Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse

Kaja Silverman’s argument is very compelling. The idea that clothing is part of the construct of one’s identity and that it takes controls over one’s physical features is relevant in society today. We can see how advertisements for Victoria’s Secret portray women as having utmost confidence and joy because of the clothing they wear. These ads create the desire for people to look a certain way. Glamour Magazine portrays this through its many cover stories about fashion such as one titled “The Jeans that Make You Look Instantly Slimmer!” As the essay explains, clothing does shift the ways in which the body appears beautiful. However, I found it contradictory when the term “beautiful” was linked to “natural.” The essay says “clothes have been variously designed in history to help the female body look beautiful (and natural).” I don’t see how the body could be natural when it is being altered. The definition of “natural” has changed through fashion. Fashion now dictates the “natural look” through clothing and makeup, things that “make the human body culturally visible.”
Silverman notes that although fashion constructs a “new” female body every year, it is partly in the interests of gaining capital value. It is questionable why this does not occur as much in men’s clothing. Why doesn’t male dress undergo frequent and dramatic changes? The answer to this can be related to Quentin Bell’s theory that in the eighteenth century, it became a woman’s responsibility to display her husband’s wealth through clothing. However this does not explain why fashion for men is not used as a means for gaining capital as much as it is for women. This question is even more interesting when we see men indulging in shopping for women in many literary works, such as the example in Lolita provided in the essay.

The Hipster in a Fashionable Discourse

What I found most interesting about the article is that deviant dress, when absorbed into society, does not necessarily neutralize what is politically, socially, or sexually significant about a particular vestementary mode. Silverman claims that if a given look is appropriated by the fashion industry from subculture or subordinate class, it is because its ideological force and formal bravura can no longer be ignored - because it has won not only a style war, but pitched cultural battle. I disagree with this notion, as it is contradicted by the current hipster “subculture.” Like that of their hippie counterparts, hipster style has been absorbed by the fashion industry, however, its significance has indeed been neutralized in a political, social, and sexual sense. The ideology of the hipster is not strong enough to “pitch a cultural battle,” as it is commonly characterized as an affinity for certain clothing rather than a shared set of social and political ethos (i.e. those of the hippies in the 1960’s and 70’s). Therefore, the prevalence of such style in mainstream fashion may just be a current trend as opposed to Silverman’s idea of a cultural transformation.

Another idea that caught my attention was the assertion that male gender distinctions have hardened since the end of the eighteenth century. In essence, modern conceptions of masculinity have become the primary marker of power, privilege, and authority. This claim also relates to hipster culture. According to Silverman, male dress has been given a small margin of variation. This notion may explain the animosity that some 'unmarked men' have for hipsters, as their style falls outside of this margin. Such attitudes towards nonconformist behavior illustrate the rigid gendered mentality of contemporary society.

Surprisingly Well

Luci’s desire to be dominated by a stronger more masculine being illustrates
the classical periods’ perspective that women are inferior to man and, if given
the freedom to make decisions for themselves, they are incapable of finding the
right path to take. Hippocrates’ ideological beliefs state that when a female
reaches a certain point she, “goes crazy because of the violent inflammation”
(DiCaprio 61). To be blunt and say that Luci, in the movie, seemingly went
through an immense transformation concluding with the diagnoses of insanity
would be an understatement for modern day society; however, who is to say that
societies’ definition of insanity is correct? Why can it not be that Luci is
braver than us all?

From my
perspective, yes Luci did participate in a substantial amount of unorthodox happenings,
but if that is truly how she feels best defines her then I see no problem to that.
She was brave enough to present her true self to the world which is more than a
lot of us can say. If this is the case (writer presenting Luci as an empowering
women) then it would be safe to say that the intent of the movie was too praise
all that it means to be women. And it does not just stop with Luci, in the
movie Pepi out-cleavers a male police officer showing her dominance over him.

Bullying a Bust

http://news.yahoo.com/fundraiser-lady-gaga-may-may-not-chatted-president-134403097.html

thought this was really interesting and relevant to the class. check it out

- Mandi Brooksbank

The Controversial Message!

First I have to say watching this film in class setting was an extremely uncomfortable experience for me. Part of it of course is because my experience as a student in class mostly involves being in a conservative country and we have never had such open images screened in a class setting. However, I just feel in general we are taught from very early childhood that sexuality and that part of things is something more private so we are not use to watching something intense in an academic situation where every other student are present in the class.

The message of film for me was so controversial, it was not that clear that I could say the movie was trying to empower women and comment about their thrives for independent. Some characters mostly Pepi and Bom were mostly reflecting two independent women who were in charge of their desires. On the other hand, it looked like their only pleasure in life would come from sex! Sex that somehow was involve with men. Making sex toys, selling their virginity in order to get money! And worst of all was Lucy who was completely bond to her husband although he would hit her.   She experienced freedom, she seemingly loved it but at the end she went back to being in bond?! 

And the police man character was something that i could relate to it the most. Cause its somehow the reflection of a suppressive man who believes he can do anything and other women are all leaving so they can give him pleasure any time he wants, but his wife should be the one that only lives for him and she should not experience freedom and joy equally as he does. and the fact that he was a policeman, someone in the position of power made him even more interesting since that could be perceived as those who have the gun, or those who are in charge of our safety, they themselves abuse us and are the main source of crime and inequality.

  

pepi,luci,pom

First of all I would like to state that this has definetly been one of the most thought provoking films I have ever seen (and judging from the expressions of a few othes for them as well).

I believe that the film is an expression of changing times in particular Spain’s freedom from dictatorship. The film gives more than one metaphor to suggest this. For example Luci’s relationship with her abusive husband. Her husband the police officer can be seen as the oppressive authoritative dictator, always forcing his wife to do his will. Luci’s character is a reflection of the people who have just been given their freedom. Pepi’s character is really the idea of freedom her free spirited life style and ideal are what allow Luci to finally free herself from her husband’s ill will. Her rape by the police officer is similar to the single event that finally sets and convinces the people to revolt against their oppressor.

From the moment Luci discovers what it is to be free there is no stopping her(not even her husband calling the authorities to ask for assistance can stop her). Luci’s transition into freedom is reminiscing of a revolution, “drastic” and “all of a sudden” often never really expected. Her new lifestyle is a complete 360 of her original conservative lifestyle. She went from spending her entire life in her household following her husband’s will to taking part in gathers where everything they did is an expression of freewill. The only exception to this is her new relationship with Pom. Pom just as her husband the police officer is also an abusive partner. This is perhaps the idea that often times one dictator will be replaced by another which has often times happened in our society sort of like Cuba.

Overall I enjoyed how the film is able to explore so many different topics so directly. I also enjoyed how Pedro Almodovar uses several different techniques to keep the audience always thinking as well as keep the film balanced. His use of shock and awe to keep the audience focused as well as his use of comic relief(Pom’s fart song, husband calling the police to stop his wife ) to balance the tense moments.

-Jorge Aguayo

Fashion: The Envelope Of Culture And Gender

Kaja Silverman wrote an interesting article about the importance of how fashion has become of great relevance in the way of how people are recognized, and it is of more importance if it is analyzed the evolution of clothing. Silverman claims that in the 18th century men clothes become simpler at the same time the Enlightenment was taking place as the raise of middle class. I believe it is important to acknowledge how now in the last decades women have been experiencing a kind of emancipation and are being able to get higher positions and through their upward movement in the professional field, their clothing is also changing to a harmonizing and homogenizing uniform through the androgynous fashion.
Also, this simplification of men clothes was in order to inhibit narcissistic and exhibitionist desires of these men. This claim can be supported through the use of extravagant clothing of some hip hop artists and of some people who goes up in the social scale. These people know how clothing is a symbol of wealth, and even if now we do not use the clothing of the Renaissance, we do have brands and designers who have become the new way to achieve status through clothing. In conclusion, fashion is not only fabrics used to cover us from the weather but also a tool that has been used to show some type of control or status in our society.

Pedro Almodovar doing ART again

After watching this film I realized a lot of people were shocked and even angry about the film we watched, and I believe Almodovar did what he always do. I am a big fan of Almodovar because of his talent as a film director and artist, and in this case was no exception. He definitely did his job in making people aware of our lack of tolerance and how society has make us believe that things are not normal if they are not mainstream. I believe it is important to acknowledge mainstream knowledge is not always correct, one example could be the geocentric theory that when heliocentric theory was published was banned and seen as ridiculous and some years after it was proven right, In this case, there is portrayed a situation in which sex is one of the main protagonists and also the way of dressing and the identity without matter of biological features, I believe it is important to value that we have to be tolerant and value different types of art. Also, it is important to recognize how clothing and social practices are ways in how people rely in order to make people recognize them as how they want to be perceived.

Pepi, Luci, and Bom!! Exploration into Lesbianism

Pedro Almodovar's Pepi, Luci, Bom y otras chicas del monton was unlike any other film I had ever seen in my life. Almodovar's raunchy exploration of sexual tendencies that are hidden in Spain were very eye-opening and provocative. Although the movie was set in the 1980s, which was obvious through the fashion and music used in the movie, I felt that the movie was much more controversial than anything that would be shown in modern American cinema today.

 

What I found most interesting out of the film was the relationships of Luci, a housewife who wants to be sexual dominated but eventually leaves her husband for a woman. I found it to be particularly interesting that Luci was in a sexually submissive role with her husband and wanted to be dominated by him in bed. Then she enters a lesbian relationship with Bom, in which is sexually dominated, just as she wished, but is also submissive just like her relationship with her husband. So I found it to be quite ironic that Luci leaves one abusive relationship to enter another, because both her husband and Bom are verbally abusive and kept her submitted under their word, which she faithfully obeyed.

Stereotypes

This film started out exploring women and their lifestyles in the 1970‘s. Pepi seemed to be the sort of woman who was wasting her life away with drugs and sex, but soon she reveals that she was a virgin until the policeman rapes her. However, even the policeman believed that she could not possibly be a virgin no matter what she said. On the other hand, it is implied that she is only saving herself in order to sell her virginity and make money. Maybe there was originally a moral reason, but apparently, that reason was gone anyway. As a result, Pepi’s character as the protagnist is only a twist off the normal stereotype.

The various couples throughout the film slightly defy stereotypes, too. For example, the policeman did not want his wife to leave the house very often or work, but he ends the conversation by asking why she always wears those pants because she knows that he does not like them. He wants her to keep a very traditional role, but then adds a very feminine comment. Also, the other couple that consisted of the husband who was paying for the party downstairs switched roles in someways. The woman does literally all of the talking in their conversation, as the stereotype portrays, but she also provides all of their money and is the sexually frustrated one, contrary to the stereotype. In conclusion, the film plays with these roles by slightly changing them.

Pepi, Luci, Bom y Otras Chicas Del Monton

In Pepi, Luci, Bom y otras chicas del monton, director Pedro Almodovar covers everything from drugs and sexual violence to female masochism. The Spanish film begins with a policeman raping Pepi and catching her growing marijuana in her apartment, and Pepi seeking revenge by getting his masochist wife to leave him. I was personally disturbed by this outrageous comedy with the violence in sex, woman urinating on Luci, and the overall behavior of the housewives. The film is not only unique, but according to Almodovar, it is “a story about strong and vulnerable human beings in which throws viewers in a culture shock.”

I agree with Steven’s post, in which the director wanted to explore other cultural boundaries than just the typical traditional role women had in the 1980’s. Women were obviously housewives who were dependent on their husbands and must do what they are told by men. This film was very interesting to watch, especially with quotes from several characters that were definitely controversial. For example, Luci’s husband said, “one woman’s meat is another’s poison.” In addition, the husband condescends Luci in the middle of the film by yelling, “shut up! This is a man’s business,” (right after his twin brother got beaten up). This clearly shows how women were treated in this period of time, and it is interesting how Almodovar viewed Luci as becoming an independent woman at the end after she left her husband to be with another woman. This was a good way to end the film so viewers could see the changing role in society women were beginning to explore at that specific time.

Shocking

What I found most shocking about the movie (and there was plenty to be shocked about) was the content of the ads that Pepi is shown working on. Her ads address unusual, "dirty" topics such as farting, urinating, and masturbating by showcasing a female product that allows women to do these things inconspicuously. This part of the movie elicited embarrassed laughter and mild revulsion from everyone in the room, and I think this is largely because women in particular are almost not expected to do such things as fart or masturbate. Even today, videos like CollegeHumor's "Why Girls Don't Fart" make fun of such topics because they are still considered taboo to this day; even though both the CollegeHumor video and Pepi, Luci, Bom portray this notion in a humorous manner, the underlying idea remains that it is vulgar for women to performs such natural bodily functions due to double standards in society. The ads would have been far more humorous and less shocking if they had shown men in the same situation, but since they showed women they made the audience feel uncomfortable.

The other thing I found most surprising about the movie was the way director Almodovar portrayed the women so that the audience did not really feel bad for them. Even Pepi, who is raped at the onset of the movie, is shown to be "leading on" her rapist, and her motivation to keep her virginity so that she can sell it to the highest bidder makes the viewer see her in a completely different light. Rather than feeling sorry for her, we begin to see her as manipulative and impure. Likewise, Luci, who is at first pitiable because of her condescending, cruel husband, is shown to have masochistic fantasies and a desire to be dominated by her husband. The fact that she wishes he hit her, whipped her, etc., makes her seem like less of a victim. In a different way, the unnamed woman who shaves her facial hair is portrayed as extremely annoying due to her high-pitched voice and constant nagging, and so it is hard to take her seriously or feel bad for her when she complains of not being satisfied seriously.

Pepi Punishing Pepi

This having been the first time ever watching any film of this nature, my initial reaction was to criticize immediately. As I watched and listened to the reaction of my classmates, I realized I was not alone in these feelings. Also as I watched the context and nature of the film continue to unravel, these emotions of our class started to subside. The issues and the context of these issues are not something that we as a society tend to address or make public; and when these types of material are presented in media, we as an audience are not prepared to control our emotions.

That aside, this film had many topics that touched on extreme importance issues. The fact that Pepi was raped by the policeman is definitely a sensitive issue, but it was her reason for saving her virginity that brought up question. Pepi wanted to sell her virginity to a high bidder and no longer could and it was this reason she seek revenge. The idea of a woman's virginity being very sacred and treasured is generally the case when referring to a virgin. The fact that her virginity was going to be saved for someone with the highest bid, no longer held these traditional beliefs. We did not get to finish the movie in our class, but I'm really interested in how it all played out.

Assimilation

This film was, to me, a multitude of sexual innuendos
and explicit material that diffused throughout the entirety of the showing.
Although Almodovar is known for exploring sexuality and crude humor in his
films, Pepi, Luci, Bom, being one of
his earliest ones, reveals the themes in such a raw, unedited (literally, or so
it seems at some points) way that at some parts people cannot help but cringe a
little. The most appalling scenes contribute to the shock value, which the
audience implies is the purpose of their being. As these scenes continue to
dominate the screen, people become used to the naked women and inappropriate
touching, and the shock translates into to the commonness of this previously irreverent
behavior. The choice to include so many “weird” acts by the characters also
reflects the time in which the movie was made, when sexual freedom, especially
by women, took its liberal turn and eventually adapted more into societal
beliefs.

What
took some convincing were the subsequent scenes after the one in which Pepi was
raped by the policeman. While it would be expected of the victim to endure
psychological distress after the incident, Pepi, almost right after, seeks
revenge. Any signs of fright, pain, or depression were not present. This
transfer of probable weakness to strong defiance represents the forwardness of
women as an acceptable notion.

Liberation

I find it interesting that most people are commenting on the abuse that Luci received from her policeman husband, but not the abuse Luci continued to receive from her new lover, Bom. The movie is not a comment on Luci's ability to overcome the demeaning treatment she received from her husband rather shows the cycle of psychological abuse that many women are accustom to. When Luci finally leaves her husband the policeman's role is quickly replaced by Bom who demands that Luci get her drinks and regularly directs insults towards Luci in the same manner as the policeman. I agree that this is a movie about sexual liberation, not domestic liberation.

I also found the structure of the film to be interesting as it had chapters make clear through images of messily drawn posters. These posters indicate the vulgarity and unconventionality of the themes it presents. This along with the upbeat music satirize the seriousness of the issues concerning sexual experimentation and exploitation while bringing in the themes of the new generation. Presented in this way the film tries to display the point that these behaviors are "normal" and should be presented as something to be socially acceptable.

- Mandi Brooksbank

Gradual Role Reversal

This film was by far the oddest film I have ever watched. The plot began very abruptly with Pepi getting raped in the first scene, although she did entice the policeman and suggest it. I feel this film intentionally has many unexpected twists in order to add to the "shock factor" of this obviously very liberal movie. I found it especially interesting how throughout the movie, there was very subtle but important role reversals between several of the characters. The most prominent one was with Luci and her husband, and then Luci with Bom. After Luci meets Pepi, she feels empowered to leave her husband and in the scene where he threatens to get violent with her if she doesn't obey him, the audience sees how Luci has become boldened by her new found sexuality.

I think this film makes a controversial statement about the inner sexual drive of people. We see that Luci's husband, the policeman, actually has a very acute sexual drive, yet ironically, his wife feels sexually deprived. She later admits that she married him expecting their sexual life to be very action-packed yet was disappointed to find out that he treated her like his mother. So the overarching question that doesn't get answered is why their sexual life was so dry despite the obvious fact that they both desired it. I find it interesting of how Luci said how he treats her like his mother. It shows the gender roles existent in their marriage--how the husband was the son and Luci was the mother and although there might have been love in the relationship, it wasn't the passionate sort of love they both desired.

Sadly for Luci, even after she leaves her husband, she gets stuck in another relationship where she get taken advantage of. We see this in Luci's relationship with Bom. Beginning as a taboo, sexually, almost dangerous relationship, Bom soon becomes the busy worker in the relationship who demands Luci around and Luci once again falls into the servile role, where she depends on Bom to give her attention and obeys Bom. And Bom, herself is a very interesting character. I feel her character is meant to serve as a juxtaposition with the other men in this film. Dealing with issues such as machoism, Bom is a very independent woman with almost masculine qualities. She is the only girl in the band, and boxes in order to stay fit. And similarly, the men are sexually opposite to the norm as many of them are bisexual or gay. This prominent gender reversal goes on throughout the movie, and within the given contextual time-frame of this movie, is meant to be a rebellion to the norm.

A sign of the times

This movie as a whole was very intriguing. There were elements in this movie that certainly kept it out of mainstream popularity. The explicit sexual references, masochism, and homosexual themes were incredibly shocking when this film was released, probably more so than today. 1980 didn't approve of these themes, but perhaps this is why Almodovar made this film - to break cultural boundaries. Similar to an idea in Collette's post, I believe Almodovar meant to show a complete foil to the cultural standards at the time; an example being Luci showing independence from her husband. Women at this time (early 80's, late 70's) were regarded below their husbands, meaning, women did the housework, cooking, and cleaning. More men went to college then. One notable quote from the police officer to his wife Luci: "shut up, this is man's business". The "man's buisness" He is referring to is whether they should move out of the house; Luci does not get a say in the important issues. She is under a tight leash by her husband, but she controversially escapes that life. Her husband says "I don't like independent women, go cook me something". That line says it all.

This movie goes everywhere very quickly. from advertisements to making a masochist porno to policeman rape - wow. The film attempts to break down cultural barriers with every scene. One scene when the woman talks to herself about her sleeping husband complains that she is being treated horribly and she doesn't deserve it. This seems to be a common idea in the film, wives being treated poorly and then going off on their own. I think it's curious that at the end of her rant, she concludes that it's her fault for not being a good enough wife. This illustrates the immense pressure under women of that time to be submissive and take care of the husband's needs. I think it's interesting that this movie is very racy and shows themes not common at the time period of the movie, yet the movie itself is very much set in the time period. In the beginning, the bright, wild colors and 80's references such as the shot of superman certainly clue the viewer of the time period, only to distort the representations of the time by the crude content of the film.

Sexual Deviance: Challenging the Male Tyranny

While themes of female resilience and independence are prevalent in Pepi, Luci, Bom, Almodovar accentuates the dispute between Pepi and the policeman, suggesting that the primary purpose of the film is to illustrate the conflict between men and women in contemporary society. Luci, the policeman’s wife, serves as Pepi’s weapon. By introducing Luci to Bom and satisfying her masochism, Pepi provides her with a sense of independence, thus freeing her from her tyrannical husband. However, Luci ends up returning to the policemen and resuming her role as an abused housewife, suggesting that men ultimately limit women’s potential. In the end, Pepi loses and the policeman wins.

There are several other aspects of the film that highlight the societal conflict between genders. In one scene, a woman takes out her frustration on her sleeping husband, expressing her need for sex. During this rant, she shaves her mustache, illustrating her insecurities that have stemmed from her mistreatment and neglect. Her sexual needs exhibit the female desire to rebel from male oppression. Likewise, Luci’s radical behavior is representative of this desire. Her transformation from a timid housewife to a masochistic groupie reveals the female potential when uninhibited by a male counterpart. Ultimately, Almodovar establishes the tyrannical role of men in society through the portrayal of sexual oppression and sexual deviance.

"Pepi, Luci, Bom"

FYI Everyone: the name of the film is "Pepi, Luci, Bom" and it was made in 1980, just a few years after the end of Spain's Franco dictatorship.

what really is normal

While watching the film in class on Monday, I could not help but notice that there seemed to be an overwhelming amount of excess as I sat and watched the numerous plot lines unfold. There seemed to be a lot going on all at once and I couldn’t quite understand how it all went together. The whole movie was incredibly dramatic and over-the-top, thus achieving the purpose of causing the audience to think and question what was going on. In my mind, this was not a normal movie, and every action carried out served as a counterexample to the idea of “normativity.” I consider normativity to be what is considered acceptable and normal in everyday life, but none of the scenes in the movie seemed quite normal to me, such as when the police officer comes in to Pepi’s apartment and she acts like a whore so she doesn’t get in trouble and when there’s the men’s erection contest at a party. These events seemed to be taken much further than necessary, but it may just be that the director Pedro Almodovar was trying to make a point about normativity that it’s a relative term that can mean something different for everybody. The film we watched contained very little of what I would consider “normativity” and normal actions, but what is normal is really what you were taught as a child, and for some it might be different than others.

I also find the role of women in this movie very interesting, especially the relationships between Pepi, Luci, and her husband. Pepi was raped by Luci’s husband at the beginning of the movie and is looking to get revenge on him. She goes about doing this by getting close to Luci and turning her against him. Before Pepi, Luci was an obedient and ideal wife doing whatever her husband said and she was leading a fairly monotonous life. Pepi changes Luci into a person who is much less dependent on men and who realizes that she does not need to please men in order to be happy and have a good life. Luci was a very dynamic character changing drastically throughout the film. Luci started out the movie as a very timid and obedient character who she thought she should be in society, and as the movie progressed, she changed into the person she really was with a more outspoken, independent, and confident personality. The director made her so dynamic to show the changing role of women in society.