Friday, February 22, 2013

Bondshell


I still remember sitting on the living room floor with my dad when I was very young and watching “Dr. No”. I wanted a white bikini, dagger attached at the hip, just like Honey Ryder when she emerged from the sea which in turn made one of the greatest entrances in Bond history. Then in 2002, Jinx (Halle Berry) emerges from the ocean in her introductory scene in an orange bikini, dagger at her side. This brings me to question, have the Bond girls changed over the past 50 years as our society and culture has evolved?


From what I have seen from franchises, rather it be from movies or TV shows, the characters (from clothing, the way they speak, and overall demeanor) adapt to the current time period’s way of doing things. The language becomes riskier, the amount of clothing becomes less, and controversial issues are brought into play. However it seems with the longest running franchise in history, the Bond girls have remained the same over time, just different faces. Looking back at Goldfinger’s ever famous Pussy Galore, which came out in 1964, I think the risqué name speaks for itself especially for back in the more conservative days. Back to my example of Jinx, she was quite the seductress and the sensual relationship between her and Bond was undeniable, as it always is. The revealing, sultry gowns and makeup have remained consistent from “Dr. No” all the way to “Skyfall”. Bond girls have always been ultra glamorous and classy, and they all have their susceptibly to the charm and wit of Bond himself. Looking at the way some girls dress nowadays and what is considered acceptable is unfathomable. Bond girls may show skin, but it is never trashy. I would be shocked if I ever saw a Bond girl looking like Snooki from Jersey Shore.


It is nice to see that despite changing worlds and views, Bond’s girls have remained ideally the same despite changing standards and shifting of principles. What do you think? Have the Bond girls adapted to culture over time in your opinion?








Thursday, February 7, 2013

Beyonce can invoke some ssssssssssserious emotion!


Leave it to PETA to be on the fur coat trail of those anywhere near the animal clothing kingdom. Recently Beyonce gave a breathtaking performance at the Super Bowl halftime show, but alas, her outfit was made from cow, iguana, and python. The majority (ok all) of the blog posts on the matter were defending Queen Bey and took to the defensive side of the matter.


If you have ever had to stick up for a best friend after they have gotten picked on/slammed at all, you would definitely recognize the tone and emotion used in Monica Roberts blog post ‘PETA’s hatin’ on Beyonce’ (http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2013/02/petas-hatin-on-beyonce.html) Monica very much stuck up for her “Houston homegirl” using a plethora of pathos to back her girl up and she is seemingly trying to use diction and emotion to convey her disliking of PETA from the start. So, not only does she not like PETA already, they are slamming her girl for her outfit! Monica starts off her post by referencing to the animal rights group as “the racist fools at PETA.” I have never once thought PETA was racist. That is a dense word to use as a label for PETA. Monica includes a quote from PETA on the matter:

"We would take a bet that if Beyoncé watched our video exposés ... she'd probably not want to be seen again in anything made of snakes, lizards, rabbits, or other animals who died painfully."

She continues on her pathos-hatred-for-PETA-rampage by saying that African Americans no longer listen to PETA’s “racist behinds” and that PETA has disrespected black celebrities by “attacking” their wardrobe.  I give Monica an A+ on her use of pathos, she very well portrayed certain feelings toward PETA but I feel it was a bit too much and dramatic.


In the blog post, ‘PETA Rips Beyonce for Super Bowl Outfit’ from Newshound by Gayne C. Young, (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/02/peta-rips-beyonce-super-bowl-outfit) Young takes a more realistic and less dense view on PETA’s attack on Queen Bey. Young, while being notably sarcastic in his post, he used logos to rationalize the clothing scandal with Beyonce. “I wonder if PETA knows what a football is made out of. Ouch. Logically, however, it makes sense. Why not slam the NFL every single time they play with a cow hide based football?

What are your thoughts on the author’s use of pathos and logos?