
Below is a clip from American Psycho, showing four suited, young professionals, showing off their business cards.

For a world I knew little about watching WALL STREET has given me a new insight or Ive seen this kind of thing before but was less obvious in a subconcious kind of way. The film itself is not usually my cup of tie, having said that I found it rather interesting and amusing.
There have been many notable depictions of the Yuppie in 1980s American culture, my favourite being Bret Easton Ellis' darkly satirical novel American Psycho. I've decided to focus on something a little bit more oscure however, as the clip I have posted (amusingly) highlights a number of aspects of American culture in the 80s. Directed by John Carpenter (famous for directing Halloween) in 1988, They Live follows "Nada", a working class man who comes into possession of wayfarer sunglasses that reveal yuppies as predatory aliens. A laughable concept maybe, but the film fascinated me when I watched it a few years ago; not only does it reflect on the power of advertising - an area which I am particularly interested in - but also everything about it is so positively 80s! From former World Wrestling Federation wrestler "Rowdy" Roddy Piper starring as the lead role to the iconic wayfarers revealing hidden secrets and of course the innate American fear of "the other" secretly controlling all epitomises its very American sci-fi nature.
The story behind Carpenter's inspiration for making the film is particularly interesting as its political elements derived from his growing distaste with the rapidly increasing commercialisation of the 1980s, remarking in science-fiction film magazine Starlog that "I began watching TV again. I quickly realized that everything we see is designed to sell us something... It's all about wanting us to buy something. The only thing they want to do is take our money." But where's the threat in that? If this is the case I guess we all "sell out" every day. Perhaps we are constantly being corrupted with subliminal "OBEY", "CONFORM", "MARRY AND REPRODUCE", "CONSUME", "WATCH TV" and "SLEEP" messages, but we don't really need a pair of funky Ray-Bans to realise that.

h Time magazine published an article The Role Model: What Obama Sees In Reagan as the cover photo depicts Reagan's arm draped over a cheeky Obama with the title "Why Obama ♥ Reagan". Although this suggests that the article would be about the similarities between the two presidents, it in fact does the opposite. The article is arguably the liberal mainstream media's attempt to associate Obama with Reagan in order to increase Obama's popularity with the vast amount of Reagan supporters. It is however interesting to make comparisons between Obama and Reagan. Like Obama, Reagan was elected during a deep recession and a time in which the United States’ world image and Americans needed someone to believe in; to be reminded of American strength. Reagan was an ideal candidate for conservative white Americans being a white, 69-year-old, former movie actor who conjured more nostalgia than reality. A man who struck many ironies, Reagan admirers did not see beyond this comfortable image; a man who was able to decry taxes on the one hand, but end up raising them on the other hand. In stark contrast, Obama represents a future that frightens these very same Americans as Latinos and African Americans are predicted to make up the majority of the population since the white birthrate is declining. This feeling of outrage among some white Americans is especially apparent when considering that their taxes may be used to help people who they believe have stolen their country from them. Though it is no wonder that those disgruntled Americans do not take into account how their hero Reagan signed a sweeping law that granted amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants in 1986.http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_media0120_02_09.asp
My first chosen site focuses on the issues conveyed by Communism in the 1940s particularly the threat imposed upon American Hollywood Cinema. The article highlights the beginnings of Reagan’s transformation from Liberal Democrat to fierce Republican as he turns to the frontline of opposition to Communism. To Reagan this threat was very real and he carried this belief into his presidency. Marxists also posed a threat, with the inherent belief that the working classes should rise up against the government. Indeed Reagan’s economic plan: ‘Reaganomics’ offered major money to heads of the companies, the top 2% of the population, in the belief that the money would trickle down to give employee’s better opportunities. If we see the results of this for working Americans today it is debatable to whether ‘Reaganomics’ was beneficial to Americans.
http://www-personal.arts.usyd.edu.au/sterobrt/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/IranContra/Design/Iran.htm
My second chosen website is interesting as it highlights the Iran-Contra affair that lead to scandal during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. It is ironic enough that the President had to break the laws of the constitution and barter with another country to help the American hostages being held, when in fact his strong speeches strongly opposed submission and dealings with opposing (evil) forces. Yet the main interesting notion for the reason that Reagan traded in the guns, is in keeping with the notion that he was a life-saver still very much the heroic young man who used to save lives as a lifeguard. Him stepping in to help the hostages as he vowed to their loved ones, was a heroic act that ultimately had consequences for him and to the nation as a whole.


My example of 'Reagan Hatred' is an article from a LGBT friendly magazine called 'The Advocate'. The article was published shortly after Reagan's death in 2004 and is entitled Adolf Reagan.
http://wglb-tv.blogspot.com/2011/02/adolf-reagan.html
Written by Playwright/Novelist/Screenwriter/Activist Larry Kramer, he refers to the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s as the 'second Holocaust' and Reagan as the Hitler of the 80s because he could have done something about the millions of people dying from the terminal disease and chose not to. He makes a point of saying that Reagan did not mention the word AIDS until his seventh year in office. His opinion is that if Reagan had done something, then millions of lives could have been saved, but he chose to ignore it because he is homophobic, despite wife Nancy supposedly having many gay friends at the time. He goes on to also blame former President Franklin D. Roosevelt for the holocaust in 1940s Germany as he refused to ask the 'Jewish question' and put a stop to the travesty. Referring to Reagan as a 'mass murderer', Kramer was asked by People Magazine to give them a quote on Reagan's death to which he replied “I wish he had died before he was elected”. Well, he gets 10 points for shock factor there. My own personal opinion about Kramer's piece is that he is bitter and taking pot-shots at a man who had the highest approval ratings since Franklin D. Roosevelt (albeit after he left office) and quite honestly, he uses it to plug his own material. He also suggests that Reagan should be ashamed of himself for being homophobic as his own son, Ron Reagan Jr. has had gay experiences and may in fact be gay. Personally, if I were Nancy Reagan and had read this, I would have sued for slander. I found this piece an interesting one since it has been mentioned in some of the previous post that Reagan was famed for making people aware of the AIDS epidemic and was praised for his charity work and his help to fight both AIDS and HIV.
Guess what? Palin still has nothing of value to say. But many others do in this tribute to Reagan who would have celebrated his 100th birthday last week.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Ronald-Reagans-100th-Birthday-6689
USA Today published a selection of testimonies about Reagan is honour of what would have been his birthday and as well as being a touching piece, it shows how well respected he is to this day. This website has printed some extracts of the testimonies which talk about the man, the kind of President he was and what he did for his country. I personally liked Obama's, Romney's and Donaldson's pieces, all contributing different kinds of opinions about the 40th President of the United States. His legacy will last a lifetime, despite not being as popular as he is today during his two terms, he is one of a few number of President's that people remember fondly.
For me the image that epitomises 80’s America would Ray Ban sunglasses. Originally introduced in the 50s, Ray Bans have enjoyed a lasting and successful relationship with culture and its consumers throughout the last half century in America. For me, it was the 80s that really allowed this product to shine. Ray Bans were frequently worn and advertised by celebs at that time, most notably Tom Cruise in Risky Business (1983) and Top Gun (1986) and even Madonna, Michael Jackson and The Blues Brothers (above) with their Ray Ban Wayfarers. On wearing this product, young people could look like their cultural idols and look cool, the coolness enhanced by the sheer size of these sunglasses that would hide the eyes, covering up human expression and emotion. In Ray Bans you were untouchable and culturally fashionable at the same time.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/presidential_elections/109201/2
This article was written in 2004, so is a fairly recent view of Reagan. This shows that the image of the former President today is still positive after many years, and that he made a lasting impression on the American public. It was written just after his death and tells of all the achievements in his career and throughout his lifetime including the way he handled the threat of Soviet power by strengthening and increasing the size of America’s military. It outlines not only his foreign policy achievements, but his domestic successes including the increase in the American economy despite increasing the taxes for 8 years in a row. The article also commends his work towards increasing funding towards AIDS and HIV research. The most outstanding part of the President’s career according to this article was his personality, described as “rather unique for a President” as, unlike most Presidents he was honest and admitted to his mistakes and apologised for them. For example, he did a televised response and accepted responsibility for the failure of the Iran Contra Arms deal. His honesty made him respected, and the article shows how he won re-election in 49 States showing that he was a much loved and respected President. The article ends with the words “the world was a better place because Reagan was in it” which sums up that the author thinks Reagan was vital to improving America.
This article was also written recently, in 2009 so both are a contemporary retrospective view of Reagan. It is titled ‘Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?’ which immediately shows the view that some people hold of him, that he destroyed America and was their worst President. The article expresses how Reagan used his personality as a facade when he was really a “pied piper luring the American people.” He defends the view that people have that Reagan won the Cold War for America by saying that the Soviet Union was already failing when he became President and it was not the strong power that Reagan made it out to be. It says that the CIA Spies in the Soviet Union in the 1980s agreed with this point which shows that Reagan’s victory could have been less successful than Americans thought. The article also blames the rise of Al-Qaeda terrorism on Reagan, as he turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear bomb in return for its help in shipping weapons to the Afghan jihadists, including Osama Bin Laden, which lead to tensions between America and the Afghans creating enemies which would impact America in the future. What makes it more interesting are the comments underneath the article, some of which passionately defend Reagan as the the best President America has ever had, this shows that the debate is still alive today.
Both articles are similar as they only tell one side of the argument. The first makes Reagan out to be a Saint and the second only tell of his downfalls showing that neither have a balanced argument of the debate.






