In a series called Mondo Bullshittio, let’s talk about some of the most glaring hypocrisies and faux pas in pop culture…and all that it affects.
In yet another one of many (seemingly infinite) examples in this world of how everything is rigged, the winner of MTV’s so-called “Most Iconic Performance” award—freshly added into the mix this year—was bequeathed to the least deserving nominee: Katy Perry’s “Roar” performance back in 2013. One that, by the way, absolutely no one remembers (and if they say they do, they’re definitely lying). However, considering that Perry was the 2024 recipient of MTV’s “coveted” Video Vanguard Award (decreasingly referred to by its full name: the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award), it seems more than a little bit “political” that she should be the one to claim the award for “Most Iconic Performance” when, in fact, what she offered back in 2013 was one of the least iconic performances in VMA history (which also extends to someone like Bryan Adams singing “Do I Have To Say The Words?” in 1992).
Indeed, of the seven nominees, the performances that people are likely to most immediately recall (even if solely by an image alone) include Madonna’s “Like A Virgin” at the 1984 VMAs, Eminem’s “The Real Slim Shady/The Way I Am” at the 2000 VMAs, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Madonna and Missy Elliott’s “Like A Virgin/Hollywood” at the 2003 VMAs and Beyoncé’s “Love On Top” at the 2011 VMAs. The three other options—Perry doing “Roar,” Lady Gaga doing “Paparazzi” at the 2009 VMAs and Taylor Swift doing “You Belong With Me” at the 2009 VMAs—are hardly memorable at all.
But one supposes that, of the three least memorable out of those seven, Lady Gaga’s 2009 performance of “Paparazzi” was more “iconic” for how horrible her vocals were (not to mention how retroactively offensive her “disabled” shtick was) and the fact that “the fame” killed her at the end—with the fake blood pouring down her body to prove it as she was suspended in midair for the big finish. With regard to Swift, the only thing that people will ever remember about her appearance at the ’09 VMAs is her illustrious encounter with Kanye West, who incited their now lifelong bad blood by bum-rushing the stage when Swift won the award for Best Female Video, declaring that it was, instead, Beyoncé who had “one of the best videos of all time” (which is definitely not true of “Single Ladies [Put A Ring On It]”).
And, if one is really going to try to make the claim that the “Roar” performance is “iconic,” let it be noted that Perry’s boxer costume and the boxing ring backdrop that was set up in front of the Brooklyn Bridge look like a bad knockoff of Madonna’s boxer persona from the Hard Candy era, which she also took on the road for the 2008-2009 Sticky & Sweet Tour. It was on that tour that Madonna incorporated her boxing aesthetic in a major way for the “Die Another Day” video interlude. And yes, it was in a manner far more, let us say, “hardcore” than what Perry offered “live from Empire-Fulton Ferry Park.”
In any event, the fact that Madonna had two nominations in the Most Iconic Performance category also might have led one to believe the odds were easily stacked in her favor, with both the 1984 and 2003 performances being the pinnacle of iconic. But no, clearly not. Because apparently people think that Perry bopping around in a shitty boxing costume and singing a Black Mirror-level type of “inspirational” song is much worthier for icon status than Madonna changing the fucking game on sexual and ironic performances with “Like A Virgin” or being the first theoretically hetero woman in the mainstream to make lesbianism chic in the twenty-first century (just as she also did in the twentieth with her Sandra Bernhard friendship/Erotica era [among other things]).
The question of who ought to have won this award should have been utterly undeniable. Thus, to give the “honor” to Perry just proves that not only is everything political, but also that the masses (or maybe just the MTV VMAs in this instance) prefer to reward inferior trash. Because, objectively, there is absolutely no argument in favor of Perry dominating in this category. We’re talking about Madonna in one of the most signature fucking looks not just of her career, but in modern pop culture as we know it. A moment so iconic that it was riffed on again in 2003 for yet another performance that would turn out to be equally iconic in its own way (even in terms of cutting away from the Christina Aguilera beso for the sake of getting Justin Timberlake’s peeved reaction). And this time with Madonna making the then-latest generation of pop princesses into her brides, while she played the big dick energy groom.
Incidentally, it was less than a year later that Madonna and Perry would pose together for a V Magazine photoshoot (taken by none other than Madonna’s favorite, Steven Klein). Although it was technically meant to “star” both of them, Madonna also stood out as the dominant force among the Bettie Page-inspired images. But at least being styled and photographed by the same people put them on a more level playing field—for when it comes to VMAs performances, there’s no fucking contest. Regardless of the grave error made at the 2024 VMAs.
In a series called Mondo Bullshittio, let’s talk about some of the most glaring hypocrisies and faux pas in pop culture…and all that it affects.
In yet another one of many (seemingly infinite) examples in this world of how everything is rigged, the winner of MTV’s so-called “Most Iconic Performance” award—freshly added into the mix this year—was bequeathed to the least deserving nominee: Katy Perry’s “Roar” performance back in 2013. One that, by the way, absolutely no one remembers (and if they say they do, they’re definitely lying). However, considering that Perry was the 2024 recipient of MTV’s “coveted” Video Vanguard Award (decreasingly referred to by its full name: the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award), it seems more than a little bit “political” that she should be the one to claim the award for “Most Iconic Performance” when, in fact, what she offered back in 2013 was one of the least iconic performances in VMA history (which also extends to someone like Bryan Adams singing “Do I Have To Say The Words?” in 1992).
Indeed, of the seven nominees, the performances that people are likely to most immediately recall (even if solely by an image alone) include Madonna’s “Like A Virgin” at the 1984 VMAs, Eminem’s “The Real Slim Shady/The Way I Am” at the 2000 VMAs, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Madonna and Missy Elliott’s “Like A Virgin/Hollywood” at the 2003 VMAs and Beyoncé’s “Love On Top” at the 2011 VMAs. The three other options—Perry doing “Roar,” Lady Gaga doing “Paparazzi” at the 2009 VMAs and Taylor Swift doing “You Belong With Me” at the 2009 VMAs—are hardly memorable at all.
But one supposes that, of the three least memorable out of those seven, Lady Gaga’s 2009 performance of “Paparazzi” was more “iconic” than “You Belong With Me” or “Roar” for how horrible her vocals were (not to mention how retroactively offensive her “disabled” shtick was) and the fact that “the fame” killed her at the end—with the fake blood pouring down her body to prove it as she was suspended in midair for the big finish. With regard to Swift, the only thing that people will ever remember about her appearance at the ’09 VMAs is her illustrious encounter with Kanye West, who incited their now lifelong bad blood by bum-rushing the stage when Swift won the award for Best Female Video, declaring that it was, instead, Beyoncé who had “one of the best videos of all time” (which is definitely not true of “Single Ladies [Put A Ring On It]”).
And, if one is really going to try to make the claim that the “Roar” performance is “iconic,” let it be noted that Perry’s boxer costume and the boxing ring backdrop that was set up in front of the Brooklyn Bridge look like a bad knockoff of Madonna’s boxer persona from the Hard Candy era, which she also took on the road for the 2008-2009 Sticky & Sweet Tour. It was on that tour that Madonna incorporated her boxing aesthetic in a major way for the “Die Another Day” video interlude. And yes, it was in a manner far more, let us say, “hardcore” than what Perry offered “live from Empire-Fulton Ferry Park.”
In any event, the fact that Madonna had two nominations in the Most Iconic Performance category also might have led one to believe the odds were easily stacked in her favor, with both the 1984 and 2003 performances being the pinnacle of iconic. But no, clearly not. Because apparently people think that Perry bopping around in a shitty boxing costume and singing a Black Mirror-level type of “inspirational” song is much worthier of icon status than Madonna changing the fucking game on sexual and ironic performances with “Like A Virgin” or being the first (theoretically) hetero woman in the mainstream to make lesbianism chic (thus, normalized) in the twenty-first century (just as she also did in the twentieth with her Sandra Bernhard friendship/Erotica era [among other things]).
The question of who ought to have won this award should have been utterly undeniable. A proverbial no-brainer. Thus, to give the “honor” to Perry just proves that not only is everything political, but also that the masses (or maybe just the MTV VMAs in this instance) prefer to reward inferior trash. Because, objectively, there is absolutely no argument in favor of Perry dominating in this category. We’re talking about Madonna in one of the most signature fucking looks not just of her career, but in modern pop culture as we know it. A moment so iconic that it was riffed on again in 2003 for yet another performance that would turn out to be equally iconic in its own way (even in terms of cutting away from the Christina Aguilera beso for the sake of getting Justin Timberlake’s peeved reaction). And this time with Madonna making the then-latest generation of pop princesses into her brides, while she played the big dick energy groom.
Incidentally, it was less than a year later that Madonna and Perry would pose together for a V Magazine photoshoot (taken by none other than Madonna’s favorite photographer, Steven Klein). Although it was technically meant to “star” both of them, Madonna also stood out as the supreme force among the Bettie Page-inspired images of the duo in various S&M-y poses. But at least being styled and photographed by the same people put them on a more level playing field—because when it comes to VMAs performances, there’s no fucking contest. Regardless of the grave error made at the 2024 VMAs deeming Perry the “winner.”
Hollywood’s favorite photographer, Vijat Mohindra, is living the dream. He’s shot Kim Kardashian multiple times since 2009, to market Skims and her scent and just because. You’ve probably seen his photos of Doja Cat, Miley Cyrus, Dolly Parton, Cardi B… the list of his subjects is long and populated by luminaries from across the spectrum of celebrity. He’s shot Pamela Anderson for Paper. Nicki Minaj for Complex.
How can you spot a photo taken by Mohindra? There’s the signature colorful, Pop-ish aesthetic possibly best described as Barbie-esque. But despite the candy pink and blue and yellow plastic fantastic backdrops, Vijat’s subjects are always vibrant, dynamic and very much portraying themselves. Perhaps that’s not surprising, as he learned the ropes from famed celebrity photographer David LaChapelle. In the years since, he’s shot music videos, magazine spreads, album covers and more for some of the world’s top talent.
Mohindra is still shooting, but he’s been branching out. Earlier this year, he opened his first studio space in downtown Los Angeles, Powder Room Studio LA, which has a dozen uniquely Mohindra-esque sets in which to shoot everything from stills to reels. The 4500-square-foot space looks like Barbie’s 1990s-era dream house, and Paris Hilton and Christina Aguilera were early fans.
We chatted with Mohindra on a busy weekday morning about the new studio, why he loves polished portraits and his advice for young photographers.
Observer: What’s the story behind the Powder Room?
Vijat Mohindra: I’ve been a photographer—a celebrity photographer—in Los Angeles for the last 15 years, and in those years, I designed and created a lot of different environments for my shoots. Over time, I started collecting all these amazing set pieces that were left over from my shoots. They were just too gorgeous to throw away. I had them in storage at one point and I looked through it all, and I said, oh my gosh, all this stuff looks so great together. Maybe I can put it together in a format that could bring it all to life. And then I realized that could also be a place where creatives, photographers, directors, filmmakers, etc., could come and see all these amazing pieces.
The Living Room in Vijat Mohindra’s Powder Room Studio LA. Courtesy Vijat Mohindra
It looks like a Barbie house to me. Why?
It has that Barbie aesthetic because a lot of my work is very synthetic—very plastic, with a kind of glossy sheen to it. And then it all just sort of happened to have these different elements that coincided with the Barbie aesthetic but with a very ‘80s take on it. Pink is the color I use a lot. In a way, it made sense to create this surrealistic Barbie dream house experience.
Selfie museums are still on the rise—can just anyone come in and take some snaps with the sets?
Honestly, the space is for everybody. I have a lot of people from Instagram and TikTok coming in who just book the space for a few hours to create their own videos.
How common is this type of space in L.A.?
I’ve heard from some other people who have studios with a similar type of setup, with standing sets. They started back maybe around like 2018 or 2019, when there were maybe a thousand or so listings online of places like this throughout the Los Angeles area that could be rented for shoots. Now in 2024, it is up to around 8,000 spaces like this. It’s something that exploded in a way. Not all the spaces listed are aesthetic and design-focused the way mine is. I feel like the Powder Room is a very special category.
Let’s talk about your work. How do you feel about Photoshop?
I’m a big fan of Photoshop. I went to school for photography at the Art Center in Pasadena around 2003—right when film was switching over to digital—and I graduated around 2007. That was when this big debate was going on as to whether film was the future or digital. But when I took a digital photography class toward the beginning of my education, I realized that it was the way of the future.
It was amazing to be able to get all these different pictures and put them on the computer right away. You didn’t have to scan or retouch negatives. Photoshop opened a whole other dimension of creativity that wasn’t there for me with film. So, I’m a huge fan. I think it is beautiful, and it enhances pictures in an amazing way. That said, I still have respect for and really love certain film photography. I think there’s value in it, and I do see a lot of people going back to that nowadays as a trend because so much digital photography is over-saturated.
How do you feel about representing celebrities in a flawless way?
In a flawless way?
Glossy. That very L.A. aesthetic.
I really love a polished celebrity photograph that is very well-lit and has that glossy, punchy aesthetic to it. I’ve always been inspired by that type of celebrity photography going back to the ‘70s and ‘80s with Andy Warhol and the Interview Magazine covers. I think that it brings that glamor and special sort of sparkle that we kind of associate with celebrities. I like photographing them that way because I think that’s the way I see them in my head. And so that’s the way I want to put them on paper—to show people how I see them. I feel like it’s very powerful and it’s kind of show-stopping.
What’s it like behind the scenes once you actually get to know these celebrities?
For most of my celebrity photographs, there have been a lot of collaborative experiences where I will work with the artist to figure out what their aesthetic is or what drives them. And we build a concept around that and bring it to life from there. I really like finding out more about a celebrity’s personality and their background and what they’re interested in and then pulling that into what we create together.
Who are some of your favorite celebrity photographers and why?
My absolute favorite is David LaChapelle; he’s just one of my icons. I have been very lucky to have been able to assist him at one point during my career, which was a huge highlight. I just love his take on celebrity photography. It’s so different from anything that I’ve seen and is so imaginative and creative. I really look up to the creativity that he brings to the celebrity photography world. He takes celebrities out of their worlds and puts them in this hyper-creative, colorful, aesthetically driven space that I just find so beautiful. I also love the work of Annie Leibovitz, as well as Pierre and Gilles, a French photography duo who shoot creative portraiture that’s aesthetically driven. I love Miles Aldridge, who’s more of a fashion photographer but shoots celebrities in ways that are highly creative and very colorful.
I’ve been working a lot on Powder Room Studio LA—trying to get it up and running. It only launched this past January, but I’m happy to say that we are pretty booked up at this point. We’ve been getting quite a few bookings from brands as well as individuals, and we’ve gotten some great celebrities into the studio, too, like Paris Hilton and Cardi B. The space has been getting some great recognition, and that’s still my focus.
Last question. What advice do you have for young photographers entering the industry?
I’d give them the same advice I was given when I was in photography school, which I still think about to this day. One of my professors told me that you should always shoot what you love, and that really left a lasting impression on me. I feel like if you’re not shooting what you love, you don’t really put the same passion behind it. Passion is what really shows in your overall body of work—it’s the thing that people connect with the most.
Sign up for our amNewYork email newsletter to get news, updates, and local insights delivered straight to your inbox!
Christina Aguilera doesn’t listen to her critics.
The 43-year-old singer has claimed that she doesn’t pay any attention to what people say about her music or her appearance.
The award-winning star told Glamour magazine: “I have a maturity now where I just don’t give a f*** about your opinion. I’m not going to take it on.
“It must be your responsibility to take up your space. Other people’s opinions of me are not my business.”
Christina feels she’s currently more “wide-awake and more aware” than she’s ever been.
Christina first found fame as a child, but the pop star feels she’s matured and evolved over time.
The ‘What a Girl Wants’ hitmaker explained: “This time in my life is about super-awareness.
“I know where I’ve been. I know what I’ve loved. I know what I haven’t loved. And now, more than ever, I just feel more wide-awake and more aware and more understanding. I’m not here to be a programmed robot. I’m here as a human being first before being a celebrity.”
Earlier this year, Christina claimed that women face “double standards” in the entertainment industry.
The singer feels she’s been consistently “shamed” for expressing her sexuality and “trying to empower other women” during the course of her career.
Christina – who launched Playground, her sexual wellness brand, last year – told Adweek magazine: “This has been a very comfortable and natural space for me to enter because [sexuality] has been such a big part of my life, my world, my music.
“I’ve experienced first-hand the double standards [put on women]; and I’ve been shamed for being open, for expressing myself sexually and trying to own my body, and for trying to empower other women. People are afraid of that.”
Baseball has a long and storied connection with great music. Whether it’s the walk-up music, selections from the seventh-inning stretch or anything featured in those cheesy ad campaigns, it’s these songs that speak to the sport’s greater appeal.
We’re about halfway through the 2024 Cactus League spring training season, and we’ve got America’s pastime on the brain. If you truly want to understand baseball, you need only listen to the following collection of eight songs. A mix of crowd favorites and oddball choices, the list speaks volumes about baseball’s cultural significance, its inner workings and politics, and even its core values. That, and these songs sure beat another terrible rendition of “Take Me Out to the Ball Game.”
John Mellencamp, ‘Authority Song’
Do you ever think about the role of baseball (and if so, why are you lonely)? Whereas rough-and-tumble football feels rebellious, and basketball seems too squeaky to transcend corporate connotations, baseball falls somewhere in the middle ground. Sure, it’s a multi-billion-dollar enterprise, but it’s mostly retained some down-home sensibility from its early days. Which is why John Mellencamp’s “Authority Song” feels like a great choice: It’s about a man stuck between doing what feels good (fighting, rabble-rousing) and what’s right (growing up, getting on with life), and that just feels like the best analogy for this sport. Maybe baseball leans more one way than the other these days, but that earnest spirit still imbues the game. That, and $5 beers, of course.
Wheatus, ‘Teenage Dirtbag’
Anyone who has heard “Teenage Dirtbag” — it’s been played in the neighborhood of 4 trillion times since its June 2000 release — knows that Wheatus captured something essential. Our adolescent protagonist struggles with trying to find himself and fall in love, learning a mighty lesson about the real power of self-acceptance. And baseball certainly could stand to do the same. Even if it is technically America’s pastime, baseball is often overshadowed by football and, sometimes, even basketball. Yet like the song’s titular “dirtbag,” baseball does its best when it stays true to those key elements that appeal to all fans: patriotism, honest competition and day-drinking galore. That, baseball fans, is how you get the girl — err, snag big ratings and pack ballparks.
Rise Against, ‘Hero of War’
Baseball is America’s star-spangled sports extravaganza. There’s a certain overt patriotism coloring the sport; spectators know to expect little American flag lapels on uniforms or some extra-cheesy rendition of the national anthem. That’s exactly why Rise Against’s “Hero of War” feels like the perfect song for grasping baseball’s true sense of patriotism. It checks all the major boxes: 1. a curious blend of both anti- and pro-war sentiments, 2. acoustic grooves with a sturdy alt rock energy and 3. just enough sentimentality to make this suitable for public crying. God bless America and rock ‘n’ roll.
Rob Zombie, ‘Dragula’
Most American sports don’t have the awareness or fortitude to make the hard choices in music selections. Call it corporate influence, or that BMX has a monopoly on anything dope, but baseball seeks more universal appeal. So, if the game wanted to get weird and still satisfy those corporate overlords, they could feature “Dragula” by Rob Zombie. The song’s popped up in sports before, and it needs to make more appearances. What other tune is totally weird and intense, but in a way that doesn’t really seem all that offensive (like the game itself)? Even throngs of people screaming “dig through the ditches” would be both playfully bizarre and still acceptable (also like baseball). And who doesn’t want to hear this song while skipping work on a Tuesday afternoon?
Christina Aguilera, ‘Fighter’
A few years back, Phoenix New Times spoke to Arizona Diamondbacks players about their walk-up songs. One lesson seemed immediately clear: Players put little work into their choices. They seem to pick songs less for an overt sound or message and more how they feel as it blares over loudspeakers. Which is why Christina Aguilera’s “Fighter” should be blared full volume at more parks. Is this song actually about personal empowerment and coming back from total romantic loss? Sure is. But could a team then re-appropriate it into this “Jock Jams”-esque ditty about overcoming the odds and fighting on with a champion’s heart? Yes! If years of listening to baseball songs have taught us anything, it’s the best choices reek of irony.
Rush, ‘Tom Sawyer’
A lot’s already been said about baseball as a whole. Like, how it’s got real carny vibes. Or that it’s not nearly as popular as other sports. But lest we forget, it’s also deeply nerdy. It’s something about all the emphasis on stats, the uniforms and perhaps the helmets that scream “dweeb energy.” But that’s why Rush’s seminal hit “Tom Sawyer” is the perfect song for addressing the soul of baseball. It’s this unabashedly nerdy prog-rock jam that’s all about standing as your own person. It rocks not just because of Neil Peart’s drumming (though that helps), but because the band readily embraces what makes this song so weird and left-of-center. Baseball is at its collective best doing the same, maintaining its authenticity despite all the pinstripe uniforms in the world.
Shakira, ‘Whenever, Wherever’
This choice feels like it ticks a lot of the same boxes as some of the other songs. It’s a totally weird appropriation of a song about the wonders of finding true love. It’s also kind of nerdy to admit you still happen to love it all the way in 2024. And it’s got that sense of directness and simplicity that makes for truly great baseball anthems. Yet this song does speak to a larger truth about the game: If you play it, people will come to have a little fun. This song, like baseball itself, transcends any rules or observations, and captures people’s attention for being too fun to truly deny. Maybe it’s not a perfect fit like some of the other songs, but it would kill during almost any seventh-inning stretch — especially as an entire ballpark shakes their hips in collective joy.
For her next act, Christina Aguilera is embarking on her own Las Vegas residency, and she’s given her look a total refresh for the occasion. The “Beautiful” singer is no stranger to reinvention, after all.
For her Jimmy Kimmel Live appearance on October 16, Aguilera was on trend from head to toe, starting with a chic new bob haircut and ending with thigh-high leather boots. The superstar’s fashion-forward look also included a black bodysuit layered under a cropped black zip-up hoodie layered under an oversized black leather bomber jacket. The ’fit’s pièce de résistance, however, was her bright red miniskirt printed with the image of an open mouth. I count at least four or five of this season’s hottest trends in this outfit.
RB/Bauer-Griffin
During her Kimmel interview, Aguilera was, of course, asked about another pop superstar who has done many a Las Vegas residency: Britney Jean Spears. Aguilera and Spears both began their careers in the Mickey Mouse Club in the early ’90s, so Kimmel wanted to know if Aguilera had any thoughts on Spears’s just-released memoir, The Woman in Me.
“Do you think you will be in it?” Kimmel asked. Christina Aguilera responded, “Dude, I don’t know…I’m hoping that you know, everything is all good with her and everything’s beautiful. I think the future should be celebrated.”
This article was originally published by GLAMOUR (US).
For a moment there, it seemed as though everyone was quite quick to bill Christina Aguilera as the “classier” of the two 00s icons of pop stardom, with Britney Spears long ago billed as an “inbred swamp thing” (namely, in a 2007 Rolling Stone cover story). But now, all that “good faith” has officially gone to pot. An appropriate food-related idiom in this case as Aguilera has taken to shilling for Just Eat’s recently-acquired Australian outfit, Menulog. And, although she’s not alone in the endeavor (joined by Latto on rap vocals), something about her stooping to this level is more unexpected than it is from Latto. Some will probably read that as having racist undertones, but no, it’s more about the fact that rapping women of Latto’s generation, including Cardi B (who has plugged everything from Pepsi to Balenciaga) and Ice Spice (currently shilling for Dunkin’ Donuts), have never known an existence in which debasing oneself for money via over-the-top advertising endorsements wasn’t the norm.
To be sure, this has been happening since brands and celebrities long ago unearthed the financial possibilities of their collaborative partnerships but it seemed that, once upon a time, there was a touch more tact to these “synergies.” Even in Aguilera’s “heyday,” circa 1999 to 2006, there was a less schlock-y feel than what she’s just put out into the world with Latto. This could, in part, have to do with print ads being more viable back then, allowing celebrities to say more by saying nothing at all. Just sporting the wares. Of course, in Menulog’s instance, food can’t exactly be sported (unless we’re talking that quintessential scene from Varsity Blues). And so, instead, Aguilera and Latto opt to sing passionately about the many possibilities of the app when it comes to ordering food.
Not least of which includes, per Latto’s rap, “Oh you thought it was just burgers and fries?/They got more flavors than you tasted or you heard in your life.” Already, with the implication that flavors can be “heard,” it’s clear that “sensicality” isn’t exactly what matters. Not in this commercial, and certainly not in life. After all, if life made sense, those with greater privilege wouldn’t abuse those given little other choice but to do a job so abusive and low-paying (especially considering said abuse) as delivering slop for Menulog.
Aguilera is no stranger to the advertising game, of course. In 2003, she followed in Spears’ footsteps by promoting Skechers in a series of print ads (this after Spears had parted ways with Skechers, effectively making Christina Aguilera “sloppy seconds”). Then there have been her more recent ventures, including becoming a spokesperson for Playground (a sexual wellness brand) and Merz Aesthetics. The latter company had Aguilera focusing on the promotion of Xeomin, an injectable intended to reduce between-the-eyebrow-centered frown lines. Ironically, the campaign was called “Beauty On Your Terms.” Of course, if beauty were on anyone’s terms except the patriarchy’s, women wouldn’t be worrying so goddamn much about frown lines, and, in effect, might actually not have as many to try to hide.
At present, Aguilera appears to want to assure that people can “just eat” on their own terms as well. Even if Latto is doing most of the heavy lifting on the lyrical delivery, further assuring viewers, “Ooh, this is what the app do/It ain’t only fast food/Switchin’ styles like opera to rap tunes.” As for that mention of “opera,” this is where both Aguilera and the setting of the commercial itself come in. Presenting a world of “opulence” as both Latto and Aguilera appear in a Versailles-type palace wearing Marie Antoinette-inspired gowns. Because, evidently, when you order from Menulog, it makes you feel like a queen. Or such is the intended seduction of this capitalistic endeavor. One in which even food has to be weaponized as a “status symbol.”
That said, in every scenario where status is involved, someone has to play the part of “lowly servant” in order to make the bourgeoisie feel like they’re in their “higher echelon.” So it is that, whether realizing it or not, the creative team behind the commercial, directed by Dave Meyers, has effectively pitted the haves and have-nots against each other by featuring orange uniform-wearing (perhaps an unwitting nod to how work feels like a prison) delivery folk dancing around Latto and Aguilera, ultimately in a servile position (which includes pushing Latto in a cart). The previous celebrity commercials for Just Eat’s “Did Somebody Say” (featuring Snoop Dogg and Katy Perry, respectively), predicated on the same concept, didn’t parade servility quite so overtly, but when a baroque premise is involved, perhaps it’s more difficult to mask the fact that some people are eating and some people are just hustling to get this bread.
Especially now that delivery has expanded into the grocery store market, which Latto is sure to call out in the lyrics, “And it ain’t only restaurants anymore/We can go bananas at the grocery store.” Even Australian grocery stores, as Menulog is the Just Eat-owned brand being pushed here. And maybe some part of Aguilera agreed to sign on in the hope that the U.S. wouldn’t bother with watching the widely-available ad (such is the curse of the internet rendering all content as viewable to anyone, no matter what country an ad is really being catered to). Latto doesn’t appear to have any sense of shame about doing what needs to be done to collect her paycheck as she continues to do most of the work while Aguilera “ehs” and “ahs” bombastically in the background. However, for most of the “song,” it feels like a solo effort, with Latto also adding, “I’m a bad girl, but my takeout badder/What you need dude? I could cop a taco platter/Thai rice, sticky-icky/Gyoza on the side, fried right ‘cause we kind picky.” As the scene then cuts to the Marie Antoinette-attired duo riding in a gondola through a stream bedecked on either side with fountains, Latto continues, “Breakfast or lunch, hon/Dinner or brunch/Wanna find the finest dining?/I got a hunch.”
We’re then taken back to the interior just after Aguilera softly sings, “And some hot tall dude’s bringing buns to the ballroom.” Heavy-handed sexual innuendo aside, this line also verbally calls out the visuals of servility we’ve seen already. Making it worse still as the rich fetishize the working class as something to be ogled while they work. Ergo, Latto building on that lyric right after by saying, “Got me a strong coffee/Let’s get it on, papi.” Unfortunately, for as harmlessly cracked-out as they thought the lyrics might be (including, “Ice cream with my magazine, who can stop me?”), it only ends up highlighting the chasm between those who work for Just Eat/Menulog and those who order from it. Never mind the fact that those who order from the app are laboring under the false illusion of “luxury” anyway, what with a large portion of restaurants that Just Eat peddles on their website not exactly being fully up to the most hygienic of standards. So there’s that for sticking it to the bourgeoisie, essentially paying to having it “stuck” to them.
As for the seeming “randomness” of tapping Aguilera and Latto for this ad, the entire concept of wielding celebrities to promote Just Eat also speaks to the blueprint of what Bonnie Fuller (the former editor-in-chief of Us Weekly) came up with via the magazine segment known as “Stars: They’re Just Like Us.” In the end, the hoi polloi wants to be reassured, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they’re not the only ones “relegated” to using something as middle-class as Just Eat. And the trick seems to have worked, with positive feedback in the comments section touting, “We want an extended single version of this! Christina sounds incredible and Latto is fire” and “This NEEDS to be a single!!!!”
Does it though? Because it’s rather superfluous to try to pass of the ad as anything other than another cringeworthy hurrah for capitalism (and its place within the celebrity-industrial complex). Aguilera didn’t get that message at all. For, soon after the commercial aired, she took to her Instagram to post a behind-the-scenes video of her and Latto on set, choosing “Can’t Hold Us Down” featuring Lil’ Kim to soundtrack it. Apart from the slightly racist implications of selecting one of her only songs featuring a Black woman to play up working with another female rapper in the present, Aguilera further insulted people’s intelligence by captioning it, “This is for the girls” (a nod to the chorus of “Can’t Hold Us Down”). Like, really, Xtina? Is a commercial about food delivery “for the girls”? Is this the best the feminist movement can do? Level the playing field for women to be as obsessed with “filling their bag” as men? If that’s the case, might as well get back in the kitchen. No need for ordering delivery then.
Ice Spice blew a metaphorical kiss to Britney Spears, Madonna, and Christina Aguilera at the 2023 MTV VMAs on Sept. 12. In honor of the trio’s iconic performance at the VMAs exactly two decades ago, the rapper walked the red carpet in a sheer bridal dress with lacy tights and a voluminous tutu. Spice’s style team completed the elegant ensemble with silver jewelry and strappy heels with rhinestone embellishments.
Spice’s dress featured a satin corset bodice with lacy sleeves that transformed into fingerless gloves at the ends of her wrists. At the waist, the dress puffed out in either direction, boasting multiple layers of floral lace. The delicate, sheer fabric appeared again along the neckline and on both sides of the bodice, marking two large cutouts along her back. Spice kept the ornate design going with a pair of see-through tights and bedazzled sandals. Around her neck, the rapper also wore a rhinestone collar and layered chain necklaces in silver, the perfect complement to her Moon Person for best new artist.
The frilly design is a clear homage to Spears and Aguilera’s outfits at the 2003 VMAs, which in themselves were nods to Madonna’s 1984 MTV VMAs performance when she sang “Like a Virgin.” The 2003 performance began with the megastars strutting onstage to the tune of “Like a Virgin” in full wedding dresses, complete with tulle veils and flower bouquets. As the track transitioned to Madonna’s “Hollywood,” the singer emerged in a groom-inspired tuxedo look complete with a top hat. The performance — including the trio’s outfits — has since been memorialized as one of the most iconic moments in award show history.
Though Spice’s outfit looked incredible regardless of its significance, the clear homage to such a historic award show makes her ensemble that much more special. Later in the evening, she changed into a sheer maxi dress with a plunging, lace-up design that stretched down either side of her silhouette. Along the back, the ruching of the transparent fabric split at the knees, creating a subtle slit that gave a glimpse at her white pointed-toe stilettos.
Ahead, admire Spice’s sartorial tribute to Spears, Aguilera, and Madonna, and take a closer look at its original inspiration.
Christina Aguilera’s dress shows a lot of body — but not necessarily her own. While attending Vogue’s Smart Tox event on Sept. 7 during New York Fashion Week, the singer stood out in a colorful naked illusion dress by the brand Feben. The design featured a green and yellow bodice à la the famous Venus de Milo, shaping Aguilera’s own curves to look like the sculpture’s. The original painting on the dress — created by artist Jaana-Kristiina Alakoski — included a vivid oil-slick of colors, dripping down from the top of Aguilera’s neckline, all the way down to her long sleeves.
Styled by Chris Horan, Aguilera accessorized the bright bodycon ensemble with olive green sunglasses, a matching clutch, and metallic gold knee-high boots from Steve Madden. She left her long platinum-blond hair down and completed the look with minimal gold jewelry to keep the attention on the art.
The naked dress trend originally meant showing skin through sheer fabrics, as seen with Florence Pugh’s braless couture at the Valentino Couture show and Ciara’s fishnet gown at the Oscars afterparty. But more recently, some celebrities have debuted much more literal interpretations, including Kourtney Kardashian, who in January wore a similar nude illusion dress with a Renaissance-era print. These nude optical illusions result in quite the sexy trend warranting a double take. Don’t believe us? See Aguilera’s colorful spin below.
Christina Aguilera is in her bag . . . literally. On July 31, the singer showed off her latest bold look: a sparkly micro miniskirt that looks just like a purse. A straight-off-the-runway design from Namilia’s spring 2024 collection, the skirt is covered in pink crystals and made to resemble a Birkin bag, complete with a rounded top handle, silver hardware, three flaps, and a bell-shaped pendant. With input from stylist Chris Horan, Aguilera paired it with a black T-shirt, “Barbie-foot heels,” black embellished A-Morir sunglasses, and a piecey, Y2K-style updo. “Precious Goods,” she captioned her Instagram post, followed by a pink-bow emoji.
Namilia’s latest collection, which debuted during Berlin Fashion Week last month, is titled “In Loving Memory of My Sugar Daddy.” The clothes are a celebration of “the self-made millionaire that is the gold digger,” according to the German brand’s website. The Birkin design is featured heavily throughout the subversive line, popping up on dresses, bra tops, corsets, garters, and even thongs. Other eye-catching pieces include an oversize red tote bag that reads “TRAGIC” in silver crystal font and a handbag that looks like both a tissue box and a vulva.
Aguilera is a known fan of edgy fashion. Earlier this summer, the star wore a leather lace-up corset and matching cutout pants to headline the Lovers & Friends festival in Las Vegas. The month prior, she rocked a completely sheer Versace catsuit covered in zebra stripes for the Breakthrough Prize ceremony. Aguilera is also not afraid to take beauty risks, flashing a 3D vagina manicure during her “Call Her Daddy” interview in April. When it comes to the Grammy winner’s looks, we should always expect the unexpected.
Ahead, take a closer look at Aguilera’s Namilia purse skirt and see how models wore the quirky design on the runway.
The stars came out to celebrate Selena Gomez on her birthday!
On Saturday, the “Only Murders in the Building” star turned 31, and gave her followers a look at her birthday celebration.
“31,” she wrote next to the photo carousel from the evening. Gomez’s post led with a picture that put her outfit on display. For the occasion, the “Look at Her Now” singer wore a red dress with floral accents. Channeling old Hollywood, Gomez, wore her hair pinned in an updo, with a bang in the front.
Adding to her look, the Rare Beauty founder wore a pair of strappy black sandals with a red flower on the back. The post also gave Gomez’s followers a look at the guest list. Gomez posed with her best friend Nicola Peltz Beckham in one photo. In another, she stands in between Paris Hilton and music producer, Benny Blanco.
The photo set also included pictures of Gomez dancing behind the DJ booth and blowing out large sparkler candles on her red and white birthday cake.
Over on her Instagram Story, Gomez shared a sweet moment with Christina Aguilera as they hug and pose for the camera. The fun didn’t stop with her party, the “Hands to Myself” singer also shared pictures from a special screening of the “Barbie” movie.
Selena Gomez/Instagram Selena Gomez/Instagram
Gomez also shared a sweet birthday wish, posted by Peltz Beckham, in her honour.
“Happy birthday to my soul sister @selenagomez 🤍 I love you more than you know. I am so blessed to have you by my side in this life thank you for being such a beautiful light in this world 🤍 I hope your day is so perfect and all your wishes come true 🤍,” she wrote next to a picture of her, Gomez and Brooklyn Beckham.
Gomez also took a moment to mark her birthday with a personal accomplishment. The former “Wizards of Waverly Place” star thanked her followers for contributing to her mental health initiative through the Rare Impact Fund.
“I am thankful for so much in my life and one of the things I am most thankful for is the work we’ve been able to do with the Rare Impact Fund through @Rarebeauty. Because of YOU we’ve been able to raise awareness and increase access to mental health services for young people,” she captioned the post that shows her blowing out candles. “This is my true passion in life. People keep asking me what I want for my birthday, and I tell everyone the same thing please do not get me anything but if you want to do something for my birthday, please donate to the Rare Impact Fund. If you have the means, consider donating to help us make a difference.”
I grew up during Disney Channel’s golden era — you know exactly what I’m talking about. It was the when Disney Channel Original Movies (DCOMs) were at their prime and peak Disney TV starring the Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, the Sprouse twins, and more. In hindsight, it was wild. There has never been such a hotbed for stardom since Ryan Gosling, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, and Christina Aguilera were all on the Mickey Mouse Club.
And, yes, as I continue growing up I miss having these lighthearted shows and movies to watch. Every so often, my roommates and I will binge Disney movies like High School Musical or classics like The Princess Diaries. But lately, there’s been a shift.
Has anyone noticed that we as a society are lacking a little…creativity? I mean, sure, it’s completely normal to crave a little dose of your childhood here and there — who isn’t comforted by memories of your life before you had an overwhelming sense of anxiety. But I almost feel as though we’ve gotten too comfortable with bringing back the old.
Some of the nostalgia-inducing events are exciting. Think: the fervor for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour or The Jonas Brothers’ The Tour, where they play all of their old songs spanning their entire career. It’s exciting and it’s a good way to get fans of old and new in the room.
We’re also in an era of reboots galore. Take a short glance at any of your streaming platforms and you’ll see a lot of familiar titles. Former early 2000s favorites like Zoey 101, iCarly, and That’s So Raven are finding themselves back on our television screens. And if you think that’s all…oh, boy.
Some reboots are reimaginations of the show…like Gossip Girl with a new cast and fresh, young faces. While others are continuations of the show just in the future – think iCarly and Zoey 101 (the reboot being Zoey 102).
And then, there’s Disney.
Disney is constantly trying to get the older generations into theaters, not only with Marvel, but with live action remakes of our favorite films. Over the past decade, we’ve seen versions of Aladdin, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and most recently, The Little Mermaid. And while I surely will watch out of curiosity and lack of alternatives, I’m always left feeling a little underwhelmed.
Nostalgia-core is literally everywhere. It’s in the way we dress, with Y2K trends consistently leading the pack. People are preferring jelly shoes and mini skirts over any other decades-inspired trend. But when do we border the line between nostalgia and overdoing something?
Maybe it’s because we went through a global pandemic for so many years, we are craving stability and childhood…going back to our roots and finding comfort in what we know after a lot of uncertainty. Watching reboots of your fave show or movie can feel like the adult version of a pacifier.
Or maybe it’s because we have completely lost identity in today’s society…where we can’t thrive on anything but the past. Unoriginal ideas cycling back into the trendscape just because we can’t think of anything new.
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality. If something is getting those viewers in and bringing in the money, why wouldn’t they keep rebooting shows? Why wouldn’t Disney just make live action versions of their entire filmography? That way, they can release one original and make it really amazing in the interim.
One thing I know for sure is that trends recycle all the time. There was a time not so long ago where anything low-rise was considered a fashion crime and you wouldn’t dare wear Crocs out of your house unironically. But in the early 2000s, and subsequently in 2023, you would be considered right on trend.
And while the Disney films will always be successful in some capacity, I don’t know if every show needs a reboot. Some shows ended where they ended, and that’s how it should stay. Honestly, I feel like I’m getting bored too easily, I already know the plotline of everything coming out!
With popular shows like Succession and Ted Lasso in their final episodes forever, we are met with the realization that we will soon run out of original content if we keep rebooting everything. And yes, I get that a reboot is still somehow original if it’s a continuation of the series…you know that’s not my point here.
So, I’m left with the question: when is it time to let the past be….the past?
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.
“…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).
Pink is setting the record straight after she criticized the 2001 music video for her collaboration with Christina Aguilera on “Lady Marmalade.”
During an interview with Buzzfeed UK, Pink ranked the music video in last place on a list of 12 of her “most iconic music videos.” “It wasn’t very fun to make. I’m all about fun and it was like, a lot of fuss, and there were some personalities,” she told the outlet.
Pink added, “Lil Kim and Mýa were nice,” of the other “Lady Marmalade” collaborators.
Her remarks quickly went viral, with many online commentators saying Pink was “shading” Aguilera.
Over the weekend, Pink took to Twitter to shut down rumors once and for all. “Y’all are nuts,” said, addressing those spreading “shading” comments. “Xtina had sh** to do with who was on that song. If you don’t know by now- I’m not “shading” someone by telling it over and over and over what actually happened.”
Y’all are nuts Xtina had shit to do with who was on that song.If you don’t know by now- I’m not “shading” someone by telling it over and over and over what actually happened. I’m zero percent interested in your fucking drama. If you haven’t noticed- I’m a little busy selling https://t.co/f9RLuotptf
Pink continued, “I’m zero percent interested in your f***ing drama. If you haven’t noticed- I’m a little busy selling.”
In a follow-up tweet, Pink hilariously clarified what she meant by “selling.” “And by selling- I mean tickets and albums and bake sales and s***,” she wrote.
To wrap up the online chatter, Pink referenced a kiss she and Aguilera once shared during a game of spin-the-bottle, “Also- I kissed xtinas mouth. I don’t need to kiss her ass.”
Fans of Pink and Aguilera know the singers have publicly feuded and made up in the past. In a 2009 VH1 Behind the Music episode, Pink said that a record executive overstepped during the making of “Lady Marmalade.”
“What’s the high part? What’s the most singing part? Christina’s going to take that part,” the record exec declared, according to Pink. “I stood up, and I said ‘Hi. How are you? So nice of you to introduce yourself. I’m Pink. She will not be taking that part. I think that’s what the f***ing meeting’s about,’” Pink said.
However, nearly a decade later, Pink and Aguilera worked together on “The Voice” in 2016, with Pink serving as a mentor for Aguilera’s team.
“We made up on ‘The Voice’, because I hadn’t seen her in years and years and years and we became moms,” Pink told Andy Cohen during an appearance on ‘Watch What Happens Live’. “We grew up and we hugged it out.”
To commemorate the twentieth anniversary of Stripped—the album that Christina Aguilera carved out for herself to assure the masses she wasn’t just another “cookie-cutter” pop star—Xtina has released an updated music video, if you will, for “Beautiful.” As one of the most popular and enduring singles from Stripped (apart from, obviously, “Dirrty”), it makes sense that she would choose to “revamp” it for this reason alone. And yet, because society has become more “beauty”-obsessed in the past two decades (despite claims of being more “body positive” and “all-embracing” than ever), “Beautiful” is an undeniably pointed choice on Aguilera’s part.
At the time of Stripped’s release in 2002, critics were less than kind to it, with many claiming its lack of cohesion in terms of musical themes was part of the “problem.” And yet, if Stripped sounds like a sonic “hodge-podge,” maybe it was because Aguilera was still becoming a fully-formed adult (twenty-one going on twenty-two when Stripped was “unleashed”). And with its re-issuing today, it’s also funny to note how appropriate the news clips played in “Stripped Intro” remain, with sound bites like, “Christina Britney rivalry” and “We’re gonna let Christina tell her side of the story.” Obviously, Brit has been the one stoking that rivalry of late, which finally prompted Aguilera to unfollow her on Instagram (before Spears yet again deleted the account) after some ostensible body-shaming about her dancers was made. That particular feud still being relevant—“evergreen,” as Lady Gaga would say—also plays into how “Beautiful” itself is. And will remain forever so (or at least until humanity’s collapse).
In 2002, the pervasiveness of glossy print magazines ranging from YM to Seventeen to Glamour might have felt dangerous to a young woman’s body image, along with tabloid-esque rags like Us Weekly and Life & Style. But that would turn out to be nothing compared to what social media could wreak upon the psyche. For while it gave celebrities far more agency in terms of “setting the record straight” about their personal lives, it also allowed them a platform to promote the same tropes about what a body “should be.” This has included Kim Kardashian’s carefully-curated hourglass figure that’s still not “fat” at all compared to, say, “average American fat” (you know, driving three feet to get to the McDonald’s and such). A look that has caused many to want the same surgical procedure required to “achieve” this particular “aesthetic” (that is to say, a plucked turkey). And with the advent of more celebrities peddling their wares in the beauty industry via brands like Kylie Cosmetics, Fenty and R.E.M., fans and acolytes have found even more ways to attempt “perfection.” A.k.a. trying to emulate the celebrity they worship physically.
It was Lindsay Lohan as Cady Heron who said in 2004’s Mean Girls, “Apparently, there’s a lot of things that can be wrong on your body.” This is what she internally remarks upon after her new “friends,” Regina (Rachel McAdams), Gretchen (Lacey Chabert) and Karen (Amanda Seyfried), all stare at the mirror to point out their flaws. “My hips are huge,” Gretchen complains. Karen rebuffs, “Oh please, I hate my calves.” “At least you guys can wear halters, I’ve got man shoulders,” Regina adds. Gretchen continues, “My hairline is so weird,” followed by Regina noting, “My pores are huge” and Karen chiming in, “My nail beds suck.” This, however, would be nothing compared to the minutiae one could grasp at to find “wrong” with their appearance once the likes of Instagram arrived onto the scene.
Thanks to filters and other modifications made through apps (see: Madonna), anyone can look “perfect” on such a medium. Then, of course, TikTok came along to add numerous DIY beauty “hacks” into the mix that are far more dangerous than helpful (e.g., pore vacuuming, mole scraping, sunscreen contouring [meaning one applies sunscreen to only certain parts of the face to create a contouring effect after tanning] and “DIY” lip fillers—what could possibly go wrong?). So yes, despite 2002 being a more problematic time in certain ways, it was actually a safer time in many others.
Noticeably missing from the “reboot” edition of “Beautiful” is Aguilera herself, along with the famous opening whisper, “Don’t look at me” (which Damian [Daniel Franzese] in Mean Girls—for it all goes back to that movie—made all his own at the talent show). What’s more, there’s far less “grit” to the 2022 version, perhaps because ’02 was more oppressive, especially in terms of people still needing to feel as though they should hide their sexuality. Which is precisely why Xtina received a GLAAD award for featuring, among other marginalized people, two gay men kissing as onlookers watch in disgust in the original video—all while she declares, “I am beautiful no matter what they say.” Beauty expanding into many different definitions in terms of what certain people (*cough cough* conservatives) see as “ugly.”
Elsewhere, director Jonas Åkerlund (perhaps most famed for Madonna’s “Ray of Light”) gives us a scene of tangible bullying—which has since moved into the online space—as a girl with braces is knocked to the ground by her peers. To create a parallel thread from past to present, we’re also given a similar scene to one we’ll see in “Beautiful (2022).” Relating back to the teen boy in 02’s edition who has images of bodybuilders plastered all over his wall, and then proceeds to feebly try lifting a giant weight.
In another “vignette” from the original, a Black girl ripping up magazine images (because, again, magazines were the thing at the time—the ultimate tastemakers of beauty) of all the, you guessed it, white ladies being shown to her as the gold standard is also a powerful moment. And, at the very least, that’s one element that has noticeably changed in the past twenty years: representation. Granted, the media at large is still a long way away from fully mirroring reality in terms of our non-dominated-by-whites world.
Another cut in the original “Beautiful” reveals a goth guy sitting down on the bus, prompting everyone in the seats near him to scatter. In the present context, maybe that would stem from an inherent fear of him being an incel likely to go on a shooting rampage.
As the song reaches its crescendo of a bridge, everyone who has been featured in the video suddenly seems to be at peace with who they really are, as the anorexic girl smashes the mirror she’s been studying herself in, the girl with braces proceeds to smile through her tears, the girl who was ripping up magazines lies down on the couch with an aura of satisfaction and acceptance, the gay couple keeps kissing, the transgender woman keeps putting on her accoutrements of femininity, the goth guy sits on the bus unbothered and the thin guy flexes his muscle in defiance.
Perhaps the most glaring difference between what Xtina sought to highlight then and now is the fact that the obsession with beauty is hitting one’s consciousness even earlier on in life. This time around directed by Fiona Jane Burgess, the video opens with two shots of different boys staring at their glowing phones, followed by a girl doing the same. The latter hearing, “Because life for a man is harder than life for a woman.” We then cut to another girl applying makeup in front of her phone with a signature selfie light illuminating her face for just the right “halo” glow. Aguilera also calls out how it’s not a coincidence that there’s been a major increase on the dependency of antidepressants (on full display in a vending machine) and other pharmaceuticals that purport to put a “fixed it” stamp on people’s issues rather than addressing what’s at the core of the mental health crisis to begin with (hint hint: capitalism).
And yet, she “keeps it classic” in other ways by featuring a girl on her bed (cot, rather) with a barrage of images parading quintessential “hot girls” in bikinis marking up most of her wall. Another “analog” form of self-hatred is revealed by a boy in a similar room (except it’s a hospital) staring at a razor on his desk, as though trying not to cut himself with it.
The bodybuilding motif appears again as well, with a crowd of P.E. class-looking teens filming a Black man lifting weights (which somehow comes across as fetishistic). This is intercut with scenes of girls in matching blue vinyl skirts and crop tops (as though they raided Romy and Michele’s closet) sitting at their own individual “work stations” applying makeup in front of their phones with a selfie light like that first girl we saw. Xtina then transitions into a Nip/Tuck-esque series of scenes that emphasizes how much more pervasive and “normalized” plastic surgery has become in the culture. This montage also being shown as a circle of people stoically film the one they’re “studying” but not actually “seeing.”
Being more literal at times than she was in the original, Xtina sanctions the image of the girl with the collaged wall putting a puzzle together as the lyrics, “Trying hard to fill the emptiness/The pieces gone, left the puzzle undone” play over it. And, eventually, Burgess relies on the same storytelling device as Åkerlund: offering us the barrage of triumphant smiles through the pain, with a concluding scene featuring a group of girls climbing a tree together harmoniously (this being decidedly 2002, in that it seems children scarcely engage in such tactile behavior anymore). It’s a moment that speaks to how Xtina wanted to remind us of the importance of the song’s message for the sake of her own children growing up in this even more fucked-up time period (again, despite cries of how much “better” it is now). Which is why she stated, “Today, it’s harder than ever to hear our own voice amongst so many others infiltrating our feeds and minds with mixed messaging…ultimately leading us to tune-out our own truth and self-worth. The original ‘Beautiful’ video set out to bring awareness and a sense of compassion in the face of judgment, criticism and outside opinions. It still carries an important message to remember our core values outside of what’s being fed to us…to find a sense of balance and accepting ourselves for who we are.”
The tag to “Beautiful (2022)” then provides the visual of a turned-off phone bleeding like a body would, with the caption, “In the last twenty years, since Stripped was first released, social media has transformed our relationship with our bodies, and in turn, our mental health. Research suggests that time spent on social networking sites is associated with body image issues, self-harm and disordered eating in children and teens. This needs to change.” Of course, whether it actually will or not appears unlikely. What’s more worrisome is the potential contrast between this edition of the video and the one that might be created for another anniversary twenty years on from now. At which point, the environment might have finally forced people to pull their head out of their own ass with regard to vanity.
:quality(85):upscale()/2023/09/13/834/n/1922564/70909c9d650206eddc07a3.63139557_.jpg)
:quality(85):upscale()/2023/09/08/816/n/1922564/d86043bc64fb696478b5c2.86872745_.jpg)
:quality(85):upscale()/2023/08/01/705/n/1922564/5da3c00064c92afbe59185.70838941_.jpg)
