Hollywood Through the Looking Glass

The theorists associated with the Frankfurt School seem to firmly believe that when it comes to popular culture there is no such thing as an original idea. They argue that popular music, for example, is an ever repetitive form of entertainment and that even when a song or piece of pop music presents itself as new and fresh it is merely demonstrating 'pseudo-individualization', in other words, it pretends to be different but is really just the same as all the others.

I personally find it hard to agree with this pessimistic view that the type of culture which has surrounded me my entire life is stuck in some mass-produced rut. However, there is one industry for which their theories may in fact be true.

Hollywood churns out hundreds of films every year, each one competing to win the most Oscars, spend the most money, make the most epic use of special effects and use the biggest stars. It seems that the Hollywood studios are less concerned with producing quality entertainment than they are with backing the biggest blockbusters in order to make the most money. Even when a film-maker attempts to create something different they still tend to adhere to the same old rules. Take Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland for example, a dark and surreal film ought to differ from the mainstream, however his keen application of CGI and special effects and his use of 3D images just goes to show that even oddball Burton conforms to the Hollywood formula.

This unintelligent method of film-making is disheartening for a film fan. Cashing in on the latest technological advances and making movies with the same worn-out plots and the same tired actors causes the industry to lack excitement or originality. Independent cinema, despite having less money to do so, seems much more likely to take risks and produce some thought-provoking films which the audience haven't seen before. Unfortunately, as the cinema-going audience have been dumbed-down by Hollywood, independent films are hardly ever really given the chance to be seen. Instead they are hidden away in art house cinemas and specialist DVD shops.

This cycle means that the uneducated masses rarely have the chance to watch more intelligent, original cinema and are instead force fed the same old money-making blockbusters time and time again.

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.

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?