Watchmen

I'm new to the comic world, and I absolutely love it! After I started Watchmen I couldn't put it down. I was constantly talking to my friends who had already read it and I kept telling others that haven't read it that they need to.  I couldn't believe how captivated I was, sometimes too much so that I would try to examine each detail to the extreme.  The one symbol that really stuck out to me was the Nostalgia perfume. In class we discussed that nostalgia is a word that means longing for the past, and I find it a very fitting name for this perfume.  Every time it is shown in a picture with a character that person is always thinking about the past, or a figure from their past comes back.  In the first few chapters Dan reminisces about being the Nite Owl because Rorshach comes and reminds him that he chose to quit.  In chapter 3 Rorshach comes back to Dan's apartment and we see him taking a bottle of Nostalgia perfume with him.  After the bottle of perfume is removed, Dan thinks only of the present and future. Instead of longing for the past, Dan then is not afraid to establish a closer relationship with Laurie and then is not scared to jump back in his Nite Owl costume in order to spring Rorshach from jail.  In chapter 8, Sally Jupiter's phone rings and on the other end is Hollis Mason.  In the very scene where Sally realizes that it is Hollis, there is a picture of a Nostalgia perfume bottle with almost a spark coming out of it as to say that it will then cause Sally to reminisce on the past.  Hollis tells Sally of her daughter and the new Nite Owl had saved the people from the burning building. Hollis then says "Takes you back huh?" Sally responds with telling him of how she had been thinking of the past a lot lately, the effects of the Nostalgia perfume.  The last example I can think of, though I know there is plenty more, is when Laurie is at Dan's and Dr. Manhattan shows up.  Right before he shows up, Laurie had a bottle of Nostalgia perfume in her hand.  Then engage in a conversations where Laurie says that she was just thinking of Jon and how she wanted to talk to him.  From here he teleports them to Mars where they can converse alone.  All of these instances are obviously not coincidences, they are connected with Vedit's perfume.  My questions is since he is planning to take away the Nostalgia perfume and replace it with Millenium line of perfume.  How would this have a symbolic reference to someone's life?

I'll Get You My Pretty AHAHAHAHA

First off I'd like to say that I haven't seen The Wizard of Oz in years, and watching it now I have a completely different view of it.  This is not the nice little kid movie I remember at all.  In fact the some parts in the movie seem to be more for an adult than for a kid at all.  I always realized that Dorothy's dream had transported her to a new world, but never understood what that world meant to her.  After watching it this time around I can see the bigger picture rather than a children's movie.

Since it was produced around the time of the Great Depression, I feel that the Emerald City was a sign of hope for America's cities in the future.  I felt that the yellow brick road could have been symbolism of actual gold, which during this time could have been rather disheartening.  On the other hand, it could have also shown that the road to success and bettering of the economy is a long one, but in the end (once you reach the Emerald city) it is all worth it.  These two symbols both had to so with economic strain on America, but what we focused on in class was more of the social aspects of America during the time and what this movie meant for those people.  First off, I did not remember the three friends Dorothy encounters as being so feminine.  This, as said in class, does make it much less creepy for a young girl to be walking about with three older men.  I'm very curious to read the book though.  I'm wondering if the message that is sent so strongly to gay culture is rooted in the book at all.  I thought the book was made to be more of a political standpoint rather than social.  Another point that was brought up in class was that the movie ends by going back to black and white, Dorothy happy to be home, and all the same as it was when she left.  This ending definitely shows no growth within Dorothy, but I'm left questioning that the movie meant for there to be no growth, since in reality how many people really do become enlightened by their dreams and change their life because of it?  Since Oz was a real place in the book, I'm sure it ended much differently than the movie had, and there probably was some growth in Dorothy that we were not able to see in the film.

I found some very interesting points in the article that also touch upon our discussions in class.  It said that many people are often troubled by the fact that Dorothy can go back to the same life she was trying to escape from, accepting the limitations put on her by her patronizing family and the place in which she lives.  If Dorothy was so eager to leave that place, why was she so comfortable with going back and living in the same way she had been all along?  One part that bothered me was, "her companions learned what they already have must and will suffice, Dorothy learns to embrace the comfortable enclosure of the picket fence."  I feel that the "comfortable enclosure" is not one that is comfortable at all, rather is tightening its grip on Dorothy so she might not ever escape, so much so that she explains at the end that she never wishes to leave that place again.  If Dorothy is an icon for the gay community, then why would she want to go back to the place that held restraints on her and didn't allow room for her to be herself? One thing I do agree with the article about is Dorothy's need for guidance.  She is stuck within the internal adolescent conflict of wanting to gain independence, but still requires guidance from every adult figure she meets.  This point makes me want to read the book too; since Dorothy is a child in the book I feel that she would not seek out independence, so what would be her internal conflict?

I have come to many realizations from watching this film and attempting to analyze certain aspects of it rather than idly sitting by as the images on the screen pass by and I am fascinated to read the book and learn even more, hopefully answering the questions I have posed.

Biddies: Revisted

    I have come to realize that the flapper's of the 1920's and the "biddies" of today's society have quite a bit in common.  I'm not positive I could say that the short skirts of our time are a radical gesture, but this type of dress definitely makes a statement; not up on a soap box, not at the table with parents, but in everyday public lives.  These women walk on the sidewalks of our towns, in the malls, and into the public eye, making statements without words.  This, I wouldn't say is a movement, but a demonstration of femininity.  In a time when we are told that wearing a certain type of clothing gives one a reputation, many "biddies" defy the expectations regardless of what others think.
    Just like the flappers brought up the lengths of their skirts, women today are following suit. Though the preferable body back then was a boyish slim figure, today women want curves in all the right places.  Women would use the fast selling cosmetics to enhance features, and still do so today (granted some people take it too far and attempt to remake their entire face).  The flappers were learning to "live their own lives" by not following the societal expectations of what a proper woman should look like.  They also wanted to play the part of "irresponsible play-mates", which in turn allowed them to fall out of the position of "guardians of morality."  I feel as though women are still looked at to set standard morals for their children, they are the foundations of a family. I don't believe that by wearing certain clothing one's morals completely subside, leaving her completely demoralized.  Clothing just doesn't have that type of effect on someone.  An attitude change of an entire group of women is what makes morals change, not just by shortening a skirt or two.  Now women look the part of of the "irresponsible playmate" do so only for the looks, they don't necessarily play the part.  Women today use the sense of independence created from the revolution flappers were involved in to take authority over themselves.  They take hold of femininity in a very sexual way because feminism is a very sexual subject.
   The class reaction to the word "biddie" was exactly what I expected.  People have a certain connotation that if a girl is overly sexy that she could not possibly want anything but for a man to come jump on his opportunity.  I, however, after thinking about it don't think this way at all. I believe wearing things that show off one's body is extremely empowering, and has nothing to do with other people, only with yourself.  I used Eve Ensler's "My Short Skirt" in my other blog post but didn't really go into the words of the monologue.  I believe this monologue has a lot to say about how women dress.  In one part the narrator says:
          It is not an invitation
              a provocation
               an indication
               that I want it
                or give it
             or that I hook.
The words pretty much sum it up.  Waring a short skirt does not simple prove that a girl is asking, or more so begging, for male attention. The next chunk is what really makes me  understand this monolouge.

My short skirt, believe it or not
has nothing to do with you.
 
My short skirt
is about discovering
the power of my lower calves
about cool autumn air traveling
up my inner thighs
about allowing everything I see
or pass or feel to live inside.
 
My short skirt is not proof
that I am stupid
or undecided
or a malleable little girl.

This part also goes out to the fact that women who wear short skirts do it only for themselves.  Since when does wearing a certain type of clothing make a person less intelligent or one who has loose morals?  I believe that hose who judge a person's intelligence based on the way they dress is a very closed minded way to think.  I don't believe a girl who dresses conservatively is more intelligent than anyone else, but a girl who dresses more provocatively is automatically assumed as "dumb, stupid, and an idiot" as I heard one classmate say.  The negative connotations towards the intelligence of women based on how they dress seems to be only one sided. The term "biddie" has often been interchanged with "slut."  I find this very interesting since the word biddie was taken out of context to describe a girl who looks a certain way when the actual definition says nothing about appearance at all.  The word slut, then, is often used to describe or as another term for biddie which also seems pretty moronic to me.  So really who is the unintelligible one?  The person who takes hold of their sexuality or the one who criticizes her for doing so?
 

Whitmann Levi's Commerical

There is a sign, “America”, broken and in the water, flickering, showing that America’s ideals of equality as a nation are being broken, as is the American dream.  Fireworks like the fourth of July to remember Independence Day, to remember what this country was founded on.  African American girl walking in a dingy neighborhood (“center of equal daughters”) is this really equal? Next shot is a man probably a higher up on government in a really nice car and people are attempting to attack it. (“equal sons”) (All alike endear’d) All are loved equally? Young girl is seen as “grown” because of the things she has experienced living in a not so great neighborhood and the office or government man as “ungrown”, he has narrow minded ideals and probably never comes out from behind his desk to experience the real world.  How are these two people equal? Mind you they are both not wearing Levi jeans. “Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable (young boy looking broken), rich (at this point it is a young African American boy who looks like he too is not in the best neighborhood, yet he is rich with knowledge that he has learned from where he lives)  all of the pictures depicted here have people in Levi jeans, which allows them to take on each of these profound words. “Perennial with the earth, with Freedom, Law, and Love” (interracial couple kissing) yet again all these people are wearing Levi Jeans.  America sign shown again with fireworks and a clip of people running with a sign that says “Go Forth”.  This add is advertising for a better, more equal life.  If one were to put on the “magical” Levi jeans their life would transform to one that was full of equality and the life that many set out to America to claim, not one of brutality or hostility.  These jeans will make you rich, maybe not in the sense of monetary value, but with knowledge of how a nation is supposed to be, how you should be treated and respected.  Levi’s presents the type of like one expects when one thinks of America, not the reality.  It shows that if the girl in the dress and the man in the suit were to wear Levi jeans they would be taken out of the lives they were living and be transformed to people who were free of all the burdens they were bearing.  They would be able to actually be equal with others and life a free life.

There has been much criticism about this advertisement because people say that it is a disgrace to use Whitmann to try and push product sales.  I find this a very close minded way of looking at it.  I find that Whitmann was seen as the American poet and Levi’s is trying to be the American brand of jeans (the red tag Levi’s that are made in America not the yellow tag ones that are from China),  In the preface to Leaves of Grass he said “The proof of a poet is that his country absorbs him as affectionately as he has absorbed it.”  I find that this add does Whitmann justice and works towards ideals of equality that he knew this country was based on.  Not only did it follow some of Whitmann’s ideals, but it also brought his poetry to the masses.  Younger generations seem not to have much contact with poetry and by putting it in the media, with Whitmann’s real voice on a wax recording, is an amazing way to get poetry into the ears of young Americans.

Whitmann Levi's "Go Forth" Commerical

Biddies: The social expectations and perceptions of the modern female's fashion

Lately, a girl who wears short skirt, pumps, and a shirt with some cleavage showing has been dubbed the name “biddie.”  For decades now, a girl who goes out in short skirts and high heels are perceived as “asking for it,” but in reality we are not asking for anything, we are just flaunting our girlish figures that we have been taught to hide. Even Ensler addresses this issue directly in the Vagina Monologues.  The monologue named “My Short Skirt” explains that wearing such clothing is not an invitation of any sort, rather it’s a way to discover ones self and to find confidence in who you are.

Girls who participate in this “culture” are thought of as easy or unintelligent.  Most times this is not the case at all.  I am a perfect example.  I dress in a certain way because I’m learning who I am and building my self-esteem and wearing different types of clothing that flaunt different parts of my body is part of that process.  I most definitely prove the idea wrong that all girls that dress like this are stupid. I have been a straight A student my entire life and have been on the Dean’s List ever since coming to college, and I am also in three national honor societies for my grades.  Most guys who find this out about me after meeting me a couple times usually say “Wow! I had no idea you were smart!” When I ask them why they simply say it’s because of the way I dress sometimes.  I find it rather annoying that because I choose to dress in a certain way my intelligence is just thrown out the window before I even sit down and have a conversation with someone.

Girls who dress in this way seem to stick together.  It shows that we have a built confidence among each other as well as our own self.  The interactions between these girls seem to be more bold than those of girls who are more conservative. We learned that there is nothing to be ashamed of, we should be proud of being a woman and having curves.  Most girls who dress like this seem to be in college, and this is where the term “biddie” has been taken into a different context than what it was originally thought of to be, which is an old gossipy woman.  Though I can definitely see how these negative connotations came to be, I wish that those that refuse to think that girls who dress like this are anything less than trash would think again.  We dress like this to make ourselves happy, it is not a "come hither" gesture.

I don’t think that this fad says anything bad about America, though some think that it gives the American woman a bad name.  I went to Europe a couple of years ago and the women at night dressed even skimpier than the women I see running around Fredonia. Wearing these “slutty” clothes seem to give me a name, but in reality I feel powerful and most beautiful when I am able to show off the parts of my body I am most uncomfortable with.

In class we talked about how some can label people as “others” based on their appearance such as race or clothing style.  I sometimes feel “otherized” by other girls when I go out dressed like this.  They look down upon me like I am walking around naked, but in reality I just find myself most attractive in jeans.  I wear skirts when I am at a point of low self-esteem, it makes me feel much more confident in who I am.  I’m sure this fad will soon die out and it will be another thing looked back upon in the future.  Just as we look at flappers and hippies now, its just a way of dress, sometimes a lifestyle.  

Performance of "My Short Skirt"

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LClsKkfd2_8&feature=related

Urban Dictionary Biddie:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=biddie