Tomorrow's the big day, and I had decided not to blog this afternoon because I have so many other things to do that I don't even know what I have to accomplish in the next few hours before dinner and east village barhopping with friends later, but then I stole a quick glance at today's headlines, as I do, and this deserves a brief analysis.
Fictional Stars Get a 21st Century Facelift
Interesting. There are a lot of things I wish I had time to delve into further, like the intersection of culture and the economy, the whole advertising aspect, which I've been thinking a lot about lately, what with working at the restaurant again and being exposed to more pop culture via my coworkers, but the first things that struck me were the accompanying illustrations depicting the 1980s versions and the updated versions of Strawberry Shortcake and Angelina Ballerina (the latter of which I don't remember having seen before). I was born in 1979, I was a kid in the 80s, I had a Strawberry Shortcake doll (actually, "dolls," plural), I loved her. I loved her striped tights and her bloomers, her big floppy hat and her red hair, the little brown shoes that looked like she was spending all of her time in the garden, hanging out under shady trees and such. She had a pinafore, for fuck's sake. She was Raggedy Anne done ten times better because she was named after my favorite dessert.
I'm pretty sure I've seen the previous "updated" renditions of the Strawberry Shortcake gang (before I just looked them up on Wikipedia), and they're completely different. They're older, they're more realistic, whatever that means, the lines are smoother. Be that as it may, comparing the three creates a whole new spin on what I was going to say. My first thought was that the updated version is clearly sexier, more "feminine" in the sense that she looks like a young version of what a woman "should" look like, the long flowing hair, the form-fitting clothing (what form they're fitting being left up to debate), the matching shoes. The 80s SS holds her cat, looks shyly up with down-turned chin, self-conscious about her youthful imagination, perhaps, but not her wardrobe. The 2008 SS sits with legs together and to the side, leaning on one hand, with the other laid demurely against her body, hand on her ankle. The new new SS returns to her big floppy hat, loses the pink highlights for the whole do, and apparently "spend[s] her time chatting on a cellphone." But looking at the 2002 SS, even with her highlights and her short skirt, she doesn't seem coquettish so much as playful. (Dude, check out Holly Hobbie! Big difference from this. Why does Holly Hobbie have boobs, is what I want to know. What is going on in the world of children's toys?) She still looks like a kid, albeit a more stylish one, more like what actual kids are supposed to want to look like. The 80s SS wasn't cross-marketing. They were trying to sell SS toys, absolutely, but not skateboards and hats and clothing and sneakers. I said I loved her pinafore, not that I wanted one.
The main point I'm trying to make and not spending enough time to accomplish it is that I'm concerned with the gender and sexuality norms being portrayed, not only by the characters but by the article. I'm not saying the article is biased, but it does draw attention to the stereotypically-gay-image Ken and what a glaring failure it was as far as revamping a character's look. What's funny, or incredibly sad and indicative of small-minded mainstream corporate America, is that Earring Magic Ken was the best selling Ken doll ever, a fact that the New York Times article does not mention. In fact, the article seems entirely devoid of updated characters that have been successful, though it says they can be "incredibly lucrative" when "done correctly," whatever that means. But Mickey Mouse, the character mentioned directly after and so seemingly the example for a correctly-done revamp, has changed very little since his introduction in 1928. His head is a little rounder, he grew gloves in 1929, he apparently had green shoes in the 1930s for a hot sec, but he still has the shorts with the big buttons, the big perma-grin, the slightly squeaky voice. His limbs aren't quite so scrawny (he came out during the Depression, lets not forget), but his torso is just as rounded.
I want to return to how nostalgia is being defined here, to our "modern" sensibilities and our disposable culture, the disposability being advertised to us, by us, and for what? But right now I have to pack. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment