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 Alice...you both better back me up below).

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 around...it's a fun one...you 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).


Now?


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.


DO YOU REMEMBER "BOYS DON'T CRY"?!!!!!


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!

Love.

Newsflash!


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.

Okay folks!


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


But how can I not be.  The wizards at Blogger.com 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!


To FASHION!


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!!




Rodarte 

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

New York Fashion Week Spring 2011: Rodarte
- Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

Thakoon









And the winner so far for me from London:


Erdem











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?

Due to my recent nuptials...

(really, is there a WORSE word than nuptials? It sounds like some country slang word for deep fried pig nuggets. As in:

nuptials (n.)-a meal of southern or midwestern origin made from a combination of pig's livers, bread, and spices (often shaped into balls and fried). Well, we ain't got no Mac Donald's round here, but you c'n go round that there bend to the eatin' shack and get you some real good nuptials.)

...blogging has been light. Apologies are in order. As are thanks for those of you who made the trip down to the "dirty" south to take part in the aforementioned nuptials. Lots and lots of love to all of you!

Back to the business at hand though.

A lot of times, I come across as a horrible snob. What, with all the "indy" movie promotion and my undying hatred for Eva LongBORE-ia, I can understand that some of you may believe me incapable of loving things that are "low brow."

So here it is: a confession. I LOVE high school movies. LOVE them. Almost all of them. Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, Can't Hardly Wait.

But these are easy to love. And, see, I even love the bad ones. Like John Tucker Must Die. That's right. I've seen it. More than once. You are now free to judge me...I would.

And because of this shameful secret, I am literally jumping up and down with excitement for Friday. Because it's the release of "Easy A."

Do you know about Easy A? Surprisingly, they haven't been giving it a lot of press. But they SHOULD!

It's about a girl named Olive. Who, in a somewhat dubiously heroic attempt to help her closeted gay friend survive high school, pretends to sleep with him. Problem solved. Until all the geeks decide to make Olive the patron saint of "fake virginity losing." So she agrees to ruin her "good" reputation in order to help the geeks around her get a "cool" one.

Enter Nathaniel Hawthorne and his book "The Scarlet Letter." Just as Hester Pryne is branded with her scarlet "A," so is Olive. Literally and figuratively.

Here's the thing. Before you roll your eyes. You should watch the trailer. Because Emma Stone is not Megan Fox or even that horrible skinny blonde Amanda Seyfried girl. She is relatable. And so refreshing. And funny.

And sure, you may laugh that the "Scarlett Letter" Puritan townspeople equivalent is hyper religious high school kids. But that clique of uber conservative, overly religious teenagers who snake people behind their backs does exist. The blonde bitch you'll meet in the trailer. I went to school with her. No seriously, if you went to Savannah Christian, you knew that girl. And you'll also know that she was awful.

So you should see this film. Because, in addition to being relatable, "Easy A" is GOOD. Like, critically good. It's at something insane like 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. And it got selected to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). Which, if you know about TIFF is pretty crazy. Because TIFF is the first stop for all the Oscar and foreign language films. It's one of those Film Festivals that show up on movie posters with the leaves around them, denoting their high-class, educated importance.

Yeah. "Easy A" is getting one of those.

Love the T.S. Eliot reference. Obviously, an English major had a lot of fun writing this movie.

So, do yourself a favor and go see a high school movie. And then feel good about yourself, because, as far as high school movies goes, this one is promising to be one of the better ones. (Sorry, "John Tucker Must Die.")

After you see it (anyone want to go with me on Friday?!), we can discuss the whole "beard" issue. Because I hope they treat that one right. Please, please treat that one right. It's my one concern for the film.

And speaking of literature, film, and gays and literature in film...HAVE YOU SEEN "SASSY GAY FRIEND"?!!!!???

YOU HAVE TO WATCH THESE!

They are amazing! Really, I am so grateful that someone finally made parodies of Shakespeare's female heroines. Because, damn. I can totally remember being in high school and thinking that those girls were soooo stupid. "What are you doing?! What, what, what are you doing?!!"

And one last video for the day. Let's bring it full circle shall we? It's another one for Easy A.

Haven't we all experienced this?

I like most of the movies that I make the effort to go see.

But every once in a while I absolutely love one of them.

It's been a while though. I can't really say when was the last time I left a theater totally and completely elated, ecstatic, and just plain head over heels in love. You know what I mean, though? That feeling you get when the credits start to roll: when your heart is so full it almost hurts and your mind is racing in that active, happy, elated way.

Well, that happened to me today after seeing "Get Low."

Get Low is incredible. It's funny and smart and authentic. The scenery, staging, and costumes feel completely organic to the point that you do NOT feel like you are even watching a movie.

And the acting!!!!!

Enough simply cannot ever be said about Robert Duvall. He has been and probably always will be one of my favorite actors. And this may be on my list of the top two or three favorite roles he has ever played. I rarely use this word because it gets over used and devalued, but in this case, it completely applies: He is incandescent.

And Bill Murray is, as always, wonderful. And Lucas Black!!! Why, why, why is Lucas Black not in more movies?!! He holds his own against Murray and Duvall like he has been acting with men of their caliber talent for ages. Such, such a surprising performance.

But the thing I loved most about Get Low is its heart. It's HUGE. But not in the cheap, manipulative, Nicholas Sparks kind of way. You won't cry when you think you will and you will cry when you least expect to, but you'll be laughing through the whole movie as well.

Which is why I want to say "thank-you Chris Provenzano" (man who wrote this screenplay). Thank-you for being thoughtful and brave and honest. Even though this is your first movie, I expect to see you on the shortlist for the Oscars in January. You deserve to be.

No really, if my gushing hasn't convinced you to go see this movie, maybe this will.

Duvall is picky. Obviously. He doesn't do anything but the best.

And do you know about Bill Murray?

Bill Murray does not have a proper agent. Bill Murray is not a client at CAA or any other Hollywood talent firm. Bill Murray does not live in LA, go to auditions, or take production/script meetings.

Apparently, the way it works goes like this. There are about two or three people in Hollywood that know the 1-800 phone number that will put you in touch with Murray's automated voice answering service. If you get the phone number, you can pitch your idea to Murray's voicemail. If he's interested, he'll tell those two or three guys to get the script for him. If he reads it and he likes it, he'll call you and set up a meeting.

No. I'm not shitting you.

Bill Murray is THE pickiest bitch. But don't let this pretentiousness turn you off. Murray is actually anything but a snob. He regularly mixes and mingles with everyday folk. It's Hollywood that he despises.

You've seen this video right? Murray, a huge music fan, goes to the music festival SXSW every year. This year, he got invited to a "music showcase house party" at the festival. One of the groups offered him the task of playing the tambourine. Which he did. Until the cops showed up and tried to shut it down. Bill let the kids try and defend their right to congregate and make music until, finally, he decided to step in and have a word with the officers (who didn't know he was there). He talked them into letting the band finish the set. Weird? Yes. A little creepy? Absolutely. But also Amazing.

For more insight into what a wack-a-doo Murray really is, read the recent piece on him in GQ. It is worth your five minutes...trust me. I especially like his response when the interviewer questions him about the widespread rumor that he will go up behind random people in New York, cover their eyes with his hands, say "guess who?" and when they turn around and see him, he will simply smile, shake their hand, and say "you know no one will ever believe you."

Anyway, the point is Duvall and Murray only do the best projects. And Get Low is one of the best. It's at 96% among Top Critics on Rotten Tomatoes and is playing at the Chelsea now.

Please do your heart a favor and go see it.

Love!!