Monthly Archives: May 2013

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Joss Whedon, Creator and Executive Producer, The WB 1997-2001, UPN 2001-3), S1.E11 “Out of Mind, Out of Sight”

“…. (Los Angeles-based vice president Perry Lafferty had) risen through the ranks at CBS on a straightforward philosophy: Series concepts should be as simple as a paper clip, ‘a bit of wire adroitly twisted into useful form,’ but capable of infinite variations….”

Armstrong, Jennifer Keishin. Mary and Lou and Rhoda and Ted: And All the Brilliant Minds Who Made The Mary Tyler Moore Show a Classic. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013. Print. p. 39.


“…. (Tyler) Perry has been quite direct in conveying his desire to move beyond Madea…. Behind Perry’s increasingly thinner Madea disguise, the wig, big glasses and movable breast parts, Perry’s fatigue is obvious in the harshness underlining his performance (in Madea’s Big Happy Family)…. Previously, in a 2009 Associated Press interview (above), Perry shared his fatigue with continuing the defining character of the Tyler Perry brand saying that he would love to see ‘Madea die a slow death in the next film’:

but as long as people want to see it, I’ll keep her around. She’s fun to watch but to do, it’s a nightmare…. [the fans] dictate what happens next really, so as long as they want to see her, she’ll stay around… but if they ever stop coming she is going to die a quick death. Madea’s funeral, that’s what you look forward to.

Because he has gained a significant level of representational power through selling made successfully and can represent at will, the imagery Perry projects of African American culture is no mere laughing matter.”

Dunn, Stephane. “Fat, Sass and Laughs: Black Masculinity in Drag.” Communicating Marginalized Identities: Identity Politics in TV, Film, and New Media. Ed. Ronald L. Jackson II and Jamie E. Moshin. New York and London: Routledge, 2013. Web. p. 140-1.

“Foucault, in ‘A Preface to Transgression’ (1963) defines transgression… as the crossing of a boundary–a going further–but argued that this then set up a new boundary which was in its turn to be transgressed. What you then have is a transgressive spiral which at least in theory is interminable. From that point of view, transgression can define no final goal, and there can never be any final mastery; it is rather a process of continuously shifting boundaries…. As Jeffrey Weeks has said, transgression may be the cutting edge, but it is continually cutting itself away, undermining itself….”

Wilson, Elizabeth. “Is Transgression Transgressive?” Activating Theory: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual PoliticsEd. Joseph Bristow and Angelia R. Wilson. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1993. Print. p. 109-10.

“…. In 1964 the first film made for television, The Killers, was released theatrically instead. Especially after the Kennedy assassination, the film was considered simply too violent for television. This was also the year the first network television showing of Psycho (1960) had to be canceled for the same reasons. The demands of ‘prudence’ held sway in both these instances, they also serve to point out that television, not the movie theater, was now the domain of prudence. The movie theater had become something else.

The Killers is important both because it was made for TV and also because it ended up playing in theaters first. The onset of television movies–movies that were explicitly made for the small screen–necessitated a change in our attitudes toward what we considered different about theatrical movies. By force of circumstances, The Killers inadvertently pointed the way since denial of a television broadcast said in effect the difference was censorship. Psycho had already extended the boundaries for graphic violence four years before, so its unfitness for television made clear that movie theaters were the appropriate venue for such explicitness. Appropriately, the denial of its television showing immediately led to a full-scale rerelease of the Hitchcock film. Throughout the 1960s, graphicness came to be associated with theatrical features.

“Gross-out films represent the most extreme development of this change because they embrace, as their grossness implies, explicitness as part of their aesthetic….”

Paul, William. Laughing Screaming: Modern Hollywood Horror and Comedy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Print. p. 8-9.