Marvel’s Black Panther has become a massive success grossing over $1.3 billion so far making it at least the 10th highest grossing film of all time. And it’s for good reasons too, the movie celebrates African culture and with an almost all black cast and director, the film shows that audiences are excited for something different from the typical all white movies Hollywood has been producing and gives hope that change is on the horizon. And on top of all of that, it’s a good movie that’s been well received! However, many people have called this the first black superhero movie which isn’t true. In fact, Black Panther isn’t even the first black lead Marvel superhero movie. That honor, goes to Blade.

Marvel’s Blade came out in 1998 and follows the story of Blade (played by Wesley Snipes), a half vampire, as he stops other vampires from taking control of the entire world with the help of blood specialist, Doctor Karen Jenson (played by N’Bushe Wright). Is that a cheesy movie plot? Yes. Does it have some truly dated late 90’s CGI? Yes. Do the vampires meet in multiple different dance clubs where blood pour out of the sprinklers? Yes! But is it incredibly entertaining? YES! The critic Roger Ebert gave it 3/4 stars and called it “visionary filmmaking” (Source). Blade, despite being rather dated, can, and should, still be watched and enjoyed today. And it deserves to be celebrated as being a major step forward in having African American representation in Hollywood.

Let’s remember that Blade came out in the late 90’s, a time when superhero movies weren’t looking as good as they are now. Movies like Spider-Man and X-Men hadn’t made comic book movies popular yet and the most recent big superhero movie released had been the critically disastrous Batman & Robin. And let’s also keep in mind that vampire movies coming out around this time (Underworld, BloodRayne, and Vampire) were either critical or commercial failures. Yet somehow, this hard R-rated superhero, vampire, kung-fu movie with a black lead comes out a year later and ends up making $131 million (Source) and is well received by critics. On the other hand, Black Panther had the benefit of being the 18th installment in a franchise that has already grossed over $12 billion (Source). Blade had everything going against it but somehow still managed to be successful enough to green light a sequel (directed by Academy Award winning Director Guillermo Del Toro by the way) with a black lead and a black woman costar who, get this, don’t end up dating because the movie actually views the woman as having more to do than just fall in love.

Blade also manages to give some rather nuanced and meaningful commentary on race and race relations. There’s a specific scene in the first Blade movie where Doctor Jenson is attacked by a police officer who is an underling for the vampires. Blade comes and stops him and ends up following him to find another vampire hide out. Having a scene where a black man beats up a cop could be controversial and if the scene was in a movie today, it would probably attract a lot of critics. But Blade avoids this and instead shows the cop not as being symbolic of all police or of all authority but instead offers him as an example of just a bad person who, just like any other bad person, managed to get into a position that he shouldn’t be able to.

Many movies, such as I, Robot or Bright, that deal with extraordinary creatures use them as being symbolic of minority groups but that’s not the case with this movie. Being a vampire isn’t symbolic of anything, they’re just the bad guys. And from watching the movie, one gets the sense that Blade has had his identity formed through being a black man in America more than through being a vampire. The character offers something unique and different from the typical white, male superhero.

So in a few months when Black Panther is out on Blu-Ray and can be streamed, maybe try and convince your friends to watch a different awesome black led Marvel superhero movie. Enjoy a movie that is its own thing and has a unique tone and message. Laugh at some of Blade‘s cheesy dialogue and CGI. Let Wesley Snipes tell you how “some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill” and try to figure out what that means.

The artifact that I will be analyzing in this post is the song “Udi Baba” by Asha Bosle. The song is from a 1982 Indian movie called Vidhaata. During this time period, westernization of Indian culture had just begun to take effect. There is a significant effort made to emulate 80s American disco music, as can be seen through the costumes, the sparkly set, and especially the instrumentals, which incorporate synthesizers and “groovy” bass lines. However, it is important to note that the main part of western culture that this Indian music video tries to exhibit is not the elements of disco, but rather the sexualization of women in pop culture. It may initially appear strange to think that this would be the case, but keep in mind that the directors of this music video were on the outside looking in. They were seeing American culture from an outsider perspective, and they capitalized most on the parts of American culture which they believed to be the most prevalent.

According to this video, it seems that what they took most from American culture was the way that women were objectified in film, music, and popular culture. The first example of such objectification in the video is around 1:02, when the main female dancer comes in. The scene is set-up so that all the onlookers, primarily middle-aged men, are watching this spectacle, and the dancer emits a noise which sounds similar to a female orgasm. In the next few seconds, several different scenes are displayed in which she appears in various parts of the stage, and all of the scenes involve the camera zooming in closer and her emitting the orgasmic sound. The way that these scenes are constructed, with the main dancer emitting the orgasm-like sound and the men watching as she dances, exhibit a clear objectification of the female dancer.

Next, the dancer is dressed as a ringmaster. A ringmaster is usually the person in charge of a performance, and it is important to realize that this usually signifies some sort of power or control over others, specifically in a circus. However, the objectifying theme present in this video devalues the power that a ringmaster usually holds by making it clear that the woman only has an ephemeral sense of control over the men. Her “power” is only her ability to hold the men’s gaze, and without a body that is considered pleasing to their eyes, she would not have this control over them. Thus, this control that the woman is imbued with through her ring master costume is really just an ironic exhibition which serves to further objectify her.

And finally, around 2:33, a man interrupts the flow of the song and says,

“Deewani lagti aaise yeh deeabnon ki mehfi;

Yahape aana aaasan haipar yaha se jaana mushil hai”

which idiomatically translates to: this woman is so seductive that it is hard to leave this place and stop enjoying her sexiness. The sudden break in flow is accompanied by an Indian man in a Superman costume, presumably the speaker, dancing on top of a ledge. His soliloquy has the effect of further objectifying the woman by explicitly illuminating the fact that the dancer is simply a commodity and an object of sexual desire. Additionally, throughout the song, none of her individual qualities are brought up in the lyrics. Instead, most of the dancer’s lines focus on broad, sweeping proclamations of love for men in general.

This stark objectification of women in an Indian music video from the 80s reveals the perceptions of foreign individuals on American culture. It was seen as a culture which over-sexualizes women and attempts to portray them as objects of men’s desire. The music video and lyrics of “Udi Baba” are an attempt to emulate this toxic aspect of western culture.

While Disney’s Beauty and The Beast is presented as a classic romantic musical, elements hidden beneath its surface dive into more in-depth concepts regarding sexual advancement and slight defiance of gender roles. Both the 2017 live action and the original film contain structural components that coincide with stereotypical gender roles  and hinted exploration in sexuality.

Many of the film’s stereotypes reside in its characters. There’s Gaston, the self-obsessed ‘manly man’ with military experience and guns, who possesses an ego so large it only leaves enough room for a simple trophy wife to work in his kitchen. He views Belle (and women in general) more as an object than a human, and essentially feels that he will ‘own’ her one day; assuming that Belle will cater to his every need and desire. Gaston expects Belle to undermine her own dreams and desires to make way for his own goal of a picture-perfect family. His ideology relates to the sexist viewpoint that men are ‘in charge’: though this isn’t necessarily a modern POV in our society, it also hasn’t been completely erased and still surfaces from time to time. Further, Gaston owns a village pub and wields the respect/envy of the entire town. This character embodies stereotypical “ideal masculinity”; a muscular, athletic (somewhat dumb), successful, bearded man with women on each arm. When he learns of Belle imprisonment in the Beast’s castle, Gaston feels that it is entirely his manly duty to save her – because women can’t save themselves, right? Gaston’s notorious ego is also responsible for his constant manipulation of many of the other characters in order to get his way. He messes with Belle, her father (whom he attempted to lock away in an insane asylum unless granted Belle’s hand in marriage), many women in the village, even his own trusty sidekick, LeFou.

Belle, though she may immediately appear (and essentially is) strong-willed and fearless, she is also depicted as the typical well-behaved, selfless girl stuck in a never-ending daydream. She is educated, yes, but men disregard that and only view her as a pretty little trophy intended for marriage and house chores; with the slight exception of her father/educator recognizing Belle’s potential. However, she is still the maid and caretaker of their house, without solid evidence of Maurice assisting Belle in house chores – this is prevalent in both the original film and 2017 live action remake. In the Beast’s castle, Belle steps up to the plate and replaces her father’s imprisoned position within the jail cell. This was undoubtedly an act of selflessness and courage, and could even be viewed as a step in a feminist direction – if it did not mean her physical detainment. As she spends her days locked in the palace, Belle repeatedly showed strength in defiance against the Beast and refusal to give way to his demands. But while she did technically put herself into that position, Belle is essentially trapped at the hands of a man, and we can see the progression of Stockholm Syndrome develop. At one point, Belle manages to escape the Beast’s clutches and ride off into the forest; where an unfortunate run-in with wolves causes the Beast to ‘save’ her from being devoured by the pack. However, this event causes Belle to return back to the castle – so did the Beast actually save her? Some could argue that Belle, in turn, mends his wounds and therefore evens the playing field in ‘saving’, but in reality, which one of them is the prisoner?

Underlying exploration in sexuality can be seen in the role of LeFou, Gaston’s trusty sidekick. While subtext is still present in the original animated film, the 2017 live action implemented heavier hints at his sexuality, and received backlash for it. LeFou’s “exclusively gay” moment in the film’s remaking can be largely seen as expansion upon lighter elements previously already hinting at his sexuality. LeFou is constantly batting down all the women (mainly Belle) that Gaston sets his eyes on, and constantly sighing or staring at the true object of his desire. LeFou isn’t shy about complimenting and building Gaston up; his dedicated song in the tavern pays tribute to just that. Josh Gad’s exaggerated performance doesn’t exactly stray enormously from the original film’s interpretation of the character, so arguably this component does not enhance LeFou’s sexual outbreak. It is notable, however, that Lefou’s over-the-top sexuality is almost played for laughs in the 2017 remake; with his suggestive jabs practically lost on his self-centered ring leader.

But LeFou is not left completely stranded: he stars in a moment of self-empowerment as he finally recognizes Gaston’s ignorance/villainy and instead goes to “play (fight) for the other team”, while also earning a brief suggestive glance with another man. We’re happy for you, LeFou. Mrs. Potts also rewards him with a comment relating to “He doesn’t deserve you, anyway,” targeting Gaston’s harsh treatment. Despite these very obvious indications of LeFou’s sexuality, it doesn’t seem as ‘groundbreaking’ or fully representative of the LGBTQ+ community in films as Disney originally claimed for the 2017 live action. After all, this character is competing with Belle and the Beast – so it could appear that queer relationships are being swept under the rug in comparison. It seems like a constant compromise for LGBTQ+ viewers; either their sexuality representation is restricted with subtext or sidelined completely. Considering Disney’s history of shying away from such elements, their inclusion of an ‘obviously gay’ character is important, especially since they directly stated/headlined this component instead of “leaving it to viewer interpretation”. Those in charge of the film’s production still tiptoed around the subject a tad, but the 2017 live action Beauty and the Beast is a fairly solid first step in future advancement.

Wonder Woman’s representation of a feminism embodies iconic defiance against gender roles. In 1941 when William Moulton Marston brought the character to life, it was widely received as a promise of feminist action in the (near) future. While basically all comics at that time consisted of men, for men, Wonder Woman broke the stigma and portrayed women as –  rightfully – equally as powerful as their counterparts: thus was born one of the most publicly famous heroines of all time. Countless examples of feminine strength are portrayed in Wonder Woman, from Diana’s role in the war to German enemies.

Focusing specifically on Patty Jenkins’ 2017 DC film production, Wonder Woman has taken a lot of hits (from both men and women) because of the pressure and high expectations that naturally follow a breakthrough against deeply-rooted stereotypes. For the first time since 1984, a female superhero has anchored a film. Worldwide, the film has been celebrated and praised for its significant steps forward; it became the biggest blockbuster ever directed by a woman, it stars a dominant, badass woman fighting a “man’s war”, and is a modern debut of a long-awaited female hero. Many consider Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman to be a tremendous step forward for women, and yet some still view it as three steps back.

Though many applaud Diana, some view her role as a glossed-over “damsel in distress” male-Hollywood gambit. Her ‘revealing’ clothing has been branded insensible for function or battle, and could arguably exemplify Hollywood’s sexualization of women. Many also associate Wonder Woman with ‘intersectionality’ – the ideology that identities (sex, gender, race, class, religion, etc.) can heighten women’s exposure to oppression. This can be seen through accusations of Wonder Woman encompassing unrealistic body expectations; her ‘perfect’ body, abilities, beauty, etc. sparked debate on the character conforming to the ‘ideal female aesthetic’. And, she gets the dreamy hero soldier in a sweep of gunfire and smoke (many were annoyed by the slightly sidetracked romance).

Although Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) is the main protagonist in her film, her role does not stand alone in suggesting female strength. Paradise Island, home of the Amazons, operates solely by the power of women. They govern, train, and thrive completely on their own; far from the reach of humankind. Self-sufficiency and strength allows these women to live an empowered, purposeful life with missions to defend mankind if necessary. Similar to these female icons stands Doctor Poison, an innovative chemist working with the German forces in WWI. Her inclusion in Wonder Woman suggests women’s equality among men, specifically emphasizing brainpower, in spite of the time period or ‘side’ of the war. Her mind and skills are unparalleled by any man in the German forces. Dr Poison’s character recognizes the notion that being ‘erased’ from history is as much a blow to feminism, despite which force they reside with. Upon meeting Steve’s secretary, Etta, Diana is confused and unsold on the idea of such a job position, and unapprovingly says “Where I come from, that’s called slavery,” to Etta. On a similar note, her clothing choices do not coincide with London fashion, and as the dress-up montage commences, Diana claims “I can’t fight in this,” as she repeatedly rejects different items. A separate scene shows Diana rooting herself into the all-male British military board room after Steve tells her to remain outside its doors, but Wonder Woman definitely doesn’t take orders from men. Diana firmly tells Steve “What I do is not up to you,” making this notion perfectly clear, and continues about her mission.

One of the most notable characteristics about Wonder Woman isn’t the fancy weapons or God-like skills she possesses. Diana’s empathy and love for others ends up being one of her strongest forces – she herself is the ultimate weapon that saves the world. She values love and peace over hate and destruction, and permanently sacrifices her homeland and family to venture out and save the human race. She knows no bounds to ability or gender; to Diana, everyone is equal. Wonder Woman combines force, beauty, and tenacity to demonstrate that strength can be equally found in masculinity and femininity.

This episode features not only a pretty interesting and straightforward conversation about the construct of the gender binary and genderqueerness, but also a bit of Ohio (Akron) history! Have a listen if you feel so inclined.

http://www.feralaudio.com/1-rhea-butcher/

This assignment asks students to contribute to a shared blog (http://u.osu.edu/eng2367section14663) dedicated to primary texts relevant to the course theme. Throughout the semester students will submit their own entry to the blog (2-3 pages), about any primary source of their choosing related to the theme. Students might choose a film, a television show (or a particular episode), a song/music video, a visual or musical artist, a comic, a video game, a podcast, or any other relevant artifact. Students’ posts will include: 1) a brief description and summary of the artifact and why it was chosen and 2) an analysis of the artifact. This analysis does not necessarily need to be driven by a thesis, but should include close reading and should analyze the ways in which the artifact engages with the themes/topics we have been discussing in class. Students may write about why this artifact is particularly interesting in the context of the course theme, how this artifact relates to other similar texts we have examined in class, or how the artifact engages with our course theme in particularly unique or challenging ways. Because this blog post is intended for a public audience (as opposed to an academic audience), students have the freedom to exercise a more casual writing style, although an academic level of critical thought is still expected. Posts will be assessed based on depth of analysis, critical thought, and connection to the course themes and conversations. Essentially, this assignment is just like the Literary Analysis paper but intended for a different audience. Below is a list of objectives; I will refer to these objectives when grading this assignment. This assignment is due at any point before the final day of class on Monday, April 23.

 Objectives:

• Choose one primary source – a film, comic, television show/episode, song/music video, video game, podcast, or other artifact relevant to our course.
• Produce a 2-3 page analysis that demonstrates your ability to identify and extrapolate on elements of your text that are interesting, revealing, or strange. Your analysis should begin with a brief summary/description, but more importantly must engage in close reading and interpretation.
• Assert and maintain your own critical voice as you discuss explicitly the ways in which this artifact fits in with our course theme and how it engages with the topics/tropes/themes that we have discussed in class.
• Include an image of or link to your artifact for your readers’ reference.

**Students may complete an additional blog post for extra credit.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!