One of the many things I can deduce from this semester of class is that Hollywood is the one topic everyone loves to hate. Our ideas have held strong that the movie business and everyone involved is simply as hollow and superficial as the facades that make up their movie sets. We have yet to put Hollywood in a positive light and our discussions usually end with our fingers pointing blame at Hollywood. The least attractive characters to the reader (yet most desirable in our text), like Faye from Day of the Locust, seem to represent Hollywood. Even in the documentary, Los Angeles Plays Itself, Thom Andersen blames the abbreviation of Los Angeles to L.A. on its portrayal in cinema. I believe it is important for us to recognize just why we feel this way about Hollywood. Is the movie industry that lies within Hollywood really that despicable?
While working on the character project, I have come across the vast perpetuation of social stereotypes in Hollywood Cinema. My avatar was an Asian American female who worked in the entertainment industry during the 1980-90s. From my research, I found that there were few positions for Asian females in Hollywood, except for their racist roles as characters in film. There was very little portrayal of Asians in film, but if they were shown, they were almost always used for two reasons: the Asian American male actors were portrayed as asexual and emasculate (usually as nerds or servants) but they most always know martial arts, and the Asian American females were shown as "Dragon Ladies" or exotic temptresses whose existence was only to serve the needs of white males. Both radiate derogatory characteristics that cater to the entertainment of white America. Even during our viewing of Los Angeles Plays Itself in class today, there was a clip of an Asian actor who walked into an office and instantly started karate chopping desks and roundhouse kicking the ceiling fan. Of course, this representation was used as a comical relief to the tension of the clip, but that does not justify the stereotypes that were used. Asian Americans were also never depicted as Americans, they were always cast for the role of foreigners, thus perpetuating the idea that Asian Americans are aliens in our country and that they do not belong.
Of course, their portrayal is very different now than it was in the past and Asians were not the only ones targeted (in fact, all minorities were shown in negative stereotypical roles), but that should not be overlooked from the vast history of Hollywood films. Only in recent time has the image of the Asian American started incorporating respectable roles and even main characters.
Hollywood films have widely
exaggerated stereotypes and warped the public perception of the world. Far too
often, the general public will assume that what is displayed in movies can be an authentic substitute for reality. For example, the film Zero Dark Thirty interprets the location and execution of Osama Bin
Laden. Many who have seen the film seem to think that the exact strategies that
were carried out in the movie were the same ones that the U.S. Government
organized for the real-life situation.
Of course, this is completely false because the movie is simply a
dramatization of the event and we cannot judge the actions of our government
from the film. Another current example is the perception of North Korea in the
film The Interview. The film has
recently received scrutiny for not truthfully representing the oppression of
the North Korean people. We must remember that this film was a comedy that
featured the likes of Seth Rogen and James Franco, and should not be seen as
accurate representation.
In the same regard, we cannot judge
everything that Hollywood produces as fictional and appropriate. Hollywood has
had a strong influence over American culture for the past century but we need
to be conscious of how easily it can skew our views of people and events.
At the end of the day, movies are art, and the artists make specific choices to emphasize impose a slant or to simply create drama. There has been similar controversy recently regarding the period piece Selma, which follows Martin Luther King through the Civil Rights Era. Although I haven’t seen the movie myself, apparently it plays up friction between the Civil Rights movement and president Lyndon Baines Johnson far more than existed in real life. The film antagonizes him because, well, they needed an antagonist. From what I could tell, there is no doubt the drama with the former president was played up past reality. Still, this is an artistic decision, and although messing with history can lead to sticky situations, it is a time-honored tradition of Hollywood that exemplifies the bullying “freedom of speech” attitude that has led to racist portrayals.
ReplyDeleteIn Los Angeles Plays Itself, I think the whole point was to fight back against the false portrayals and stereotypes that Los Angeles finds itself stuck in. The documentary had a unique take on the break down of these stereotypes by finding the earliest instances of the stereotypes and seeing how they progressed. I think this is the most effective way to break down stereotypes—by finding these earliest instances, seeing how they progressed, and why they progressed. In order to learn from the facades set up by the stereotypes, the process must be illuminated.
ReplyDeleteRepresentation of minorities in general is a problem for most mainstream Hollywood movies. Generally speaking, it's difficult to find a movie from before about 1990 that doesn't make a minority character's race, sexual orientation, or religion a central part of their role. Likewise, Los Angeles appears in movies as a caricature of itself, representing a stereotype we've thoroughly debunked in class.
ReplyDeleteI think this is why Los Angeles Plays Itself is such a useful tool for analyzing this city's impact on its residents and vice versa. It's the ultimate guide to the influence of place on identity; it's an exhaustive collection of L.A.'s best known commodity that expresses artistic vision, period mass culture, and documentary-style facts (usually as backdrop). In a weird way, for Los Angeles, changing our city's representation on film might be the only way to change our city's reputation in reality. Like the gangs of Boyle Heights arming themselves against fictional rivals, Los Angeles must emerge as its most aspirational self in representation to achieve it back in Thom Anderson's horizontal world.
I'm engaged by Griffin's description of movies as art. I think that ultimately he is correct (depending on one's definition of art), because movies are a form of free expression. Yet, as Mitch points out, there certainly is a distinct gap between representation and reality–this is the liminal space in which Los Angeles Plays Itself operates. When we talk about minorities, we see the nerd/Bruce Lee dynamic in Asian-Americans, tokenism among African-Americans, etc. Few of these truly contribute to the narrative structure of something constituting art. When we think about how LA is represented, I would really enjoy a dialogue tomorrow focused on the gray area between actuality and representation. Where is Hollywood between the home of a pure form of art free from archaic European constriction and a hub of vapid mass-culture that undermines art?
ReplyDeleteI am very engaged with the comment Mitch made when he said that Hollywood has skewed our view of people and events. Along with these examples of exaggerated stereotypes that Mitch mentioned, one he didn’t include has really stood out to me the most. That is the false portrayal of women in the media. Hollywood has completely distorted how people view women, and how women view themselves. Although this is a difficult topic to tackle, this façade women are put behind further perpetuates the idea that Hollywood does everything it can to make reality seem better. We, as a culture, have become more aware of the flaws in the media, but it is easy to see how people can get caught up in stereotypes perpetuated by Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteIn Los Angeles Plays Itself, Los Angeles is described as being nondescript enough to fill almost any role or become any location needed for the background of a film. It seems to be the plain canvas that any story can be built off of, and it is portrayed as lacking any substance. This seems to create a feedback loop regarding the perception of Los Angeles -- the more it plays this shallow, nondescript role in film, the more films will capitalize on this image of the city. This makes it possible to have the extensive list of vacant properties throughout the city that are hoping to be film locations; the city is, in a way, like a set waiting to be used. How can we expect people's perception of Los Angeles to change if we continue to feed into this image? If we are to break the cycle, our only option, as Ezra mentioned, may be to change the image in the media, first.
ReplyDeleteI am engaged by Annika's idea that Hollywood puts Los Angeles into a never-ending cycle of self-perpetuating stereotypes. A few years ago at a summer camp on the east coast, I was shocked at the amount of times, after I explained where I was from, I was asked if I saw celebrities on the regular, visited movie studios, or went to the beach every weekend. Since we live here, it is sometimes hard for us to remember that the only dose of Los Angeles that non-Californians get is either from what Hollywood tells them or from when they visit as tourists, in which case they come here with armed with assumptions that gimmicky tours and celebrity home maps only solidify. Los Angeles itself is so much more than entertainment and fads, but it seems that the only way to fix how the world sees LA is to fix how Hollywood forms LA.
ReplyDeleteGriffin's comment and Alex V.'s idea for a dialogue are the most intriguing to me. While I agree that film is art and a form of free expression, the difference is that films are presented as factual more than any other media– they're physically seen and heard by the audience, making them much more realistic than any book, and that's what I believe contributes most to their strength of power. Another idea I'd like to explore is similar to the Boyle Heights gangs and their arming up; is our representation of minorities a response to their roles in Los Angeles and America, or are their roles in our world the way they are because of their representation? Are women more likely to be lower-ranked jobs because the movies always portray them as such or were they not achieving higher jobs and movies were simply illustrating that? Are the changing roles of minorities in film due to a change in L.A.'s/America's mindsets, or is their representation fuel to change our minds?
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is particularly interesting is the idea that when Los Angeles is portrayed in movies and the entertainment industry, it is the "L.A." portrayed by downtown high-rises, the Hollywood Sign, and the Kardashians. Because we are the city that produces every other city in media, people don't realize that Los Angeles makes up so much more than the stereotype -- our suburbs are turned into "Anytown", USA, our buildings are passed off as Chicago, our fields are turned into China, our lakes into Switzerland -- we are so busy producing that we don't focus on taking the credit for ourselves, so people think of LA only as Hollywood and celebrities.
ReplyDeleteWe can't expect people to think about L.A. in a different light if they think the portrayals that show LA in a different light aren't Los Angeles.
I am extremely engaged by what Midge is saying. If I am interpreting her words right, it would seem that we are like sponges when it comes to representations/scenarios portrayed in the media. We take in every little thing perpetuating and humanizing the events of a film. I think that is so interesting to think about how much our lives and society are shaped by film. It would be very interesting to see what everyone else has to say about this because for me it this statement would seem correct. A woman's self-esteem or issues with self- esteem almost directly correlate with the portrayal of women in the media. Girls see perfect models in movies and compare themselves to this perfection. The world is so dependent on film and media that I wonder if society is entirely dependent on this medium for social, economic, and intellectual direction. It seems that we are almost unable to think for ourselves because the media is constantly telling us how to think feel and act.
ReplyDeleteReading the comments above, I’ve noticed how films are being described as art, propaganda, etc. in Los Angeles. I’m engaged by Griffin's comment describing movies as art juxtaposed with Alex V.’s comment challenging actuality and representation. In my opinion, films are a medium through which individuals can express themselves, and depending on how they’re used, films have the potential to be art, a weapon, or a tool. They have powerful potential to galvanize entire nations into action. People may hate Hollywood for its exaggerations and stereotyping of characters, but these are not accidental means. Each exaggeration is a potentially powerful statement. When we criticize films for exaggerating, we must also keep in mind that for film companies to profit from the films they create, they must sell something interesting, something that will capture the attentions of the audience. If Hollywood did not exaggerate as often as it does now, we would be watching documentaries instead of films, and films tell a story through a much more interesting lens.
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued by Hollywood’s narrow representation of Los Angeles, especially with the focus on Downtown’s high rises. The vertical skyscrapers seemingly try and unify Los Angeles with common tropes of major cities, when Los Angeles’ urban sprawl makes it unique. Granted it is difficult to accurately encompass all aspects of the city while building a plot made to make millions. Los Angeles Plays Itself points out how certain films edit the city, jumping between locations miles away in a character’s matter of minutes. The city has become a giant set as Annika said, waiting to filmed and edited into something we cannot recognize.
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued by your observation of how Asian Americans are portrayed in Hollywood films as solely Asian and not American; it reminded me of Lee in East of Eden and how he felt like he was not accepted in China nor in California. We talked today about the factor of race in Hollywood films. We observed that many times in TV shows and movies, minorities are portrayed simply as minorities and nothing more. For example, a black person in a film might be important merely because of the color of their skin. While this is arguably a better role than one in an outwardly racist film, it is still not the desirable one if we are talking real equality. I think that we can take this example of misrepresentation and apply it to Los Angeles. Los Angeles is portrayed as “LA” and sometimes nothing more. It is the backdrop for a crime scene, but not the setting for a romance story; it is still not celebrated like other major cities for what it is. In films, Los Angeles is hardly anything more than its stereotypes.
ReplyDelete