Hi Everyone,
Please feel free to post your responses to last week's prompt. Find a place in each of last week's assigned readings. Then using that quotation as your inspiration, have a dialogue with that writer in relation to our screening of The OC and Gilmore Girls. We will work with these comments in class.
Also, please make sure you read Allison James and Ellen Seiter for tonight! We will work in groups on these articles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph on page 118, Gamber writes about how Gilmore Girls isn’t just a feminist show because of its characters but something more symbolic. He points out that Lorelai was most likely born in the 1960’s, considering her age when the show aired. Her generation was the one responsible for third wave feminism. She acts like a symbol for these thinkers. Her character personifies the beliefs of these women who created this movement. Rory, being born in the 1980’s represents an uncharted age group for feminism. Lorelai represents the old ideals while Rory represents the future of feminism.
ReplyDeleteThe OC is interesting in the sense that it has a large male following which isn’t typical with Teen TV dramas. On page 172, Turnbull notices a resemblance between the movie Rebel Without a Cause and the OC. In the movie, the Jim leaves his house ultimately due to his father’s lack of masculinity and inability to assert himself in his marriage. On the OC Ryan is troubled and adopted by another family. It seems as though these troubled and masculine characters attract male audiences. These aren’t the typical males that only females are drawn to. Their character shows they are tough and have strong beliefs that males can admire.
After reading the Gamber essay, one spot in particular really struck me in relation to Gilmore Girls and feminism. On the second paragraph of page 115, Gamber says "Gilmore Girls is indebted to the success of second-wave feminism in bringing issues like teen pregnancy and single motherhood to mainstream television."
ReplyDeleteI could not agree with that statement more. Most television shows that depict your typical American family always has a Mom and Dad, their multiple kids and maybe their wacky neighbor next door that appears in a couple of episodes from time to time. Most families have a patriarch, or have some form of father figure that is the leader of the family. Meanwhile, in Gilmore Girls, we see a single mother who got pregnant with her daughter while a teenager. If this plot took place in the late 20th century when the emergence of television skyrocketed, this plot would have been completely unheard of.
With Gilmore Girls, feminism is all over the place. We have Lorelai, a single mother who doesn't need her baby daddy or any other man in her life to have a loving family. All she needs is Rory and everything is okay. She even rejects men who try and go out with her because she doesn't need a man in her life. If that doesn't shout feminism, I don't know what does.
After I read Sue Turnbull's essay, I can clearly see how The O.C targets a male audience that are aged 13 to 19...with two main characters that are male and also in the age of said target audience. In the third paragraph of page 171, Turnball says "In the first two episodes of The O.C, the character of Ryan, dressed in an iconic white tee shirt and hoodie, is arrested after being involved in a car theft initiated by his older brother." Most younger brothers that are teenagers tend to "be at the wrong place at the wrong time" and end up being responsible for their older sibling's mistakes.
From what I said earlier about how the plots have changed from the 1950's with Glimore Girls and the lack of a patriarchal lead character, it seems that teen TV characters with male lead characters haven't really changed. When Turnbull compares Ryan to James Dean's character in "Rebel Without A Cause," I never realized that until Turnbull points that out in that paragraph. Most teenagers at one point get in trouble with the police or do something that gets them into trouble, and it seems that with a teen movie character from the 1950's is nearly identical to a teen TV character from the early 2000's.
Gamber often touches on "Gilmore Girls"' in association with its relationship with feminism and femininity (and their relationship with each other) as well as the characters' influences of female models. The article comments on the chronology of the mother and daughter and how the importance of women's independence can be seen within those experiences.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Lorelei (Senior, that is), the article does more than just mention that she is a child and product of the 60's. It implies that the very revolutionary time in cultural history instilled specific characteristics in all that lived through it--or especially grew up it in their informative years. The episode that we watched in class, however, showed more-- so much more than just a product of a time of nostalgia. Lorelei reacted to frustrations in a way we could understand...and to frustrations we could understand.
In terms of Rory, the daughter, Lorelei II, the chapter notes a lot of her female identification truly coming to the surface when she goes off to college and decorates her dorm room in a number of feminist identifiers. The article also touches on the episode we watched and notes Rory's conversation with the dean that shows her aspirations. Aspirations he could not understand, even being the holder of the world of education she was going to try her bast hand at. It was not because he was a he, though. This wasn't a man-girl incompatibility within the conversation; it was more in lines of age and individuality thought process.
At first I was going to add to the age difference, the idea of class, but that is far from true. Both the article and program admit openly that Lorelei comes from money. In fact, it is a foundation of the show- how she comes from money, still has her parents and the community flaunting it (including the school) while it is Lorelei's insistence to make it on her own. Because of this there is the feel that the Mother and Daughter Lorelei are the working class in an old money world. The problem with the every-watcher relating to this is the cushion that is ever-present that the Gilmore Girls could fall back on, without hesitation.
With that said and taking class out of the picture (in this one instance), the sincerity of the characters' ties to feminism are not in the decade they grew up in nor the flair they put on their walls, but rather the honesty is in them NOT suffocating the screen with any rules of what their ideals should be. Instead the show shows very genuine characters living their lives in a world that is a challenge to them and their perseverance in that society- not only as women, but as a real people that you could relate to.
"Gilmore Girls makes its own contributions to positive depictions of women in television through is feminist consciousness (even if its main characters are, as in so many programs, conventionally beautiful class women)"
ReplyDeleteAs a long time fan of Gilmore Girls, I would have to both agree and argue on the feminist views about the show. Yes, there are a lot of points that challenge feminist views such as a single mom raising a daughter and doing it by herself. Lorelei, the main character, has chose a path for her and her daughter that is different than the life she lived. Lorelei's parents are wealthy, upper class individuals that care very much about status and prosperity. Lorelei chose to live a normal life in a small suburban town while status is not a concern to her. I disagree with the idea that the show possesses feminist views because as a fan, I see the show in a different light. I see Lorelei as a very inspiring character. As a teen mom, she became an adult at 16, and chose a path of independence to escape from her demanding and judgmental parents. She raised a daughter with admirable qualities and their relationship is equivalent to being best friends. As a fan, I see all the struggles Lorelei goes through with the many judgments she receives and the disagreements she has with her status-hungry parents.
Lorelei and Rory's characters are ones that are both truly entertaining and inspiring. If people watch the show in a different light, the feminist conscious can be overlooked.
hello I'm Fuqua
ReplyDelete"Gilmore Girls is indebted to the success of second-wave feminism in bringing issues like teen pregnancy and single motherhood ."(Pg.115) I agree with Gamber's assessment that the issues that are highlighted in the series "Gilmore Girls" can be attributed to "second-wave feminism". There is was a time where issues such as teen pregnancy and single parenting would never be considered a viable option let alone a topic that was up for discussion or debate. Lorelai and Rory also break all sorts of conventional stereotypes of family. Lorelai does not come from a broken home, she actually is raised by what is considered a traditional family setting (both a mother and a father), she comes from an affluent family and both of her parents are professionals, cultured and belong to high society. Her family upbringing and family structure dispels the typical notion that most teenage pregnancies stem from girls who come from broken families, and lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
ReplyDelete"Gilmore Girls makes its own contribution to positive depictions of women in television through its feminist consciousness (even if its main characters are, as in so many programs, conventionally beautiful middle-class white women). (Pg. 117)
The program sheds a positive light on a tough situation. Despite the fact that Lorelai becomes pregnant at the early age of sixteen and the challenges of being a single parent, she manages to raise her daughter Rory successfully. She also has the full support of her parents (even though she rarely accepts any help from them), also her daughter's father Christopher, is not completely out of the picture. Christopher still has feelings for his highschool sweetheart Lorelai and truly loves his daughter Rory and is a part of her life. Not only does Rory have support from both of her parents, she also has a relationship and the support of her maternal grandparents. Rory's character in itself is not typical, despite being raised by her unwed single teenage mother Lorelai, she is an extremely well mannered child, polite, non-rebellious, respectful, highly intelligent and responsible individual. The characters that make up her family structure may not be very realistic but they sure can be associated to positive attributes like the importance of love and a strong support system and family unit.
"What was it about The O.C. that could inspire such male audience engagement, I wondered?"
The character Ryan representation of masculinity displayed power, authority and aggression of the heterosexual male. His character depicts what a "true male" is perceived as. Chuck's character portrays that of a womanizer. He is basically and aggressive dirt bag. He is a successful business mogul. These two characters in themselves attract a male audience that is somewhat relatable. The themes of men and how they relate to woman and the theme of heterosexual male aggression makes it acceptable for males to view the melodrama.
since there is no other place where we're prompted to write our Toy Story response I will write mine here.
ReplyDeleteToy Story 3 gives us a unique perspective that we as viewers and critical scholars did not have in the first 2 iterations of the franchise. In toy Story 3, Andy is no longer a developing young boy, but rather he is almost an adult and ready to leave for college. This is important in relation to our reading from last week because the first 2 Toy Stories contained more relevant points such as young Andy's selection of toys and the impact it had on his childhood (Ex: sheriff Woody vs a newfangled space enforcer named Buzz Lightyear. Or how Andy as an innocent child plays with cowboy action figures and the seemingly evil Sid plays with dark and scary figures that he mutilates himself). Now that the viewer can see a reflection back into Andy's youth in flashbacks during TS3, we can also see the relevance to last week's reading. Apparently, Andy turned out just fine with the "mainstream" toys that he was given, and even despite getting very attached to his toys on an emotional level these plebeian playthings did not diminish his development, nor did they have any more impact on him than an expensive wooden heirloom puzzle would have. We see through flashbacks that Andy's toys were an incredibly useful tool to his development: he used them to flex his imagination; the presence of the toys taught him lessons about loyalty and friendship; and he eventually grows into the kindhearted soul who seeks to help others benefit from things that he no longer has a need for.
An interesting concept about Toy Story that is reflected in our reading from last week is how nearly every toy in the movie (and by "toy" i mean a character with a life-force and not a "childs play-thing" as Woody would call it) is a mass produced plastic product whose country of origin probably is not Germany. While we have no reference point of how the rich kids at the end of Andy's cul-de-sac turned out with their expensive heirloom toys (TS3 makes no mention of where the other neighborhood kids are going to college), it is apparent that even with the immense value placed on the impact of these toys on a person's life and childhood development (this is after all a trilogy about toys), it's not necessarily a matter of which toys are used. What matters is that each child learns the value of imagination and other positive lessons that come with play-time: we see through a montage how Andy learns about good and evil through playing with a Sheriff doll and learns about friendship and loyalty by setting up imaginary relationships between the toys (these relationships turn out to be not-so-imaginary after all).