Thursday, December 9, 2010

Holiday Movie Season is upon us.

Like peppermint hot chocolate, white twinkle lights, fun scarves, and lots and lots of red wine, movies are always something to look forward to this time of the year.

Because December is the beginning of Oscar Campaigning.

Sure, movie theaters will carry a few "Christmas themed" films and "A Christmas Story" runs for like 3 straight weeks on TNT.  And, don't get me wrong, those films are good.  I love me a good Christmas flick.

But even better are "THOSE" movies.  You know.  The movies that, often times, have nothing to do with Christmas at all.  Their aim is not to fill you with Yule Tide Cheer.  Their aim is to get to the Kodak theater in March and win an Academy Award.

And this year, there are lots and lots.  Like Black Swan, for example.  Natalie Portman and Co. are pushing this film HARD.  And, yes, I will see it.

But there are two other films that I am way more excited for.  And since Christmas is the time for sharing, I'll share them with you now.  The first is called "The King's Speech."
I am SOOOOO excited to see this movie.  Like, I literally cannot wait.  Because, you know, I love Colin Firth.  And, even if you don't "get" him on the attraction level, you will undoubtedly know that he is a great actor who was ROBBED last year for the Oscar. ROBBED!  Did you see "A Single Man"? He was exquisite.  But, instead, Jeff Bridges and his mumbly, achey-breaky, "Dude, what's it all about?" soul took home the Best Oscar for his performance in the horribly overrated Crazy Heart.

Hopefully, this year, the Academy will come to their senses and realize their mistake.  And beyond Colin, "The King's Speech" is in and of itself supposed to be great. Like, genuinely warm and quirky and wonderful.  It's the true story of King George IV (the current Queen of England's father) who was forced to take over the throne after his older brother abdicated.  It was War Time and King Bertie struggled with a crippling fear of public speaking and a speech impediment.  This film is based off historical accounts AND his speech therapists extensive diaries.  WATCH!

My second gift to you is less novel, and yet more dear.

You may remember from a while back that I introduced you to the movie "Blue Valentine."  You may also remember how I told you that it was completely unfairly and inexplicably given an NC-17 rating by the horrible, horrible MPAA.

Well, the critics had a shit fit.  Because "Blue Valentine" is supposed to be INCREDIBLE.  Like, almost too real and too convincing.  And this was probably the reason why the conservative ass wipes at the MPAA "banned" it in the first place.  Because, really...when you're 45 with two kids in an unfulfilling marriage, I bet it does hurt to watch a film like this one.  Hell, it'll hurt anyone at anytime.  It's a brutal, unflinching look at an amazing, wonderful, transcendental relationship that just doesn't work out. And we can all relate to that potential both within ourselves and within our relationships.

But this is EXACTLY why everyone should see it and is why the critics were so upset.   But, no one was more upset than Harvey Weinstein.  After all, it was his studio that went out on the limb for it.  And so, despite the fact the the MPAA never, never, ever overturns it's decisions, Harvey went after them with his balls and his money bags swinging and demanded an R rating.  And do you know what?!


Which means we'll be able to see it! Because theaters will carry it now that is has a "R" rating!!! You should be jumping up and doing the reindeer trot right now! Because this news is JOY JOY JOY (thanks, Doug!)

The trailer is still shit, but I like it the more I see it. And this new clip is also quite lovely. But damn. Ryan's character moves and holds his body just like David. This movie be so good but will hurt so hard.

So, these are the two Winter Time Awards Winners I want to see.  And I want to share them with you as well.  But of course, what would Christmas be without a few stocking stuffers.  Okay, okay. I'll leave you with just a few.

These two last films are ones that the studios will save for Cannes.  After all, why blow your load for the Oscars? You have to have a few saved up for the International festivals.

The first one called "Somewhere" and is Soffia Coppola's newest.  And if you know me, you know how exciting this is.  Because I LOVE her. Love her.


"The Virgin Suicides" is one of my favorite movies of ALL time. Top 5 for sure.   That scene when the boys are at that debutant party?  This, to me, is the best visual representation of what I grew up in. So haunting and so beautiful.

And this is what her new film will be built on.  And before you point it out, yeah I know. Fuckers.  I know it's starring Stephen Dorff.  And that's not a mistake.  Because he is awesome. I love Dorff the Actor.  Always have, always will.  You can try to shame me, but it won't work. I'll defend his acting skills to the end (yeah, his personal life's a different story. whatever.). Can't wait for this.

Or Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life." I haven't been able to find the trailer online, but it is supposed to be showing in front of "Black Swan."  I will update the blog as soon as I find it.  But, just so you know, Malick NEVER makes a shitty movie. Yeah, they're long and paced, but they are flawless.  Because Malick knows that you don't need an explosion every minute to make a point.

That's all for now (and probably for a while since I am about to go into Grich mode until the 20th when grades are due). But, I'll be back in time for the new year with plenty of updates!


Friday, November 19, 2010

There's not much I can really say,

except that Harry Potter is JOY.

Sooooo much joy.  And, the movies are joy as well.  But they are coming to a close.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One is in theaters today.  After this, there's one more installment.  And then....done.  I know. I'm trying to stave off my grief.  Because while we will still always have the books and the DVD's, the release of Harry Potter is always an EVENT.  And the people who participate in these events are all about Love.

Have you ever been to an opening weekend screening?  If you have, then you'll know.  It is a MOOD.  Everyone in the theater is radiating it.  For 2+ hours, it's you and 300 friends laughing together and even crying together.  So much positive energy in one place is always good for the soul.

And if you don't like Harry Potter? Well then, in the words of Lauren Maloney,  "you obviously don't like fun."

And the seventh book (at least the first half) contains so much fun.  But sadness too.  Personally, I can't wait to see how they handle the scene with Bathilda.  Because, on the page, when you read that scene, it rivals Stephen King.   Sooooo gross and creepy.   I hope they keep it that way.  I hope they let it be terrifying.  (And parents, if that scene does bother you, you shouldn't be letting your kids read HP  anyway).

Also, I can't wait to see Malfoy Manor.   And that's because of my undying love for Draco.

See, it's easy to love Snape.  I love him.  So does everyone.  Because he's just so damn interesting.  But this is where I get defensive.  Because so is Draco.  Yes, he's a coward and a bully.  But he's also one of the most clever and subtle foils in children's literature.

 Did you see The Half Blood Prince?  Because David Yates nailed it.  Throughout the film, he was so careful to make every visual representation of Draco the diametric opposite of Harry.  That scene where he stands outside the Room of Requirement and looks at the two birds in the cage, one black, the other white?  And he selects the white one to sacrifice first?  Brilliant.   And then that scene with Snape in the hallway where he screams, "Voldemort CHOSE me! I HAVE to do it (kill Dumbledore). I'm the chosen one!" while Harry, also called The Chosen One, leans against the opposite side of the wall?

Or, when he almost kills Katie Bell and breaks down in the bathroom, realizing what he's almost done and still has to do, and then looks up, and in addition to seeing his reflection in the mirror also sees Harry standing behind him, dressed in black?

 So. Good.

And, if you know how the book ends, you also realize how smart David Yates was to set this up clearly and visually in the Sixth Film.  Because, in a very huge and significant way, it is Harry's relationship with Draco that makes it possible for him to kill Voldemort (and if you are still having a hard time connecting the dots...I have two words for you: Elder Wand).

Plus, Tom Felton grew up hotter than expected.  And also became a great actor.

How about you? What are you looking forward to seeing represented in the film most?  And who is your favorite HP character (or HP baddie)?


Saturday, November 13, 2010

Next semester I'm teaching a 2200 level course with the "Theme" of Tragic Romances.  

So, because I've been reading and planning for this course, I've been doing a lot of thinking about female archetypes.  Juliet, Cathy, Eleanor, Anna, Emma, Marianne, Jane, Brett, Nora....these are the women I will be hanging out with for the next six months.  And, in many ways, they exemplified THE woman of their time/culture.  They were "that" girl.... the woman every man wanted and every woman wanted to be.

Which got me thinking...who is our Tess?  Who is our Isabella Archer?  What's the "It" girl like in 2010? And is that a good thing?

And before you go that direction, let me just say that I don't think it's Paris Hilton or Kim Kardwhateverthefuckhernameis.  Because really?  Do WOMEN like them? MOST women? Like, your friends and your friends friends? No.

Listen, I am very, very familiar with "The Majority."   I teach at two drastically different colleges and so see a broad range of 17-30 year old women every day.  And they let you know what they like.

And girls like Anne Hathaway.  Girls want to be Natalie Portman.  Kristin Stewart is their role model. They feel an affinity with Zooey Deschanel and they respect Scarlett Johansson.  And the boys? Well, that goes without saying. After all, these are gorgeous women we are talking about.

But what do they really all have in common?  

The answer, my friends, is that they are all "Manic Pixie Dream Girls."  Do you know this term?  You should. As defined by Wikipedia:

Manic pixie dream girl (MPDG) is a stock character in films. Film critic Nathan Rabin, who coined the term after seeing Kirsten Dunst in Elizabethtown, describes the MPDG as "that bubbly, shallow cinematic creature that exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures."[1][2][3][4] MPDGs are said to help their men without pursuing their own happiness, and such characters never grow up, thus their men never grow up.[2]
MPDGs are usually static characters who have eccentric personality quirks and are unabashedly girlish. They invariably serve as the romantic interest for a (often brooding or depressed) leading male protagonist. A prime example is Natalie Portman's character in the movie Garden State, written and directed by Zach Braff.[4][2][5] Kate Hudson's character in Almost Famous has been called a MPDG.[2] Another example is Maude from Harold and Maude.[2] MPDGs are also called "Amazing Girls" by Sadie Stein, describing the type as "ideal muses whose beauty, sweetness and gentle, studied eccentricity renders them entirely docile." [6]
Rabin points to Katharine Hepburn's character in Bringing Up Baby as one of the earliest examples of the archetype.[1][2] Zooey Deschanel's roles in (500) Days of Summerand other films have also been typified MPDG.[7][8] A British equivalent is the character Cassie Ainsworth in the E4 teen drama Skins.[9] Kate Winslet's role in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind has also been suggested.[citation needed]

The definition is a good one, mainly because it points out the the MPDG isn't a "new" idea. It's just taken on a new form.  Female archetypes get recycled and re-used. One type becomes popular again and leaves another to fall out of favor.

And, while you weren't looking, the MPDG became our generation's Femme Fatale. These girls became the Hearth Angel.  They became the Venus Adonis. 

So, how should we feel about this?  

Listen, I hear you. I get it.  When I started thinking about this blog entry, David was quick to the draw.
Our conversation went something like this.


L: "So, I've been thinking about female ideals and how they change from generation to generation."
D: "Like, body image?"
L: "No, not really that. More like the 'personality type' that makes a woman really desirable."
D: "And...?"
L: "Well, isn't it the MPDG?  You know, that girl whose all like 'Oh, look. I'm quirky and weird but totally cute and fun in my strangeness.' And there's nothing actually threatening or challenging in the weirdness."
D: "(Long pause) do you think you came off when I first met you? (Looks at me and grins.)"
L: "(Irritably) Well, yeah, but that's just an act. You know better now."
D: "True."


And that just proves my point. There IS always a type of "dream girl." We know what both men and women want and so we adapt ourselves to "fit" that mold (at least for a little while).  But eventually, shit gets real and we stop sending our representative.

But is the MPDG a good thing to even "want" to be?  

In her article "Manic Pixie Dream Girls Are the Scourge of Modern Cinema," Sadie Stein (of Jezebel notoriety) points out that the MPDG really only exists to make men happy.  She doesn't get to have "real problems" or "real opinions."  Sure, she may have 'down' days, but even those aren't really that big of a deal because, even when she cries, she's just so damn cute and quirky.  Kind of like a playful puppy who trips down the bottom two stairs, the MPDG isn't immune to reality, pain, and disappointment, it's just 1.)Not that big of a deal and 2.) renders them more loveable in the end.

And that, my dear readers, is the definition of condescension.

So...what SHOULD the female archetype be?  And, can an example of her be found in culture right now?

I want to hear your opinions and thoughts about this.  I really, really do.  Because, I can only give it my personal and limited guess.

I think the female archetype that is trying to emerge right now is one that is 1.) more powerful and 2.) more serious than the MPDG model.  And that's as it should be.  

So what would this woman look like?  Who is this new role model?  I believe the answers come from the same place they always have: literature and film.

For me, it starts with Ree Dolly (Winter's Bone).

This girl is strong.  And she has problems. Big ones.  But she handles them the best way she knows how.  Does she handle them perfectly?  No.  But, she takes care of business because, in her own words, "There a lot of stuff you have to get over being scared of."  

And women should be allowed to retain pieces of themselves.  In the age of instant access to information, reality television, and famewhores, Mystery is a rarity. Women (like Hilton and that Kimfuckwhatever) will give every bit of themselves away to whoever asks for it, public or private.
 But Mystery is so powerful.  Take Effy from Skins.  This girl is SMART. She's the smartest character.  But she never shows her hand.  In fact, for the first two seasons, Effy never speaks.  Literally.  Her character never says a single word. She only acts.  

It was only at the end of season two (!) that we learned why she quit talking in the first place.  And even then, she chose to tell us in a metaphor.  Because, in a world where language is broken, often times symbols are the truest signifiers.

Unseen Skins 108 - Pop
Uploaded by Gossip-girl17. - Full seasons and entire episodes online.

So, here's what we have.  We want women who are Smart, Brave, Active, and Self-Protective.  
In short, we are back to Athena.  Goddess of Wisdom, Justice, Battle, and Strategy. 
The Classic Female.

Now it's your turn! Sound off below!

Saturday, October 30, 2010

I'm angry.

And it's not fake, funny, "oh it's for the blog" anger.  It's real anger: hard, cold, and black.

It started as nothing more than a whisper and a rumor.  But, I was still worried.  And I was right to be.  Because on Monday, it became official.  And there's video proof.  MTV is destroying "Skins."

A loooonnnngggg time ago, I talked about Skins.  But, since most of you are newer readers, I'll summarize.
Skins is one of my favorite TV shows. Ever.  EVER.  I put it up there with MSCL, Freaks and Geeks, and Mad Men.  
And I'm not the only one who thinks it's amazing. Skins continues to win BAFTA's (British Oscars) year after year.

Listen, I hear you.  I read your comments and facebook feedback.  I know that Americans re-make British shows all the time. And yeah yeah yeah we all loved the original office and yeah yeah we all love the American version too.  And so this should give me hope for Skins right?

But no.

And here's why.

They are changing NOTHING.  The new American version is a literal teleplay of the original. It is the exact same characters, names, plot lines, and even dialogue  for the ENTIRE season (the "curse words" and British slang are the only things being taken out.  And, no. The American Office isn't remotely the same. It started being different in episode two). 

And sure, you would think that copy-catting would make me happy.  But you would be wrong.  

See, Skins is written for a British audience.  It's dark and gritty and the humor that's in it is weird and twisted, and and at times, a little off-putting.  And American audiences don't know what to do with that.  In America, if anything is weird or unsettling, we write it off as "un-cool" and discard it immediately.  And, it's for this very reason that I think the US Skins will be a huge, huge failure.  

Take the Mad Twatter story line for instance.  In Skins, "Mad" is a bi-polar drug dealer with a serious Napoleon complex.  That in and of itself will be strange for American audiences.  Add to it the fact that Twat means "vagina" in the UK, and there's the first of many jokes Americans won't get. Then there's the fact that they are playing off the idea of the "Mad Hatter" as well.  See?  Nothing's translating.

And then, there's the culture of the show itself.  Skins is about 16 year old kids who are in what is called "Sixth Form" which basically means they are high school seniors.  Let me spell this out for you.  Kids in England grow up quicker.  You are a legal adult at 16.  It's the age of consent.  You can do everything but legally drink at 16 (drinking starts at 18).  You basically graduate from high school at 16.  And, the final thing...not everyone in England goes to college.  Lots of them just get jobs.  Either way, after Sixth Form, you move out of your "house" and are on your own.  You don't start your financially independent life at 21/22 like we do here in the States.  You do that at 16.

So, yeah. They party waaaayyyy harder and way earlier than we do.  Rave culture is huge. Drugs aren't as demonized and some are even partially legal.
In America?  NO ONE will buy into a show where the kids act like they do in Skins because most American kids don't act that way at that age.  They aren't that autonomous.

And the other problem?

Skins is hard-fucking-core. There is nudity. And explicit sex scenes. And they use the word "fuck" like it's nothing.  Throughout the series there is death, and disease, and evil.   And the characters are shitty people who do shitty things to each other.  And episodes don't end with nicey-nice resolutions.   In short: Skins is REAL.

"...Skins goes where Gossip Girl and other teen dramas from these shores wouldn't dare."-San Francisco Chronicle
"If only American shows had half its guts."-Entertainment Weekly

Watch the above trailer for the original British version.  See? Now try and convince me that the US version won't pussy out.

Here's the thing.  I don't want to turn you off from Skins.  In fact, if you can approach it with the understanding that it's a show rooted in a different culture, you will LOVE it.  And that's a promise.  And if you want to try and prove me wrong, log on to Netflix now. You can watch Skins free and instantly.

But America needs to leave it alone. Or, if they don't, at least change it for a US audience. To do anything else is just plain disrespectful.

(Please note: All the previous images are from the Original UK version of Skins.  EXCEPT this last image, which is from the American version. Oh, bless their sweet little hearts. This is them trying to be "edgy."  Aren't they just so precious. You can smell the "Try" from a mile away.)

(P.S. Lena and both better back me up below).

Sunday, October 24, 2010

This blog entry is my very first reader request.

I know! I'm excited too.  But, because I'm excited, and haven't blogged in a while, this one will be a bit longer than usual. (But really, you should stick's a fun will be fighting with me for sure).

So the story goes something like this. A few days ago, a message appears on my wall with this picture:

followed by this demand: "Discuss."

Oh, boy. Can I discuss? As Barack would say: Yes, I can.

"Glee Girls Do Racy Photo Shoot!"

It was the headline on all the major news outlets a week ago.  And it's right at the headline that I start having problems. Because, no.  It's not "the Glee Girls" doing the photo shoot.  It's TWO Glee girls doing the photo shoot.  One of whom is a blonde-blue eyed Arian and another who has an eating disorder (we'll get to that in a minute).  

If you've watched Glee, you'll know that there are MANY Glee girls.  In fact, two of them are the "Other" major characters.  There's the wonk eyed Asian and the fat black girl.  "What? Wait! Leanne, that's racist."

You're mother fucking right it's racist.  Because that headline should have read: "Socially Acceptable (and therefore White and Skinny) Glee Girls Do Racy Photoshoot!"  Because THAT is what that's about.

Amber Riley (who plays Mercedes on the show) has the best voice of all those bitches on Glee.  But does she get to strut around and show off her curves? No.

Jenna Ushkowitz (Tina) has been acting on Broadway longer than any other young cast member and is considered a theater veteran.  But, sorry. GQ wants big, doe-eyed girls only.

So, yeah. I think GQ fucked up.  They are a xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic magazine.

But, it's not like we didn't know that already.

Of course, to add insult to injury, there's a second problem: Lea Michele.

This girl is out of control. And I mean this quite literally.  Someone needs to intervene because it's getting ridiculous.

Last year, Michele was a normal, healthy, and I personally would even say a tad under "normal" weight for her height and general body structure type.

(Lea last year).


Sick. Disgusting.

That is some SERIOUS weight loss.

(And another one for those of you who will try and tell me it's the camera angle. It's not.)

But no no no no.  When asked recently by SEVERAL reporters if she's lost weight or "felt the pressures" of Hollywood, she denied denied denied with the excuse that "because rehearsals and shooting are so strenuous, she decided to adopt a Vegan diet FOR ENERGY."

Fuck-cuse me? You have eliminated ALL ANIMAL PROTEIN for NO OTHER (ethical, political, religious) reason than to INCREASE energy?  Bitch, please. You are just trying to restrict your calories.

And, for those of you who are doubting me right now, let me run this one by you. Recently, a very reliable journalist just found out that Lea Michele PASSED OUT on set.  I mean, she fell over and blacked out.  She was dehydrated and mal-nourished.  Why?  Because, on average, she eats 800-1000 calories a day in addition to singing and dancing for a living and then visiting the neighborhood gym 4-5 times a week after work.

"But!!! She looks SOOOOOO pretty and fit!"

No, she doesn't. She looks sinew-y and hungry.  And like her leg tendons are going to snap at any second from over-training and muscle wastage.

But, again.  It's not like she or GQ are totally to blame.  After all, WE as a society celebrate those who are super thin. Just like we celebrate girls with long, flowy, un-nappy hair who have medium to light colored skin and general homogenized facial features. GQ is only giving us what we want.

Which is why the most recent outcry from the "National Conservative Stick Up Our Asses Parents Council" (or whatever it's  technically called) doesn't really phase or even bother me.

Hear about this one?
Right after the Glee GQ spread hit newsstands, no one said anything about the racial issues or the body image stuff. Nope.   Instead, a bunch of crazy right wing parents could only take issue with the fact that the spread could be considered "child pornography."   The F-ck?!!!!

BOTH of the female actors are well over 18 (24 and 25, I think).  And the characters they play are also 18 (Seniors in High School).  So...once you take those two facts into consideration, this is what the Parent Council is left with:

"Anyone who ever dresses in flannel skirts and knee high socks, or actually, anyone wearing anything that the resembles clothing of a young college co-ed or prep. girl, is actually promoting child pornography and should be burned at the stake."

Well, I guess you all need to light me on fire then.

See, again... this is my main problem and also my main point: the things we SHOULD be mad about, we're not.  And yet, the asinine, totally non-sensical stuff, we blacklist or ban.

So, really, the GQ spread is not GQ's fault.  WE'RE TO BLAME!

No, really. Let me repeat that one for you.  WE are all to blame for the shit that comes out of the media.

Take the MPAA, Blue Valentine, and NC-17 ratings for example.

Last week, the highly touted film Blue Valentine got slapped with an NC-17 rating.  Which, in the film world, means "NO DISTRIBUTION."

Technically, it means the film is not allowed to be seen by anyone in any circumstance who is under 17. But, what it really means is that no movie theater or movie theater group is going to pay to carry a movie with "that kind of reputation."  They know it won't sell many tickets (aka. make the theater money).  So then, why would a distributor pay a movie studio for a film that won't sell?

Here's the thing though. Apparently, "the scene" that is garnering Blue Valentine its "X" rating is NOT worthy of it.  In fact, critics have been so outraged by the rating, that they have taken to the blogs to defend the film.

Here's how the plot goes: Blue Valentine is about an awesome, wonderful, head-spinning relationship that, in the end, doesn't work out. (Please tell me you weren't just surprised...I mean, the plot of the movie is in the title for fucks sake).

At one point, in a final attempt at saving their relationship, the two main characters go off for a lover's weekend. Except "She" doesn't want to have sex. So "He" pushes her to, until she caves. And then she cries and hates it and is miserable the whole time and it's obvious that they're over.

And the MPAA calls this a graphic rape scene that warrants an NC-17 rating.


Hilary Swank's character gets ass-raped and then gets her head blown off.  R-rating.

The "Human Centipede"?  Scientist connects various women's asses to other women's mouth's, joining them through re-routing their gastric systems and making them walk on their arms.  R-rating.

"Saw"?  The 2 hour continuous and systemic torture of women whose tits hang out of their tank-tops while they gasp and scream like you would during sexual climax except their fingers are being ripped off one at a time.  R-rating.

So, fuck you MPAA.  A man and his wife having sex issues just doesn't even come close.

But then, how do we, THE VIEWING PUBLIC (!), change this?

Well, first you can start by watching the incredible documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated."

It's currently streaming instantly on Netflix and is truly an eye opener.  And then, you can start going to your closest "art house" theater and supporting real, daring, and quality films (regardless of their rating) with your pocket books.  And you can stop paying to see people degraded and brutalized in main stream cinema under the banner of dubiously assigned, safe "R"-ratings.

And, since I know a lot of you will ask, I'm including the trailer for Blue Valentine.
But be warned. It's a truly SHIT trailer.  I think they must be trying to "draw" in all the "Garden State" viewers before the NC-17 rating becomes "public."  I mean, really?  You're "tap dancing"?  As in,  Natalie Portman's fucking repugnant MPDG  "I can tap dance, Do you wanna see me tap dance?" moment in Garden State.  UGH!

 What an awful way to cut a trailer.  Because the movie is supposedly amazing.  Like, maybe too good.  As in, I might not be able to hurt that hard for that long and be okay for the rest of the evening. Plus, Ryan Gosling is already a weird alien hybrid of my husband...couple that with the scarily similar way he cups her face while kissing her and holds his body against hers...nope, I can't. Too close to home.

Sound off below!


Thursday, September 30, 2010


If you were a normal high school kid,

(ie. NOT a Drama Geek or one of those psychos who read for fun in their spare time instead of being like all sane sixteen year olds and sneaking behind the bleachers to score dime bags of ditch weed)

then you don't know what "Irony" means.  No really. You don't.  Because I see 18-23 year olds who are fresh out of the American education system everyday, and they use the word like they're singing prayers to Alainis Morisette (who also didn't know what the fuck "irony" meant either.)

Because, irony means the contrast between what appears to be so and what is really true, usually to humorous or poignant effect.

So, no.  "Rain on your wedding day" or "the good advice that you just didn't take" are not examples of irony.  And the fact that "OhMyGod! He slept with his ex?! That is SO ironic!" is not ironic either. Dumbass.

But you know what is ironic.  The fact that our generation (often called The Facebook Generation) has ZERO interest in seeing The Social Network.

How is this possible?!  We all use it: some of us a lot, some of us sometimes. And even if you don't ever use Facebook, the chances are that you have an account.
Or, at the very least, you use or have used some form of social networking.  Remember the hay-day of AIM? Remember middle school, when we all had dumb screen names that had some kind of phonetic resemblance to drugs or alcohol or to science fiction books (Jacksgurrrl015 or Arwen2219).  Remember instant message stalking in college? Like, you just get online and hope that "the guy" gets on too and then "sees" you and goes "huh, maybe I'll start a little cyber-flirt with her" to which you eagerly accept while Coldplay blasts through your Windows media player.

See? I refuse to believe that we are that above seeing a movie about the creation of one of the most popular and notorious forms of communication, one that has come to define a generation. And, one that, maybe more importantly has begun to redefine what it means to interact and communicate with each other.

Because this is what The Social Network is about.  It's not a bio-pic.  It's not 2 hours of watching the life of some cyber-punk and his evil mercenary ways.  It's about how people are attempting to connect in a meaningful way through a medium that is, by it's very nature, distant, mechanized, in-human, and impersonal (but also does work).

You know why else you should see it? Because the writer, Aaron Sorkin, is a genius (yes, David, I just used the "g" word).  He's the brains responsible for creating and writing the vast majority of the episodes of The West Wing.  And A Few Good Men. And The American President. And so on and so forth.  And apparently, this film is watertight. As in, the script is so good, a monkey could have directed it and it would still be solid gold.

But David Fincher (Fight Club, Seven, Benjamin Button) is directing it. 

And Jesse Eisenberg (The Squid and the Whale, Adventureland) stars. You should be running to the theater right now to buy your tickets.

Oh, still too cool for the Facebook movie?

Well, it's currently at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.  100% bitches!!!  And this is also among Top Critics.  They are LOVING it. Tod McCarthy even went so far as to compare it to Citizen Kane. And while, yes (Hey Ben!) this is totally pre-mature and kind of a silly comparison, I do think it will be a masterpiece of filmmaking. And I do think it will serve as a benchmark for our generation.

SO GO! Get off your high horse and Facebook and go see The Social Network.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Okay folks!

I'm in a great mood. GASP!  Rare, I know.

But how can I not be.  The wizards at just re-formatted the administrative and editing pages, and they are soooo much better.  AND! NY and London Fashion weeks came and are coming to a close, leaving us with lots of pretty pretty clothes to lose our shit over.  Wheeee!


Here's what the critics are saying about NY Fashion Week/Spring 2011 (and yes, I know. It seems bizarre that we are supposed to want Summer clothes for next year right now...what can I say, fashion moves fast):

The trends: Minimalism, Neutrals, and the 70's.

Critical Darlings and Favorites: Joseph Altuzarra, Marc Jacobs, Michael Kors, and Donna Karan (yeah).

Joseph was leading the ooo's and ahhhh's for there minimalist/neutral bit.  


And Marc Jacob's stole the show with his whole 70's/Jodie Foster from Taxi Driver kitsch.

But...I dunno.  Maybe Marc Jacobs Spring collection just isn't for me. And, to be honest, if you are into the whole 70's look, I think that Giles is doing it better over in London (it's fashion week there right now).

My favorites:

As always, my initial disclaimer: You should look at all the collections to see for yourself what you love (and hate).  I have a certain and specific clothing aesthetic and it may not (probably isn't) yours.  I'm uber-girly. I like dresses.  I also have tits and an ass that I (unlike Blake Lively) am constantly trying to contain.  Them's my dressing rules.  I do constantly try to break away from them, but there's a default at work.  Sorry. Deal with it.

Or you can just thank me.

Because my love for pretty princess clothes brings me to my first LOVE of Fashion Week which I will now share with you: Vera Wang.

Vera Wang!

Oh. Holy. Jesus.  These clothes are incredible.  Do you see that draping? Do you see it?!
I don't know what she sold or who she sold it to, but Vera must have made a deal with someone, because her clothes have been steady awesome for the last few seasons.


And look! It's a rope belt!
Rope belt's are back bitches!!


Love it! Also love that they ditched the proper runway.


And the winner so far for me from London:


Whew!  Fashion is exhausting.  Especially when I realize that it will be months before Spring. Which also means it will be months before I can start looking for cheap knock-offs of all these trends.

But one trend I can start embracing and following right now is the uber femme 1950's look that Prada and Louis Vuitton created for THIS Fall.  Using "Mad Men" as inspiration, they cast "fat" girl models and put them in clothes that celebrated, rather than covered up their curves.  So, maybe this Fall, it's time for me to put my "stealth boob" antics to rest.  Maybe I'll bring the girls out for some fresh October air.  What do you say, ladies?