Living with the fear of the end.

Apocalypse, like we discussed in the last lecture, is one of the defining features of Christianity. As the lecture mentioned, Abrahamic religions believe in the spectrum of beginning and the end. We have discussed few lectures ago that people are afraid of the unknowable, and because of that, we tend to be attracted to movies or television shows that put our fear for the unknown in visual form, and we talked about how monsters are the representations of this. Apocalypse, aka the end of the world, is a scary thought. Looking at the issue on a Christian perspective, Apocalypse is very similar to the idea of “death”, it will be here one day, we don’t know when and we don’t know what happens after. Horror movies capture this fear we have for death, and similarly, many movies seem to capture this fear of the end to get audiences' attention.

Because of the this fear we have of the end, many films and television shows tend to carry an apocalyptic theme, some portray this explicitly and others do it "rather" implicitly. Well-known explicit apocalyptic films include “The Day After Tomorrow”, “The Book of Eli”, “2012”…etc. Interestingly, I think the rather implicit apocalyptic films tend to have this crossover with horror/monsters theme, because of this, though the idea of apocalypticism remains but it seems less obvious. Example would be “Omen”, famous horror movie about a demonic kid taking over the world; “Pleasant Point”, was not a highly popular television show, but similarly to “Omen” it focuses on the idea that the evil is gradually taking over humanity; and most recently “American Horror Story, judging by its name and the first few episode, most would assume its strictly horror based television show, until the end of the first season, it slowly reveals its implicit religious-apocalyptic theme (when main character gets pregnant with a demonic child, and a psychic predicts the kid would have a massive influence on the human race).

               

"American Horror Story" Episode 11-"Birth" trailer:

                                                    Ghosts getting eager for the birth of the demonic child.

Both the lectures on monsters and the last lecture on apocalypse demonstrate very clear examples of the complex interaction between religion and popular culture. We have spent a lot of time in this course discussing this interaction, from the knowledge I have gathered throughout these 12 weeks, I’m debating the possibility if fear of the unknown actually came before religion. Religion could be generated from our fear of death/the unknown, faith and belief can comfort our fear by allowing us to the opportunity to imagine what the unknown looks like. As technology advanced, this idea of comforting our fear is taken up by the media, and the notion to target this fear in Christianity is often portrayed in movies and television shows, and eventually became a huge popular culture. Though of course there is a possibility that because our fear for the unknown is so huge that it could be a form of popular culture before everything else. I think it is this fear of the end that we are living with, contributed to the popularity of apocalyptic films.

As mentioned, apocalypse to Christians, is very similar to the idea of death, it is scary to the human race because it is unknowable. The media industry could have picked up this phobia and reinforce it by producing movies/television shows that capture this fear, and allow audience the opportunity to visualize the unknown. And by putting the unknown in a visual form, it indirectly comforts our fear, therefore, we enjoy it.  In a bigger picture, this demonstrates the complexity of the relationship between Christianity and popular culture, and how they reinforce and interact with each other, and therefore, I think apocalypse is an excellent topic to conclude this blog, as well as this course.


Cowan, Douglas. “Stalking Life: Fear of Death and of Dying Badly.” In Sacred Terror: Religion and Horror on the Silver Screen, 123-66. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 200.
Ostwalt, Conrad. “Movies and the Apocalypse.” In Secular Steeples: Popular Culture And The Religious Imagination, 157-88. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 200.
Walsh, Richard. “The Horror, The Horror: What Kind of (Horror) Movie is the Apocalypse?” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 22 (2010), 27 pp

What children learn from Jesus movies.

Found this somewhere, and just thought its an interesting picture to describe our lecture on sexuality and children few weeks ago as well as the theme of the course. Enjoy!

Response to "Credibility, Gender and Media"

This is a response to Sofia's "Credibility, Gender and Media"

Here is the original post: http://christianityandpopularculture.blogspot.ca/2012/03/credibility-gender-and-media.html

Sofia, I totally with you on the lack of credibility we see in the portrayal of women in the media. To be honest, I’m not really a news person, so I never really paid attention to the female portrayal in news reporting, and you’ve brought up really interesting points about that! I realize that the lack of credibility in the portrayal of women is very common in the media, especially in movies and television shows. As a huge fan of shows like Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives, I notice that even though these shows target female audiences, there are always negative portrayals and stereotypes found in them, and these messages could reinforce female stereotypical roles in the society, and send wrong messages to young adults.

All about gossips.

Sex and the City (SATC) - an extremely popular television show during 1998-2004, it was so popular that there are two movies made to continue the story 4 years after its finale. SATC was so hit that it became a huge popular culture in North America, there are special tours organized for SATC fans, sales boosted dramatically after the SATC actresses were seen using or wearing certain products/clothing, and recently the apartment that the main character Carrie Bradshaw lives, is now for sale asking for millions. SATC demonstrates an excellent example of the interaction between popular culture and the portrayal of women in the media. The four main characters-Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte, are portrayed as four middle aged, educated and highly successful women. The show is mainly about these four women gathering around and gossip about men, this illustrate one of the common ways of female portrayal in television that we covered in lecture. The television show is based on the assumption that even successful and beautiful women’s lives would not be complete without men, and the entire show surrounds on the theme of the four single women, each searching for the perfect man. Interestingly, the characters personality and encounters seem to counteract with each other to enforce the stereotype that women are weak and that men are the ultimate remedy for their problems.

Charlotte paid the price for her "Happy Ending".

For example, Carrie and Charlotte carry a very traditional stereotype of women. Carrie is dreamy and constantly tries to get attention from men, and she can never get enough of her prince charming-Mr Big, and often gets very emotional when she does not receive enough attention. Charlotte is the typical girl next door that would give up everything for the man she loves, even though she is very good-looking, she ultimately has to convert her religion to settle for a guy that isn't very attractive. Miranda and Samantha are shown as rather masculine characters, they are independent, strong, and highly successful. Miranda ultimate falls for a guy that is a lot less successful than she is, and gives up many aspects of her success to be with the guy and her children. Samantha, is most untypical female character in the show, she is strongly opinionated, doesn’t like dating and makes it clear that she only enjoys sex but nothing else, though at certain times, she is revealed to be weak and just like the other characters, she craves the attention from men and struggles to keep her feelings apart from just sex. The SATC movie was release 4 years after its finale, and it shows a “happy ending” for all characters, which is-finally finding their prince charming. This television show assumes that these gorgeous, fashionable, well-educated, independent and successful women are not happy, and the show surrounds on their gatherings and conversations they have with each other about their failure to meet the right guy, as long as they have found a significant other, that’s the “happy ending”. This sets another example of the lack of credibility in the portrayal of women in mainstream media.

Typical conversation and gathering in SATC, and Samantha falls for the guy that previous cheated on her.

Television shows or movies that carry similar themes often have high ratings. It is difficult to figure whether it was popular culture that influences people to make films or shows like this, or if it is these shows that shaped the culture somehow. I personally tend to believe that the media saw the culture, create based on it, and produce shows or movies that further reinforce that culture in the society. And why do people like these shows? Perhaps it has something do with religion. North America is Christian-centric, and like we discussed in lecture, women are often perceived as inferior to men in religion. Perhaps audience who grew up from this culture got comfortable with this idea, and therefore tends to favor shows or movies that convey this stereotype. The relationship between religion, popular culture, and the portrayal of gender is complex, and I think SATC is a perfect example to illustrate this complexity.

Sick Samantha: Though portrayed as a strong female, the most masculine character out of the others, Samantha shows her desire for a man when shes weak and says "I should have gotten married".

Response to "Toddlers and... Sexuality?"

This is a response to Chloe's "Toddlers and…Sexuality?"

Here is the original post: http://chloesmc305.blogspot.ca/2012/04/toddlers-and-sexuality.html

Chloe, I too find Toddlers and Tiaras pretty horrifying. I haven’t seen a full episode of it, but I have seen bits and pieces from commercials, and it breaks my heart whenever I see a little girl being forced to dress sexually. The worst part is when their mom applies false lashes on them (I can imagine how uncomfortable it is for such young girls to wear false lashes), they cry really hard but the mothers don’t really care, some even lecture them for not “behaving” well. I recently read an article (attached below) about a show very similar to “Toddlers and Tiaras” called “Dance Moms”, and the article talks about the little girls in the show being forced to wear bikinis that are two sizes too small for them, and the reason is to appear like they are naked (really grossed me out). One girl cries and yells that she didn’t want to be naked in front of a large group of audiences, but they make her do it anyways. If this happen to an adult, she has her every right to refuse and if someone forces her, she can even call for sexual harassment, if it is wrong to do such things to adult why would it be okay to do it to children? Because they are helpless? 

"Dance Moms" little girls' naked costume.

A little too much?Cyrus was underage when this was taken.

I think reason why these shows are getting more popular and more shows are coming up with idea of sexualizing children, because for some reasons there are demands for it. It is very difficult to fully understand if popular culture influences media, or if it’s the other way around, I believe is a combination of both. I think for this case, recent popular culture seems to promote pedophilia (making attraction to younger adults like a normal thing). I always wonder why Justin Bieber became such a huge icon, when he first got famous, he was only 15 or 16, and there were people out there who were twice or triple his age calling him “hot”. Disney stars like Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez…etc, often have some sort of baby face, but they are presented as sexualized adults. Miley Cyrus is often criticized for her skimpy outfits, and Selena Gomez is often shown with a lot of make-up and very mature outfits. Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez’s relationship is highly publicized, there are tons of pictures of them public displaying their affection, though the two may not be underage anymore at this point, but due to their teenage-looking-image, those coverage still gross me out. Perhaps it is celebrities like this that promoted the trend of liking younger adults, like we discussed at the beginning of the course, celebrities are carefully crafted to look a certain way, however, the combination of baby-face looking teenagers and adulterous outfits or sexualized image certainly does not impress me.

Young-looking adults or sexualized teenagers?

A little young for Vanity Fair?

Personally I think the trend of making even younger children looking/acting like adults and sexualizing them seem to be a reinforcement of the culture of what I would refer to as pedophilia. Moreover, the discussion we had in lecture on how advertisers try to promote their products to children by sexualizing them was definitely shocking to hear. I hope that audience will one day be aware of these issues and recognize the effect it has on children, because it is only through them (not only criticizing but also by boycotting and saying no to sexualizing kids) that can stop the unhealthy trend this unethical business people are promoting (they wouldn’t promote the trend if they can’t make profit). Sometimes I wonder where the trend of liking and sexualizing younger adults came from, and of course, it is so complex that it’s almost impossible to see. 

Article about "Dance Moms" and the 'naked' little girls:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2112156/Dance-Moms-hits-new-low-Girls-young-EIGHT-wear-nude-bikinis-burlesque-routines.html

Response to "Disney Movies: Good? Bad?"

This is a response to Stratis's "Disney Movies: Good? Bad?"

Here is the original post: http://stratisthesundayschooldrop-out.blogspot.ca/2012/03/disney-movies-good-bad.html

Stratis, I agree with your point that “what Towbin et al.’s lacks is any sort of research on what effects this form of media actually has”, and its pretty interesting how you found a video that literally describes everything about the article.  I agree with the video in the way that Disney movies seem to inject certain gender stereotype in children. I have to admit that I was also a “victim” of Disney just like Jenna. I humiliated myself in public because I thought it was okay to sing or act like my favorite Disney characters, and like Jenna I was not allowed to wear two-piece swimsuit until pretty recently, it was my ultimate wish to own a two-piece swimsuit, why? Because that’s what Ariel wears! Everytime I went to the beach, I beg my parents to bury me in the sand and build me a sand fish tail. Disney does have certain influence in my childhood, but as I got older, I kind of grew out of my princess-wannabe-phase, and of course eventually I did realize that Disney princesses are just fairy tales. Perhaps, like you mention that Disney does not have any permanent negative effect on children. 

Disney's view of culture diversity

From my personal experience, I do believe that it has some sort on influence on me when I was little, but the effect seems insignificant as I got older. I think education, family background would affect the influence Disney have on children, like I haven’t notice so much negativity Disney films contain before college, and now that I do, I am more aware of it. As for the problem of racism in Disney films, I tend to look at it in a good way. Like I mentioned, I never really realize the negativity Disney films have, I don’t know how other children watch television but for myself, I was more of a visual kid. I like cartoons, anything colorful, cute and pretty,  and to be honest, I don’t think I listened to conversations in cartoons at all. I grew up in a place with not much cultural diversity and to me, it was only through Disney films that I learned about all kinds of different races and cultures, that could be partly the reason why I never found it unusual when I saw different cultures/races in reality. Funny, but I think Disney actually taught me cultural diversity. 

Princess wannabes: A phase that most of us went through

Though many scholars like Towbin et al. argue about the negativity in Disney films on children, but perhaps we should consider the possibility that children may see films differently than we do, since we interpret details of the films such as conversations, appearance and etc, but children usually are only drawn to animations or pictures, and by showing them different races and culture may help them to recognize racial and cultural diversity. It is difficult to fully figure if media has direct influence on children, and through my own experience and the small sample of children the original post asked, Disney may not be as harmful as we think it is to children. We only see its negativity because we have the ability to interpret its message. As for Towbin et al.’s research, I think its weakness lies on their assumption that children are completely vulnerable, and that they would take all information in, they omit the possibility that children may be less interpretative on Disney films than we are (since we only see the negativity through detail analysis of the different aspects of Disney characters), and as result they don’t generally absorb all the deep messages in films. 

How we generally see Disney, but does that mean children see it the same way?

Disney's hidden message: Princes VS Princesses.

Towbin, Mia Adessa et al. “Images of Gender, Race, Age, and Sexual Orientation in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films.” Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 15.4 (2004): 19-44

Response to "Making Good Deeds Public"

This is a response to Sandra's "Making Good Deeds Public".
Original post can be viewed here: http://christandpopularculture.blogspot.ca/2012/03/making-good-deeds-public.html

Sandra, you brought up some really good points. I wanted to address this issue and your post reflects my thoughts completely! I question about the sincerity of celebrities doing charity work all the time. It depends on the celebrity I question, if I bring up the issue with my friends about Ellen Degeneres or George Clooney, they would probably disagree with me and think that I’m too judgmental or biased in some ways. I have brought up the same issue about Kim Kardashian who is seen engaging with some charity work recently, and almost everyone I talked to believe that she is just doing that for her reputation, since she has been under fire for her millions dollar wedding and 72 days of marriage.

The funny thing is that those are actually the same question, the question about the sincerity and authenticity of celebrity and charity. The difference is their popularity, well-liked celebrities like Degeneres and Clooney are likely to be questioned less than infamous stars like Kardashian, does that mean more likable people are more sincere? Some can argue that since there are rumors that everything about Kim Kardarshian is staged, including her wedding, marriage, reality show… her good deeds wouldn’t be an exception either. Though when analyzing the issue a little deeper, there is this possibility that all celebrities are somehow staged, and crafted for the public eyes, just some more “well-done” than the others. Of course, there is also this possibility that there are some celebrities who are doing charity work just because they really care.

The question of authenticity also reminds me of Lady Gaga, who we had discussed in class on her image and how she present herself as a Christian through her bizarre, outrageous appearance. Many scholars believe that her appearance is crafted to present her in a certain way, and though some may argue that her faith is her true self and believe that she is using her image to sell her religion, to me these are still questionable. Since the majority of America is Christian-centric, there is this possibility that she is presenting herself as a Christian to relate to the audience since her appearance is so bizarre. While charity work may be a tactic for some celebrities to build their image, for Lady Gaga, her faith could be a way to get her popularity. Either way, Lady Gaga’s image reflects the complexity of public figures, their beliefs, and authenticity.

It is difficult for us as audience to not question celebrities’ sincerity (whether charity work or their image itself), since there is this conflict of interest between their charity work, their publicity and reputation. As for Justin Bieber, though we may never find out his real motives behind his charity work or how sincere and authentic he is, using his fame as a tool to spread out issues about reaching out to others definitely does bring some degree of consciousness and awareness to the less fortunate. I guess celebrities and their authenticity are not always necessarily bad influence to the society, at least in this case, whether their intention is true or not, their popularity is a useful tool to spread their beliefs (whether charity or faith), influence audience, and bring awareness to the public.

Corona, Victor. “Monsters, Memory and Lady Gaga.” Journal of Popular Culture on-line publication March 2011, 20 pp

Reponse to "Violence as Entertainment"

This is a response to ccandelario's "Violence as Entertainment".

I have never really thought about the relationship between violence and media before the lecture two weeks ago. I always believed that there is a strong correlation between the two. I guess I was one of those people who are blind sided by the influence of the news, and what others commonly believe. I always thought there must be a correlation between youth violence and the media, even though my personal experience told me otherwise.

I used to love watching horror movies, not the typical kind of shows that kids would watch. I was obsessed with “Child Play” at some point of my childhood (I don’t even know how I got to watch it at that age), I remember one day I came home from school and my mom told me that two kids murdered their sister after watching the show, and since then she started limiting my hours of television watching. I was not allowed to watch horror movies as much as before, sometimes I feel like my mom thought I was going to be a serial killer one day. I never really liked cartoons or comedies, and I still refuse to watch any cartoons, not even the Simpsons or Family Guy. It may sound creepy that I’m only interested in horror/violent movies or television shows, I don’t consider myself a violent person. Last week’s lecture broadened my mind, I never thought about violence and media that way, I completely agree with it and it all makes sense. If media is really correlated to violence, crime rates should be increasing instead of decreasing especially children are more exposed to the media nowadays than ever.

I totally agree with ccandelario that violence is more correlated to ones background, society, and they way they are brought up. It is difficult to understand whether genetics play a role in violence, I personally believe it’s a combination of all the above. As for myself, it is hard to understand whether I was born to be attracted to violent materials. Even though I don’t think I am a violent person at all, I still question myself sometimes whether I am violent in nature. I believe that there is this possibility that I might be born violent but because of the culture, family, and society I grew up in, I was controlled and learned what is right and wrong, and therefore it kind of took my inner violence away from me. 

Original post can be viewed here:
http://whatwouldchirstdo.blogspot.ca/#!/2012/03/violence-as-entertainment.html