Star kids don't like photogs either!

Jayden Spears' reaction to the paparazzi. If only Britney could use the Spiderman method as well...

A Visit to Shutter Island

“I can’t stomach the water,” says a seasick U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) to his partner, Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) on a boat to the infamous Shutter Island. A clever and ironic line in the opening sequence that one can’t help but interpret as a reference to Leo’s other water-heavy film—Titanic. But Shutter Island is not Titanic, and DiCaprio’s performance in the Martin Scorsese-directed film adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s novel, is delicately nuanced and highlights the actor’s growth in his craft.

Part psychological thriller, part historical fiction, with a sprinkling of fantasy/horror and romance, and a dash of detective flick, Shutter Island is an exercise in generic mixing that audiences are probably not used to seeing Scorsese direct. Set in 1950s Boston, the film follows Daniels as he and his partner come to Shutter Island, home of the Ashecliffe Hospital for the criminally insane, to solve a missing person’s case.

The plot of the movie is standard. Secrets lurk in every nook and cranny of the eerie psychiatric institution, and as mysteries are uncovered and covered again, the truth and reality become more obscured for both Daniels as well as the audience. Reveals escalate in intensity and culminate with the most dramatic and shocking moments of the film. While Shutter Island is incredibly formulaic, what is not is Scorsese’s direction and DiCaprio’s performance. We’ve seen other amazing Director/Actor pairs over the years: Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder, Alfred Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton, Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp…and of course, Scorsese and Robert DeNiro. These collaborations are at their best when both director and actor are pushing each other towards artistic growth and achievement.

We see Scorsese and DiCaprio do just that in Shutter Island. The film requires Leo to be more vulnerable as a protagonist than he has ever been. More than that, it requires the spectator to completely identify with his plight both emotionally and physically. This is where the genius of Scorsese comes into play—from strategic camera angles and movements to the placement of sound, the island becomes a character itself. There are sequences in the film that are beautiful, both cinematically and in the development of the narrative because of DiCaprio’s acting and Scorsese’s use of the camera. A journey into the confines of the forbidden Ward C is made even more suspenseful by the flickering of a match…a light that keeps going in and out as Daniels speaks to a “prisoner” and begs for answers enveloped in the confines of the hospital—answers that are continually escaping his grasp.

Ultimately, audiences will hopefully appreciate the intricacies of the production itself in addition to the twists and turns that the film puts forth in its narrative. While the movie could have been a tad shorter (at a running time of nearly 2 ½ hours it is hard for even the most well-intentioned project to not bathe in exposition), the slow pacing of the film was a choice—for better or for worse. But what sold me on Shutter Island was the energy that clearly exuded on screen from both DiCaprio and Scorsese…a great partnership indeed!

My Top Films of the Decade

As a professed Film Girl, I had to have an obligatory post stating my top films of not the year, but the whole DECADE. It was a difficult task, mainly because I barely remember the last three movies I saw this year. But with the help of some late night chats with friends and some deep soul searching, I’ve compiled a list of films that may not be the best (though some are), but have influenced popular culture…and some just make me feel good. Comments are appreciated! And in no particular order, they are:

The Dark Knight (2008) – When it comes to superheroes, Batman probably wouldn’t be considered the best. But what makes him shine are his complex adversaries and Heath Ledger’s transformation into The Joker was nothing less than amazing. Complete with director Christopher Nolan’s intricate script and nuanced direction, the movie stands out as one of the best film projects of the decade.

Brokeback Mountain (2005) – “I wish I knew how to quit you.” And we still can’t get enough of the romance between Ennis and Jack that stood the test of time.

Mean Girls (2004) – The Clueless of the Millenium, thanks to one of the entertainers of the decade, the lovely Miss Tina Fey.

There Will Be Blood (2007) – Paul Thomas Anderson’s exploration into the life and mind of one oil man in the early 20^th century as he goes morally bankrupt should be considered one of the greatest American films of all time.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006) – The little film that could…sweet and simple, it captured hearts one Superfreak dance at a time.

Meet the Parents (2000) – Ben Stiller and his gang at their best. And without this movie, we wouldn’t have…

The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005) – If comedy of the early 2000s was controlled by the Frat Pack , the late years of the Millenium were all about Judd Apatow and his crew of merry men.

The Notebook (2004) – C’mon, who doesn’t love a romantic drama? I could have chosen Love Actually, but Nicholas Sparks’ tale of enduring love was made into a solid film thanks to a great emerging director (Nick Cassevetes) and actors (Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams). It made me swoon.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) – The movie was so-so, at best. But the electrifying chemistry between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie couldn’t be denied to audiences or Jennifer Aniston, apparently.

Memento (2000) – We may have had to watch it a few times, but Christopher Nolan’s exercise in the deconstruction of time through film is a memorable addition to the decade.

Final Destination (2000) – How many ways can you kill a person? Apparently the options are endless! In the first installment of the franchise, audiences waited with bated breath on how Death would end another person’s life. This movie’s interesting premise ushered in a whole slew of torture porn films that included Saw and Hostel.

WALL-E (2008) – Let’s face it, Pixar has never really had a misstep. And this decade (from Finding Nemo to The Incredibles) was no exception. But WALL-E ‘s story and execution go unrivaled in animated film.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) – Quirkiness at its best that managed to explain love and heartache in a way that was palpable, thought-provoking, and genuine.

The Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter/Twilight – What happens when beloved book series turn into enormous film franchises? I think we know the answer.

Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) – Johnny Depp is back!

Moulin Rouge (2001) – All the excess and singing that a girl could ever want.

Shrek (2001) – This family flick deconstructed the fairytale in a way that was smart and funny to audiences of all ages.

Cloverfield (2008) – JJ Abrams’ monster movie may not have made a huge splash at the box office, but its advertising campaign made viral marketing the new face of promotion.

Madea’s Family Reunion (2006) – Don’t hate the player, hate the game. The Tyler Perry empire grew exponentially this decade when his church plays turned into high grossing theatrical releases. Though we might gremise at Perry’s stereotypical representation of African-American culture, a new audience of black filmgoers rushed into theaters to see Madea’s antics.

Kill Bill, Vol. I &II (2003,2004) – Quentin Tarantino is back!

The Ring (2002) – The first movie to be released in the American love affair with contemporary Japanese horror flicks. If we had forgotten after Poltergeist, The Ring reminded us of why we’re scared of little children and television sets.

Remember the Titans (2000) – Audiences suffered through multiple reincarnations of this movie, but none could replicate the racially charged/divided community/sports unites us all feel that Remember the Titans perfected.

Love and Basketball (2000) – Gina Prince Bythewood’s tender tale of post-soul black love is a narrative we don’t see often in theaters and this film is one of the best depictions of it.

Cast Away (2000) – Very few individuals can keep you captivated single-handedly for 2 ½ hours, with hardly any dialogue, and Tom Hanks did it effortlessly. Well…with a little help from Wilson too.

Honorable Mentions: Casino Royale (2006), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), Children of Men (2006), Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001), Far From Heaven (2002), Precious (2009)

Another One Bites the Dust...

It's the end of an era for daytime television. The CBS program, As the World Turns, has officially been canceled after 54 years on air. The soap opera garnered many dedicated fans in the last five decades, but is another casualty in the waning spotlight of the television genre that once conquered daytime television viewership. Budget cuts and poor ratings have led to drastic changes in how soaps function. While some have been unable to weather the storm (Guiding Light aired its final episode in September), others have tried to adapt to the changing climate of the industry by altering production value, cutting cast members, decreasing pay, and even moving studios clear across the country, such as All My Children's move to Los Angeles from its original NYC home.

Still, the imminent question remains: Is the end of the soap opera genre near? In her seminal book, Reading the Romance, Janice Radway qualitatively analyzes the female audience of popular culture, and in particular, the romance novel. Many of her observations on the reception of this literary genre applies to the female viewership of soap operas. Yet, the continual decline in soap ratings is a prime indicator that women's relationship to daytime television is rapidly changing.

First, is the obvious: More women are joining the workforce. And while TiVo and DVR have replaced antiquated methods of recording television programs, and SoapNet has made it easy to watch your daytime soaps during the night, none of this makes up for the lack of interest or time in committing to a year-long serial drama. An older generation of female fans also may not be as technologically advanced to utilize these new methods of viewing, which include online streaming of the latest episodes.

Second: Less new female viewers. Soap operas are traditionally known for their intergenerational appeal. Communal watching existed between generations, from grandmother to mother to daughter. However, with the influx of teen soaps/dramas, such as Gossip Girl and reality television programming like The Hills, it could be inferred that young women are finding other, more "hip" ways to fulfill their melodramatic desires.

Third: Stilted program content. While soaps are advancing in their storylines to include more diversity, they are still far behind the gap in progressive narratives. The genre has a notoriously difficult time with sustaining change--for example, storylines that include gay characters are often introduced and quickly brushed aside for lack of innovation in content. In addition, the programs still have a hard time bringing people of color on board in consistent narratives.

Fourth: In general, daytime television programming is changing. With shows like The View blowing full steam ahead with their biting socio-cultural commentary shtick, it is difficult for soaps to remain relevant and entertaining in the contemporary (and dare I say, post-Obama) America. Perhaps a new format is needed to revitalize the genre.

Needless to say, it'll be interesting when Oprah leaves her position as daytime TV legend. Where will female audiences who remained so dedicated to daytime television for 50 years turn?

The Trouble with Tiger

In the aftermath of Tiger Woods' bizarre car accident and amidst reports of infidelity, the pro-golfer's star scandal is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The barrage of media reports on Tiger's private life in less than a week is staggering, as Woods tries to navigate his new position as a tabloid staple.

In this short amount of time, Tiger has received criticism for his handling of the scandal, which has led me to wonder, what is effective celebrity crisis management? Is it silence, waiting for the media frenzy to hopefully run its course? Is it public confession of transgressive behavior...and through what medium--via tweet, PR rep, print or televised interview? Do you sit down with Oprah, Barbara, or Diane? Shed tears? Show any type of remorse or guilt? There are many options for atonement and celebrities have utilized them all, for better or for worse. Indeed, measuring the efficacy of the crisis management seems to correlate with the authenticity by which it is presented. Let's take a few examples:

1.) David Letterman
Letterman's admission of affairs with female employees on his late night talk show was the perfect atmosphere for the public to learn of his behavior because of its lighter tone. Audiences were able to identify with his narrative and thus, Letterman completely side swept any type of indictment to become simply, the victim of extortion and blackmail. The early bird catches the worm in this case...admit your deed before someone else does.

2.) Kanye West
I don't think Kanye could have predicted how huge the public fallout would be after he made a stink when angelic Taylor Swift won a MTV Video Music Award. His public apology on Jay Leno's new talk show was initially conventional until Leno shockingly reached for the jugular and prompted Kanye to speak on how his deceased mother would have reacted to his behavior. Regardless of whether West knew that Leno would ask him such a question, it clearly made an impact on him. Kanye's pause of the century made him sound sincere in his apology. I even felt kind of bad for the guy!



3.) Rihanna
Domestic abuse is always a tough crisis to maneuver publicly. As the media and public constructed her in both a positive and negative light due to her relationship with Chris Brown, Rihanna for the most part sat in silence as the gossip mill continued to run. Her public confession through a special interview with Diane Sawyer was both simple and straight-to-the point. While some criticized the timing of the interview--right before her new album's release--the conversation's candid and mature quality seemed to quell the thirst for more information on the story.

4.) Jon and Kate
Reality TV celebrities Jon and Kate have spent the last year in the thick of public scrutiny as their marriage, family, and television show, crumbled to a screeching halt upon accusations of Jon's infidelity. Both Jon and Kate's multiple confessions through multiple delivery channels (tabloid magazine exclusives, daytime television talk shows, and even their own TLC program) was ultimately too rehearsed and constructed for anyone to gain empathy for either party.

Now back to Tiger. In his second website posting, Woods comments that:

Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means.

It is interesting that Woods does not define himself in this context as a celebrity or even famous, but rather as a "well-known person." It is true that in his many years of international stardom, insights into his personal life have been generally benign, his image well-contained by both his minders and Tiger himself, who is known for privileging his privacy. One might ascertain that if we define contemporary celebrity by tabloid media image circulation, he never reached that level until the current debacle. Therefore, he literally doesn't know how to deal with such intense and invasive conversation about the rupture within his domestic life. What Tiger doesn't realize is that in the 21st century, celebrity gossip is not about morality. Though some may be indicting him under the guise of his departure from role-model status, this media circus is really about entertainment. In many ways, the shattering of Tiger's empire was a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. The tabloid frenzy about his adultery is less about the actual act and more about unearthing some semblance of the "truth" of Tiger, something that has escaped the public since his foray into superstardom. So don't take it personal, Tiger. What really matters is how well you play the game. In the end, it's all a performance. And we are all waiting for the final act!

For Your Entertainment

Last Sunday at the American Music Awards, America got a taste of the "real" Adam Lambert, uninhibited, confident, and ready to shock audiences with his sexually charged performance. Everything about the performance was constructed... complete with its placement at the end of the show, and CBS' feigned lack of knowledge about the content of the piece when faced with many audience complaints in the aftermath. Lambert was also clearly in on the joke--his new single, "For Your Entertainment," can be seen as a self-reflexive, tongue-in-cheek commentary on his visibility in the public sphere as spectacle. And his performance provided plenty of spectacle. With pole dancers, men on leashes, simulations of oral sex, and a male/male kiss, Lambert sauntered across the stage completely owning it all. Was it excessive? Yes. Was it exhibitionist? Clearly. But since when has entertainment ever not been preoccupied with spectacle, especially of a sexual nature?

Don't we all remember Britney's striptease? Madonna's unholy writhing on the floor with a wedding dress? Janet's breast? All examples of women who have utilized their (hetero)sexuality to create controversy. Lambert's performance was no different from these overt displays of sexuality, except in its queering of conventions. His (homo)sexual behavior on the public stage becomes, well, freakish. The hyper-visibility of his queer desire is in contestation with the public's desire to see a very heteronormative display of sexuality. So why is the general public still so unnverved by gay male performers that break convention? I've observed that in the music industry, this attitude is incredibly pervasive. Not since Ricky Martin has a male musical artist received so much attention based on his questionable sexuality. It seems that not winning American Idol was the best thing that could have happened to Adam Lambert. Unlike his counterpart Kris Allen, he can fully explore his aesthetic without the strict regime that AI status brings with it.

Precious

My roommate and I went to see Precious, which is now in limited release across the country. The theater was packed with brown folk, which excited me because this is a film that everyone should see and support.

Precious is based on the novel, Push, by poet and singer Sapphire. It explores the interiority of an illiterate black teen, Claireece “Precious” Jones, who goes through just about every imaginable hardship one could imagine. Verbally and physically abused by her mother and raped by her father (who in turn fathers her own two children), Precious enrolls in alternative school and begins to find self-worth despite her circumstances. The film is directed and produced by Lee Daniels, of Monster’s Ball and The Woodsman (one of my favorite films) fame. All of his films examine subjects on the fringes of society through themes of love, struggle, and ultimately redemption.

Paula Patton was completely believable as a teacher who takes Precious and her classmates under her wing. Her understated performance was a breath of fresh air amidst superficial portrayals of the Educator who Saves the Children character type. Mariah Carey’s role as a social worker was brilliant in its subtlety and Lenny Kravitz also held his own with a bit part as a male nurse. Mo’Nique completely transformed for her role as Precious’ mother and her sheer intensity on screen is something to be reckoned with (ahem, Oscar nod!), and the entire movie is held up by the charisma that newcomer Gabourey 'Gabby' Sidibe’s brings to such a heavy movie.

Watching Precious was a very visceral experience for me and the harsh realties of Precious’ existence juxtaposed with interstitial imaginative fantasy sequences that displayed her hopes and dreams were a clever device to use in a film that would be completely devoid of lightness without them. I most enjoyed the school scenes with Precious and her classmates, which provided a necessary change of pace from the largely pejorative tone of the film.

The film achieved gritty realism through its unwillingness to sugarcoat the very authentic experience of a young black girl’s struggle with her identity. I don’t think I’ve seen a movie about the “black experience” that has done this so successfully since John Singleton’s Boyz in the Hood. I recommend everyone see it and hopefully it will be receiving much Academy Award buzz in the coming weeks!

Remembering Michael, 1958-2009

When I bought tickets to the Michael Jackson concert in London, I was incredibly excited because I was going to be in the midst of a cultural icon, a world-wide legend, The Man and probably most important, The Myth. As we remember Michael Jackson on this day and in the future, I can't help but emphasize how the idea of memory is so crucial to our conception of star identity and ultimately how timelessness can be used a signifer of stardom.

In many ways, Jackson existed outside of time and within the cultural imagination of society. The Michael that has passed on today is not the Michael that we are mourning. We feel an incredible loss of the young and vibrant boy on the Ed Sullivan show singing and dancing with the Jackson Five, the innovative dance moves, Thriller, the essence of a global entertainer. We also remember the scandal...the whirlwind erratic behavior, the lawsuits, the courtrooms, a tragic star's Peter Pan syndrome.

In the midst of all of this, we are left with an unfinished picture of Jackson--his life gone, but his narrative still very much alive. There will be stories, many stories, written about the media talent, anecdotes shared, but we will never know his "truth." Fragments of his self will tried to be pieced together but Jackson will remain an enigma, a star whose celebrity and fame is so surreal that any authentic image of him will always seem to escape our grasp.

The Sweet Little Film that Could

I wanted to see Away We Go for two main reasons: 1.) I'm a sucker for movies about babies and/or pregnancy and 2.) I'm a sucker for the rom-com genre. And the film did not disappoint me on either front. Think of it as the adult version of Juno without the witty Diablo Cody dialogue. Director Sam Mendes leaves behind the kind of suburban dysfunction that makes you want to kill yourself (found in Revolutionary Road and American Beauty) to take on the more whimsical side of family and romance. In a surprisingly heartfelt and honest turn, Maya Rudolph shined as Verona, a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant and on a (mis)adventure to find a place called home with her adorably dorky boyfriend, Burt (John Krasinski). The couple galavant around the country--and even to Canada--trying on different cities to find the right fit. Along the way, they connect with old friends and family that are just off kilter enough to make you want to hightail it to the next destination. A particularly entertaining vignette highlights Maggie Gyllenhaal as a hippie professor who has a strong aversion to strollers.

In some ways, the film's destination-framed narrative makes it seem a little stilted. Cuts to text on a black screen signaling a location change ("Away to Phoenix", "Away to Miami") get old pretty quickly. It also makes the ending incredibly anti-climatic. But what we're really supposed to get out of the film is a couple's love for each other despite future uncertainty and it has that in spades. Verona and Burt are not only believable characters, but Maya and John have great on-camera chemistry. Though the film reads through its marketing as a pretentious indie flick, it is only half that. The rest is a slightly slow-paced, enjoyable drama about life and love.

The Hangover or Why White Boys Rule

Credit: themovingpicture.net

Yesterday I went to the movies to see Disney Pixar's latest achievement, Up. It was a great film albeit a tad depressing--in only a Pixar project can a story about a lonely curmudgeon's search for life after the death of his wife, be woven into a delightful tale of fun and adventure complete with robotic talking dogs and a loud and colorful bird.

But I digress.

After the movie, my friends and I snuck into The Hangover. Directed by Todd Phillips of Old School and Road Trip fame, the film focuses on the same subject: reckless white boys doing...well nothing actually. It follows engaged Doug (Justin Bartha) who ventures to Las Vegas for the bachelor party of a lifetime with his pals Alpha-Male Phil (Bradley Cooper), geeky Stu (Ed Helms) and his fiance's stoner brother, Alan (Zach Galifianakis). However, when they accidentally take Rohypnol and wake up the next morning in their lavish Las Vegas pad, it is trashed complete with a crying baby, tiger, and a missing groom-to-be. The movie proceeds to use all of the conventions of a road trip/buddy film as the friends laughably attempt to retrace the steps of their eventful night to find Doug.

So that's the plot. And as far as plots go for gross-out guy comedies, it was engaging and I lost the right amount of brain cells while viewing. But as I sat there with my two black male friends in the darkened theater, I realized why I was simultaneously completely entertained yet disgusted with this film and others like it. I call it the effect of the Ethnography of the White Male: See White Boy jump. See White Boy run. See him completely screw up and spend lots of money because White Boy doesn't have a care in the world. See all of this to the soundtrack of Kanye, Usher, and other Hip Hop/RnB tunes. To be the token Angry Black Female, it irked me that the movie transposed urban culture onto the narrative of these overprivileged white boys. It also irked me that every supporting character on their hapless adventure was a minority (whether it be by race or gender) that was completely Other-ed against the frat boy smiles and antics of the white male leading characters. True to patriarchal form, nothing is ever their fault really...it is stupid black drug dealer who inadvertently gives them roofies. A stripper who accidentally marries one of our heroes. And a queered Asian guy that turns their life into a living hell because he wants his "purse" back. In the end, our lovable white boys save the day and equilibrium is restored into their lives.

Am I completely over-analyzing all of this? Of course. But that's what I do. And the degree to which everything was so blatant in this particular movie actually amazed me--so much that the movie was actually hilarious. I'm not going to recommend paying money to see it though. Wait for the DVD where there is sure to be an extra-extra special uncut version.  

Last night I saw the much-anticipated Watchmen with friends. The lines were super long and there was even a guy there dressed up as one of the masked (anti)heroes. Needless to say, anticipation to see the film adaptation of the beloved graphic novel was high. And the verdict?

I didn't get it. Now I'm prefacing this review by saying that I have not read the graphic novel and had no background knowledge about the movie except for the fact that Billy Crudup plays a naked blue guy. What I'm told is that the film follows its written counterpart soundly except for a couple of changes. Director Zack Snyder (of 300 fame) used the same type of aesthetics he is known for--elongated fight sequences coupled with slow-motion movements. Some of the scenes were unnecessary...in particular the sex scene needed much work and was laughable at best. But the movie seemed to drag on and at some points the action seemed stilted.

But let's back up to the actual narrative. Who are the elusive Watchmen? Well basically they are fractured superheroes who are caught up in the ambiguity of their individual moral compasses. Then there's the political issues...war, poverty, corrupt government, revolution--you get the point. I could textually analyze the film to pieces but I'm not that invested. The fact is, this was a complete fanboy movie, only meant to satisfy the desires of those (including the director) who have waited years for a film adaptation of this written work to debut. Judging by people I've talked to, it seems to have done the job.

A Book for Hannah Montana

So Miley Cyrus' much-anticipated autobiography, Miles to Go, comes out this month. Aside from the awful title pun, the book is said to delve into her first love and being bullied in middle school. Kind of like Ophelia Speaks for the Disney crowd. My question is, who is the audience for this book? How many Hannah Montana fans are going to go out and buy a book that completely disrupts the image that she has helped to construct of herself? A part of me really wants to read it (I got through Lynne Spears' memoir!). Then the other part of me sees pictures like this:


And then I want to shoot myself.

Tough Times for Chris Breezy

Oh Chris Brown...your charisma and boyish good looks won't get you out of this one. Brown was slapped with two felony charges today, felony assault and making a criminal threat. If convicted he could face up to four years in prison--and in teen girl fantasy world, that's like, a REALLY long time.

Suffice it to say, the young pop star had to cut his jet-skiing reunion with Rihanna in Miami short to appear in court today. Times is hard, yo! There have been many reports about what actually went down before the Grammy's and who knows what to believe. It's a pretty sad situation for everyone involved. I will say that when Usher of all people publicly reprimands your actions and the aftermath, you've pretty much fallen to scum status (though he later apologized for giving Chris such a hard time...boys will be boys!).

Now many have asked how Chris Breezy can ever come back from this blip on his superstar record. I have one word for you: OPRAH. If she can find child molesters, she can revitalize a tainted career or two. All Mr. Brown needs is an exclusive interview. Shed some tears. Bring his mother out and discuss the effects of domestic violence. And bonus points will be awarded if RiRi appears with him on the program. Manipulative? Yes. Will it work? Of course!

Guys Who Suck and the Women Who Date, Get Engaged, Dumped, and Publicly Humiliated by Them

Otherwise known as The Bachelor. Meet Jason Mesnick. He's a 32-year-old single father to an adorable 3-year-old boy named Ty who likes to play golf. Jason may seem like he has the charmed life but in reality, after two failed romances, his heart has been broken way too many times and thus is looking for love on a reality television show. The 13th season of The Bachelor ended on Monday and of course, (melo)drama ensued. I tried to keep track of the number of shots of Jason staring aimlessly out into the New Zealand sunset, but alas, lost count.

As a former employee/intern of The Mouse, I have to give ABC/the producers credit...they sure know how to extend a narrative. Did you think it was over once Jason dumped Molly and proposed to a joyful Melissa? Oh no. There was much more. The show reached new depths of messy reality splendor during the After the Final Rose special. Turns out, Jason made a mistake. He's actually--GASP--in love with Molly instead! And what better way to tell Melissa how he's feeling than on national television! I felt like I was watching that scene in Hope Floats only without good actors like Sandra Bullock. Here's how it basically went down:

Chris Harrison: Tonight on a very special After the Final Rose we have closed the set down from an audience out of respect for all persons involved in this situation.

(Chris says this as he proceeds to intently stare awkwardly at Jason break up with Melissa)

Jason: You know things have been different between us since the end of the show.

Melissa: .....

Jason: And I just feel like we're not right for each other.

Melissa: .....

Chris (For clarification purposes): So Jason what you're saying is that you want to break up with Melissa and try to build a relationship with Molly.

Jason: Yes.

Melissa: ......

(Chris finally excuses himself to "let them talk alone.")

So then like any woman would, Melissa gets angry and wants to know what happened and why Jason won't "fight" for her and their relationship to which Jason gives no semblance of a lucid response. She stalks off to the limo waiting for her and breaks down crying, convinced that something is "wrong" with her. Back in the studio, Molly and Jason reunite for supposedly the first time since he dumped her.

Jason: I made a mistake. I should have chosen you. Wanna go out for coffee sometime?

Molly (feigning awe at this sudden turn of events): Ummm...I guess that would be ok? Okay!

And everyone lets out a romantic sigh because ya know, Jason was following his heart. Or not. I tried to find some type of silver lining in my obsession with this show but then realized that I, like the 25 girls who thought they would find love on television, am a masochist. In what bizarre world do we live in (besides the one where the Crocodile Hunter gets killed by a stingray) where women continually humiliate themselves in the name of "love" for a man? Don't answer that. It happens to the best of us but it still baffles me. Now 24-year-old Molly will uproot her life and career to play husband and stepmom in a relationship that will most likely end very quickly and badly. Maybe I'm being a pessimist. But ask yourself why a good-looking real estate agent with a son would go on a show to find love when he could probably find it in the Starbucks around the corner and your answer might be 1.)He's a fame-whore 2.)He's an idiot or 3.) He's an idiot fame-whore.

I'm going with #3. Melissa--even though the show and Jason screwed you over, your freedom was the best prize you could've received. Congratulations!

Brangelina have twins!

And here's proof: Apparently Angelina Jolie gave birth to her twins in Nice, France. Above is the Mayor of the city holding up the birth certificates. Welcome to the world, Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline! Shiloh, Zahara, Maddox and Pax are like, super duper excited to meet the additions to the clan--er...family.

Wombs for Rent?

So Oprah's show on Thursday discussed the journey to parenthood with couples involved in surrogacy. Couple Jennifer and Kendall opened up to correspondent Lisa Ling about their journey to have a child after unsuccessful attempts at conceiving. Enter the Akanksha Infertility and IVF Clinic in Anand, India. This clinic houses Indian women for the 9 month gestation period where they are artificially inseminated with the embryos of a couple. Most of the people these women service are American couples, as it costs roughly $12,000 in the country instead of upwards of $50,000 in the United States.

I have to admit, I sort of cringed during the segment...with "exploitation" and "objectification" being the two buzz words to describe this method of conceiving. The discourse around surrogacy can be pejorative, with some likening it to a baby brokering service. It can even escalate when these mothering incubators are women who are required to leave their homes and sometimes forced to keep their pregnancies a secret from their families due to societal values and norms in the culture. Though Oprah's program did include interviews with these Indian women, the slant of the segment was decidedly pro-America (read: pro-rich white couples), focusing on a holistic approach to the idea that women across borders can share a deep bond and as Lisa Ling comments, cultivate a sort of "transnational ambassador" role for the conceived child.

So both parties involved get what they want...American couples get the child they always wanted and the Indian women are able to provide for their own families with the $5000 they get for their services, akin to 10 years worth of working. But I still feel somewhat iffy about the whole process. What does it mean that we go to India to outsource customer service for technological products as well as people to have our children? Is this a new phase of globalization? What does this situation look like through a postcolonialist lens? How do we approach this as a trannsational feminist conversation? Hmmm...maybe more on this later.

What's Race Got To Do With It? Will Smith as Fractured Superhero

Many of our most beloved superheroes face not only super villains but also super existential crises. Who am I? Where did I come from? What is my Purpose? Obligated to keep their “true” identities hidden, they are forced to self-regulate their images both publicly and privately until inevitably someone unearths their secret life. This is the general plight for our comic book-turned-film protagonists.

Except for people like Hancock. Hancock (Will Smith) is in many ways the superhero for our jaded postmodern era. He does not prescribe to the same formulaic narrative of the likes of larger than life DC do-gooders Batman or Superman. Nor does he exactly fit in with Marvel misfits Spiderman, Iron Man, or The Hulk. Hancock plays by his own rules (that of drunken asshole in need of anger management classes) and feigns nonchalance at his less than stellar representation in the public eye for screwing Los Angeles up on a daily basis with his unchecked superpowers.

Enter public relations executive Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), an idealistic publicist (oxymoron you say???) who believes in saving the world and Hancock’s bruised image. I won’t pour over the details of the B-movie because what I really want to discuss is the construction of our beloved Will Smith as a superhero himself of extraordinary capabilities.

Thomas C. Holt in The Problem of Race in the 21^st Century writes of Michael Jordan and his ability to transcend race in the global marketplace. The uber-successful marketing campaign “I Wanna Be Like Mike” becomes a consumptive exercise for the public to forget difference. What does it mean to be “like Mike?” While it may certainly connote his excellent sportsmanship and talent, it most certainly doesn’t refer to his racial identity. His race is effectively erased from his image only to be marked when the dominant society brands him as an exemplary figure of the potentiality of African-Americans. It is my assertion that Will Smith is indicative of this “Michael Jordan Effect” for the millennium.

Hancock is yet another one of many roles in which Smith’s racial identity does not play a factor in the filmic text. Hancock is simply just a guy and his blackness is never accented-- except for comic moments such as the superhero flying to a freeway to straighten up some clearly marked Latino criminals as Ludacris’ “Move Bitch” plays as soundtrack to the scene. Furthermore, Smith has a track record for roles that involve romantic relationships with non-black women—whether it be Eva Mendes in Hitch or Charlize Theron in Hancock. When he is linked with African-American females on screen, it is usually because in the film he is marked as black.[1] No other black actor has really pulled off this feat simply because no other black actor can play a universal race card like Smith can. Audiences are drawn to him simply because he is Will Smith.

This is an interesting observation if only because the story of Smith’s production and consumption as a black star bizarrely follows his role in the emotional profile of Chris Gardner in The Pursuit of Happyness. In playing Gardner as a character, Smith reflexively relives his own transcendence of race...from Fresh Prince to Hollywood's 4th of July release Golden Boy...to obtain the American Dream. How patriotic!

Now finally back to Hancock. Is he a black superhero? Survey says no. If Hancock was actually coded as black then the film would have a lot of explaining to do. It would become not just your unique superhero text but rather a commentary on urban waste, homelessness and poverty in the black community, and yes…the maladaptiveness of interracial relationships. While you can still read these ideas on the film, Hancock makes sure it does not highlight them with Will Smith as star. Therefore the film is as much about Hancock’s image as it is about Will Smith’s fractured relationship with racial identity in his career.

Whew.

---

[1] His relationship with Vivica A. Fox in Independence Day is duly noted as an aberration in this formula.

Robot Romance

*credit to Rotten Tomatoes*

Yesterday I went to see Pixar's latest CG romp, Wall-E. I had no desire to watch the film at first, fond memories of Finding Nemo and Ratatouille still embedded in my brain, their awesomeness not to be touched by some...robot...with a funny voice. But the buzz got the best of me and I found myself at the theater at 10 am in an audience filled with kids and old people. The verdict?

I absolutely LOVED this movie. With a great story and clever execution, I haven't had this much fun as an audience member in a long time. While Wall-E is a cautionary tale about the effects of global warming and mankind's ability to destroy all of its resources (to the point where we all become huge computer graphic tubs of lard in outer space sitting in automated chairs that give us food in a cup), the most endearing message of the film came from one of mankind's oldest master narratives: Love Conquers All.

The film gets a little help from the musical "Hello, Dolly!" to get its point across about the merits of finding love. From the initial credit sequence, we understand that Wall-E is a professed lover of musical theater. And he has a penchant for Barbara Streisand. One of the numbers in the musical that becomes a thread throughout the entire film is "It Only Takes a Moment" sung by Michael Crawford and Marianne McAndrew. The scene details a lovestruck Cornelius who croons about how his life changed when he moved out of Yonkers and fell in love with the lovely hat-maker Irene in just a "moment". Wall-E watches this scene numerous times in his make-shift home, particularly the moment where Cornelius and Irene finally touch via hand holding. It is this instant of pressing need for (human) contact that makes Wall-E not just a robot, but an actual person capable of emotional desire. When he finally meets the sleek and chic Eve, it is love at first sight for Wall-E. The film is at its best when depicting the theme of love through these two main characters. Adding to the intensity of their romance is the fact that for 95% of the movie, their names are all they can communicate to each other through words. I couldn't help but relate Wall-E's pained cry of "Ev-uh!" to Marlon Brando's heartwrenching shouting of "Stella!" from A Streetcar Named Desire. The characters' frequent attempts at successful connection are not at all circuitous, but rather provide a solid framework for the narrative as a whole. And it made me tear up a little, particularly when Eve realizes that Wall-E loves her through reviewing her own security footage.

In "It Only Takes a Moment," Cornelius wonders, "Isn't the world for wonderful things?" The film directly deals with this issue, in reminding us of the beauty of life, living, and most of all love. For me, Wall-E is inevitably a tale of what lengths we are able to go to for such things.

Safe "Sex"

So I've seen the Sex and the City film twice. My first experience was in the company of my mother at an afternoon showing in Houston, Texas. My second experience found me with my darling roommates in the middle of Times Square, NYC at night.

Needless to say, drastic difference in audience.

What can I say about this movie? I love SATC as a television show. I even watch it compulsively on TBS on weekedays even though its edited and like, half of Samantha's antics are cut out of entire episodes. I AM Charlotte York (with a little Miranda on the side). So I had high expectations for the film as every fan would.

I can't say that I blindly loved it or hated it. The film gave its core audience what it wanted: fun and fabulous females, 10 years older and wiser. There was laughing, crying, and of course sex. But the X-factor to put the film above and beyond its television predecessor just wasn't there for me. The sex scenes seemed stilted and placed in the film as an obligatory gesture to bygone days of its heyday on HBO. There was lots of reminiscing, particularly in the dress up scene in which Carrie tries on her clothes from her past. But with that reminiscing came less sharp-tongued wit and banter that I knew and loved.

The cast additions (Jennifer Hudson, this means YOU) actually hurt the film. Besides her awful delivery of lines, sweet Louise from St. Louis (how pun-ny you are, Carrie!), became a stereotypical Mammy figure for a jilted Carrie. As her personal assistant, Hudson paraded around as a "sista girl" complete with her no-nonsense attitude, penchant for L.O.V.E...and her rented Chanel bag. SATC has always been criticized for its lack of racial and cultural diversity and the inclusion of Hudson in the cast in an underdeveloped role seemed like a slap in the face.

Still, despite its problems in representation (because c'mon...what commercial text doesn't have this issue), it brought the girls back in action. Sarah Jessica Parker had a standout performance as Carrie and successfully "carried" the film. Like critic Richard Roeper, I would have liked them to utilize the supporting cast that made them so successful a little more. Steve and Harry were mere doormats in the whole film.

Albeit generic, the movie was endearing. Thanks to SJP, Michael Patrick King, HBO, Starbucks, Vitamin Water, and every other product and designer that was shamelessly promoted.

Rating: B

Oops...She Did it Again:The Britney Discourse

I'm gonna be a tad scholarly now.

Pop star Britney Spears appeared to have truly hit rock bottom after an infamous standoff incident at her Los Angeles home in early 2008. The singer refused to hand over her youngest son Jayden after a standard visitation with her two boys supervised by a court-appointed monitor. Spears reportedly locked herself up in a room with Jayden and only after police officials by car and helicopter, fire trucks, and two ambulances appeared on the scene, did she finally relinquish control of the children to ex-husband Kevin Federline. Spears was then promptly put on a gurney with hand and leg restraints, an ambulance taking her to a facility where she would be hospitalized for evaluations. This situation and its aftermath highlight competing discourses surrounding fame and how Britney as a subject and object circulates throughout popular culture.

The question on everyone’s mind in light of a string of disturbing events involving the star seems to be, what or who is responsible for Britney’s Breakdown? Recently it has become common practice to “diagnose” Britney Spears. Other celebrities, fans, anti-fans, media pundits, journalists, etc. have created competing narratives of the origins of her private-made-public spectacle. These narratives are based in both fact and fiction as she exists in reality and cultural imagination simultaneously. The discourse of media representation seems to be the most salient for fans and stars in the entertainment industry to understand Britney and the trajectory of her fame. ‘The Media’ is said to have invaded Britney’s privacy as stalkerazzi archive her every move on camera. The paparazzi as a re-envisioning of the panoptic gaze produce a system of constant surveillance on the pop tart. Many highly visible celebrities agree, citing the repressive force of photographers in spaces where they are not normally sanctioned. Subsequently, this gaze on Britney for public consumption induces an ‘acting out’ in her private life.

Spears is then constructed as a victim of an institutional power and a fetishistic desire for her “to be looked at” and circulated as an image. The media is seen to precipitate and profit on her downfall by judging her actions incessantly. This criticism and microscopic reporting of her daily existence propels the “Leave Britney alone!”[1] mentality amongst Britney advocates. It is important to note that conversations in this discourse are less about Britney’s potential illegal or illicit activities, but more about the fact that we, the audience, should not be privy to them because of their location in the private sphere—we should not “look.” Instead, audiences are allowed and expected to consume the image of Spears as a victim of fame, a fallen princess to entertainment.

Yet it is precisely this construction of Britney as victim in popular opinion that is peculiar because of the nature of her crimes. Britney’s body is a site of disruption to the discourse of fame in this particular era of her stardom. This is most exemplified by the incident of Britney shaving her head. In contrast to the idea of biopower producing docile bodies, Spears’ body proves time and time again to be not disciplined.[2] Her deviant body resists the self-regulation that should occur because of even the potential of being watched, yet Britney does not adhere to this. Therefore she has to be restrained both figuratively and literally.

The image of Britney’s literal restraint in the beginning anecdote portrays her as a threat to not only others, but more importantly a danger to herself. Here Britney’s fame can also be considered through the lens of a discourse of mental health. Her erratic behavior has created a conversation in the public around her mental competency where actual clinical diagnoses are being offered to explain her breakdown.[3] Is she bipolar? Did she shave her head during a manic phase? Does she have multiple personalities? Is she suffering from post-partum depression? These questions circulate within the Britney spectacle when before her controversial actions (getting hitched in Vegas for 55 hours for example) were simply seen as media ploys to saturate the market with her brand keeping her current in the eyes of popular culture. In the aftermath of the mini-hostage situation with her son, she is placed in the psychiatric ward of a hospital. This is crucial because Britney has completed stints in rehabilitation centers such as famed Promises for substance abuse. So the trajectory of a Britney diagnosis has gone from “fame whore” to drug addict to legitimately mentally ill, where even Dr. Phil comes to visit her in the facility—and later does ample press about the meeting to the disdain of Spears’ own family.

After the incident at the home, the judge in her custody case promptly gave full custody to Federline. Most recently Spears has now been identified as not only unfit to parent, but not capable of taking care of her own well-being—her father was granted conservatorship over her estate by court officials. Here, discourses of the family and the law work together to undermine Britney as a subject and to increase her visibility in the media. Yet her reprimands are not a result of her position doing the work of a celebrity, but rather from actions in her personal life made public. She is discussed in the media as a bad and more so, a negligent, mother.[4] In fact her inability to parent is used to further the claim of Britney’s victimhood. Indeed, it is said that because of her childhood fame and regressive maturing in the public eye, that she has a stunted conceptualization of raising her own children. All of these competing dialogues surrounding Britney’s fame serve to place Spears in a distinct subject position as victim (in some way or another) of the pitfalls of a hyper-visible existence. Regardless of locating where responsibility lies in Britney’s Breakdown, the multiple narratives by multiple viewing positions of her subjectivity in the spotlight, serve to display how discourses of fame can function in a postmodern moment.

---

[1] Made famous by YouTube personality Chris Crocker’s emotional commentary on the star.

[2] Indeed, the very function of public relations is to package a product in favorable ways for consumption. Interestingly, Britney fired her famous publicist Leslie Sloane before this incident.

[3] The current US Weekly cover image is of Spears and her battle with mental illness.

[4] Interesting because this is validated by an absence of paparazzi photos of Spears and her children together, instead of a presence of them within the discourse of fame.