Odds and Ends
Something that has been on my mind ever since seeing Rihanna’s music video for her single “Russian Roulette:” what exactly is she trying to convey? Is she knowingly inviting controversy by creating a video that features Rihanna being shot at, with bloody results, underwater, being held in a torture chamber, pretty much being run over by a car…my immediate thought was, as a victim of domestic violence, why would she do this? Even if she is trying to send a positive message to girls that one can survive a horrible ordeal such as physical abuse, I feel like images like this in which there is ANY question on their meaning would simply be too risky to promote. I found another blogger’s post on this that pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter, and then one of the responses, from “Maura,” was very thought-provoking. I especially agree on Maura’s ending note: that regardless of what her intentions are, she should make them clear to the general public, because people can take things and run with them, so to speak. This site is also good because you can watch the video right there:
http://www.yasminshiraz.net/2009/11/14/video-feedback-rihannas-russian-roulette/
I did really appreciate her going on GMA and 20/20 and explaining why she went back to Chris Brown after the incident and not just giving some glossed-over, PR-approved answers like she did in a recent issue of Glamour magazine. She told Diane Sawyer,
“That’s embarrassing. That’s embarrassing that that’s the type of person that I fell in love with, so far in love, so unconditional that I went back…”You start lying to yourself. The minute the physical wounds go away, you want this thing to go away, this is a memory you don’t want to have ever again.”
Then she explained how she found the strength to leave Brown, saying, ”When I realized that my selfish decision for love could result into some young girl getting killed, I could not be easy with that part,”
I have to give her credit. Leaving someone you love that intensely could not have been an easy thing to do, and she owned up to going back to him instead of trying to spin the aftermath of the abuse incident differently.
What does everyone think about the whole situation, now that a year has passed and both parties are speaking up about the entire situation? What do you think about Rihanna’s music video?
Also…a friend of mine who read my post on the “Dove Real Beauty Campaign” for women had some interesting and well-thought-out points on the issue; she felt that Dove was doing a very positive thing for women, regardless of their overuse of the word “normal” or whatever self-laudatory comments the company has made in the press. She challenged me to find another advertising campaign in recent years that celebrates a woman’s natural body, flaws and all. And I have:
This Nike campaign with prose-like text supposedly from women championing their “big butt” and “thunder thighs.” I loved this campaign, more so than the Dove one, I think because not as big a deal was made that “normal” women were being used (hate that word, by the way). But then I really don’t know what to make of this:
http://amyfibich.blogspot.com/2007/06/ad-campaigns-target-body-image.html
It concerns a Brazilian yogurt’s ad campaign that featured photos of plus-sized women recreating famous movie scenes. Sounds okay so far, right? But then, the accompanying text in each ad reads: “Forget it. Men’s taste will never change.” Um, WTF?
It’s pretty late and I’m nowhere near as coherent as Ms. Fibich, but she has a really excellent lengthy post about other advertising campaigns that promote a healthy body image and I definitely recommend clicking on the above link.
Add a comment December 18, 2009
French Regulation Has Some Up in ArmsRalp
French politicians have recently proposed a law that would require any photograph that has been digitally enhanced or modified to be accompanied by a written disclaimer that would read, “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person.” Member of French Parliament, Valerie Boyer, issued a statement explaining the motive behind such legislature, which stated, “These images can make people believe in a reality that often does not exist.”
No doubt she had the recent scandal over at the fashion house of Ralph Lauren in mind, when blatantly altered photos of an emaciated-looking French model Filippa Hamilton 
were released in a campaign for their Blue Label jeans, igniting a firestorm of controversy. Hamilton was subsequently fired by Ralph Lauren, supposedly for being too fat. “They fired me because they said I was overweight and couldn’t fit in their clothes any more,” claims Hamilton, adding, ““I was shocked to see that super-skinny girl with my face, It’s very sad, I think, that Ralph Lauren could do something like that.” The image, which was part of their Japanese campaign, made it seem as if Hamilton’s head was actually bigger than her pelvis.
Violating the proposed French regulation, which would ideally appear with all digitally enhanced press photographs, political campaigns, art photography, packaging images, and advertisements, could result in a fine of 37,500 Euro (or $63,700) or as much as 50% of the cost of the advertisement. The law is part of France’s campaign against eating disorders, and Boyer acknowledges the large role digitally altered photos of women have, saying that being confronted with unrealistic standards of female beauty could lead to various kinds of psychological problems. This news has some members of the fashion and art worlds seeing red.
Matt Laur of the “Photo.net” community angrily posted,
“Will it also be illegal to run a print ad that refers to a noticeably grubby Parisian coffee shop serving slightly stale, non-flaky pastries brought to you by a slow, surly waiter as “a charming bistro?”
Because it’s the same damn thing.
I’d also like to know if models wearing some variety of delightful French undergarment capable of re-arranging their torsos into mesmerizing new shapes will require a fine print disclaimer. Or the ones wearing wigs, or veneers on their teeth, or … makeup. To say nothing of photographers using flattering light, carefully chosen lenses, and wind machines to make models look more exotic and appealing than they would when doing their laundry or cleaning up after their little French dog after a night out drinking.
Because retouching some love handles after the shoot is deceptive, but spending a month at the gym (or an hour under anesthesia) and getting rid of them the painful way isn’t?
Sacre bleu contact lenses, Batman!”
Fellow photographer Fred LePiere makes some excellent points as well, without sounding as biased or angry:
“This goes back to the old issue of does a photograph show “truth”? By now, in the 21st century, the concept that most in the photography field have come to realize is that, especially in this age of digital photography, all photos are accurate but none of them are true. If there is any truth to a photo at all, then some small part of a larger and changing truth lasted for but a fleeting moment and further that this truth was perceived by only one: to the person (read photographer) who recorded that instant. Everyone else who was present at that moment perceived some variation of that truth. It is impossible to take a photograph without altering reality. The camera is an instrument to record light in 2 dimensions only and cameras can record only a very narrow band of light – nothing like a humman eye can preceive. The dichotomy arises when we consider that we live in a four – that’s right FOUR dimensional world: height, width, depth AND the temporal component; for how can something exist unless it exists at some point in time? The photographer chooses the subject, the lens, the aperature, the shutter speed, the point of vue or angle from where the subject is to where the photographer is, the time of day, whether to use digital or film, if film, what type of film, what speed, black and white or color, should he use flash, what are the flash characteristics, etc? If he uses digital flash, would that be considered digital manipulation? This line of thought persists through capture, process and print and is amplified when a digital image is brought into the computer for further manipulation. Every one of these characteristics could be subject to the interpretation of “retouching or modification”.
Lets really examine the line”all enhanced photos would be accompanied by a line saying: “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person.”
Lets assume a full frame 35mm sensor. To record this person on a digital negative, that person must first be “enhanced” to such an extent as to make them as small as a postage stamp and to be only 2 dimensional. Now there’s retouching and physical appearance modification for you!
So —— the idea that some narrow minded and uninformed politician or group of politicians can come up with a law that is inconsistent with the laws of physics is, at once, laughable and tragic. Let’s assume they pass such a law. How and who will make the distinctions? The devil is always in the details and when such a case comes before the courts, the logic will be so full of holes it will fall apart.”
I can understand where both sides are coming from; artists, especially photographers, are concerned about preserving artistic merit and integrity and with the law going too far in terms of slapping this “warning” onto anything that has as much as a red-eye reduction. This brings to mind the age-old debate of what constitutes “art”…I wouldn’t find it appropriate, for example, to issue a disclaimer with a photo of a woman intended for an
A digitally altered photo of actress Keira Knightley
art gallery in which the contrast is altered or the shadow is enhanced. Photoshopping the love handles, though, off a celebrity for the cover of a fashion magazine? I definitely think that constitutes a warning. On the other hand, I think that this legislation is almost groundbreaking (and, note, it’s still only POTENTIAL legislation at this point) in the worldwide struggle for healthier body image acceptance and the fight against eating disorders. Granted, eating disorders can’t ever be completely blamed on the poor example set by the media, because a lot of it has to do with individual, psychological issues, but the impossibly high standards set by the fashion industry and celebrity-obsessed culture in general can only be harmful, not helpful in this regard.
I believe that only time will tell – first, even, if the legislation gets passed – as to how the fashion industry in France will be affected and if the law will be successful in its intention of helping guard against potentially harmful images (like the Ralph Lauren ad, for example) or not. If it goes too far in the other direction, and begins to “censor” or hinder artistic photography, then I think that enough noise will be made and people will appropriately intervene.
http://photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00UY4N
http://www.myfashionlife.com/archives/2009/10/01/france-puts-warnings-on-retouched-images/
1 comment December 12, 2009
“Maybe Next Time He’ll Think…”
Tiger Woods with wife Elin in happier times.
With all the news about Tiger Woods’ accident and the mysterious circumstances surrounding it, I thought now would be as good a time as any to comment on the double standard that exists in the media today concerning spousal abuse. For those of you who aren’t following the Woods case, there are allegations swirling that his wife, Elin, attacked him with a golf club before he fled to his Escalade, which she struck several times before he promptly drove it into his neighbor’s tree. The gossip says that Elin found out about Tiger’s mistress and completely lost it.
A lot of the feedback I have heard so far towards Elin has been negative, but there are still those people out there who are making comments like, “Good, he deserved it for cheating.” So it’s suddenly okay to hit someone because they committed adultery? Since when did two wrongs make a right? Domestic violence in my mind is NEVER okay, regardless of the circumstances.
Why is it okay in some people’s minds for women to beat men? They don’t consider it abuse, because males are the “stronger sex” and can defend themselves. Even so, to quote my kindergarten teacher, “People are not for hitting.” What really enrages me is the acceptance of this kind of abuse by the popular media. Take, for instance, the Dixie Chicks song, “Goodbye Earl,” in which a battered wife decides to take revenge on her no-good hubby with her best friend by poisoning his dinner. Instead of raising a red flag in discussion groups across America, the Chicks’ song became a sort of anthem for oppressed women everywhere. Then, more recently, came American Idol winner
Carrie Underwood filming her video for "Before He Cheats."
Carrie Underwood’s hit, “Before He Cheats,” which features the lyrics, “I dug my key into the side of his pretty little souped up 4 wheel drive/Carved my nails into his leather seats/Took a Louisville Slugger to both headlights/Slashed the wheels on all four tires/Maybe next time he’ll think/Before he cheats.” Um, excuse me, Ms. Underwood, but wouldn’t what you just did be considered a federal offense?
I think songs such as these are not empowering for women. They actually serve to set the feminist movement back a few decades, as far as I’m concerned. They make the female population seem like unstable loonies who can’t maturely handle a difficult situation without getting physical.
I definitely think a certain level of hypocrisy is present in today’s society and popular culture. For example, the R&B singer Rihanna, who suffered physical abuse at the hands of her ex-boyfriend, Chris Brown, is being lauded in the media as a martyr and role model for women everywhere for speaking out against domestic violence. However, she fails to explain in any interview what exactly happened that night, and I respect that, because those details should remain private, but there has been word that Rihanna was actually the one to first hit Brown and scratch him with her fingernails, provoking his anger. And now with Tiger Woods’ case on every major news station, he’s being depicted as the wrongdoer for (allegedly) committing adultery. What about his wife, Elin? Since when is it okay to hit somebody repeatedly with a golf club? She has two young children in the house that possibly witnessed this. But it seems as if she’s being absolved because she was the wronged party.
I will be interested to see how this case unfolds and what measures the police are going to take to obtain the truth.
Domestic Violence Against Men:
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm
3 comments December 1, 2009
Bella is a bad role model.
Since “New Moon” is breaking all kinds of records and the Twilight series in general is all the rage right now, I think I’ll write about something that has been bothering me since I saw the movie on Friday. Before I delve any deeper into the subject, I want to preface it by saying that the only book in the series I have read is actually “Twilight,” but I have seen both films, and I know (thanks to Wikipedia and annoying fangirls that won’t shut up) what happens in the rest of the series. Actually, I don’t even think that matters, because I think the opinion stated in this post’s title is evident to anyone that simply goes to see “New Moon” with no prior knowledge of the series at all. OK, so here goes.
I think that the character of Bella Swan, the heroine of the “Twilight” saga (portrayed in the film incarnations by Kristen Stewart, she of the awkward stutter and dead-fish facial expressions) is a negative role model for the millions of young girls bent on recreating her every move and buying “official” Twilight clothing and makeup from Nordstrom‘s teen line in order to be JUSTLIKEHER. Why?
- the entire main plotline of the series revolves around her devotion and subservience to a man…a hot, undead man, no less, but still. Bella’s entire happiness is wrapped up in Edward. When he leaves her in “New Moon,” she is understandably devastated, but instead of going through the process of recovering and moving on like most normal girls, she becomes suicidal, isolates herself from her friends and family, and believes that her life is worth nothing without the love of her ex-boyfriend. She has night terrors and screams at the top of her lungs almost every night. I’m not saying that girls should never struggle with their feelings after a breakup, and that being suicidal is wrong, but I think that this aspect of the series COMBINED with my other points results in it being a negative thing.
- When she finally does start to move on (or so it seems, at least for a while), she does so by finding another guy (Jacob). This shows young girls that one’s life, indeed, is dependent on men, as well as happiness. I think the film (and presumably the book as well) should have instead had her becoming okay with being on her own, being more secure with herself, and spending more time with friends and family.
- She engages in reckless behavior after breaking up with Edward, going for rides with strangers (gross older men, no less) on motorcycles, building her own motorcycle and riding it deliberately carelessly in an attempt to crash it, and going cliff diving.
- After she reconciles with Edward, she leads Jacob on. This is a direct quote from the movie, Bella talking to Jacob (IN FRONT OF EDWARD): “Jake, I love you…but don’t make me choose. Because I’ll choose him.” This is while she is leaning in close to Jacob, almost close enough to kiss him, and holding his bulging biceps. I think this sends a very bad message to young girls, that being a tease is okay, and that it will result in having two gorgeous guys falling all over you.
- She lies to her dad about what’s going on in her life and where she is, and disappears for three days, without (much) regard for his feelings. When she returns her father doesn’t even punish her. She’s supposed to be 18. In the first movie, she did the same thing, pretty much, lying also to her mother, with no consequences.
“Geek Chic” referenced a television show that I remember growing up that focused on a similar subject; “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” I think the female role models on this show were lightyears above and beyond Bella Swan. When Buffy’s vampire boyfriend got rough with her, she didn’t take it…she stabbed him in the heart. (Now, I’m not saying that it’s okay to do that literally, but you get the idea.) Willow made it okay – even sexy – for girls to be geeky without ever resorting to the whimpering and stammering emanating from Bella.
There’s one more thing that irritates me about the Twilight series, and that is the agenda author Stephanie Meyer seems to have. The metaphors comparing sex and the loss of virginity to ultimate pain and anguish are thinly veiled. It’s even been called “abstinence porn” by some online blogs, and I have to agree. Meyer makes no bones about her Mormon faith, and I guess the only thing I have to say is good for her, but please don’t shove it down the throats of the general public.
3 comments November 23, 2009
The Biggest Loser? Jillian Michaels!
So I was in CVS the other day and I saw something that kind of made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Jillian Michaels, physical trainer/slave driver for one of the teams on NBC’s hit reality show, “The Biggest Loser,” has her own line of diet pills out now. I’m sorry, but I thought her whole schpeel was about eating a healthy diet and incorporating lots of exercise to lose weight? And now she’s hawking diet pills? I was fine with her when she was producing exercise DVDs and books, but this truly wins her the title of the Biggest Hypocrite. One of her books, “Master Your Metabolism,” urges readers to not resort to drastic weight-loss methods like cleansing and fasting and…oh…DIET PILLS. And now, in addition to these magic pills, Michaels also has a “Master Cleanse” pill that you take over the course of 30 days.
There is NOTHING healthy about diet pills. I have been to several different eating disorder treatment programs and one of the first questions they ask you is whether or not you’ve taken diet pills. The doctors there placed them in the same category as laxatives and diuretics. And sure enough, the main ingredient in Michael’s pills is bitter orange extract – an unregulated herb that the National Institute of Health warns against, saying, ““There have been reports of fainting, heart attack, and stroke in healthy people after taking bitter orange supplements.”
The last thing that makes me think this woman is a charlatan is the fact that she’s got a new reality show in the works, called “Losing it With Jillian.” Kind of coincidental that she releases all this stuff at the same time, huh? Somehow, I don’t think she’ll just hand the contestants on “Losing It” her diet pills…
I just think that this woman is an awful role model for women and young girls who want to lose weight. She was all about doing it naturally and motivating yourself to succeed, and now she wants more money, (these pills cost $87!!!), so she sells out. Shame on you, Jillian! YOU are the Biggest Loser!
4 comments November 8, 2009
Why Are These Women Even Famous?
If you’ve ever seen the musical “Chicago” (or its Oscar-winning film adaptation), then you’re familiar with the concept of people who become celebrities because of circumstance, not talent, and how far some people will go to achieve that status. Well, at least the merry murderesses Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly did something to become famous…even if it was committing murder.
Nowadays, we have the Kardashian family (siblings Kim, Khloe, and Kourtney…how…kute) and the ladies of “The Hills” and its spawn, “The City.” The Kardashian girls have not one but TWO hit reality shows, (both on the E! network, a channel that confusingly places these no-talent wannabes on a pedestal, glorifying them on their own shows as well as on “E! News” and the “Daily Ten”, then tears them down with the late night skewering of “Chelsea Lately” and “The Soup.”), “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” and “Kourtney and Khloe Take Miami,” both of which I have watched only once. They, essentially, are about nothing. The girls own a clothing store, which, I imagine, is financed by their parents, and live at the Bentley Beach Hotel, which, I imagine, is financed by E!. The sisters continue to make the covers of every popular American tabloid magazine on a regular basis and I have no clue why. They don’t *DO* anything. Their stepfather is Bruce Jenner, former Olympian, who also happens to be the father of fellow waste-of-life reality “star” Brody Jenner. Kim, perhaps the most famous of the daughters, is known for having a sex tape with Brandy’s little brother, Ray-J, and for having a big butt. And yet these people are rewarded for their lavish lifestyles and dogged pursuit of celebrity by geting the press, the news articles, the TV airtime, and the money they want. Khloe was recently married after a ridiculously fast engagement to LA Lakers basketball star Lamar Odom, and guess who footed the $1 million bill?
That’s right, E! Entertainment…provided, of course, that they could film it and turn it into a 2-hour special. Then there were the details of their pre-nup, which were splashed all over celebrity gossip websites and news programs that I’m not even going to go into. I just wonder if their divorce proceedings will be made into a 2-hour special, as well.
Then there are the ladies of “The Hills:” Lauren “LC” Conrad, Audrina Patridge, Whitney Port, Kristen Cavallari, and Heidi Pratt. This is supposedly a “reality show” taking place in Los Angeles but anyone that actually believes the show is unscripted probably still believes that OJ was innocent and that the Holocaust never happened. A recent article shed light on the girls’ salaries as of last season: Conrad, arguably the show’s “star,” made $125,000 per episode and had a stipulation in her contract that stated no other cast member could earn more. The rest of the cast didn’t suffer, though, earning $100,000 per episode – no paltry sum. Again, though, like the Kardashian Klan – what do these girls do?!?! Lauren had an internship at Teen Vogue, but it was mostly for the cameras, as was her stint at PR firm People’s Liberation. Whitney Port worked with Diane von Furstenburg in New York City during her spinoff, “The City,” but it has been largely speculated that this was also a de facto position…like the reality shows themselves, mostly gloss, not much substance. As for Heidi Pratt (formerly Montag) and Spencer Pratt, the couple everyone loves to hate? (Chelsea Handler simply refers to them as “Herpes Simplex 1 and 2″) Their lavish nuptials created the backdrop for last year’s season finale of “The Hills” (and for Conrad’s departure) and cost well over $2 million, seeing as Heidi’s Monique Lhullier gown cost $19,000 and her Neil Lane diamonds cost $1.2 million. Of course, MTV paid for the entire thing.
What message is this sending to the normal folk of America, especially little girls, who see these sad excuses for human beings behaving badly and being rewarded for it? It’s not just these two shows, either…it’s the majority of reality programming in general. What happened to being famous for actually having talent? Or did that go out with the arrival of “One Night in Paris,” the infamous sex tape of the queen of being famous for absolutely nothing, Miss Paris Hilton? Even President Obama has realized the effect this kind of programming is having over the youngest generation. In one of his recent speeches, he said:
“I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.But the truth is, being successful is hard.”
Now, I wouldn’t equate playing basketball or rapping with being a reality TV star, because the former two do require talent, but it is telling of reality TV’s place in today’s culture that Obama threw being a reality TV star in with the other two.
http://www.realityblurred.com – a good, comprehensive website commenting on today’s reality programs, with a slightly snarky edge
1 comment October 31, 2009
Man, I Feel Like a Woman
With Halloween coming, my thoughts go to costumes and dressing up. At first, I was thinking about writing a post about the slut phenomenon, how when Halloween rolls around the corner women everywhere suddenly shed 90% of their clothes. You know what I mean; it was articulated pretty well by Lindsay Lohan in “Mean Girls:” (one of my all-time favorite movies to quote, by the way…there are some gems) Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.” Then I thought, no, that subject has kind of been discussed elsewhere already. So I turned the TV onto AMC, who is airing its marathon of Halloween-themed movies this week, and saw Sigourney Weaver in “Alien,” and thought about blogging on women’s roles in horror movies. Then, I quickly changed the channel, A) because I hate that movie, it always has freaked me out, and B) because that, too, has been done before. So then I thought about something else related to Halloween – males who dress as women for fun, or crossdressers. Yes, this has been covered elsewhere, as well, but I feel like it is very misunderstood by the public. The simple act of crossdressing is actual a fetish, and doesn’t always mean that the male is transgendered, transsexual, or homosexual.
There is an interesting blog that I have found recently titled “Femulate.” It is written by a man that enjoys dressing as a woman at times. He has a “normal” life, with a wife (yes, a heterosexual, straight wife), a daughter, and a corporate job. He’s not gay, a circus freak, doesn’t fit the flamboyant stereotype associated with crossdressing. As he puts it on his website, he’s a “plain, vanilla crossdresser.” He explains that his goal in maintaining his blog is “to continue to spread the word about transwomen like me, so that society will be more tolerant and open-minded of our tribe.” I think that this is a commendable goal and a commendable individual, in general. He is very open and honest about his experiences as both a male and a female and does a wonderful job of explaining what it is like to enjoy dressing as the opposite sex. Staci (this is his “en femme” name, but I don’t know his male one) even participates in outreach events in which she and other people – transgendered individuals, post and pre-op, mostly – attend Human Sexuality classes, tell their stories to the classes, and answer any questions that the students might have. She writes about her first time doing this, and how nervous she was, and my heart went out to her. What Staci is doing is amazing. Instead of feeling ashamed and embarrassed because she is a little different than other women, she’s embracing her dual sexualities and ignoring what the media and society in general says is “normal.”
Staci’s blog immediately reminded me of an unaired pilot I had watched recently on the internet by the talented Ryan Murphy (who is behind two of my FAVORITE TV shows, “Nip/Tuck,” and “Glee”) called “Pretty/Handsome.” It was from 2005 and starred Joseph Fiennes (now on “Flash/Forward,” which I am told is very good, but I can’t help but be sad, because if the former had succeeded then Fiennes would not be on it) as a gynecologist, of all things, named Bob, that secretly likes to crossdress. The pilot centers on the coming of Halloween, which is what really reminded me of this whole subject in the first place. Bob dresses as a nurse, and his ability to attend a public function in his female guise is elating. The supporting cast is excellent – Carrie-Anne Moss stars as his frigid wife, and Robert Wagner and Blythe Danner are hysterical as Bob’s WASPy parents. Also wonderful is the inclusion of a transgendered couple who come to Bob as patients seeking help with surgery; the struggles they face are very true to real life. I wonder if as the show continued Bob would realize that he is transgendered or if he would simply realize that he enjoys wearing women’s clothing. Actually, it would have been interesting if it DIDN’T ever define that, because many individuals have trouble ever defining it in real life.
I recently went to see a musical in Washington, DC, at the Signature Theater, called “Dirty Blonde,” about the life of Mae West. It had a parallel story centering on the relationship that develops between two of her greatest fans, Jo and Charlie, after they meet at her gravesite. This would definitely be considered a spoiler, so stop reading now if you don’t want to know…but it is eventually revealed that Charlie is a crossdresser, although he is in love with Jo. The way Jo handles it is touching and real, and the ending is sheer perfection. I enjoyed it very much and recommend it to anyone, really. In reading about it online I learned that it is the one of the few plays in Broadway history to have the entire cast be nominated for a Tony award. It was also nominated for Best Director and Best Play.
Another piece of media that approaches this subject is the film “Normal” with Jessica Lange and Tom Wilkinson. His character, however, is transgendered, so it is a little different.
Here is the link to the “Femulate” blog:
http://www.femulate.org/ – she has recently blogged about Halloween, and it is quite an interesting post.
Here is the link to the “Pretty/Handsome” unaired pilot:
http://www.supernovatube.com/play.php?viewkey=eef2bcff6bf0fdf69846
Add a comment October 27, 2009
Is touting plus-sized as “normal” ultimately detrimental?
I wasn’t too sure what to write about this week, but then my friend sent me a link to a very interesting article from his alma mater. He has been following my blog and he found it relative. So thanks, Santi!
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=529238
Lizzie Miller in Glamour Magazine
The article is by a junior named Courtney Fiske. It concerns the subject of using “plus-sized” models in advertising campaigns. First of all, the women that are considered to be “plus sized” aren’t even deserving of that label. They are normal sized women of average weight – considerably slimmer, actually, than the majority of females in America. Fiske mentions Lizzie Miller, a model who was featured in a recent issue of Glamour magazine. She is plus sized, which is all well and good, but the editor of the magazine, Cindy Levine, writes a seemingly self-laudatory diatribe about how great it is that Glamour is featuring a model whose belly looks “normal.” However, the rest of the issue is rife with stick-thin models.
Then, she mentions “Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty,” which I have seen many times before and thought, “Oh, that’s great!” But Fiske brings up an interesting point: the campaign practically hammers readers and viewers over the head with the words “normal” and “real.” This quote, in particular, struck me: “Yet affixing the word “normal” to a nebulous concept linked with larger waist lines is equally troublesome. The effort draws attention to the female body as a site of political contestation, to be argued about and picked apart by others.
Image from Dove's "Real Beauty" Campaign
Like so many cultural forces, it reduces women to their bodies, to the myth of the female as flesh, immanence, and passivity, the embodiment of limitation and contingency. What’s more, it delegitimizes the experiences of certain women—those who are thin, both naturally and unnaturally—and ostracizes them to the realm of abnormality.”
I completely agree with Ms. Fiske in this sense. I don’t really know WHAT the solution is…not talk about women’s bodies, in general? Well, that’s not a solution…that’s simply ignoring the elephant (pun unintended) in the room. Maybe the answer is to accept that nothing, really, is normal, and that every woman (well, I’m assuming so…I have yet to meet one that doesn’t) has imperfections and issues with their bodies. I think that this article is an interesting one because it highlights a kind of inverse or unexpected problem occurring in the media today. Until “plus-sized” or “normal” women (now I feel strange using either of those terms, but I don’t know what other word to use here) become more prevalent in the media, in print and on screen, then there will always be issues and debates such as this. Or, let me put it differently: until articles like Fiske’s cease to be written, we don’t need campaigns like Dove’s, and until I post a blog responding to it, then there is a problem with the media and the female body.
*The comments below Fiske’s article are almost as equally as interesting as the piece itself!
5 comments October 11, 2009
Women in Comedy
After watching Saturday Night Live this past weekend, it got me thinking about the huge topic of women as comedians. I’ll try to cover most of what interests me about this topic, but if any of you have any other points to bring up that I’m sure I’ll miss, please post them in the comments section!! First of all, Megan Fox was a terrible host. She was terribly unfunny and proved many critics correct in their opinion that she is only famous for her looks, not her talent (or lack thereof). Reflecting on the hosts over the years, it seems to me that males are much more memorable than females; Justin Timberlake, for example, and Jon Hamm, are recent hosts that come to mind. Females? Not so much. As for regular cast members, the females have been in the news as of late. Casey Wilson and Michaela Watkins were recently fired, and some claimed it was because they were too fat, although this makes no sense whatsoever because they are overweight by nobody’s standards. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2143491/casey_wilson_and_michaela_watkins_fired.html?cat=2
This article explains it much better, citing Wilson’s developing film career as a reason for the dismissals. Jenny Slate and Nasim Pedrad replaced Wilson and Watkins and Slate has already caused a commotion, having accidentally dropped the “f-bomb” during one of her first sketches last Saturday with Megan Fox.
Even though the two SNL gals weren’t fired for being overweight, there is a definite image problem when it comes to females in the comedy industry. (Is “comedienne” even a politically correct term anymore? It seems kind of sexist to me.) Kathy Griffin has admitted and even had TV specials concerning having large amounts of plastic surgery. Joan Rivers…well, we don’t even need to go there, but I will say that she has a 
great sense of humor about the whole thing and spoofed herself on several episodes of FX’s “Nip/Tuck,” a dramedy about – you guessed it – plastic surgery. Margaret Cho has given interviews about the enormous amount of weight that she’s lost, and her career is on the upswing because of it – she recently shot a reality show for VH1, “The Cho Show,” and now has a lead role on the critically acclaimed Lifetime comedy “Drop Dead Diva.” Late-night host Chelsea Handler is wickedly funny, but I have to wonder if she would be as big a success if she wasn’t blonde, beautiful, and a size six – not to mention in a serious relationship with E! Network (the channel that airs her show, “Chelsea Lately”)’s head of programming. Even comedic actresses are of a certain shape and “look.” Kristin Chenoweth, who just won an Emmy for her role on ABC’s “Pushing Dasies,” Sarah Jessica Parker, of
E!'s Chelsea Handler
Manolos and martinis and “Sex and the City,” Amy Sedaris, offbeat star of Comedy Central’s “Strangers With Candy,” (and also of SATC fame), Kate Hudson, Drew Barrymore, and Katherine Heigl are all petite blondes with mega-watt smiles. The female comedy stars that are considered less traditionally pretty are still absolutely gorgeous by anyone’s standards: Sarah Silverman, (she’s “F—ing Matt Damon,” after all!), Isla Fisher, Debra Messing, Sandra Bullock…the list goes on and on, and it’s always been that way, really. Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett, Mary Tyler Moore, Goldie Hawn?? All knockouts, not only in the comedic realm but in the looks department as well. To me, it doesn’t seem fair. It seems like women not only have to work harder to prove themselves and tell funnier jokes, they have to look flawless as well. That’s certainly not expected of men. Chris Farley and James Belushi, anyone? Not only were they considered unattractive by industry standards – they flaunted and joked about it! Farley’s “Chippendales” SNL skit with the late Patrick Swayze is now considered a comedy classic.
When women do attempt to remain a size 16 in a sea of zeroes, however, they’re criticized immensely for it. Rosie O’Donnell, for example, experienced a huge backlash for years – she still does, in fact – after leaving her talk show and putting on some more weight. Critics, also, loved to hate Roseanne Barr for her appearance, until recently, when she caved in, dropped about 60 pounds, and dyed her hair blonde. Even Ugly Betty has changed since the first season aired – she’s become more stylish, more sophisticated – and apparently in the upcoming season she gets a head-to-toe makeover. http://justjared.buzznet.com/2009/08/04/ugly-bettys-makeover-revealed/
“Drop Dead Diva,” the show I mentioned earlier that airs on Lifetime (Mondays at 9 PM EST) is a refreshing step in the right direction. It is about Jane Bingum, a successful and intelligent lawyer who is shot by a vengeful client at the exact same time that Deb, a vapid and shallow wannabe-supermodel, dies in a car crash. Deb enters Jane’s body and the two co-exist…much to Deb’s dismay. Slowly, Deb/Jane becomes more confident about her appearance and is able to help other people feel happy with themselves as well. I really like the message the show sends and the actress that plays Jane, Brooke Elliot, is beautiful and funny. I really hope that it continues in the same vein and doesn’t try to introduce a lame plot line where Jane goes on a diet and loses weight to get a man, but it doesn’t really seem like it will. Interestingly, many of the guest stars – Liza Minelli, Rosie O’Donnell, Delta Burke, Kathy Najimy, and Nia Vardalos – are all female comedians that have embraced being plus-sized.
Finally, I want to post a link to a Marie-Claire article I read this summer that directly relates to this topic. It’s called “We’ll Show YOU Who’s Funny!” and it features comments from many famous women comedians that I’ve mentioned in this post. Here’s the link:
3 comments September 29, 2009
The “Mad Men” Phenomenon
January Jones, Christina Hendricks, and Elizabeth Moss of AMC's Mad Men
For my first post on this new blog for my online class entitled “Women, Girls, and the Media,” I’m going to talk about one of my favorite shows currently on television: Mad Men, which airs new episodes Sunday nights at 10pm est on AMC. Not only is it one of the most critically acclaimed shows right now, (it was nominated for sixteen Emmy Awards this year, including Best Drama, which it won), but it is making huge waves in pop culture and fashion circles, as well. It’s gotten so big that Oprah herself recently featured the leads, Jon Hamm and January Jones, on an episode of her show. The show is a period piece, set in the early 1960s, and takes place at an advertising agency on Madison Avenue in New York City (hence, the show’s title). The world of advertising is presented as largely a boys’ club, with the only women present as housewives or secretaries. Even in portraying these oft-explored stereotypes, though, the show’s writers reach new depths; Betty Draper, played to melancholy perfection by Jones, is hardly the perfect wife and mother suggested by her Grace Kelly hairstyle and June Cleaver wardrobe. She is lonely, isolated, and terribly unsatisfied with her role as matriarch. Similarly, Joan Holloway, Don Draper’s secretary, (played by the beautiful Christina Hendricks) possesses a complexity of which only viewers are aware. Joan carried on an affair with one of the heads of the ad company, Roger Sterling, but refused to let herself become a lovelorn cliche, pining for a married man. Instead, she ended the affair and moved on, becoming engaged and later married to a successful doctor while it was Roger, instead, that wistfully looked back in longing.
Joan Holloway, played by Christina Hendricks
Finally, Peggy Olson, played by Elizabeth Moss, who was just nominated for an Emmy for her role, defies all Stepford Wife stereotypes as a career-minded young woman who starts off as a secretary but is quickly promoted to the only female copywriter in the entire agency. She’s constantly trying to infiltrate the ranks of the boys’ club, but even that potential stereotype manages to stay fresh, because lately Peggy’s been trying to make nice with the other secretaries she “left behind,” so to speak, and is realizing that you can’t have it both ways. I love Mad Men because it refuses to create stereotypes out of any of its characters (not just the female ones; Don, played by Hamm, is an unfaithful husband who fabricated his entire past, but it’s impossible not to feel for him when he’s tucking his daughter into bed and gently kissing her brow) – it cares too deeply for them, and that’s incredibly admirable. Another reason I wanted to write about the show on this blog was the wonderful thing it’s done for fashion and for women’s body images in general – brought back curves. Jones, Hendricks, and Moss have all commented in interviews that they had actually been asked to gain weight for their roles and even had to wear padding in some scenes to authentically recreate the softer silhouettes of womens’ bodies in the 1960s. The show never paints this as a negative thing, either – quite the contrary; it celebrates their lovely bodies and depicts men reacting favorably to them. The wardrobe for the female characters is, in a word, fabulous, and provided inspiration for countless designers this season. Cashmere twin sets, strands of pearls, and pencil skirts paraded up and down the runways, and personally, I couldn’t be happier. These clothes are the epitome of classy and chic, and it would be so nice to see jeans that expose one’s butt crack fall off people’s radars where they rightfully belong!
http://www.amctv.com:80/originals/madmen/madmenyourself/
2 comments September 23, 2009
