Portrayal of cultures in movies

Wrongful portrayal of cultures in movies… Americans hating french people or at least having a very negative perception of them, when they’ve never been to France and have never met a french person. That would be a good example of how big of an impact fashion in movies has on society in general, how much our opinions on the world are formatted by what we see on TV.

As a French person I can say with full confidence that 90% of the French characters in non-french movies do not do justice whatsoever to the french culture. I am sorry to say that no, not all of us are arrogant, have a terrible accent, or carry a baguette under our arm, wear a beret, eat frogs and have an accordion playing in the background wherever we go.

‘’According to the mental models approach to media effects, Americans with no French contact are more likely to believe media display a more accurate picture of the French culture than in reality.’’ (Ferber, L.  2008).

So a lot of injustice is done to certain cultures through the way they are portrayed in movies, and fashion has a lot to do with it. The way we dress represents and says a lot about us. Therefore movies have a very important role of communicating that. But there is a lack of care when it comes to doing that. French culture is probably one of the cultures to suffer the least from this. We can take a look at obvious ones such as Mexicans and any other latin culture thrown in the same pile… Hey if it sounds Spanish! And same goes for Chinese people and anyone else who looks asian.

The damage is done when movies portray certain cultures with no previous research or knowledge on the matter. Minorities such as afro american cultures are often portrayed as criminals, only living in dangerous suburbs, with no education, as rappers, gangsters, etc… It is obvious that if what we see in movies and on TV doesn’t evolve and portray what is really out there, people will believe what they see on the screen and forget to look at the reality around them.

BEYONCE//NICKI

 

In 2016 ‘fashion statement’ seemed to gain a whole new dimension, gaining political meaning to it and I’m glad, it was about time. I am tired of seeing women such as Nicki Minaj stroll down Paris with a breast out and get away with it by classifying it as a fashion statement, a statement for women’s freedom. I’m sorry but a statement from Nicki Minaj for women’s rights has no credibility, because of her music videos. It is not a statement but rather a way of justifying her actions. Lots of women would agree with me when I say that we are daily judged as sexual objects, and that the words and actions of women like her, are completely counterproductive. I don’t accept for someone such as Nicki Minaj to speak in the name of all women and specially not mine. How can a woman who’s music videos consist of her presenting herself as a sexual object pretend to be fighting for women’s rights? I do not need to shake my ass in between the legs of a man to feel free and show others that I own my sexuality. I am not a black woman, so I can’t speak in their name and say that Nicki Minaj isn’t doing them any favours either.

We could say that Beyoncé does the same thing, she also has music videos where she is intensely expressing her sexuality, where she is twerking, etc… But I genuinely feel there is a difference with Beyoncé. It’s not only that she seems to do things more tastefully, which affects a lot the way we perceive and receive things. She has a great control over what she does, what she wears, and what she does with what she wears. I think that has become even clearer with her last album ‘Lemonade’. I believe her album is part of the reason why the term ‘fashion statement’ has evolved. She is one of the only mainstream artist to have really raised her voice, physically and visually for politics this year. For example when she showed up at NFL with her whole crew of african-american dancers in outfits inspired by the Black Panthers. There is proof enough that Beyoncé’s fashion choices are true statements in her song ‘Formation’ being chosen as the anthem for Black Lives Matter.

More than speaking out directly in the name of women, this year Beyoncé has spoken out for her cultural heritage. There is sufficient evidence of this in all of her videos for ‘Lemonade’.

In doing this so powerfully, with such control, intelligence and professionalism, I believe she has also managed to show the world how seriously women should be taken and that we have things to say that are seriously worth listening to. I think, she, gives us credibility.Beyoncé has understood that a voice isn’t enough to be heard, or at least not on its own. Fashion is the power tool that helps us be heard.

Fashion is Real

(Basing this on the extent of fashion’s influence and power in our society)

In this essay I will explain my opinion that fashion is real by proving the extent of its influence and power in our society. I have chosen this subject because I have always been intrigued at how something often looked upon as superficial has such an influence on the human mind and grip on the people’s lives. I will start off with taking a look at the origins of fashion; the where, how and when. Specifically the why. Why fashion started and was invented seems a very good starting point to explain why fashion is real and not just a frivolous subject and should be taken seriously. Once I will have asserted that fashion is a subject worth studying I will begin to discuss how man has depended on it from the very beginning of its existence to develop an identity, how it is a symbolic vocabulary and how it is something that goes way beyond the dress.

First of all, what is fashion? According to the Oxford dictionary it is a “popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration or behaviour” but also a “manner of doing something” (Oxford University Press, 2017). If we limited ourselves to this short definition it would be easy to come to the conclusion that there isn’t much to study. Although what is interesting is that they referred to fashion as ‘ways of doing something’ more than just the way we dress. That, is something worth looking into. So what is dress? Fashion, dressing, is a crucial part of the forming of one’s identity, shaping the self physically and psychologically and is a crucial aspect of embodiment. I think in this case, the definition of embodiment is more relevant than the one of fashion. The action of embodying is the concrete expression of an idea, principles, the incarnation of quality, sentiment, etc.. Therefore we can assume that dress expresses ideas and principles. I can only fully explain what fashion is by addressing other aspects of fashion than its definition, such as its origins. This will helps us understand fashion better, address its power and influence on our society and therefore its reality.

It is believed that fashion design dates to 1826 when Charles Frederich, a draper, whom is said to be the first fashion designer of the world, set up a fashion house in Paris and started the tradition of telling his customers what would suit them (Fashion Designing – the then and the now, 2000). That, would be when and how fashion originated. But according to one of my other sources (“The Restless Image” by René König), forms of fashion were also experienced in early antiquity but were strictly confined to the upper class, which were a minority compared to the rest of the population whom were bound to tradition. Change and alterations in fashion only happening in terms of centuries. The lower classes started to imitate the upper class, pushing the upper class to “upgrade”, find new dressing rituals, new materials… to keep differentiating themselves from their inferior fellow men. Herbert Spencer, an english philosopher and sociologist of the Victorian era, stated that “fashion movement is created by the imitation of the upper by the lower classes” (König, R. p116). This brings us to why fashion emerged; the human need to differentiate themselves from each other showing how the original roots of fashion originate at all possible levels of the psyche.

Fashion is not a behaviour pattern that suddenly occured in a precise time in history, with no deeper roots.It is a phenomenon that has happened overtime and sprung from the increasingly fast-changing way of life of all people. If it were just historical growth then fashion would be the superficial phenomenon that it has often been regarded as. Fashion has always been subject of controversy and debate between historians and philosophers. Many saw it as a manifestation of evil. When fashion has been studied it has often been linked with moral criticism. They believed fashion was an “inducement to luxury and the soft life and eventually moral decay” (König, R. p32). Socrates spoke of getting dressed and going out not ‘in order to see, but in order to be seen’, followed by Friedrich Theodor Vischer, german novelist in the 1800s, speaking of fashion and cynicism in the same sentence. So yes, fashion has been spoken about as one and the same thing as lasciviousness, cynicism, wantoness and has often been looked upon as merely a decorative feature of life. But the influence of fashion as cultural evidence can be tested and proved “by the simple act of criticising someone’s clothes; the reaction is much more intense than that aroused by comparable criticism of a house, a car, or a television set. Criticism of clothing is taken more personally, suggesting a high correlation between clothing and personal identity and values” (Breward, C. p1).

Fashion plays such a big role in the construction of identity, contributing greatly to “man’s self-expression in society, his self-assertion, inward as well as outward – and also his social classification and competitive distinction from his fellow man” (König, R. p34). Distinction, decoration, recognition, imitation, performing, spectating… We need to be aware of these elements to understand how the act of dressing isn’t a simple act and that these elements form ones’ identity. The way we coexist with eachother is as much part of our identity as is the way we dress, in fact they go hand in hand. We have the human need to distinct ourselves from others, to decorate ourselves, to recognise others so we are not alone and to be part of something, we imitate those we admire, we perform roles and we spectate them. We do this through fashion. A person going to work, acostumed to everyday routine, tired and dull will want some change and will do so by distincting themselves from their routine and the people surrounding them. One would do so by decorating themselves with ornaments. Ornaments transform the person in question in his own eyes, but also in the ones of his fellow men. Men do this all the time, in different environments and for different reasons, but doing the same thing. See here, a hunter who has just caught a particularly beautiful bird will take one of its feathers and wear in his hair or on a hat, confirming his luck in his eyes and prolonging his victory in the eyes of others. For example nowadays gold chains serve the same function of distinction as the feather, showing others their economical success to gain recognition and acceptance.

We know the way we dress tells others arounds us what kind of person we are, what kind of lifestyle we lead…It expresses our individuality, our social status, our occupation. With the way we dress we get and search recognition from others who share our interests, our ideologies, our spiritual affinity. The way we look corresponds. Therefore members of a group will recognise one another by their garments. But also their posture, gestures, and carriage. These garments of recognition come in all forms and all possible techniques to alter, transform and decorate the body such as hairstyles, tattooing, piercings etc… They become symbols that communicate to those become symbols that communicate to those around us and place us in our society. With recognition comes imitation. We recognise because we have seen it before. We imitate to reassure ourselves that we are not alone in our actions and to gain social support. A french social psychologist and brilliant fashion analyst, Gabriel Tarde, sees imitation as “the basic principle of social life.” But imitation, as said before, goes beyond the dress especially when there is a shared feeling of solidarity such as with representatives of the same class whom tend to develop a uniformity in behaviour.

Fashion is a symbolic vocabulary that offers an ” instant and very brilliant illumination of the characters of individuals and even entire periods” (König, R. p17). Uniforms are a perfect example of fashion as a symbolic language. A uniform can go from the uniform of a stewardess to the outfit of a first lady, because garments and ornaments have become so codified that even when there isn’t a specific uniform for a certain role, its almost as there is… What is the difference between a stewardess and a first lady? After all, they are both wearing something we are expecting and recognise as correspondent to their role. Take a look at Michelle Obama for example, (when she was the first lady), she embodies the role, and the clothes not only reflect the role but activate it. She could be giving a very important speech, but say if she were wearing common clothes the public wouldn’d receive it with the same degree of reality and seriousness as they would if she were dressed as a first lady. The clothes not only sets the actor into the role and on the stage but also the spectators. “Fashion relates to particular codes of behaviour and rules of ceremony” (Cunning, V. p39). This reinforces my point that fashion is a way of doing things. It starts at the dress and extends to the very way we walk, pose, speak and changeand adapt these to the environment we find ourselves in or the people we are surrounded by. This was seen very early on in society in the courts of Kings and Queens. This was an environment where roles were very clearly classified; “choice of garments, colours and applied decoration was governed to a great degree by an understanding of, and engagement with, both hidden and blatant visual codes that communicated carefully considered and highly measured messages of gentility to the initiated” (Breward, C. p61).

There is almost nothing natural or unpredictable about fashion, that is why we speak of uniformity in behaviour and codified behaviour. There are prescribed poses, set attitudes and conventions for every “type” of people, groups, occupations, hierarchy, etc… It is clear fashion forms the human body in every way; in expression, in movement, in posture, in manerisms and even in sickness and in health. A healthy tan, an upright posture, white teeth, are all as much part of the “garments” and “ornaments” that belong to fashion. And with these come all the products to materialise these; teeth whitening products, tanning oil, sprays, beds, sun screen… These are products of fashion orientated behaviour. It is a behaviour that asserts itself with such violence, and which is anchored in human nature. If the fashion were to be slim, all women and girls would aim and pursue that figure. But as soon as the fashion would change, and a fuller figure would be “in”, as is the case nowadays with the epidemic known as the Kardashians, they would change their attitude, mentality and look in a heartbeat with the same force of conviction and dedication they showed the first trend. When it comes to fashion, both men and women feel and desire what it commands, forming a singular and regular thread, running from the colour of the tie to the political affiliation, to the emotions…This might be due to the fact that we live in a modern society of ‘mass’… mass-production, mass-consumption, mass-media… An age of mass-reproduction where we see the same things over and over again, thanks to living in an increasingly filmed, recorded and automated world, to the point where they inevitably become symbols and codes through which we communicate and advance and move through society. Men, women, their bodies, the products of our environment, they change as the “merry-go round of fashion turns and turns” (König, R. p51).

In conclusion, I think we can say with confidence that fashion goes beyond the dress. It is much more than the outer cover of man as I have shown how it plays a pivotal role in our society and is a general social institution that affects and shapes man as a whole; his body and all his modes of expression. I will give one last example that will extend and prove this point. The first man to be known to have climbed a mountain, Petrarch, an italian poet who ascended Mount Venous in 1336, started a strong and still current fashion of being in touch and connected with nature thus having created a whole lifestyle that is very popular to us today. It could be said it was the starting point from which other ideologies, values, professions and whole lifestyles emerged from such as healthy sports culture, vegetarianism, fighting animal cruelty, preserving nature, etc… Fashion can not be studied or understood by looking at just one object such as a dress because it refers to a behaviour pattern that happens in the most varied and random situations and in relation to the most varied objects. Fashion is all embracing. Nothing that is part of the sphere of human activities can escape it. Fashion is an unacknowledged world power that is now an integral part of our existence.

“Where art is a living reality with peoples’ lives, their costumes will be the first to declare it.” (Cunning, V. p93)