ReportWire

Tag: 90s pop culture

  • Sabrina Carpenter Does Dress Homage Right—By Not Wearing the Original

    Sabrina Carpenter Does Dress Homage Right—By Not Wearing the Original

    [ad_1]

    Despite the numerous reports that, for her red carpet appearance at this year’s MTV VMAs, Sabrina Carpenter wore the original Bob Mackie dress famously showcased by Madonna at the 1991 Oscars (where her ensemble was complemented by a white stole and an almost white Michael Jackson), it was actually an identical sample gown from the Mackie archive. Which is just the first step in how to succeed in the art of “paying respect” to an iconic look without offending. Unlike Kim Kardashian, who remains the “gold standard” for how to decimate the integrity of a dress originally worn by someone far more legendary.

    And we’re not just talking about Marilyn Monroe’s scandalous Jean Louis number (made more scandalous by seductively singing “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” to JFK while wearing it), but also the very Marilyn-inspired gown that Madonna paraded in ’91. Because, yes, Kardashian additionally sought to ruin not only said Mackie dress in AHS: Delicate (by going on about a dress that looks nothing like it to her character’s client, Anna Victoria Alcott [Emma Roberts]), but also the song Madonna performed at that Oscars ceremony, “Sooner or Later” (which won the Academy Award that night in the category of Best Original Song). This by repeatedly singing it with Anna as the two look at themselves in the mirror and fantasize about Anna’s eventual big Oscar win.

    As for Marilyn being patently more “icon” than Kim, Madonna, too, is more legendary and influential than Carpenter ever will be. Even if the duo has occasionally been aesthetically compared to one another—with Madonna’s “curtain bangs” look at the LadyLand 2024 event for NYC Pride getting her linked to Carpenter more than the other way around. And yet, the VMAs is hardly the first time that Carpenter has paid tribute (sartorial or otherwise) to the Queen of Pop. For she also stepped out earlier this year (at Vogue World in Paris) in another dress that Madonna wore for the purposes of gracing Glamour’s cover in December of 1990. Specifically, a Michael Kors (that’s right, Madonna “High Fashion” Ciccone once deigned to wear Kors) beaded rhinestone slip dress.

    Indeed, it seems that Carpenter has a certain fondness for M’s early 90s (but pre-Erotica) fashion era. Perhaps because M herself was heavily embodying the look of Marilyn Monroe at that time (again, without fucking up one of the icon’s dresses like the abovementioned Kardashian did). And yes, obviously Carpenter is tapping into both women for her “effortless pastiche” purposes (something that also extended to emulating Britney Spears while she performed a medley at the 2024 VMAs).

    However, Carpenter was also deft in her tribute because for two key reasons: 1) she didn’t try to exactly replicate it with the same jewelry, pearl-studded handbag, fur stole and satin heels and 2) it was sanctioned by none other than the original wearer herself. Even if, like Blake Lively donning Britney’s Versace butterfly dress from 2002, the gown was reportedly acquired through Tab Vintage. According to Carpenter’s stylist, Jared Ellner, “Madonna still has the custom gown Bob Mackie made for her in her archive, but the other sample piece is the [dress] I believe we have.” And, for those wondering how the dress managed to “fit” Carpenter, whose height is notoriously short (“five feet, to be exact”), a closer look at where the gown falls shows it pooling around her ankles, bolstered by extremely high platform heels (in white, of course).

    Though, to be fair, Madonna isn’t much taller, with her average height being cited at around five-foot-three or five-foot-four. Which is precisely why she once said, “I’ve always wanted to be taller. I feel like a shrimp, but that’s the way it goes. I’m five-foot four-and-a-half-inches—that’s actually average. Everything about me is average.” This sentiment, in turn, also prompting her to declare, “My drive in life is from this horrible fear of being mediocre.” To be sure, if Madonna wasn’t a much “bitterer” person than Carpenter, she might have called one of her own albums Short n’ Sweet long before the former Disney star decided to. But no, Madonna’s not really bitter, once quipping during her 1993 The Girlie Show tour, “Life’s too short to be bitter…I’m too short to be bitter!” And besides, how could she be when considering the ongoing, far-reaching influence she still so clearly has on each new generation of pop stars?

    For, yes, despite Carpenter’s inherent Gen Z limitations in terms of having good pop culture taste, she still understands the meaning of Madonna. That much was made apparent when she performed a cover of “Like A Virgin” during several dates on her Emails I Can’t Send Tour. In a June 2024 interview with Rolling Stone, Carpenter would also mention Madonna as an essential lesson for any “Intro to Pop” class she might teach, commenting, “Those were some of the first pop songs I ever heard and they raised me when I was five and helped me find my own version of that. This would be a really long course. I should never teach a course.”

    But, actually, maybe she should. Not only Intro to Pop for the daft Gen Z ilk, but also Intro to How to Properly Pay Tribute in Someone Else’s Iconic Dress. Kardashian really could have used that class before the Met Gala in 2022. Or even before she decided to dress like Madonna at the ’91 Oscars herself for one of her many Halloween costumes in 2017.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The BoJack Horseman/Matthew Perry Parallel

    The BoJack Horseman/Matthew Perry Parallel

    [ad_1]

    While Matthew Perry, like his other fellow Friends cast members (mainly Jennifer Aniston), may have been able to secure enough film work in the 90s and 00s to pass as an actor beyond the realm of mere sitcom television, there’s no denying that he will always be known as Chandler Bing. A.k.a.: the sarcastic, perennially joke-making, lovable lout of the friend group. The “shtick” wasn’t so bad though—it allowed Perry to live off the cush royalties (upwards of twenty million dollars a year) of said show whenever things might have gotten dire. Which they often did when it came to Perry’s patchy filmography (anyone who was ever subjected to, say, Three to Tango or Serving Sara would happily love to forget they ever saw it). 

    Matthew Perry’s spirit animal (literally), BoJack Horseman (voiced by Will Arnett), has his own questionable filmography (*cough cough* Secretatiat) outside of the TV series that made him a household name in the 90s, Horsin’ Around. And, like Perry, he’s constantly struggling with his various drug-related addictions. Not to mention bearing the personality of someone both self-loathing and narcissistic. A common combination among those “Hollywood people.”

    Patty Lin, a former Friends writer who recently released the memoir End Credits: How I Broke Up With Hollywood, was sure to confirm the absurd narcissism and overall egocentricity of not just Perry, but each cast member when she rehashed, “The actors seemed unhappy to be chained to a tired old show when they could be branching out, and I felt like they were constantly wondering how every given script would specifically serve them. They all knew how to get a laugh, but if they didn’t like a joke, they seemed to deliberately tank it, knowing we’d rewrite it. Dozens of good jokes would get thrown out just because one of them had mumbled the line through a mouthful of bacon.”

    BoJack’s approach to Horsin’ Around was largely the same, sleepwalking through the filming of the episodes, knowing the money was all but assured to roll in. After all, schlocky, “one size fits all” humor was spun gold in the 90s, and especially in the world of 90s broadcast television. As for Horsin’ Around, its premise was more closely aligned with a show like Punky Brewster (Horsin’ did, after all, premiere in 1987) or Full House. The family angle of both of these latter series playing up the idea that, sometimes, family isn’t who you’re born to, it’s who you choose. Friends essentially provided the same premise, proffering that, in a city like “New York” (or rather, New York as presented on a Burbank backlot), the likelihood of the people who moved there being in search of fresh start from the horrors of their suburban lives was bound to translate into the aforementioned cheeseball adage about how family is who you choose in the form of friends. 

    That sentiment became especially meta on Friends, with the cast members themselves forging a bond as a result of a shared experience that no one else could ever possibly understand (you know, the same type of bond forged between The Beatles or the Spice Girls as a result of becoming such cultural phenomenons). For BoJack, the cast member he shares a close bond with is ​​Sarah-Lynn (Kristan Schaal). Although much younger than he is (a child star, as it were) at the start of filming Horsin’ Around, the two stay connected not just through the success of the show, but a shared substance abuse problem. One that BoJack helps to spur on with his generally bad, self-esteem-lowering advice. For yes, as it is said, “Misery loves company.” It is his negative influence over her, in fact, that leads to her eventual death by overdose.

    Perry, of course, was known instead for talking people down from the ledge of their addiction issues, making an enduring commitment to helping those going through the same hell he went through, too. So, sure, Perry might have been a more altruistic, “good-hearted” 90s TV actor, but he shares BoJack’s painkiller-addicted ways, self-deprecating sense of humor and, famously, inability to maintain romantic relationships for very long. Much the same as BoJack—even though looking at Perry’s dating history read’s like a who’s who of 90s Hollywood (e.g., Yasmine Bleeth and Julia Roberts)—he appeared unable to make any sustained connection for very long (save for a six-year stint with Lizzy Caplan).

    Perhaps this was a testament to his own fraught childhood, wherein he was unable to ever fully emotionally attach in a manner that wasn’t, at best, avoidant. This was all but assured with his parents’ divorce before he was even sentient, slowly “coming to” in a house divided. One that included both of his parents soon having other children with their new spouses. Perry, consequently, discovered the art of acting out (and acting) early on, drinking alcohol, stealing money and, of all things, beating up his fellow classmate, Justin Trudeau. In many regards, Perry bore all the cliches of the type of James Spader douchebag presented in numerous 80s movies (rounded out by the fact that Perry attended the Buckley School in Los Angeles). At least in the days before he physically evolved into a man with a slightly less, let’s say, “Bret Easton Ellis circa Less Than Zero’s release” aesthetic.

    With each TV star having to constantly contend with their irrepressible demons (cropping up much too early in their lives), it is BoJack who has the more straightforward and expected near-death experience, attempting to overdose on painkillers before nearly drowning in the swimming pool at his old house in front of the “Hollywoo” sign. Hopefully, Perry’s own actual death had nothing to do with drugs or suicide; more than likely it was just one of those “freak things.” Nonetheless, one must admit that, among other similarities, the drowning in the hot tub parallel (at a home bought by 90s sitcom money) is particularly uncanny.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Beanie Bubble Reminds That The Ultimate Childhood Toy for Millennials Was Also the Ultimate Representation of What It Is to Be Millennial

    The Beanie Bubble Reminds That The Ultimate Childhood Toy for Millennials Was Also the Ultimate Representation of What It Is to Be Millennial

    [ad_1]

    Perhaps what strikes one the most about The Beanie Bubble isn’t pulling back the curtain behind the “Wizard of Beanie Babies,” Ty Warner, and finding out he was a huge asshole, but rather, the realization of just how millennial the plush toys really were. This doesn’t pertain to the actual era during which they came out, so much as the “toys” being a reflection of what it already meant to be millennial, even (/especially) at tender preteen ages. The fact that even something as theoretically pure as “toys” suddenly had to be slapped with the purpose of “getting a return on one’s investment” couldn’t be more millennial by nature. Having the thing for the sake of having it simply wasn’t an option. It had to “give something back.” Just as millennial children were expected to. And yes, as Malcolm Harris notes in Kids These Days: The Making of Millennials, this was the first generation of children treated this way. As human capital.

    Look to none other than their baby boomer parents for a large part of that reason. The parents who wanted to ensure that their children had nothing but the best and never endured any amount of previously unavoidable pain whatsoever (hence, helicopter parenting). Their childhoods were going to be different. Safer. No playing outside for hours at a time until dinner. No, no. Now, that time had to be accounted for. MonitoredMonetizable (at least somewhere down the line).

    And there’s always more time for self-improvement over “useless” play. This factoring into why Beanie Babies certainly shouldn’t be viewed as actual toys to play with. Gasp! That was a scandalous thought after realizing they were actually laden with value. At times, hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of value. So it is that the book The Beanie Bubble is based on, The Great Beanie Baby Bubble: Mass Delusion and the Dark Side of Cute (written by none other than a millennial), reminds that it “had turned into a craze that was the twentieth-century American version of the tulip bubble in 1630s Holland.” It, too, was described as a “mania.” Tulip mania.

    To that end, the precursor to The Beanie Bubble, a 2021 documentary called Beanie Mania, highlights the ways in which boomer parents took something theoretically innocent and fun, and then turned it into something that more closely resembled a chore, an obligation. A means to secure one’s future. In said documentary, a former Beanie-loving child named Michelle makes that apparent when she says, “…it became a multiple trip, do what we can, keep going until you were tired, until there were no other stores in the area that might have what we’re looking for. And then my mom took that to an extreme and it quickly became her thing over mine.”

    The obsession, on the parents’ part, with collecting as many Beanies as possible ultimately had more to do with “winning” at toy-owning/ensuring their child had the best of everything, than it did with “having fun.” For nothing about being a millennial child was ever about just having fun. All of it had to be in service for some “greater purpose.” Some higher aim in service of the competition called life. Something, in the end, that would create a “market bubble” among the buying and selling of millennials themselves. For if every millennial was trained in the same proverbial school of “Be the Best,” it creates a greater likelihood for children (and the adults they become) to be rejected by the various institutions that know “everyone” is both the crème de la crème and willing to work at maximum capacity for minimal payment. That’s what they learned in school, after all. Where “the pedagogical mask,” as Harris refers to it, is meant to conceal that what the children are actually doing is training for a life of unpaid labor (with such labor eventually billed as “just part of the job”), the great Beanie Baby race was a study in how to turn a quick profit. All by asking of a child the one thing you never should: don’t play with your toys.

    What could be a more “reasonable” ask of a generation where competition over things that were formerly innocent had never been at a higher level? As Harris remarks over the retooled school structure of the 90s, “[It’s] built around hypercompetition, from first period, to extracurricular activities, to homework, to the video games kids play when they have a minute of downtime. It’s not a coincidence—none of it. The growth of growth requires lots of different kinds of hard work, and millennials are built for it.” Not just because they’ve been conditioned to expect putting in hours of work with little given back in return, but because they’re the first generation that was taught to always be “plugged in.” To the matrix, that is. Always available, therefore always ready for any opportunity that might arise. Like a higher bidding price on eBay. The famed auction site that aligned with the rise of the secondary market for Beanie Babies. A secondary market that served as a collector’s wet dream. And yes, the entire driving force behind the rise and popularity of Beanie Babies were the collectors. Originally just a group of “cul-de-sac moms” from Naperville, Illinois. Meaning that, perhaps for the only time in history, the Midwest was ahead of the trend curve before everyone else. 

    Dave Sobolewski, the middle child of one of the “original Beanie Ladies,” Mary Beth, himself comes across as a quintessential millennial, simply shrugging off the absurdity with his assessment of market bubbles while also finding the time to flex, “My background, my education, my profession, it’s all finance. Beanie Babies is a case study in just how a few people pushing an idea and enthusiasm…crazy things can happen.” Spoken like someone who has never reckoned with the traumatic experience of being a millennial. Manipulated for profit in much the same manner as Beanie Babies until millennials’ own bubble burst. Instead, Dave writes off the unhinged fanaticism as: “Without the few women that started the entire mania, Beanie Babies never would have been.” It bears mentioning, to be sure, that the women who started it were all white and middle-class, and many of them held formerly high-powered jobs before giving it up to be a “full-time mom” (as though you can’t be that regardless of having a paid job) in the cul-de-sac. Undoubtedly, it sounds a lot like the plot to The Stepford Wives. And maybe there was something “automaton-esque” about their obsession. More, more, more. Feed, feed, feed.

    All of this, in the end, being the philosophy that trickled down to their millennial children, who would not have the benefit of experiencing adulthood in an epoch that allowed for such ease of moneymaking as the boomers did. Ty Warner (played by Zach Galifianakis) himself being such an example of someone who continuously “fell into” money. In large part due to the women he surrounded himself with. Women who are finally given some credit in The Beanie Bubble, structured in an “all over the place” way (that many critics included in part of their panning) to show the different time periods in which Warner was most reliant on them. Patricia Roche was the first on Warner’s list of Women to Fuck Over. Helping him to establish the business, there’s no denying she was instrumental in the initial years of Ty Inc.’s success before Beanie Babies. In the movie, she becomes “Robbie Jones” (played by Elizabeth Banks), while Faith McGowan, his second serious girlfriend, becomes Sheila (Sarah Snook). But the woman he arguably took the most advantage of wasn’t even someone he was dating.

    Instead, it was college student Lina Trivedi, who worked there for twelve dollars an hour from 1992 to 1998 despite the fact that she was the direct cause of the many millions (then billions) of dollars the company would go on to make. In no small part because of her suggestion to implement the use of this thing called “The Internet.” In fact, Ty Inc. was surprisingly ahead of the game on the ways in which the internet could be used. From checking out product information to serving as a place for collectors to connect, Trivedi was the brainchild behind all of that. 

    And the boomers were ready to absorb the technology. This being what amplified and blew up Beanie Mania into pure frenzy. As Joni Hirsch-Blackman in Beanie Mania puts it, “It was a really nice thing for a while…till the adults ruined it.” At least some adults can admit that much. Though they can’t seem to admit that everything about Beanie Baby fever was fueled from a middle-class perspective, with no regard for what else was actually going on in the world (or the havoc they would ultimately wreak upon people’s lives by creating this speculative market). To that point, Joni also foolishly declares, “I think of the 90s as sort of frivolous.” From that skewed view (one that ignores things like the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the first World Trade Center bombing attempt, the Unabomber, the rise of school shootings, etc.), it left room for the frivolousness of collecting (again, if you were white and middle-class).

    As the early days of trolling for Beanie Babies gave way to something far darker, Joni could admit that the taint was starting to settle in fast on what was once meant to be a child’s toy. However, as she remarks, “This was becoming something different. We don’t play with these things because they’re gonna be worth money. If the tag was creased, you’d ruin the value of your Beanie.” To reiterate, this is decidedly “millennial thinking.” Or rather, the thinking that millennials were inculcated with. Always search for the next hustle, the next scam, the next “get rich quick” scheme. All without seeming to realize that “legitimate” jobs require just as much time and effort as the so-called easy way out. Then, of course, there was all the waste that arose from the obsession with collecting. Not least of which was the McDonald’s collaboration that resulted in “Teenie Beanies,” prompting consumers to just throw away the food after buying excessive amounts of Happy Meals to complete their set. At the height of the fervor in 1998, various fights and thefts would break out at McDonald’s locations across the U.S., necessitating police involvement. The fixation on these bean-filled sacks shaped as animals being of high value meant that, suddenly, the market seemed to be filled solely with sellers. Sellers who were starting to get fed up with the secondary market when inventory wasn’t being unloaded so quickly, or for as much as it had in the past when the bubble started to burst around 1999. 

    Sensing the imminent doom, Warner pulled a stunt announcing Beanie Babies would be discontinued after December 31, 1999 (appropriate, considering their demise would be after the 90s ended anyway). Then, after a buying spike, he polled the collectors (by charging them to vote on the website) if they wanted Beanies to stay—after he had already ratcheted up the demand again in the wake of that “to be discontinued” announcement. This doesn’t make it into The Beanie Bubble, though what comes across overall is that there is no “genius” behind the curtain. In Beanie Mania, Ty even is referred to as the Wizard of Oz. An emperor with no clothes, as it were. Sure, he could be billed as the “eccentric heart” of the designs, but, in the end, he would have been nothing without the women behind him. This was a key element that writer Kristin Gore (that’s right, the daughter of 90s vice president, Al), wanted to convey. Co-directed with her husband, Damian Kulash, The Beanie Bubble does just that. And, although known to many as the lead singer for OK Go, Kulash seems uniquely qualified to co-direct the movie as he contributed a story to a book called Things I’ve Learnt from Women Who’ve Dumped Me. Would that Ty Warner had learned anything from the women who dumped him, least of all humility. And an understanding that his success was a direct result of the rigged system that continues to favor white men. 

    Per Gore on writing the script, “We’ve talked a lot about how there’s this myth of a lone male genius coming up with things. You see it over and over again, benefiting from a system that’s rigged for him and against everyone else. And we wanted to peel back those layers and look at that myth and really show what everyone knows, which is that there’s always so much more to that story. There are always so many more people involved.” In the case of the millennial mentality that insists, “Always be driven, always be competing…with the potential for no payout,” that, too, had many people involved. From the government to parents and, yes, to corporations like Ty Inc.

    What The Beanie Bubble also wants to remind people of is how ugly capitalism makes us. Which is why the film opens with that illustrious truck crash scene (which is, needless to say, hyper-stylized), wherein boxes of Beanies go flying and everyone on the highway starts picking at the remains like vultures. In Beanie Mania, Mary Beth blithely sums a scene like this up with, “The collector’s mentality is that you can never have enough.” But the sentence Mary Beth was really looking for was: “The American consumer’s mentality is that you can never have enough.” And you have to be willing to claw and compete at any (literal) cost to get it. That’s what millennials learned. Yet they’re still somehow shocked that none of their unpaid labor (starting at the school level) has yielded a substantial return.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • On Mentos’ Apparent Ability to Magically Imbue People With Skills They Should Already Have to Deal With the Inconveniences of Life and How Said Ad Campaign Surely Affected the Millennial Mind

    On Mentos’ Apparent Ability to Magically Imbue People With Skills They Should Already Have to Deal With the Inconveniences of Life and How Said Ad Campaign Surely Affected the Millennial Mind

    [ad_1]

    Thinking back on all the reasons why millennials might be “the way they are” (i.e., “ill-equipped”), one culprit (apart from helicopter parents) that shouldn’t be overlooked is the ongoing series of Mentos commercials that were on a loop throughout the 90s. Indeed, the first round of Mentos commercials that would make the Dutch (and, later Dutch-Italian—upon merging with Perfetti in 2001) brand a household name in America aired circa 1991, establishing the scotch mints as a staple of 90s pop culture. But, long before that decade, Dutch brothers Michael and Pierre van Melle came up with the idea for a peppermint-flavored candy in 1932 (clearly, they weren’t too worried about Hitler’s impact on European capitalism just yet). By the 60s and 70s, the “freshmaker” was appearing around the globe.

    But one milieu it still had yet to really make strides in was the U.S. In response to an apparent sales stagnation throughout the 70s and 80s, the German marketing team at Pahnke & Partners managed to come up with something for Mentos that even they probably didn’t know the power of until it was unleashed. The VP of Marketing at Mentos, Liam Killeen, also certainly wasn’t aware that not only would it prompt such a positive reaction (at least in terms of sales), but, as time wore on, an entirely negative one. This elucidated by being verbally attacked by a cashier at a video store simply for wearing a jacket with the Mentos logo on it in 1996, when the Mentos commercials had reached an apex of oversaturation—so much so that the campaign had been referenced throughout an entire season of Baywatch, in Gen X movie staple Clueless (released in 1995) and in the Foo Fighters’ video for “Big Me” (released in 1996, with “Footos” replacing the Mentos name, along with Footos’ own slogan: “The Fresh Fighter”). It was the latter video’s director, Jesse Peretz, who summed up the commercials best as “total lobotomized happiness.” Perhaps this was how Europeans saw the “American way of life” from afar as they cashed in on its darkest side of all: a lust for everything related to capitalism. Or maybe life in the Netherlands (or Holland, if you prefer) really is that blissful, and the Dutch company was simply trying to impart its own form of “lobotomized happiness” onto Americans. Either way, from the American perspective, it translated into a parody—a totally ersatz view of the human condition, or, at best, a 1950s spin on the 1990s.

    Whatever the case, the commercials were simultaneously mocked and obsessed over for their “camp” qualities. But the group it truly had a lasting effect on was millennials watching the boob tube with their elder Gen X siblings. Although Gen X had absorbed the commercials while still in their teens and twenties, millennials did so during more mentally susceptible years, letting the notion that any problem could be solved with an unrealistic approach and the flash of a smile seep irrevocably into their brains. As a new decade arrived with the 00s, perhaps many believed that millennials entering their own teens had quickly forgotten all about a commercial that was theoretically buttoned up with the rest of the 90s. But no, somewhere deep down, the “logic” (read: total illogic) presented in the Mentos commercials lingered within the millennial mind, dormant until activated in their adulthood, when it became quickly evident that it would take a lot more than a “lobotomy smile” and the popping of a Mentos to stave off antagonistic forces or even minor inconveniences.

    And it was with this single planting of the idea that a simple, often non sequitur act could make all one’s problems melt away that Mentos created a monster in the next generation. By presenting the concept that, with the pop of a signature scotch mint, suddenly the problem-solving skills and/or acceptance of harsh realities one should already have to begin with will magically materialize, the company perpetuated millennial dependency on crutches that don’t actually work. The only thing that does work, or is real, is enduring hardship. That’s the true essence of existence, particularly if you’re born into non-affluent circumstances. The idea that we can “make lemonade out of lemons” with “no trouble at all” by rolling around in paint to fix the look of our suit, or ripping both heels of our shoes off when one of them breaks, or going through the backseat of someone else’s car to cross the street, or enlisting a group of construction workers to move our blocked car out of a parallel parking spot is part of the fantastical narrative that millennials were sold from the beginning of their youth. It’s not a coincidence that such indoctrination (and, truly, it can’t be overemphasized how frequently these commercials were playing) would lead to a major letdown later on in life, when it became clear that absolutely nothing could be solved with a plucky attitude or an illogical solution with no thought put into strategy.

    As for the thought put into Mentos’ advertising strategy, maybe it was pure, dumb luck that the company was able to tap into some kind of zeitgeist that presaged internet fandoms and fixations on seemingly “niche” things that would turn out to be a phenomenon as a result of “the kitsch factor” (incidentally, Killeen called the Mentos obsession, which extended to a then germinal internet, “Mentophilia”). Or maybe, beyond mere earnestness about a product meant to induce joy, the ad team was speaking to the age-old marketing belief that the more “irksome” an ad campaign, the more effective. And, irritating or not, Mentos secretly warmed the hearts of millions who balked at its madcap, cornball nature. The words to the jingle didn’t even make any sense—for example, “It doesn’t matter what comes, fresh goes better in life.” But they didn’t have to. The important part was the earworm tune set to visuals of people “solving problems” with “effortless” and nonsensical methods that would never work in real life.

    Yet that was the thing about Mentos: it was an ad campaign that truly sparked millennials’ initial foray into “unreality.” A la-la land where they could delude themselves with ideas of happiness secured with no effort whatsoever. Or if there was at least some vague effort involved, it would automatically work on the first try. The non-Mentos universe, alas, would not provide such instant gratification to many a disappointed millennial. And though some might call it “peak millennial” to blame their woes on a commercial from their childhood, it’s not so. What would be peak is trying to sue the company for damages.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Obsession With Marking Time Through Pop Culture

    The Obsession With Marking Time Through Pop Culture

    [ad_1]

    In the past several years, it’s become more and more common to “celebrate” (or mourn) the passing of milestone anniversaries for films and albums. This year, the sudden trend has evolved into also taking note of which songs were released, specifically, twenty-five years ago. A.k.a. singles that came out in 1998. Some of the more pronounced callouts in media have been Madonna’s “Ray of Light,” Britney Spears’ “…Baby One More Time,” Lauryn Hill’s “Doo Wop (That Thing),” Brandy and Monica’s “The Boy Is Mine,” Aaliyah’s “Are You That Somebody?,” Cher’s “Believe,” Christina Aguilera’s “Reflection” and Beastie Boys’ “Intergalactic.”

    In 1998’s defense, of course, it was a particularly momentous year for music. And, as usual, it has to be said, Madonna was the one to set the tone for mainstreaming the genre of the moment—electronica—by releasing Ray of Light in March. Cher would follow auditory suit (likely to Madonna’s eye roll) in October of that year with the release of “Believe” and the album of the same name. Where Madonna stopped at suffusing her music with William Orbit-helmed electronica sounds, Cher pushed further by being among the first to incorporate Auto-Tune in a manner antithetical to its original purpose (which was to disguise being off-key). With her unapologetically warped voice singing the “I Will Survive” of the 90s, Cher rang in a new era of musical manipulation.

    Elsewhere, Brandy and Monica relied on the tried-and-true duet method for their chart success (as did Mariah and Whitney with The Prince of Egypt’s “When You Believe,” for that matter—it was an animated movie soundtrack kind of year, what with Xtina’s “Reflection” being from the Mulan Soundtrack, to boot). But perhaps what stood out more than anything about “The Boy Is Mine” was its totally implausible video, wherein we’re supposed to believe The Boy (Mekhi Phifer) was able to carry off the logistical nightmare of fucking two women who lived next door to each other in the same building.

    “…Baby One More Time,” needless to say, stood out for its sound and visual, with Britney notoriously catering to every man’s Nabokovian fetish for schoolgirls by dressing in a Catholic school uniform throughout most of the Nigel Dick-directed video. It was this moment in pop culture history that perhaps signaled the biggest sea change of all from one decade into another. For, although Britney burst onto the scene (and caused men’s pants to burst in so doing) in the 90s, she was a decidedly 00s pop star. The leading example of what that entailed sonically and visually, with the likes of Jessica Simpson, Willa Ford, Mandy Moore, Hilary Duff and, later, even Taylor Swift emulating what Britney had perfected. That is to say, being a “pop tart.” Prancing around in sequined leotards with fishnets and singing “subtly” about sex. Because, in 1998, the United States was still in love with the idea of losing more of its innocence, a desire immediately established in January of that year, when the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal broke. For not since “Dick” Nixon had the nation been forced to see how little trust they should place in the “highest office in the world.” And all because, like most men, he couldn’t resist a blow J.

    So as America continued to deflower itself in a post-internet existence that was further punctuated by the release of The Matrix in 1999, the music and the videos that came with it seemed to reflect this period in American pop culture history more than any other. Even Next’s “Too Close” was a 1998 hit that talked exclusively about a man’s issues with concealing his boner because a woman dared to get “too close” to him. Therefore, “asking for it,” etc. (or, “You know I can’t help it,” as Next insists). This prompting Vee of Koffee Brown to demand, “Step back, you’re dancin’ kinda close/I feel a little poke comin’ through on you.” It’s a song that encapsulates many a junior high dance of the day, when “freaking” was all the rage among the preadolescent set.

    As mentioned, more than the songs that were about sexual awakenings/yearnings, the music of 1998 was dead-set on innovating. This included the aforementioned “Are You That Somebody?” and “Intergalactic,” as well as Fatboy Slim’s “The Rockafeller Skank,” all awash in sounds that would become a retrospective “time stamp” for the era. In general, that’s part of the reason why many people so love to mark time through pop culture. More than one’s own personal life (with memories triggered by certain songs), it is far likelier to offer a historical snapshot of a particular epoch lost to the quicksand of minutes and then years and then decades. The obsession to mark time as a whole, however, stems not from nostalgia, so much as being part of a capitalistic society in which time is literally money.

    If you look up, “Why do people keep track of time passing?” one of the top answers is extremely telling: “Time tracking is key to understanding how you spend your time, personally and in business. It is key to productivity, insight and a healthy workflow. This is equally important to everybody in an organization, or society.” In other words, if you aren’t productive within the capitalistic machine (complete with the purchasing power to support entertainment industries), then what good are you? Do you even exist? That pop culture is also a buttress for capitalism, thus, makes it inextricably linked to that system. Further solidified by how these anniversaries of album and song releases can provide the catalyst for re-releases that will prompt fans and even casual listeners alike to buy the same product again, whether digitally or as a result of being enticed by some “collector’s edition”-type presentation.

    Underlying capitalistic-driven motivations aside, maybe the reason why some are especially gung-ho about marking the passage of time this year by looking back on 1998 in music is because it was arguably the last time a pioneering shift occurred in said medium. With the dawning of the 2000s, hauntology would come to dominate the musical landscape more than anywhere else, complete with musicians like Amy Winehouse and Arctic Monkeys sounding as though they were pulled straight out of the 1960s rather than the twenty-first century. The same could also later be said of such acts as The Raveonettes, Duffy, Adele and Lana Del Rey.

    And when next year rolls around to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of songs like Smash Mouth’s “All Star,” Ricky Martin’s “Livin’ La Vida Loca,” Bloodhound Gang’s “The Bad Touch,” Sugar Ray’s “Every Morning” and Crazy Town’s “Butterfly,” we’ll perhaps more fully understand the pinpointable instant when things started to take a dive (compounded by 1999 also being the year Napster was launched).

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link