, and why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
Rollins mentions this in his article when he explains what happened in the movie, “The American President.” President Shepherd is accused of having an affair by his opponent, and at a press conference Shepherd said, “’Being president of this country is completely about character (260).’” “He comes back against his Kansas opponent with dynamic policy positions on free speech… with an economic focus rather than silly rhetoric… with an initiative on global warming… and with stiffer gun controls (260).” Although fictional, as Americans this is exactly what we want in a President. Someone who is obviously human and make mistakes just like the rest of us, but is able to triumph over any negative backlash with his ability to enact policy, supersede the divide between the parties, and lead the American people. I think President Obama set out to do so, but failed to prepare enough to endure the almost even split in congress and the backlash from Americans who are in rough economic times.
An article from the New York Times also mentions this. Although from the Opinion section, I believe this particular article explains some of what most of America is feeling right now. The article makes an interesting point about the promises of transcendence made by Obama in the campaign, but he was not expecting the fight he would be confronted with in our bi-partisanship. The question now becomes, can he back up his rhetoric with dynamic policy? Can he fight and prevail? Other questions I propose to you are after reading the Times article, do you think he can put up a successful fight? What about the way he handles foreign policy?
Also, we often see present presidents’ characters attacked, but once out of office they almost take on an ideal character. We’ve seen this countless times, starting with George Washington himself. In the clip of President Bush’s interview with Oprah he believes the same will happen to him. Do you agree? How do you think President Obama’s character will be viewed when his presidency comes to an end? How much of a role does integrity and strength of character play for you when deciding who to vote for, and why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Politicians and Celebrities and Spin Doctors, Oh my!
We would all love to live in a world where we can believe everything we hear. We'd love to think that all politicians are looking out for the best interests of American citizens rather than themselves. As students of media and politics, those of us in this class know to take everything with a grain of salt. But what about the rest of America? Where do we all fit in the grand scheme of political agenda?
Ernest Giglio's Here's Looking At You: Hollywood, Film, and Politics draws a distinction between films and politics. But what interested me the most about this reading was the issue of the blurred line between celebrity status and political stature, which is a discussion that has come up time and time again in class. Ronald Regan was a Hollywood actor before being elected president. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now the "Governator" of California. Even Steven Colbert tried to run for president in the 2008 election. So of course, this leads perfectly into the case of Sarah Palin, whose reality series "Sarah Palin's Alaska" premieres next week.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101115/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticspalin;_ylt=AvikoVYtZJDVyVHMWthPPZayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJta205bDR0BGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMTExNS91c3BvbGl0aWNzcGFsaW4EcG9zAzE0BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDcmlzaW5ndXNtZWRp
The above article discusses the insane amount of power that Palin has acquired since 2008. Feelings about this are completely divided -- some people feel that her popularity would be an asset to the Republican party, while others are frankly afraid of the rate at which Hurricane Palin is gaining strength. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her policies, she is the perfect example of how a politician can use their celebrity to obtain a position in politics.
There are two ways we can look at this phenomenon. On the one hand, many of Sarah Palin's recent actions are backed by applaud-worthy public relations. She's written books, has chosen to star in a reality show, and additionally, it's probably no coincidence that the nation's most popular teen mom, Bristol Palin, is now on the most popular reality show on television, Dancing With the Stars. From a public relations standpoint, Sarah Palin is doing everything right. She fully embraces the idea of the "image is everything" presidency, and has made countless efforts to maintain her image as an extraordinary "common man" figure. I may even dare to say that much of Palin's support comes from her relate-ability rather than her actual policies or her abilities as a political figure.
On the other hand, building one's own celebrity status to gain political popularity seems somewhat manipulative. While most politicians ride on past political contributions during a presidential campaign, Palin will be relying mostly on her popularity as a reality star and a media sensation. Though she has made an effort to be more politically active in the past two years, I think it is fair to say that, if a non-celebrity figure with Sarah Palin's political history tried to run for president, they probably wouldn't be taken very seriously.
Using celebrity status to gain political stature certainly has its fair share of both positive and negative attributes, but what do you think this means for politics? Is it a good thing that politicians have the option of garnering support through celebrity status? Does political fandom actually help boost nationalism? Or do you feel that this kind of fandom will actually hurt the political process?
----
Ernest Giglio, Here’s Looking at You: Hollywood, Film & Politics (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), Ch. 1& 6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)