Entry #4 - Is Porn Really An Addiction

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What the Hell Is Blaxploitation?

            Blaxploitation was a hot topic in our class where the focus was the 1971 (and original) version of Shaft.  It had a lot of meaning, depending on which film was being discussed and who was discussing it.  Different definitions include it being filmmakers in general figuring out how to exploit the black crowd but putting out films with all black people.  Others saw it as a way to exploit the black actors AND black audiences.  I almost found this to be a bit racist.  Only having black actors in the main roles?  Why was it so difficult to have racially-mixed casts?

            It was definitely an interesting film but I find myself more and more preferring newer films, which would mean I preferred the Samuel L Jackson version more.  I know I'll never hear the end of it if I ever bring that up in conversation so I'll delegate those feelings to this entry.  The feeling I get is that older people like older movies more.  It's more of a memory jogger of the "good 'ole days" rather than actually being better quality films.  The viewers were younger, livelier, and still had a full life ahead of them so that was when they were enjoying these films.  Not only that, but also these films were brand new back then, where everything else comparable couldn't actually surpass it in quality.

            Not to sound too contradictory, but a perfect example of why I could be wrong about older films is ANY TYLER PERRY movie.  I don't understand who gives this guy money to make movies.  I understand that they make money because every black person in the United States goes and sees every movie that he releases, which seems to practically averages about a dozen a year!  He writes and directs all of them but they're all about the same stupid characters whether it's about him, Madea or a "mad black woman" that will drive you nuts.

            Tyler Perry is definitely not stupid.  He'd have to be dumb to listen to every person that tells him how much his movies suck.  If he listened, he'd stop wasting everyone's time by making these movies.  But instead, he listened to some film professor or history teacher somewhere when they were covering the 70s and Blaxploitation.  He watched Shaft and thought to himself "Hmm… Black people like this movie and it's all black people in it… I should do the same thing when I'm older!" and that's how he started to make these idiotic movies such as Madea's Family Reunion, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, and Daddy's Little Girl.

            I really do understand why these movies keep getting made.  They make money.  They're following the same business model of films like Shaft and Superfly: Blaxploitation.  It's a relatively untapped resource at this point and is no different than the biggest trend of this past decade: super hero movies.  It's also no different than Disney movies, 3D movies, and horror movies that follow the same stupid guidelines for how to scare people.  It's almost as if Tyler Perry read "Blaxploitation Films for Dummies" when he was in film school.

Women in Society: Then and Now

The article I read from the Seventies was from Rolling Stone and was about a woman who was basically trying to make something for herself rather than being the typical woman.  In searching for a comparable article, I came across one of the most ridiculous magazines currently around: Cosmopolitan.  So, instead of comparing the Rolling Stone article with an article from present day, I'm comparing it with an entire magazine from present day.

I looked through the magazine both in paper and online.  It's ridiculous what these women spend their time doing, acting as if it's really a life-or-death situation as to whether they use the right hair products or makeup.  It seems as if a lot of women have failed to advance in how society looks at them from the seventies and even before that.  As I guy, I can certainly appreciate women trying to spruce up their looks, however, it's not doing much more for themselves other than maybe getting a better guy (although a "better guy" wouldn't be judging a woman on her style).

One of the articles I read from Cosmo was about how this woman, Jessica, talked about having a live-in boyfriend and how she gave up on working out because her boyfriend ran everyday and she got lazy and couldn't keep up.  Yet, she did feel guilty about it, so I guess that's a good way to look at why she should do something like becoming healthier.  She based her decisions on a guy rather than herself and her own health benefits.

Looking at the Rolling Stone article, there's some strong evidence of a woman actually trying to get past stereotypes and trying to advance herself in society.  She wants a job but not the type women were expected to have like her mother, who was a nurse.  The difference between her mother and most of those women of her day was that, even though she became the typical nurse, her real dreams had been to become a doctor and that she "didn't fit into the suburban world" and was "not a socializer."  She wanted to be a doctor.  She even had the encouragement of her father.

Even as this woman's mother moved toward independence, going back to school to get a degree, "she was still expected to come home to make supper" every night.  The limits she saw hardly held her back.  To go back to today's media and look at Cosmo, it's frustrating to see women essentially shooting themselves in the foot.  They're placing limits on themselves with these stupid articles about how to look better.  People actually spend that much time researching beauty and writing about it?!?

The steps taken from this woman's mother being a nurse and attending school for a degree to this woman exploring her own independence through joining groups like the ERA and NOW and then to finally women now who spend their time figuring out how to look best for guys.  What would really work best for guys when they look at women is to see some initiative as far as education and developing their careers goes.  I know Cosmopolitan is a magazine specifically targeted at women who are uncomfortable with themselves, but that's a lot of people.  This magazine is extremely popular and seems to have a much bigger impact on people than it should.  Instead there should be a magazine that guys would read as well: one that talks about how to succeed in the work force, or how to be your own person and stand out as an individual, more specifically targeted toward women who are trying to advance the standing of women in society today, at least pushing it past the point that it was at when the Rolling Stone article was written.