My final project will be a parody of a trailer or film clip. I will create a parody by using a foriegn language film, and inserting my own subtitles to transform the original work and give it new meaning. In the following bibliography, I researched past parody lawsuits as well as scholarly analysis of these cases and fair use issues. I particularly focused on the 4 factors of fair use as these factors make it possible to create parodies without the definitive fear of infringement.

Video Pipeline Inc., an online business that obtained rights to movie trailers and sold them to home video retailers for display in their stores, was issued an injunction by Buena Vista Home Entertainment Inc.  Pipeline was allowing customers to preview Disney trailers by streaming them online.  Disney did not give Pipeline permission to display their trailers in this way, and therefore issued the injunction.  Pipeline, when unable to stream the original Disney trailers, edited the trailers they did have by simply cutting out portions of the trailer and putting the remaining segments together.  Disney realized what Pipeline had done to get around the injunction, and brought Pipeline to court claiming copyright infringement.  The courts found that the edited trailers Pipeline produced were not transformative enough to qualify for a fair use defense, and they also proved to be competitive in the trailer market - of which Disney was currently competing as well.  This case is important in regards to my project as I plan to use a trailer and transform it into a parody.  Had Pipeline creatively transformed the Disney trailers in a non-commercial way, they may have won with a fair use defense.  While my trailer will not be competing in the trailer market, my use of it must still be transformative enough to qualify for fair use. 

                               

Rich particularly details the fair use doctrine in relation to parodies, and how they are defended in the court system.  There are 4 fair use factors including:

1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercially motivated or instead is for nonprofit educational purposes.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work.

3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in the newly created work in relation to the copyrighted work.

4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Rich makes the point to state, “A court when evaluating a fair-use defense takes into consideration each of the four factors as no single factor by itself is sufficient to prove or disprove fair use.”  This is a very important factor of the fair use defense.  In creating a parody, I must take into account each of the fair use factors.  My project will be noncommercial, which will help to establish my parody within the terms of fair use.  It will also add new expression to the original work.  While my parody will be entertaining rather than educational, it is of an already published work.  For the purposes of my parody, I will need to use the entirety of a trailer in order to accomplish the product I wish to produce.  And finally, my parody will not attempt to substitute or compete with the trailer market or any other commercial product.  Upon reviewing the fair use factors Rich illustrates, I am confident that my project will fall under fair use terms.

Posner brings up a number of startling and distinctive looks at parodies and their protection under fair use that many of the other authors have not touched on.  Posner believes that if any work makes excessive use of a copyrighted element, it should immediately be considered infringement, no matter how transformative or creative the artist may be (pg. 69).  Posner does concede that many courts do give parodic works the fair use defense even when they have used a significant amount of a copyrighted work.  Posner also believes that only well-known works should be subject to parody, and that some knowledge of the original work is necessary for a successful parody (pg. 70).  My project, on the other hand, will most likely be the first time many will see the movie trailer I am to use.  According to Posner, this factor may lead to an unsuccessful parody.  This factor may actually alter how I develop my parody, or change the base of the parody from a relatively unknown trailer to a more recognized trailer or plot.  Before reading Posner’s article, I didn’t take in to account of the fact that making a parody of a known image, book, film, or story was a significant aspect in its success.  Posner reiterates that a parodist should not take a significant portion of the parodied work, or should take no more than necessary (pg. 72).  If significant portions of copyrighted works were to be used, and only subtle changes were made to the works, it could warrant many uncreative and “vulgar” parodies that Posner would only consider infringement.  This also brings in to question whether adding my own subtitles is considered a creatively transformative element.  I am hoping that my added subtitles will not create a simple and “vulgar” parody in Posner’s terms.  The subtitles will give a new and hopefully an amusing meaning to the original work.            

Annie Leibovitz, a famous photographer, claimed that Paramount Pictures unfairly copied her photograph of Demi Moore in their advertisement for the film “Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult.”  Rather than using Demi More, Leslie Neilsen’s smirking head was edited onto another models’ body in the same arrangement as Leibovitz’s original work.  Leibovitz believed that the movie poster fell out of a fair use defense in that it was used as a commercial product.  The courts, however, found that the advertisement did qualify as a parody and therefore was entitled to a fair use defense.  Further in the case detail, it is stated that, “the Court cautioned that the quality of the parody is not to be evaluated… the relevant inquiry is ‘whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived.’ (Section II).  The courts are not the best judge of creativity, even though they must judge each parody, on a case by case basis.  This statement shows that the courts are not judging whether the parody is funny or overtly inventive, but whether the parodic characteristics of the work are apparent.  In my parody, as most of the audience will not know the language spoken in the film or know of the original subtitle text, my own subtitles must be clearly parodic.

In this article, Keller and Tushnet study various court cases involving fair use, parody, satire, copyright, and trademark.  One section of the article is especially interesting, as Keller and Tushnet focus on comparing and contrasting four different cases.  The first case, Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Miramax Films Corp., concerned a lawsuit against a poster advertising Michael Moore’s new film “The Big One.”  In this poster, Moore recreated the look of the “Men in Black” poster and slogan.  However, Moore stands in as the hero, and “the scum of the universe” is changed to “the scum of corporate America.”  The courts found that this was an unfair use of the poster as it was not a transformative parody of the original ad itself, and that the idea of Moore assuming a heroic role was too outlandish (pg. 987).  The next case, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., was another account of possible copyright infringement.  The book, “The Cat NOT in the Hat!  A parody by Dr. Juice” was accused of infringement on copyright and trademark features from the original Dr. Seuss book “The Cat in the Hat.”  The courts, however, found that the use of trademarked and copyrighted material in the parody was transformative and not critically damaging to the original work (pg. 987).  How are these two cases different?  While Moore’s poster advertised a film that had nothing to do with themes behind “Men in Black”, “The Cat NOT in the Hat!” specifically used the heart of the original Dr. Seuss material to parody the Simpson trial throughout the book.  The comparison of these two cases will help me develop my parody in a way that is acceptable within current standards of parody.  I must transform the original in a way that gives it new meaning.  Unlike the Moore movie poster, which didn’t necessarily give his film or the original film a new meaning in its use of copyrighted materials, my re-subtitling of a foreign film will have to carefully balance parody and criticism while putting a new spin on the film itself.

 

In this case, Alan Katz and Chris Wrinn created a satire of the Simpson trial using the artistic features of Dr. Seuss’ book “The Cat in the Hat” called “The Cat NOT in the Hat!”  They used similar rhyme schemes and trademarks of Seuss to illustrate the OJ Simpson trial.  Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss) took the two authors to court before the book was published, citing copyright and trademark infringement.  Though the two works looked substantially similar, the details of the books that were similar could not be copyrighted.  Features such as lettering design, poetic meter, or shading can not be copyrighted and therefore were within fair use standards (section II).  When comparing the parody to fair use doctrines, it was found that the commercialism of the parodic book cut in to fair use defense, creating a weaker case for Katz and Wrinn.  The courts also found that the book did not properly parody the original work, but rather only employed the techniques of the original to satirize the Simpson trial.  This, in the opinion of the court, decreased the transformative quality of the book (Section A).  An important aspect of the case that may relate to my own project is the analysis of whether the parody would be confused with the original in the marketplace (Section A(2)).  While the courts found that there was no evidence of confusion between the two books within the marketplace, my own project may experience problems if entered into the marketplace.  As I am simply adding my own subtitles to a non-English film, it will be difficult for viewers who do not speak the original language of the film to realize that it is a parody.  I may have to add a disclaimer in the beginning of the film to bring attention to the fact that it is a parody of the original. 

Craig’s article focuses on the constantly fought-over balance between the freedom of expression and copyright.  Although this article does focus on Canadian cases, many of the issues highlighted are relevant to my project.  Craig specifically brings to light one specific case in which copyright holders purposefully stopped freedom of expression for criticism purposes.  In this case, trade union representatives for Michelin began to distribute leaflets with the “Michelin Man” about to stomp on an innocent worker.  Michelin immediately took the representatives to court for copyright infringement.  The representatives, on the other hand, believed that it was in their right to freedom of expression to use the image of the Michelin Man in their leaflet.  By restricting their use, the representatives would claim an unconstitutional restriction on their rights (pg. 87).  However, the courts still believed that using the plaintiff’s private property to express themselves was illegal (pg. 88).  The parody was critical to the original work, and it was circulated within the same market in which the original was first constructed.  It is important to look at the cases in which parody or satire was not protected by fair use, and was in fact found to be an infringement on the original work.  While I believe my work of parody would not necessarily be considered an infringement on private property, it is still vital to understand why certain parodies are not considered fair use. 

2 Live Crew made a parody of Roy Orbison’s song, “Pretty Woman”. Using the same musical riff and a few of the same lyrics, 2 Live Crew’s producer informed Acuff-Rose of the use, and offered to pay whatever was necessary for its use. Acuff-Rose declined the offer, yet 2 Live Crew released the song anyway. After a quarter of a million albums were sold, the rap group was brought to court, but given judgment that the song was transformative and therefore, of fair use. Acuff-Rose appealed, and won the next judgment with claim idea that the use of the song was unfair use as it was commercialized. 2 Live Crew took the case to the Supreme Court, where they won. The courts decided that the song fell into the proper categories of fair use. The case details the four different aspects of fair use and how the song accomplishes each of them. 2 Live Crew’s version was parodic and therefore transformative, and would not harm the reputation or financial gain of the original work. In my project, I also plan to create a kind of parody of a short foreign movie trailer. I plan to transform the subtitles (in the same way 2 Live Crew transformed the lyrics) to create a parody of the original work. Though the judgments of works of parody are done on a case by case system, the final decision of the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case leads me to believe that my transformation of a film clip into a parody of the original will be considered fair use.

This article evaluates the way in which Margaret Mitchell’s book “The Wind Done Gone” overcame an injunction by using the fair use defense after being reevaluated as a parody. When first evaluated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, “The Wind Done Gone” was seen as a work that was in direct competition with the original work it was based off of, “Gone with the Wind.” It considered the creative work of Mitchell something like a “sequel” to the original (pg. 2365) rather than a parody. The court, in continuing down the list of fair use factors, believed the work was just a work created for financial gain, and that the use of the original work was excessive in trying to create a parody (pg. 2366). From this courts decision, Suntrust was able to uphold their injunction against Houghton Mifflin. Later, however, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the injunction, and reevaluated Mitchell’s work as a parody. Again, the court evaluated the parodic work against the fair use factors. In evaluating the work as a parody, the first decision claiming that the book was written solely for the purpose of profit was overturned as its transformative qualities were considered far more important to the works purpose (pg. 2367). Because the work was later seen as a parody, the amount of the original work used within Mitchell’s book was considered necessary as parodies must use enough of the original work to allow for recognition of its parodic characteristics. Finally, the court could not find enough evidence that Mitchell’s book proved a replacement to the original work within the marketplace. Due to the reevaluation, the injunction set by Suntrust was lifted. This analysis of the Suntrust v. Houghton court case is very important in regards to my project as it shows how parodies can be treated as completely different creative works within the court system. Mitchell’s work was, at first, misread as a competing work rather than a parody. In the case of my project, I hope to establish that the trailer is a parody from the start to eliminate any misreading of film clip.

Chatman’s article delves into the definitions of parody and style, even citing the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case.  In particular, Chatman cites 4 different kinds of parody, including strict parody, travesty, satiric pastiche, and pure (or non-satiric) pastiche (pg. 28).  The parody which is of most importance to my own project is the “strict parody” Chatman defines.  Chatman states that strict parody “imitates an original by substituting as little as possible (pg. 28).”  By simply playing upon words or giving a text new meaning with very subtle changes, a strict parody can be created.  As I am not altering the actual film, but simply adding subtitles to give the plot new meaning, I believe that I am staying within the definition of a strict parody.  Chatman continues with his definition of strict parody, and even uses an example Professor Decherney used in one of our classes.  The Icthyus fish, while a symbol of Christianity, has been subtly altered in different ways to represent new meanings, such as Darwinism (pg. 29).  The subtle alteration of subtitles, much like the small addition of feet to the Icthyus fish, will fairly transform the original film into a parody.

Chapter 3 of Ott’s book gives readers an interesting behind-the-scenes look at the making of Murnau’s Faust.  The narrative of the film was based upon old Faust legends and literature such as Goethe’s Faust, however the first part concerning the relationship between Faust and Gretchen was the main focus of the film.  UFA, wanting to have a hand in the international markets, sought to fill the cast with international actors and actresses.  Germany, Sweden, and France were all represented within the film. 

 

Murnau had a specific style in mind when creating Faust, and intentionally simplified the interior shots in order to allow the actors to become the main focus of the scene.  On the same note, sets were constructed in a way to direct the flow of the actors, as in the mob scene within the town.  The streets were built in a way to create the most disorder when the townspeople disbursed in a panic, heightening the confusion and anxiety.

 

Ott also described how Murnau produced the special effects within the various scenes of the film.  One of the effects known as Stimmung, or atmosphere, was used to create the smoke effect emitting from the demon’s cloak.  Flammable film stock was lit, and the smoke was directed on-screen, creating an interesting effect, but putting the cast and crew in danger.    

 

Ott’s behind-the-scenes commentary on Faust further shows how much influence Murnau had on every aspect of film production, and how each scene would appear on the final print.   

The first selection of Marriot’s book focuses on the German silent era, specifically on Murnau’s film Nosferatu.  Marriot observed how the German film industry, unlike any other nation’s film industry, seemed to have taken off on supernatural films such as Nosferatu.  The focus on supernatural films following the First World War may have been due to the frustration experienced in the ensuing years after the end of the war, while having to care for the increased number of physically and psychologically wounded war victims.  Germany’s deep heritage of demonic folklore and black Romanticism may have also helped spark the rise of the expressionist movement.  Through expressionism, filmmakers were able to stylistically externalize their inner emotional struggle.  While Murnau was considered an expressionist director, he employed many characteristics that broke away from the traditional expressionist style.  Murnau would often focus on off-screen space rather than blending it into the action, allowing audiences to broaden the scope of the presented narrative.  Faust, for example, was shot entirely within a studio giving Murnau the ability to more efficiently manipulate the scene to his liking.  Later in the book, Marriott focuses on the modern Hollywood film Rosemary’s Baby.  Murnau’s work on Faust is noted as an influential pre-curser, as its theme of the devil’s pact has obviously not lost interest within the horror film genre.           

Though German Expressionism seems to be an easily identifiable film genre, Huaco mentions in the first chapter of his book that film historians and film-makers often dispute what films are and are not considered true expressionist films.  One director, Joseph von Sternberg, even claimed that the only true expressionist films were Caligari and Waxworks.  Von Sternberg, who also denies that his own film The Blue Angel is not expressionistic, actually juxtaposes naturalistic and expressionistic characteristics throughout this film.  The same can be said about Murnau, and his film Faust.  Though there are expressionistic devices such as histrionic acting and a few distorted angles, Murnau’s use of lighting is far more naturalistic, separating the film from the typical expressionist style.  Perhaps Faust can be categorized under historians Maurice Bardéche and Robert Brasillach’s term “expressionist realism.”  Obviously there is a discrepancy of what is considered true expressionist film, though there were only a relatively small number of “expressionist” films produced in the years 1920-1931.  When comparing Caligari to Faust, it is apparent that Murnau does not utilize the same styles as Wiene, focusing on the subtle use of light rather than creating elaborately angled and distorted sets and painted backdrops.  Though some of these devices are used occasionally throughout Faust, they are certainly not as apparent.      

    A Time article begins this text, detailing the characteristics of 1950’s youth. Many were passive, waiting for their hand to be dealt to them concerning the war. Korea was in the back of their minds, and the threat of the draft forced many to contemplate their future life plans. According to Time, 50’s youth were hard workers and were a relatively calm generation. Women especially were beginning to break from the mold of the “housewife” and began to take a more active role by easing into the position of “career woman”. Though the younger generation did demonstrate its fair share of partying, they kept a limit on their indulgences. The characters in the film Grease seem to fall into the extreme ends of the spectrum of youth described by Time. Sandy, though radically changed by the end of the movie, fell into the “housewife” category that 50’s female youths were beginning to stray away from. Rizzo, on the other hand, took a very opposite stance, and had already settled into a position of female dominance not seen until the 60’s. Though Time found that 50’s youths were calm, hard workers, the youth gangs in the film were comprised of rambunctious, promiscuous teens that were very unlike the settled teens they were supposed to be representing.

    Walkowitz’s chapter “Re-screening the Past: Subversion Narrative and the Politics of History” deals with the radical subjectivism operating within historical films. Walkowitz’s main problem lies within Oliver Stone’s Nixon, and Stone’s overly critical look on the Nixon administration. Walkowitz believes Stone’s left-wing views leave a negative impression of American values. However, Walkowitz is not interested in whether the history behind the film is “good” or “problematic”, but rather how the historians were located concerning the history of these productions. Though films such as Nixon are “fiction”, filmmakers will still strive to achieve legitimacy in the historical sense. This is a problem Grease faces. Though Grease was not a fact-based historical film, nor was it produced in order to form a subjective look upon 1950’s youth culture, its slight distortion of the 50’s culture creates a similar misaligned view of the past. Grease was not created to be used for historical reference, but rather as an escape from the present. However, the misplaced sexual morals of the 60’s within the conservative culture of the 50’s can potentially lead to a misrepresentation of the 50’s decade.

    In Kay Dickinson’s chapter “Cinema, Postmodernity, and Authenticity,” she details a small section on Rock Culture and Youth Movies. “Teen films” in the 50’s and 60’s were used mainly as a platform for performers and performances to reach a greater audience. However, they often also included teenage delinquency involving sex, cars, and other youthful weaknesses. The most popular films of that time involved the “alienated hero” coping with social pressures. This focus on counterculture would lead directly to the use of music to express character emotion. Even before MTV, film successfully linked music with video, and was shifting audio music to visual music. Film in the 1970’s only retrospectively chronicled youth culture. Hence Grease, which was released in 1978, looks back almost 20 years earlier to the class of 1959. Grease fit into the 70’s nostalgia of past youth cultures. Films such as American Graffiti and TV shows such as Happy Days joined with Grease in the idealized and nostalgic look back to the 50’s golden age of youth. Grease, though filmed in the late 70’s, embodies what Dickinson describes as 50’s decade “teen films”. It was a platform for such performers as Sha-Na-Na and Frankie Avalon, and involved teenage delinquency concerning cars (the T-Birds), typical of the 50's, and pre-marital sexuality between Rizzo and Kenickie, typical of the 60's. Grease, in effect, succeeded in included elements of films from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.

    Scheiner’s article details the life and myth of Sandra Dee, a 50’s teen icon. Though Dee suffered terribly behind the scenes, a nostalgic view into 50’s frames her as the ideological “goody-two shoes” teen. Scheiner details Dee’s abusive childhood, her rise to stardom, and how the problems of eating disorders, sexual indecency, and womanizing have been covered by the ideological views of the decade. Because of Dee’s earlier Tammy films, her image became synonymous with the wholesomely pure teen she characterized. Though Dee fought an eating disorder and was living with the pain of sexual abuse, her fans only recognized her as a sweet and lovable character. Even after Dee made films in which she broke out of her virginal character into more seductive roles, fans continued to view her as the pure person they always wanted her to be. This tendency to “simplify and idealize” characters and times of the past is exemplified in a song within the film Grease. Rizzo mocks Sandy’s naïve nature, most notably her sexuality, and equates her with Sandra Dee. Though Grease, on one hand, breaks away from the “nostalgic trap” by tackling issues (which don't really emerge until the 1960's) such as promiscuity and unplanned pregnancy, it still idealizes the 50’s decade in which the story takes place. Much like Sandra Dee, the positive aspects of the 50’s represented in the film Grease form a façade over the features of the film (such as sexual morals) which are problems not faced until a later decade.

    In the chapter “A Return to the 1950’s: The Dangers in Utopia”, Dika specifically examines Grease and how nostalgia is particularly utilized in the film. Dika makes a novel observation by claiming that Grease in fact combines the liberated sexuality of the 1960’s with the nostalgic innocence of the 1950’s. Dika realizes that this argument seems contradictory in that the sexual morals of the 1950’s were completely opposite from those of the 1960’s. This synergy of the two decades, however, sets Grease on a rocky path as other elements such as Blacks and gays are still absent from the film. Dika states that the film tries to restabilize itself by returning to the classical musical genre and taking on the form of other 50’s musicals. Grease was released during a time in which the past seemed like a much safer time. Dika suggests that may be a reason as to why older actors and actresses were used to represent high school kids. The older audiences could identify more easily with the older actors, while the younger audience could still relate to the adolescent situations. Dika believes the Grease exploits certain nostalgic elements of a simpler time, but employs a later decade’s morals to more deeply involve its target audience.

    Fuere’s chapter on “The Celebration of Popular Song” highlights the use of reflexive song lyrics in musicals as a way of expressing a character’s emotion, particularly love. Song is created when a character expresses his or herself through music. Fuere feels that this mode of expression creates a heightened sense of importance to the dialogue, as the characters sing rather than speak their lines. Reflexive song lyrics are used throughout the film Grease. Each character has the chance to rise above their spoken dialogue and elicit a more intense emotional scene for their character through song. It’s not just “music over words” as Fuere states, but “song over speech”. Fuere continues by alluding to American popular music’s roots in Jazz music. Though musical songs do not necessarily have the trait of an African-American ethnic origin, or are liberated by the improvisational aspect of Jazz, they share similar ideals. As Jazz is often spontaneous, musical songs will often seem unprompted, or just a natural progression in the dialogue. The songs within Grease often flow from a continuing dialogue between characters. Though the majority of the music in Grease is rock-and-roll, Fuere is correct in stating that the origins of that popular genre of music rest in Jazz.

    Hershberg’s review of Margot A. Henriksen’s Dr. Strangelove's America: Society and Culture in the Atomic Age simplifies Henriksen’s view of the 50’s and how nostalgia for that time period has hidden the slow rise of dissention which eventually resulted in the explosion of freedom of rights in the 60’s.  Popular culture of the 50’s was constantly trying to purvey a way to express the angst hidden behind the peaceful calm of society.  The 50’s were bombarded by the end of World War II, communism, McCarthyism, and the global threat of nuclear war.  However, audiences continue to look back upon the 50’s as the golden age of American society.  Hershberg even admits that Henriksen made him realize that 50’s films such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Day the Earth Stood Still were actually clever ways of portraying Cold War angst under the guise of Science Fiction.  Due to the extreme nostalgia Grease attempts to deliver, anxiety over the Cold War and nuclear threat is completely absent from the film.  The neglect of writers and filmmakers to give any attention to national or world politics preserves the sense of a simpler, untainted society.  Unfortunately, as Henriksen might agree, films such as Grease will continue to perpetuate a false, utopian historical view of 50’s society.

    Shumway argues the music in film is key in generating a strong sense of nostalgia.  His section concerning the music of the film American Graffiti directly relates to the popularity and nostalgic values of Grease as well.  American Graffiti led the way for Grease to gain the popularity that it has held on to for so many years.  Shumway defines a certain type of nostalgia he calls “commodified nostalgia,” which the cultural revival of commodities of a past time.  The growth of technology and mass media made it even easier for “commodified nostalgia” to spread.  Relatively recent pasts, such as the 50’s, are more often “packaged nostalgically” and can therefore illicit actual nostalgia in some of the target audience, and will often create a false nostalgia for those audience members who were never a part of the packaged time.  The rock-and-roll songs within the films American Graffiti and Grease are popularized by this “commodified nostalgia” in that many audience members who listened and popularized the soundtracks were not even old enough to have grown up with that music.  Rather, they replace their impressions of the past with the “original” past, and assume the depictions of the past within the film are true to history. 

    Rugg’s article mainly focuses on the nostalgia elicited from music theater.  Though Grease is a film, it began as a show on Broadway written by Jim Jacobs and Warren Casey in 1972, and was then adapted to film.  The same nostalgia is connected with the celluloid version, as well as the live performance.  Rugg describes nostalgia is as “longing for a past that never actually existed.”  Familiarity and a sense of connected history evoke emotional bonds between the audience and the characters.  Grease avoids complications such as race issues and sexual preference.  Rugg uses the musical Shot Boat as an example of how race relations jar audiences from the comfortable nostalgia that sets in.  Grease, on the other hand, maintains the comfortable sense of a simple, unproblematic past.  Though problems concerning romantic relationships and rival gangs are major aspects of the plot, there is an apparent but seemingly overlooked lack of cultural diversity within the cast.  Rugg also mentions that musicals will often aim to appeal to children with material that will also draw their parents to the theater as well.  Grease succeeds in doing this by combining teenage angst, adult actors and actresses, and a colorful 50’s decade.  This creates nostalgia in not only adult audience members, but a false sense of nostalgia within younger audience members as well.  

    Though the 1950’s is looked upon with nostalgia for a simpler, calmer time in American history, Whitfield also notes that it was a time of extreme repression and self-control.  Women placidly took on the role of “housewife” in the 50’s, but suddenly fought for independence once the 60’s hit.  Whitfield claims that men and their masculinity, though the backbone of the 50’s family and society, were actually quite fragile.  Especially when depicted in such films as Rebel Without a Cause, and East of Eden, the male hero (James Dean) is troubled by the demands of society.  Masculinity was stretched between two extremes in this decade – the tough soldier and the soft father figure.  This struggle of fulfilling both male roles takes place within the main character, Danny, played by John Travolta.  However society is not forcing Danny to choose between the two extremes.  Rather Sandy, Danny’s love interest (who is facing the same identity crisis) has unknowingly created his fragile situation.  Sandy, unlike other women of the 50’s decade, also undergoes a transformation from one social extreme to another.  Though she typified the young “housewife”-like female in the beginning of the film, she drastically changes to the sexually liberated female typical of the 60’s at the very end of the film.  Both characters had to contend with the fragile social balance 50’s society imposed upon them.