What Did Charlie’s Angels Have That Unsuccessful Superheroine Films Didn’t?

     Charlie’s Angels became a successful TV show on ABC Family in the 70s, drawing a large audience of both males and females. Since then, besides the Charlie’s Angel’s movie that came out as a spin off of the show, the production and success of superheroine movies has gone drastically downhill. Take Elektra for example. The movie grossed a little over 56 million, compared to Charlie’s Angels’ 260 million. The question really is though, what characteristics made Charlie’s Angels so likeable that characters like Elektra did not possess?

            I recently found an article that strove to answer this very question. The article talked about how when superheroine movies first became popular again through Charlie’s Angels, producers created a general formula for success in the genre: attractive women in tight costumes, some fight scenes, and everything else would happen naturally after that. However, this did not hold true, shown by the many superheroine flops that followed Charlie’s Angels’ success. Obviously, Charlie’s Angels must have contained something other than just attractive women fighting a little bit.

One of the main differences that probably led to the success was the ability of the movie to draw both a male and female audience. The article outlined the characteristics necessary to create a superhero who appeals to both males and females.  The guidelines the article set went as following:

1. Do fight demons. Don't fight only inner demons.
2. Do play well with others. Don't shun human society.
3. Do exhibit self-control. Don't exhibit mental disorders.
4. Do wear trendy clothes. Don't wear fetish clothes.
5. Do embrace girl power. Don't cling to man hatred.
6. Do help hapless men. Don't try to kill your boyfriend.
7. Do toss off witty remarks. Don't look perpetually sullen.

These points accurately sum up many of the discussions we have had in class about what makes a superheroine effective for all audiences. One of the most important guidelines, and one we tend to talk about particularly a lot in class, is #4. Like Maggie pointed out in her post “Beauty as an Advantage”, the girls in Charlie’s Angels use their beauty as a tool for fighting crime, not just as a product of creation by the “male gaze”.  The use of beauty as a weapon is definitely an interesting topic, and one that many audiences probably also really appreciated because it means that they use their beauty to their own advantage, not just as a tool to please male audiences. Women can respect the use of beauty in this way, as women also idolize beauty, but are offended by beauty being misrepresented by the “male gaze”.

Overall, I realized that the traits that tend to make a good superheroine are ones that women would like to have themselves. Going back to Elektra, her revealing costume paired with her self-pity just could not live up to the confident, beautiful and mentally and physically strong women playing the superheroines in Charlie’s Angels. Females were drawn to watch Charlie’s Angels because they could idolize them not only on their looks, but also on their character traits that adequately empower women. After all, what women wouldn't want to be one of the three Charlie's Angels in this picture as they walk up onto the beach laughing together after a victory fighting crime? They represent most things women strive to be: strong, happy, and surrounded by friends.

Photo from: http://www.sweetslyrics.com/images/img_gal/25125_Charlie's Angels.jpg
Article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0503.larson2.html
Other sources: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160127/
                        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0357277/

The Dark Egregore Saga

As the One Girl in All the World class finishes Promethea, begins looking at political and theoretical feminism, and looks toward The Hunger Games, I thought I'd throw out a little discourse on the word "egregore."

First, I'm borrowing this word for academic purposes from the world of the occult, which is only fitting considering the trajectory of Alan Moore's Promethea. So here's a bit of linguistic history:

"The" egregore might have been the father of the nephilim--the product of angelic and human sexual relations in the antediluvian world of the Judeo-Christian Bible. The word is translated as "watchers" which makes sense here. Up until the 19th century, the word more or less is used this way, though only in obscure texts. For instance, Eliphas Lévi, famous French occultist of the 19th century, thinks the egregore are "terrible beings" who don't even recognize that we exist (Le Grande Arcane ).


At the same time, other occult groups based on masonic organizations begin developing the concept of the egregore as a thoughtform, specifically a thoughtform created accidentally and through the unity of a group, especially one joined by ideas. This is the definition that most concerns us now. In this usage, each occult group would have its own egregore, a mystical entity that arises through the group's shared beliefs and rituals.

That's fine, but makes sense only if you start multiplying invisible entities (chipping Occam's razor, so to speak). The problem is that the concept was created because these thoughtforms, once created, have a life of their own, a will of their own, and can influence both the original group and the outside world.

Think of it like mass hysteria (or because that term has an unfortunate gender bias, mass paranoia, or mass nuttiness). Think of it like a meme--an idea that replicates itself the way genes do, traveling and accruing strength as each new thought adds to the aggregate thought avalanche.

So bringing this back to Promethea and feminism, we can see how the concept of Promethea is sort of an egregore birthed from our collective imagining of what an ultimate woman warrior might be. But so is, we argued, Wonder Woman. And as you continue reading, you'll see that even with the liberating beauty of being the Promethea incarnation, there are dire, fatal consequences that happen in the world of flesh and rock (I'm thinking the fate of Bill, here). And so I'd like to open the discussion onto the benefits and dangers of egregores, whether you think this is a useful way to describe the way things work, and whether (and how) we can actively manipulate egregores for equal rights or good, smart narratives. Use examples from Promethea and political history.


One of the reasons I'm interested in egregores--besides the fact that I think it's a useful concept for Promethea--is the sudden increase in public misogyny in light of the renewed debates about women's reproductive health insurance (also click here for more outrageous behavior). And also, as you research political feminism, you will find that ideology doesn't stay fixed for very long and that certain feminist ideas seem to have a life of their own that have interesting trajectories in light of how they were first introduced.

Hit Girl: We were never this bad ass at age 10.

Throughout the past few weeks of class, especially in relation to the Kitty Pryde discussion, we discussed the children characters within a comic book. Thinking back to 2010 when a movie came out with a very strong title: “Kick Ass”.  One of the main characters within the Kick Ass movie is a 10 year old murderer of criminals. “Kick Ass” was originally a comic that came out in 2008, into 2010 it was adapted into a movie under the same title. Hit girl is the most emotionless, completely cut-throat (sometimes literally) character within both the movie and comic. Hit Girl’s mother was murdered by criminals and therefore her father, aka Big Daddy, allows her to fight alongside him avenging her mother’s death by killing many criminals.

                Hit girl has been trained to kill, she has a keen interest in weapons and has much knowledge of them, and she is also a brutal fighter for being such a small child. Hit Girl is often described as handling death well, in one of the last scenes of the comic/movie,  Kick Ass (the main character and crime fighter as well) tells Hit Girl that Big Daddy has been murdered to which she responds, “Finish the job, mourn later”. Hit Girl does not allow her emotions to get the best of her, but rather fights off any feelings that may occur for she attempts to keep a strong face throughout the hardships.

                Hit Girl is very grown up for her young age. She is often times a very good killer for people do not expect someone so innocent and young to have the potential to kill without a second thought. One could argue that this is not an acceptable childhood and when the movie came out, church groups did just this, they protested the film for they believed it was child abuse to not only the character hit girl, but also to the young actor playing her. So now I pose the question to you all: Does this character Hit Girl make you uncomfortable? Or can you put her age and gender aside and see her as merely another comic book character?

I have attached two scenes the first is between Hit Girl and Big Daddy, wherein he teaches her the lesson of getting shot.

The second clip is a short snippet of Hit Girl in a fight scene.

Message to the Fans!

I was recently sent an email with this link in it. It’s a video of a guy basically asking Rihanna why she would release a song with Chris Brown about how much they miss having sex with each other. He as well as a lot of people feels that this was inappropriate and that she is sending the wrong message to her fans, and battered women in general. Rihanna took on the responsibility to represent battered women. She took on the job of spreading the message that domestic violence is wrong and not ok but she pretty much contradicted that by making this song. I wonder how her fans feel about her now, and if you still take the Rihanna and Chris Brown situation serious anymore.  Do you guys agree with this guy or do you feel her making this song is ok? In my opinion I think she could have made other songs that shows her fan that she is moving on and forgiving him, and then she can make a song like this afterwards, which is something the guys in the video mentioned a well. What do you guys think?

This is the Video: 

This is the link to the song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2JTFyg2hcU&feature=related

Vulnerable Rap

There are thousands upon thousands of rap and hip hop songs in existence today. Many consist of anthems about drugs, sex, violence, or love. Often times, rappers try to make themselves look tough or "hard" when singing about these topics, like in "Monster" when Kanye West declares that he is "the best living or dead hands down."

Although rappers often attempt to make themselves seem tough, often times their most memorable songs are born at a moment of vulnerability, because it is different from so many other songs, and it allows their true emotions to be revealed. For instance, Sean Combs (Puff Daddy) sings many songs, "Bad Boy For Life" (a song about drugs and personal bravado), and "Can't Nobody Hold Me Down" (also a song about personal bravado). Despite the popularity of these songs and many others, one of his songs that seems to be slightly more memorable is "I'll Be Missing You" (a shockingly different and emotional song about lost loved ones). In it he says:

"It's kinda hard with you not around
... 
Everyday we pray for you
Till the day we meet again
In my heart is where I'll keep you friend."

In this song Sean Combs becomes emotional speaking not about his own awesomeness, but instead about his loneliness from missing someone who has passed. In singing this song, he lets out his true feelings which the listener can connect to. His vulnerability allows this song to become memorable.

Furthermore, the rapper Earl Simmons (DMX) performs many songs, "Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood" (a song about violence and personal bravado) in which he says, "He in the bag, and I'm over here killing his men." He also sings, "Party Up" (a song about personal bravado and being legendary) in which he says, "Off the chain, I leave niggaz soft in the brain cause niggaz still want the fame, Off the name First of all, you ain't rapped long enough to be f***in' with me." And even despite the widespread popularity of such songs, they often get blended together, allowing arguably his most memorable song to be "Slippin'," in which instead of discussing his own personal bravado, or violence, or even sex, he lays out the amount of difficulty that he is having finding his way in the world. He becomes a vulnerable person, and he brings himself down onto a level consistent with "normal" people. By becoming a regular person, it allows the listeners to relate to what he is going through. According to the author of "The 100 Greatest Hip-Hop/Rap Songs of All Time," "Anybody who is a close friend with me knows that this story mirrors certain aspects of my life." In "Slippin," Earl Simmons says:

"Ay yo I'm slippin' I'm fallin' I can't get up
... 
That ain't the half shit gets worse as I get older
Actions become bolder heart got colder."

In these lines, DMX opens up his heart and displays his true emotions. He does not cover up any feelings with references to how great he is, and in return, this vulnerability is rewarded with a stronger connection to his listeners and a more memorable song.

There are many more examples of emotional songs that are not necessarily the only ones of there kind, but which are still very different from the normal lyric of the rapper. For instance, Jay-Z's song "Glory" written about his child shows an emotional side of himself. Furthermore, Jay-Z allows himself to become vulnerable by saying, "Last time the miscarriage was so tragic," but in doing so only brings himself to a more human level and creates a closer connection between himself and the listeners. Jay-Z's song "Glory" can be listened to here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGFAFvV4dpI

Although this vulnerable, emotional, and different style of rap may not be as popular as the violent, sexy, and drug-filled form of rap, it often creates the most memorable songs for those exact reasons.

Hip Hop: Beat and Melody Over Lyricism?

As I am growing up, I have noticed that lyricism has taken a greater impact on how I judge music to be good or bad. When I was younger, I simply judged music based off of its melody and beat, not even paying to the lyrics (despite it being language sometimes frowned upon by family). The majority of music I listened to was of the Hip-Hop genre. For example, I am even subject to such simple judgement now, when I listen to the song "Up" by LoveRance and 50 Cent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUwdz6chHJk&ob=av2e)
The whole concept of the song is how much sexual intercourse the rapper supposedly gets and the rapper bragging about it. This concept is most explicitly shown in the refrain of the track: "I beat the pussy up up up up up up up" One who has never listened to this single could question how another can listen to such lyricism without being disgusted, themselves finding the urge to just turn off the song as soon as the refrain is repeated again and again in the first 30 seconds of the song.

However, I would say right off the top of my min, "I was caught in the melody in the background of the music and the bass of the rap track." Yet, one may not see my explanation as good proof. I do not consciously disregard the controversial lyrics of these rap tracks; in fact, sometimes I inform others to disregard the lyrics when I introduce the song to them, myself originally just paying attention to the melody and bass.

So my question is: Are the rappers getting away with this controversial lyricism through their use of bass in the song and unique melodies? Disregarding your answer to that question, also contemplate: Should we allow such lyricism to fly by as popularity of the track arises the masses it reaches out to?

Equal Poses for Equal Genders!

In looking around for sexism in comics, I came across this fake cover, where an artist took a cover of a comic that originally had scantily clad, seductively posed women, and drew it with men instead. This has been done with costumes before, taking men and dressing them up in the skintight outfits that superheroines always wear, but this drawing takes it to the next level. It makes me uncomfortable to look at, which says something about the original drawing. It was completely inappropriate in the first place, and when men are substituted in the place of the women, it is still disturbing but also blatantly ridiculous. The man kneeling is wearing almost no clothing at all. On top of that, the pose he is in, while it is supposedly one of attack as he is holding a sword, seems like a completely submissive kneeling, like his hands are tied above his head when in fact they are not at all. But who is the pose supposed to be submisive to? The (male) reader, who wants to see women like that. In addition, the other man does not seem very convinced about attacking with his sword, but more concerned with flashing his bare butt at the reader.


Here is the original, which honestly (and unfortunately) does not seem as ridiculous to me. While, yes, it is extremely sexual and they are also wearing very little clothing, I don't scoff at it the way I do when it is men. It's almost as if it is more acceptable because it's women. Now I'm not saying that I think this portrayal is ok in any way, just that it is so common that it barely seems to have an effect on me. The constant conditioning of this sexualized view of women in our society dulls its shock value. However, when it is men portrayed like this, it definitely still contains the shock value for me.


Do you guys agree with me that the male version is more unexpected, and therefore more effective in showing the absolute ridiculousness of the poses? Or does the female version shout that at you just as much? Which version offends you more?