• Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter. London, Routledge, 1993

• Dyer, Richard. Matter Of Images: Essays On Representation. London, Routledge, 1993

• Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. London, Penguin Books, 1992

• Gauntlett, David. Media, Gender & Identity. London, Routledge, 2002

• Goldman, Robert. Reading Ads Socially. London, Routledge, 1992

• Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991

• Phillips, John. Transgender On Screen. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 2006

• Suthrell, Charlotte. Unzipping Gender. Oxford, Berg Publishing, 2004

• Featherstone, Mike. Consumer Culture & Postmodernism. London, Sage, 1991

• Mander, Raymond and Mitchenson, Joe. British Music Hall. London, Studio Vista, 1965

• Waites, Bernard. Popular Culture: Past & Present. London, Routledge, 1989

Due to the nature of this assignment though, that simply was not possible. The all nighters remained the same (predominantly due to the quiet environment of a 3am library), however the blog entries would have to be completed in stages and I found that my most efficient entries were produced during the early hours of the morning. The time when everyone else is asleep and distractions would be limited. Whilst in some ways this structure sounds similar, for me it seemed strange and unusual, whilst refreshing at the same time.

In terms of making comprehensive notes during lectures, for the first few weeks I attempted to record them so I could pick out the essentials later that day, however as I discovered, this does not work. You simply never get around to listening to it and instead end up relying on notes others had made. Because of this I reverted back to good old pen and paper and we’ve never been happier. I also found it efficient if I typed up the notes after having written them out as it sinks in the second time.

Having completed the blog, I don’t feel as satisfied as I possibly could. Due to the limited amount of reading on specific topics I wanted to address, I found it exceedingly difficult to produce enough relevant material to go into entries, so had to resort to internet quotations from non academic sites. If there is one thing I do understand about post-work situations though, it is that I will disparage my work until such time as I find out whether I had achieved the grades I wanted to or not. Either way, it is nice to know how your work shapes up having spent so much time on it. This is something I want to try and address in my next assignment and stop worrying once it has been handed in.

I plan to go about the next project in the same manner though. Late night studying and early morning production is the way forward for me. I think it always makes sense to study until you’ve finished and then reward yourself in some way. That is always how it has worked and in most cases it will be to finish four paragraphs and then go for a cigarette or something to eat. Just to keep you going throughout the night. This does not only apply for writing, but with any piece of work I’m producing. As a freelance graphic designer last year, I would stay up long into the night and not go to bed until the project is finished and smartened to satisfy my perfectionist attitudes. This is partly why this project feels slightly disheartening as I don’t know how to go about perfecting it.

I enjoyed the way in which one topic went to another. It was interesting to theoretically plan out everything my source (Bounty advert) attempted to communicate. Initially, it seemed impossible to discover its semiotic structure, without analysing it, so I made a specific blog entry dedicated to my own analysis of it, devoid of any quotations or opinions by anyone else. Over the following four weeks however, the tangential nature of the blog caused me to research debates about: cross-dressing, gender roles in advertising, postmodernism, British comedy culture, the roots of music hall, pastiche in advertising. There did seem to be endless debates that could be written about in context to the advert, however the above seemed the most unique and interesting to consider making into a Wiki.

It is interesting that cross-dressing as comedy and the nature of postmodernism seem to coincide as one idea in some instances. Whilst we have learnt that pastiche relies on an audiences prior knowledge to the referenced source, in terms of cross-dressing for a ‘ comedy performance’, the British public need to have also been enculturated into the tradition of pantomimes, or at least know about the role of ‘the dame’ and the characteristics that go with it. It would also be fair to say that an individuals ideology plays a key role in whether they find the ‘two strong ladies’ humourous of not. Those with a broader comedy taste, or indeed more liberal minded account of culture might not be so amused by someone that has only ever seen Carry On style humour. Most accomplished comedy shows will use drag as a tool to emulate the context it is placed within. In the adverts case, the drag is the comedy, whereas in a show such as The League Of Gentleman, drag acting takes place consistenly however the context and characterization is what generates the laughter.

Postmodernism most certainly takes place in the advert, but only through the act of pastiche. In an attempt to replicate the visual style of the 1970s sitcom/Carry On through mise-en-scene, the result is one which looks as though it was made in the 1970s, however with the audience understanding of men in drag, the advert reinstates its place in present time. That is, it uses vintage visual characteristics and a modern style of humour, or postmodern in this case.

Whilst I stated I did not think the advert worked well, that was only personally applicable having deconstructed it step-by-step. There does not seem to be a conclusive answer as to why the Carry On franchise has been used, other than to anchor the humour of the piece and attract a wider audience with a format that is already well known.

There are numerous elements to be explored in a tangential manner, however what remains interesting to me is not only the British reaction to cross-dressing, but also the history of it still as a comedy device. Does it for example have the same comedic elements in the East or the rest of Europe? Are the British more liberal towards it than the U.S.A? At this stage, we have enough evidence to know that the British do not mind a bit of drag, so long as it is in a performance context.

“Drag serves a subversive function to the extent that it reflects the mundane impersonations by which heterosexually ideal genders are performed and naturalize and undermines the power by virtue of affecting that exposure” pg.225 (Butler, 1993)

This by simple statement is suggesting that the flamboyant nature of drag only explifies the tedium of everyday gender roles, which should ideologically be maintained. In the Bounty advert, the gross caricatures of the ‘two strong ladies’ is constrast to the ‘other leading brand’ of advert for a cleaning product. They themselves show little expose as uniquely weird creations, but only because the Carry On cast have maintained such a distinct impression on the audiences mind as a series of grotesques in themselves. In a contemporary enviroment, the characters of a Carry On film seem to reiterate the mundane of British culture, whilst at the same time remaining iconically gross send-ups of the actors’ own personalities.

In order for us to anchor the fact that British audiences just enjoy drag, we only need to look at the show Little Britain or the recent Hairspray stage revival starring Phill Jupitus. Whilst in a contemporary climate, it is seen to be “all good fun” (possibly due to the liberalism and distinguishing between gay culture and drag), the British have never been a stranger too it as we discovered through the love of music hall and pantomime.

Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter. London, Routledge, 1993

“The bizarre juxtaposition of a masculine body in feminine attire are always inescapably a parody of women” pg. 51 (Phillips, 2006)

Is the advert itself however a parody or pastiche? Whilst it does intertextualize actual Carry On footage, the various elements created especially for the advert (such as the product shot and various clips of Brenda & Audrey) do attempt to replicate the visual asthetics of the 1970s Carry On film. If it were just a parody, then the whole advert would be created from scratch and made to comedically copy a Carry On scene, but because it directly lifts elements and reshapes them into a different context, the advert could be recognized as being all pastiche. If we think of Tarantino’s kung-fu, spaghetti western influenced Kill Bill, not only does he parody the thematic elements of those genres, but he directly uses footage and music from actual films produced for that genre during the 1960-70s, so that would in turn make them a pastiche.

“Frederick Jameson describes the style as a mere “blank parody” (Jameson, 1991), and whilst it used to be a comedic narrative device, it has in postmodernism, become, “devoid of laughter” (Jameson, 1991)”

In Tarantino’s case, this is certainly so, though he is not intending to be humourous with his references (or homages), however in the case of Bounty, they have used such an iconic franchise to their advantage and turned it around on the British public so it is not only a comic pastiche, but more so a nostalgic imitation.

Sources

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastiche (accessed 3rd November 2009)

Phillips, John. Transgender On Screen. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 2006

“There have been some changes in the images of women. Indeed, a “new women” has emerged in commercials in recent years. She is generally presented as superwoman, who manages to do all the work at home and on the job (with the help of a product, of course, not of her husband or children or friends), or as the liberated woman, who owes her independence and self-esteem to the products she uses” (Kilbourne, 1990)

This does indeed seem the case in most advertising. It attempts to liberate the ‘housewife’ into a sense of freedom whilst at the same time, keeping rigid patriarchal values in place, perhaps wrongly. “Advertisers have learned that it is not good business to offend any of their customers with sexist stereotypes” pg.75 (Gauntlett, 2002), however is the contemporary, false liberation and portrayal of the ‘new woman’ necassarily better? If we assume not, then it would seem the only way to truly alter the image of the advertised female is to simply mock the male one, or at least demasculinze him. In a recent ad campaign for Oven Pride cleaner, the most patronising and supposedly ironic image of male stupidity and inadequacies takes shape and simply goes all out on attempting to offend both genders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvXBmPjlXAA&feature=player_embedded (accessed 4th November 2009)

It’s clear the marital status is meant to mirror that of a 1970s sitcom such as George & Mildred which the battle-axe marauding wife and the simpering useless husband, however in a contemporary climate, it just ceases to work and ends up looking depressing compared to the more light-hearted nature of the Bounty advert. That in turn mocks the male image, but does so in a slightly more complex manner through the use of cemented stereotypes and postmodernism; this on the other hand is a good example of lazy stereotyping and visually dull advertising.

Sources:

http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article40.html (accessed 2nd November 2009)

Gauntlett, David. Media, Gender & Identity. London, Routledge, 2002

“Television often registers as the heart and soul of postmodernism because of its relentless scrambling of signifieds and signifiers, mixing and matching meanings” pg.202 (Goldman, 1992)

However, this is further anchored by the discussion of semiotics within advertising Mike Featherstone speaks of:

“The overproduction of signs and reproduction of images and simulations leads to a loss of stable meanings, and an astheticization of reality in which the masses become fascinated by the endless flow of bizarre juxtapositions which takes the viewer beyond stable sense” pg.15 (Featherstone, 1991)

With this in mind, if audiences respond more to the contrasting semiotics (and ideologies in some instances), then it makes sense that contemporary advertising should move towards that method of advertising. According to C4′s 100 Greatest TV Ads (as voted for by the public), the majority of them use iconic and juxtaposed imagery to create a unique realm of originality especially for that product (e.g. the Guinness surfer, the Smash aliens, the Duracell rabbit etc). None of them directly relate to the product as they might have in early days of advertising, but rather creatively work with connotations and deliberate postmodernism. Interestingly, in the first Bounty (USA) advert from 1967, it is typical of the decades advertising, however there are moments which remain common in cleaning adverts today: a reliance on mock scientific facts, the clumsy idiotic male image, the domestic housewife and the slogan. In this case, “It Absorbs, Like Magic!”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXP5uLEscYo (accessed 2nd November 2009)

As Featherstone suggests, if there has been a loss in stable meaning, then it is clear why advertisers would challenge gender roles whilst at the same time maintaining audience familiarity with Brenda & Audrey placed into the cake fight at the end of Carry On Loving. We are able to identify with the ‘charlady’ image and the enculturated nature of ‘masculine’ men dressed as women temporarily for performance through pantomime. In ways, we have moved on from direct postmodernism and are instead beginning to think about pastiche; one of the many forms of postmodernism.

“Pastiche designates a cultural form built on copying, scavaging and recombing cultural texts regardless of context” pg.214 (Goldman, 1992)

Procter & Gamble’s series of Bounty adverts at times rely on pastiche more than once. In this instance, they rely exlcusively on the Carry On franchise, however on other occasions they have referenced films such as The Matrix. This, combined with the context of cross-dressing and the comedic nature of the adverts creates a familiar sense of pastiche. Pastiche is afterall present in more comedy shows now than ever before (Family Guy, Saturday Night Live, French & Saunders, Mitchell & Webb Look etc) so audience are able to understand the nature of pastiche.

Goldman, Robert. Reading Ads Socially. London, Routledge, 1992

Featherstone, Mike. Consumer Culture & Postmodernism. London, Sage, 1991

Video Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXP5uLEscYo

“…the vast majority of cross-dressing stories in literature – virtually all those in Shakespeare – fall into the category of the protagonist being ‘compelled’ by social and economic forces to disguise themselves in order to get a job” pg.52 (Garber, 1992)

*With this in mind, it is possible for us to connect old narrative structures with the new. In Shakespeare’s Twelth Night for example, the character of Viola disguises herself as the dashing young boy Cesario in order to work for the Duke Orsino. As Lucie Johnová notes in her essay ‘Patterns Of Cross-Dressing In Shakespeare’s Comedies’,

“Apart from several exceptions in the real life, it was only in fiction and carnivalesque festivities that crossdressing was allowed as a temporal escape from everyday reality. Although generally a crossdressed man was more acceptable than a crossdressed woman, in Shakespeare’s comedies we seldom encounter men in women’s clothes” (accessed 3rd November 2009)

At some point, possibly during the social change of the 1900s, was cross-dressing amongst men seen to be a comedic act. It would be exclusive to the music hall tradition (as mentioned earlier) and even pantomime, yet anything out of this context would have seen to be obscure. Baring this in mind however, cross-dressing as a narrative device has yet to disappear. Films such as Tootsie (1982), Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) and Nuns On The Run (1990) display a masculined male attempting to pass as feminine by the act of cross-dressing. Like Shakespeare though, it is done for the protagonist to progress e.g. by getting a job or escaping arrest. In shows such as Monty Python’s Flying Circus, the drag act remains alive from its music hall roots. The actors do not attempt to surpass themselves as feminine replacements, but more as mockeries of various British stereotypes. In a lot of instances, Terry Jones would don a hairnet and pinny and try playing up to the ‘charlady’ image as mentioned in an earlier post.

From here, we start to gain an understanding of where the images of Brenda & Audrey from the Bounty ads are coming from…

* Notably, the only acts of cross-dressing in any of the Carry On films seems to arise from the protagonists need to accomplish a particular objective. For example, in Carry On Constable (1960), Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtry don ladies attire in a department store in order to catch some burglers. In Carry On Matron, the rather more butch actor Bernard Bresslaw attempts to surpass himself as an expectant mother in order to gain access to a maternity hospital. Whilst Williams and Hawtry were reknowned homosexuals, for a British audience it might not have seemed quite so funny for them to continually dress up as it could be expected, whereas Bresslaw drags in numerous films in the series.

It seems that so long as there is an objective, the very nature of cross-dressing is but a mere necessity. If a character was to dress as the opposite gender for any other reason, then sexuality can start to be questioned. That is of course “with the possible exception of performance cross-dressing as it recieves cultural approval” pg.5 (Suthrell, 2004)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/sites/terry-jones/images/terry-jones_01_446.jpg

Phillips, John. Transgender On Screen. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 2006

Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. London, Penguin Books, 1992

Suthrell, Charlotte. Unzipping Gender. Oxford, Berg Publishing, 2004

http://www.phil.muni.cz/angl/thepes/thepes_02_09.pdf

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/feb2009/3/1/41FC5AD5-03D1-C370-1BC5AF8E17AE3606.jpg