ReportWire

Tag: 00s movies

  • Tinashe Brings It On In Her Update to TLC’s “No Scrubs,” “No Broke Boys”

    Tinashe Brings It On In Her Update to TLC’s “No Scrubs,” “No Broke Boys”

    [ad_1]

    Cardi B might have recently reiterated, “Broke boys don’t deserve no pussy (I know that’s right!),” but it was TLC who helmed that message best on one of their biggest singles, “No Scrubs,” from their FanMail album. Pointedly released in the weeks just before Valentine’s Day of 1999, the song caused an immediately polarizing reaction between the sexes. For women, it was a long overdue roasting of men who presumed that women should “bow down” simply because they were men. For the latter, it was their worst fear realized: the opposite sex not only calling them on their bullshit, but insisting they wouldn’t tolerate it anymore if there wasn’t even any money and associated lavishing to be had out of the deal.

    Thus, T-Boz, Chilli and Left-Eye changed womanhood forever with five simple words, “I don’t want no scrub.” The definition being a guy who’s “always talkin’ ‘bout what he wants and just sits on his broke ass.” Tinashe clearly took that message to heart (as much as Cardi B on the aforementioned “Up”) with “No Broke Boys,” her third single from Quantum Baby. Just how much is made apparent when she declares, “Run up the cost, ‘cause I need me a spender/Love is never really for free.” Such a transactional view of “love” almost makes it seem as if she watched Gentlemen Prefer Blondes before writing those lines (and yes, she is blonde in the video).

    In contrast to her last music video and song, “Getting No Sleep,” Tinashe has opted to tap very much into her hetero side for this particular concept, even going full cheerleader in the accompanying visual, directed by Aerin Moreno (a frequent collaborator of Madison Beer’s). But more than just dressing in a cheerleader uniform, Tinashe seeks to evoke the vibe of 2000’s Bring It On, complete with her squad going pom-pom to pom-pom with a rival one. And the callback to that era makes sense considering how “00s hip hop/R&B” the backing track—co-produced by Zach Sekoff, Phoelix and Ricky Reed—sounds (it even has occasional tinges of Nivea’s “Don’t Mess With My Man”).

    Opening with the verse, “Ex on the line, just as I suspected/No one really gets over me/I’m unaffected, why would you try to ever put me second?/You just another groupie to me now,” there’s something in Tinashe’s tone that recalls Mýa, even though the sentiment isn’t “Case of the Ex,” so much as bearing a similarity to (again) Cardi B flexing, “I like texts from my exes when they want a second chance” on 2018’s “I Like It.” As for the Bring It On “codedness” (read: totally overt callback to said 00s masterpiece), Tinashe and co. appear on the football field and on the bleachers to perform their lively choreo with ample confidence.

    In one of the only scenes off the field, Tinashe—in the “costume” of a football player rather than a cheerleader (perhaps a subtle nod to her “swinging both ways”)—teaches her fellow women what she calls “Our Standards.” This done in a manner and mise-en-scène that also harkens back to another 00s movie: Mean Girls. Specifically, when Coach Carr (Dwayne Hill) warns his students in “health class,” “Don’t have sex. Because you will get pregnant and die.” Here, what Tinashe is ultimately saying to men is: Don’t be broke. Because you will be dead to me otherwise.

    As for the standards Tinashe lists for her own far more attentive pupils than the ones in Coach Carr’s class, they are: 1) Not broke, 2) Under 1K followers (an interesting “ask”), 3) Big dick, 4) Not a DJ/promoter, 5) Six inches (or “6’s”) minimum, 6) Good with his hands and 7) Emotionally available. Not just a lot to require of any “modern” man, but additionally rather cliched and outmoded at this point in terms of conveying a stereotype about “what women want.” Nonetheless, as her squad takes notes, even the team led by the other head cheerleader (the one who looks like a version of Megan Fox in the earlier stages of her plastic surgery) has to stop and pay attention. So on board with the list, in fact, that they even put aside their differences/competitiveness long enough for them to nod in agreement, smile and infiltrate the class.

    During the “big finish” of the video, the two groups join in together on their presently shared choreography, having found peace and common ground through this understanding of the “no scrubs” code that has, evidently, been updated to “no broke boys.” A concept Destiny’s Child also spoke to on “Bills Bills Bills,” which, incidentally, was released the same year as “No Scrubs”—but the former put their single out in May of 1999, two months after “No Scrubs” had already caused shock and delight around the world (though mainly in the United States, where a “response song” like “No Pigeons” “had to be” released in order to “keep women in check,” or some such bullshit male logic).   

    But Tinashe actually succeeds more deftly than Destiny’s Child at distilling and repurposing what TLC already said, refreshing their message with the upbeat chorus, “No broke boys, no new friends/I’m that pressure, give me my tens/Ain’t no lie, ain’t no shade/Fuck on me, then you know he paid/Looks so good, makes no sense/Bad ass bitch, with my bad ass friends/No broke boys, ain’t no shade/Fuck on me, then you know he paid.” All sung in a very “cheerleader chant” sort of way.

    By the final frame of the video, however, Tinashe is walking all alone down the fifty-yard line—yet another indication that she’d rather be a “lone” wolf/cheerleader than settle for some dusty football player who’s going to end up as a used car salesman rather than a Travis Kelce. Hey, no one ever said capitalism and “love” weren’t inextricably linked. Least of all TLC.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    [ad_1]

    Although it’s easy to shit on Sex and the City in the present, there are occasional moments in the show when one realizes how truly visionary it was for its time. You know, going to a tantric sex workshop and vaguely acknowledging white privilege while you’re getting a pedicure—things like that. But one thing Sex and the City rarely gets credit for is providing the kernel of the idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This occurred in season four of the series; specifically, episode six: “Time and Punishment” (the same episode where Charlotte York [Kristin Davis] was shamed for having “free time” instead of working). Which aired three years before Eternal Sunshine… was released in 2004.

    But back in July of 2001, when “Time and Punishment” first aired, Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) had the sudden “revelation” that cheating on Aidan Shaw (John Corbett) back in mid-season three was the worst mistake of her life—or at least her romantic life (which, in truth, embodies one hundred percent of Carrie’s existence). Therefore, narcissist that she is, Carrie obviously believes it’s within her power to get him back…just because she decides on a whim that’s what she wants. And apparently, she’s not wrong in her assumption, wearing Aidan down with her seduction methods (however stalker-y) until he concedes that, sure, he wants to get back together.

    But before that glorious (for Carrie) moment, Bradshaw gives us one of her signature voiceover “insights” from the column de la semaine she’s writing, ruminating on a person’s inability to forgive if they can’t really forget. So it is that she tell us: “Later that day, I got to thinking about relationships and partial lobotomies. Two seemingly different ideas that might be perfect together, like chocolate and peanut butter. Think how much easier it would all be if there was some swift surgical procedure to whisk away all the ugly memories and mistakes and leave only the fun trips and special holidays.” Yes, Carrie is perfectly describing what Charlie Kaufman would call “Lacuna Inc.” in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Minus the part where even the fun trips and special holidays are remembered. For, in Carrie’s ideal version of relationship memory erasure, you still at least remember the person existed in your life prior to the “procedure.”

    Kaufman and Michel Gondry did that concept one better by making it key for all traces of the person to be forgotten. Even though it only set up someone like Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) for the trap of gravitating right back toward the person they ended up finding toxic in the first place. Which is also something that Zoë Kravitz’s Blink Twice addresses in a more ominous way. But what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind prefers to do is position the inevitable “re-attraction” between two people who were already unable to make it work before as something with a more hopeful tinge. Not just more hopeful than what Blink Twice does with the concept, but also with what ends up happening to Carrie and Aidan by the end of season four (hint: total emotional catastrophe/an even more painful breakup than the first time around).

    However, before the reasons for their first breakup are proven yet again (and tenfold), to conclude her thoughts on the matter of “forgiving and forgetting,” Carrie adds, “But until that day arrives, what to do? Rely on the same old needlepoint philosophy of ‘forgive and forget’? And even if a couple can manage the forgiveness, has any[one] ever really conquered the forgetness? Can you ever really forgive, if you can’t forget?” In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there’s no need to forgive because all has been forgotten.

    As for setting up the premise for “Time and Punishment,” the episode that precedes it, “Baby, Talk Is Cheap,” also refers to the “unforgettability” (therefore, unforgivability) of what Carrie did to Aidan. An egregious sin he feels obliged to remind her of when she has the gall to come to his door late at night and plead her case for getting back together. None of her “logic” trumps the fact that, as Aidan screams, “You broke my heart!” But Carrie sees that only as a “minor detail” when presenting him with the “argument,” “Look, I know that you’re probably scared and I would be too, but it’s different now. Things are different. I-I’m different.” She then tries to prove it by taking a pack of cigarettes out of her purse and declaring, “Cigarettes, gone.” Of course, if they were really “gone,” they wouldn’t have been in her purse in the first place.

    Nonetheless, Carrie continues to insist that this “new” her was clearly not responsible for the actions of the old her and, thus, shouldn’t be punished by being denied another chance. She assures Aidan, “Seriously, all bad habits gone. This is a whole new thing because I miss you. And I’ve missed you.” As though her desire for him alone should be enough for him to want to forget about all the pain she caused him. And when Aidan screams the aforementioned line at her audacity, Carrie displays the kind of immaturity and embarrassing behavior she’s known for by simply running away instead of staying to face the firing squad, as it were.

    Ultimately, though, she gets what she wants: for Aidan to submit to her. Granted, not without an initial bout of passive aggressive behavior in “Time and Punishment” that finally prompts Carrie to say of the co-worker he’s been openly flirting with, “Why don’t you just fuck her, then we can both be bad.” When he comes to her door at the end of the episode, Carrie tells him, “I know that you can’t forget what happened, but I hope that you can forgive me.” But she was onto something before in her column—the idea that no true forgiveness can be attained without forgetting. Ergo, her wish for a Lacuna Inc.-like enterprise that wouldn’t “exist” until three years later…perhaps after Kaufman caught sight of Carrie’s column. And while Carrie might not have been the first to wish for this form of a “relationship lobotomy,” she was the only one to say it out loud in such a crystallized way before Eternal Sunshine… came along to perfect the notion.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    [ad_1]

    Romy Schneider once said, “Memories are the best things in life, I think.” But are they, really, if some of them serve only as a brutal, triggering source of trauma? In both Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice, that’s the main type of memory being dealt with, therefore suppressed. But while one is a “rom-com” (Charlie Kaufman-style), the other is a horrifying thriller with a #MeToo slant. Both, however, do center on “the necessity” of memory erasure as it pertains to the relationship between men and women.

    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, of course, is much “lighter” by comparison. Even though, in its time and its place, it was considered just as “bleak” as it was “quirky.” It’s also more hyper-focused on one relationship in particular, in contrast to Blink Twice speaking to the overall power dynamics between men and women as it relates to sex rather than “romance.” More to the point, the power dynamics between rich men and “regular” women. In Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman’s narrative, the main “sufferers” (or beneficiaries, depending on one’s own personal views) of select memory loss are Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey). But it is the former who “brings it on both of them,” as she’s the one to initially enlist the memory-erasing services of Lacuna Inc., run by Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson). Joel merely follows suit after comprehending what she’s done, deciding that she shouldn’t be the only person in the relationship permitted the luxury of forgetting about all that they shared together. Good and bad.

    So it is that he, too, undergoes the procedure, briefed on the ins and out of it by Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst), the receptionist at Lacuna, and Dr. Mierzwiak before opting to excise Clementine from his brain as well (in a scene later to be repurposed by Ariana Grande for the “we can’t be friends [wait for your love]” video). Of course, this isn’t to say he’s not extremely hurt by her “whimsical” decision to “remove” him. Alas, by way of explanation, Dr. Mierzwiak can only offer, “She wanted to move on. We provide that possibility.” One can imagine that Slater King (Channing Tatum) tells himself something similar about his own nefarious operation on a private island that might as well be referred to as Little Saint James (a.k.a. the former “Epstein Island”).

    Sex and the City, incidentally, provided something of a precursor to the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind “idea kernel” (de facto, the Blink Twice one) in the form of the season four episode, “Time and Punishment.” This due to Carrie’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) theme for her column of the week being whether or not you can ever really forgive someone if you can’t forget what they did (to you). The answer, in both Eternal Sunshine… and Blink Twice, seems to be a resounding no. Though, in the former, there appears to be a greater chance for redemption even after the couple remembers everything that happened between them (and still decides to give it another shot). This courtesy of Mary, who not only unveils the truth to all of Lacuna’s clients (or “patients”), but also unearths her own bitter truth vis-à-vis memory erasure: Howard did it to her (per her request) after the two had an affair. And yet, just as it is for Frida (Naomi Ackie) in Blink Twice, it’s as though we are doomed to repeat the same behavior/gravitate toward the same toxic person regardless of whether the slate (a.k.a. the mind) is wiped clean or not.

    In Blink Twice, Zoë Kravitz’s directorial debut (which she co-wrote with E.T. Feigenbaum), that gravitation proves to be much more harmful for Frida, who drags her best friend, Jess (Alia Shawkat), along for the ride after infiltrating Slater’s fancy benefit dinner for his requisite “foundation.” Although the two are initially working the party as cater waiters, Frida has them both switch into gowns (which scream “trying too hard” while still looking embarrassingly cheap). Naturally, Slater invites them to accompany him and his entourage back to the island where he’s been sequestered in order to “work on himself” as part of a grand performance of a public apology for “bad behavior” past (there’s no need to get specific about what that might have entailed, for there’s a whole range of bad behavior [typically, sexual abuse/harassment-related] that female viewers can easily imagine for themselves). Though, usually, if one is truly working on themselves, they do so by not buying a private island to retreat to. By actually trying to exist in and adapt to the world around them, rather than creating an entirely new one that fits their own “needs.” But that’s the thing: Slater and his ilk don’t want to adapt, don’t want to acknowledge that things have changed and so, too, must their old ways. Instead, they’ve set up a “paradise” for themselves that happens to be every woman’s hell.

    The only requirement to keep them there? Scrubbing any memories they have of being sexually assaulted every night on the island. In lieu of Lacuna, Slater needs only a perfume called Desideria, conveniently crafted from a flower that’s only found on that particular island. It’s, in many ways, a slightly more implausible method for making someone forget a traumatic experience than all-out memory erasure through a “scientific procedure” like Lacuna’s. But, for Kravitz’s purposes, it works. Those purposes extend not only to holding up a mirror to the ongoing and new-fangled ways that men, even post-#MeToo, still manage to behave like barbarians, but also to the ways in which women “self-protect” by conveniently “removing” memories that are too painful to deal with, especially when it comes to men and their egregious comportment. This, in part, is why the Desideria is so effective. There’s a sense that the women of the island are only too ready to forget/ignore what horrors befell them the previous night.

    In the abovementioned Sex and the City episode, there’s a scene at the end where Carrie repeats (seven times) to Aidan (John Corbett), “You have to forgive me” in different “Oscar-worthy” manners. Just as Slater repeats, “I’m sorry” in different dramatic ways until he then askes Frida if she forgives him yet. Seeing (and expecting) that she definitely doesn’t, it only serves to prove his point that, no, you cannot forgive without forgetting (though, to be fair/in this case, maybe just don’t act like women owe you unfettered access to their bodies/treat them like disposable objects designed solely for your amusement and there won’t be any need to forgive).

    Thus, he considers himself in the right (or at least that he “had no choice”) for doing what he did in order to get what he wanted out of her and the other women he lures to the island with his charm (and, of course, the allure of his wealth). In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there is also a belief, on Clementine’s part, in being “in the right” for willingly expunging her own memories without any man needing to do it for her. In this sense, one might say that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is all about the importance of agency in having certain aspects of your memories erased for the sake of self-preservation.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Idea of You Is No Threat to Notting Hill or Even Music and Lyrics

    The Idea of You Is No Threat to Notting Hill or Even Music and Lyrics

    [ad_1]

    For those who didn’t think (or believe it possible) that there was such a thing as a “Coachella rom-com,” The Idea of You is here to fill this apparent void. And, although the book of the same name it’s adapted from, written by Robinne Lee and released in 2017, doesn’t involve Coachella, but rather, a concert at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, the same general premise of the “meet-cute” in question is still there. Though, for whatever reason, co-writers Michael Showalter (who also directed) and Jennifer Westfeldt (known for Kissing Jessica Stein and being Jon Hamm’s ex) thought it would be better to make that happen within the context of Coachella, an increasingly vexatious, overpriced music festival that, once upon a time, a woman like Solène Marchand (Anne Hathaway) never would have felt comfortable attending, let alone as a chaperone to her daughter, Izzy (Ella Rubin), and her friends, Zeke (Jordan Aaron Hall) and Georgia (Mathilda Gianopoulos). After all, “VIP culture” at the festival wasn’t a thing until at least after Madonna performed in April of 2006 (as many stickers at the time touted, “Madonna Killed Coachella”). Once that shift occurred, for those with the means, “there [was] no real roughing it at Coachella anymore,” as a 2015 L.A. Times article pointed out. And certainly not for a well-to-do, “middle-aged” white woman. 

    Fortunately, it’s not as though the entire movie takes place within this presently bourgeois context (such an attempt would make for an even worse storyline). It’s only for about twenty minutes that the first act setup centers on Coachella. An act wherein, initially, Solène resigns herself to a lonely weekend of camping (though, in the book, it’s presented as an artist’s retreat in Ojai). Alas, as her ex-husband, Daniel (Reid Scott), is known for doing, he completely ruins her plans (just as he did when he divorced her for a younger woman named Eva [Perry Mattfeld]) by showing up to her house with Izzy and co.—after she already dropped them off at his—and asking if she can drive them there instead now that he’s had an Important Work Thing come up. So, he pleads, why not relish the VIP tickets he shelled out for him and their daughter? Along with the meet-and-greet package he bought for Izzy so that she could interact with boy band August Moon. A band she hasn’t been into since junior high, but such is the out-of-touchness of her father in terms of paying close attention to the ways in which she’s growing up at a rapid pace. As most teenagers do (especially now). Which brings up one of numerous key differences in the book: Izzy/Isabelle actually is still very much an August Moon fangirl. With regard to this detail, it helps that, in the book, she’s twelve…as opposed to being seventeen in the movie. Isabelle’s age in Robinne Lee’s version of the story also raises the stakes much higher in terms of Solène feeling responsible for her child’s emotional well-being. Because by the time kids are in their late teens, that ship has sailed. 

    Indeed, one of the many heavy-handed expositions that Showalter and Westfeldt emphasize in their screenplay adaptation is how much more involved and caring Solène is as a parent than Daniel. Even though she, too, has her own successful career to juggle: running a gallery in Silverlake. A noticeable neighborhood shift from the book’s setting of Culver City. But Silverlake is just so much “hipper” for the purposes of the camera…even if the majority of shooting took place in Georgia (namely, Atlanta and Savannah). This is perhaps a more overt way in which The Idea of You as a film reveals just how much it skimps on things. Including making an actual statement about the way older women are treated when they date younger men in comparison to the inverse of that: older men with younger women. Sure, there are some errant, overwrought lines delivered—like Izzy telling Solène, “The people on the internet that are picking you apart are disgusting. It’s ‘cause you’re a woman and it’s ‘cause you’re older than him [thanks for spelling it out]”—but, by and large, the message about double standards gets lost in this becoming a movie about catering to a forty-something female fantasy. The idea, not of “you,” but of still being appealing to much younger man.

    Among the generation about to enter Anne Hathaway’s age bracket, this is more of a concern than it ever was in the past (likely as a result of fewer women settling for “fading into the background” once they’ve reached “a certain age”). And also, perhaps, more of a moot point. Mainly because, if you have the money, it’s never been easier to appear younger than you truly are, with Samantha Jones’ prophecy of “mani/pedi/Botox” being totally normalized at this point. Then there is the recent “joke” (read: accurate assessment) about how millennials are looking younger than run-ragged, “overstressed” (a.k.a. overstimulated, visually) Gen Z. With millennials actually favoring a younger-looking style (see: Lana Del Rey’s coquette aesthetic or Paris Hilton’s puerile butterfly wings) as Gen Z actively ages their skin with hyper-use of glycolic acid-packed skin products that will sooner (rather than later) have the reverse effect on their complexion that these face washes and exfoliants are meant to have on non-teen skin. 

    Solène, being born to French parents (though grandparents in the movie), clearly has to worry less about skin issues with such heritage. And it’s obviously benefited her in terms of coming across as Izzy’s “big sister” rather than her mother. That, and she had her daughter at a relatively young age (a much younger one in the movie)…sort of like Lorelei Gilmore.

    Allowing herself to be swept away by Hayes’ British charm and wit (a decided false stereotype when it comes to British men), things escalate quite quickly, even though, in the current era, audiences might be hard-pressed to believe that a white boy band would have this much cachet. Because, if we’re being honest, the moment for white boy bands passed a while ago—at the latest, with One Direction (though, in truth, the heyday ended after Backstreet Boys and NSYNC). Even so, readers and viewers alike are meant to suspend their disbelief in terms of surrendering to the idea that it wouldn’t be a more BTS-inspired boy band that Izzy was obsessed with. Perhaps, undercuttingly, it speaks to a certain kind of racism in not wanting a white woman (or girl) to go for an Asian man. That would add an additional layer of “complexity” to the age gap element that audiences might just not be ready for. 

    The book itself does a better job of giving more dimension to the boy band, at least bestowing the fandom with a name…as all fandoms are now required to have in real life. In this case: “Augies.” Or “Augie Moms.” Solène doesn’t see herself that way at all, though fears she’ll be automatically pegged as one just because she got roped into the meet-and-greet. And yet, in the book, being able to observe Izzy’s excitement is both delightful and bittersweet, the latter sentiment addressed when she notes, “…it pained me to realize that Isabelle was now part of this tribe. This motley crew searching for happiness in five boys from Britain whom they did not know, could never know and who would never return the adulation.” That last part speaking to the intensity of parasocial relationships that has amplified in the twenty-first century with social media.

    In the years when Solène would have been a teenager, the magnitude of that parasocial dynamic didn’t seem as strong. Not when it was all about posters on the wall as opposed to 24/7 internet stalking. To that end, there’s a moment in the book where Solène mentions having attended New Kids on the Block’s Magic Summer Tour (which went on from 1990 to 1992) and how, even then, she couldn’t fully let herself give in to the “thrall” that boy bands cause among tweens and teens. 

    Maybe that’s why she can’t resist giving way to it in the present, agreeing to go to lunch with Hayes in the book after he does a less stalker-y move by calling her gallery instead of just showing up like he does in the movie. As a matter of fact, the stalking aspect so often normalized in more “retro” rom-coms (e.g., Say Anything, 10 Things I Hate About You, Love Actually, etc.) is alive and well in The Idea of You, with audiences apparently expected to ignore it because of how “hot” and “charismatic” Hayes is. Besides, he’s a “star.” He’s used to simply going after what he wants and getting it. Applying that same ambition to a decidedly averse Solène. Averse not because she doesn’t want to tap that, but because she’s older, more pragmatic and should “know better.” She’s not driven by the same carnal lust as someone as hormone-driven as Hayes, who is twenty-four in the movie, but twenty in the book (maybe the writers thought those extra four years added onto his life would make it less scandalous). In both versions of The Idea of You, Solène is about to be forty. It’s mentioned so many times (complete with a birthday cake that reads: “Lordy Lordy Look Who’s 40”), it would be hard to forget. 

    And yet, as The Idea of You would have people believe, it seems that one needs to be a forty-year-old American woman in order to be on the same intellectual level as a twenty-four-year-old British man. Accordingly, the repartee between Hayes and Solène is meant to be the foreplay neither can resist consummating. At the lunch they have in the book, Solène ribs, “Something in the water in Notting Hill?” It’s a lunch during which they actually go out to eat as opposed to Solène taking Hayes back to her house. The mention of this London neighborhood brings up the automatic thought of 1999’s Notting Hill, amongst the few other movies in the rom-com genre to explore a romance through a lens in which one of the people in the relationship is world-famous (unfortunately, Marry Me tried to rip off this concept with much less success). Specifically, an actress named Anna Scott (Julia Roberts) who ends up in her own unlikely tryst with a “normal” named William Thacker (Hugh Grant). 

    Another rarity in the genre, 2007’s Music and Lyrics, has Grant playing the famous—or erstwhile famous—one: Alex Fletcher, a former member of 80s boy band Pop! (an amalgam of Wham! and Duran Duran). He eventually falls for “normal” Sophie Fisher (Drew Barrymore), the woman tasked with watering his plants who he suddenly discovers is a brilliant lyricist. It might say something that there’s always a Brit involved in these types of relationships. Or that Hugh Grant is in both films in roles reversed. And yes, like Hayes, Alex is terrified that he’s just a joke, and that no one will ever see him as being capable of writing music that is anything beyond froth. Both Solène and Sophie assure each of their respective men that it isn’t true. Though neither man seems as keen to reciprocate much in the way of similar support. 

    For Solène, that’s particularly important, what with the ramped-up scrutiny she gets as a result of being much older than Hayes (though their age difference is pretty standard between many older men and younger women). Regardless, it’s evident that, despite all the obstacles—even when it comes to her daughter being mocked and harassed, too—Solène and Hayes will end up together. That’s the point of movies like this: to be reassured that, against all odds (even the highly specific odds stacked against an older, non-famous woman dating a young, very famous man), love will triumph. It’s what the likes of OG star-falls-for-normal movie Notting Hill taught us long ago. And yes, there are two ostensible nods to that movie in terms of the mise-en-scène that harkens back to Anna coming into the bookshop and delivering her famous line: “I’m just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.” The first is when Solène goes to the studio where Hayes is recording a song (inspired by her, duh) and asks if he’ll give her another chance, and the second is a the very end, when Hayes comes into her gallery after they agree to take a five-year break and see if they’re still “hooked” on each other once all the scrutiny has died down and Izzy has gotten old enough to not be in school anymore. Needles to say, they are. 

    Along the way to this inevitable moment, however, the rockiness of their obstacle-laden romance doesn’t come across as all that high-stakes the way it does in the book. Even so, while the movie might not top Notting Hill or Music and Lyrics (though, for some bizarre reason, the latter has a lower approval rating than this Hathaway movie), The Idea of You can at least take comfort in being a notch above Marry Me.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Jennifer Check Continues to Inspire in Madison Beer’s “Make You Mine” Video

    Jennifer Check Continues to Inspire in Madison Beer’s “Make You Mine” Video

    [ad_1]

    For the girl who once said, “I am bi, always have been, it’s nothing new,” perhaps an homage to Diablo Cody’s beloved 2009 “camp classic,” Jennifer’s Body was inevitable. And now, here it is in the form of the video for her latest single, “Make You Mine.” Co-directed with Aerin Moreno (who has previously worked with Beer on the Silence Between Songs hits, “Spinnin” and “Home to Another One”), the visual opens on a familiar scene from JB, one made all the more recognizable by the fact that, these days, Madison Beer looks more like Megan Fox than Megan Fox does. 

    The scene, of course, is Beer in a cheerleader outfit (the varsity letters on the front of her shell top read “MYM” for “Make You Mine”), prancing around as the Anita “Needy” Lesnicki (Amanda Seyfried) of the video, played by Sadie Scheufler, watches in awe and appreciation. Credited as “Best Friend,” Scheufler’s Needy-esque character isn’t the only one gawking. There’s also a jock in the crowd, referred to as The Boy (Nikolaos Madouras), staring at her with a lascivious look. As though to drive home the point that this is a video with nothing but love for 00s pop culture (something Beer also recently showcased in “Sweet Relief”), Best Friend is outfitted in a crop top with the Pepsi logo—except that “Pepsi” reads “Sexsi.” In other words, it’s a nod to Britney Spears’ 00s style.

    What’s more, there’s even a nod to another movie that Beer can’t help reference within the context of a cheerleader in a gymnasium: American Beauty. For there’s a moment when the gym goes slightly dark as The Boy fantasizes about the way Beer is touching and caressing herself in a manner similar to Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari) when Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) has just such a fantasy while observing her from his own set of bleachers (Beer doesn’t get heavy-handed with the allusion by making rose petals start coming out of her chest though). 

    In the next scene, Beer does her best impression of Jennifer Check sauntering sexily down the hallway of the school while dressed in her own take on what the cheerleader-turned-succubus might wear instead of all-out imitating the pink, heart-patterned zip-up hoodie and jeans that Jennifer famously wears during this moment. And yes, Beer, like Check, relishes every second of knowing that she’s turning heads as she walks by. Apart from outfit distinctions, another crucial difference in Beer’s reinterpretation of the movie is that she actually has a willing partner in crime…in lieu of someone like Needy, who wants to stop Jennifer from something as innocent as “killing boys.” Best Friend, instead, is an eager accomplice in Beer’s pursuit of boys as literal sustenance. 

    This is exactly why, after Beer works some more seductress magic on The Boy while the two are alone in the locker room, Best Friend swoops in to help her ostensibly “clean up” once she’s made a meal out of him (though, really, the dastardly duo just leaves his bloodied body in the shower). Interspersed scenes of the two friends dancing together lesbianically in a sweaty nightclub also serve as an additional “flourish” on Beer’s part that deviates entirely from the movie. And that’s sort of refreshing considering that, whenever musicians make a specific film reference the core of a music video, it tends to be a shot-by-shot re-creation just for the sake of it (e.g., Jennifer Lopez’s “I’m Glad,” Iggy Azalea and Charli XCX’s “Fancy” and Ariana Grande’s “thank u, next”). Even though, not too long ago, Olivia Rodrigo also referenced Jennifer’s Body in an ever “subtler” way (i.e., that particular manner in which Jennifer swims in a lake after eating a boy) via the Petra Collins-directed “good 4 u.” Indeed, one might argue that Beer and Rodrigo have very similar “aesthetic tastes” considering they also shared a man in the form of Zack Bia. 

    As for Beer’s references to her own oeuvre, a discreetly placed flier for the “Did the World Stop Spinnin Astronomy Club” is taped to a locker next to where The Boy is standing and continuing to ogle Beer. Alas, those are in the fleeting moments before Beer gets him alone, flashes him her demonic eyes and then has her way with him. In truth, the lyrics of “Make You Mine” are far better suited to a Jennifer’s Body-centric video than the ones of “good 4 u.” After all, “Make You Mine” is a song of seduction (Circe, it would seem, has nothing on Beer). This includes titillating verses like, “See it in my eyes/How they never lie/Just a little bite/Are you dreamin’?/Now I got you up/Would you look at us?/Fantasy to life/And I’m screamin’, screamin’,” “Closer I get/Can you resist?/It’s relentless” and, of course, the chorus, “I wanna feel the rush, I wanna taste the crush/I wanna get you goin’/I wanna lay you down, I wanna string you out/I wanna make you mine.” 

    Unfortunately for the boys she wants to make hers in this scenario, it refers to making them her little snack. In the final portion of the Jennifer’s Body homage, Beer uses a swimming pool not only to allude to the prom night when Jennifer ate Needy’s boyfriend, but also to re-create her own “swimming sensually in the lake” scene (again, as Rodrigo also did with an actual lake). So it is that she swims “just so” with her head slightly above water as she stares both dead-eyed and determined ahead. Soon after, Beer and Moreno decide to go all out on simply making this a thirst trap opportunity as Beer continues to swim in a writhing/floating fashion that allows an overhead shot to take in the extent of her Jennifer Check-esque “assets.” From there, the video provides a montage of the shots we’ve already seen, including the ones that feature Beer “in da club” and cheerleading in the gym.

    The final scene is of Beer getting out of the pool and wrapping a towel around herself that reads “The End.” Thus, for now, it would seem her appetites are satisfied. But who knows when “the urge” to make another boy hers will come again? Because, obviously, she’s not about to target women for consumption (even if Jennifer herself declared on prom night, “I go both ways”). Or at least not consumption of the cannibal variety…

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Sexy Beast: An Allegory For How No One Wants You to “Soft Live”

    Sexy Beast: An Allegory For How No One Wants You to “Soft Live”

    [ad_1]

    From the moment viewers first encounter Gary “Gal” Dove (Ray Winstone) in Jonathan Glazer’s directorial debut, Sexy Beast, it’s clear that you can’t find a “fatter and happier” man. Lying out in the sun in a state of overly oiled, overly tanned bliss, his voiceover begins, “Oh, yeah. Bloody hell. I’m sweatin’ here. Roastin’. Boilin’. Bakin’. Swelterin’. It’s like a sauna. A furnace. You could fry an egg on my stomach. Ohh… Ooh, now that is hot. It’s ridiculous. Tremendous. Fantastic. Fan-dabby-dozy-tastic.” We soon see that he’s next to his own private pool, living in a house that appears quite remote. (Though it’s never stated, Gal is supposed to be somewhere along the Costa Del Sol of Andalusia.) Obviously, he’s on what can be called a “permanent vacation.” Granted, in his former line of work, that term doesn’t have the most positive of connotations. Indeed, it likely means you’ve been “put out to pasture” in a decidedly more murderous way. But for a rare few criminals and assassins, like Gal, there is a way through to the other side…or so one would like to believe. 

    Gal certainly did—before his retired bliss spent living with his wife/love of his life, DeeDee (Amanda Redman), was so rudely interrupted by none other than his former employer (a head hunter, if you will): Don Logan (Ben Kingsley). Well-known and feared among London’s criminal underworld, Logan’s role as a “recruiter” kicks into overdrive when crime boss Teddy Bass (Ian McShane) hatches a plan to rob an elite, supposedly “impregnable” bank after getting a tip about it from the chairman, Harry (James Fox), at an orgy. Though Gal’s never heard of the bank in question, Imperial Emblatt, Don claims it’s because “they’re one of those sniffy lot, don’t need publicity.” Gal himself wishes he didn’t have any “publicity” right now, with Don so far up his ass about partaking of this robbery (an eight-man job) that he finds it all but impossible to shit him back out. Even though he assures DeeDee before Don’s arrival that he’s going to tell him no to the job and that’ll be that. Ah, so sweet for Gal to think he ever had a choice in the matter. Alas, there’s a reason one of the taglines for the movie is: “Yes or Yes?” The word “no,” to Don, won’t be tolerated. 

    What’s more, it becomes slowly revealed to Gal that Don’s motives for turning up in the south of Spain and homing in on him as the guy for the job might not be entirely without its own ulterior motive. Specifically, wanting to see Jackie (Julianne White), the girlfriend of Gal’s best mate, Aitch (Cavan Kendall). The two apparently had a little something going on before Jackie was with Aitch, and Don never got it out of his head that he loved her (even though sociopaths can’t love). 

    As Don becomes more and more aggressive throughout his extended visit (he claims he missed his flight and needs to stay the night now), Gal is running out of ways he can say no to the stubborn fucker. At first, he tells him quite simply, “I’m…retired.” Don balks, “Are ya?” Gal assures, “‘Fraid so. I haven’t…not got lots of money. I got enough.” And it’s that statement right there that proves to be the most terrifying to someone like Don, who wields money (as much as emotional manipulation) like a weapon to get people to do what he wants. Because without that ultimate motivator—capitalism’s greatest tool—the world just doesn’t make sense to an exploiter and opportunist like Don. So it is that he “has to” start getting rougher with Gal, reminding him that “retired” or not, he can’t bite the hand that fed him enough to think he was retired in the first place. Prompting him to mock (in a manner that would also work on John Wick for thinking he could escape the High Table), “You think this is the Wheel of Fortune? You make your dough and fuck off? ‘Thanks, Don. See you, Don.’ ‘Off to Spain, Don.’ ‘Fuck off, Don.’ Lie in your pool laughing at me, d’you think I’ll have that?” What he’s really asking, though, is: do you honestly think I, the aggressor, the alpha, the person with more power than you, will allow you to enjoy yourself when I support a system that traffics only in misery?

    But Gal never appeared to be a willing participant in that system for the long haul. And his departure from the proverbial rat race (illegal or not) in England is enough to spook other people by making them question their own lives. Like, what the fuck are they doing? Does Gal know something about “better living” that they don’t? Hence, Gal’s voiceover, “People say, ‘Don’t you miss it, Gal?’ I say, ‘What? England? Nah, fuckin’ place. It’s a dump. Don’t make me laugh. Gray, grimy, sooty. What a shithole. What a toilet. Every cunt with a long face, shufflin’ about, moanin’ or worried. No thanks, not for me.’” And this was back in 2000 (though the movie’s wide release was in 2001) when Gal was saying it, so one can only imagine how vindicated he must feel about that statement now, when Britain has only sunk further into a state of misery and disrepair. But, on a larger, more metaphorical scale, what people are asking Gal when they ask him if he misses “it,” is if he misses making money, ergo being “relevant.” Being in the world and of the world. Gal, however, knew that soft living is where it’s at. 

    To be sure, long before it became both chic and nameable, Gal was living the “soft life.” A way of being that provides “more time and energy for what makes you happy and as little time as possible focusing on what doesn’t.” Unfortunately, now just as then, there are any number of Don-like forces in this world that don’t want people to live the soft life. Not just because a considerable part of them is jealous about it (/they don’t know how to switch off and achieve that life themselves), but because the more people become wise to soft living, the more the system of capitalism gets debunked/generally crumbles. And that’s the last thing that both people in positions of power and people who have invested their entire being into the system want to happen. 

    This form of jealousy and fear tends to manifest as anger and rage on the part of the anti-soft-lifer. An anger that works toward making the person living the soft life feel both guilty and worthless for the choice they’ve made to effectively “opt out” of something like “having ambition.” Which, by capitalistic standards, frankly means selling your soul to do something you hate for a living (and, these days, still barely scraping by despite this sacrifice—at least back in the day, the promise of owning a home generally came with such professional dissatisfaction). Thus, Don not only outright calls Gal “lazy” at one point after punching him in the face just as he’s waking up in his bedroom, but he also goads, “Do it.” Gal replies, “This is madness. I’ve had enough Crime and Punishment bollocks. I’m happy here.” Don snaps back, “I won’t let you be happy! Why should I?!” Because the unhappy people committed to the non-soft life simply won’t compute that there can be happiness without suffering needlessly for it. Without the forfeiture of countless hours that could have been spent actually relaxing or otherwise enjoying oneself. But no, “enjoyment” is not the name of the game in any capitalistic enterprise. 

    After a series of unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on how you look at it) events leads Gal to do the job he was so vehemently opposed to doing back in London, when it’s all over, he finally has to say outright to Teddy Bass, “I’m not into this anymore.” The “this” he refers to isn’t just the life of crime he was once supposedly “at home” in, but a life so entrenched in angst and anxiety due to being ruled solely by the pressures of so-called success. Albeit capitalistic success, which dictates constantly amassing more, more, more. Filling the void within via the promise of more money, but, alas, never more fulfillment. Those, like Gal, who become wise to the soft life will always be deemed a threat to the Dons and Teddys of this world, who can’t fathom an existence not rooted in torment and wasted time. Though, of course, realizing that what they’re doing is a waste of time never quite sets in either.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Gen Z Is to Cady Heron as Millennials Are to Regina George, Or: Does Mean Girls 2024 Make Gen Z the New Queen Bee? Hardly.

    Gen Z Is to Cady Heron as Millennials Are to Regina George, Or: Does Mean Girls 2024 Make Gen Z the New Queen Bee? Hardly.

    [ad_1]

    For those who applaud it, any contempt expressed for the latest iteration of Mean Girls is likely to be met with the ageist rebuke of how it’s probably because you’re a millennial (granted, some millennials might be enough of a traitor to their own birth cohort to lap up this schlock). As in: “Sorry you don’t like it, bitch, but it’s Gen Z’s turn now. You’re just jealous.” The thing is, there’s not anything to be jealous of here, for nothing about this film does much to truly challenge or reinvent the status quo of the original. Which, theoretically, should be the entire point of redoing a film. Especially a film that has been so significant to pop culture. And not just millennial pop culture, but pop culture as a whole. Mean Girls, indeed, has contributed an entire vocabulary and manner of speaking to the collective lexicon. Of course, reinventing the wheel might be the expectation if this was a truly new version. Instead, it is merely a translation of the Broadway musical that kicked off in the fall of 2017, right as another cultural phenomenon was taking shape: the #MeToo movement. 

    This alignment with the repackaging of Mean Girls as something that a new generation could latch onto and relate with seemed timely for the heralding of a new era that not only abhorred flagrant sexual abuse against women, but also anything unpleasant whatsoever. It quickly became clear that a lot of things could be branded as “unpleasant.” Even some of the most formerly minute “linguistic nuances.” This would soon end up extending to any form of “slut-shaming” or “body-shaming.” Granted, Fey was already onto slut-shaming being “over” when she tells the junior class in the original movie,  “You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it okay for guys to call you sluts and whores.” (They still seem to think it’s okay, by the way.)

    Having had such “foresight,” Fey was also game to update and tweak a lot of other “problematic” things. From something as innocuous as having Karen say that Gretchen gets diarrhea on a Ferris wheel instead of at a Barnes & Noble (clearly, not relevant enough anymore to a generation that gets any reading advice from “BookTok”) to removing dialogue like, “I don’t hate you because you’re fat. You’re fat because I hate you” to doing away entirely with that plotline about Coach Carr (now played by Jon “Don Draper” Hamm) having sexual relationships with underage girls.

    What Fey has always been super comfortable with (as most people have been), however, is ageist humor (she has plenty of anti-Madonna lines to that effect throughout 30 Rock). For example, rather than Gretchen (Bebe Wood) telling her friends that “fetch” is British slang like she does in 2004, she muses that she thinks she saw it in an “old movie,” “maybe Juno.” Because yes, everything and everyone is currently “old” in Gen Z land, though 2007 (the year of Juno’s release) was seventeen years ago, not seventy. This little dig at “old movies” is tantamount to that moment in 2005’s Monster-in-Law when Viola Fields (Jane Fonda) has to interview a pop star (very clearly modeled after Britney Spears) named Tanya Murphy (Stephanie Turner) for her talk show, Public Intimacy. Finding it difficult to relate to Tanya, Viola briefly brightens when the Britney clone says, “I love watching really old movies. They’re my favorite.” Viola nudges, “Really? Which ones?” Tanya then pulls a “Mean Girls 2024 Gretchen” by replying, “Well, um, Grease and Grease II. Um, Benji, I love Benji. Free Willy, um, Legally Blonde…uh The Little Mermaid.” By the time Tanya says Legally Blonde (four years “old” at the time of Monster-in-Law’s release), that’s about as much as Viola can take before she’s set off (though Tanya blatantly showcasing her lack of knowledge about Roe v. Wade is what, at last, prompts Viola’s physical violence). Angourie Rice, who plays a millennial in Senior Year, ought to have said something in defense of Juno, but here she’s playing the inherently ageist Gen Zer she is. Albeit a “geriatric” one who isn’t quite passing for high school student age. Not the way Rachel McAdams did at twenty-five while filming Mean Girls

    To that point, Lindsay Lohan was seventeen years old during the production and theater release of Mean Girls, while Angourie Rice was twenty-two (now twenty-three upon the movie’s theater release). Those five years make all the difference in lending a bit more, shall we say, authenticity to being a teenager. Mainly because, duh, Lohan was an actual teenager. And yes, 2004 was inarguably the height of her career success. Which is why she clings on to Mean Girls at every opportunity (complete with the Mean Girls x Wal-Mart commercial). Thus, it was no surprise to see her “cameo” by the end of the film, where she takes on the oh so significant role of Mathlete State Championship moderator, given a few notable lines (e.g., “Honey, I don’t know your life”—something that would have landed better coming from Samantha Jones) but largely serving as a reminder of how much better the original Mean Girls was and that the viewer is currently watching a dual-layered helping of, “Oh how the mighty have fallen.”

    While the musical angle is meant to at least faintly set the 2024 film edition apart from the original, it’s clear that Tina Fey, from her schizophrenic viewpoint as a Gen Xer, has trouble toeing the line between post-2017 “sensitivity” and maintaining the stinging tone of what was allowed by 2004 standards. Although Gen Z is known for being “bitchy” and speaking in a manner that echoes the internet-speak amalgam of gay men meets AAVE, any attempt at “biting cuntery” is in no way present at the same level it was in 2004’s Mean Girls. And a large part of that isn’t just because “you can’t say shit anymore,” but also because the meanness of the original Regina George is completely washed out and muted. This compounded by the fact that Reneé Rapp is emblematic of a more “body positive” Regina. In other words, she’s more zaftig than the expected Barbie shape of millennial Regina. Perhaps this is why any acerbic comments on Regina’s part about other people’s looks are noticeably lacking. For example, in the original, Regina tells Cady over the phone, in reference to Gretchen (Lacey Chabert), “Cady, she’s not pretty. I mean, that sounds bad, but whatever.” Regina might say the same of the downgraded looks of the Mean Girls cast as a whole… Let’s just say, gone are the days of the polish and glamor once present in teen movies. And yet, there is still nothing “real” about what’s presented here in Mean Girls 2024. Because, again, it struggles too much with the balancing act of trying to be au courant with the fact that it was created during a time when people (read: millennials) could withstand such patent “meanness.”

    In the climate of now, where bullying is all but a criminal offense resulting in severe punishment, Mean Girls no longer fits in the high school narrative of the present. This is something that the aforementioned Senior Year gets right when Stephanie (Rebel Wilson) returns to high school as thirty-seven-year-old and finds that Gen Z seems to care little about the rules of social hierarchy she knew so well as a teenage millennial. And the rules Regina George’s mom likely knew as well. Alas, Mrs. George becomes a pale imitation of Amy Poehler’s rendering, with Busy Philipps trying her best to make the role “frothy,” even when she warns Regina and co. to enjoy their youth because it will never get any better than it is right now for them (something Gen Z clearly believes based on an obsession with people being “old” that has never been seen to this extent before). The absence of her formerly blatant boob job also seems to be an arbitrary “fix” to the previous standards of beauty that were applauded and upheld in the Mean Girls of 2004 (hell, even the “fat girl” who sees Regina has gained some extra padding on her backside is the first to mock her by shouting in front of everyone, “Watch where you’re going, fat ass!”). 

    To boot, the curse of having to “update” things automatically entails the presence of previously unavailable technology. This, of course, takes away from the bombastic effect of Regina scattering photocopies of the Burn Book pages throughout the entire school, instead placing the book in the entry hallway to be “discovered.” And yes, the fact that the Gen Z Plastics would be using a tactile object such as this is given a one-line explanation by Regina when she asks if they made the book during the week their phones were taken away. Again proving how this “translation” doesn’t hold the same weight (no fat-shaming pun intended) or impact as before. 

    More vexingly still, without the indelible voiceovers from Cady, the movie becomes a hollow shell of itself, and not just because it’s now a musical lacking the punch of, at the very least, some particularly memorable lyrics (and no, “Not My Fault” playing in the credits isn’t much of a prime example of that either). And so, those who remember the gold standard of the original movie will have to settle for conjuring up the voiceovers themselves while watching (e.g., “I know it may look like I’d become a bitch, but that was only because I was acting like a bitch” and “I could hear people getting bored with me. But I couldn’t stop. It just kept coming up like word vomit”). But perhaps Fey felt that the “storytelling device” of  Janis ʻImi’ike (Auliʻi Cravalho)—formerly Janis Ian—and Damian Hubbard (Jaquel Spivey)—formerly just Damian—telling it through what is presumed to be a TikTok video (this, like Senior Year, mirroring a trope established by Easy A) would be enough to both “modernize” the movie (along with Cady being raised by a single mom instead of two married parents) and compensate for its current lack of signature voiceovers.

    Some might point out that there’s simply no room for voiceovers in a musical without making the whole thing too clunky. Which brings one to the question of why a musical version instead of a more legitimate reboot had to be made. Well, obviously, the answer is: money. Knowing that the same financial success of the musical would be secured by an effortless transition to film. One that ageistly promises in the trailer: “Not your mother’s Mean Girls.” Apart from the fact that it doesn’t deliver at all on any form of “raunch” that might be entailed by that tagline, as Zing Tsjeng of The Guardian pointed out, “Your mother’s? Tina Fey’s teen comedy was released nineteen years ago. Unless my mother was a child bride, I’m not sure the marketing department thought this one through.” 

    But of course they did. And what they thought was, “Let’s throw millennials under the bus like Regina and focus our money-making endeavors on a fresher audience.” That fresh audience being totally unschooled in the ways in which Mean Girls is a product of its time. And so, is it really supposed to be “woke” to change the indelible “fugly slut” line to “fugly cow”? As though fat-shaming is more acceptable than slut-shaming (which also occurs when Karen [Avantika] is derided by both Regina and Gretchen for having sex with eleven different “partners”—the implication perhaps being that maybe some of them weren’t boys). And obviously, Regina saying, “I know what homeschool is, I’m not retarded” had to go. The phrase “social suicide” is also apparently out (even though Olivia Rodrigo is happy to reference it in “diary of a homeschooled girl”). In general, all “strong” language has been eradicated. Something that becomes particularly notable in the “standoff” scene between Janis and Cady after the former catches her having a party despite saying she would be out of town. In this manifestation of the fight, gone are the harshly-delivered lines, “You’re a mean girl, Cady. You’re a bitch!”

    Despite its thud-landing delivery, the messaging of Mean Girls remains the same. Or, to quote the original Cady (evidently an honorary Gen Zer with this zen anti-bullying stance), “Making fun of Caroline Krafft wouldn’t stop her from beating me in this contest. Calling somebody else fat won’t make you any skinnier, calling someone stupid doesn’t make you any smarter. And ruining Regina George’s life definitely didn’t make me any happier. All you can do in life is try to solve the problem in front of you.” Alas, Fey doesn’t solve the problem of bridging millennial pop culture into what little there is of Gen Z’s. At the end of Mean Girls 2024, the gist of Cady’s third-act message becomes (as said by Janis): “Even if you don’t like someone, chances are they still want to just coexist. So get off their dick.”

    The thing is, Mean Girls 2024 can’t coexist (at least not on the same level) with Mean Girls. It’s almost like Cady Heron trying to be the new Regina George. That is to say, it just doesn’t work, and ends up backfiring spectacularly (though not from a financial standpoint, which is all that ultimately matters to most). Unfortunately, when Cady tells Damian at the end of 2004’s Mean Girls, “Hey, check it out. Junior Plastics” and then gives the voiceover, “And if any freshmen tried to disturb that peace…well, let’s just say we knew how to take care of it [cue the fantasy of the school bus running them over],” she added, “Just kidding.” And she was. Otherwise the so-called junior Plastics of Mean Girls 2024 wouldn’t be here, disturbing the millennial peace.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Reneé Rapp and Megan Thee Stallion’s “Not My Fault” Seeks to Vindicate Regina George For Being a Bitch

    Reneé Rapp and Megan Thee Stallion’s “Not My Fault” Seeks to Vindicate Regina George For Being a Bitch

    [ad_1]

    Just as Regina George likely would have been praised for her burgeoning badonkadonk had the original been made in the present, so, too, would she have also been praised for being a bitch. Or what Latrice Royale calls, “Being In Total Control of Herself.” In fact, that’s exactly what Reneé Rapp (who plays Regina in both the musical version and latest film edition of Mean Girls) and Megan Thee Stallion seek to achieve with their single, “Not My Fault.” A line, of course, taken directly from Lindsay Lohan as Cady Heron’s mouth when she tells Janis Ian (Lizzy Caplan), “It’s not my fault you’re, like, in love with me or something.” This narcissistic dig itself borrowed from Regina (Rachel McAdams) when she told Cady that Janis was, like, “obsessed” with her when they were friends back in junior high. Proving that, in the art of “mean girl’ing,” the student surpassed the teacher as Cady came up with a better way to phrase it.

    Alas, back in 2004, it was frowned upon to be an outright bitch. To be sure, it was really only the gays—ahead of the curve on trends as usual—who revered the cunty women of this world (see: that scene in Truth or Dare when one of Madonna’s dancers gushes, “I love it when she’s mean”). As time has gone on, and views/attitudes about how a girl should “be” have evolved, it’s now actually become more frowned upon to be “nice” as a woman than it is to be a so-called bitch (a.k.a. acting the way men do without consequence all the time). To that point, when a woman is “nice”—better known as “meek”—she’s presently more likely to be accused of perpetuating the vicious cycle of (white) silence that has allowed patriarchy to thrive unchecked for so long. 

    So it is that with the “upgrade” of Mean Girls into the later twenty-first century (which hardly means that it can ever compare to the original), an according soundtrack upgrade has come with it. Thus, aligning the “woke” messaging of the “new” movie with the new music. Enter Megan Thee Stallion (no stranger to Mean Girls homages after her 2021 Coach ad campaign) to assist the “new queen bee” (but, honestly, there is no replacement for Rachel McAdams), Reneé Rapp, on the rather flaccid “Not My Fault.” Indeed, it sounds like something from the Meghan Trainor reject pile, and far beneath Megan Thee Stallion’s usual collaborations. And, speaking of far beneath someone, the recent appalling Mean Girls x Wal-Mart commercial featuring the original cast was noticeably missing the presence of McAdams as Regina (because, really, what sensible person would want to be part of such grim fan fiction?). Soon after the release of the none too subtle Trojan horse for capitalism via millennial nostalgia, McAdams had no problem explaining her absence by remarking, “I guess I wasn’t that excited about doing a commercial if I’m being totally honest. A movie sounded awesome, but I’ve never done commercials, and it just didn’t feel like my bag.” Translation: “that’s the ugliest f-ing commercial concept I’ve ever seen.” 

    The same goes for the first single to represent the latest Mean Girls Soundtrack, with Rapp seeming to have taken overt inspiration from Britney Spears’ anachronistic “Mind Your Business.” While Britney sing-chants, “Where she at? Where she at? Where she at? Where she at? Where she at?/There she go, there she go, there she go, there she go, there she go/What she do? What she do? What she do?” Rapp simplifies it down to, “Where she at? (where she at?)/What she doin’? (what she doin’?)/Who she with and where she from?” Just another vexing manner in which Gen Z feels obliged to copy millennials (despite constantly branding them as cringe) while seeming to genuinely believe they’ve come up with something “unique.” However, the accompanying video, directed by Mia Barnes, doesn’t bother pretending to be anything innovative, mostly stealing its costuming from the Barbie-meets-Pam-Anderson-in-the-90s playbook. 

    With the majority of the “narrative” flashing to scenes from the movie in between Rapp and Thee Stallion parading around in their aforementioned Barbie/Pamela pink stylings (complete with furry hats), there’s also a long scene of Rapp getting “Regina George” tattooed in various fonts on various parts of her body. Another moment shows Megan and Reneé standing between two rows of Regina-inspired mannequins before taking baseball bats to them. Almost as if, in some faux “poetic” way, they’re trying to tell us that they’re destroying the “old” Regina George (“Sorry, the old Regina can’t come to the phone right now. Why? Because she’s dead”). The one who was lambasted for being a “bitch” and then decided to amend her ways at the end of the film by channeling her rage into lacrosse. 

    Rapp confirms this “rebranding” with the lyrics, “I’m not on the same shit from before/I can’t take this pettiness, now I’m bored, uh-huh/We can share, babe, there’s enough for us all [an obvious nod to Cady sharing the pieces of her seemingly endless tiara]/Told you who I am and what it is, that’s not my fault.” In other words, she won’t be apologizing for simply being her undiluted self. Then again, no one is much interested in that self when she’s standing next to Megan Thee Stallion, who viewers have to wait a full one minute and forty-four seconds to hear deliver her verse (making it somewhat awkward to see her dance and prance around next to Rapp for that entire time). Rising to the occasion of embodying her “Black Regina George” status, she appears in a tank top with holes cut out at the nipples to reveal a purple bra à la 2004 Regina after Janis, Damian (Daniel Franzese) and Cady fail to sabotage her outfit because she ends up “making it fashion.”

    Megan then carries the song out of the bowels it began in by rapping, “I’m a mood, borin’ whores gotta Pinterest me.” This being the crux of the song’s statement about how “bitches” are really just women who express themselves without fear of reprisal (including the usual “comeuppance” of being called a bitch, especially by men). So it is that Thee Stallion also adds, “It’s funny how the mean girl open all the doors” and “I got influence, they do anything I endorse/I run shit, to be a bad bitch is a sport.” And an art. One that, to Tina Fey’s chagrin, cannot be topped by the original gangster of mean girl’ing that is Rachel McAdams’ Regina. Who Megan and Reneé once again pay tribute to at the end of the video by sipping from matching teacups, with Megan’s reading, “Boo You” and Rapp’s reading, of course, “Whore.” 

    But, like “bitch,” “whore” now has a much more positive connotation than it did in 2004. That wasn’t the case when Regina was using it in a more “SWERF”-sounding than sex-positive manner when directing it at Karen (Amanda Seyfried). But then, this is also the girl who didn’t want to invite a potential lesbian to her birthday party. So yeah, it’s much harder for Regina to be mean in the same way in the present as she was in the past. Which, in the end, invites the question: how much of a bitch can she really be amid post-woke culture?

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Crossroads and Britney Spears As Unwilling Method Actor

    Crossroads and Britney Spears As Unwilling Method Actor

    [ad_1]

    Of all the films Britney Spears could have “gone all Method” for, a “frothy” (but actually fundamentally deep) teen road movie called Crossroads probably wouldn’t have seemed worth it to most “serious” actors. Or even “serious” moviegoers. And Spears would likely tell you that her sudden “morphing” into Lucy Wagner on and off the set had nothing to do with acting, so much as “what acting did to [her] mind.” As Spears retells it in The Woman in Me, “I think I started Method acting—only I didn’t know how to break out of my character. I really became this other person. Some people do Method acting, but they’re usually aware of the fact that they’re doing it. But I didn’t have any separation at all.” 

    Spears’ unwitting (and unwilling) commitment to the “character” (not so far off from herself if the dancing to Madonna in her underwear scene is an indication), however, was not very appreciated by critics. Most of whom panned the project as shallow, insipid teen girl bullshit that served as a thinly-veiled puff piece for Spears. They even went so far as to deride her positive messaging about a girl finding her voice amid a world of oppressive patriarchal figures, with one female critic insisting, “…the film’s mealy-mouthed messages about feminine empowerment will almost certainly fall on deaf ears, since even eleven-year-olds know Spears’ power resides largely in her taut torso.” Indeed, Crossroads was lumped together with the badness of another film starring a pop star around the same time: Glitter. But at least Brit’s movie had the benefit of being released several months after 9/11, instead of just ten days later (with its soundtrack also being released on 9/11). And yes, both movies are, to this day, often shown as a campy double bill. But that’s not really fair to Crossroads. Because Spears’ performance does offer an emotional intelligence that Carey’s simply does not (despite her having “lived the tale” of a sob story childhood and subsequent breaking into the music business with the help of a possessive producer…in this case, Timothy Walker [Terrence Howard], before the plot becomes more A Star Is Born when another producer, Julian “Dice” Black [Max Beesley], enters the picture). And while, like Carey’s film project, there are similarities between Spears and the lead character (including an oppressive father steering the course of her life and keeping her from doing normal “teen girl things” or how Lucy spells “dryer” as “drier”), the difference is that one can see Spears isn’t relying on their similarities as her sole crutch for playing this part. 

    In fact, what she relied on for the role appears to be something far closer to the divine. Laugh as movie critics might at such an assessment. But when Spears writes, “This is embarrassing to say, but it’s like a cloud or something came over me and I just became this girl named Lucy,” there’s no arguing that something more mystical was involved. Even if that “mysticism” related to her mind’s power. Spears continued, “When the camera came on, I was her, and then I couldn’t tell the difference between when the camera was on and when it wasn’t. I know that seems stupid, but it’s the truth. I took it that seriously. I took it seriously to the point where Justin [Timberlake] said, ‘Why are you walking like that? Who are you?’” Yet another small anecdote that makes Justin come across like kind of an asshole for basically making fun of her uncontrollable commitment to the part in a movie that found room for her to show support for Justin’s goddamn boy band. All simply by placing “Bye Bye Bye” at the center of a light-heartedly contentious scene over what music her and her friends want to listen to while their driver/Lucy’s budding love interest, Ben Kimble (Anson Mount), keeps trying to change the station back to his “angsty rock” music (this, by the way, was the crux of warring musical identities in the late 90s and early 00s). 

    And though detractors would also argue that Spears does little to stretch her acting abilities in a role that finds her character auditioning for a record contract, the character biography Spears herself took pains to write in Britney Spears’ Crossroads Diary wouldn’t have been so thorough in spelling out the differences if she didn’t feel intrinsically separate from this person. Specifically, she states, “I play Lucy, an only child who lives with her dad, Pete, in a small town in Georgia. Lucy’s parents got divorced when she was much younger, and her mom lives out in Arizona. They don’t communicate. Lucy is the kind of girl who doesn’t make waves. She’s spent her whole life following the path her dad has laid out for her. She’s smart and gets good grades: she’s planning to be a doctor. But she really loves to sing and to write. She’s a poet and is kind of obsessive about her journal.” While it can be pointed out that, in many regards, Spears, too, was a girl who didn’t make waves, always listening to “the adults” and doing what she was told despite being the true agent of her success (Spears herself admits in The Woman in Me, “I was committed to not rocking the boat, and to not complaining even when something upset me”), Lucy is more overtly obedient and, yes, virginal. In fact, that’s the word one of her ex-friends, Kit (Zoe Saldana), hurls at her as an insult in the hallway of the school. In contrast to Spears, who played with that persona of being virginal via more sexually-tinged irony, Lucy is someone who wants her first time to be special, even though her high school lab partner, Henry (Justin Long), desperately wants her to keep her word that they’ll lose their virginity to one another so as not to go off to college all “naive.” 

    Lucy’s naïveté is also something that sets her apart from Spears, who, by age twenty in 2001 (the year the movie was being made and the Britney album was released), was already plenty worldly—and about to get even more so in the wake of Justin’s imminent portrayal of her as a “harlot” to his “golden boy” in the 2002 song (and video), “Cry Me A River.” The Diane Sawyer interview of 2003 would turn that worldliness into all-out jadedness. That all of this happened after Crossroads seemed cruelly poetic in that the film is about a teenage girl coming to terms with the terrifying responsibilities and potential landmines of womanhood. But what Spears endured was above and beyond the conventional horrors of becoming a woman. Lucy was lucky that, as a civilian (at least in the story we get to see before she potentially lands a record deal), she would never have to know what it was to be scrutinized not just over her body, but over every minute detail of her personal life. Besides, Lucy’s sartorial style isn’t exactly in keeping with Spears’, who also commented on that in Britney Spears’ Crossroads Diary by saying, “[My assistant,] Fe calls [Lucy’s clothes] ‘casual frumpy’—jeans, sneakers, cotton button-down shirt under a sweatshirt. Accessorized with a yellow canvas pocketbook and a bucket cap. They’re the opposite of what I usually wear.” To be sure, even when Spears’ was “off-duty,” she was always fond of low-rise, midriff-baring ensembles. 

    And then there was Lucy’s inherent knowledge of all things automotive thanks to her dad (Dan Aykroyd) being a mechanic. As Spears is sure to call out in her diary, “Me? Let’s just say that on a recent road escapade with Felicia, it took the two of us twenty minutes to figure out how to put gas in the car!” So yes, there are many nuanced differences between the two women, ones that ultimately overtook Spears’ own spirit for quite some time. 

    It was, apparently, CVS that cured her. Or rather, buying some makeup there with a friend. As Spears recalls, “After the movie wrapped, one of my girlfriends from a club in LA came to visit me. We went to CVS. I swear to God, I walked into the store, and as I talked to her while we shopped, I finally came back to myself. When I came outside again I was cured of the spell that movie had cast. It was so strange. My little spirit showed back up in my body. That trip to buy makeup with my friend was like waving some magic wand.” Undeniably, this is what would be called a symptom of psychosis. Schizophrenia even. And yes, Spears’ tendency to bisect her personality as a defense mechanism came into play early on here. With her portrayal of Lucy, Spears tapped into that precarious split between thinking, memory, personality and perception. As such, Spears put it best when she said, “All I can say is it’s a good thing Lucy was a sweet girl writing poems about how she was ‘not a girl, not yet a woman,’ and not a serial killer. I ended up walking differently, carrying myself differently, talking differently. I was someone else for months while I filmed Crossroads.”

    This was something she seemed to notice and give voice to even at the time of filming, with one entry in her diary noting, “I’m doing another one of those really hard scenes. I’m crying and talking to Anson (Ben). It’s very emotional. I couldn’t pick my spirits up afterward.” The scene in question happens after Lucy’s mother (played by Kim Cattrall, though, at the time, there were rumors Madonna would do it—as if!) tells her that she never wanted her in the first place—that her father “made her” have a baby. Meanwhile she appears perfectly happy with her new set of children in Tucson. Spears describes getting into character for the emotionalism of that scene, explaining, “How did I do it? I remembered things that made me sad, but mostly I just put myself in Lucy’s place. I thought about how I’d feel if my mom didn’t love me, and I just hurt for her. Feeling the way Lucy would feel brought on the tears.” Tragically enough, it can presently be argued that maybe Lynne Spears really didn’t love Britney all that much to allow what happened to her with the conservatorship. Not just allow it, but help conspire to make it happen. 

    While Lynne made plenty of appearances on the set, it was, as usual, Spears’ assistant, Felicia, who was the most ever-present. It was she who prompted Spears to write, “She told me that she can see me getting more confident about acting. It’s true, I’m less worried about all this movie stuff—sometimes I even feel like an old pro!” That seemed to be true enough when, soon after Crossroads, she auditioned for the role of Allie in The Notebook. It came down to her and Rachel McAdams, with the latter obviously winning out. A result Spears was pleased with, commenting, “…I’m glad I didn’t do it. If I had, instead of working on my album In the Zone I’d have been acting like a 1940s heiress night and day. “Although Spears was briefly hoping to make a “proper go” of becoming a singer/actress, in The Woman in Me, she concludes of that profession, “I hope I never get close to that occupational hazard again. Living that way, being half yourself and half a fictional character, is messed up. After a while you don’t know what’s real anymore.”

    Funnily enough, Spears could just as easily be describing the bifurcation between her stage persona and her real self or, during her early Instagram days when the conservatorship was still not being questioned, her social media self and her real self. Thus, the great search for “the real Britney” has been a decades-long one.

    As for Crossroads and what she sacrificed emotionally for it, it obviously still means something to Spears. Not only because she goes into such detail about it in her memoir, but because it was the only attempt at promoting the book Spears offered up: rereleasing Crossroads in theaters (in addition to a special edition of the soundtrack…with NSYNC’s “Bye Bye Bye” still noticeably missing). Once again, however, it went unappreciated. Audiences just can’t seem to appropriately embrace or honor Spears’ uncontrollable Method acting abilities. 

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Millie Bobby Brown and Lindsay Lohan: A Teen Star Correlation

    Millie Bobby Brown and Lindsay Lohan: A Teen Star Correlation

    [ad_1]

    Being that Lindsay Lohan was the same age as Millie Bobby Brown when her career was reaching a zenith, it seems somewhat fitting (or at least cyclical) that both should have a movie out on Netflix at the same time. While the former’s “film” (a schlock-y Hallmark wannabe) is further proof that she made a career out of simply being “teenaged,” the latter’s proves that she has more enduring staying power. And, to be frank, more talent and acting range. Both qualities have been shown in the short length of her career, which is starting to expand more heavily into film with the end of Stranger Things on the horizon—Enola Holmes and Enola Holmes 2 being part of that steady segue.

    And yes, Brown, like Lohan, seems to understand the value of clinging to the Netflix tit for work, even amid cries of the online film and TV giant “not being what it once was.” Sort of like Lohan herself, whose steady stream of hits only flowed when she was a youth, mainly as a result of sucking on Disney’s tit instead of Netflix’s (then still mailing out DVDs to subscribers). This included a succession of “feel-good” movies that started with The Parent Trap in 1998 and continued at the dawn of the 00s with Life-Size, Get A Clue, Freaky Friday and Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen. All, of course, Disney-backed endeavors that complicated things when Lohan opted to embark upon the requisite Disney teen star “gone bad” route. Right around the time she decided to reteam with the juggernaut for the production of Herbie: Fully Loaded (after Paramount released Mean Girls in ’04).

    A title that, obviously, left plenty of room for the tabloids to jestingly riff off of as Lohan was hospitalized for “exhaustion” and, oh yeah, an infected kidney. At the same time filming was going on, her partying (a.k.a. going out to clubs back when they were still bankable due to people actually being sentient, sexual creatures) was coming under more scrutiny. After all, she had just turned eighteen and was far more prone to wanting to sow the oats that being a highly-paid actress permitted (see: her being on the cover of a May ’04 Us Weekly with the headline, “Teens Gone Wild: Older men, all-night partying, extreme PDA…”). Plus, just as Britney and the Olsen twins before her, the obsession with Lohan “being legal” was part of the Nabokovian bread and butter that sold magazines in the late 90s and 00s. Lohan even appeared on an issue of Rolling Stone the year she turned eighteen with the headline, “Lindsay Lohan: Hot, Ready and Legal!”

    In the decade when Millie Bobby Brown would come of age in her fame, the nascent #MeToo movement bubbled to the surface in 2017, when Brown was thirteen years old and one year into her stint as Eleven on Stranger Things. By 2020, the year of her sixteenth birthday (in addition to Miss Rona’s havoc), Brown had had enough of the overt sexualization of her body despite being a child. Something that Billie Eilish avoided full-stop by covering her own in baggy clothing that spoke to her being the twenty-first century ideal of a sexless pop star. Brown wasn’t exactly “flashing it” either, least of all à la Britney or even Lindsay—usually while they were out drinking and drugging to the tabloids’ (and TMZ’s) delight.

    Brown did none of these things, and was not nearly as ridiculed or hounded as someone such as Lohan. Yet Brown grew up in an era where so much less is “tolerated.” Including the acceptance of men fetishizing underage girls in this way no longer being so “welcomed” by the media. Hence, the freedom of Brown being able to declare on her Instagram (a tool that 00s teen stars didn’t have the luxury to access), “There are moments I get frustrated from the inaccuracy, inappropriate comments, sexualization, and unnecessary insults that ultimately have resulted in pain and insecurity for me.”

    On one level, somebody like Lohan would probably want to say, “Bitch, you don’t know from inaccuracy, inappropriate comments, sexualization or unnecessary insults.” On another, maybe Lohan can take comfort in having paved the way for subsequent teen stars to have far less of a hard time (all while narcissistically assuming it’s still “so hard”). Brown, too, wants to offer that courtesy to subsequent generations of famous teen girls, as made clear when she added to her sixteenth birthday comment, “I feel like change needs to happen for not only this generation but the next. Our world needs kindness and support in order for us children to grow and succeed.”

    Alas, it appears as though the bullying nature of tabloid journalism (parading as newsworthy events) has only transferred with more unmitigated vengeance to the online landscape. The germinal example of this being Perez Hilton’s illustrious blog (that was, let’s be honest, far more deliciously cunty in the 00s). An entity that came full-circle when both Perez and Lindsay, at one of her many nadirs in 2012, decided to use one another to their respective advantage by cameo’ing on an episode of Glee called “Nationals.” And, speaking of gays, Brown’s closest brush with intense online bullying was when a series of memes attributing her with homophobic quotes that she never said bombarded her Twitter account. Then just fourteen, Brown decided to quit the medium (long before it was chic to do so in 2022). Lohan, simultaneously loving and hating celebrity, likely wouldn’t have “quit” being present in magazines had it even been an option.

    Brown and Lohan’s divergence when it comes to romantic prudence is also markedly different. For while Lohan was dating Wilmer Valderrama—undoubtedly before she turned eighteen—a notorious player with a penchant for courting women with age gaps (though not to the same extent as Leonardo DiCaprio or Jake Gyllenhaal), Brown has kept it decidedly staid and age-appropriate with her current boyfriend, Jake Bongiovi (the spelling of which is somehow supposed to make us forget he’s Jon Bon Jovi’s son). Lohan’s mistake with her first high-profile romance at the apex of her career didn’t account for how Valderrama would, just a year after the breakup, describe, among other details to Howard Stern, that Lindsay was “a big fan of waxing.” So yeah, exactly the type of sleaze someone should be dating when they’re tabloid fodder already. That Brown is taken more seriously as an actress than Lohan ever was has also contributed to the “safe space” form of her celebrity. Less laughingstock, more tissue box stock (that’s a tear reference, not a cum one).

    However, going back to the similarities between Lohan and Brown, the ages at which each actress was when they got their first major start also eerily align, for Brown was twelve when Stranger Things debuted, and so was Lohan when The Parent Trap arrived in theaters. What’s more, when Lohan was seventeen and eighteen, her two biggest movies came out—Freaky Friday (2003) and Mean Girls (2004), respectively. Brown has also released her two biggest movies (so far) around the same age, being sixteen when Enola Holmes came out and eighteen upon the arrival of Enola Holmes 2.

    In noticeable contrast to Lohan, Brown’s future beyond teen stardom seems far brighter (more like Emma Watson’s post-Harry Potter…at least Serious Roles-wise). Not just because she has that arcane aura of “British dignity” (ironic considering how undignified that country is), but because she’s grown up in a generation that has proven itself to be the antithesis of millennial youth values: drinking and clubbing. To boot, Brown also has the advantage of “setting the record straight” on social media that no millennial star ever had.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link