|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 16:44:42 GMT
Post by helwin tins on Mar 29, 2010 16:44:42 GMT
I like Puck Also, a stereotype: I have ntohing else to add.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 16:59:29 GMT
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Mar 29, 2010 16:59:29 GMT
I think Mercedes is an AWFUL stereotype, every other word that she speaks or anyone else says about her refers to her being black! You know it's a larger-than-life dramady, steroetypes/archetypes are pretty central but she doesn't seem to be anything besides "the black girl".. hell when even I notice these things.. like Kurt is pretty stereotypical but he's more fleshed out as character (as well as being rather entertaining/funny), his realtionship with his Dad etc, makes him more than the token gay.
I know the function of a show like Glee is pretty much disposable fun it probably misses the point to think about it too hard, but there's some good perspectives on disablity there I think. I did love the storyline with Sue's attiudes to the down syndrome girl on the cheerleading squad and finding out about her sister. I dunno if the bit with the deaf choir singing/signing Imagine and main cast joining in with was sweet or deeply mawkish however. There's a whole general air of aesop-heavy Disney moralism in the show, which can be jarring considering the show is for the most part quite irreverent and post-modern.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 17:57:35 GMT
Post by helwin tins on Mar 29, 2010 17:57:35 GMT
yeah, i actually think mercedes' character is kind of offensive.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 18:53:34 GMT
Post by Rhiflect on Mar 29, 2010 18:53:34 GMT
I hope she actually gets to be more that just the 'OH HAYELL NO!' character at some point. I hated irritating stutter girl more though. How anyone was fooled by that atrocious stutter i don't know.
Anyone else think Artie is hot? Also, when the FUCK are they ACTUALLY going to get to sectionals??
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 18:59:07 GMT
Post by Jazzy Jeff on Mar 29, 2010 18:59:07 GMT
Maybe tonight? I don't know, I just saw an advert but it was VAGUE.
Also, can I audition for the role of Kurt please?
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 19:00:57 GMT
Post by Rosie The Red on Mar 29, 2010 19:00:57 GMT
Who the hell knows? My sister seems to think tonight is the last in the series, but I really hope she is wrong. Also, Sue's sabotage really shouldn't work, bearing in mind how many times their setlist has changed. Even if today IS sectionals, I wouldn't be surprised if they suddenly burst in Hakuna Matata. {Which has not been mentioned, not once!}
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 19:02:05 GMT
Post by lastgoodbye on Mar 29, 2010 19:02:05 GMT
^ Tonight!
RE: the deaf choir singing/signing Imagine - I cried.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 19:17:01 GMT
Post by Rhiflect on Mar 29, 2010 19:17:01 GMT
I personally thought it was a little stupid. Sorry if i'm being ignorant/offensive, but how can signing be singing? Or was that the joke?
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 19:20:58 GMT
Post by lastgoodbye on Mar 29, 2010 19:20:58 GMT
Glee club is about peformance, in other words singing and dancing. So being deaf, they sung a little bit and did syncronised signing as their dancing part.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 19:22:32 GMT
Post by Rhiflect on Mar 29, 2010 19:22:32 GMT
Fair point! I forgot about the guy singing at the front.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 19:43:00 GMT
Post by helwin tins on Mar 29, 2010 19:43:00 GMT
the deaf bit was fucking awful i thought. seeing as pretty much everyone ended up laughing hysterically at it they just turned the disability a joke.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 19:43:56 GMT
Post by helwin tins on Mar 29, 2010 19:43:56 GMT
oh, and sectionals is episode 11 or 13 i think.
i watched it all online in a day :$
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 20:03:08 GMT
Post by idreamofcherrypies on Mar 29, 2010 20:03:08 GMT
I personally thought it was a little stupid. Sorry if i'm being ignorant/offensive, but how can signing be singing? Or was that the joke? I'm sorry, I know this is offtopic or something, but I just wanted to discuss this. You think the idea of signing songs generally is stupid, or in this particular instance? Because if you mean generally I'm going to disagree, I think signed songs can look amazing, especially considering the fact that as with any signing, the facial expressions have to match- it really adds to it. I don't think it gets good press, it only seems to happen when there's a particularly sentimental song and then everyone gets to 'awww!' at the sweet deaf people getting to join in just as if they were normal, and it really bugs me to be honest. Not that many people are aware of people like Lee, or the signers at festivals (Amanda Palmer & sign language = ) and all of the current chart songs are signed on programme Signed By 4Music but you wouldn't know, because they only play it at like 3 in the morning. I'm really sorry if that sounds ranty, it's not meant to, it's just something that matters to me Edit: I will say this for them though, America generally seems to be better at making ASL and deaf awareness more of a priority in schools, which it isn't here in the least.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 20:05:15 GMT
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Mar 29, 2010 20:05:15 GMT
They should do The Mercy Seat by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds at sectionals.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 21:15:27 GMT
Post by helwin tins on Mar 29, 2010 21:15:27 GMT
I personally thought it was a little stupid. Sorry if i'm being ignorant/offensive, but how can signing be singing? Or was that the joke? I'm sorry, I know this is offtopic or something, but I just wanted to discuss this. You think the idea of signing songs generally is stupid, or in this particular instance? Because if you mean generally I'm going to disagree, I think signed songs can look amazing, especially considering the fact that as with any signing, the facial expressions have to match- it really adds to it. I don't think it gets good press, it only seems to happen when there's a particularly sentimental song and then everyone gets to 'awww!' at the sweet deaf people getting to join in just as if they were normal, and it really bugs me to be honest. Not that many people are aware of people like Lee, or the signers at festivals (Amanda Palmer & sign language = ) and all of the current chart songs are signed on programme Signed By 4Music but you wouldn't know, because they only play it at like 3 in the morning. I'm really sorry if that sounds ranty, it's not meant to, it's just something that matters to me Edit: I will say this for them though, America generally seems to be better at making ASL and deaf awareness more of a priority in schools, which it isn't here in the least. i'm going to disagree. i think there's something bizarre and kind of voyeuristic about signing songs.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 21:39:12 GMT
Post by idreamofcherrypies on Mar 29, 2010 21:39:12 GMT
I'm sorry, I know this is offtopic or something, but I just wanted to discuss this. You think the idea of signing songs generally is stupid, or in this particular instance? Because if you mean generally I'm going to disagree, I think signed songs can look amazing, especially considering the fact that as with any signing, the facial expressions have to match- it really adds to it. I don't think it gets good press, it only seems to happen when there's a particularly sentimental song and then everyone gets to 'awww!' at the sweet deaf people getting to join in just as if they were normal, and it really bugs me to be honest. Not that many people are aware of people like Lee, or the signers at festivals (Amanda Palmer & sign language = ) and all of the current chart songs are signed on programme Signed By 4Music but you wouldn't know, because they only play it at like 3 in the morning. I'm really sorry if that sounds ranty, it's not meant to, it's just something that matters to me Edit: I will say this for them though, America generally seems to be better at making ASL and deaf awareness more of a priority in schools, which it isn't here in the least. i'm going to disagree. i think there's something bizarre and kind of voyeuristic about signing songs. About deaf or hearing people signing? And why? I think it comes down to intentions really, and songs are an easy way to learn to sign. They discussed it on See Hear once but their only issues were the quality of the signing and whether people signing in SSE would discourage the government from making any real effort with making BSL more widely available, and I don't think that's what you meant.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 22:59:45 GMT
Post by helwin tins on Mar 29, 2010 22:59:45 GMT
both- deaf people signing songs they can't hear is just laden with irony, and hearing people signing songs for people who can't hear seems almost cruel. they both seem so bizarre to me.
also, apart from making life easier for deaf people, why should bsl be more widely available? i don't really see the point of that either.
i'm not being unsympathetic here, i'm partially deaf myself and know a fair bit of sign language as i come into contact with deaf individuals regularly, i just don't see how it benefits people in general.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 29, 2010 23:58:14 GMT
Post by idreamofcherrypies on Mar 29, 2010 23:58:14 GMT
Mmm I see what you mean. But it gives them access to things like lyrics and rhythm, even if they can't hear it, so it's still better than nothing.
Isn't the fact it makes life easier for deaf people enough? And I think it'd get rid of a lot of misconceptions and maybe prejudices that people have, as well as acknowledgement of, and maybe in some small way compensate for, how shit it used to be (oralism and signs banned/discouraged in schools etc, not an official language until 2003 despite having been around since Sophocles). It'd definitely be an improvement for deaf children with social workers and psychiatrists etc that end up just frustrating them more because there's a communication breakdown. Most people come out of school with a basic grasp of German, French or Spanish, so why not learn about a language that's actually used by a community living in this country, because as it is a lot of people don't really know how to act- speaking too slow and too loudly, assuming they can lipread, thinking sign language isn't a 'proper' language etc. A mature student on my course that's been to uni twice and is doing a degree in Russian actually said 'I saw two people signing on the bus, it was weird, I thought "they could have been saying anything!"'. So I'd say it benefits people in general as much as learning any other language that's used in the country you live in (or not) does.
If they feel their language shapes their culture and identity, then I think that's fair enough, and I don't think many people would speak French to a French speaker living here but insist on using English grammar and syntax; so likewise I don't think they should have to get by on loop systems and mangled versions of their own language.
I dunno, I'm tired, maybe that's ^ a load of rubbish. My mum's a teacher of the deaf and I used to have to go into work with her on days when my school was shut, so maybe there's still just a bit too much of that 7 year old excitement 'OMG THAT LOOKS SO COOL I WANT TO SIGN' left in me.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 30, 2010 7:34:55 GMT
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Mar 30, 2010 7:34:55 GMT
also, apart from making life easier for deaf people, why should bsl be more widely available? i don't really see the point of that either. Isn't that enough of a reason in itself? Wider bsl literacy among the general populace would allow the deaf (and mute) easier intergration into society. Which would aid us all, by widening and diversifying the pool of perspectives and talents. Being deaf or mute doesn't mean you won't have amazing talents and potential in other areas, it seems to make sense for a society to be flexiable enough to do all it can to make sure not a single drop of potential is squandered. Why should the disabled always have to mimic the abled majorities ways of going about things? A knowledge of bsl for me shows respect for the deaf communities equally valid methods of communciation.
|
|
|
Glee
Mar 30, 2010 8:25:56 GMT
Post by tarantella on Mar 30, 2010 8:25:56 GMT
^ Totally agree with the above two posts.
Also, I would point out that people who are deaf aren't barred from creating or enjoying music. Have you heard Evelyn Glennie? She's such an amazing percussionist, and she's deaf. Music isn't just about sound, but also about vibrations. Especially in a live venue, you can often feel the music; signing at gigs should be done more often, because making song lyrics accessible adds another layer of enjoyability, I imagine.
edit: Grr, new page. I was referring to Josh and idreamofcherrypies' (sorry, I'm not sure of your name. Is it Cara?) posts.
|
|