A Disney Revival

Fairytales have always been best told by the Disney studios but I was beginning to believe that the days of a wide-eyed princess and her tales of love and ambition were over, that was until the hand-crafted magic was reawakened by The Princess and the Frog.

This film pays no attention to the demands of the 3D era nor does it succumb to the thralls of CGI, it takes us back to the basics of hand-drawn animation, catchy songs and the well known fact that wishing on the biggest and brightest star in the sky will make all your dreams come true.

I would definitely say that the Disney classics are deeply embedded into my culture, one of my favourite pastimes was prancing around the family kitchen singing Disney songs with my sister. There were some films we watched so many times that we knew the scripts off-by-heart and I'm happy to say that, finally, Disney have produced another classic that we can appreciate as adults as much as we would have done as kids.

The engaging storyline and loveable characters of The Princess and the Frog are entertaining at any age. Brought to life by Ron Clements and John Musker, the writer/directors of two of my all-time favourite films (The Little Mermaid and Aladdin), this film is sure to join the Disney hall-of-fame as a modern classic with all the touches of romance, fantasy and magic we have come to expect from the iconic studios. It's a dream come true and if you wish hard enough on that star, then maybe they won't ruin it with a tacky sequel!

'Sweetness and Light'

Today's cultures and their perceptions differ hugely from those in Leavis' time and even more so from Matthew Arnold's (Culture and Anarchy, 1869) so when considering a text which demonstrates 'sweetness and light' and the 'best that is thought or said' I decided to step it up to the 21st Century.

I have therefore chosen to look at a production of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew which I saw a few years ago at the Globe theatre in London. You may be questioning how on earth I can be suggesting that discussing a Shakespeare play performed in a theatre made up to replicate that of the Elizabethan period can possibly be bringing the idea of cultural greatness into the 21st Century. However, this particular production was performed by an all female cast.

A satirical view of a rugged man taming a 'wild' woman brought a whole new light to Shakespeare's misogynistic play. The grotesque portrayal of a brilliantly unintelligent Petruchio made his efforts to woo Kate a hilarious farce. Moreover, Kate's independence and sarcasm as she gives her final speech of 'submission' gave the whole production a real feminist vibe. Despite the fact that I had spent two and a half hours on my feet as a groundling I remember leaving the production feeling thoroughly entertained.

To me a huge part of a successful contribution to our culture is something that raises real issues, makes an intelligent contribution and has a lasting effect on the emotions or thoughts of an audience. This production certainly did all of these things for me, it sparked real debate about the historical and ongoing gender differences and inequalities, made good use of clever satire and parody and left me feeling empowered as a member of the female sex. Did this production of a much loved play provide 'sweetness and light'? I believe that it did, but in a thoroughly modern sense, I'm not sure that Leavis would have approved!

A Touch of Levisism

F.R. Levis, a key cultural theorist, was, at times, an incredibly cynical man who would, together with his wife, Queenie, rip cultural texts apart and attempt to discredit the creative minds behind them. In this post, I do the same for a media text which I consider to be amongst the lowest of the low in cultural terms. The media text I have chosen is the film Invictus, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon.

The object of this film appeared to be to portray the cultural differences between the black people and the white people living in South Africa and how the great Nelson Mandela overcame these issues and created his rainbow nation. I believe this to be a great premise for a film with optimistic views on a difficult political situation. I do not, however, as the film appears to suggest, believe that the cure for the conflicts between the races was the rugby world cup.

A film made by Americans, starring American actors, albeit those with relatively convincing South African accents, maintains the arrogance we now associate with America. Rewriting another country's history and retelling the tale of another culture's hero is just the sort of thing we have come to expect from them, particularly after the absolute shambles that was Valkyrie.

This film neatly ties up the story of the culture clashes by suggesting that South Africa's world cup victory in 1995 solved all the problems faced by the country and glazed over the fact that it is still a country facing widespread discrimination and poverty. This 'happy ending' approach seems a cheap way to satisfy a westernised audience and offers no further insight into the facts, the history or the future of a troubled country placed in an even more turbulent continent.

1930s to 2010s - how do the theories of Leavis relate to the cultures of today?

The article, 'Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture', (Leavis, 1933), left me a little unsure of the point. Leavis seems to introduce the 'machine' in this article as something which is destroying our culture and which is 'levelling-down' the press, film industry, broadcasting, etc by its abilities of 'mass-production and standardisation'. However, it is then indicated that the 'machine' is our future and something which one ought to be open to.

Leavis does raise some interesting points, such as the fact that high culture is only really available to the minority of people with enough education to appreciate it, with the example of the works of Shakespeare. However, in Shakespeare's time, his works were available and appealing to all classes. Leavis also talks about 'high-brow' culture, separating the minority which is able to appreciate higher levels of culture and placing them in a state of 'conscious(ness), not merely of an uncongenial, but of a hostile environment.'

This chapter also includes key points about the purposes of film and advertising as manipulations of the masses and distractions from real life, this, it seems, is frowned upon by Leavis. Further from this, Leavis suggests that due to the rise in distractions such as these and the mass-production of books, the majority of which are not very well written, people in the 1930s are not as well read as those cultured members of previous generations.

The most interesting thing to consider about this reading, to me, is that this was written in the 1930s with fears of what was to come as a result of mass-production, the dumbing-down of the media and this country's Americanisation. I feel that today we live in a world were 'low-class' culture is everywhere, it dominates our televisions in the forms of X-Factor and The Jeremy Kyle Show, it is portrayed in films such as This is England and Trainspotting and is dominating the press, The Sun being one of the UK's most popular newspapers. However, I do not feel that this means that the cultures which Leavis cares so much about are lost.

A much better and more equal education system means higher levels of culture are readily available to those who wish to enjoy them. Perhaps it is still a minority of the population who choose to outside of school and college but it seems that segregation in classes and levels of culture are on the decrease and the freedom and ability to enjoy a range of different types of entertainment, education and lifestyle choices is on the rise, suggesting that the hostile high-brows and the manipulated masses can be a thing of the past as we all work together for an equal and more culturally rounded society.

What does 'culture' mean to you?

We were asked in a lecture at university to outline one media text which we associate with our own personal cultures, however culture is an incredibly ambiguous term and, as such, I find it hard to identify just one text which truly represents mine. I have therefore decided to describe three different ones so as to give a more accurate depiction of myself.

The first is glossy magazine, Cosmopolitan. This is something I have shared with close female friends for many years, from the age of 13 when I read the less sexualised CosmoGirl, right up until now when my housemates and I pass the grown-up version between us each month and share in the fashion, gossip and lifestyle advice. This is something that I feel represents my culture as a woman and associates me with many others who read the same or similar titles.

As Cosmo affiliates me with an incredibly large cultural group, and I think culture is about far more than gender, I move on to my second media text - the Harry Potter films. These films were shot close to where I grew up and it was common place to have some sort of connection to them, everyone knew someone from the set and in my case I actually was in two of them. If I tell people outside of the Buckinghamshire/Berkshire/Oxfordshire areas this news appears to be incredibly exciting but to me and those who grew up nearby it is nothing that special and is just a part of our culture.

I have now covered aspects of my culture relevant to gender and location, the third and final media text I wish to identify is related to my own personal interests and is the trade title PR Week, which I have only recently started reading. I think that culture is more than about where you came from, it is also about where you are going and, as I hope to enter a career in public relations after I graduate, I feel that this magazine represents my aspirations and goals whilst including content that meets my general interests as a PR student.

These three texts, although quite different, give a basic view of what culture is to me and how I see mine. I think that each individual's culture is forever changing and developing. I find it interesting that my attitude to various aspects of my culture is altered depending on my circumstances. For instance, when I am in the north of the country I feel proud of the fact that I am a southerner, however, when I visit my home-town I take pride in the fact that I moved away and am experiencing something new.

I think that culture connects us with others who share our views, opinions, beliefs or who just happen to live nearby and I think it is something to take pride in and share with other people, after all, that's what it's all about, isn't it?