Frank Castle, Cowboy.

Netflix’s The Punisher series is based off of Marvel comic character Frank Castle, who is an anti-hero who is seeking revenge with whoever was responsible for his family’s murder. For the sake being of this blog post, I will be specifically referring to the Frank Castle which is depicted in the Netflix series, not the comic version of him. I believe the series parallels that of the Western genre.

Frank Castle (i.e. the Punisher) is a cowboy. He embodies that of a hyper-ideal image of masculinity in the Western sense. He is, as the cowboy criteria within the “Cowboy and Western in Popular Culture” video describe, white, male, masculine, and self-sufficient. For physical attributes, the Punisher has a very deep voice, almost to the point where it sounds a bit hoaky. He’s brooding and muscular, miserable within his introspection as he becomes a brick wall without emotion (the peak of toxic masculinity entering around the fact that processing grief and emotion in a healthy manner would be a sign of weakness). As for the Westernization, Frank Castle may not have nationalism in the sense that he feels as if he has been failed by his country, but before the tragedy in his life, he was a proud marine. So, in this sense he would make more of a Jesse James (Jesse James: The Outlaw) than a Jace Pearson (Tale of the Texas Rangers Radio Program). He’s the lone wolf trope who works alone because he feels as if danger is around him so often that he wouldn’t want to bring anyone else down with him. He is, then, surrounded by danger in that it is him versus common criminals, corrupted authority figures within law enforcement, or super villains (within the Marvel universe, of course).

Frank Castle’s character mirrors many famous tropes of Westerns. He has a code-of-honor so to speak, in that he does not kill women or children. How admirable. It is a little wishy-washy in the sense, but within masculinity, there is that obligated sense of responsibility to protect women and children, or, those who are weak (We’ll save the feminist argument against this tired ideology of viewing women as fragile flowers for another time). But, he does embody the romantic notion of fighting for a cause, and to defend the damsel in distress, and take her away from the uncivilized danger in which she finds herself in and take her to a utopian place where they can live quietly. Probably on a ranch or something.

Although Castle is not equipped with a horse or cowboy hat, these icons are swapped for a bullet-proof vest with a skull spray painted onto it, and any car that can easily be hijacked.

He roams the country due to being an outlaw, thus moving through the new frontiers of America, and once he “rides into town,” he takes justice from both internal and external threats into his own hands. There is no shortage of gun violence, however. There are even a few scenes in which the Punisher finds himself in a duel.

Image Sources:

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/marvel/278737/the-punisher-season-2-complete-marvel-universe-easter-eggs-and-reference-guide

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/frank-castle-fully-unchains-the-punisher-in-latest-trailer-for-season-2

How Netflix is Changing Mass Culture

This week I found an interesting video called "Netflix's War on Mass Culture" and I immediately thought, "Oh no, they're not going to tell me that Netflix is bad! Are they?" The reality is both yes, and no. As I watched the video, despite its daunting title, I found that the narrative was somewhat open for interpretation and I will answer to that later on.

The video basically outlined how the normal practice of watching television had gone on in previous generations and how Netflix is different from that. At first the video accuses Netflix of trying to replace the foundations of television with a new system based on the current values of the internet generation and also of trying to change viewer behavior. Of course in my mind I say, "That's great that such things can evolve as we do!" However, this video takes the opposite approach and claims that Netflix has a hidden agenda.

Even the Netflix logos have a cool history! (source)

The origin story of Netflix is generally known by the average American; it was at first a DVD mail order service that after a while began to offer some of its most popular shows and films via online streaming. Its also infamously known as the company that eventually brought down Blockbuster Video, a VHS movie rental store that refused to "get with the times." Therefore proving that evolution of entertainment is imperative.

In the history of entertainment, many shows and events were broadcasted live, as reliable technology for recording video and audio didn't come until much later. Thus live entertainment was, for much of history, seen as commonplace. Even as pre-recorded shows began to air, live television did not disappear, as today we still have live news, sporting events, award shows, reality shows, etc. Though the focus now has shifted to pre-recorded shows being the majority and live television being the minority. Having our choice of scripted shows to watch echos the retail market, just like people could go to Blockbuster and pick out only what they wanted to watch rather than being subjected to "what's on." Also, unlike cable companies, Netflix pays attention to their viewers, what they watch and what they like, and uses algorithms based on the genre or starring actors to predict other shows you might be interested in.

Netflix knows what you like! "OITNB" was their top rated show last June. (image source)

The video states that mainstream entertainment is based on a large pillar of popular culture, flanked by smaller sub-cultures and that Netflix is attempting to change this architecture into a world of “fandom islands” where people rarely interact with others outside of their island. It gives people less exposure to things that they wouldn’t normally watch but I don’t see that the unity of people loving a show will cease because of this. It in fact adds a more profound sense of connection. For someone to find another person who likes the same obscure show that they do, instead of being crowded out by the overall tone of what the majority of people are watching, makes that show and that connection even more special. They argue that entertainment only based on fandom is non-traditional and un-American, but I have so far seen very little change in the unity and passion of people who have made the transition to online streaming.

In the past, network “event television” aimed to get a large group of people watching the same thing at the same time - but what is the harm in a large group of people watching the same thing, but at their own pace? Netflix is viewed by a large amount of people, but that doesn’t make it less valuable, in fact people are watching more hours of television than they did in the 1990s. This makes it even more important that we pay attention to what we are watching and make it more readily available, rather than restricting people to less choice because of tradition

Even cable networks have "On Demand." They have to admit it is part of our modern era of entertainment. (image source)

The anti-Netflix argument in the video uses the viewpoint of Vladimir Nabokov who believes that humanity’s “highest yearning” should be to leave behind all desire to be “current.” I however, argue that modern people have a very high regard for being up-to-date on all parts of culture, especially where they consider it to be a part of their identity. This does contrast to a time, even a hundred years back, when people were wary of new inventions such as television or even electricity - but today a vast number of people take great pride in wearing the latest trend, going to see the newest movies, and sharing the most popular memes. What’s wrong with that? I say nothing!

Master of Representation

Aziz Ansari's Netflix original series, Master of None, premiered in 2015 to rave reviews from critics and general audiences alike. In the show, Ansari plays a 30-year-old actor named Dev who is struggling to find satisfaction amid post-modern ennui in New York City. Episodes touch on a variety of subjects, from Plan B, to street harassment, to the lack of ethnic diversity in television casting.

 

 A particularly striking episode comes in the form of Parents, wherein Dev and his friend Brian take their first-generation immigrant parents out to dinner in an effort to bond with them. They use this opportunity to ask their parents about their unique experience as immigrants, like what life was like when they first came to New York. Their mothers bond over an early fear of answering the telephone because of their heavily accented English. This is interesting because it acknowledges the differences in each individual's immigration experience while also highlighting similarities that people from totally different cultural backgrounds may encounter. Both Dev and Brian find it difficult to make time for their parents because of their busy lives, and because of the deep generational divide between parent and offspring. Dev's parents are from India, and Brian's parents are from China, so they all come from cultures much more conservative than modern-day America, providing different sets of frustrations for the parents and the children. This dynamic is especially authentic and effective because Ansari's real-life Indian immigrant parents play his parents in the episode.

Dev is an important, complex character who juggles his own identity as a modern American with his familial roots. Most notably, Dev is not constricted by any Indian stereotypes seen in commercials, film, and television (taxi driver, IT tech, etc.) Brian and his parents show that, contrary to the 1942 Superman clip that depicts little to no difference in its Japanese characters, Eastern Asian people have identities unique to their ethnic background and personalities. Master Of None is a wonderful show that tells the rich stories of people so often overlooked by television.

“Poor people lose. Poor people lose all the time” —Steven Avery

Popular Culture has evolved so much over the years, and as it continues to change and topics continue to generate or become "hot topics", its something that will never get boring. Because Popular Culture is directed at general masses of people, I typically do not find myself doing the research I should on the topics that interest me. There have been rare occasions in the past few months where the research, discussions and analyzing of a topic in Pop Culture have been on par, and thats probably because I find myself almost obsessive over them.

The most interesting topic (at least in my mind) that has become a topic of discussion for many people is the Netflix Docuseries, Making a Murderer. After binge watching all 10 episodes in the series, I still find myself looking for answers. . The information presented is so fascinating to me, an not only leaves room for interpretation, the series leaves you with the need to know more. From corruption in the justice system of Manitowoc County to who is responsible for the crimes committed, I have yet to find a solution that 100% fits, makes sense and could be argued.  Steven Avery has a valid point when he says, “Poor people lose. Poor people lose all the time”. He's currently sitting in jail for a crime he most likely did not commit. The worst part, this isn't the first time. Justice, right?

I digress. Its important to engage in popular culture because it provides an easy connection to other people in society. Regardless of who you are, where you are or what you're doing, topics in pop culture give you a topic of conversation to those around you. Although we're all very different and have different tastes or interests, there is more likely than not something that you can discuss with anyone based on pop culture. With the internet allowing things to go viral, its hard to miss the things that appeal to the general masses of people.

I'm anticipating to learn not only what you can get out of topics in pop culture and how they can broaden your horizons, but to start to be analytical in more aspects than excel spreadsheets. We're in the middle of a campaign for the Presidential Election.  Although much of the high level snap shot contains Trump, there is so much more to the primaries that I just haven't bothered to educate myself on. Side note - isnt it interesting that the title of my post can relate to the presidential election, too? Steven Avery spoke about poor people losing in the justice system, but if you're a poor (or not wealthy in fundraising) candidate for president, can you win?

Nothing gives you a leg up in conversation like being prepared to discuss all topics at some length. I anticipate learning to be diverse in what pop culture catches my eye. I also anticipate taking the things that catch my eye and putting some meat  behind a headline by understanding the proper search methods and grasping the important information.