ReportWire

Tag: Britney Spears …Baby One More Time

  • Mondo Ironico #8: Britney’s Formerly “Too Sexy For Children” Looks Suddenly Being Distilled Into Toy Form

    Mondo Ironico #8: Britney’s Formerly “Too Sexy For Children” Looks Suddenly Being Distilled Into Toy Form

    [ad_1]

    In a series called Mondo Ironico, let us discuss how fucking antithetical something in pop culture is.

    For anyone who witnessed the rise of Britney Spears that truly began in 1999 (though her illustrious debut single, “…Baby One More Time,” was released in 1998), it’s impossible to forget that the number one criticism lobbed against her was being “too sexy” for the demographic she was theoretically “geared toward”: little girls, tweens and teenagers. As many pop stars after her would learn (including the likes of Miley Cyrus and Olivia Rodrigo), the pressure to remain “Disneyfied” was constant, even after Spears herself was no longer in her teenage years.

    The condemnation surrounding what she wore as her success amplified got so out of hand that, after the 2000 VMAs—during which she wore one of her then most scandalous outfits to date (a sheer bejeweled bra top with matching low-rise pants that made for a shimmering nude effect [with help from a coordinating nude thong, naturally] which presaged her literally nude look in the “Toxic” video)—MTV thought it would be a cute idea to make her sit down and watch some of the hot takes from people on the street about the way she dressed.

    Some of the comments included, “If I had a little girl, I wouldn’t want her to emulate Britney Spears, you know, if she’s like twelve, thirteen, anything like that,” “Think about those twelve-year-olds that listen to your music and think about the twelve-year-olds who saw you on the VMAs. Think what they’re thinking. They’re probably thinking that it’s okay to dress like that, which it’s not.” To this particular criticism, Spears responded to the screen, “I’m not their parent, man.” Another commenter added, “She’s a role model to little kids and she doesn’t need to dress like that.” The furor surrounding Spears’ body and how much of it she chose to reveal as the 00s went on reached another crescendo when, during her now infamous 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer, the latter knife-diggingly mentioned how Kendel Ehrlich (the wife of then Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich) said, in reference to the way she dressed/was a “bad” role model for her young fans (not the male ones, mind you), “You know, really, if I had an opportunity to shoot Britney Spears, I think I would.” Naturally, it came as no surprise that Ehrlich would later serve in the Trump administration.

    Conversations around Spears’ body and being “too sexy” gradually began to taper off after 2008’s Circus, when, conveniently, a new batch of pop stars began rising to prominence—including Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift (even if then still in “country” form) and Katy Perry (who didn’t know her peak would cease with Teenage Dream). This wasn’t just because the media was trying to be “nicer” to her after contributing to her very public breakdown in 2007 through early 2008, but because, by pop star standards, she was finally considered day-old bread (she turned twenty-seven the year Circus came out). In the time since then, it has also become less acceptable to make comments about a woman’s body or how she dresses—and now, perhaps even unacceptable to be anywhere near the realm of what Eminem would call a “stan.”

    By the same token, female pop stars have seemingly decided to “cover up” in general (with Billie Eilish being one of the first to set this trend during the teenage years of her initial stardom). This phenomenon was crystallized in a 2021 Salon article titled, “From Britney to Lorde: Young women shift from embracing body positivity to body neutrality as teens.” Which, of course, only adds further insult to Spears’ injury—as she seems to be positioned as some “relic” of what pop stardom used to mean when, in fact, she was arguably the last great show(wo)man.

    All of this is to say that, after everything Spears endured in terms of the venomous rhetoric about what she chose to wear (or not wear) during the first eight-ish years of her career, some of those formerly salacious looks are now being deemed perfectly suitable to be turned into Fisher-Price Little People. Specifically, Britney Spears is becoming part of the Little People Collector editions that have also extended to the likes of The Beatles and E.T. Obviously, compared to those two, Spears’ Little People renderings are patently more “controversial.” Except that we’ve now entered an epoch where there is really no such thing. In fact, it’s more controversial to be conservative in the present climate than it is to be “liberal” (mind you, if you tear the mask off a liberal, you’re likely to find a conservative). Thus, the ease with which Fisher-Price opted to make miniature versions of Spears in some of her most “notorious” looks is but par for the blasé-about-sexuality course.

    Among the looks selected to immortalize in “Little People” renderings is a version of Spears in her “…Baby One More Time” schoolgirl outfit, her “Oops!…I Did It Again” catsuit, her 2001 VMAs “I’m A Slave 4 U” costume and the flight attendant getup from “Toxic” (apparently, they had to stop short at choosing her naked-save-for-some-glued-on-diamonds look from that video)—and yes, these variations of Spears have already been rendered in Funko Pop! form. Her “toy-ification” knowing no limits, which of course has plenty of symbolic implications.

    Another irony about the whole thing is that it is precisely because of the decreased interest in sex (all in keeping with George Orwell’s 1984 predictions) that Spears’ formerly “overly provocative” looks are no longer a source of such frenzied “hullabaloo.” In short, no one is really “that interested” in the voyeuristic sensibilities Spears once stoked at a time when the internet’s sexual scope was far more limited. Thus, the sudden “no big deal” aura surrounding Fisher-Price’s decision (or rather, the millennial in charge of said department who likely made it) to turn these erstwhile “scandalous” instances in Spears’ career into toys suitable for “children ages three and up” (a very big range, obviously) is not just a sign o’ the times, but yet another slap in the face to Spears.

    Though, hopefully, at the very least, she 1) sanctioned the use of her image for this product and 2) will receive the majority of the money it rakes in. Though that still feels like a small token of “justice” for all the suffering she underwent for her “too sexed-up” persona before it was deemed suitable for distilling into a collectible toy.

    [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