Using Sex To Sell Movies

The results of the content analysis of movie trailers featured in Chapter two were interesting. Although we are all aware of the sexual content that is used in advertisements and movie previews to help sell the product and recruit viewers, it is the over representation of female characters used that is shocking.

The findings of the content analysis showed that among the all-male trailers that features sexual portrayals, none of the sexual portrayals focused on the male characters only. All of the sexual scenes in the trailers featured both genders or females only. I found it surprising that the females that were sexually portrayed could not be coded as characters by the coding scheme because they either never spoke during the trailer or were shown in fewer than three scenes. That goes to show you that females are not needed to add intrigue to the trailer through dialogue, only needed to represent sex and sexual imagery.

I also found it surprising that of the "young adult" age group, approximately three fourths of all young adult females were portrayed as sexual. It seems that from these findings it is apparent that females ARE the "object of gaze". Lin, as quoted by Lambiase in this chapter, says that "women are in the vanguard of prime time television's attempt to use sex for selling products in the U.S." I believe this to be very true.

Also important was the suggestion that these sexual images may run the risk of offending or alienating female viewers. It could also be harmful if these sexual instances continue to lack intimacy or romance (Sex in Consumer Culture 27). I agree with the authors when they state that movie trailers may not seem to be selling a general sense of sexuality, but rather female sexuality.

The Codes of Television

John Fiske's "The Codes of Television" discusses interesting aspects of filming, camera work, setting and lighting, and characters and costumes, and how they play into a synchronized story, each working in its own way to represent social codes. I thought it was neat to learn all the different ways the camera can shoot a character in order to get the audience to gain the right perception. This is something that I would have never actually realized until reading this. As a viewer, you're not paying attention to the ways in which the CAMERA is persuasive; you are watching the actors who are persuading with their acting skills. I guess it can be somewhat subliminal. Your mind is picking up on it, although, your not conscious of it. I can see how this fits in with all the other discussions of ads and the way they portray genders, classes, and races. Although we may not feel as if we are being influenced by such ads, there is always an underlying motive.

After reading about camera effects, NBC'S "To catch a Predator" popped in my mind. If you can recall, every time Chris Hansen would come out to talk with the suspect, the camera would not zoom in close to his face. Rather, the camera would be at a distance that could show the majority of his body. On the other hand, when filming the suspects, the camera would zoom into the faces of these predators into an "ECU". It is not shot this way accidentally. According to Fiske, this is an example of the camera creating an effect through the social code of interpersonal distance. "In western cultures the space within about 24 inches of is is encoded as private" (4).

Here, he explains that if not by means of intimacy, anyone entering this space is hostile. Also, Fiske describes these ECU's are effective because it implies that seeing closely means seeing better and the viewer is then capable of seeing into the villain, through his words, and thus gains power over him. These technical and social codes, he describes, manifest this ideological encoding of villainy.

SEX SELLS...but for what price?

While reading chapter three over sex in music videos, I had a thought. If I were Britney Spears, I'd probably end up shaving my head, drinking out of control, and running over pedestrian feet as well. In the section, Sexuality as Fantasy Fulfillment, it talks about one video in particular, Spear's "Toxic".

She plays three different roles in this video, or rather represents three different sexual fantasies. I started thinking that this poor girl has been nothing but a product her entire life. I know...I know, she chose this lifestyle and so her becoming a public product is the consequence. But, I just might think she has experienced it to a greater extent than anyone else. Management, PR, fans, sales, all pushing her to fulfill a "standard" and constantly changing her image to overcome competition. That "standard" is always changing and so shall she.

I think the "Toxic" video HIGHLY exemplifies the media's effort to sell EVERY possible aspect of the object (Britney). That lifestyle, of always having to sell, sell, sell in order to be accepted, would screw anyone up. Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Britney advocate or anything, honestly, I think her music should be flushed down the shitter. I'm just saying...hell, I'd probably go get lit, flash the town and shave my head as well. Media has gained her mass popularity, success, fortune, but it has also hindered her from creating her own identity. I don't think she has one clue to who the hell she really is. It's kinda sad. But hey, SHE'S RICH!