ReportWire

Tag: Culled Culture

  • 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

  • Not Commenting on People’s Bodies Would Eradicate Way Too Many Industries: Why the Ariana Grande Body Shaming Speech Is Ultimately Hollow

    Not Commenting on People’s Bodies Would Eradicate Way Too Many Industries: Why the Ariana Grande Body Shaming Speech Is Ultimately Hollow

    [ad_1]

    To exist is, unfortunately, to be perceived. And, in this world, there’s no shortage of people who would like to comment on their perception of you. Being a celebrity takes that phenomenon to an nth degree that no civilian can likely imagine. However, it is (and long has been) considered part and parcel of “the fame game.” For if a person wants to be in the public eye for the sake of disseminating whatever their talent is to the masses, the inevitable fallout is the curse of public opinion. Not everyone is going to “love” you or automatically embrace everything about you, least of all when it comes to appearance.

    Lately, the frequent criticism of fans themselves is that they are not “real” fans if they deign to condemn anything about their so-called god. That’s where the modern fandom-fame dynamic has gone terribly askew. For the die-hard fans (of a Swarm variety) are of the belief that no “ill word” should ever be spoken of the “deity” they worship. This extends to fault-finding of any kind—read: straightforward perceptions of the body. Remarking on if a celebrity has lost or gained weight is at the top of the list (as Britney once put it, “I’m Mrs. She’s Too Big Now She’s Too Thin”). This includes Grande’s increasingly “heroin chic” look. And yes, she was already objectively thin to begin with. Such “objectivity,” however, is something that Grande wants people to feel “less comfortable” commenting on, even if it’s coming from a “well-intentioned” place. Which it was, as what prompted Grande to release a video chastising this form of body shaming in the first place was the barrage of comments that came in the wake of her cameo at Ronnie Scott’s Jazz Club in London, where she and Cynthia Erivo went to see their fellow Wicked co-star, Jeff Goldblum (who will be, of all things, the Wizard of Oz), play the piano. Alas, all eyes were focused on her ever-diminishing body shape rather than the music.

    A similar incident occurred in May of 2005, when Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan (then in greater cahoots perhaps because of a shared mutual contempt for Paris Hilton) were photographed looking utterly anorexic as they swam in their floor-length dresses with arms that mirrored those of a starving African child. Cue the onslaught of tabloid headlines. While Richie would later state that her weight loss was a result of stress and anxiety rather than any eating disorder, she still admitted of her 00s self, “I see a girl that is obviously going through something and is much too skinny [and probably on drugs, went the unspoken conclusion].” Lohan, in turn, copped to battling with bulimia (and drug addiction) around this time. Both women had no issue in discussing their bodies or addressing people’s continued concerns about the message their shared (lack of) figure was sending. At the height of tabloid “culture,” maybe it was too “normalized” to be okay with dissecting headlines that dissected one’s body. But, at the same time, Lohan and Richie were in on the joke. And relished the then-revered “skinny bitch” physique. So much so that Lohan even wore a shirt that said “Skinny Bitch” and Richie threw a Memorial Day barbeque that barred guests over a hundred pounds (“There will be a scale at the front door. No girls over 100 pounds allowed in. Start starving yourself now”). Such acts would invoke immediate cancellation in the present, to be sure.

    Left: Lohan lapping up her skinny bitch era before it really happened on the right, with Nicole Richie

    Perhaps because Grande is, in her own way, an honorary member of Gen Z (as a result of her vocal advocacy for mental health), she’s drunk from that Kool-Aid for too long to remember what she truly is: a millennial. Of the Lohan and Richie generation, even if slightly younger than they are. This forming the weird chasm to become part of a microgeneration (something that never needed to exist before everything and “trend” started to accelerate at such a rapid speed due to waning attention spans spurred by the internet). And Lohan and Richie know better than anyone that trying to steer the public away from their opinions is fruitless. If anything, it makes them cling to those “freedom of speech” rights all the more.

    But what’s most glaring about Grande’s “earnest plea” is that she’s trying to tell a society that traffics in the financial profits of various forms of body shaming (including, at the top of the list, beauty products) that they should no longer be so critical. The thought of such an amendment to human (nay, consumer) behavior actually occurring is not only absurd, but entirely far-fetched. Especially within the celebrity-industrial complex that Grande operates within. Not to mention Selena Gomez, another recent victim of the body shaming discourse that led to her own clapback at “fans” (again, as they’re so derisively put in quotation marks when they speak ill of their god) the same way Grande did on TikTok Live. Establishing the blueprint for Grande, Gomez declared, “I just wanted to say and encourage anyone out there who feels any sort of shame for exactly what [you’re] going through, [when] nobody knows the real story… you’re beautiful and you’re wonderful.” Grande echoed the same sentiments with, “You never know what someone is going through. So even if you are coming from a loving place and a caring place, that person is probably working on it. Or has a support system that they are working on it with and…you never know. So be gentle with each other.” She added, “I just wanted to extend some love your way and tell you that you’re beautiful no matter what phase you’re in…no matter what you’re going through, no matter what weight…no matter how you like to do your makeup these days, no matter what cosmetic procedures you’ve had or not…I just think you’re beautiful.” Of course, that’s easy to say when you can’t actually see who you’re talking to.

    As for the specific mention of makeup, it bears noting that both Ariana Grande and Selena Gomez make a large chunk of their profits off that industry via their R.E.M. and Rare Beauty lines, respectively. Whatever the makeup is being marketed as (“inclusive,” “natural,” etc.), it’s still ultimately designed to be used as a tool to mask one’s “authentic” self. For if that’s truly what we all wanted to be, makeup wouldn’t be a billion-dollar industry. Or plastic surgery. Or fashion, for that matter. And, speaking of, Grande is “the face” of one of the most elitist names in haute couture, Givenchy. Also a brand that has long worshipped at the altar of Audrey Hepburn-level thinness (spoiler alert: Hepburn got that thin by being malnourished as a child during World War II). Indeed, Grande is meant to be some sort of “2.0” version of Hepburn’s waif-based poise and elegance. But no, she insists, we should not comment on bodies—even as she proceeds to make much of her bag on the discourse that surrounds them. This, too, cuts straight to the issue that no one’s addressing (least of all a celebrity): capitalism.

    The only reason to comment on bodies and create a “narrative” centered on what’s “hot” and “not” in that “realm” (e.g., Kim Kardashian’s physique usurping the rail-thin one of Paris Hilton’s after the 00s) is because it’s profitable to multiple industries. And it’s not just limited to beauty and fashion. It creates a ripple effect in every facet of purchasable existence—from foods consumed to exercise habits that can be paid for. And it’s something every celebrity benefits from financially. Even the much-exalted Lizzo, who has also entered the chat again as a result of Grande’s video, with people bringing up her own anti-body shaming tirade from January of this year in which she announces, “The discourse around bodies is officially tired.” “Tired” or not, it’s still a source of major income to many involved in the fame racket. And even selling “body positivity” is a part of that. The weaponization of language (such as censoring people from stating the obvious in a way that makes them feel fearful to speak at all), of course, is one of the first steps in fully activating 1984. Yet our society is bifurcating into a separate territory from that Orwellian nightmare as well, one in which the jettisoning of the body seems to be related to the increasing reliance on “uploading consciousness” (as Grimes said, “Come on you’re not even alive/If you’re not backed up on a drive”).

    In a Nightline special addressing Gomez’s defense of her body, an archival clip of Lizzo being interviewed was included as she said, “We as a society have normalized cruelty to a point where we have internalized cruelty.” Again, does everyone need to be hit over the head with the obvious reason why? C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M. Apparent cuntiness sells. In tabloid-oriented form as much as fashion and makeup form.

    Despite this, an ABC news contributor who appeared on the special, Kelley L. Carter, concluded, “I don’t think people want perfection out of celebrities anymore. I think they want celebrities that they can see themselves in.” Or at least, “the raw material” of themselves. For “fame as a profession” (a.k.a. going viral) has never been more lusted after than it is in the present climate. And if people—“real,” “average-looking” people—can see themselves in a celebrity, then yeah, that’s still a goldmine for the capitalist cause. Which has thrived on body shaming for centuries (see: the below ad as one of countless examples).

    Selling shit by shaming people is an American tradition that won’t be quelled with any hypocritical celebrity pep talks

    All of this talk about “not commenting on celebrity appearance” also plays into the idea that it isn’t safe to say anything anymore, and certainly not to call a spade a spade (i.e., a fat person fat or a thin person thin). At least, in U.S. culture. But imagine telling a culture as hyper-critical and in-your-face as the Italians to keep their comments to themselves. To that end, it was Stefano Gabbana who outright called Gomez “brutta” in 2018. This leading to another conversation about why he should be lambasted for expressing an opinion since, as it is said (often falsely when it comes to selling fashion through models), “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

    Whatever “effect” Grande’s video might have inflicted for a brief twenty-four-hour period in the news cycle, it’s not likely to shift the bottom line: if celebrities truly want to stop the “body shaming” they’re faced with, then the only thing to do is 1) use their fortune to go back in time and not become famous or 2) retreat into the “wilderness” like J. D. Salinger. Or better yet, renounce capitalism to be a truly commendable role model. As both Grande and Gomez have been branded for their stance against shaming…never acknowledging that all shame stems from our collective commitment to prostitution.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Against One’s Better Judgment, It’s Easy to Heed Romy Urging You to “Enjoy Your Life”

    Against One’s Better Judgment, It’s Easy to Heed Romy Urging You to “Enjoy Your Life”

    [ad_1]

    Although Romy Madley Croft, better known as the xx’s Romy or just Romy, still has yet to give us that solo album she teased back in 2020, at least she keeps releasing singles to placate listeners until the full-length debut arrives. And it all started with “Lifetime” almost a complete three years ago (a “lifetime” ago, as it were). It was with that specific single that Romy established herself as an artist with a jubilant message to convey. In contrast to much of her work with the xx, there is less a tone of moroseness and more a tone of ebullience in the singles she’s bequeathed us with thus far (e.g. “Lights Out” and “Strong,” both a collaboration with Fred again..). “Enjoy Your Life” proves no exception to the thus far customary rule for Romy’s solo work.

    Funnily enough, Romy isn’t the first Brit in recent years to tell us to “Enjoy Your Life.” In 2019, MARINA told us to do the same on Love + Fear. Sure, MARINA is technically Welsh, but it’s all part of the same island. In any case, it seems no coincidence that the shittier things get, the more people want to cling to positivity as best as they can (and, as another British bird from the Spice Girls claimed, “All you need is positivity”). Indeed, it seems positivity is on an upswing despite all evidence displaying that people should feel quite the contrary. Yet it’s all part of human nature, not just in terms of denial as a coping mechanism, but also the idea of “endurance” and “survival.” Because part of being able to endure through nonstop experiences of trauma—both concentrated and collective—is to put a “positive spin” on things. In the wake of the coronavirus lockdowns, it’s been: the world got a chance to stop for a moment and “take stock.” Apparently, though, not long enough to realize that the way we exist is fundamentally designed to doom us all. In any case, Romy, just as MARINA before the pandemic hit, doesn’t think that should keep you from having a good time. After all, this life is allegedly the only one we’ve got, so we might as well make the most of it…no matter how objectively shitty it might seem (especially to people who aren’t pop stars).

    But, similarly to Romy, MARINA admits that writing her own “Enjoy Your Life” was a way to stave off some of her overarching feelings of negativity, having penned it during a time when she was extremely depressed. During the promotion cycle of Love + Fear, she told Vogue of the song, “I just literally didn’t see the point in life. I didn’t understand what life was about. I definitely felt very depressed and didn’t understand why life was good, literally functioning day-to-day thinking, ‘Just get through today.’” So sure, her lyrics were more of a self-pep talk than anything else, urging her to “enjoy the now” without constantly worrying so much about the future. Appreciate what you have and try to see the beauty in the breakdown, etc. As for Romy’s take on the message, she also presents it with correspondingly upbeat music. And, in contrast to her usual style, she does something a bit different here musically, favoring the sound embodied by 90s dance beats (with help from co-producers Jamie xx, Fred again.. and Stuart Price) while also managing to incorporate Beverly Glenn-Copeland’s “La Vita” into the song (as well as Oby Onyioha’s “funkadelic” “Enjoy Your Life”). In point of fact, it’s Glenn-Copeland who played such a pivotal role in imbuing Romy with any sense of positivity. For, as she remarked of using the sample, “When I heard the line, ‘My mother says to me enjoy your life’… I was speechless. Those few words felt like the most simple and disarming sentence. Ever since I was eleven, I’ve been aware of and drawn to the phrase, life is short. I’ve felt inspired by people who I’ve seen react to this by trying to see the positives in life, even when things are going wrong and times are hard.”

    Romy, however, goes on to admit, “As much as I’d love to naturally be one of those people, I’m not always able to do this myself and often get in my own head and my own way, so sometimes a reminder goes a long way. Glenn’s lyrics were a direct connection to what had been a very quiet, private thought. It resonated especially deeply as it is because of my mum passing away when I was eleven that this perspective on living life was even a part of me.” Incidentally, Glenn-Copeland also adds in his song that, “La vita è dolce” a.k.a. “Life is sweet.” Even if bittersweet (as The Verve knows). That much is unwittingly captured in the accompanying video. Directed by Romy’s wife, Vic Lentaigne, the visuals are clearly personal. Hence, the “vintage home movie” effect often incorporated into it (look out, Lana Del Rey). And then there’s also the images of Romy thumbing through old photo albums when she’s still a child with her mother, in those years before she died. The aching for those memories to be present instead of past is negated by Romy’s insistence upon living exuberantly—what her mother would have wanted for her, to be sure.

    Scenes of Romy at the ocean and other various bodies of water play an important role in the baptismal nature of a song such as this. For every time one falls prey to negative thoughts, they can “be born anew” with a positive outlook (in addition to the presence of dogs, many dogs)…no matter how ephemeral it may be. Of course, with existence itself being so ephemeral, it doesn’t really matter much to the universe what “state” you decide to be in from one day to the next. All Romy can say is that, “I hope this song celebrates and shares the words that Glenn said so beautifully and my reaction to it and hopefully uplifts a dancefloor along the way,” adding, “I hope you know I would never want to tell anyone how to feel or to pretend to feel good when they don’t, I know how that feels.” Thus, “Enjoy Your Life” is more of a gentle reminder on Romy’s part than a “dancefloor edict,” if you will.

    And, talking of the dancefloor, it appears several times throughout the video, with Romy interspersing these moments amid scenes of her driving along (in the passenger seat) with the wind blowing in her hair or riding on a boat or soaking up the sun on the beach (a moment that comes full-circle when a photo of Romy’s own mother doing the same appears at the end). There are times when Romy herself is the architect of fun on that dancefloor, playing DJ in a far more adept way than Paris Hilton. Like Robyn once said in a song title, Romy finds herself “dancing on my own again/Anxiety, my old friend/Since when will you try something new?” That “something new” being to enjoy her life and embrace whatever comes her way with a positive attitude. After all, as she says in the song, “I made a promise to my mother/To stop running from my problems.”

    Or, as MARINA phrased it, “Sit back and enjoy your problems/You don’t always have to solve them.” The world has clearly taken this approach to heart as everyone sits back and watches it burn, resigned to the day when it might finally explode. So yes, why not just enjoy your life while it lasts? God or whoever knows that generations after this probably won’t be able to delude themselves as easily…or perhaps they will because “shite” will be all they’ve ever known.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Cameron Frye and Connor Roy: “My Old Man Pushes Me Around” No More!

    Cameron Frye and Connor Roy: “My Old Man Pushes Me Around” No More!

    [ad_1]

    Just as it is for the Roy family at large, for many viewers of Succession, Connor Roy (Alan Ruck) is pure background. It hasn’t really been until season four that he’s been permitted his moment to shine. To “take a stand,” as Ruck’s most famous character, Cameron Frye, would say. And it starts with episode two, “Rehearsal,” in which he displays the full extent of his vulnerability during a karaoke session. Not just because he opts to sing Leonard Cohen’s “Famous Blue Raincoat” but because, just as he did in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off as Cameron, he decides to take a stand and defend it. And yes, singing Leonard Cohen at karaoke (even if only in a room as opposed to a more public stage) definitely counts among the ranks of taking a stand and defending it (regardless of Roman [Kieran Culkin] jibing, “This is Guantanamo-level shit”).

    It’s no coincidence that he should choose that particular song, either. Not with Cohen singing, “I hear that you’re building your little house deep in the desert/You’re living for nothing now, I hope you’re keeping some kind of record.” Lest one needs to be reminded, the early seasons of Succession find Connor living alone in the desert of New Mexico in his palatial palace. A cold place in a hot climate, where he still can’t seem to finagle something akin to love. Not even from his “girlfriend,” Willa (Justine Lupe), a call girl he pays to keep around. Eventually paying enough to make her want to be his full-time girlfriend. But back to the lyrics of “Famous Blue Raincoat,” also fitting for Connor’s sibling situation with the Cain and Abel allusion in the line, “And what can I tell you my brother, my killer?”

    Both Kendall (Jeremy Strong) and Roman have no need of killing their half-bro, however—for he’s so irrelevant to their patriarch, Logan Roy (Brian Cox), that wasting any energy on him would be wasting much-needed focus on “securing the position.” CEO of Waystar-Royco. Something that was never going to belong to “hapless” Connor, who spent three years of his childhood without seeing his father at all. “Attachment” isn’t exactly a thing between him and Logan, nor is it between Cameron and Morris, who never appears once in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off—merely looms large as a source of fear. Especially after Ferris (Matthew Broderick) gets Cam (“Con” also has a shortened version of his name) to take his dad’s Ferrari out for the day.

    Not one to be disagreeable, Cameron ultimately concedes to loaning out the car after several half-hearted attempts at protesting. Lying in bed genuinely sick (even if only in the head) as opposed to Ferris’ fake-out version of sickness, it’s clear Cam’s family doesn’t need to be played to in order for him to get out of school. They’re never around anyway. Least of all his father, off being the “provider” of the family, therefore excused from anything like involvement. Yes, it sounds a lot like Logan Roy. And Cameron, like Con, leads a privileged existence with the trade-off of never experiencing any emotional attachment or care whatsoever. With regard to “Con,” there’s one in every family, to be sure. Someone who never gets quite the same amount of attention or consideration. Whether because their personality is more demure or they don’t seem “special” enough to warrant as much care. Connor falls into both categories, with Shiv (Sarah Snook) in the Sloane Peterson (Mia Sara) role and Kendall and Roman trading off on being the overly arrogant Ferris Bueller (Roman obviously being more Ferris-y than Ken). A scene of Cameron stuffed in the back of the Ferrari that Ferris and Sloane are effectively using him for speaks volumes vis-à-vis this dynamic. The only time anyone bothers with Con is when they need him for something…so basically they never much bother with him.

    Sure, he’s there for “ceremonious” events like birthdays and family vacations, but, by and large, he’s out of the fold. Until season four rolls around and, suddenly, the “Rebel Alliance” that is Shiv, Kendall and Roman ends up prompting Con to say, “This is how it is, huh? The battle royale? Me and dad on one side, you guys on the other.” This after Willa has walked out on their wedding rehearsal dinner, leaving Con with no one to “turn to” for “comfort” but his so-called family. The trio of his siblings (all of whom show up late because Logan cut off their helicopter access) amounts to one giant Ferris Bueller, the narcissist in the dynamic constantly taking up space and demanding more from the Cameron/Connor of the outfit. Meanwhile, all Connor is asking for is a round of karaoke at Maru, one of many overpriced options within the parameters of Koreatown’s 32nd Street.

    Upon arriving to said location (under duress for most of them), Connor is quick to admit that he told Logan where they are, and he’s coming over to “talk things out”—presumably the deal that Shiv, Kendall and Roman want to fuck by asking for more money of Lukas Matsson (Alexander Skarsgård) in exchange for merging his streaming company, GoJo, with Waystar. In defense of himself, Connor replies to the sibling backlash, “My life isn’t filled with secrets like some people. And I want my father to be at my wedding.”

    To everyone’s surprise, though, Logan wants to make an “apology.” Or the closest he can get to one. But with all the hemming and hawing, Kendall is quick to redirect his father’s messaging by demanding, “What are you sorry for, Dad? Fucking ignoring Connor his whole life?” He later adds, “Having Connor’s mother locked up?” This being why Connor refers to the cake at his wedding as “loony cake.” A type of dessert he apparently associates with Victoria sponge cake and doesn’t care for at all because it was what was fed to him for a week after his mother was institutionalized. So yeah, even Kendall can take a moment here and there to stand up for his older brother and acknowledge that Con might have had a more emotionally bankrupt childhood than all of them.

    In that regard, his bid for normalcy is earnest when he declares to his brothers and sister, “I would like to sing one fucking song at karaoke because I’ve seen it in the movies and nobody ever wants to go.” Perhaps he saw it in a certain form in the movie that he co-starred in with Broderick, as the latter plays the titular character lip-syncing to Wayne Newton’s “Danke Schoen” and The Beatles’ “Twist and Shout” on a parade float in the middle of Chicago. Something Cameron nor Connor would ever do. Possibly because attention-seeking is a type of love-seeking. And that’s never been either character’s “game.” Though both slowly start to realize that maybe it should be. Even as Connor notes something as heart-wrenching to his siblings as, “The good thing about having a family that doesn’t love you is you learn to live without it… You’re all chasin’ after Dad saying, ‘Oh love me, please love me. I need love, I need attention.’ You’re needy love sponges, and I’m a plant that grows on rocks and lives off insects that die inside of me. If Willa doesn’t come back, that’s fine. ‘Cause I don’t need love. It’s like a superpower.”

    Cameron Frye knows that’s not entirely true. It’s also a curse that causes severe anxiety and depression, finally pushing him toward the revelation, “I’m bullshit. I put up with everything. My old man pushes me around…I never say anything! Well he’s not the problem, I’m the problem [cue a lawsuit against Taylor Swift]. I gotta take a stand. I gotta take a stand against him. I am not gonna sit on my ass as the events that affect me unfold to determine the course of my life. I’m gonna take a stand. I’m gonna defend it. Right or wrong, I’m gonna defend it.” Something Connor must decide to do in “Connor’s Wedding,” easily the most landmark episode of Succession ever aired. And yet, as usual, just because his name is in the title doesn’t mean he gets the theoretical spotlight. No, this is all about his father. Just as it always is. The same geos for Cameron and Morris, inciting the former to finally lose it and kick the shit out of the Ferrari as he screams, “I’m so sick of his shit. I can’t stand him and I hate this goddamn car! Who do ya love? Who do ya love? You love a car!”

    To this, Logan Roy might placate, “I love you…but you are not serious people.” These are his final sentiments directed at his children. Though no one is aware of it until the next day, when Logan’s heart fails (ironically appropriate) while on a private jet to negotiate the deal again with Matsson…thanks to his own kids painting him in a corner to do so. It was the previous night at karaoke that Logan understood the scope of his disgust with them. For here he is, the affluent, distant father figure (like Cameron’s) being unclear what more his children could “take” or want from him after everything he’s already given. Back out on the street with his latest “right-hand woman,” Kerry (Zoe Winters), he clocks a homeless man digging through the trash and seethes, “Look at this prick. They should get out here. Some cunt doing the tin cans for his supper, take a sip of that medicine. This city…the rats are as fat as skunks. They hardly care to run anymore.” Obviously taking a swipe at his lazy, greedy children. Except for Con, who really just wants it all to be over. Unfortunately, it’s only just getting started now that Logan is dead. And as usual, Con is the last to know about it, gently informed by Kendall only to instantly reply, “Oh man, he never even liked me,” trying to smooth that statement over with, “I never got the chance to make him proud of me.”

    Of course, that was never going to happen. Because there is no “pleasing” a man like Logan or Morris. And Connor always getting the short end of the stick from his father reaches a poetic peak with him dying on Connor’s wedding day, casting a dark, attention-stealing pall over the event. All Con can finally assess about it to Willa is: “My father’s dead and I feel old.” Cameron probably would have said the same thing. And he, too, probably would have soon after carried out his intended plans for the day. After all, he’s not one to let his old man push him around anymore, especially not now that he’s dead. He’s going to take a stand (for “love”) and defend it. Right or wrong.

    That’s why, in the end, he goes through with the wedding, not bothering to join his three half-siblings as they go to deal with their father’s body and make a statement to the press. In this sense, Connor has always been the freest, learning long ago not to bother chasing down the love of a patriarch who was incapable of it. Perhaps learning that from the person he was in another life: Cameron Frye. Meanwhile, Connor’s siblings will continue to volley for Logan’s invisible favor in not-so-subtle ways even after he’s gone.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Fatal Attraction: A Tragic Easter Movie for Rabbits

    Fatal Attraction: A Tragic Easter Movie for Rabbits

    [ad_1]

    It’s said that Fatal Attraction is a cautionary tale about having an affair, but what few people fail to mention is how it qualifies as an Easter movie. For how can one deny that a central part of the plot is the innocent rabbit named Whitey? The sweet pet belonging to the Gallagher family, but more than anyone Ellen (Ellen Hamilton Latzen), Dan’s (Michael Douglas) naïve six-year-old daughter who turns out to be collateral damage in Alex Forrest’s (Glenn Close) game of “psychotic seduction” in that she must suffer the fallout of Alex’s rage directed at her father. De facto the rabbit (and yes, a real [dead] one was actually used for the infamous scene in question). And even though Whitey doesn’t make her official entrance into the Gallagher household until around the one hour and twenty-minute mark of the movie, well over halfway into it, she is arguably the biggest icon of the film.

    Like dogs in any movie or TV show of a “thriller-y” nature, the rabbit is probably the second-most assured animal to be harmed or killed in some way (see also: the second episode of Yellowjackets). Something about their purity just seems to set people off on a murderous rampage. To boot, the Gallaghers also happen to have a dog named Quincy, a yellow Labrador retriever who isn’t much for paying attention to potential intruders like Alex. Nonetheless, the dog appears to be spared thanks to the addition of the rabbit to their “brood” in the third act. Indeed, Dan buys the rabbit after initially resisting the notion of getting one for Ellen, but then decides to buy one likely due to the sustained guilt of stepping out on his wife, Beth (Anne Archer). Attempting to pay for his sins by going so far down the, um, rabbit hole with Alex. A woman who remains undeterred by the fact that Dan has moved to Bedford in terms of her stalking capabilities, which she’s only too happy to engage in the night that Dan brings home the rabbit in a generically oppressive black cage.

    In a certain regard, that rabbit in its cage is representative of Dan, suddenly all willing to commit completely to being domesticated after he’s been subjected to the wilds of what’s “out there,” i.e. “crazy bitches” such as Alex that make Beth look like a wholesome, obsequious wet dream. After all, Fatal Attraction also seeks to reiterate the Madonna/whore tropes that women are “required” to be lumped into. In pop culture, the tropes have often mutated into various opposing “character types” on the spectrum, from Marilyn and Jackie to Samantha and Charlotte, all symbolizing the same classic “syndrome.” One in which men can only see a woman as his noble, virtuous wife or tartish mistress material in the vein of Alex.

    But Alex is not so cavalier about having an affair as Dan would initially like to believe. She’s a “good woman,” she wants him to know, as she also seethes on a tape recording she sends to him, “You thought you could just walk into my life and turn it upside down without a thought for anyone but yourself.” Wanting Dan to suffer the consequences for his actions is the main crux for why she desires to have his “adultery baby,” though she insists it’s because, “I’m thirty-six years old, it may be my last chance to have a child” (oh how things have come a long way for women since that was evidently deemed the “cut-off age” for child-bearing).

    Alex eventually chooses to boil the family rabbit—an ultimate symbol of fertility—that she sees the Gallaghers fawning over from afar. This being a metaphorical indication of how she’s given up not only on Dan, but herself. Or rather, the idea of herself as “fit for motherhood”/being the matriarch of a conventional nuclear family. Not if she’s going to have to do it alone, without the one she supposedly “loves.” For this movie is, lest one forget, a transparent riff on Madame Butterfly (which Alex and Dan both discuss their love of early on in the narrative)—embedded in the screenplay’s text long before Mike White decided to create the character of Tanya (Jennifer Coolidge) in The White Lotus. However, it seems even Cio-Cio-San wouldn’t go so far as to hurt an innocent creature like Whitey, who is shown being discovered by Beth in the boiling pot in her kitchen just as Ellen is running to an outdoor wooden cage to check on Whitey, only to find the bunny is missing. Thus, at the exact same moment, mother and daughter let out a shriek of terror, the former because of what she sees before her and the latter because of what she doesn’t.

    But the rabbit ultimately serves as the key catalyst for getting Dan to confess to his affair. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to tell his wife the true culprit behind Whitey’s watery assassination. Thus, with this being Beth’s first glimpse of what Alex is capable of, she’s not all that shocked to find Alex standing behind her in the bathroom in the final scenes of the movie. Brandishing a knife, naturally. Being that the original ending of Fatal Attraction revealed that Alex had killed herself and made Dan look like the murderer, seeing her casually stab at her own thigh while she talks to Beth and accuses her of keeping Dan away from her isn’t that out of depth. Nor is the moment when Alex “reanimates” after Dan is given no choice but to drown her in the bathtub to stave her off from stabbing him and his wife.

    Lying there in the tub the same way the rabbit did in the pot, the karmic justice is complete when Alex, too, is rendered as bloody as Whitey after Beth finishes the job with a gun. This leaving Alex to stew in the hot red water just as Whitey was left to do. Despite the poetic “full-circle” scene, Fatal Attraction remains a movie that Easter bunnies and normal bunnies alike are cautioned against watching.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Why the Tagline for Barbie Is So Resonant

    Why the Tagline for Barbie Is So Resonant

    [ad_1]

    Of all the things about the latest round of the Barbie marketing blitzkrieg, perhaps the most standout element to the (feminine) masses was the tagline touting, “She’s everything. He’s just Ken.” This with Barbie (Margot Robbie) presented in the top “hole” of the B and Ken (Ryan Gosling) rightly situated “on bottom.” With five simple words, Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach (the Joan Didion [a fellow Sacramentan like Gerwig] and John Gregory Dunne of our time) have cut to the core of flipping the script on a societal viewpoint that’s typically directed at men…who see women as “background.” So often foolishly believing they’re the “stars” of the show with “old chestnuts” like, “Behind every great man is a great woman.” This horrific back-handed “compliment” of a saying serving only to reiterate that women’s reproductive and emotional labor is not only meant to be “invisible,” but it’s also expected. Simply “goes with the territory” of being a woman.

    With the advent of the so-called Equal Pay Act in 1963 (just in the U.S., mind you), women were essentially told, “You can be ‘equal’ to men in the productive labor sphere, too—so long as you keep performing the same reproductive labor at home.” For to be a woman is to take on the burden of everything silently and with a smile. Perhaps that’s why it’s no coincidence that, just a few years earlier, Barbie’s creator, Ruth Handler, was incited to create a different kind of doll after witnessing her daughter play with the available toys for girls at the time, compared to those available for boys. The idea behind Barbie (named in honor of Ruth’s daughter, Barbara) thus arose from wanting to give girls the opportunity to envision their futures through lenses beyond just “mother” or “homemaker.”

    Barbie was the first doll of its kind, encouraging women to imagine the possibilities of their gender beyond the clearly-defined role of “supporting act” to the presumed man in her life. As such, a year before the Equal Pay Act, Mattel released Barbie’s first Dreamhouse—the assumption being that she actually might have paid for it herself (Ken had only entered the picture a year before, in 1961)…even if this was still before a woman was “allowed” to open her own bank account. Chillin’ at the crib by herself, Barbie served as a catalyst for the idea that a woman could actually buy a home of her own one day, without the presence of a man to sully it. Or, if he did, at least she could tell him to get the fuck out.

    Barbie’s undercutting feminist revolution continued in 1965, with the release of Astronaut Barbie, effectively proving that she, a woman, made it to the moon four years before Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. Then, Mattel (with Ruth at the Barbie helm) got really progressive in 1968 by “daring” to introduce Christie, the first Black doll, and a purported friend of Barbie’s…which would technically make her an OG of allyship (apart from Marilyn Monroe), but let’s not make this any more about white women than it always is. Another major overhaul on the potential for what a woman “could” be occurred in 1985, with CEO Barbie (a true testament to the total embracement of capitalism-on-steroids under Reagan). The first of her kind to really show that a woman was able to “have it all.” But, again, the unspoken caveat here is that she’s still expected to carry out her “inherent duties” as a woman. This pertaining to the reproductive labor associated with household management and childcare.

    In Alva Gotby’s They Call It Love: The Politics of Emotional Life, she gets to the heart of this double standard by noting, “Women’s labor, especially that which is sexual or maternal, is conflated with their bodies and constructed as a natural instinct. This naturalization is essential for the capitalist use of reproductive labor. The capacity for reproductive labor is turned into a natural quality of certain bodies whose function is primarily to carry out that labor. If it is not work, it is worthless economically, but also natural and therefore good.” This is part of the reason Barbie’s various “personae” have been fractured into so many “professions,” all while still maintaining her plastered-on smile and ostensibly “personable” aura (read: looking like the classic male ideal of what a female should “be”). All of which is expected of a “good” woman. “The naturalization of feminized labor, and particularly emotional labor,” Gotby adds, “not only makes that work appear as unskilled labor but also makes it invisible as labor. It is merely an eternal and unchangeable quality of feminine personalities… Women’s emotional labor is seen as a natural expression of their spontaneous feeling, something that is in turn used to further exploit this work.” I.e., touting that women “can have it all” while Ken sits back and actually does fuck-all.

    Hence, “He’s just Ken.” He gets a gold star just for being there. Whereas women have to work twice as hard in every facet of life to be taken “seriously.” Which is where the matter of women’s appearance comes into play. On the one hand, if a woman is “hot,” like Barbie, the snap judgment that will be made about her is that she must not be very smart. On the flipside, a woman won’t be considered for much of anything at all if she doesn’t put some “effort” into cultivating a “pleasant” appearance. Barbie reinforces this trope for sure. She’s “visually pleasing,” but she can also embody everything from eye doctor Barbie to smoothie bar worker Barbie, transitioning from white to blue collar work as effortlessly as Pete Davidson transitions from one high-profile girlfriend to another.

    So yes, “She’s everything. He’s just Ken” has never felt more resonant as a much-needed spotlight on the continued manner in which women are expected to be literally everything (particularly a hybrid of mother/girlfriend) to everyone while men can just show up without putting in any of the excess emotional labor that women have to. They’re just men, after all. Only so much can be expected of “God’s gift.”

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Where There’s “Smoke”…There’s Fiery Hot Lava About to Burn You: Caroline Polachek Releases the Perfect Volcano Anthem

    Where There’s “Smoke”…There’s Fiery Hot Lava About to Burn You: Caroline Polachek Releases the Perfect Volcano Anthem

    [ad_1]

    In case anyone was looking for a song to dance to when the next inevitable volcano eruption ensues, Caroline Polachek has you covered with “Smoke,” the fifth video to hatch from her Desire, I Want to Turn Into You album. Like two of her other music videos from this album cycle, “Sunset” and “Welcome to My Island,” the overall aesthetic and editing techniques are designed to look similarly “DIY,” or, as Polachek put it, “I just wanted to make a classic shoegaze video without having to do the music part.” Which she already loosely did with both of the aforementioned videos. And it was also in “Welcome to My Island” that a volcano plays a central role as one of the backdrops while “lava” bursts forth from Polachek’s own mouth. Perhaps the volcano metaphor in relationships is just too good to pass up a second time in “Smoke.”

    Visually lush and sumptuous in a different way than “Billions,” Polachek evokes, in many ways, the Andy Warhol painting of Mount Vesuvius entitled, what else, “Vesuvius.” This done with a volcano “structure” that looks as though it was crafted of, let’s call it, “theater cloth” as she does her dance in front of it. Almost as though using her witchy arm movements to attempt conjuring the lava to come out and play. She then opens with the assurance, “It’s just smoke/Floating over the volcano/It’s just smoke/Go on, you know I can’t say no/It’s just smoke.” Ignoring the fact that, in this case, where there’s smoke, there’s bound to be scalding lava.

    Such an allusion to relationship difficulties mirrors the same tactic Taylor Swift uses on Lover’s “Afterglow” with an “explosion metaphor,” including, “Chemistry ’til it blows up, ’til there’s no us” and “I’m the one who burned us down/But it’s not what I meant/I’m sorry that I hurt you…/I need to say, hey, it’s all me, just don’t go/Meet me in the afterglow.” But, as Pompeiians weren’t able to attest, there is no such thing as an “afterglow” to meet in once the eruption has ceased.

    As Polachek’s band is silhouetted and superimposed over her own interpretive dance homages to the volcano, she declares in earnest, “And you are the big answer tonight/And you are melting everything about me/Oh, don’t worry about me, it’s just—” That unspoken cutoff being, you guessed it, “smoke.” Warming to the dangers of a “smoky” lover, Polachek is inspired to take her interpretive arm gestures to the next level as a disjointed shadow pair of her arms moves in front of her body as Peter Pan’s shadow might. Matt Copson, the director of the video (as well as Polachek’s boyfriend) then cuts to a close-up image on Polachek’s face (bedecked in her signature eye makeup style…that feels like a riff on Amy Winehouse meets Cleopatra) with the theater cloth volcano in the background—ever-looming, ever-beckoning. If desire is what Polachek wants to turn into, diving in headfirst to the volcano of love is a good start. Ignoring the smoke a.k.a. the ultimate sign of an inevitable eruption. Of course, on the positive side of figurative language, that could also mean an imminent orgasm as much as imminent disaster.

    When the series of chanted “na-na-na, na-na-na, na-na-na-na-das” reaches a crescendo at the end of the song, Polachek—letting out a complementing “war cry,” of sorts—is shown on her knees looking skyward from an overhead angle at the center of a lava-red spiral. Letting loose more than ever with her theatrical dance stylings, smoke circles all around her, enveloping her. It certainly goes against all those fire safety videos people were shown in school about how to keep smoke from entering your lungs. But Polachek is committed to the perilous cause of love, announcing of the ash and smoke, “The fallout doesn’t faze me.”

    That much is clearly true if this calm, tranquil visual of Polachek daring the volcano to erupt as she inhales its smoke is any indication. And, as climate change increasingly becomes “the name of the game” in the “20s,” it’s some “comfort” to know there’s a ditty to turn to should one find themselves amid an irascible volcano. Surely, the Pompeiians would’ve appreciated if this song could have played before the big lava smackdown came to wipe them out.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Seymour Stein: The Last of a Dying Breed

    Seymour Stein: The Last of a Dying Breed

    [ad_1]

    Seymour Stein was of the old school in every way. Someone who ascended the ladder of an industry by starting at the bottom and pulling himself up by his proverbial bootstraps. Perhaps he could see something of that quality when he first laid eyes on Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone in a hospital room in 1982. This was sixteen years after Stein had thrown in his own money into co-founding Sire Productions with producer Richard Gottehrer. This, eventually, would become Sire Records. Cashing in on signing British acts to showcase in the culturally bereft U.S., Sire’s success led to its acquisition by Warner Bros. Records in the late 70s, right as Madonna was arriving in New York with nothing more than a dream and that fabled thirty-five dollars in her pocket. Roughly four years later, her path would cross with Stein’s in Lenox Hill Hospital. Laid up after having open heart surgery, Stein seemed just as eager as Madonna to be seen as someone with power.

    And the power Stein held in that moment was something that even he couldn’t fully understand. After all, Madonna was a “fluke” act for the Sire brand, more known for signing New Wave groups like Talking Heads, The Cure, Soft Cell and Depeche Mode. But something about Madonna evidently spoke to Stein’s own inner hustler. Seeing her hunger and raw ambition, Stein was endeared rather than put off by it, likely sensing a kindred spirit. For, in addition to being a gay man trapped in a woman’s body, Madonna is also a New York-born Jewish man at heart. Mark Kamins, another personality from Madonna’s early rise that kicked the bucket, was integral to arranging this meeting (just another reason she wrote “Lucky Star” with him in mind). As one of the “hottest” DJs in New York, he had a certain clout with record execs like Stein. And, of course, as is the case with most people living in New York, he wanted something in exchange for his “good deed”: “giving” him Madonna. What he ultimately wanted from that “trade” was to be a producer. Per Stein, however, “I told him flat out that no big artist would ever risk working with an unproven producer, even if he was New York’s hippest deejay. Like everyone else, he’d have to earn his stripes by finding nobodies and making them sound like stars.” Madonna was going to fit that bill perfectly. Especially since her real name already carried such stage name weight.

    Kamins was determined to produce Madonna once she got signed, making it all the more important to him for this hospital room meeting to go well. Maybe it was the drip-drip-drip of the penicillin into Stein’s heart that warmed it so much to the sound of Madonna’s voice, or maybe it was the fact that Stein was actually a gay man (even if closeted for a long time about it). Either way, he recalled thinking upon his first listen to the “Everybody” demo, “I liked the hook, I liked Madonna’s voice, I liked the feel and I liked the name Madonna. I liked it all and played it again. I never overanalyze or suck the life out of whatever I instinctively enjoy.” An explanation such as that, of course, would never be heard among the halls of today’s record labels. Whose operational practices seem to be based entirely on what’s “trending” as opposed to using one’s own instincts and emotional reactions to set trends. Gone are these Steinian days of taking a chance on an artist based on instinct, having faith in a musician’s “raw material” to grow and evolve into something truly special (as Madonna put it, “Not only did Seymour hear me, but he saw me and my potential!”). The lack of gambling in art in general and music in particular these days is most manifest in how everything “old” is repackaged as something “new” for bite-sized consumption on TikTok. This complete with the “sped-up version” trend that makes every shortened song sound like Mickey Mouse is singing it.

    With the Stein hospital room signing being one of the many mythological stories adding to the narrative of how Madonna rose to fame, one myth that never endured was M being controlled by any kind of Svengali figure in her early career. If anything, Madonna herself was the Svengali to all the music men (and women) she orbited (from Stephen Bray to Kamins to Jellybean Benitez), getting them to do her bidding with her unbridled powers of seduction. In contrast to most female pop stars, Madonna was never “groomed” by any man behind the scenes, but entirely self-made. Stein’s ability to intuit something special about her without worrying if she was going to contribute to the label’s bottom line is why we have Madonna. In the decades since, this overall lack of a combination of risk-taking and intuition is what has contributed to the deterioration of popular music’s quality. For, like every industry, music has been subject to the merciless tenets of neoliberalism (which was just taking flight at full-force as Madonna eked by the cutoff for pre-Reaganism and Thatcherism). A “philosophy” that really only has one tenet: make more money.

    Artistic experimentation isn’t conducive to that, and as such, Stein might never have signed Madonna in such a climate as the post-1985 one. While some have maintained that the “democratization” of music through early internet mediums like MySpace is what has actually improved things for artists by cutting out the “middle man,” in so many ways, that middle man was an artist unto himself. For it takes a certain kind of talent to recognize talent (with Madonna also remarking of his death, “Anyone who knew Seymour knew about his passion for music and his impeccable taste. He had an ear like no other! He was…deeply intuitive”). And without people such as Stein, we wouldn’t get Madonna. Tellingly, there hasn’t been a similar artist of her impact to come up in the world since, maybe, Britney Spears.

    So sure, Stein might look faintly like Harvey Weinstein, but he was no predatory prick when it came to his music industry cachet. For him, it really was all about the music. As Sid King told Stein’s father, “Your son is good for one thing and one thing only, and that’s being in the record business.” Madonna would tend to agree.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Murder Mystery 2 Will Murder Your Mind

    Murder Mystery 2 Will Murder Your Mind

    [ad_1]

    It’s the usual “rule” that a sequel is required to be spectacularly inferior to its original. But Murder Mystery 2 seemed to take that unspoken edict way too much into consideration during the “writing” of the script. Then again, was it really “written”? For there are far too many moments throughout the “narrative” when one tends to wonder if the script was “generated” by ChatGPT…but that might actually be insulting to ChatGPT. However, no, the film is attributed to Vanderbilt family progeny James Vanderbilt, who once again recently made a name for himself separate from New York wealth by co-writing the scripts for Scream (2022) and Scream VI. Both being far cries from the timbre of Murder Mystery (which he also wrote), and even further still from Murder Mystery 2, which manages to prove that most sequels exist solely to rest on the laurels of their original films.

    As such, there is little need to “try.” Everyone here is clearly involved for the paycheck. Hence, a total lack of cohesion and plausibility to anything about this narrative, which begins in Nick (Adam Sandler) and Audrey Spitz’s (Jennifer Anistone) apartment after an overly heavy-handed recap about what happened in the first installment, in addition to telling us what the duo is up to now: sinking all of their savings into a fledgling detective business still coasting off the reputation of their one big case from 2019. Resultantly, they get stuck with less “glamorous” jobs that require using Audrey as bait to lure potentially philandering husbands into being photographed with her. This, of course, glossing over the fact that cheating is no longer the scandal that it once was (even to vanilla straights) and that someone like Audrey isn’t exactly the average man’s “first choice” for an affair. A fact made clear by the husband in question, “Silverfox” (Tony Goldwyn), walking into his living room to find the Spitzes telling “Mrs. Silverfox” (Annie Mumolo) that he has been “stepping out,” only for Silverfox to rebuff this claim by announcing that he’s been going out alone to plan a surprise anniversary party and that Audrey was the one hitting on him. The former excuse makes no sense whatsoever (why go to a bar by yourself to plan a surprise party?), but it’s just the tip of the iceberg apropos of nonsensical goings-on, with the assumption perhaps being that “movies like these” aren’t about making sense, they’re about “having fun.” But a movie is a movie regardless of genre, and should still adhere to certain, let us say, “tenets.”

    Murder Mystery 2 feels little obligation to do any such thing, starting with Vikram “The Maharajah” Govindan (Adeel Akhtar) calling up Nick while riding a jet ski (because rich people are just so craaaaazzzzzyyy like that) to invite him to his wedding. This invitation, naturally, is timed to coincide with their squabbles about work, including Nick’s argument with Audrey regarding their marketing approach (Nick nominates the “disruptive marketing” style of having floss business cards [“First Floss, Then Spitz”], while Audrey thinks it’s ridiculous). What it all boils down to for Nick is: “Do you know any couples who also work together that actually get along?” Audrey replies (with one of the few comedy gold lines of the movie), “Billie Eilish and Finneas.” A riff on the duo’s incestuous dynamic, Nick has to remind, “They’re brother and sister.” Luckily for both, the argument is interrupted by this call. The one that ultimately leads to being a showcase for Hawaii, as Vik’s “private island” is actually Lanikuhonua Lagoon in Oahu (something Mike White should have thought about for season one of The White Lotus). Either way, it’s where his wedding to Claudette (Mélanie Laurent, who is acting in a role and movie that’s way beneath her) takes place.

    This location, however, becomes overwrought, especially since the movie’s marketing is contingent upon the alleged bulk of it occurring in Paris (thus the maddening tagline: “Deux or Die”). But no, it takes us almost thirty-six minutes to leave the island, well above the standard “end of act one” practice. And, being that Murder Mystery 2 clocks in at approximately one hour and thirty minutes (which still feels too long), it was theoretically all set up to follow a very conventional three-act structure that manages to get biffed in manifold ways by the end. Manifest in a never-ending denouement that keeps piling on non sequitur “conclusions” for the sake of it. Seemingly under the pretense of being “comical.” But just because one piles on a slew of random occurrences doesn’t make the outcome automatically funny, so much as a poor writing choice. Or, to quote Connor Miller (Mark Strong, also out of place in this movie), “There really is no end to your bad decision-making, is there?”

    Incidentally, Jennifer Aniston recently remarked of her golden ticket to being an icon, Friends, “There’s a whole generation of people, kids, who are now going back to episodes of Friends and find them offensive.” To be real, there were many people who didn’t find Friends funny when it was actually on the air either, but anyway… The point is that perhaps with this mentality in mind, Aniston is glomming onto projects that are the “lowest common denominator” of comedy for a reason. And yes, like Sandler, she’s long been known to do that (see: Horrible Bosses, Wanderlust, We’re the Millers, Mother’s Day, et al.), but, speaking to her own comment, it’s as though these lowest common denominator comedies have gotten even lower as a result of what she mentioned about the risk of offending people. Nonetheless, there was plenty of room left to ream the French as the “unexpected” villain of the story remarked of his plan to blow up the Eiffel Tower: “There’s only one thing I hate more than witnesses, and that’s the French.”

    The French, to be sure, are among the few “sects,” for Americans in particular, that remain “fair game” for evisceration on the “comedy” front. This also extends to fellow Europeans the Italians, who are generally mocked at every turn for their supposed manner and supposed accent (which Americans still portray as having a superfluous “a” inserted in between every word, as in: “It’s-a me, Mario”). With this in mind, Aniston lamented that it’s “really hard for comedians, because the beauty of comedy is that we make fun of ourselves, make fun of life.” But no, most of the making fun of in the U.S. that went on in the past was never self-directed. It was never about the sham of American life or the uncouthness of Americans, so much as a bid to help solidify the othering of those who were marginalized already (on Friends, that was done amply to the LGBTQIA+ community). This is the real reason white comedians are “on edge” about comedy “changing”—i.e., becoming less bigoted. This despite Aniston saying that presenting bigotry in comedy is ultimately a way to “joke about a bigot and have a laugh.” In one sense, yes. In another, such thinking underestimates how fucking literal people are, and that they might use such “comedy” to justify their own legitimate bigotry. So now we’re saddled with “straightforward” (read: stupid) comedy such as Murder Mystery 2, which somehow manages to be so bad that it insults its predecessor.

    But lack of laughs or decent Parisian representation (that’s kind of Netflix’s thing now, what with Emily in Paris as one of its “tent-pole” shows) won’t stop this gravy train from being a success as Aniston insists, “Everybody needs funny! The world needs humor! [though that’s not what Murder Mystery 2 is]. We can’t take ourselves too seriously. Especially in the United States. Everyone is far too divided.” Alas, the division in this scenario will stem from those with a brain trying to watch a laughless (and sexless, for that matter) “romp” wherein “style” outweighs all trace of substance and those whose brains have been murdered already as this movie seeks to be an amalgam of everything from Legally Blonde (with the perm “revelation” being likenable to the henna one in Murder Mystery 2) to Shotgun Wedding to Glass Onion. Doing its best, as it were, to tick everyone’s box, thereby ticking no one’s.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • A Gen Z Kind of Daftness: On Billie Eilish’s Lack of Awareness of Taylor Swift Singing “Picture to Burn” or What “Burn” Even Meant Within the Context

    A Gen Z Kind of Daftness: On Billie Eilish’s Lack of Awareness of Taylor Swift Singing “Picture to Burn” or What “Burn” Even Meant Within the Context

    [ad_1]

    With each new generation that “comes up,” there is the constant accusation from previous ones that there has never been a worse sect of people than the “youthquake” currently dominating. In Gen Z’s case, however, it might actually be true (until Alpha comes along to overtake them). Of course, defendants of the generation would argue that they can’t help what they are, being the first to have grown up entirely in the matrix. Never knowing a world in which the internet didn’t reign supreme. Those who came before them, the millennials, at least have some vague remembrance of a life before being totally “connected” (thereby being, ironically, totally disconnected). And yes, millennials were, once upon a time, the most hated. It was they who were dubbed the “snowflakes” first. But that term is quickly shifting to apply to Gen Z. Not just because of how easily offended they are or how incapable of processing opinions and ideas that don’t fit in with their own algorithm, but because, well, they’re just not equipped to deal with much of anything at all outside the matrix.

    Nonetheless, for a generation as dependent on the internet as Z, they scarcely seem to understand how to use it to its utmost potential. Certainly not for research and fact-checking purposes, it would appear. This much was made starkly apparent by one of the few Gen Z spokespeople thus far, Billie Eilish. For, in an episode of her now-defunct “radio show” (a.k.a. Apple Music podcast), me & dad radio, Eilish unashamedly admits, “I used to love [“Picture to Burn”] when I was, like, four—no, probably older than that. Probably, like, six. It’s crazy. It’s very country. When I listen to it now, I’m like, ‘Wow, I totally didn’t realize how country this was.’ But I loved this song back then because I thought it was so badass. I thought it was so cool and mean. I just loved it.” And yet, she didn’t love it enough to 1) look into who actually sang it and 2) try to understand something as simple as what it means to burn a picture.

    To be “fair,” Taylor Swift was an entirely different person in 2006, when her self-titled debut came out and she was Country Barbie. Eager to neither confirm nor deny the ever-burgeoning rumors that she was a savior to the Aryan race and a God-fearing Republican. So there little four- or six-year-old (she was seven, per the math of when the single was released that Eilish ostensibly can’t do) Billie was, probably right to file away this country singer as someone separate from the Swift we would all eventually come to know. A being so far-removed from her howdy, yee-haw days that it’s understandable someone might not associate her with that girl from “Picture to Burn.” If, that is, said person had no access to the internet and/or was totally detached from interacting with pop culture. Such a person, needless to say, is not Billie Eilish. But her ill-informed, la-di-da statements reveal much about the generation to which she subscribes. One that is so out of touch with anything tangible that she felt no embarrassment in also adding, “I didn’t understand at all what a ‘picture to burn’ meant. The only word ‘burn’ that I knew, that I thought that she meant, was, like, when you burn a CD.”

    While one could say that associating “burning” with CDs is decidedly millennial, in this instance, not so. Eilish’s childhood spent in a world where the trappings of the internet (including downloading songs and, at that time, burning them onto CDs) were pervasive as opposed to peripheral is indicative of a generation that would scarcely grasp (or ever have to) anything related to the physical. That CD burning was, in fact, a “millennial thing” was far more telling of said generation’s lingering attachment to that which was concrete. But, as it turned out, the practice was just a launching point for eradicating all tangibility and turning everything digital with the advent of the first iPhone in 2007 that also combined the key elements of an iPod function for music-listening purposes. In other words, what Gen Z would come to view as more normal than anyone because they grew up with it as their norm. CDs (and records and tapes) be damned.

    Swift, who released “Picture to Burn” in February of 2008 (two years after Taylor Swift came out) offered an accompanying video that Eilish could have easily watched at some point for a keen understanding of what it means to burn a picture. Complete with contextual cues at the beginning of the Trey Fanjoy-directed video that includes Swift holding up a picture of her and her ex and asking her friend, who’s with her in the front seat of her car, “Would you look at how happy we were back then? I can’t believe he turned out to be such a jerk” (by the end, that picture will be up in flames, further “spelling it out” for Eilish). It’s the sort of comment one could imagine hearing in a Britney Spears interlude from Oops!…I Did It Again. And, yes, at that time, Spears was still at the peak of her influential powers, so it’s entirely possible Swift could have been “infected” with a touch of Spears in this regard (even if “Picture to Burn” itself was ahead of Britney’s curve by employing the same style of pyrotechnics as her months before the “Circus” video came out that same year). Unlike Eilish, whose undercover love of Swift all this time never seemed to creep into her own musical style. No overbearing Telecaster guitar strings or vocal warblings about how, “As far as I’m concerned/You’re just another picture to burn.”

    At the same time, some of Eilish’s “we are never ever getting back together” sentiments on Happier Than Ever might be traceable to this moment in her early sonic exposure. For just as Taylor rails against a no-good, low-life type with, “State the obvious, I didn’t get my perfect fantasy/I realize you love yourself more than you could ever love me,” so does Eilish on “Lost Cause” via such lyrics as, “I used to think you were shy/But maybe you just had nothing on your mind/Maybe you were thinkin’ ’bout yourself all the time/I used to wish you were mine/But that was way before I realized/Someone like you would always be so easy to find.”

    However, by this estimation, everything of “value” Gen Z has to “give” (read: repurpose and pass off as their own) was ultimately gleaned from millennials through internet osmosis. A phenomenon that’s only worsened thanks to TikTok and the increasing lack of “crediting original sources.” Leading one to believe that civilization truly has reached a “wall” in terms of everything having been done before (something Barenaked Ladies confirmed in 1998). And rather than being, at the very least, done in a better or more thoughtful way in the present, it seems that the “reinvention” of the same thing only gets worse in its presentation over time. Making one simply want to burn it all to the ground. Surely Eilish must know what “burn” would entail in that sense.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Symphorophiliac Is the New Black: Tove Lo Takes J. G. Ballard’s Crash to A Different Level in “Borderline”

    Symphorophiliac Is the New Black: Tove Lo Takes J. G. Ballard’s Crash to A Different Level in “Borderline”

    [ad_1]

    When last we left Tove Lo’s jilted robot lover in the Alaska-directed video for Dirt Femme’s second single, “No One Dies From Love,” Annie 3000 had been cast aside in favor of a newer model (tale as old as time). Specifically, for a more “lifelike” robot named Eva. Annie, who just spent the entirety of the video making a plethora of memories with Tove as her servile robo-lover, never would have imagined she could be tossed out so easily for someone (or something) else. For, as it turns out, the key line in the chorus, “No one dies from love/Guess I’ll be the first” is ultimately from Annie’s perspective, not Tove’s. And, upon seeing her gush over how “real” Eva is, Annie feels the unspoken sting of not being “real enough” for Tove by ripping her “heart” (located at the center of her chest) out in response as the deluge of memories they shared plays back in a painful montage before Annie goes up in flames (foreshadowing for how things will also transpire in “Borderline,” set to appear on the deluxe edition of Dirt Femme).

    The final scene of the video, however, assures us that it’s just as the song says, “No one dies from love.” Instead, one gets repurposed into another useful thing: being a crash test dummy. For this is Annie’s new fate in the aftermath of having her heart broken by Tove. Hence, the state we find her in (side note: her true robot identity isn’t revealed for certain until the last frame) throughout the sequel to “No One Dies From Love”: “Borderline” (always a brave title choice when considering Madonna’s 1983 single of the same name has the monopoly on that word, try as Ariana Grande, Tame Impala, and now, Tove Lo might to make it their own). Co-written with fellow pop powerhouse Dua Lipa around the time Future Nostalgia was being created, Tove was certain to mention that this “is a song about being on the edge of love. The drama you cause inside yourself and with another person if you feel insecure.” To be sure, Annie, by this point, is nothing if not insecure. Though still confident enough to know that she deserves her revenge (as Budd [Michael Madsen] says of Beatrix Kiddo [Uma Thurman] in Kill Bill). And how she gets it is very elaborate indeed.

    This time directed by Nogari, the video starts at the finale, with a vehicle up in flames. To this end, it’s no coincidence that J. G. Ballard’s Crash has seeped into the cultural consciousness of late by way of mainstream pop culture. This includes, most notably, Charli XCX (a regular Tove Lo collaborator) naming her most recent album Crash and featuring herself on the cover all bloodied and perched on the hood of a car (in a bikini, of course) with a cracked windshield—presumably because she deliberately threw herself in front of it. You know, just to feel something and all that jazz in our climate of total dissociation and sociopathy. Which is why an obsession with all-consuming, passion-burning love remains at a premium, particularly in narrative depictions. And when we can’t get something like that from an actual human in the way that we want it, perhaps it’s bound to transfer to…objects. Especially technologically-oriented ones.

    Enter technosexuality. But its precursor was, “naturally,” mechanophilia. For the car was the first major modern technological advancement of the post-Industrial age. Suddenly it was mother, father, sister, brother to so many. Offering shelter and comfort for any occasion: going to the movies, making out, having sex, sleeping, eating…maybe even going to the bathroom (a.k.a. pissing in a cup). Ballard’s tale of mechanosexuals-turned-symphorophiliacs (someone sexually aroused by accidents and disasters, e.g. car crashes) is a dark look at the effects the modern age has had on humankind, and its increasing inability to relate to its own flesh-and-blood ilk. Preferring instead the “no muss, no fuss” coldness of a machine. This, needless to say, also including robots. As Zadie Smith would assess of the novel in a 2014 article for The Guardian, “Crash is an existential book about how everybody uses everything. How everything uses everybody.” That reality has only amplified in the decade since the piece was initially published, not to mention the many decades since Crash was first released.

    One might even say Annie has become the new “nightmare angel of the expressways” in lieu of Crash’s Dr. Robert Vaughan. This much is made clear as we watch her kidnap Tove Lo, who we see in the back of the trunk after Annie has gone through the ringer in terms of being constructed into the perfect crash test dummy that can withstand all manner of impacts (hear the lyrics: “I like to my feel my bones when they crash into my heart/I like the taste of blood when you’re tearin’ me apart)—except unrequited love-oriented ones. It doesn’t take long for Tove to come around to playing along with Annie’s idea of a Thelma and Louise-inspired road trip, possibly because she’s not fully aware it actually is Annie. Her openness to doing whatever only augments after Annie serves her a handy tab of acid that also looks very much like a computer chip (with this in mind, Tove ostensibly speaks from Annie’s viewpoint when she sings, “I like to push it to the edge/As long as you say you’re mine/Borderline”).

    Cut to Tove Lo dancing sensually amid the wreckage of various vehicle parts as she trips blithely in the junkyard not just of “no longer useful” machinery, but also love itself. In another scene, Tove and Annie, in her crash test dummy guise, are backlit by a pair of headlights as Tove licks and kisses the non-person with the sort of tripped-out gusto that only LSD can incite. As Tove puts it in her lyrics, “Lost in the magic with you/A pretty disguise from the truth/Truth is ugly, don’t open your eyes/I can change, I can change with just one more lie.”

    The next day, however, even without the drugs, the reinstated “lavender haze” still seems to be at play as Tove hangs out the window, lovingly caresses the crash test dummy’s face while the latter drives and enjoys a roadside meal with her ex-turned-current boo. But somehow, it all seems part of Annie’s elaborate revenge plan: make Tove fall back in love with her as a different human-shaped object and then crash them into a wall as they’re pursued by a police car (for no apparent reason other than, again, to come across like Thelma and Louise). Sure, maybe Tove thought it had to go down that way in order for them to be together, but what she failed to take into account about Annie’s machinations (no pun intended) is that she knew she was quite literally built to crash and survive. Which she’s now not only done in a harrowing relationship with Tove, but in this actual crash in which she finds herself burned, but still moving. A symphorophiliac in matters of love, thanks to Tove’s original callousness.

    Because perhaps being a symphorophiliac stems, at first, from getting off on watching how easy it is for a relationship to crash and burn—as fragile and delicate (if not more so) as any person prone to a fatal wreck inside a vehicle.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Evolution of Songs About Nuclear War From Serious Threat to Love Metaphor, Or: The Present Relevancy of Charli XCX’s “Nuclear Seasons” and MARINA’s “Radioactive”

    The Evolution of Songs About Nuclear War From Serious Threat to Love Metaphor, Or: The Present Relevancy of Charli XCX’s “Nuclear Seasons” and MARINA’s “Radioactive”

    [ad_1]

    While everyone had assumed that 1) Putin would never dare to actually invade Ukraine and that 2) if he did, it would never go on this long, they were all mistaken on both counts. As of March 27th, it is three-hundred and ninety-seven days into the invasion, and talk of nuclear war only continues to mount. Especially as Putin speaks of storing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, a maneuver that has been deemed a way to take said country as a “nuclear hostage” to the whims of the dictator swinging his “missile” around as leverage. By stationing missiles there, not only is Belarus a hostage, but the rest of the world becomes a prisoner to the irascibility of a man who wants to be able to constantly have the threat of “the button” on his side. And yet, when so many men in the past, including Putin contemporaries Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un, have made this threat only as a means to “flex,” it becomes a case of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”—not that anyone has a problem with that in this scenario. It’s just that, the more a threat like this is made, the more idle it becomes. For one has to be willing to be insane enough to know that in pressing the button, they’re effectively kamikazeing themselves.

    Although everyone loves to condemn a baby boomer, it has to be said that no one knows better than said generation what it means to live under the anxieties of ceaseless nuclear threat. Ergo, the pervasiveness of music centered on the topic in the boomer heyday. Whether Sheldon Allman’s “Crawl Out Through the Fallout” and “Radioactive Mama,” Ian Campbell’s “The Sun Is Burning” (also covered by Simon & Garfunkel), The Fugs’ “Kill For Peace,” Bob Dylan’s “A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall” or Crosby, Stills & Nash’s “Wooden Ships,” there was no shortage of grandiose numbers or “little ditties” about the subject matter. Some used music to make light of the situation as best they could. This included Allman, who sings on “Radioactive Mama,” “Well, when we get together, clear away the crowd/There won’t nothing left except a mushroom-shaped cloud.” Allman also adds, “Your kisses do things to me in oh so many ways/I feel them going through me, all those gamma, gamma rays.” Because if we can’t joke about things like this, then honestly, how are we supposed to get through it?

    The thing is, being out of the boomer era and on to a new one where everything is a potential source of offense, it would be unfathomable for songs like Allman’s to be released today. Including “Crawl Out Through the Fallout,” wherein he sardonically urges, “Crawl out through the fallout, baby/To my loving arms/Through the rain of Strontium-90” and then notes, for good tongue-in-cheek measure, “I’ll love you all your life/Although that may not be too long,” as well as, “Crawl out through the fallout back to me/‘Cause you’ll be the only girl in the world.” And no, this certainly isn’t what Rihanna had in mind when she said, “Want you to make me feel like I’m the only girl in the world.” Indeed, by the time the 2010s rolled around, nuclear war had become a far less chic topic in music, having reached a crescendo in the 1980s with singles such as Blondie’s “Atomic,” Talking Heads’ “Burning Down the House,” Rush’s “Between the Wheels” and Ultravox’s “Dancing With Tears In My Eyes.”

    With the 80s seeing the greatest spike in Cold War tensions of the twentieth century, things calmed down (or at least pretended to) in the decades beyond. Perhaps so much so that musicians forgot altogether how terrifying it was for people to live through the perpetual pall of nuclear war’s dark shadow. Hence, while Charli XCX and MARINA use the words “nuclear” and “radioactive” to describe a relationship, they do so with the level of cavalier apathy so often credited to a millennial. At the same time, it was as though they both somehow had their finger on the pulse of what was to come in the next decade, with MARINA’s “Radioactive” appearing on 2012’s Electra Heart and Charli’s “Nuclear Seasons” appearing on 2013’s True Romance. Regardless of the years that each album came out, both singles, eerily enough, were initially released in 2011. What’s more, by putting the songs out during this moment in time, they also had the advantage of doing so when it wasn’t such a “hotbed” issue to wield such terms as metaphors. Which both of them do. For Charli, the “nuclear season” she refers to is a relationship that’s about to blow up as she announces, “We in the nuclear season/In the shelter I’ll survive this though.” Because a fallout shelter remains, evidently, a timeless symbol in our fucked-up world. MARINA, then Marina and the Diamonds, also knew how to brandish the trope in her first single from Electra Heart, singing, “When you’re around me, I’m radioactive/My blood is burning, radioactive/I’m turning radioactive/My blood is radioactive/My heart is nuclear/Love is all that I fear.” Roughly ten years on, however, the thing one ought to fear most is the total lack of potential for love in the world. For there should be no concern on MARINA’s part about love even being an option in this loveless, AI hellscape.

    So sure, if baby boomers thought it was bad to grow up being shown the “Duck and Cover” video in elementary school, they can take comfort in knowing that the rest of us are probably worse off for having nuclear war used as love metaphors rather than a legitimate source of concern. In said 1951 informational video from the Federal Civil Defense Administration, Bert the Turtle shows kids “what we all must learn to do.” Which is crawl into our “shells” and hide. The carapace that most white children were expected to have being a fallout shelter. Thus, the narrator assuring the white students watching, “Be sure to get into the house fast, where your parents have fixed a safe place for you to go.”

    For those NYC Black kids who were lucky enough, maybe their building had a community fallout shelter in the basement that’s since been converted into a shitty laundry room. Otherwise, it was probably tough titty. For we can’t pretend it’s not part of the racially-prejudiced dictator’s aim to wipe out the marginalized. Which is exactly what would have happened in the 50s and early 60s if a bomb had actually detonated. Because only the white folks were investing in bomb shelters. After all, the financial disparity between white and Black Americans at that time was an even more considerable factor. Not to mention the racially assumptive policies of civil defense that deliberately chose to ignore that people of color did not have the same resources as the “ideal” of the day: the suburban, white, middle-class nuclear (ironic, yes) family.

    So maybe it is nice to have Charli and MARINA “equalize” the bomb by making it a love metaphor (and yes, a toxic one). One that redefines what the narrator in “Duck and Cover” says: “The bomb can explode any time of year, day or night.” Yes, the love bomb sure can. Elsewhere, our narrator promises, “Older people will help us, as they always do.” A big presumption that obviously didn’t take into account how selfish the modern adult would become. The narrator makes certain to include the caveat, “But there might not be any grown-ups around when the bomb explodes.”

    “Grown-up” (an illusory term) present or not, the idea that ducking and covering was really going to spare anyone from nuclear fallout was both precious and self-deluding—and likely a huge government conspiracy designed to placate the masses. Which is why they could write off nuclear attack as being just another “little danger” to potentially be prepared for as viewers of the video are soothed, “We all know the atomic bomb is very dangerous. Since it may be used against us, we must get ready for it. Just as we are ready for many other dangers that are around us all the time.” No one thought to point out that these dangers (e.g., fires, earthquakes) were not needlessly designed by the government.

    And so, even now, we all just keep hoping for the best in terms of how “prepared” we are. That these dictators are merely pathetic man-boys crying wolf, but would never actually greenlight the mushroom cloud. Plus, if no one is around anymore to oppress, where’s the fun in that to a dictator?

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • “There’s No Remedy For Memory”…Other Than to Drown In It: Joanna Hogg’s The Eternal Daughter

    “There’s No Remedy For Memory”…Other Than to Drown In It: Joanna Hogg’s The Eternal Daughter

    [ad_1]

    Joanna Hogg’s entire film career has been about going against the grain. Defying the expectation that a movie needs to be “big” in order to be effective. This is something Martin Scorsese understands despite his own predilection for “big” films. Hence, the reason he reached out to Hogg after seeing her 2010 sophomore film, Archipelago, about wanting to collaborate as a producer with her. After all, Scorsese started out “quietly” as well, with Who’s That Knocking At My Door, and, despite his increasingly grandiose movies, has always appreciated the medium for what it was made for: storytelling. More specifically, telling one’s own story. No matter how personal or “specialized.” For, as Lana Del Rey’s thinking went with “The Grants,” there’s (usually) bound to be general resonance in the specific. In contrast to Del Rey, however, Hogg is aware there’s something self-indulgent to trying to make a piece of art about her relationship with her family. Namely, her mother. To capture it as she experienced it.

    And yet, if one is going to try to capture an essence or feeling, Tilda Swinton is inarguably among the best actresses one can try to express it through. So confident in her former boarding school classmate’s abilities, in fact, Hogg cast Swinton in both the roles of mother and daughter, Rosalind and Julie (also the name of the lead character played by Swinton’s own daughter in The Souvenir), respectively. It is by embodying both mother and daughter that Swinton fuses the part into one dicephalous entity. Billed as a “Gothic mystery drama,” it’s apparent from the outset that there’s something slightly sinister about the remote hotel Julie takes her mother to in some quintessentially gray and eerie British countryside (the movie was actually shot in Wales).

    As the pair rides along in the back of a taxi with Rosalind’s show-stealing Springer Spaniel, Louis (Swinton’s dog in actuality), the driver recounts a story of seeing a ghost at the hotel, called Moet Famau Hall (in real life, the hotel is named Soughton Hall). According to his account, “But there was something strange though, because a few months later, we were looking through our wedding photographs, and there was a picture of myself and my wife at the front of the hotel and you could see just behind us a figure of someone looking out of the window. Staring at us. Really quite scary at the time…” A side note re: the man’s wedding photos: Soughton Hall is typically a wedding venue. Best suited to such a purpose as a result of its secluded, idyllic nature. Yet, during the pandemic lockdown in 2020, such a venue was left unoccupied, making it the perfect chance to wield the milieu as Hogg and her crew’s own private shooting location (complete with building director Sarah Ramsbottom noting, “Whole rooms were being repurposed, one of the bedrooms became a prosthetics room for example. You just couldn’t do that with weddings going on”). And yes, the rich-person’s-house-turned-hotel does become a character unto itself, a key part of the haunting that Julie experiences. At first, however, it’s merely a feeling of “slight unease,” portended by the driver concluding of his ghost sighting, “So I avoid the place on dark winter nights.” And yet, lo and behold, that’s just the kind of night it is when he drops Julie and Rosalind off at the hotel.

    Things get off to a rocky start when Julie proceeds to have a tense interaction with the hotel’s lone front desk receptionist (played by Carla-Sophia Davies). One in which Julie insists she telephoned well in advance to ensure she would have a first-floor room facing the “formal gardens.” The receptionist informs her that no such indication was left with her reservation, and that all they can offer her for tonight is a ground-floor room. Julie is skeptical of the receptionist’s information, remarking upon all the openly-displayed keys to presently unoccupied rooms. Indeed, it often feels as though Julie can’t tell just how much of the receptionist’s attitude stems from outright sadism or the general irritation that comes with working in hospitality and having no patience left for what Rosalind would call “fusspots.” In this manner, the receptionist is an indispensable source for building on the tension that already palpably exists between Julie and her proverbial id-meets-super-ego, Rosalind. In the end, the receptionist, who is never given a name (adding to the spectral quality of the only other “presences” on the property), capitulates to giving her a room called “Rosebud” on the first floor. Of course, it won’t be lost on cinephiles that said word is the anchor of Orson Welles’ masterpiece, Citizen Kane. A word/object that ultimately symbolized Charles Foster Kane’s (Welles) lost youth. So it is that this hotel represents both Rosalind and Julie’s lost youth, though more so the former, as it was a family residence she spent her childhood in.

    Alas, while the reason that Julie decided to bring Rosalind here was because she assumed she had so many happy memories at Moet Famau Hall, Rosalind has no trouble reminding her of the many painful memories she also had while inhabiting the space. This tears Julie apart inside, due to a more than somewhat unhealthy obsession with wanting to ensure her mother is always happy and “pleased.” A state that no one can exist in, as the human condition is founded upon a far more complex spectrum of emotions. Nonetheless, this unnatural fixation on wanting to make her mother happy inevitably leads to few emotional breakdowns on Julie’s part, with one big one toward the end as she starts sobbing after her mother says she doesn’t want to eat anything for her birthday dinner. Her attachment to her mother is so strong, yet so rooted in resentment, that she finally bursts out with, “I just want you to be happy, I just—I’m trying all the time to make you happy. I can’t keep guessing. Can’t you just tell me, you just, you’re like a sort of mystery person to me. And I’ve spent all my life doing this. Trying to figure out how to make you happy.” Obviously, this is Error of the Child’s Ways 101 in terms of seeking parental approval and knowing full well it will never come. Unless you’re, say, Taylor Swift. Julie continues, “I don’t have a family beyond you. I don’t have any children [ergo, she is “The Eternal Daughter”]. And I’m not going to have anybody to fuss over me when I’m your age.” This being a dig at how she spent so much time focused on her mother that she didn’t spend enough time nurturing her own personal life, or plans for starting a family (although she does have a husband she often neglects).

    The metatextual tapestry of everything collides by this moment, stemming not just from Honor Swinton Byrne playing a character called Julie in The Souvenir, but from the fact that Rosalind is rehashing all of her memories to Julie as Julie herself is experiencing these rehashings as her “memories,” or rather, hauntings. The way Julie in The Souvenir is haunted in her own way by the memory of Anthony (Tom Burke). Thus, her attempt to constantly recapture what happened between them by making a film about it. Just as the Julie of The Eternal Daughter is trying to do. For if you can document something in that way, then you can hold on to it as long as you live, even after the person is gone.

    This much is mentioned when she talks to one of the hotel’s few employees, Bill (Joseph Mydell), over a glass of soothing alcohol by the fire and tells him, “I’m a filmmaker and I came here, um, with my mother to, um, to try and write a film about my mother and I. But, not easy. I—I can’t even get started.” “Why is that?” he inquires. “I think I’m not sure I feel I have a right to do such a thing. It feels like trespassing.” He assures, “I can understand you wanting to make a film about your mother to keep that sense of that relationship with her.” This said during a brief flash to her linking hands with her mother’s, markedly more aged in this particular scene to indicate that it’s another memory from a different part of their stay at the hotel together. And that Rosalind is the old woman in the window, the one the taxi driver saw haunting the place in his wedding photo.  

    It is by this point in the film that we can see how drinking of memory is almost like inhaling too deeply the scent of the poppy flower, getting high on its intoxicating fumes only to become perilously addicted. The past is so intermingled with the present in The Eternal Daughter that part of the “horror” of it comes from not being able to distinguish where the past ends and the present begins, hence an aphorism like, “What’s past is present.” When Julie is finally forced to acknowledge that, in her present, Rosalind isn’t really there, she’s finally able to work on the script she couldn’t start for the majority of her trip. The one that will presumably become the very film we’re watching (more meta-ness, of course).

    As for those who can’t see beyond the “boring” or “quiet” nature of a Hogg film, they would do well to remember that she once said, “I wanted to make a film doing everything I was told not to do in television.” This inferring the TV expectation to be constantly “dynamic” and/or offer too much “telling” instead of “showing.”

    Blending elements of The Others with The Sixth Sense, but with more sentimentality, The Eternal Daughter is, in one regard, about the horrors of being haunted by memory, and, in another, about the comfort it can bring to know that a person you love—no matter how complicated your relationship with them—will live on in your mind, and perhaps come out of it to be further immortalized through art. For, as Del Rey once said, “There’s no remedy for memory.” It’s the disease and the cure.

    [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

  • Swarm Crystallizes That Celebrities Are the New Gods, and There Is No Freedom of Speech When Speaking “Ill” of Them

    Swarm Crystallizes That Celebrities Are the New Gods, and There Is No Freedom of Speech When Speaking “Ill” of Them

    [ad_1]

    For as much talk as there is of late about how “terrible” and “harrowing” it is to be a celebrity, perhaps the worst fate in the present climate is being someone who “dares” to speak “ill” (a.k.a. point out certain flaws and hypocrisies in the work compared to the lifestyle) of a celebrity. With all the tools available at a fan’s disposal to “end” the person who says something they don’t like about their “god” in the twenty-first century, it truly has never been a scarier time for the mere expression of an opinion.

    Perhaps the biggest mistake one can make about Swarm is assuming it’s a satire. As though someone in a particularly “passionate” fanbase wouldn’t do something that unhinged. That someone, in this “fictional” case, being Andrea “Dre” Greene (Dominique Fishback). An “awkward, gawky” girl who, as it becomes immediately clear, has a very unhealthy relationship with her “bestie”/“sister” (Dre, we later find out, was adopted by Marissa’s parents), Marissa Jackson (Chloe Bailey, adding another meta element to the show for being Beyoncé’s protégée). The two “share” an apartment in Houston (meaning Marissa pays the rent, often by asking for supplemental support from her parents, who aren’t ware of Dre’s presence in her life…or, at least, they pretend not to be). Again, not a coincidence, considering Beyoncé hails from “H-Town.” Nor is it a coincidence that the show is called Swarm to echo the fanbase name of the Beyhive. Or that the show’s creator, Donald Glover, worked with Beyoncé on The Lion King, and that proximity to her perhaps gave a new level of insight into the obsessiveness her level of stardom encounters. Glover’s co-creator, Janine Nabers, also has plenty of experience in playing up the surreal nature of fandom, with a show like UnREAL also tapping into a form of celebrity culture (even if “reality star”-based) and how it “feeds” fans. Most of whom are looking to be fed because it fills some kind of void within them. A void everyone has to fill, one way or another.

    In Dre’s situation, worshipping Ni’Jah (Nirine S. Brown)—the obvious Beyoncé stand-in—and deluding herself into thinking she’s part of The Swarm “family” is a way to tell herself that she is loved, that she belongs to a “tribe.” Case in point, her insistence to Marissa, “They’re my friends.” Marissa has to remind, “They are not your friends. Those are some crazy-ass fans. They don’t give a fuck about you, you know that, right? It’s not real.” But it’s the “realest” thing Dre has in terms of a source of “community” and “common ground.” As a foster child, she was clearly cast out from her own original tribe early on, the sting of abandonment not quite as sweet as being part of the bees of Ni’Jah’s hive. Therefore being the one to sting instead of getting stung. The protective bubble of “love” that Ni’Jah fills Dre with is matched only by the one that Marissa fills her with (and yes, it’s as “big lesbian crush,” to quote Janis Ian, as it sounds). But, as far as Dre is concerned, their rapport is being poisoned by the presence of another one of Marissa’s new boyfriends, Khalid (Damson Idris). Who Dre freely watches fucking her sister without Marissa knowing. At first, when Khalid catches her, his reaction is creeped out before giving way to being slightly turned on as he performs with even more gusto.

    Later, he calls her out for being such an obvious virgin (nicknaming her “Cherry Pie”) as Marissa finds out that Dre is short on rent. A recurring theme that will come full-circle in the final episode in that Dre still “miraculously” finds a way to afford Ni’Jah concert tickets even when she can’t afford rent (this being the “magic” of a credit card). Notably, all episodes (except for number six) start out with, “This is not a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is intentional.” A tongue-in-cheek “disclaimer” from Glover and Nabers that becomes ultra-meta in episode six. The first episode, “Stung,” begins in April 2016, better known to the Beyhive as: the month that Beyoncé released Lemonade. Still her most acclaimed album to date. Viewers are also introduced to the loud buzzing sound they’ll become accustomed to hearing whenever some crazy behavior is about to ensue. This includes Dre applying for a Discover card and using it to buy $1,800 concert tickets for Ni’Jah, the obvious fictionalized version of Beyoncé described in a bio as: “Texas native Ni’Jah is no stranger to fame. After being discovered on talent competition Star Seek, she led 90s icon R&B group XLLENT. Her solo career began with smash hit ‘Love on a Cloud,’ which helped her debut solo album, Loveli Days, go double platinum.” Yes, it’s a familiar mirror of Bey’s own come-up story.

    We’re given further insight into how some forms of obsession are more acceptable than others in that having multiple article clippings and photos up on one’s wall is deemed “enthusiasm.” This barrage of mass media being what we see in Dre’s room. And yet, enthusiasm gives way to psychopathy when a person feels the need to bludgeon anyone who says something disparaging about Dre’s idol. The only other person she defends so violently is Marissa, who kills herself at the end of the first episode.

    In episode two, “Honey,” Dre finds herself further avenging (after already killing Khalid) Marissa’s death in Fayetteville, Tennessee. By this time, it’s August of 2017, and she’s working at a strip club called The Lure. It’s there that fellow stripper “Halsey” (real name: Hailey) is given life by Paris Jackson, playing up the “I’m Black” dialogue with perfect irony-drenched poise. But Dre—presently going by “Carmen”—has no place for new friends in her life, determined to kill Reggie a.k.a. Tonk (Atkins Estimond), the person who commented of Marissa’s death, “That nigga got what she deserved. Stupid AF.” This in response to someone else saying, “I heard she killed herself to Festival.” A Ni’Jah single from Evolution (a title not unlike Renaissance).

    When Dre confronts Reggie about another comment in which he says Ni’Jah could die and he wouldn’t miss one song of hers, he proves to be a salient example of the online troll who would never stand by his statements in real life out of shame (“I don’t remember sayin’ all that”—as though posting in a fugue state of arbitrary contempt that needs to be funneled into the vessel of a pop star. Dre is happy to remind, “But you did”). In what will prove to be one of many in a series of dumb luck instances that allows her to keep killing without being detected (what will later be called “fallin’ through the cracks”), she is aided in the murder of Tonk by her fellow strippers, who assume he’s trying to sexually assault her. In thanks, Dre leaves them in the lurch by driving away from the house and disappearing into her next new identity.

    Episode three, “Taste,” shows us a throwback clip of Marissa talking up Ni’Jah (“We gotta protect her at all costs”) before the title card prompts us with the place and time, “Seattle, Washington, December 2017.” Dre has broken into someone’s house and continues her running script of asking, “Who’s your favorite artist?” When the person in question answers “Lil Gibble,” Dre demands, “How many Grammys does Lil Gibble have?” “I don’t know.” “None. Ni’Jah has twenty-six.” This a clear allusion to Bey’s thirty-two. Indeed, Glover and Nabers are meticulous about their references, from Solange attacking Jay-Z in an elevator to Beyoncé getting bitten at a party where Sanaa Lathan was rumored to be the culprit (which will soon be heavily parodied in the episode).

    The next scene in “Taste” after Dre’s Grammy question finds her channeling Patrick Bateman as she mops up the blood to a Ni’Jah tune called “Agatha” that goes, “Avant-garde coochy/You been used to the civilians/Eat the peach right/We ain’t shoppin’ at Pavilions.” In the car she’s about to steal from her dead victim, Dre opens a phantom text from Marissa (she’s been keeping the ghost alive by texting herself from Marissa’s phone) that asks the size of Alice Dudley’s (Ashley Dougherty) casket for commenting of the Bey and Jay (recreated as Ni’Jah and Caché) elevator scene, “I thought you were a feminist and then you’re with this man.” But her plans to kill Alice at her gym (which she’s allowed access to via more dumb luck) are foiled by the sight of someone wearing a Caché tour jacket and a prominently displayed backstage pass attached to his person. This vision has her chasing a new butterfly altogether. Using him and preying on his vulnerabilities (food) to get what she wants—access to Caché’s tour after-party—eventually, viewers find that the episode is called “Taste” because Dre does end up tasting of the “forbidden fruit” that is Ni’Jah by literally biting her at said party.

    This fittingly leads into an episode called “Running Scared,” wherein we find Dre, appropriately, even more on the run than usual after Bitegate. Ironically, after news of the bite leaks, The Swarm finds her to be the greatest threat to Ni’Jah of all …instead of her, let’s say, “fiercest” defender. The time and location has jumped to April 2018 in Manchester, Tennessee. Where Bonnaroo famously takes place (this being a nod to Bey’s Coachella performance in 2018, branded “Beychella,” and rescheduled from her plans to headline in 2017). It’s also where Billie Eilish (who has a slightly less intense fanbase) makes her grand entrance as motherly Eva, a cult leader who takes “Kayla” under her wing, insisting she’s drawn to women with names similar-sounding to her own: “Kayla, Clarissa—” “Marissa?” Dre chimes in hopefully. Inside the too-good-to-be-true compound, the “tribe” (that’s actually the word Eva uses) offers to get her an artist pass into Bonnaroo, prompting Dre to open up about how she’s “friends” with Ni’Jah, but that the last time they saw each other, they had a “misunderstanding.” Eva and the others play along with whatever Dre wants to believe, with Eva knowing that she’ll soon get her under her spell through the wonders of hypnosis, leading Dre to confess not only her real name, but some of the murderous things she’s done.

    Despite the theoretical bond that such honesty might create between her and Eva, who kisses Dre to cinch the deal, it’s no match for Dre’s loyalty to Ni’Jah, for whom she will always literally kill for. Especially when she finds out the cult bitches were lying and they’ve had her head so inside out that she didn’t realize it was already Saturday. Ni’Jah’s headlining day. And lo and behold, no “artist pass” to allow her entry into the festival. After dealing with the cult (read: killing most of them) she gets in her stolen car and speeds to the venue. “Tragically,” it’s too late. The show is already over, forcing Dre to watch the streaming version of it while crying.

    It’s perhaps long before this point in the limited series that some might be wondering, “Why am I watching this if I feel absolutely no empathy for this character? That, in fact, they make me as murderous toward them as they are toward anyone who dislikes Ni’Jah?” Because, even with all the bids to render Dre as “winsome” with her sad background, societal ostracism, etc., one tends to feel as much bristling by being around her as anyone else in the series. And so, the answer to the aforementioned question lies in the reality that, despite being hard to watch, it’s nonetheless a study in the horror show that is celebrity worship syndrome. In Dre’s scenario, it’s the worst strain of it: borderline-pathological. A willingness to commit crimes “for” said celebrity. And, like most who are down the cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs rabbit hole, Dre can never see just how much of a bottom-feeding parasite she’s become in the process. For not only does she kill at the drop of a comment that rubs her the wrong way, she also attaches to any source that shows her enough of the right kind of affection.

    Affection she certainly never got in her foster home (apart from Marissa). We’re taken back to the trauma of this household in episode five, “Girl, Bye.” A teleplay, it seems worth noting, that was co-written by none other than Malia Obama (one will do their best to refrain from coughing the words “nepo baby”). Considering the Obamas’ well-documented love for Bey and Jay, it lends another spine-chilling uncanniness to the overall product and its meta nature. “Girl, Bye” jumps us forward in the timeline to May 2018 in Houston, Texas. At the mall trying to get Marissa’s phone turned back on, Dre clocks a poster for the Running Scared II poster (meant to allude to the On the Run II Tour that Jay-Z and Beyoncé embarked upon the same year). She’s spotted by Marissa’s former boss while salivating over the ad and obliged to have lunch with her in the food court, making up a story about how she met Ni’Jah and they’ve become really close.

    Dre is, obviously, more out of options than ever and feeling pushed to the edge because Marissa’s father, Harris (Leon a.k.a. the saint in the “Like A Prayer” video), is the one who disconnected Marissa’s phone. Which serves as one of Dre’s primary delusion lifelines. Thus, she goes back to the Jacksons’ house with the intention of threatening her former parents with a gun to get them to turn the phone on again. All she’s met with, however, is venomous rage that perhaps even transcends her own as Harris chases her out with a shotgun after pronouncing, “This is Texas. I’ll shoot your ass and have a beer over your dead body.”

    To layer on more meta cachet, Chloe x Halle’s “All I Ever Wanted” plays as Dre runs from Harris and finds herself in Marissa’s old room. Cast out of the house once again, Dre suffers anew from the pain of being unwanted. With only The Swarm to turn to online for something resembling “kinship.” The episode is humorously ended with Erykah Badu’s “Caint Use My Phone” (a riff on “Tyrone”) playing during the credits.

    Episode six, “Fallin’ Through the Cracks,” subsequently turns expectations upside down as it plays out like a true crime documentary that flashes ostensibly way forward into the future. One wherein Loretta Greene (Heather Simms), the Black female detective who linked all the murders Dre committed together, rehashes how she unearthed the killer behind all these cold cases through one glaring motive: Ni’Jah. Loretta notes of how no one put the pieces together for so long about Dre, “I’ve seen this before.” The director asks, “Seen what?” “Black women, fallin’ through the cracks.” To warp the meaning behind the previous disclaimer at the beginning of every episode, none of the same actors appear to play who are now the “real” people in the story, being played by “themselves.” Nabers and Glover prompt things to get meta once again at the end of the episode, when Glover is interviewed about his next project, based on Dre’s story, commenting “I’m directing this show that I’m working on right now with like, uh, Chloe and Damson and Dom Fishback. It’s in the works, it’s going well.”

    While “Fallin’ Through the Cracks” might have shown us “Tony’s” true fate (getting arrested for jumping onstage at a Ni’Jah concert), the final episode, given the fit-for-a-delusional-person title of “God Only Makes Happy Endings,” takes viewers to Glover’s beloved Atlanta in June of 2018. Here we’re given a sense of how Dre-as-Tony’s life briefly took a turn for the better before they finally surrendered to their Ni’Jah “protecting” methods again. For Tony meets Rashida Thompson (Kiersey Clemons), a college student who is surprisingly drawn to Dre. And has no idea how eerie it is for her to ask, after inviting Dre back to her house, “How are you so chill? You should be like a med student or a serial killer.” Alas, we’ll never know if Dre was a Pisces or a Virgo (these being the signs most closely aligned with serial killing). Probably the latter…you know, with its Beyoncé connection and all.

    In an interview with Elle before Lemonade’s release, Beyoncé stated, “I hope I can create art that helps people heal [for Dre, that “healing” comes in the form of mass murder]. Art that makes people feel proud of their struggle. Everyone experiences pain, but sometimes you need to be uncomfortable to transform.” Dre was uncomfortable and she did transform…into Tony (this name being an homage to Tony Soprano, as both he and Don Draper were inspirations in the creation of this character). But transformation doesn’t always necessarily mean “improvement” or “leveling up.” The very thing that celebrities want to believe they’re encouraging with their work. This done while condemning and being freaked out by the potential for Dre’s mutant strain of “fandom.” Yet celebrities simultaneously feed off such shades of ardor via their ever-burgeoning bank accounts. Begging the question of who the real “antagonist” is in this dynamic. Like the fat cat industrialist or the tabloid journalist claiming they wouldn’t be in business if there wasn’t a public demand, we sometimes have to wonder if that’s really true. If the existence actually creates the demand, not the other way around.

    On 2019’s “Black Parade,” Beyoncé brags, “Hear ‘em swarmin’ right? Bees is known to bite,” as though encouraging the type of drone army behavior fandoms have become known for. Each one sharing its own unique celebrity worship syndrome. And, should Glover and Nabers decide to approach another fandom in a series format, they might consider one that’s far likelier to be even more murderous than the Beyhive: the Barbz.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Taylor’s Four-Pack (Of “New” Songs)

    Taylor’s Four-Pack (Of “New” Songs)

    [ad_1]

    In 2022, Madonna stated the obvious with regard to the mention of potentially selling her music catalogue: “Ownership is everything.” In other words, there’s no price tag she would accept to give up control of her music. Taylor Swift understands that better than anyone as she continues the daunting task of re-recording all the albums she made while under contract with Big Machine Records. At fifteen years old, the caveat of letting the label own her masters as part of the signing deal probably seemed like a small price to pay for fame. Over a decade later, as one of the most famous pop stars in the world, it suddenly felt like a huge mistake. Especially when music manager Scooter Braun bought Big Machine Records in 2019, thereby claiming ownership over Swift’s prized masters.

    The only “negotiation” Swift was offered in terms of buying them back was to agree to re-sign with Big Machine and “earn” one album back per every album recorded under the new contract. That’s fucked-up, Shylock-type shit, obviously, and Swift vehemently turned down the so-called deal in favor of signing with Republic Records, who offered a contract that allowed her to own all of her master recordings going forward. Without Swift on “his side,” Braun then sold the masters to a private equity firm called Shamrock Holdings (which, yes, sounds totally made up, complete with the word “sham” in it). And now, here we are two re-recordings (Fearless and Red) of six later, with Swift still managing to get her digs in at the (Big) Machine by releasing re-recorded versions of even her standalone singles from The Hunger Games: Songs from District 12 and Beyond. Luckily, this wasn’t the only “celebratory” marker of launching her Eras Tour on March 17th (because one supposes she loves an Irish boy too). She also offered a re-recording of “If This Was A Movie,” a bonus track on the deluxe edition of Speak Now (the likely next re-recording, as all but confirmed by the requisite Easter eggs Swift likes to dole out to salivating fans). But, better still, is a truly unreleased song from Lover called “All of the Girls You Loved Before.”

    Released too late to use in the soundtrack for To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before, “All of the Girls You Loved Before” could easily have been written from the perspective of Lara Jean (Lana Condor) after finally getting the boy she was obsessing over for so long to see that it was her he should be with (this smacking of another Taylor single, “You Belong With Me”). Rather than playing into the 00s school of thought on how “other women” should be treated (read: with disdain—e.g., Pink’s “Stupid Girls” or Marina and the Diamonds’ “Girls”) by their “competitor,” Swift wields the “correct” approach (a.k.a. the publicly sanctioned one we’re all supposed to adhere to now—Hailey Bieber take heed) with regard to seeing these previous women as “gifts.” Silver linings and all that rot. Because, while he was out being a himbo, it gave him the chance to understand what he did and did not want in a woman. Or, as Taylor puts it, “All of the girls you loved before/Made you the one I’ve fallen for/Every dead-end street [a euphemism for “dead-end vagina”] led you straight to me.” It has a certain “invisible string” slant to it, to be sure. Swift also speaks of her own patchy past with men as she adds, “When I think of all the makeup/Fake love out on the town/Cryin’ in the bathroom [a line Olivia Rodrigo also riffs on in “good 4 u”] for some dude/Whose name I cannot remember now.” In effect, everyone else was just a pile of trash that allowed Swift and Joe Alwyn to climb to the top of the heap together.

    Another notable quality about “All of the Girls You Loved Before” is that it’s directly in contrast to the message of “Hits Different” (not to be confused with SZA’s “Hit Different”), a bonus track from the Target edition of Midnights. For, apparently, three years after Lover, Swift was in a less welcoming headspace toward her “love object’s” additional dalliances by noting, “I pictured you with other girls in love/Then threw up on the street.” But hey, people are so many colliding emotions at once that Swift can hardly be blamed for inconsistency in sentiments on the matter of dealing with “other hoes.”

    As for her Hunger Games re-recordings, “Eyes Open” wasn’t the best track to resuscitate if Swift was hoping for a reminder of her musical prowess. Mainly because the track has a decidedly Avril Lavigne tinge, correlatingly saturated in the 00s sound of Rock (said in the “italicized, capital R” sort of way back then despite it being the lamest sound ever), even though it was originally released in 2012. Another re-recording from the same soundtrack, “Safe & Sound,” stands the test of time slightly better. Perhaps because it was given the prompt to embody “what Appalachian music would sound like in three hundred years.” Swift, a sucker for being part of any movie soundtrack related to Appalachia (hear also: “Carolina” from Where the Crawdads Sing), thusly responded with sparse instrumentation as she harmonizes with Joy Williams and John Paul White (a.k.a. The Civil Wars), “Just close your eyes/You’ll be all right/Come morning light/You and I will be safe and sound.” A likely story.

    The fourth song of the “Eras Tour celebration pack,” “If This Was A Movie (Taylor’s Version),” is awash in the country twang Swift was still fond of employing back in 2010. Considered a “fast-paced ballad,” Swift urges, “Come back, come back, come back to me/Like you would, you would if this was a movie/Stand in the rain outside ’til I came out.” That last line, of course romanticizing the stalker-y behavior of Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack) in Say Anything (minus the rain…though there is a separate scene of him being drenched as he pines over Diane Court [Ione Skye] while talking on a pay phone). She pleads again (desperate much?), “Come back, come back, come back to me/Like you could, you could if you just said you’re sorry/I know that we could work it out.” To the point of Swift insisting it would all be okay if the boy in question just apologized, she was sure to state during opening night at Glendale, Arizona’s State Farm Stadium, “Sort of a running, recurring theme in my music is I love to explain to men how to apologize. I just love it, it’s kind of my thing. I love to tell them step-by-step: here’s how simple this is to fix things if you just follow these simple steps I’m laying out for you in a three-minute song. I just love the idea of men apologizing.” A fantasy that certainly gets plenty of play in “If This Was A Movie” (incidentally, Steven Spielberg’s new theme song).

    Although the track appeared as a bonus on Speak Now, it is being promoted as part of The More Fearless (Taylor’s Version) Chapter. Fans have speculated that because “If This Was A Movie” stands alone as the only track on Speak Now not to have been written entirely by Swift, she wants to section it apart from the re-recording of an album that will resultantly be solely written by her. But that seems like a very megalomaniacal reason. Then again, you don’t become the first female to sell out a show at every stadium from State Farm to SoFi without perhaps having a touch of the megalomaniac’s control freak nature.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Lana Del Rey Returns to Her Church Choir Roots With “The Grants,” A Rumination on Memory and, More Subtly, Plath’s Fig Tree

    Lana Del Rey Returns to Her Church Choir Roots With “The Grants,” A Rumination on Memory and, More Subtly, Plath’s Fig Tree

    [ad_1]

    With a recent interview in Billboard noting that Lana Del Rey found herself figuratively going back to Lake Placid as she wrote Did You Know That There’s a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd, that much seems apparent on her third release thus far from the record: “The Grants.” For those who aren’t more than just cursory fans, the title refers to her true last name. Born Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, Lana Del Rey only transformed into her stage name around 2010 (though, back then, it was spelled “Del Ray”). One year later, her “Video Games” single would launch her into the international spotlight. A vastly different space than small-town Lake Placid, which, up until Del Rey, was only really on anyone’s radar because there was a horror-comedy movie named after it (though it’s not actually set in Lake Placid at all).

    The speculations about Del Rey’s background were (and are) rampant upon the debut of Born to Die in 2012—her father had bought her career, she came from money and was getting off on slumming it in a trailer park, she had a fuck ton of plastic surgery, etc. With “The Grants,” if one was hoping Del Rey might clear up some of the rumors about her background, there’s no allusion to any such light-shedding as she proceeds to talk about, essentially, how all the money and the fame don’t mean shit, etc. What matters is family, and the memories you make with people who are important to you (including, of course, romantic love interests). Just as she referenced a white male singer (Harry Nilsson) on “A&W,” she opts for John Denver on this particular track, making mention of his most famous single, “Rocky Mountain High.” Specifically, “I’m gonna take mine of you with me/Like ‘Rocky Mountain High’/The way John Denver sings.”

    She never elaborates on what (or even the way), exactly, it is he sings, but one can surmise it has to do with the lyrics, “And they say that he got crazy once, and he tried to touch the sun/And he lost a friend, but kept the memory.” For Del Rey’s own lyrics on “The Grants” go, “My pastor told me, ‘When you leave, all you take/Uh-huh, is your memory’/And I’m gonna take mine of you with mе.” The “I’m gonna take mine of you with me” part of the chorus comes into focus immediately at the beginning, with an intro featuring a singer correcting the “choir” (it’s a trio) she’s instructing before they proceed “for real. At first, the trio, consisting of Melodye Perry, Pattie Howard and Shikena Jones, mistakes “I’m gonna take mine of you with me” for “I’m gonna take mind of you with me.” It loosely goes back to Del Rey’s form of wordplay on “Not All Who Wander Are Lost,” when she says, “It wasn’t quite what I meaned, if you know what I mean.”

    As for Del Rey’s own personal choir of three, each woman was featured in the documentary 20 Feet From Stardom—perhaps Lana’s nod to being a “backup singer” herself in the church choir…except that she was the cantor. Even so, as the “chief singer,” she undoubtedly knows that you’re nothing without good backup (and that’s kind of what a family is, too). Seeing as how the choir life was part of the past Del Rey is reflecting on, it also makes sense that she can’t help but look to her future as well. Will it consist of “furthering” the family line, or will it be a life of quiet devotion to art? Either way, Del Rey wants to assure listeners that she’ll be spending “Eternity” with the Grants. Even if she’s convinced they might actually live forever (as all rich people think they will). For her real Daddy, Rob Grant, has been staying attuned to the scientific research surrounding the “extinction of death” for years. As Del Rey said in her Rolling Stone UK interview, “Why not have that be the focus: self-preservation. Just to stay around and see what happens, you know?” How vampiric (in fact, “Vampires” is an album concept Del Rey has surprisingly not tapped into).

    Eerily enough, it also speaks to something Del Rey said early on in her rise to fame: “When I was very young I was sort of floored by the fact that my mother and my father and everyone I knew was going to die one day, and myself too. I had a sort of a philosophical crisis. I couldn’t believe that we were mortal.” Maybe she still can’t—and doesn’t have to if this whole “extinction of death” thing is workable. Which would be a load off Lana acolyte and fellow family lover Billie Eilish’s shoulders too. Even if it would make her a liar for putting out a song called “Everybody Dies”—for that reality is actually more of a comfort to her than a phobia, remarking of the track, “I don’t know why [but] I’ve talked about it since I was a kid. It makes me happy that all things end. It’s also very sad and sentimental. This song is really just about knowing that you only have so long to do what you want, so just do it. Enjoy your life.” Del Rey is ultimately saying the same thing on “The Grants,” albeit in a far rosier package.

    With regard to others before her who couldn’t fight the reaper and “stay around,” the callouts of Harry Nilsson and John Denver on these past two singles bear an especial significance considering that the former was born in New York (i.e., Brooklyn) and had major commercial success without much touring or regular radio airplay and the latter was a lauded folk singer-songwriter billed as an emblem of the American West. Del Rey has certainly become that in the years since she correctly decided to defect from NYC in favor of Los Angeles. More and more, it’s difficult to remember a time when she could have ever been branded as a “Brooklyn Baby,” with so much of her work rooted in the inspiration she’s derived from L.A. and its outlying areas (e.g., Arcadia, Rosemead, Newport, Long Beach, et al.).

    Still, her nostalgic look at her family lineage undeniably forces her to recall that period of her existence, along with, most especially, the early years spent in a town of roughly a thousand, where, per Del Rey, “the trajectory was: school, junior college, trade school… get married?” Del Rey still has yet to cross that particular threshold, though it’s not for a lack of trying. Her trail of boyfriends far outweigh any body count Taylor Swift has, yet she manages to fly under the radar on this front largely for possessing a “mystical ordinariness,” as Rolling Stone writer Hannah Ewens calls it, that figures heavily into this particular single. A track that most other artists probably wouldn’t have chosen to be a single. And where that has served her well in the past with lengthy numbers like “Venice Bitch” and, more recently, “A&W,” it doesn’t quite carry off without a hitch in this instance.

    This is likely because of its decidedly “Christian” timbre (it’s giving “This Little Light of Mine” for sure). In point of fact, it’s the type of song one could categorize as part of the “Katy Hudson” school of rock…except far more passable as secular (and mainstream chart-ready). Because, without question, pop music is no stranger to accommodating religious tones and themes (just look at most of Madonna’s work). And Lana, too, has frequently incorporated Catholic motifs and images into her songs (and “aesthetics”) in the past. Yet something about “The Grants” is schmaltzier than all the others. Most likely attributable to the specificity of Del Rey talking about her family of origin—which is probably a topic she thought would resonate, based on another recent quote from Rolling Stone, in which she noted, “Everyone has these nuanced but specific stories that are so universal to people…” But not quite so with “The Grants.” Maybe because, in actuality, Del Rey doesn’t get specific at all, offering general terms like, “My sister’s firstborn child/I’m gonna take that too with me/My grandmother’s last smile/I’m gonna take that too with me.” Then there’s a very “Easter eggy” nod to her uncle, David Grant, who died climbing the Rocky Mountains (thus, the name-check of the John Denver song). Apart from these mentions, nothing about “The Grants” are really acknowledged, least of all their source of income prior to Lana’s fame (where’s the callout to Rob being a domain developer, huh?).

    But as for the concept of someone’s memory living on with you once they’re gone (whether through death or simply extricating themselves from your life), well, that’s fairly sweet—another song title on the record, by the way. Or maybe “bittersweet” is the word, especially for Del Rey in this case, whose now ex-boyfriend, Mike Hermosa, co-wrote the song with her. Along with another tragic number about loss and memory, “Did You Know That There’s A Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd.” It’s almost as if she knew it was going to end between them, based on these tracks alone. And maybe turning every relationship into a song/album is one surefire method of ensuring she can never truly be forgotten—not by her exes or the public.

    As for the reason why the subject of romantic love more often than not creeps into her work, Del Rey commented to Ewens, “Everybody finds themselves in a different way. Some people really find themselves through their work, some people find themselves through travelling. I think my basic mode is that I learn more about myself from being with people, and so when it comes to the romantic side of things, if you’re monogamous and it’s one person you’re with, you just put a lot of importance on that.” In short, she really is The Love Witch that her face is so often being superimposed over (much to Samantha Robinson’s annoyance). So it is that even on a track supposedly about her nuclear family/lineage, Del Rey references her failed relationships in lines like, “So you say there’s a chance for us/Should I do a dance for once?/You’re a family man, but/But…”

    The incompleteness of that sentence touches on Del Rey’s Sylvia Plath-oriented fear/metaphor about the figs on the fig tree. If she chooses the life of wife and mother, will she be forced to lose her career? The thing that drives her, ostensibly, more than anything. And yet, knowing that fame is fickle, at best, Del Rey increasingly wonders if she should secure her legacy in some other lasting way—by continuing the Grant lineage. This, too, is addressed on “Did You Know That There’s A Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd,” when she asks, “When’s it gonna be my turn?” A bold demand for any white person to make, in their inherent position of privilege, but Del Rey seems to be suggesting that the sight of all friends and siblings making their own families has her pondering when (or if) she’ll be next. To that end, it becomes harder to be so “choosy” about her boyfriend du moment, asking whoever it is, “Do you think about Heaven?/Do you think about me?” (because, apparently, Del Rey views herself as Heaven—e.g., “Say yes to heaven/Say yes to me”).

    And yet…obviously, she remains particular as ever. Perhaps it’s all part of the latent eternal commitment to/battle with art over family (see: The Fabelmans). More precisely, the obligation most feel to perpetuate their family line. But because of Del Rey’s unique position as a “cultural icon,” she’s already technically done more than any of her other breeding siblings possibly could to ensure “eternal” clout. Or has she? For the only thing that means more to society than fame, particularly where women are concerned, is spawning. That is, indeed, why more and more pop icons are doing just that where once it never would have been a consideration that they could “have both”—the family and the career. The expectation formerly being that once a woman reaches “a certain age,” she hangs up fame to have kids. Not so anymore. Hence, the likes of Rihanna and Beyoncé expanding their broods, as the latter sings things like, “My great-great-grandchildren already rich/That’s a lot of brown churrin on your Forbes list/Frolickin’ around my compound on my fortress.” But one gets the sense Del Rey wouldn’t be as “gung-ho” about continuing with singing if she surrendered to la vita di famiglia. That she would instead devote herself entirely to said “purpose.” And, lest anyone forget, she did once claim, to Kim Kardashian of all people, that if she hadn’t become a singer, she might have pursued becoming a doula (because, sure, that’s the natural fallback career).

    With Del Rey entering a new decade in a few years, however, perhaps the thought of losing out on her chance to have children is on the brain more and more. And how it might ultimately be more “fulfilling” than persisting in relying on “artistry”—ergo, fame—alone. Incidentally, it’s Kesha who freshly wrote as her bio, “There’s a fine line between famous and being forgot” (these being lyrics to an upcoming song of hers). With a child or two, being forgotten becomes impossible. And when Del Rey sings, “I’m doing it for us” on “The Grants” (having already noted as much on “Get Free,” when she announced, “I’m doing it for all of us”), one ponders whether she means she’s holding fast to her career for the sake of the “us” that comprises herself and her fans in a parasocial relationship with her, or if it refers to the “us” that comprises herself and the rest of the Grants, in terms of choosing to “propagate their species.”

    Whatever she ends up “choosing” (or perhaps having it all), the self-reflection process is made apparent on that road to deciding via “The Grants.” But that still doesn’t make the track “single-worthy.”

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Are You Surprised A Visual Effects Extravaganza About Paying Your Taxes and Honoring Family Was the Oscar Darling?

    Are You Surprised A Visual Effects Extravaganza About Paying Your Taxes and Honoring Family Was the Oscar Darling?

    [ad_1]

    Triangle of Sadness never stood a chance as a major Oscar contender, of course. And as a skewering of the rich and a society that worships them, it was certainly not going to topple the likes of Everything Everywhere All At Once. Which, say what you will about it, is not some kind of “love letter” to moms (in the spirit of the 1942 children’s book, Runaway Bunny) or “ordinary people,” so much as a thinly-veiled push to accept your fate—no matter how mediocre—make the most of it and, obviously, never try to outsmart/dodge the IRS. Even though it seems like one ought to be able to mentally maneuver around somebody as toady as Deirdre Beaubeirdra (Jamie Lee Curtis, who swept up an Oscar for her part in the movie as well), Kafka long ago made it clear that bureaucracy always triumphs. And so do schmaltzy movies at the Oscars—regardless of such movies being masked as “profound” and “rooted in realism.”

    That “realism” begins when Evelyn (Michelle Yeoh) is confronted at the IRS office by Alpha-Waymond (Ke Huy Quan), another version of her husband from the multiverse. But it’s difficult to focus on what Alpha-Waymond is saying to her about the collapse of every universe while the “voice of reason” throughout the film, Deirdre, a star IRS agent (with the butt plug-shaped Auditor of the Month awards to prove it), keeps trying to bring Evelyn back to “reality,” whatever that means. But to Deirdre, it means reminding this non-taxpayer that “hobbies” are not businesses, and that Evelyn is going to be in some serious trouble if she doesn’t get her story straight with regard to her tax return “narrative.” Notably, Everything Everywhere All at Once’s major sweep of the Oscars comes just in time for tax season—how fucking convenient is that, as Cardi B would say. Because yes, amid all the smokescreens about nihilism and how “nothing matters,” the Daniels (Kwan and Scheinert) ultimately seem to want to remind viewers that nothing is ever so chaotic in any universe as to excuse away not correctly filling out and filing a tax return.

    In truth, the only way to gauge whether or not a bona fide apocalypse has occurred is if people stop paying their taxes and are able to “get away with it.” This tending to refer to something like a The Last of Us scenario wherein it’s irrefutably true that nothing matters, save for basic survival (thanks to the 28 Days Theory on Humans Enduring for No Good Reason Other Than It’s Encoded Within Them). Or, in the instance of Triangle of Sadness, you find yourself in a Lord of the Flies situation, stranded on a deserted island. That’s when humanity in its most unbridled form reveals itself. But naturally, the Academy doesn’t likely care to remind viewers of such “ugly” realities, like “buying sex with the common food” as Abigail (Dolly de Lion) does in her newfound role as leader.

    In contrast, while she was a cleaner on a 250-million-dollar yacht, Abigail was “valueless.” In the rough of the wild, however, her skills (what the Daniels would bill as being part of “competency porn”) are worth everything to the passengers that now depend on her for survival. Paula (Vicki Berlin), the head of staff on the yacht, makes the mistake of trying to treat Abigail the same way she does on the boat, having the gall to ask her after Abigail does all the work to finagle them a fish dinner, “Why do you get so much food? Why?” This question forces Abigail, The Little Red Hen of the outfit, to spell it out by explaining, “I caught the fish, I made the fire, I cooked. I did all the work, and everybody got something.” In capitalist existence, this is simply called a laborer. In Lord of the Flies existence, this is called running shit and everyone else without any viable skills can shut the fuck up.

    When Yaya (Charlbi Dean), the proverbial hot model/influencer of the yacht’s remaining passengers, ends up hiking with Abigail over a mountain to find that they’re actually on an island that houses a bougie resort, the look on Abigail’s face is one of sheer disappointment. She doesn’t want to go back to how it used to be. To the existence, or “universe,” as Everything Everywhere All at Once would bill it, where she’s a lowly peon whose skills are rendered useless again now that money as the sole source of clout has reentered the equation. In Everything Everywhere All at Once, the Daniels attempt to lift up the working class by spotlighting them as the “real superheroes” in this world. Of course, what would be far more uplifting to them is if they were paid accordingly. Not given some propaganda about accepting how shitty things are and, by the way, keep paying your taxes.

    Perhaps the vastly opposing messages of each film, with Everything Everywhere All at Once disguised as something it’s not, proves that the only side people want to see of themselves is the rose-colored one. With “normal” Waymond saying such dialogue as, “The only thing I do know is that we have to be kind.” A more debonair Waymond in the universe where Evelyn is a film star and didn’t up marrying him finds her telling Waymond how bleak it would have been if she had opted for a life with him. As he leaves, Waymond ripostes, “In another life, I would have really liked just doing laundry and taxes with you.”

    This is what finally warms Evelyn’s heart back up to Waymond in the universe where they do just that, turning her back on the darkness that Jobu Tupaki a.k.a. her daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu), has infected Evelyn with on her journey through the multiverse. Although it seems like Joy might have won with her darkness (and the everything bagel that encompasses it), Evelyn chooses to employ Waymond’s combat style of “killing with kindness” (it was a grave error that Selena Gomez’s “Kill ‘Em With Kindness” was not used at any point during this scene). This, in turn, leads laundromat owner Evelyn to not let her daughter go even though she asks to be.

    Chasing after Joy outside the laundromat, Evelyn explains that she would rather be in this universe with Joy over any other. Joy counters, “[But] here all we get are a few specks of time where any of this actually makes sense.” Needless to say, Joy isn’t referring only to the literal way in which she and her mother have a tendency to tune their being into different universes, but the way in which none of life really makes sense to any of us. Except for those rare moments of clarity we’re meant to get by being surrounded with loved ones and friends during those precious, errant hours of time off from work. Work is what people do, after all, in order to support those around them. Including institutions that profit from (usually underpaid) labor. Especially the IRS.

    “Then I will cherish these few specks of time,” Evelyn assures. As though to say that we all should do the same with vacation weeks and “leisure hours” spent recovering from the horrors of working so that said wage can be gutted like a fucking fish by the government. To act like the Daniels aren’t complicit in perpetuating this inherently flawed cycle, they have Joy announce at the end, “Taxes suck.” But, clearly, you still have to do them if you want to be considered a Viable Member of Society (meaning, ultimately, a law-abiding one—laws being a social construct created by—ding! ding! ding!—the government a.k.a. the rich people that control it).

    Incidentally, the final line of the movie consists of Evelyn inquiring, “Sorry, what did you say?” It’s an appropriate question for those viewers who thought that they had heard something infinitely wise and profound when, at the core of Everything Everywhere All at Once is the longstanding societal reiteration that you must do your taxes and honor the family unit. Not just by never abandoning it, but by making sure that the same “beliefs” are imparted down the generational line. In other words, of course this would get the Academy hard as a rock compared to something as “Eat the Rich” in sentiment as the aforementioned Triangle of Sadness.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • New York Comes Across As Generically As Woodsboro in Scream VI

    New York Comes Across As Generically As Woodsboro in Scream VI

    [ad_1]

    For all the promotional hype surrounding the latest installment in the Scream franchise (officially poking fun at itself for having become that) and how it takes place in New York, there is surprisingly little riffing on that fact. Indeed, if one had anticipated that New York might be the “fifth character” (à la Sex and the City) among the self-described “Core Four” in Scream VI (stylized so that the Roman numeral serves as the “M” in the title), they would be sorely mistaken.

    To be blunt, the only time we really get a “taste of NYC” is during the clips deliberately accented in the trailer. Apart from those (featuring the requisite “bodega” and “subway” scenes), the closest we get to a sense of place is when Samara Weaving steps in for Drew Barrymore’s (as Casey Becker) memorable opening sequence from the original. Weaving plays Laura Crane, a woman waiting for an app-culled date at some “trendy” bar on “Hudson Street” (not really though—for even that is faked in Montreal). As the two go back and forth about how, essentially, they still feel too “uncool” for New York and places like said bar, they both state that they’ve only been in town for a matter of months. In addition, Laura makes mention of being a Film Studies professor specializing in the slasher genre. Clearly, things really have gotten too niche in our post-post-post-post-post-post-modern world. Particularly in academia (already poked fun of saliently in White Noise). After getting her to believe he’s hopelessly lost and can’t find the restaurant, soon enough, Laura’s “date” is able to lure her outside and into an alley. Of course, it’s not really Laura’s date, and it’s not even really New York either—what with so many locations filmed in Montreal.

    This includes one of the other “indelible” New York moments when Samantha “Sam” Carpenter (Melissa Barrera) and Tara Carpenter (Jenna Ortega) find themselves cornered in a bodega with the latest Ghostface. Called “Abe’s Snake Bodega” (the dead giveaway of it not being “Real New York” is that it feels the need to add “Bodega” into its name at all), the scene was shot in Montreal’s Notre-Dame-de-Grâce neighborhood. As were many others doubling as “the greatest city in the world.” Which, as usual, has shown itself to be highly recreatable in [insert other major city here]. And, contrary to popular belief, it’s not because it’s so “indelible” and “unique,” but because it has mutated into its own worst fear: the average metropolis. Something that other major cities haven’t fallen prey to quite so easily. Even San Francisco, for all the talk of the “tech bros” coming in and changing the face of the landscape with their presence, has not succumbed so effortlessly to a generic makeover as New York, particularly Manhattan and most of North Brooklyn (spreading with more and more ease to South Brooklyn and beyond).

    The vast majority of these two particular “sects” of New York have been overrun with corporate takeovers touting (unspokenly) how great it is not only to sell the city back to itself at an even higher price, but also how “necessary” it is to present the city with an array of new job opportunities for its burgeoning young workforce (emphasis on the word “young,” because that’s the demographic most willing to bend over for low-wage employment). Sam is ostensibly one of those youths, as Tara is certain to call her out for having two shitty jobs and no other real reason for being in town apart from monitoring her sister with stalker-like precision.

    To this point, Tara unwittingly brings up a larger issue about New York: that no one would ever go there without an “ambition.” That to go there “just to be there” is not only unheard of, but rather unhinged (perhaps part of the reason it’s so easy to paint Sam that way). Even as a “la-di-da” artist, it’s unfathomable to arrive in town without some cold, hard “goals.” For, unlike other cities that serve as “artistic havens,” New York isn’t solely about “being an artist” for the mere sake of it. More than any other “bohemia” hotspot, it is a place where you’re not only “supposed to” monetize your art, but where you have to if you want to actually survive without being ejected. And who could possibly want to be exiled from such a “fun” place? Where all worth and value is placed on the money you make (this capitalistic reality being on steroids compared to most other cities). In the alternate version of Scream VI that makes better use of its setting, Ghostface isn’t just out for some petty revenge on any of the remaining characters involved in the “legacy murders.” He’s also got personal beef against all of the pretentious, pseudo-influential fucks roaming the streets trying to “hustle” their so-called talents. Call him Patrick Bateman, but less arbitrary/prone to killing the poorest of the poor (a.k.a. the homeless). This making the randomness of the kills far more rife.

    Alas, some would say Kevin Williamson’s original version was never about such a message—with the core of it cutting to what Randy (Jamie Kennedy) said in the 1996 movie: “It’s the millennium. Motives are incidental.” This adding to the “fear factor” of the slasher behind the mask being anyone, at anytime. And yet, “motives” have remained decidedly not incidental for being in New York. In fact, they’ve remained steadfastly the same: you go there to “become” someone. To “make it.” Rarely, if ever, is being there about “disappearing,” as the Carpenter sisters want to do. For, despite the presence of the huddled masses, NYC is among the most visible places a person could “escape to.” Even so, its “singular” visibility (largely contributed to by everyone taking a picture of themselves on every corner where you could potentially be in the background) doesn’t mean it hasn’t long been recreatable in other locations.

    And sure, filming in more affordable environments meant to be New York is nothing new. In the 80s and 90s, Chicago easily doubled for “Gotham” (literally, in The Dark Knight’s case), even in a film like Escape From New York—with the city itself built right into the title. What’s more, look at what a series such as Friends did to recreate the town in a prophecy-like manner on a Burbank backlot. Friends, for as eye-rolled at as it is in the present, had a crystal ball-like use in foreseeing just how increasingly generic the city would become. This, in large part, thanks to stamping out all traces of the very populations that once made it unique with a little phenomenon called “eugenics of the poor.” And pretty much everyone is poor when they live in New York. The Carpenter sisters included. In effect, it has become easier and easier to bill the city as Anywhere, USA (or, in this instance, Anywhere, Canada) because it has lost all sense of the “personal touches” that once made it stand apart from garden-variety corporate infiltration.

    Even NYU has something of the “corporate effect” on the city it profits from. To that end, the university name “Blackmore” (where Tara attends)—actually Montreal’s McGill University—could very well be a dig at NYU needing to up its Black person “quota.” As for other set design details intended to “serve” New York, the use of a Chock Full o’Nuts ad at a reconstructed subway station reads, “Hipsters Like It. But Drink It Anyway.” This, of course, is meant to lend greater “authenticity” to an ersatz New York, despite the reality that “hipster” is a word that has been rendered so oversaturated that it has become meaningless and irrelevant…almost like New York itself. Another notable “subtlety” that actually has nothing to do with New York is a sign that reads, “Le Domas Financial Group.” This name being too much of a coincidence not to apply to the family moniker in Ready or Not, starring none other than the woman playing the first to be killed: Samara Weaving. But, more to the point, Scream (2022) and Scream VI’s co-directors, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett also directed Ready or Not. Just as the co-screenwriters of Scream (2022) and Scream VI, Guy Busick and James Vanderbilt, also co-wrote Ready or Not. And yes, James is a member of that illustriously moneyed New York family, the Vanderbilts (no wonder he wrote a script like Ready or Not). So perhaps the transition to NYC as the latest Scream location was his idea.

    Whoever determined the “change-up” environment, one must ask: what was really the purpose of setting Scream VI in New York? Especially if the movie wasn’t going to maximize the erstwhile “uniqueness” of the town to its utmost. After all, a subway scene can be done in any major city (even L.A.). The same goes for filming in darkened streets and alleys. Scream VI proved that much by shooting in Montreal. Where more indelible landmarks, like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Chrysler Building, etc. (all ideal locations for a stabbing, by the way) can’t be so effortlessly remade “in a pinch” as subway stations and a bodega. To be fair, Scream VI offered a token scene of the Carpenter sisters briefly walking around in “Central Park.” After all, that’s where the movie poster embeds the image of Ghostface’s screaming visage with an overhead shot of the park’s greenery and repositioned lakes. Nonetheless, with a tagline like “New York. New Rules,” one might have been expecting slightly more dependency on the location.

    As only the third Scream movie to take place outside of Woodsboro (with Scream 2 set at the fictional Windsor College in Ohio and Scream 3 set in Los Angeles—used with far more panache and specificity, particularly with the rapey producer angle that eerily mirrored the likes of Harvey Weinstein), the pressure on Scream VI to “really do something” with such a divergent (and non-fictional) location was perhaps too great.

    Admittedly, however, Scream is never really about location. The fact that it began in an Anywhere, USA type of town was meant to highlight that—in addition to providing the chilling idea that “nowhere is safe” (something coronavirus has made good on repeatedly since 2020)—the biggest freaks can so often live outside of major metropolises. But, as for the concept of nowhere being safe, that’s something that’s long been alive and well in NYC—at a zenith in the 1970s, complete with a pamphlet warning tourists, “Welcome to Fear City.” Indeed, the reaper-esque image that appears on the cover of the pamphlet could easily pass for Ghostface himself (call it another botched chance to pay much of any real homage to the city in which Scream VI takes place). And, to be candid, the lily-livered snowflakes who turn out to be Ghostface in Scream VI would have no chance of not getting stabbed themselves in that era that can now be referred to as Pre-Generic New York.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • It’s Raining Heteronormativity: Miley Cyrus Gets Wet With “River” Video

    It’s Raining Heteronormativity: Miley Cyrus Gets Wet With “River” Video

    [ad_1]

    One thing about Miley Cyrus is that she wants you to know she’s down for whatever and, accordingly, whoever. Among those who would like everyone to be aware of her “pansexuality.” And yet, in the years since that grand announcement, we’ve seen Cyrus dabble primarily in men (more to the point, men who look like they were sculpted out of marble). Oh yes, and then there was a brief dalliance with Kaitlynn Carter (long after an even briefer one with Stella Maxwell). So, yes, like the song from Katy Perry she inspired, “I Kissed A Girl,” Cyrus’ “leanings” toward the female sex feel primarily geared toward the thrill of the “novelty.” And while there’s nothing wrong with Cyrus playing mostly straight, it’s just that, by putting a big pansexuality sign over herself, she’s “unwittingly” (apparently) placed a larger responsibility on her shoulders to convey imagery and messaging that isn’t so, well, traditional.

    While it’s still “progressive” for a woman to show herself being pleasured by multiple men (a jarring thought for the patriarchy who want the concept of harems all to themselves), there is nothing new or exciting in what Cyrus is showcasing throughout a video that is, theoretically, meant to be drowning in sexual innuendo. That video, of course, being “River,” the second single from Endless Summer Vacation, and one that is in direct conflict with “Flowers” (save for the correlation that water does tend to make flowers “bud” and flourish). But that’s all in keeping with the many mixed messages on the record, all of which speak to the “pan” personality of a Sagittarius (unless you’re of the fairly consistent and straightforward varietal of the sign à la “The Archer” known as Taylor Swift).

    Shot in black and white, the video channels elements of Madonna’s “Cherish” (providing far more wetness, to be honest) and “Vogue,” but most especially her 2012 single, “Girl Gone Wild.” In it, she is surrounded by muscular men aplenty as well. The difference is, they aren’t so fucking butch. More to the point, the members of Ukrainian boy band Kazaky are among the male backup dancers wearing tight pants and heels as Madonna plays up the notion that boys can be girls gone wild, too (particularly when they’re gay). No stranger to less intelligently emulating Madonna, in fact, it’s a wonder Cyrus didn’t decide to call the song “Like A River.”

    As the video opens with “impressions” of Cyrus, followed by her silhouette (at one point in “superhero” pose), we then get a glimpse of just how much she looks like a young(er) Tish Cyrus (“must be somethin’ in the water/Know that I’m my mother’s daughter”), after which the camera pans out to reveal Cyrus on a runway-type stage with a bevy of spotlights on her. The decided “backstage”/“behind the scenes” photoshoot vibe of it all is compounded when Cyrus then appears against a giant white backdrop where she proceeds to mug for the unseen camera as she offers, “You could be the one/Have the honor of my babies/Hope they have your eyes and that crooked smile.” Not exactly a compliment/talk about using someone as a glorified sperm bank for bequeathing the desired attributes to one’s progeny.

    With regard to the lost potential for a concept centered around the “WAP” allusions of “River,” Cyrus places the most “gaze”-oriented emphasis on the male body (as they start to slowly creep in around the one-minute, twenty-second mark) rather than the female one (apart from her own, of course). Again, this indicates noticeably opting out of representing any other women in the mix that would indicate and make good on her pan(or at least bi)sexuality declaration. What’s more, because it’s the female “organ” that actually gets wet (subsequently providing wetness to the appendage that enters it) with river-esque proportions, it seems a waste that Cyrus should avert the viewer’s eyes from the very thing she’s actually referring to, even if it was done in a “subtle” manner (as subtle as Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion). Granted, male bodies like these are sure to incur the “river” “down there” that Cyrus is talking about…for straight women (and gay men alike). To drive home that point, Cyrus goes full-tilt “it’s raining men” (meets that famed scene from Flashdance) by the end of the video.

    All of that said, it’s rather undeniable that the song itself had far more potential to be “played with” than what Cyrus provides here. As for the defense/saying, “There’s beauty in simplicity,” that’s not quite the case with the visuals for “River,” which could have shown far more (to give another Madonna nod) girl(s) gone wild. Complete with them doing so amid the presence of an actual series of renowned rivers. Even the L.A. one, to be ironic…considering its near-constant state of dryness.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link