videos again... and pretentious pop culture academia thoughts
had totally forgotten about the Sugarcubes. Bjork looks about twelve in this video. It always amazes me how much sound can come out of that tiny thing.
I didn't watch MTV back in its heyday - for most of my childhood we didn't have cable. I remember seeing "Thriller" at a friend's house, and have memories of "Sledgehammer" by Peter Gabriel, but otherwise I missed out until my late teens, and then I wasn't really that interested. So this video-watching obsession now is kinda funny to me. Especially because 98% of music videos suck ass. And yet still I watch.
in other news, because I am obsessive and can't resist pop culture studies, I recently purchased this book on Miami Vice. I think it's some guy's masters thesis. Anyway, it's not the easiest thing to read, not because of the content but because the writer's style is very jumbled, it doesn't flow well. Occasionally it comes across as if it was translated using Babelfish. Some of the ideas are interesting, and some I completely disagree with.
the cat just climbed on my lap regardless of the laptop. she's a persistent thing.
Anyway, the author of the Vice book seems to be trying to prove that the show reflected the neo-conservative, consumerist strain of the 1980s and gets in depth about its patriarchal construction of masculine identity. At the same time, he admits that the show contradicts these things. He's all over the place. So I'm not sure what his point is. He does make some very good arguments about the roles of women in the show (not the most feminist show ever, Miami Vice) but despite this I think the show consistently undermines the "neoconservative" idea of masculine power. I think a better thesis would have been that the show commented on and reflected just that ambiguity - that Vietnam and Watergate and the various civil rights movements were events that acted to diminish the authority of typical Western white-male power and that the eighties reflected the beginning of a kind of limbo, where that power continually tries and fails to completely reassert its traditional unquestioned authority.
This is reflected in the way the show uses a character with consistently submissive body language and a decidedly Eastern moral code as the ultimate authority (Lt. Castillo, who avoids eye contact and dominant postures much of the time). Also in the way the male characters have no qualms about comforting each other, showing tenderness and touching physically, and asking after one another's well-being (the touchy-feeliness I joked about earlier). The author comments on the fractured state of the nuclear family in the show as well - and this also contradicts values of the Reagan era - the very "masculine" occupation of the characters (law enforcement) is shown to be the thing preventing them from enjoying a traditional family life. Crockett's ex-wife Carolyn is not shown as a villain for her desire to separate from him - in fact Crockett is all too aware of her reasons and understands them, even if this causes him pain.
(commercial break :
jadefire88, the Cranberries video for "Zombie" features footage of the murals in Northern Ireland, FYI)
Also, if the show truly was constructed around a neoconservative value system wouldn't the forces of law and order prevail a bit more often?? This lack of tidy endings, the way the protagonists are repeatedly denied success in fighting the never-ending stream of baddies, seems to me to deny the unquestionable force of patriarchal power. Yes, the characters are seen as honorable because they continue to fight this unwinnable battle, but traditional governmental authority (DEA, FBI, CIA etc) is also shown to be corrupt or incompetent much of the time as well.
And as far as consumerism goes, on the show it is a symbol of corruption. The glamorous trappings of wealth are repeatedly a sign of criminal lifestyle or weak morals. Yes, the protagonists also are shown with these symbols (Crockett's boats, ferraris, both his and Tubbs' clothing) but the point that so many critics seem to miss (including the author of this book) is that in the case of the cops, these are false fronts, tools - masks. They don't own or benefit from these luxuries. OVer and over the point is made on the show that the cops make significantly less money (Crockett is often shown to be broke, or makes comments about a cop's salary) than the men they pretend to be. Over and over cops are shown to have committed criminal acts by giving in to the temptation to get a part of this wealth they are surrounded with as part of their jobs but cannot participate in. Crockett doesn't even have his own home - the boat he lives on really belongs to the Vice department and is part of his cover.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Miami Vice actively subverts traditional patriarchal ideas, even if it does dispute neoconservativism and consumerism - I think it shows a society where patriarchal values are no longer sustainable, but have yet to be replaced with an alternative - the honorable characters struggle to find their own moral centers in this chaotic vacuum.
whew. okay, enough rambling for now. I have a million other thoughts, but I haven't watched the series in its entirety yet so I think I'll save them for another day.
Note to my HL buddies: no, I haven't abandoned HL! As I was telling
unovis_lj, the Methosmuse has fled for cooler climes and the humidity has only encouraged my Vice muse. Plus, shiny new obsession. But I still have several HL things in the works, just on the back burner.
I didn't watch MTV back in its heyday - for most of my childhood we didn't have cable. I remember seeing "Thriller" at a friend's house, and have memories of "Sledgehammer" by Peter Gabriel, but otherwise I missed out until my late teens, and then I wasn't really that interested. So this video-watching obsession now is kinda funny to me. Especially because 98% of music videos suck ass. And yet still I watch.
in other news, because I am obsessive and can't resist pop culture studies, I recently purchased this book on Miami Vice. I think it's some guy's masters thesis. Anyway, it's not the easiest thing to read, not because of the content but because the writer's style is very jumbled, it doesn't flow well. Occasionally it comes across as if it was translated using Babelfish. Some of the ideas are interesting, and some I completely disagree with.
the cat just climbed on my lap regardless of the laptop. she's a persistent thing.
Anyway, the author of the Vice book seems to be trying to prove that the show reflected the neo-conservative, consumerist strain of the 1980s and gets in depth about its patriarchal construction of masculine identity. At the same time, he admits that the show contradicts these things. He's all over the place. So I'm not sure what his point is. He does make some very good arguments about the roles of women in the show (not the most feminist show ever, Miami Vice) but despite this I think the show consistently undermines the "neoconservative" idea of masculine power. I think a better thesis would have been that the show commented on and reflected just that ambiguity - that Vietnam and Watergate and the various civil rights movements were events that acted to diminish the authority of typical Western white-male power and that the eighties reflected the beginning of a kind of limbo, where that power continually tries and fails to completely reassert its traditional unquestioned authority.
This is reflected in the way the show uses a character with consistently submissive body language and a decidedly Eastern moral code as the ultimate authority (Lt. Castillo, who avoids eye contact and dominant postures much of the time). Also in the way the male characters have no qualms about comforting each other, showing tenderness and touching physically, and asking after one another's well-being (the touchy-feeliness I joked about earlier). The author comments on the fractured state of the nuclear family in the show as well - and this also contradicts values of the Reagan era - the very "masculine" occupation of the characters (law enforcement) is shown to be the thing preventing them from enjoying a traditional family life. Crockett's ex-wife Carolyn is not shown as a villain for her desire to separate from him - in fact Crockett is all too aware of her reasons and understands them, even if this causes him pain.
(commercial break :
jadefire88, the Cranberries video for "Zombie" features footage of the murals in Northern Ireland, FYI)
Also, if the show truly was constructed around a neoconservative value system wouldn't the forces of law and order prevail a bit more often?? This lack of tidy endings, the way the protagonists are repeatedly denied success in fighting the never-ending stream of baddies, seems to me to deny the unquestionable force of patriarchal power. Yes, the characters are seen as honorable because they continue to fight this unwinnable battle, but traditional governmental authority (DEA, FBI, CIA etc) is also shown to be corrupt or incompetent much of the time as well.
And as far as consumerism goes, on the show it is a symbol of corruption. The glamorous trappings of wealth are repeatedly a sign of criminal lifestyle or weak morals. Yes, the protagonists also are shown with these symbols (Crockett's boats, ferraris, both his and Tubbs' clothing) but the point that so many critics seem to miss (including the author of this book) is that in the case of the cops, these are false fronts, tools - masks. They don't own or benefit from these luxuries. OVer and over the point is made on the show that the cops make significantly less money (Crockett is often shown to be broke, or makes comments about a cop's salary) than the men they pretend to be. Over and over cops are shown to have committed criminal acts by giving in to the temptation to get a part of this wealth they are surrounded with as part of their jobs but cannot participate in. Crockett doesn't even have his own home - the boat he lives on really belongs to the Vice department and is part of his cover.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Miami Vice actively subverts traditional patriarchal ideas, even if it does dispute neoconservativism and consumerism - I think it shows a society where patriarchal values are no longer sustainable, but have yet to be replaced with an alternative - the honorable characters struggle to find their own moral centers in this chaotic vacuum.
whew. okay, enough rambling for now. I have a million other thoughts, but I haven't watched the series in its entirety yet so I think I'll save them for another day.
Note to my HL buddies: no, I haven't abandoned HL! As I was telling
unovis_lj, the Methosmuse has fled for cooler climes and the humidity has only encouraged my Vice muse. Plus, shiny new obsession. But I still have several HL things in the works, just on the back burner.