Skip to content

LaaF…Culture!

random musings and unfounded theories with pop culture

Monthly Archives: September 2013

Image

 

I tried not to be too anxious about “SHIELD.”  I figured if I didn’t have any expectations, I wouldn’t be disappointed.   That changed one minute into the pilot.  Seeing the Marvel logo on my television screen, knowing that Joss Whedon was behind this and was bringing in old Whedonites like Ron Glass and J. August Richards, combined with the presence of Ming Na, whom I have had a crush on since my parents made me watch “Joy Luck Club,”  was just too much handle. I screamed, “I’m so excited!” and then laughed giddily like child. 

The pilot episode hit all the marks.  We see the characters introduced in their element as a resurrected Agent Coulson recruits a new team.  It was pretty standard, but with Joss Whedon’s sass and dialogue which television has been missing for the last ten years.  As this post-Avengers team assembled to embark on their first mission, I found myself more intrigued by the predicaments of the male characters.  It seemed as if Joss Whedon was turning over male gender roles and exploring what it meant to be a man and suggesting that the definition is changing. 

Let’s start with the impetus of the episode: Richards’ character Mike Petersen has revealed himself to be a superhuman.  He climbs into a burning building and rescues a damsel in distress.  We learn that Petersen is unemployed, divorced, and a single dad.  He’s been injured on the job and now he can’t get work.  His superpowers come from a “medical trial” he enrolls in so that he can get strong enough to work again.  There’s a lot of male anxiety here. Frustrated after losing everything and feeling very insignificant in this new world of superhumans and aliens, he says, “It matters who I am inside. That I’m strong.”  He just wants to be the head of the family again. He wants his house back, his wife to return, and his son to respect him. He wants to be the male breadwinner. 

 Agent Ward is the handsome action hero. He reiterates over and over again that he works alone, and his first scene shows him taking out a bunch of henchmen on his own.  He’s the tough guy.  The man.  He doesn’t need anyone.  But in an amusing scene where Coulson injects him with a potent truth serum, he becomes extremely vulnerable.  He admits he puts up a front when beautiful women like Skye are around, and he confesses to having a soft spot for his grandmother. All of this is used to Skye’s advantage as she does her best to milk information from him using a combination of the truth serum and her feminine beauty. 

Fitz is an interesting character too.  He’s the classic beta male gadget chief.  He’s the antithesis of Agent Ward – competent but diffident, physically smaller, the nerdy sidekick to the deadly sniper.  He doesn’t fight. When he’s under pressure, his partner suggests imagining that they’re taking a test.   It’s his partner that he’s always mentioned with as well, partially undermining both of their individuality. Fitz is mentioned as one with his female partner Simmons.  Together they’re FitzSimmons and the rest of the cast refers to them as one single entity. 

Lastly, there’s Agent Coulson, the everyman who provided consistency in the Iron Man, Captain America and Thor movies.  No one knows what he is or how he escaped death after Loki blew a hole in his chest.  Maria Hill simply says that “he can never know” what really happened to him. Is he even a man?  Some guess that he might be a robot, a Life Model Decoy.

Throughout the pilot, characters continue to discuss the fallout from the events in “Avengers.”  Seeing demigods and supermen has contributed to Mike Petersen’s inferiority complex, and everyone seems to agree that this is a brand new world.  I wonder what commentary Joss is making here.  Are Mike and the other men symbolic of the changes that the 21st century has wrought on men?  Has globalization, economic downsizing, and the end of the Cold War made men like Peterson’s and Ward’s characters obsolete?  Are we seeing the rise of the beta male embodied by Fitz’s character?  Is the white patriarchal leadership embodied by Agent Coulson dead?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I’m so excited for these possibilities. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

julie_chen_plastic_surgery

 

This week Julie Chen admitted that she had plastic surgery done on her eyes to be more marketable and to look less Chinese.  Asian eyes, apparently, are too small and not expressive enough.  “You look disinterested. You look bored,” Chen reports her boss telling her.  An agent also told her that she was not marketable because she was Chinese.  Chen reports struggling with the decision before going through with it.  She also says that after the surgery her career began to advance. “The ball did roll for me,” she says.

Did Chen’s career advance because of her new eyes? Did her success come because she matured as a journalist?  I don’t know. I only know that this story is appalling.  I was in shock listening to it.  What shocked me more was her co-hosts’ reaction to it.

Chen shared something really deep and it was glossed over. Sharon Osbourne chimed in saying she looked “fabulous” and this was “the right thing to do.”  Sheryl Underwood completely missed the point with her remark about how Chen didn’t know about “givin’ in to the man.” I couldn’t tell if she was implying that Chen wasn’t a sellout because she never slept with a boss or if she doesn’t know what it means to give in to the man because she’s not black.  Sara Gilbert spoke up with some reassuring words. Aisha Tyler was the only one who remained quiet, and perhaps the only one who understood the gravity of it.

Chen just shared something very deep and personal.  Had she continued her story she would have talked about the doubt that plagued her when making this decision, the conflict about having to sacrifice a physical trait deeply tied to her culture. Instead her co-hosts brushed it off.  I’m not upset that they reassured her and comforted her, but they completely missed the point.  Chen was pressured into plastic surgery by standards of beauty that went against her physical appearance as well as her culture.  It’s a double layered insult.  Your face isn’t good enough and neither is your culture.

What could have been the beginning of a conversation questioning Western ideals of beauty collapsed into platitudes.  Osbourne thought it was “the right thing to do.”  It was? How is this a fair trade?  As for Underwood, she made no sense to me.  She said that Julie represented her race and women well. I don’t see how getting surgery to look less Asian because a man tells you you’re not good enough represents Asians or women well.  Having this surgery is only the right thing to do when a society’s conception of beauty is so unbreakable that we have to break ourselves to meet it. I’m not condemning Julie at all for making that choice. I’m condemning our social norms that presented her with the (false?) dilemma that she had to choose between her appearance and her culture or her success.

A few weeks ago, I was a part of roundtable discussion about student success strategies at the college where I work.  We were given the finished product this week.  As I watched myself and hoped that I didn’t say anything foolish or look awkward in the video, I thought of Chen’s confession.   I looked at my own eyes in the video and thought of the eyes that she used to have.  Were mine too small like hers?  Did they make me look tired, disinterested?  Would I not be invited to participate in these roundtables again because I was Chinese and bad for the camera?  None of my “bosses” has told me so, and, in fact, the reception to the video has been positive overall.  I only wish Chen’s superiors had been as generous.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Image       

           “Star Trek Into Darkness” comes out on dvd this week. I anticipate going to Target to buy ONE item, lunch meat or something, and leaving with a copy of the dvd and no lunch meat.  I will view the film again and then hate myself.

            I love “Star Trek.”  I can remember being filled with excitement when ST:TNG premiered. I might have been one of three kids who actually gave a crap at the time. Everyone else was too preoccupied with handball. Eventually, I became the elementary school’s expert on “Star Trek.” I could watch a snippet of an episode and correctly identify the title and season when it aired.  I also bought a lot of stuff, mostly novels, but if it had a “Star Trek” label on it, I wanted it.  Toys, Christmas decorations, stickers, models, posters — I yearned for it even if I didn’t buy it.  As I got older, I became more discerning and realized that Paramount was just making money off of us, us being hard core Trek fans. 

            The dvd release of STID reminds me of this truth: Paramount isn’t out to make “Star Trek.” Paramount is out to make money.  Websites like “Trekmovie” and “Digital Bits” report a dearth of features on the DVD and Blu-Ray releases.   There is nothing on the DVD release, and if you want bonus features you’ll have to buy Blu-Rays from multiple places.  Paramount has given different special features to different retailers.  If you want to be a true Trek fan, you’ll have to buy copies at Target, Best Buy, and itunes to get all of the special features.  It’s kind of like when a comic book comes out with variant covers except it’ll will cost at least six times the amount of money to buy. 

            I will do my best to justify buying it. I will tell myself that the film is visually marvelous, a true spectacle.  The production values are fantastic and the acting is top notch.  The introductory scene is quintessential “Star Trek.” Kirk violates the Prime Directive, Spock sacrifices himself for the good of the many, McCoy grumbles. It doesn’t get much better than that!  Oh, also, we have a new Khan and a new twist on the famous warp reactor death scene.  It’s great, right?

            No, it’s not. My knowledge of 47 years of “Star Trek” will kick in (Incidentally, this week is also the anniversary of “Star Trek”).  I will remember that Shatner and Nimoy did it better in “Wrath of Khan” because their scenes were rooted in twenty years of friendship while Pine and Quinto do their best to make a friendship look deep after having one movie filled with relentless action scenes catered to an audience with ADD.  I will also remember that Spock’s death meant something in “Star Trek II” because no one anticipated a “Star Trek III.”  And, when STID ends with Kirk presiding over a suddenly rebuilt San Francisco and a restored Enterprise, I will be reminded of how when the original Khan disabled her in “Star Trek II,” she never recovered and how the death of a beloved starship meant a “fighting chance to live.”   

            The new Trek movies are intended to revitalize and broaden the franchise.  I get that, and they’ve been successful in those two goals.  As much as I wish Paramount existed to tell good stories, they’re really out to make money.  “Star Trek” helps them do that.  Dividing up the dvd spoils helps them do that too.  I just hate myself a little for falling for it. 

–The Prof.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,