Kristin Cavallari, when asked about joining the cast, stated “It’s work! And drama sells. I think that’s why they’re bringing me in, because I know what works.” And later said: “Its a TV show, why not? You gotta make it fun!” Also in the interview, Kristin stated “I saw Lauren at the wedding, she was really sweet and gave me a big hug, and that’s it”, when on the show, it was portrayed differently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hills

Lauren tells Cosmopolitan magazine that “The Hills” producers kept pushing her into situations with Heidi. “It’s hard to look at somebody who used to be your best friend and say, ‘We can’t be friends. Too much has happened,’” she tells the magazine. “I’m trying to move on, but they won’t let me. And when someone keeps pushing you into the same position, well…you get upset.” http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/05/74622/

http://www.hollyscoop.com/lauren-conrad/how-real-are-the-hills_13062.aspx

Hegemony – dominant American ideology

Feminism- the representation of females in the show, Whitney seems to be the most driven pursues work life more than social life.

Queer theory – all relationships are heterosexual, homosexuality doesnt seem to be explored.

Over the years audience power has seen as a shift from passive to active especially with the rise of the internet and the fall in terms of price of technology. The consumer can therefore own the means of production thus increasing power once disputed by Marx. According to Marx the audience is trapped in a top-down structure with the all powerful elite at the top. The super structure consisting of the education, law, media and religion are then employed to manage the masses through promoting the elite way of life (hegemonic ideologies), something which can be pursued but never obtained by the masses.

However Marx’s idea of the redistribution of wealth is becoming increasingly possible with theorists accepting that old media did feed the top down structure. Gauntlett suggests that this structure allowed audiences to become passive consumers who developed a ‘sit back and be told’ culture. His vision is to move towards a ‘making and sharing’ culture within audience; the tools in which we can successfully demonstrate this new found culture are firmly rooted within the internet and Web 2.0 in his opinion. This new way of communication invites audiences to become active and engaged with the world around them according to Gauntlett. In my opinion this places the power directly in the lap of the audience as such tools are available and should be taken advantage of in theory.

Similarly, Jenkins presents the idea of an old media consumer and a new media producer but rather than argue that we need to move on from one he says there has been convergence. Thus making a new age, prosumer whereby new/digital media have created a world where all media forms converge. In terms of the making and sharing culture put forward by Gauntlett, Jenkins proposes that new media has opportunities for grass roots production to converge with big media business. An example of this is Dino Ignacio creating a Photoshop collage of Bert alongside Osama Bin Laden which in turn was shown on CNN as part of anti-American campaign.  Convergence means that consumers are more directly involved in the production of media than ever before. Surely this is a positive thing, possibly, but it would therefore mean increased responsibility?

A theorist who documented the audience shift with examples is Eric Raymond who wrote a paper called The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The cathedral is used in reference to ‘old media’ as it has a top down structure where values are projected from the elite to the masses, like that of a priest to the congregation. This meant that the institution found a formula for producing and stuck to it whilst we as the audience came to expect this and bought into various formulaic brands. The bazaar on the other hand has a shared quality and picks up on the point that there is ‘wisdom in a crowd’. Through this audience have the power to pick and choose various media rather than accept and buy the ‘norm’.  Raymond himself provides an example of this new ‘making and sharing’ culture as he one of the programmers responsible for Linux. Linux is a free alternative for major operating systems like Microsoft Windows and Mac which heavily dominate the market. Although Linux is in essence file sharing, companies would argue that Raymond is a hacker and that file sharing is a form of piracy. Is this a way of companies attempting to revert back to a top down structure from which they benefit?

Though Lawrence Lessig is in favour of free culture and grass roots creativity which the internet continues to promote, he also takes an alternative position introducing a problem with new media. Lessig presents the idea that copyright laws have been set up to protect old media big business which as a result restricts audience power in the new media world. He seems to suggest that the transition into a new culture of making and shearing free culture will not be a smooth one as big business has an economy of influence over law, hence possessing the power to restrict audience freedom. Is new media the newest false revolution taking the place of telephone?

Blais and Ippolito seem to take on this concern, as it is the speed at which the internet is developing which makes them take note. It is their opinion that new technology works like a virus taking over too quickly for people to appreciate; we are therefore being run by technology rather than running it. They present the idea that eventually if this rapid nature of new technology continues, new media will become the new way of consuming. An example of this is the must have item, the latest gadget like the IPhone which was quickly replaced by the IPhone 3GS which boasted upgraded features. Blais and Ippolito feel that the way to oppose this isn’t to go back to old media but use new media in a way that offers art freely and accessibly. Does this show signs that the internet could potentially become a virtual high street?

A theorist who doesn’t seem to revel in the potential of the internet is Donna Harraway who accepts that the power can be in the hands of the audience. She does however; say that the consumer ‘need only be concerned with making the right product choice. The view that the internet is just another playground rather than a radical technology is put forward as psychological wishes and desires are re-enacted meaning, play is reproducing rather than transforming the ways we understand ourselves and others as human subjects. So can the user be said to be more active in a world which is centred around fantasies of control, omnipotence and mastery?

In my opinion, as long as each person understands the potential the internet carries for audience as a collective there is no denying the exciting possibilities for audiences. However, as the top down structure has dominated audiences throughout the past it will not be an overnight transition to unite audiences, as the prospect of new media is unknown for a fair proportion of audience. If big business extends its influence over the law and are able to find a way to control the masses and ‘piracy’ the internet will then have the potential to become a high street full of old media consumerism. Also I feel that big business has ‘jumped on the band wagon’ by having and heavily promoting a website for nearly all stores. Online shopping, whilst seemingly for convenience purposes, is a way of bring consumerism to new media (namely the internet) subsequently profiting under a new media platform. As a result of this a larger percent of people will be aware of online shopping increasing the likelihood that they will spend time on the internet in this way rather then exploring art etc. With that said the internet has created a world of opportunity it is just up to us to take them?

One of the last films I saw was Ken Kwapis, He’s just not that into you. Based on a line from an episode of Sex and the City, the film is firmly placed as a Rom Com. Showcasing an all star cast including, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Scarlett Johansson, Justin Long to name a few. The main characters are all, middle class professionals with relationship or marital problems attempted to be reconciled throughout the film.

Right from the start the importance of heterosexual relationships is reinforced as the film attempts to deal with challenges of reading or misreading of human behaviour. The main character Gigi, is a typical unlucky-in-love but all round nice girl; through her women are represented as clueless when it comes to male behaviour. This is quickly blamed on inheritance as the beginning of the film is a scene with a young boy and girl. The mother soon tells the little girl “That little boy pulled your hair because he likes you.” This is shown as a myth that is passed on from generation to generation and is the first step in misreading.

Rather than directly challenge this ‘myth’ the film dismisses it as a fact of life and sees fit to offer another insight or set of rules which is slightly disappointing. The stereotypes continue as we are offered the blonde bombshell(voyeuristic view) courtesy of Scarlett Johansson; she continues to see a married man as well as lead on a rather smitten ‘boyfriend’ displaying her is seen as selfish and seductive. Usually we see this character punished or having their comeuppance but she has the power as she ends the affair with the married man and ends the relationship with the mislead boyfriend. However she does end up alone and is  doomed to an ‘unfulfilled life’ without marriage and commitment.

Marriage and commitment is a central value depicted in the film as there are two parallel relationships one newly-wed couple and a 7-year-long term relationship. Within the long term relationship the female character Jennifer Aniston is focused on the fact that they are not married; at one point questioning “You don’t ever feel that we are going against nature, by not getting married?” This leads me to question why she felt it was nature, most likely due to hegemonic values promoted by various institution. The idea that all women can fall to the mercy of men is presented as one of the characters, Janine is shown as intelligent rather than attractive as her husband has the affair with Scarlett Johansson’s character.

The all star cast reveals the major institution behind the film, New Line Cinema, A Time Warner Company, and the formulaic conventions of the Romantic Comedy. The use of the ‘celebrities’ draws in a much wider audience especially with the increase of celebrity culture increasing the likelihood of the movie becoming box office smash.

In terms of representation there is little representation of ethnic minorities most characters shown in the film are white and middle class. Under the Marxist theory they would firmly place them in the elite or at least with the potential to progress. Most of the female characters are well styled and made up bringing in the male audience, could be argued to be adopting the male gaze in a voyeuristic view point. This coupled with the coincidental nature of the film further promotes the American Dream Ideology.

Overall the film is good if you are looking for a conventional does exactly what it says on the tin Rom Com as everyone in the end seems to find someone who is ‘into them’. The film very much relies on the ‘coincidence’ to keep the narrative flowing and presents the ‘everything seems to work out in the end’ ides, in this case even for the most helpless singleton, strongly linking with the American Dream Ideology.

Well that took a little while but we did it. Hi.