Seriously?

So, I was perusing IMDB news and I came upon this gem (copied and pasted below, link in case you wanted to see it in situ).

Castle-Hughes: "Media Made Me Feel Ashamed of Pregnancy"

Australian actress Keisha Castle-Hughes was forced to hide her bump while she was pregnant last year, because the heavy criticism she encountered in the press made her feel ashamed of becoming a young mother. The Whale Rider star was just 16 when she fell pregnant with 19-year-old boyfriend Bradley Hull's baby, and because of the media furor surrounding her age, she felt she was doing wrong by celebrating her impending motherhood. She says, "It hurt at the time because it's supposed to be a huge celebration. I was supposed to be able to go, 'Wow, I'm having a baby and this is amazing'. I felt like that I had to hide. I felt like it was bad for me to be happy about it." And she admits the constant presence of paparazzi outside her house in New Zealand was a "scary" experience. She adds, "I felt scared in my own home and it was horrible. I should be entitled to walk around my front yard without worrying that these people are watching me."

Um...Keisha Castle-Hughes, I understand that you are excited about being a mother, but the fact that you are an Academy Award nominated actress doesn't mean you aren't a part of the teenage pregnancy statistic. You are 16...if you went to my high school (when I was there), you would be friends with that crazy pregnant freshman who was so proud of being pregnant that she talked loudly and a lot about her baby shower, only to disappear in the middle of March to have her baby, never to return again. And while you are a successful actress and so won't be worrying about which McDonald's is hiring, you are still like that girl -- hopelessly naive.

You are a teenage mother, and while you shouldn't be ashamed of that if you don't want to be, the fact that you can't recognize why people are criticizing you is EXACTLY the reason why you are being criticized. It's not just naivete, but a teenage ignorance of the world around you. While you think you're special because you're an actress, you don't realize that most people aren't actresses and see things through a real world lens. That lens tells them you are throwing away opportunities to enjoy yourself and be young. Now you might interpret that as good, as in a baby will keep you from being Paris Hilton, and that's a good thing. But, if you don't have that self-control in the first place, don't have a baby. Secondly, being young is about going to clubs with no underwear on, drinking, dancing, being spontaneous, and making mistakes (all in moderation of course). You can't do that with a baby, and that's a shame for you.

Basically, Keisha Castle-Hughes, be excited, be a good mother, and enjoy yourself, but most of all, see where everyone else is coming from and stop complaining about it. You made your bed, but society has made theirs first. So you have to lie in both.

...

or something.

Media Panics and Gonzales v. Carhart

So last night, when I came home from class, I watched America's Next Top Model (I had taped it earlier). A commercial during the tape said that a Supreme Court case was decided today that restricts Roe v. Wade. I am a strong pro-choice advocate, so I was scared and dismayed that the Supreme Court was restricting my rights. I was too tired to figure out what was going on last night, so I decided to figure it out this morning.

First, I went to: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/the_skinny/main2703879.shtml

There, I read their comments and watched the video of the legal analyst. I still didn't understand what was going on exactly. The video seemed intentionally vague about the scope of the decision and the law passed by Congress that the decision had affirmed. A lot of questions ran through my mind after watching the analyst's opinions. Were ALL abortions after the first trimester banned? What about those that would save the mother's life? Why did Justice Kennedy deliver the majority opinion of the court; why was someone so liberal in favor of restricting rights?

I decided, then, to stop looking to the news for my news. I went straight to the source and found the published opinion of the United States Supreme Court on their website (Here's a link if you're interested: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf).

What I found was startling -- the decision was not very restrictive at all. What the decision does restrict is partial birth abortions only; that is, those in which the fetus is killed after being delivered from the mother's womb intact through crushing the skull or sucking the brains out. It does not restrict any other kind of second term abortion, only those in which a viable fetus is deliberately taken out of the womb, still alive, and killed while out of the womb. If a fetus is aborted while still in the womb (through medication or vacuum or any other way), that is still legal. Many doctors also said that the partial birth abortion restricted by the upheld law is not medically necessary and there are other ways of aborting a fetus.

While it does make me uncomfortable to see this decision restrict a woman's right to choose, no matter how gruesome the means of choosing are, I am not completely disappointed by the decision as I had expected to be.

This brings me to the subject of media panics. A media panic is when a news outlet, usually, creates undue anxiety surrounding a hot button issue. After having read the Court's opinion on this case, I would like to characterize the fervor of the news surrounding it as a media panic for several reasons.

1. The local news promotions cited this decision as heavily restricting Roe v. Wade (it didn't)
2. This decision pushed Virginia Tech news to the second story (more a tertiary reason, but there is significance)
3. The lack of concrete facts found on legitimate news websites

Local news promotions are always sensational, so that reason isn't so important as characterizing the events surrounding this decision as a media panic, but it is a factor.

That the decision pushed Virginia Tech news to the second story of the night might make sense because the Virginia Tech shootings happened on Monday and the Supreme Court decision happened yesterday. However, the significance this event does have is that there were two decisions rendered at the Supreme Court yesterday. The second was in regards to "whether attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, is a “violent felony” under ACCA [Armed Career Criminal Act]." And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court delivered three different decisions. Obviously, these other decisions lacked something that Gonzales v. Carhart (the abortion case) didn't for it to be able to usurp the top story spot reserved for Virginia Tech news the past two days. That thing is that abortion is controversial and the violence of attempted burglary is not. Basically, the news found a way to alarm people with the Gonzales case that it didn't with any other.

The most surprising aspect of this media panic is how CBSnews.com had barely any factual, concrete information about the opinion of the Court and, instead, had a five minute video with a legal analyst analyzing something the viewer probably didn't even completely understand. Keeping the viewers ignorant brings them back to the news. And keeping them only partially informed makes them slaves to the media because they believe they are in greater danger of whatever than they actually are.

Also, in that video, the correspondant interviewing the legal analyst kept referring to this decision as something Justice Alito swayed. In a media panic, someone needs to be blamed. CBS chose Alito, for what seems to me unclear reasons (something about his relationship with Justice O'Connor). Kennedy supports Roe v. Wade and delivered the Gonzales MAJORITY opinion. Maybe he should have been the focus of their blame (not that anyone should be to blame).

I hate media panics in general because it reminds me that the news is not all about informing the public, but about convincing the public they need to be informed so they can stay in business.

Hannibal Rising

My favorite movie is The Silence of the Lambs. My favorite film character is Hannibal Lecter. How can't you fall in love with someone so completely articulate, knowledgable, classy, well rounded, and twisted? My favorite thing about Hannibal, that makes him rise above other characters, is that contradiction -- he is a refined sadist.

With that refined quality, even his eating Ray Liotta's brain in Hannibal became an art form. He chose beautiful dishes, a wine that would pair well with brain, and high quality cooking utensils. Of course it's perverse, it's murder, but it is pre-meditated in a sense that alleviates the gross quality of the act. He doesn't plan how he's going to kill Ray Liotta because it's not the important part. The important part is what happens after he (in this case) disables him -- he cooks a gourmet meal. He invites the woman he loves to the table. She is wearing a designer dress. Hannibal is about the finer things in life -- an example of when the id and ego have been separated from the superego, in Freudian terms.

The big problem with Hannibal Rising, which I saw last night, was not the gore (even though it was the closest thing I've seen to a snuff film). It's a movie about a cannibal; I expect gore. The problem was that all sense of refinement and beauty was lost. Murder was not an art to young Hannibal -- it was murder for revenge. The cannibalism was an afterthought. Cannibalism should be the first thought. Or at least a greater purpose above himself. There was no art in his revenge killings. Just anger. Hannibal is not angry -- he is calm.

The one part of the movie that read as real in terms of Hannibal as a developing character (I'm talking about the Gallard Uspiel version, not the little boy) was when he killed the butcher because:

1. He killed for someone else, for her honor
2. He went about it calmly
3. There was a symbolism to his cuts on the butcher and the display of the head
   
4. The method of murder and the display of the head are according to a tradition valued by the woman he was protecting

Regardless of how interesting this is, I am of the opinion the movie and the book should never have come into being. It's about how they came into existence. Here's the chain of events as I see them:

1. "Hey Thomas Harris, I'll pay you a bajillion dollars to write another Hannibal Lecter book and adapt it into a movie!" Thomas Harris says, "Okay!"
   
2. Thomas Harris thinks, "Shit! I ended the book Hannibal with him and Clarice living happily ever after. I can't add on to that. What do I do? Oh yeah! I have like 100 pages of pre-writing on Hannibal's past lying around, I'll make that into a book." (A writer who wrote an entire character study book (Hannibal) would have a LOT of pre-writing around)

So that's how the book happened. But the thing about character pre-writing is that writers use it to get into the head of their characters. It's about understanding the motivations behind certain actions and how they came to be how they are. It's also typically boring and never meant to see the light of day. The rule of thumb is to write about the most crucial point in a character's life, not the events leading up to that. Harris already did that, and if he's going to write another book, might as well expound on something at the end of Hannibal.

Basically, Hannibal isn't Hannibal yet...he's just forming...and I miss my refined, old, patron of the arts. I'd rather have seen this movie where the main character wasn't Hannibal Lecter, but some new character. It might have been a little interesting, and if not, I at least wouldn't be wishing I was at home, with The Silence of the Lambs on so I could see Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, and not that cheap imitation I saw last night.

A few thoughts on Beauty and the Geek

I love watching Beauty and the Geek for a few reasons:

1. The beauties make me feel smart.
2. I can relate to the geeks.
3. The editors are always making jokes (this past week's show when they played soft-core porn music over two of the guys hosing each other off after a challenge was awesome).
4. And, of course, the reason I love most reality shows...I want to be on it.

That last reason is problematic though because I am not dumb (so I couldn't be a "beauty") and I'm not a guy (so I couldn't be a geek). After three seasons, I think this show needs a change. I think they should do an all-girl version for a few reasons, and while this arrangement would benefit me in the long run, I think it would be a good idea even if it disqualified me again.

First of all, there is always one beauty and one geek who hook up. I always feel bad for the geeks because those relationships aren't going past the time they spend in the house. That's because these girls, the beauties, are so used to using their bodies as currency that it seems unnatural to not do so. At least one of them will hone in on one of the guys who is the richest, the most smooth, the most attractive, etc. in order to validate that their form of currency hasn't lost value in the presence of their new intelligence/self-awareness/whatever this show gives them.

Now the question is: why don't all the girls do this? I think there are a few reasons.

1. Not all the guys meet their high standards in looks or money (Megan and Cecille said, last night on the most recent episode, that money is their top priority...because that is so, they don't want to mess up their chances with a sugar daddy by hooking up with anyone in sight on a reality show)
2. Many girls don't make it far enough in the show to do this -- the makeover episode and a couple episodes after is when the initial attraction begins.
   
3. The geeks are shy. This reason is directly related to the one above because the geeks have to wait for the girls to make a move because they're in disbelief that such a cute girl would want them (and this is the reason that their relationships fail).
4. The final reason is related to the one above also: the geeks have no sense of entitlement to the girls, they aren't jackasses, and they generally treat the girls with respect. It is no secret that almost all girls, not just this type of girl, like some degree of jackassery in their boyfriends. The pretty and rich guys typically have more jackassery in them, and the pretty and rich guys are who these girls tend to date. You get used to a certain level of meanness from someone who puportedly cares about you and you expect it from everyone who says they care about you.
   

Basically, this arrangement ends up creating a huge amount of heartbreak for the geek at the end of the day. Last night, Jennylee and Nate were saying goodbye and you could clearly read a disinterest in Jennylee...she didn't have the heart to tell Nate she wasn't going to see him again, even in the interview. I just feel bad for the geek in this situation because he doesn't know he's being used (even the beauty doesn't know she's using him...which is entirely possible because this strategy of using her body has become so second nature to her).

The second reason is that this current arrangement promotes negative stereotypes of girls in relation to men: that we're all dumb, needy, and men are smarter in general. Even though the show targets one specific TYPE of men and one of women, I can't see any negative stereotypes of men that are promoted because:

1. Men are a majority group. One member of the majority group never represents that whole group, he only represents himself. A member of a minority group is generally thought to represent that whole group. Stereotypes occur when a few members of a minority group exhibit a quality and that quality is attributed to the whole group (in this sense, white male jocks or frat boys or etc. can all be considered "minority groups").
   
2. The types that are represented are starkly different in context. In the Western world, at least, women are all supposed to be beautiful. Geeks are a subgroup of masculinity and NOT what all men are supposed to be (of course, the same can be said for girls, but if there were girl geeks, the dumbness of the beauties would be counteracted and they would be seen more as people and less as women needing to be helped by men).
3. The women all need to be helped by men to succeed.

These stereotypes would be counteracted by having women beauties and women geeks compete with each other. No more women being weak...it's about girls helping girls. The relationship factor would be replaced by more drama -- because girls can be mean. We even saw that this season with the brunettes versus the blondes when not everyone was a beauty.

A couple female "ringers" -- pretty girls with brains who can play dumb -- might make things interesting because it would counteract the dumb stereotype the show capitalizes on, throw people off, and make the competition interesting (of course, the ringers would be gone after a few episodes to make it fair for the remaining people).

The point of both of these changes is for the "beauties" to see positive female role models -- girls who can thrive without their bodies always being amazing. I don't feel that the girls this season really understand that fact, and I think throwing all girls into the house together would help both types learn from each other in a way they can't when it's both men and women together. The beauties will have to learn how to deal without men and the geeks will have to learn how to get along with women (many geeky girls I know find it easier to hang out with guys than girls), stand up for themselves, and not compete for men (everyone wants someone).

Why not male beauties and girl geeks? That would be disasterous because you have the pretty boys helping the ugly girls become beautiful. Plus, boys tend to stay away from the plain girls and insult them and start up "boys' clubs" (just their own little universe to stay away from the girls). Also, the makeover section would cause the inevitable hookup. Basically all the problems would happen again, and the problem of over-confidence in the male beauties would make the more timid girls question their intelligence (I've seen it happen in real life), regardless of who is smarter. It would be a no-win situation for either party.

And just for fun...

And you think American TV is bad...

Variety.com - C4 cautious after 'Big Brother' Spat

Super Bowl Commercials, Part I

So the Super Bowl has come and gone, and while the game was fine, the things that most of the country is interested in on Super Bowl Sunday are not the score of the game or who won, but food, friends, and commercials.

This year I was very disappointed in the commercials. There were very few that clearly had the big Super Bowl budget and payoff (more on that later in the week). Even in being disappointed, there were a few instances worth talking about. For the rest of the week, I’ll post about Super Bowl commercials. Today, I’m starting with some interesting disappointments.

It seems appropriate that the year when “You” was the Time Magazine Person of the Year, we had several instances of user generated marketing (UGM). Unfortunately, I think the general public proved that those advertising moguls have their jobs for a reason.

The first UGM commercial was for Doritos.

This commercial worked because it was funny on a visceral, animal level. Put less eloquently, “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES.” Disregarding the crappy graphics (because those are great for a homemade commercial), the appeal of the commercial was entirely in the HAHA factor. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for this guy to be driving around with Doritos. In the other notable “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES” commercials, there is a real conceit for every little bit of the damage done.

The other UGM commercial I’m going to talk about was the winner of “Pitch the Best Super Bowl Commercial Ever” Contest. I can’t seem to find a video link for it, but you can view the pitch and read some information about the winning commercial here.

Basically the finished product was every other “I’m so sad the football season is over” commercial -- fans having to put away their memorabilia, take off their foam fingers, etc.

One question that is begged here is whose fault is it that these commercials are so crappy?

If these commercials are truly the best of the best entered, then the obvious answer is that the general public, for all our hollering that TV is crap, really can’t do any better. Or, those who can are ineligible to enter, didn’t care enough to enter, didn’t know about the contest, or didn’t have the material or personal resources to enter.

The other possibility is about money (because commercials are supposed to be commercial). Super Bowl ad spots are among the most expensive communications property a company can buy. The sponsor, therefore, needs to protect their financial interests. In doing so, each sponsor chose the “safe” route.

In the former instance, they chose a commercial that almost every person would find funny on a visceral level.

In the latter instance, they chose a commercial that has a familiar concept: “It’s so hard to say goodbye.” Regardless of whether you are a football fan or not, you know a few things:

1. That it’s hard to say goodbye to something you love (universally)
a. Many Americans love football
2. The Super Bowl is the effective end of the football season.

It’s a good combination of familiar sentimentality and relevance to the event at hand. That said, I seriously thought I had seen that commercial before, and if not that exact commercial, then another that had the same concept.

However, nothing is ever so black and white. Here is how I think it went down in both contests. There were several good commercials in the running. They were a combination of creative, funny, and smart in terms of advertising the product.

The sponsors wouldn’t narrow it down to the most creative ones only – creative doesn’t necessarily mean good ... it could be strange, weird, or unfunny. You also don’t narrow it down to just the funniest commercials. Although good Super Bowl commercials are typically funny, something that is funny could also be inappropriate for TV or not related to the product. If a commercial is too smart, it could be esoteric and you could alienate your audience. And you don’t have a broader demographic to please at any other time than during the Super Bowl.

I think this last point is really where the focus went after the best commercials were narrowed down. Most Americans enjoy American television just as it is. They don’t ask for more. I’m not saying this as a value judgement (hell, I enjoy American TV), but as a fact. The job of the sponsor is to choose a user generated commercial that appeals to the common American.

For the Doritos commercial: It’s pretty much accepted as fact that network TV caters to the lowest common denominator (Fear Factor anyone?), so this explains the choice of the “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES” commercial. The problem with the Doritos commercial is not that it’s one of those, but, like I said earlier, the conceit is not well planned. This might or might not be the fault of the creators of the commercial – they didn’t have the training, experience, or time of the professionals (or the brainpower professional companies have) who would usually do this commercial – so saying that those creators are at fault seems a bit unfair to me. Let’s say that they did a great job for amateurs. In the end though, I believe this commercial was chosen not only for the “HAHA THEY HURT THEMSELVES” concept, but more importantly because of the flashy, colorful graphics. The commercial pauses 5 times in 30 seconds to show the bag (brand name prominently displayed) and give an adjective of a positive characteristic of the chips. It did the two things the sponsors wanted – catered to the lowest common denominator and advertise the product. That the commercial was eh in general was the fault of the creators. That the commercial was eh and CHOSEN was the fault of the sponsors. Both parties at fault, and because I didn’t see any of the other submissions, I can’t say whether or not the cream of the crop was chosen, and if it’s also the other contestant’s fault.

The NFL commercial: I think this one was chosen more for financial reasons. The purpose of a commercial is to make money – both for the station selling time and the company who owns the product being advertised. The NFL doesn’t need to advertise to make money. People will buy seats regardless. I view this commercial as more of a PSA. The NFL is losing money on it. As said in the article, the other most popular finalist was about a deaf boy at the Super Bowl. That ad, while more original, is also a lot more expensive to film. You need a stadium or a facsimile thereof. It’s a lot easier to get actors, football memorabilia (that the NFL owns anyway) and generic locations. I think it was a financial interest all the way (or at least 90%) The NFL has nothing to lose by putting on a less safe commercial...no one’s going to boycott them.

Found Art

So I read Television Without Pity recaps frequently. Usually they are a fun diversion to remind me of what happened on my favorite shows (or those shows I hate but can't seem to quit watching) and give me a good laugh, but today I found more than I expected.

I just finished reading the most recent recap for The Apprentice and I have to say it's pretty amazing. It contains some social commentary and queer theory and is a very entertaining read. It really doesn't matter if you don't currently watch The Apprentice, the good parts just require you to know what's going on in the recap.

It's long, but it's definitely worth it.

The Apprentice Recap - 6.2

Why this is Here

This blog is here so I can talk about movies. I am almost a certified expert in it, but it doesn't mean my entries are going to be dry and boring. I'm going to talk about what any normal people would talk about over pizza and beer. The weird, fun, amazing TV shows and movies that everyone is addicted to that no film snob would ever touch. But I'll talk about them with a touch of film snobbery, a lot of personality, and hopefully make it interesting.

If you're reading, e-mail me suggestions about what shows or movies you want me to talk about.