Comedy’s Nude Legends

Hill, Rogen, and Segel: never-nudes?

 

Representing something of an intersection between my recent post on ethics in photography and  other previous posts on gender inequality and portrayals of women in the media, Jezebel takes on the recent Vanity Fair photograph spoofing a 2006 cover image of Keira Knightly and Scarlett Johannsen draped naked around the (clothed) designer, Tom Ford. The send-up is featured in an article entitled “Comedy’s New Legends” and, like the original, was photographed by iconic photographer Annie Leibowitz. It portrays comedy pals Seth Rogen, Jason Segel and Jonah Hill sprawled in flesh toned body suits, draped around a clothed Paul Rudd. The first time I saw the cover, I just thought, “Well, that’s not particularly funny,” but something about it rubbed me a little bit the wrong way as I thought about it, though I couldn’t quite put my finger on what. Well, Jezebel has compiled excerpts from a bunch of different reactions to the image, from blogs like Pandagon, Salon and others which have helped me to articulate what it is that bothered me–the fact that the entire premise of the joke, the entire reason the image is ridiculous is that nudity in the context of sexual objectification is being reified as the domain of women, something that for a group of men to participate in is patently ridiculous, laughable. I realize that for some this may seem to read to much into the image, and I don’t think it was probably premeditated to mean anything of the sort, but there are imbedded assumptions which form the basis of the joke. As Melissa McEwan at feminist blog Shakesville, quoted on Jezebel, puts it:

“Even when women do what they’re meant to do by the fucked-up standards of The Patriarchy-get naked and submit themselves for public objectification-they’re going to get mocked for doing it. Because, even though we’re ostensibly laughing at the Judd Apatow Boyz for their uproarious send-up of a sexy female-oriented VF cover, implicit in that laughter is a condemnation and marginalization of the female-oriented cover: See how silly it is when a man does it?Ho ho ho.”

It is silly to see these men trying to assume the roles of sex objects, the photo implies, because they are men, and therefore despite imperfect bodies, they have been able to become famous and popular through their bodies of work (pun intended), rather than their physical appearances. Meanwhile, talented female comedians like Tina Fey (who has lost a significant amount of weight as  her fame has grown and increasingly been forced into the molds of idealized beauty and sexual desirability, photographed for Vanity Fair and other magazines in a progressively more revealing succession of ensembles) are expected to meet certain standards of attractiveness in order to be palatable and in order for their talent to be given a platform.

Tina Fey, from the January 2009 issue of Vanity Fair

Both Jezebel and Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon discuss the complicity of Annie Leibowitz in the production of this and other questionable images. As Williams puts it:

“That this drivel is being peddled by the same woman who shot one of the most famous male nude photos ever — the beautiful, vulnerable image of John Lennon curled up against Yoko Ono for Rolling Stone, just makes the whole business all the more cynical and pitiful.”

Do I think that within the realm of media imagery there are far more egregious examples of sexism? Sure. Does that mean it’s petty or not worth it to discuss this example? Certainly not. In fact, sometimes the examples which are less egregious are those which are harder to recognize and therefore too often do not get discussed. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, too, I think that sexism couched in comedy is often seen as out of reach of cultural criticism, met with retorts that amount to “calm down, can’t people just take a joke?” or “but we were just kidding!” However, I believe comedy is still an area in which sexism (and racism–the New York Post’s chimp cartoon, anyone?) is very much alive and well. The very fact that the cover story of the issue of Vanity Fair in which this photograph appears, entitled ” Comedy’s New Legends” features only men on the cover and almost entirely men in the article is very telling. And then, of course, there are Christopher Hitchens’ disgustingly misogynistic pieces (published, again, by Vanity Fair), such as the one entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny,” a piece which was “rebutted” by another Vanity Fair cover story, this one entitled “Who Says Women Aren’t Funny?”, which, frankly, seemed more intent on answering the question “Who Says Women Comedians Aren’t Hot And Sexy?”, what with its accompanying photo shoot, which featured female comedians like Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph, Kristen Wiig and others making like Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan. With splayed legs, lots of bare skin, smoky eye makeup, and amped up hair, the photos as a whole were more straightforward imitation than camp, and seemed aimed at putting these women on display as sexual objects in much the same way as the starlets they were imitating. Less conventionally attractive SNL comedian Cheri Oteri was notably absent from the photos and later confirmed that she had not been invited to participate in the shoot.

Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, and Tina Fey in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair

What I am getting at is the fact that this new photo comes with a larger context, one which only bolsters and strengthens the critiques of Jezebel, Salon, and others.

Photo Play

Here are some of my beginner’s feeble attempts at experimenting with Photoshop for my Media Practices: Concepts class. Several more can be found at my class blog, here.

Credit Where Credit is Due

Dear Mr. President,

In the words of Olivia Newton-John, I love you….I honestly love you. Your address to Congress this evening was masterful, eloquent, and, dare I say it, audaciously hopeful.

XXOO,

Katie

Every Tool Is a Weapon If You Hold it Right

An assignment this past week for my Media Practices: Concepts class got me thinking about artistic ethics, in particular the ethics of photographers in documenting the places and people around them. There are a lot of interesting issues raised when one wields a camera. I remember one of my photography teachers at Penland, the artists community in North Carolina where I’ve taken several summer photography classes, had an Ani DiFranco quotation tattooed on his arm–”Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right”–and he told us that he tried to be always conscious of this idea in his work as a photographer. Indeed, I think that as much as a camera can be a force for great creative production, social good, documentary information, etc, it can just as easily become a hostile object, a “weapon”, a point of division between photographer and subject, between photographer and place, etc. In fact, sometimes I think it’s possible that it can be both simultaneously (think war photography as an obvious example).

The assignment that got me thinking about some of these issues again was one of three options for a photographic exploration. Option number 2 asked the student to take a subway line from one end to the other, documenting your journey, photographic your travel companions in the subway car, on the platform, etc. It’s definitely an interesting idea and I can certainly see the merits. The subway, as several people in the class discussed today when we presented our work, is an interesting netherworld with its own unique atmosphere, behavioral expectations and rules, etc. Our professor encouraged us to approach the project as a challenge, suggesting that by pushing ourselves outside of our comfort zones by doing something that made us nervous or uncomfortable, exposed us to possibly unwanted attention, we might achieve some very interesting and rewarding photographic results, and at the same time expand our comfort zones as engaged artists and individuals. I understood what he meant and it made real sense to me, and, in the process of deciding to go with a different assignment option,  I thought quite a bit about whether my motivations were fear, shyness, cowardice. Ultimately, my decision not to do that assignment option was based on the fact that I don’t like people taking my photograph in public–I feel my privacy invaded and I feel disrespected, violated in a way. I thought about an incident recently when I was in the cafe at Barnes & Noble reading and noticed a man sitting by the wall who was photographing me, trying to be inconspicuous. At first, he was looking straight through the viewfinder, clearly right at me. Once I caught him doing this, he put the camera down on his lap but was still clearly taking pictures of me. I felt uncomfortable and a little angry and moved to an area of the cafe outside of his range (I hope).

Another example I thought of was some of the tactless tourists I’ve seen on various trips I’ve been on, in particular on my trip to China with a class in college. On that trip, we went to some remote and largely rural areas, and along the way stopped at several small villages at which we would all load off the bus and some of the other members of the group would begin snapping pictures of residents of the villages going about their daily tasks. The whole situation made me feel incredibly uncomfortable, and I felt somehow complicit in this sort of elitist, dehumanizing behavior. To me, snapping photos of people who are just trying to go about their business, without their permission, is a real disrespect and, as I say, a dehumanization of sorts. Holding a camera and aiming it creates a power dynamic that I think one always has to be conscious of and careful with. A camera can be a valuable tool, both for artistic expression and for documentation and exposition, but as my former teacher’s tattoo pointed to, it can also be just as powerful a weapon when used in a way that exploits the power inherent in the act of viewing, photographing, capturing. While, of course, I know that there is a difference between the kinds of behavior I’ve discussed and the subway assignment for my class, I think that some of the same issues come up for me when thinking about it.

I do understand the counterargument–I am the last one to argue that political correctness or related considerations should always trump artistic expression or documentary work. And I don’t condemn the choice to complete this assignment. In fact, I thought many of the results were really interesting and many people in the class found different ways to work around these issues and to engage those around them in the process either by straightforwardly asking permission or through more subtle means.

I saw in interesting documentary several years ago dealing with one example of the power of photography and its potential to be perceived as a weapon by those being viewed. The documentary, called Stranger With a Camera, examined the 1967 murder of Hugh O’Connor, a Canadian television journalist. O’Connor was one of many journalists and documentarians to come to Appalachia in the late 1960’s to look at the poverty and isolation of the region. He was shot by the man who owned the property on which he was photographing a coal miner, and the murder encapsulated the two sides of an ethical debate over the documentary photographic process. On the one hand was O’Connor, who considered his work an attempt to bring awareness to the plight of the people of Appalachia in an attempt to bring about rectification of what he saw as the exploitation and neglect of the region and its people. On the other hand was Hobart Ison, who represented the locals who resented the intrusion of these morally crusading outsiders into their community and the stereotyping and criticism they felt subjected to through their lenses. The camera became a weapon, the boundary between these two sides, the use of which was such an affront, such a perceived sign of disrespect and loss of authority that it drove a man to murder. It’s a fascinating story and the documentary raises a lot of the interesting ethical questions I’ve only just touched upon in passing here. I think for anyone working in media, the visual arts, journalism, and really almost anyone who owns a camera, these are interesting issues to at least be aware of and to consider.

Rainy Day Woman

These are some photos I took of my best friend, Randi, for a photography assignment for my Media Practices: Concepts class. A lot of these are different experiments with lighting, framing, etc, which make more sense within the context of the class, so that somewhat accounts for the lack of continuity. Anyway, they’re also posted, with more extensive explanation/reflections on my class blog, if you’re interested. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hot Or Not: Presidents Edition

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." -George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

This new survey out from C-Span asked 65 Presidential scholars to rank the Presidents using ten distinct criteria. I can’t decide which I find more glaringly ridiculous–that Reagan ranks in the top 10 while Bill Clinton trails at #15 or that six other Presidents are ranked lower than George W. Bush. My unofficial poll of one media studies graduate student yielded significantly different results on this point, as you can see above. Despite these facts, and despite the fact that the survey is completely subjective and opinion-based, there’s some interesting stuff, if you care to dig past the Top 10/Bottom 10 lists.

Literacy Through Photography

I know I’ve been horribly negligent and haven’t posted in a week–my semester is off to a hectic start. And I now have a second blog to maintain…and it’s graded. For my introductory production class, Media Practices: Concepts, we are expected to keep a blog as a portfolio of our work, class assignments, and thoughts on things related to the course. A lot of it might be boring or not make so much sense to those outside the class, but some of it will probably be quite interesting and quite relevant to this blog as well, so I’ll probably try to start cross-referencing, in the interest of expediency. In that spirit, here is a class assignment having to do with identifying different lighting techniques in photography. I drew my examples from the work of school children done through programs like Literacy Through Photography and Kids With Cameras. Some of the photographs these children take are absolutely remarkable and while many have the unique creativity and perspective of childhood, many have a surprising depth and sense of knowledge and maturity.

I think the kind of work these programs are doing is really interesting and inspiring and fits nicely within the broader framework of media literacy and media education initiatives. These are exactly the kinds of programs we need in order to empower young people to become producers, not only consumers, of media, and through the process to come to look at and understand themselves and the world around them in different, richer ways. Giving a child a camera, teaching them a skill like photography, gives them a new kind of agency, makes them not only an artist, but a documentarian of sorts, and this is a source of potentially enormous power for these children, now and in the future.

The Winter of Our Discontent

This wonderfully titled post, from the excellent blog of friend of a friend, Kim DeBarge, really hit home for me. As someone who feels that the unwanted and uninvited objectifying messages and behavior that seem to permeate every aspect of the world around me, whether I’m walking on the street, in a job interview, watching a movie, or reading the New York Times, has had a profound impact on the way I perceive myself and the way I interact with the world, and with men in particular, it’s so refreshing to read an intelligent exposition of and reaction to these experiences by another strong, intelligent woman.

“What does it take for me to be taken seriously, both as a woman in general and as myself in particular? Yes, my self is a woman; however, every little bit of nastiness and disrespect towards women that I read has been getting under my skin as of late, and said irritation is both on my own behalf and on behalf of women as a group. I think all that disrespect has an aggregate effect on how I’m presented and interpreted, and it’s not a pretty result.”

This passage, particularly, is such an excellent encapsulation of the kind of thoughts  that pass through my mind pretty much every day and the sense of some combination of frustration, alienation, humiliation, degradation, disappointment, disgust, sadness, and fear that these kinds of experiences evoke in me.

“It is no longer acceptable to hide misogyny behind a character or comic voice; these images circulate in the collective minds of everyone who reads them and have a cumulative effect on our perception of women.”

This is exactly why I find it so important to draw attention to the unacceptable nature of sexism and misogyny when it occurs in the media, even, sometimes, if it seems trivial or is couched in the pretext of humor or irony. For example, the kinds of offensive advertising I’ve highlighted several times on this blog, particularly fashion advertisements frequently hide behind claims that they are simply trying to be provocative, and that the abuse, humiliation, or degradation of women in their advertising imagery does not represent the views of the company, but is merely stylized artistic expression. Somehow, too, things said with a smile or followed with a laugh are also supposed to be excused. Too often, I’ve gone to the movies to see a comedy and found moments of sometimes staggering sexism and gender essentialism slipped in among other, sometimes legitimately funny content, found myself expected to laugh along to the degradation or belittling or stereotyping of a woman on the screen. And if I do not laugh, as Kim discusses, I become a “humorless” feminist. I just can’t take a joke, I’m told. I should loosen up, calm down. As Kim says, I’m painted as “angry” simply for wanting to talk about sexism when I see it. I’m not angry–sometimes I’m frustrated, but I don’t want to highlight sexism, whether in movies or op-eds, in advertising or in my real life because I’m looking for something to be angry about, to complain about. As Ani DiFranco so sagely put it:

“I am not an angry girl, but it seems like I’ve got everyone fooled. Every time I say something they find hard to handle, they chalk it up to my anger and never to their own  fear.”

Instead, I bring it up because I think acknowledging the sexism and misogyny that still permeates our culture and discussing it is an important first step to rectifying these inequities and, ultimately, achieving a more equal and a more aware society, which benefits all of us, not just women.

A Thousand Points of Lite

Okay, this is amazing. Newsweek has released an inside the beltway spoof of the (scripted) reality shows “The Hills” and “The City” which takes us inside the world of Barack Obama, or as his screen caption identifies him, “Barack, President”. Entitled “The District,” this parody mimics the montage-heavy, sound-byte laden editing style of the shows after which it is modeled, and also features a similar soundtrack of clubby pop, interspersed with narration by an Obama impersonator (on a side note, who is that guy and why couldn’t SNL get someone that good to play Obama? Fred Armisen, take note) who sets the stage and introduces a cast of characters, including Obama’s BFFs, Joe and Hillary, who, we are told, used to be Obama’s “frenemies” until they joined his team. In one great part, footage of an Obama press conference is spliced together with footage of the Tim Geithner confirmation hearings to look like they’re having a really awkward conversation. Here’s a bit of the opening narration, spoken by pseudo-Barack over a pulsating electronic dance beat:

“Previously on The District: I’m Barack. I was a senator from Illinois, living the Chicago dream with my wife, Michelle and my girls, Sasha and Malia. Then I heard about the opportunity of a lifetime. So I decided to risk it all, give up everything I know, and run for President. And then…I actually won. I moved into this amazing house in the one city where you can make a difference. In this city, you have to learn pretty quickly where you fit in. There are the Democrats, like my best friends, Joe and Hillary…we used to be frenemies when we were all running for the Democratic nomination. Now, they’re totally on Team Barack. Then there’s the Republican crowd–we don’t really see eye to eye on most issues. I think they’re just nervous because their old friend in the White House just moved back to Texas. Now, I’m going to have to figure out what I can change and who I can trust. And it all begins here…in the District.

Not only is this clip extremely entertaining, but it’s a great lead-in to a lot of issues I’m starting to think about in relation to a class I’m taking this semester, entitled “Cultural Industries, Mass Media & Celebrity”. In the class, we’re going to look at a lot of aspects of the history and social construction of celebrity and fame, a topic I find incredibly fascinating, and one I think ties in nicely with the kind of work I am potentially interested in doing in the future, with media reform and/or media literacy and education. It also ties in nicely with my interest in issues of women in the media–sexism, negative body image, etc. Each person in the class is in charge of presenting one week’s material and leading the class discussion for that week, and my week will deal with celebrity and politics, and the interesting overlaps and intersections thereof. I’m really excited about this topic and I think it’s a very timely one–to take the most obvious example, there’s no doubt that President Obama (nope, still no less thrilling to type) has become a huge celebrity, a “rock star” of epic proportions, and I look forward to looking at the phenomenon of politicians-as-celebrities (not to mention celebrities-as-politicians like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenneger, and, if Blagojovich had had his way, Oprah) as well as other related phenomena, such as the success of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Of course, at this point, my presentation is weeks away and we’re only a week or so into class so I haven’t delved much into the theoretical work, but even before the class, I’d been fascinated by the way that the modern media machine entertainment-izes everything, even, or perhaps especially, politics. Not that I think the politician-as-hero or politician-as-celebrity is by any means a new phenomenon. But with each election cycle, the level of media saturation and, thus, media consumption increases and media thus plays an ever greater role in guiding and dictating the discourse. Many even go so far as to argue that the media decides the race, and I’m not sure that is such a stretch. Indeed, as I touched on previously, I do believe that Obama’s understanding of the intersections between politics and media and, therefore, the importance of a multi-media platform and he and his campaign staff’s skillful use of a variety of forms of media, from web video to text message updates, to Facebook outreach to his prime-time TV special days before the election, was a huge contributing factor in his success. And he and his family truly have become celebrities, they have appeared on the cover of US Weekly, been interviewed by  Ellen Degeneres and the ladies of The View, and Beanie Baby recently released Sasha and Malia dolls, much to the consternation of Michelle Obama.

Being an avid reader and watcher of  both political coverage from a variety of sources, from MSNBC to Media Matters, Wonkette to the Washington Post and, I must admit, entertainment and celebrity coverage from a similarly wide range of  print publications, online sources and television, it’s extremely interesting how similar the conventions, stylistic choices, and even the content of the two kinds of coverage can sometimes be. The truth is,  it seems pretty clearly that it’s not just the media–politicians and their ties with the rich and famous make it all too easy to see them as celebrities of sorts, themselves. After all, part of the reason “The District” works so well as parody is that it hits just close enough to the truth that it is really funny. 

I’m sure I’ll have lots more to add as I get deeper into this class and start reading more things that relate directly to this topic, particularly as I prepare for my in-class presentation. Until then, watch “The District“. Will Barack’s stimulus package be his one-way ticket to Loserville? Will Joe’s big mouth cause tensions to run high? Who will Hillary catch Michelle with in the Lincoln bedroom? Tune in next Monday for an all new episode of “The District”!

Vote of Confidence

The Feminist Majority Foundation website drew my attention to a new study conducted by the Girl Scout Research Institute showing an increase in political awareness, confidence, and engagement among girls ages 13-17 since the last time similar data was gathered, before the 2008 election cycle heated up. Fifty nine percent of the study’s 3, 284 female respondents stated that the election increased their confidence in being able to achieve their goals in the future and 55 percent said it increased their confidence levels in speaking and expressing their opinions on issues that matter to them. Also, according to the survey, both boys and girls showed substantially higher awareness of the difficulties and inequities faced by women in our society, with 43 percent agreeing with the statement that “girls have to work harder than boys in order to gain positions of leadership” compared with similar data gathered a year ago in which only 25 percent agreed with the same statement. Instead of being deterred by this heightened awareness of gender inequalities, however, four in ten young women surveyed stated that this election has had a positive impact on their desire to become a leader. 

I realize that data gathered through small-scale surveys of this type needs to be approached with healthy skepticism, particularly when the data-gathering organization is an affiliate of the Girl Scouts, an organization with a history of explicitly religious affiliations and ambiguous stances on homosexuality and other issues. That said, these findings make sense to me intuitively.

It’s long been with a sense of sadness, frustration, and sometimes embarrassment that I’ve witnessed the political and social apathy of women around me, in the media and in my circle of friends and acquaintances. This video, put out by  MobLogic.TV last year made a real impact on me because those types of reactions have grown so familiar to me. Of course, every person is not naturally interested in or engaged with politics, and that’s fine. But my experiences have shown a real disparity along gender lines. When I stop to really think about it, though, it’s totally understandable. It’s is pretty difficult to feel a sense of investment, engagement, or interest in a system that ignores and frequently disrespects your interests, a society in which the prevailing, respected voices in the media are still overwhelmingly male, in which many of the issues that most deeply effect women are trivialized, ignored, or dictated by legislative bodies which still consist predominantly of old, white men. After all, even today when there are more women in politics than ever before, only 17 out of 100 US Senators are women, as well as 74 out of 535 members of Congress and one out of nine Supreme Court justices. Shockingly, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, which would provide comprehensive protection against gender discrimination, has still not been ratified, despite numerous attempts since it was first proposed in 1923 (as in, 86 years ago). In light of all of this and in the face of overwhelming daily reminders of our second-class status within our society, it is not hard to understand why it would be easy for women to feel disenfranchised and altogether disengaged from political and social issues and processes. 

The past year or two have provided much reason to be hopeful for the future and I think this survey provides concrete evidence of what many of us, whether we are women, African American, or neither, have been feeling. This election cycle represented many firsts and above all proved that, after the initial uncertainty and ad infinitum rehashing of whether America was “ready” for a black or woman President died down, a non-white or non-male candidate could be a legitimate candidate who, though not entirely escaping prejudices and double standards, would be judged above all on substance, on the issues. Furthermore, I believe that Obama’s victory is a victory for women in ways that extend beyond his feminist stances on issues like abortion, birth control, and poverty. Indeed, I believe that simply by breaking the mold, expanding the vision of what a President looks like, Obama’s presidency will help move us toward the election of a woman president, something I hope can be accomplished in the near future. 

Much has been made of the significance of Obama’s win. It has been written about and discussed as a historic milestone, and indeed it is. Yet, we must not allow smug self-congratulation to make us complacent. Yes, we have a black president, yes we had a viable woman candidate, but there is still only one black person in the United States Senate, and only 17 women. And writing about the House of Representatives’ 39 African American members recently, FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver pointed out that most of these representatives were elected in districts in which African Americans represented more than 50 percent of voters.

None of this is meant to diminish the kind of deserved increase in political and civic interest and engagement by women, African Americans or other historically disenfranchised groups represented by these new statistics. Indeed, this is exactly what is necessary in order to continue to push toward a more equal future. My only reason for returning to these sobering statistics is to urge continued vigilance and to suggest that, though an important foundation, enthusiasm and engagement on their own are not enough to enact change. Just as many have cautioned in the months since election day that we should not take Obama’s election as proof of the achievement of a “colorblind” society and be lulled into a false sense that our work in this department is over, I believe that it is important to recognize that greater optimism is only significant if it is justified, followed through in concrete ways. We are far from a gender-neutral or gender-equal society and if this newly energized, excited, and engaged generation of young girls is to find justification for these feelings, we must all work, starting today, to create a society which fosters not only optimism but the opportunities for these young women to channel this increased enthusiasm into concrete action and change.