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.
LEAD BLOG--CULTIVATION THEORY AND THE PRESIDENCY
ReplyDeleteAmerican 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)
As a huge fan of the show 24, I couldn't help but think of the final seasons when they had a woman as president while reading this. In 24,the female president was depicted as the symbolic presidential figure that Rollins talks about in "Hollywood Presidents." Rollins said, "there is great wisdom in seeing presidents as symbolic figures--curiously caught in time and tradition, and navigating themselves and their nation by the strength of resources and character" (252).
ReplyDeleteThe female president in 24 was like this and had a very strong character. She also had motherly qualities and was an emotional figure. I thought it was a very realistic portrayal of the characteristics a woman president should have. I believe these characteristics are more accurate of what we and the media would expect of a woman president, rather than the "sexy librarian" mold discussed in the post.
It's interesting how in Giglio's article "Here's Looking at You: Hollywood, Film and Politics," the screenwriters are trying to form an intriguing and intellectual plot for a movie, and the screenwriter wraps up the conversation saying, "It has possibilities. Let's see, we retain the sex but add some serious moral and political decisions faced by politicians seeking public office. So, the film appeals to the intellect and the libido. I like it (2)." I'm sure that if a woman were playing the role of the president, no matter which side of the political spectrum one might be at, the theme will become "dramatic and immoral candidate incapable of holding office." It's disheartening for women in politics especially during the 2008 presidential election. Two completely opposite women, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, were forced together by doubters and critics not of their policies (well not just their policies), but how they handle certain situations questioning whether or not they are capable of working in the White House. Clinton received much backlash when she started crying at a press conference while becoming emotional explaining how much she loves this country. And forget Palin, anything she said was completely ripped apart by any doubters. For instance, critics raised the question of her rationality when she said, "What's the difference between a grizzly bear and a hockey mom? Lipstick."
ReplyDeleteSome may also argue people were especially critical of the two women not because they were women, but because they did not meet the qualifications of their respected offices. However, it makes you wonder why the land of the free, the country that embraces diversity has failed to put a women in office when countries such as Britain, Pakistan, Finland, and Germany have all stood behind women leaders.
Pompper talks about how shows like The West Wing go beyond what the White House press corps reports on and allows viewers to feel more connected to the Presidency. I see an interesting comparison to Sarah Palin’s current PR strategy. When first introduced on the national scene, Palin allowed her image to be defined by the media. As Pompper suggests, reporters rarely try to offer a well rounded portrait of our leaders’ character. Sarah Palin’s PR approach has been to redefine her image by showing the public her more personal side. For example, the TLC documentary/reality-show about her family offers a first hand account of her life in Alaska. This helps to humanize her and make her image more relatable. While entertainment has been used in the past to relay political storytelling, it is usually focused on offices and not individual people. For example, The West Wing gave an account of the White House without depicted an actual president. Palin has taken this idea of political narrative and applied it to her own life. This PR strategy falls in the middle of a spectrum, ranging from entertainment to credible journalism. It will be interesting to see how the public perceives Palin and whether this approach is ultimately beneficial for her.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the character of the president isn’t going to determine my vote. Since expanding my political horizons, and getting the opportunity to be educated on the “behinds the scenes” portions of campaigns, it’s more natural for me to question where the character came from rather than decide upon it’s appeal as our country’s highest political office. I get this skepticism of character from the theories we’ve been studying. How many times have Waterman drilled into our heads the extreme important of the “everyday” American president. Now, politics is all about marketing, not genuine character. Is the homey, conservative, “motherly” yet professional Sarah Palin the same Sarah that exists when the cameras have turned off? Would her character be the same within the Oval Office as it would be dealing with foreign affairs, and be the same just hanging with the family on the White House lawn? My guess is that it wouldn’t be; that some variations of character would occur. But why would these even be an issue? “Why character? Because American do not merely change administrations every four years-or have the opportunity to do so; citizens of the United States have the option to change sovereigns with every presidential election.” (Rollins 3) The point of deciding which candidate’s character most aligns with yours, and the importance of advisors carefully crafting said character is because our country wants to feel like every American has a personal relationship with our government and the happenings that relate to this land of the free. It also correlates to our adoration of popular culture and our constant need to take the political world and put it on the front page of celebrity tabloids. It’s a transformation of character based on arm workouts rather than homeland security platforms. Politics has been given a makeover. It’s glamorous and with the many American’s heads in the clouds, there’s little hope for having a successful Election in 2012 that isn’t completely about lipstick choices. If this deems to be true, at least we know Palin will be ready and donning her signature color.
ReplyDelete