And Beyond

In the previous post I discussed AXE's new advertising campaign which utilizes the Astronaut archetype to sell their new product. Essentially, AXE promises that their product will transport the consumer from the real world to the land of mythology, where anything can happen. This is the basis for pretty much all advertising: a Subaru will bring you love; eating McDonald's shows intelligence; drinking Budweiser makes you a part of something greater. These are all things that happen in the hero's journey. I.E. At the end of the quest, Mario gets Princess Peach, Desmond learns the way to the Truth, and, well, Call of Duty soldiers cheer that they survived.

All the heroes go through amazing journeys to accomplish amazing things. They move and shake the world to protect and better it, allowing them to gain happiness, success, and immortality. Society takes note of their actions, and emulate them however they can in the real world. No, they're not literally shooting up the whole plantation house, but they're standing up for themselves and demanding change. Now, most of these heroic acts, whether through buying products, playing a video game character, or watching them in a TV show or movie, are performed by male heroes.

At the end of his Astronaut journey, Pi finds unshakable Faith
Life of Pi, Fox 2000 Pictures, 2012

 I have already gone over the implications of hyper-masculine heroes, as well as the exclusion of girls from movie culture. This post is not an argument for more heroines, but one that explores the implications of male archetypes as a heroes/role models for females. Not in the Freudian sense, which where the male hero would be a father-figure type that she would find sexual attraction to. (After all the friend-zone actually exists.) Is it so hard to conceive a woman identifying with Capt. Jack Sparrow, Batman, or even Simba? Just because society says that Hollywood stars are sexy doesn't mean that women can't learn from their characters' struggles.

Let's take Capt. Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. This Cowboy wants to be free, independent, and rich (in rum), and is very adamant about maintaining these characteristics. On the other hand, Elizabeth Swan, the female protaganist, starts out as a fairly demure dame, who seems rather resigned to marry the stuffy British Navy(?) guy. It's not until she's kidnapped by Sparrow that her heroic attributes appear; she's emulates her captor in order to escape him, and become her own free, independent, and rich (in love) person. So, even if the female viewer is looking to Swan for guidance, she's really looking to Sparrow.

Now, we have a young woman using the techniques of her male heroes in order to get what she wants in life: a free, independent, and rich. She's not above bending the rules, not telling the whole truth, or or drinking her fair share of liquid courage. I mean, that's what Capt. Sparrow did, and perhaps she wants to continue living out her bachelor-ette life in frivolity and fun.

 

Elizabeth Swann manipulates Capt. Jack Sparrow using her sexuality. and targeting his weakness (for rum).

In this clever and piratesque act, she gains control of the rum stash, and proceeds to burn it, thereby saving herself (and the Capt.)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Walt Disney Pictures, 2003  

People, however, don't expect that out of a woman. After all Swan ends up sacrificing this, that, or the other thing in order to be with her have a true love (and a baby). It's the the fairy-tale status-quo happy ending for heroines: meet guy, fall in love, have baby, the end. Meanwhile, Sparrow (and Turner) gets to trapeze the seas and continue to pursue his dream of immortality, as in never ending. American myth/society expects women to eventually end up in the domestic role, never mind what the woman actually wants for herself. We can argue that the women have a biological desire to have children, or just concede that its a sociological pressure.

A Pirate-Woman's Bliss: Where you get to raise a child on your own and see your immortal husband every 10 years.
Puts another twist on Sparrow's "Now Bring me that horizon"
 (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, after credits scene, 2007)

A 'tomboy' attitude is acceptable to a point; wanting to be a leader, express your opinions, acknowledging a sex-drive, and (heaven forbid) being independent don't sound like inherently bad things for a woman, but when put into action people become off-put. Whether they be the woman's coworker, boss, love interest, or stranger, the masculine personality clashes with expectations and causes friction. Some people reading this are thinking, 'not at all, sounds like an awesome woman to me.' Which is true, but is it because the standard is different for women than it is for men. Exceeding expectations is nice, but that is not the same as being judged differently because people don't expect you to succeed? Do you expect this woman to obtain her happiness, which may or may not include becoming mother or other 'domestic' role?

No one believes in the true female-hero. As Anne-Marie Slaughter discussed in her article Why Women Still Can't Have It All last year, everyone has an opinion about what a woman ought to do in order to be 'feminist', 'proper', or 'realistic'. A man moving in with his girlfriend is considered manly and making a commitment.* Society congratulates him on becoming an adult. Meanwhile the woman is seen as giving up on a career and resigning to a life of homemaking OR as a floozy who can't keep up appearances OR as a poor decision because romance isn't real. A no win situation. A Girl's situation.

I could write a whole post about how Merida didn't fulfill all our expectations.
Brave, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, 2012

So while AXE encourages young males to blast into space and enter the world of mythology, young women look on with contempt, while celebrating the woman who will be an iconoclast. She won't be a woman who became an Astronaut hero. Her own aspirations of as an individual will be eclipsed by the larger message. She'll be a woman who infiltrated the male hierarchy, who exceeded the expectations that society put on her.

I don't want readers to get the wrong idea. I support women's rights, promoting gender equality, and showing off its amazing women heroes. What I mean by this post is, women are not seen as equal to men. Even with a male mindset, females have to battle against society's conventions. Society (as a generalization) does not think women capable of residing in the land of mythology. It's a reality that can't be escaped: Women who emulate their masculine heroes may go 'beyond' expectations, but still fall short of reaching infinity.



------------------
* Yes this is a generalized statement. But when was the last time you heard a man criticized for moving in with his girlfriend because 'he needed to go to college' or 'Was being immoral'? I would be a lot less times than if they were directed towards a woman. Please tell me if you think this is unfair. I don't but, hey, maybe I'm a feminist bee.

To Infinity

AXE, the adolescent fragrance line, has taken a note from Redbull. They're sponsoring a private trip to space and using it to advertise their product line, Apollo. However, the 'astronauts' on the trip won't be some daredevil or the CEO; they're holding a competition where contestants must be up-voted. The top ten will then go to space camp, and the two that do best there will strap in and ship out to space.

Both AXE and Redbull produce products largely aimed towards males, and, arguably, towards white males. AXE, obviously, is made for males only, so it makes sense for them to only advertise to males. They do have some commercials featuring non-whites (see below), but they all give about the same message.

 

As in all AXE commercials, the spot implies that using AXE products negates women's sexual selection process, and they will all but lay down and spread their legs for you based on the scent. Effective for a teenage boy. The product supposedly allows the teenager to enter into a fictional realm of happily ever after. It will create an aura around him of sexual worthiness, much like that of the hero of myth.

The new product line, Apollo, takes it one step further. Watch this commerical:

Earlier AXE commercials merely gave ordinary boys (I will not say men) the ability to catch a sexually willing woman without any sort of effort. No clear job, no saying hello, no smile. Divine women would lower their standards for him, just because he smelt good. With the Apollo line, boys don't even have to compete with the handsome, athletic, and productive. It doesn't even the playing field, but gets rid of it with a mask of musk.

I love, love, love these commercials because they are pretty clear evidence of my theories on New American Mythology. "Nothing Beats an Astronaut ... Ever" I mean, come on, that's awesome. It reverses the 'angels fall to earth' scheme to 'we'll send yo to the heavens'. Even the tagline for the space academy competition creates a sense of epic purpose: "Leave a Man. Come back a Hero" Its so beautifully full of New American Mythology.


AXE is using the Astronaut to sell their products to teens who subscribe, subconsiously or not, to the mythology behind the archetype. The Astronaut always wins, the Astronaut is the hero. And its not a phenomenon only AXE has picked up on:

This minute-long origin story implies that all babies (read: the winning sperm) are Astronauts.  They go through an mystical epic journey launching from an eden [West] to the unknown of Space, to arrive here on Earth. How heroic.The fact that the dad 'saves the day' (obscures the truth) and turns on the CD player via voice command serves to reinforce the idea of the fictionalized world as better than reality.

That is to say, the ideas behind Mythology hold a more valuable lesson than those of science. And this is an American truth. You, small boy, were one out of a whole planet, chosen(?) to launch into space and arrive here. You are special. E pluribus unum. Because you did that, you can do so much more, like get any girl to throw herself on you, and all will be well.

Star Trek, 2009
AXE Apollo worked for resident nerd Spock.
How else would he have gotten Uhura over Kirk? Brains? psh.

 It is a much nicer thing to say than: After a lot of maturation, courting, and financial stability, your mother and I did the horizontal mambo, where one of my sperm happened to run into one of your mom's ~400 eggs at the right time, and made it through the crazy thing called gestation without any major mutations or hiccups. One day you can do that too, but only after you figure out how to make your advantages stand out more than your flaws to a woman, then convince her its a good idea to commit to you (or vice versa), and then hope that everything will not be disastrous.

The odds are against us all. We need mythology to give us some direction in our lives, to give us aspirations, to give us examples of what we could do. AXE is tapping into the mythology blurring the line of reality even more. Whoever goes up is not going to be a real astronaut, not in the sense of James Lovell or Buzz Aldrin- they won't be in charge. They will get a simulacra of an experience in which all will be real except for their actual roles as astronauts. But that's not the point. AXE isn't just offering a free ride to space; it's offering an escape from reality.

Plan B: Cosplay!
Found here.

AXE Apollo promises to the males out there that they can, in fact, become the Astronauts they see in the movies. The AXE Apollo campaign will send you to Space, to infinity. Just like Disneyland and Universal Studios, AXE Apollo Space Academy allows you, the person from reality, to enter the realm of mythology. Just a a fashion photo shoot in TeenVogue promises young girls buying such-n-such products will make you more like a 'princess'/heroine, therefore more appealing, and therefore happier, AXE Apollo promises to make boys more of a hero, more appealing, and therefore happier.

Emma Watson in TeenVogue, August 2009
The situation is a bit ridiculous, but, hey, I'm jealous.

The difference in a fashion magazine and a TV commercial, however, is very, very different. In the relevance hierarchy of New American Mythology, print media is always at the bottom AND heroic epic always trumps fairy tales.* If 'nothing beats an Astronaut', where does that leave Ms. Watson? As far as I could tell magic couldn't launch her into space, and those ponies can't pull a carriage10ft, let alone to the moon.

Advertising heroism to only men has multiple implications to both male and female psyche. However, I'll save that rant for the next post: And Beyond



----------
*Or not. I'm currently working out the new fairy-tale fad.

Zombie Heroes

My previous posts may have colored the Zombie archetype poorly. I was still going for the dramatic slant when I wrote:

"[W]e find the zombie as the most deplorable archetype. Mindlessness, consumption, apathy, and a non-influential lifestyle characterize the zombie. He does not contribute anything to society, and takes from it more than necessarily. The hoard mentality of mentality influences his actions: following whatever orders or actions the person near him does without regard to individual wants or needs. Personality decays ... until only the shell of a person remains."

Crabhead from Half-Life 2 (Valve Corporation, video game)

 Man-o-man doesn't that sound awful.

I want to rescind that statement, or at the very least alter it. The Zombie is not the most deplorable archetype. Otherwise, why would it be an archetype? Really, the Zombie is the most 'realistic' state. It speaks of the unenlightened individual who has yet to realize their potential role in life. That is, often we are introduced to main character(s) as Zombies.* The "Hero's Journey" the characters go through often transforms them, defines their true character, and allows them to become our American heroes. 

In the 2012 Working Titles Films production of Les Miserables, the main character Jean Vanjean goes through just a transformation. **Spoilers** He starts as a prison-slave who is forced to be a Zombie. He is allowed no aspirations, influences, or free will, and must perform mindless tasks in unison with hundreds of other prison-slaves. These chain-gangs are Zombie hordes, although not by choice.We find out he's in prison because he stole bread; just trying to survive by eating whatever he can get his hands on. He continues this mentality after he's put on parole, and eventually steals some things (to survive). He's a Zombie, doing what you gotta do to survive without any thought to anyone but yourself. Plot things happen and eventually he becomes a Cowboy/successful business man who disregards the law, and eventually a Astronaut/self sacrificing individual. Happy(?) Ending. The scene I posted is Jean Vanjean coming to the realization that he must act and help, not merely survive. Yes, they're are scenes where spots of Astronaut altruism come out, but it's in this song that he self-acknowledges his being as something more than a man/Zombie. He is a hero.

However, Not every Zombie is forced to be one. Our hobbit friend Bilbo Baggins was quite content with his quiet, isolated, mundane, uneventful life. When presented with the opportunity to go out on an adventure, Bilbo says "I just need to sit quietly for a moment." Gandalf, being the volatile grey wizard he is, retorts "You've been sitting quietly for far too long!" The wizard sees Bilbo as a complacent, mindless Zombie who, when pushed, can do great things. Bilbo starts as the consumerist, overly-concerned for "doilies and his mother's dishes." Bringing him out into the world, Gandalf wants to show Bilbo the value of the "small acts of kindness and love" that will keep "darkness at bay." Consumerism, attachment to an object (i.e. a ring), will only bring insanity, isolation, and a host of other Zombie issues..

Tell me he's not a Zombie!
Screenshot from Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Other Zombie turned heroes include Django (Django), Marlin (Finding Nemo), Forrest Gump (Forrest Gump), WALL-E (WALL-E).

That's not to say that all main-characters transform into Cowboys or Astronauts. Often time the misadventures of a Zombie give audiences the opportunity to laugh at absurdity and make them feel better about their life. Step Brothers, Harold & Kumar, and Superbad feature reluctant heroes desperately searching for something, while losing sight of the real problem. The heroes do end up realizing their antics aren't quite right, and go through a minor transformation. That's not to say its true for all comedy Zombies; for example the Bluth Family from the aptly named TV show Arrested Development. The comedy follows the antics of a formerly upper-class family that can't seem to change their ways or move on with life. They are living Zombies, oblivious to reality. It's hilarious.

The next Zombie comedy coming to theaters is actually a zombie movies. Warm Bodies (Summit Entertainment) features a zombie who falls in love with a non-zombie human. I'm going to predict that the hero transforms from a Zombie to a Cowboy or Astronaut and saves the shotgun-slinging princess. And there will be a few chuckles along the way.

So, next time you see a Zombie, whether they're on the silver screen, TV, or someone acting like one, maybe you shouldn't jump for the crossbow. Giving someone the chance to become something more, to make something more, well isn't that what Equal Opportunity is all about? Then again...

What Would Daryl Dixon Do?
The Walking Dead (AMC)

-------------------------------------------------------
*Please remember an archetype does not mean A = A; but rather A represents XYZ. So a Zombie does not mean a zombie that Daryl is about to shoot through the eye, but a character with the characteristics I'm discussing in the post.

You Can't Turn Off the News

Breaking News!

This has been a hot topic on some popular TV news stations lately. No, not on ESPN, E!, TMZ, the Daily Show, Bravo, Oxygen, HLN, TLC, or any other Reality show channels. CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNews have been following the developments of this 'story' very closely. Because nothing else is happening in the world.

I grew up with CNN on the TV, so that's what I turn to when I want noise in the background, hoping that some bit of information will make me more informed or worldly or something. Not the case. Useless prattle is expected from MSNBC and FOXNews, but CNN? You were the last hold-out.

Are they required to plaster 'Breaking News' on everything?

Let me cite Jeff Sorensen's opinion piece in the Huffington Post:

"Fast forward to when CNN came about. It seemed fresh and convenient. CNN was the only newsgroup reporting live on the ground when the United States attacked Iraq at the beginning of the Gulf War. They were cooped up in a hotel reporting through a Four-Wire circuit while the Anti-air weapons fired outside the window of their hotel room. It was one of the greatest moments in journalistic history. As stated in the film Live From Baghdad, it was "the journalistic equivalent of landing on the Moon."

CNN was no longer considered the experimental network; it became the basis for everything that followed. New 24-hour networks appeared on the scene and further saturated the market by jacking CNN's format.

Now, major networks are fighting over who is more non-biased than the others. Each network tries to show how they report both sides equally, but it's the worst kept secret ever. It's not even a secret. It's so easy to recognize when something is biased, unless they aim the content at your ideology. Confirmation bias blinds people to the bias because it supports their point of view. Hence, the content is correct to those supporting the bias aimed toward them. ... The more they argue their points, the more extreme their point of view goes toward their bias. This happens on 24-hour news all day. Both sides argue their views to the point that neither listens to the other side. They'll sink into their beliefs even if there is no evidence supporting it. This tends to happen in most belief structures."

Except CNN hasn't chosen to spew extremism, but mundane moderatism. They latch onto the pseudo-political popular stories, gnashing into a story calling it a 'dissection of facts' when really it's just maiming factoids into a grotesque pile that you're told is important, interesting, or breaking news.

It ain't nothing new.
Piero Manzoni, Worth more than its weight in gold.

Yes, the news stations report on important events such as women in combat, gun control, and Obama's new cabinet. The discussion that follows the annoucement of the headline, however, are still just biased babble with few or no factual grounding. The news fails to enlighten us about the events happening beyond our own line of sight, but feeds us, as Sorenson said, our own bias.

It makes sense really. Why should news organizations invest in investigative reporting? 'New' news may be original and authentic, but it lacks the credibility of popular consensus. It's looked at with skepticism, it's easily judged. Whereas the communal news that reinforces our already established beliefs is easily swallowed, and easily regurgitated (I'm looking at you Facebook Debaters). Reporting on the same subject with different commentators makes viewers feel good and learned because 1. They already know the subject; 2. They are on the 'inside' of the developing story; 3. They can tell their non-news watching friends about everyone's opinions. The viewer gets the 'credit' in the real world while the news stations get the ratings.

2010 : Haiti

Anderson Cooper was the first big news anchor to go to Haiti after the devastating earthquake that hit there. Investigating reporting right? Let me rephrase the question: What do you remember about Haiti's earthquake? Specifically  what did Cooper uncover that you remember? He says in this clip that he believed this was a fluke looting, that he happened to be in the right place at the right time, ready to look heroic and for everyone in the states to pause and say, hey, that Cooper guy is heroic/hot!

That might be a bit of an exaggeration. But he is a celebrity news-anchor, and not like Walter Conkrite. Viewers watch his shows not just because he's a good reporter, able to ask the right questions, but because they have an emotional investment in him. Perhaps it's better to quote Cooper himself:

"I think the notion of traditional anchor is fading away, the all-knowing, all-seeing person who speaks from on high. I don't think the audience really buys that anymore. As a viewer, I know I don't buy it. I think you have to be yourself, and you have to be real and you have to admit what you don't know, and talk about what you do know, and talk about what you don't know as long as you say you don't know it. I tend to relate more to people on television who are just themselves, for good or for bad, than I do to someone who I believe is putting on some sort of persona. The anchorman on The Simpsons is a reasonable facsimile of some anchors who have that problem"

Cooper admits it. He wants the audience to realize he isn't all knowing, and in doing so allows the viewers and himself be on equal ground. Ah, Equality. Not in the sense of 'All Men are created Equal, Under God', but in a way that says, 'We have equal access to the same information, let's be friends'.

Cooper made friends with this little guy while investigating Planet in Peril
Question he's asking right now: Would you rather be me or the sloth in this picture?

This is all a round-about way to say that Walter Benjamin has, once again, reared his head. The most obvious connection with Mechanical Reproduction and today's news stations: repeating/reproducing the same news story over and over and over and over again gives it more importance (a bigger aura) than the event on its own. Case and point: Manti Te'o . Who gives a crap about how a 21 year old guy that fell in love with a fake girl? Okay, maybe a few people, but at reserve that for Lifetime Movies or SpikeTV. Or, at the very least, for the 'Entertainment' portions of the news. But nope. Wolf Blitzer will continue to report on this very serious American event.

Point two taken from Benjamin truly characterizes the 21st Century. The idea that everyone deserves/has the ability to access information. It does away with the enlightenment's compartmentalization of subjects and the scholar of one subject. Instead everyone can become amateur-expert in any and all subjects. Your snide comment on annoying-liberal's facebook status is just as valid as Rush Limbaughs (or more so). Citing John Stewart as an authority on the socio-political? Legit. The fact that your uncle owns a gun store gives you the power to make broad statements on gun control. And that's what the news stations are doing. They find random people to act as commentators on the show. (You'll note, that's exactly what the Daily Show does, but with the cast.) If the news stations disregarded this shift in America's intellectual hierarchy, they would come off as pedantic, and few people would watch.

News stations have traded investigative, feet-on-the-ground journalism for mass-dialogue and equality. These are not mutually exclusive; everyone has their feet-on-the-ground. The problem is that the news stations can sift through every person's blog, twitter, or feed. Our connections, whether followers or friends, limit our ability to spread news. I mean don't we all swell with pride while counting the number of Likes on our latest photo as if they were peacock feathers. Unfortunately we're not all friends with Cooper, nor do we have the luck of being a both a Star Trek star and very clever like George Tekai. We can only hope that our pet or family gathering is entertaining enough for America to share.

Back in the Saddle

I want to apologize to all my avid readers for taking such a long hiatus. My excuses aren't very good, nor are they worth telling. Instead I want to take this apology* and explain to you why this blog exists. Most people, I believe, stumble onto this page through Google image searches (the top one being 'rosario dawson tits' at the moment). And those of you I actually know who click the link on my social networking sites, probably scroll through and think I'm a bit zany. This attitude and the general lack of enthusiasm for his blog discouraged me from opening up the Blogger browser tab for a few weeks. As we all know, feeling unsupported, being the only one interested in your work, and thinking your actions have no value doesn't make one want to continue to explore one's interests anymore.

Well fuck that. I ain't no pretend Astronaut, and I surely ain't no Girl (which Buzz is in this scene). No, I find my interpretations of my culture fascinating and insightful, and the zany portions of them are just to make it more interesting. New American Mythology may have started as a false exaggeration, but it does exist. It's real. As real as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism!

NPR recently reported that young Americans don't self-identify as part of a particular organized religion, and that doesn't include people who say they are of a religion, but aren't actually 'devout'. Most of the people interviewed cited social issues as their main reason for not taking part in religion. My question in this discussion is, Where, then, do they get their social cues of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable? What do we believe in? What motivates us? Why do we continue in this matter?

Our culture clearly influences our morals and therefore our actions, otherwise the Senate would be singing Don't Stop the Party and not We are Never Getting Back Together when a controversial bill came onto the floor. Instead of getting angry and frustrated (or after getting angry and frustrated) with all the bizarre things in this world, I take a look at what could cause it. Not just why is the Senate not doing its job, but also why am I so angry (or not angry) with them? I'm just trying to make sense of this zany world. If the only way I can do that is through a zany blog with a zany lexicon then so be it. 

You see, I don't care about your well-being. This blog is for me and my well-being. I will be frustrated by people who don't give a damn about what their culture teaches them, which includes the 'I don't watch TV so pop culture isn't relevant to me' (my ass) people and the 'It's just Grey's Anatomy' (zealots) people. But hey, maybe one day I'll figure out why they do that. If you made it this far into the post I assume you have some mild interest in the topic, or in what I'm doing. Good for you. I'm glad to have you. Please have an opinion, and let me know. It means people are still alive out there.

I have drive. I have smarts. I have means. I have character. 

I'll be chasing down my own Tom Chaney with or without others' help. And you, Mr. Cogburn, in your oh-so-wizened ways may join me. As to your question, What are you? A Cowboy.

What about you?

-----------------------
* This isn't actually an apology.