(GOLDFINGER REFLECTION)
Regarding how I contributed to our group presentation of James Bond: Goldfinger, I discussed how the film creates a need for material goods in society, as well as influencing commercialism and our resulting warped points of views regarding what is wealthy and the value of money. I first noted how the entire plot revolves around this obsession with gold and wealth. I pointed out how, in summary, the film’s villain Auric Goldfinger wants to devalue Fort Knox’s gold in order to raise the worth of his own wealth. It shows how in our own society, people will go so far to accumulate wealth and become richer, simply for their own benefit. In terms of how our regular society/culture derives from this, Goldfinger wants to devalue the other people’s gold with radioactive energy to raise his own value—he is not merely satisfied with amassing huge sums of money, but rather he wants to harm other people with a lot of money. This is like how in our society of business today, it is all very competitive and companies easily become jealous of other competition and try to get higher than them.
I thought it was an interesting side note how the title of the film is simply “Goldfinger”. In this way, it directly focuses on the theme of gold and wealth. The movie could have been called a number of any other titles that do not refer to money or wealth, yet with a name like “Goldfinger”, we are already focusing in on the theme of gold, money, and wealth. Other James Bond titles such as “Die Another Day”, etc. not have any mention of wealth or the obsession with material goods in society.
In observing the film, I saw how much of the modes of transportation in the film are all very rich and extravagant. James Bond’s new car is explained to him as to having all sorts of gadgets and special effects. Also when Goldfinger transports people, it is with a private jet—again very fancy and large. It is not a small car, or small airplane.
The talk and discussion of money in this movie is very casual, alluring to how we spend money so frequently and never really think about it. Goldfinger, when explaining his Grand Slam operation, says “you can have the million today, or ten million tomorrow”. He says this so casually, yet it is such a huge sum of money.
In addition to the use and obsession of gold, there is this ongoing theme in much of Bond’s films, really in a majority of popular main stream spy/action movies, of having the best gadgets, tools, clothes, drinks, and so forth. This has influenced our society today in that we always want an upgrade on our products and are willing to spend the large amounts of money to acquire such devices. Not only does this influence our material mentality, but our physical/gender mentality as well. I said how the character of James Bond fits this ideal male figure, and all men/boys are expected to fit this type of image if they are too adhere to society’s expectations of the ideal masculine man. Just as Bond is seen as cool with all his gadgets, I noted how today we judge people by the type of car they drive and what type of cell phone they have.
To close my section of the presentation, I asked the class a discussion question of how they think the media influences pop culture in terms of expectations and wants for material goods and wealth, and how it changes the way we perceive the meaning of success and being rich.
(REGULAR ENTRY) - chapter 10. Page 315.
I have noticed how much we are influenced by the media and what we view from the television and news. All of this put together creates what we as a society feel is reality. However, it is only based on what we see in the news, and the “news is not an unmediated ‘window on the world’, but a selected and construction representation of reality” (Barker 316). The news is only a sliver of what is truly happening in the world, and we thus need to broaden our views of what we perceive to be reality. It seems that people have narrowed their visions so much that it is restricted only to what other people are telling them and mainly the people on TV and on the news. It is not enough. If we just pay attention to the TV and media news, “we may note a significant omission” (317). This omission is largely due because the media is so controlled that it is revealing only certain sides and parts of stories that are, in turn, only smaller parts of what the world truly represents.
In terms of news, it seems that we largely consider “the unexpected [as] a significant news value” (317). We only become interested once something becomes the unexplainable or the unnerving. If something is too ordinary, it is passed as boring. We need to learn to value everything and truly see how everyone and thing has something to offer the world.
It is true how “the media are seen as a reflection of a class-dominated society” (318). The media is controlled by the upper class of rich people that have control of television stations and producers. Thus we are controlled only by what they present and therefore their point of view. This is wrong. As individual people, we have withered away to followers, and need to again take a stand. We cannot be brainwashed by others. The human mind is a great thing with great gifts and outstanding potential abilities, yet largely it is thrown away due to distractions and a pressure of society to conform.
Works Cited:
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications 2008. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment