The partnership is a convergence of two business trends. With children as young as 2 or 3 now routinely using their parents’ iPads or smartphones — if the toddlers don’t already have their own — technology companies are racing to introduce gadgets made for smaller and smaller hands. Fuhu itself sold more than two million Nabis in 2013, and its tablets, which are primarily designed for children 6 to 11, now collectively deliver more than 20 million video streams a week.
Entertainment companies have been surprised at how speedily children have taken to tablets, sometimes forgoing TV sets altogether. As a result, DreamWorks, Disney and their competitors are searching for ways to make it easier for users to find their characters on portable devices.
According to the New York Times piece, “Nancy Bernstein, a movie producer who is in charge of creating what she calls ‘character moments’ for the DreamTab, insists that the effort is not simply an advertising opportunity for the studio.” That is absurd. Giving content providers control over the characters and images children see is advertising. Even if the penguins from Madagascar are not specifically promoting a new sequel or toy, they reinforce brand loyalty, which is the whole point of the arrangement. I’m not in favor of tablets for children to begin with, but this is really a new low.
“Love Actually” has become a Christmas tradition. The assorted stories of romance, from comic to tender to bittersweet, take place at Christmastime, with a rousing performance of “All I Want for Christmas is You” from Olivia Olson.
I think it offers up at least three disturbing lessons about love. First, that love is overwhelmingly a product of physical attraction and requires virtually no verbal communication or intellectual/emotional affinity of any kind. Second, that the principal barrier to consummating a relationship is mustering the nerve to say “I love you”—preferably with some grand gesture—and that once you manage that, you’re basically on the fast track to nuptial bliss. And third, that any actual obstacle to romantic fulfillment, however surmountable, is not worth the effort it would require to overcome.
Of course, there are many people who feel differently and it seemed that most of them responded in writing. In Mother Jones, Ben Dreyfuss wrote a piece called “Why ‘Love Actually’ Matters,” noting that he had seen the film at least 40 times. “In ‘Love Actually,’ as in life, people fall in love for crazy reasons…Is the movie a meaningful blueprint on how to meet your life’s love and make it last with them forever? Of course not. But is it romantic? Yes! Romance is the big gesture. Romance is the love that erupts without a spoken word.”
I like “Love Actually” not because I think it’s a compelling celebration of love, or because it’s a good holiday movie, but because of how sad the film often is…. can be painfully clear-eyed about how difficult it is not to have access to that bounty of affection, and to what are supposed to be happy endings.
“Love Actually” shows awkward, charming, complicated entanglements that can be very instructive in thinking about love. To help explain why, I hereby declare my second in this duel: C.S. Lewis. Although a mid-century Christian apologist might seem like an bizarre choice for back-up in a battle about a romantic comedy, his book The Four Loves provides a helpful framework for examining the big question “Love Actually”asks: What is love, actually?
Well, for starters, it’s a lot more than romance. Some of the movie’s most “aww!”-inducing moments do involve big, dramatic declarations of the heart (more on that later), but the most interesting of the movie’s nine or 10 subplots are those that don’t quite fit the expected rom-com mold. That’s because they’re not romantic at all: They’re versions of the first two kinds of love Lewis writes about, affection and friendship.
I think there are two flaws common to many of the defenses of “Love Actually” I’ve seen in comments, on Twitter, and elsewhere on the web. The first is attempting to defend each subplot on an individual basis. I agree that (with one notable exception) any given storyline is perfectly defensible on its own merits. The problem, rather, is the patterns that emerge when you consider the film as a whole. One subplot about an older man wooing a much-younger subordinate? Fine. But three? And on it goes: not one, but two gags (three, if you count the Colin subplot) about how the only possible way a man could overcome heartbreak is with the assistance of one or more supermodels; two storylines in which women (never men) see their romantic lives shattered by obstacles that ought to be surmountable; and, most important, upwards of half a dozen subplots in which characters go directly from initial physical infatuation to (presumed) happily-ever-afters, without remotely bothering to get to know one another in between. These repeated themes are not coincidental.
The second mistake is trying to defend the Keira Knightley storyline, which is flat-out indefensible. Cut it loose, “Love Actually” fans! It’s an anchor that can only bring you down with it.
I “actually” found this debate more entertaining than the movie, which I find problematic but still fun to watch.
When you make an outspoken, irascible patriarch into a television star, he is going to say outspoken, irascible things. And so “Duck Dynasty” dad Phil Robertson gave his views on homosexuality as a sin in an interview with GQ, using plain, sometimes crude language. He also made some comments about race relations and poor people that many found offensive. A&E, which airs the hugely popular and lucrative television show, has removed him from the series and his family has said that they will not go on without him.
Let’s be clear. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The First Amendment prohibits government restrictions on speech. If a television personality makes an offensive remark, it is not offensive to point that out. If a corporate entity like a television network makes a business decision that the offensive comment has made the person who said it a liability that may result in the loss of advertisers or viewers, that is not censorship. It is the free exercise of business judgement and the exercise of free speech by the owners of the program and the network. Claiming a religious belief as the basis for one’s views does not grant automatic protection from criticism by others. Many beliefs grounded in religious views in the past, like segregation and slavery, are no longer considered acceptable. And I trust that Mr. Robertson, who also made some strong statements about other religions, recognizes that people who have different faiths — or no faith — are entitled to express their views on his remarks.
Mr. Robertson’s free speech has not been impinged on in any way. He can say whatever he likes. But freedom of speech does not carry with it either the right to make that speech on television or to avoid the consequences of the exercise of free speech by those of us who will express our objections to his homophobic and bigoted views.
If the Robertsons leave A&E and wish to continue to be on television, it is likely some other station will pick them up. With a net worth of $80 million, they can buy their own television time if they want to.
The worst possible outcome from this controversy is if people on any side conduct themselves with anything less than the utmost civility and respect. Those who wish to support Mr. Robertson’s right to express his views or agree with his interpretation of the Bible should remember that humility and grace better exemplify the teachings of Jesus than shrillness and invective. Those who are offended by his comments should remember that their side is not helped by shrillness and invective either. Insult is not argument. Hostility never persuaded anyone. I like this post from Chris Boeskool, where he says many wise things, including:
This is NOT religious persecution. I cannot stress this enough. He did not get suspended for his religious beliefs. He was suspended because what he said was completely offensive. There are plenty of Christians (many of my friends, in fact) who believe that being gay is a sin and marriage should only be between a man and a woman, yet they could have still answered those questions with love and humility. Someone might use Bible verses to claim that interracial relations are an abomination and say “Anyone who commits the sin of miscegenation is heading straight to Hell” and call it freedom of religion, but really…. It’s just old school hatred. Hatred is not a Biblical belief.
And lastly (and most importantly), imagine that there is a gay person reading the things you are writing. Because guess what…. There will be.Please don’t separate the ISSUE from the PEOPLE. Imagine that there is someone reading the words you are writing who is trying to get a sense of what this Jesus guy is all about. Imagine a person reading your words who is just as sure of their same-sex attraction as you are of your opposite-sex attraction. Imagine that person has only ever heard hatred coming from people who call themselves Christians, and he or she is just about ready to give up. Imagine looking into a person’s eyes and saying the hate-filled things you are getting ready to write, instead of looking into computer screen. Maybe even imagine one of your kids has come out to you, and he or she is reading your words. And then finally, think of a time that you have been wrong about something in the past, and imagine that this issue of “how sinful it is to be gay” might be one of those times.
The Robertsons have said that they will ponder this as they focus on loving their neighbor and on prayer. Good idea for all of us.
Karen Valby has an excellent essay in the current issue of Entertainment Weekly about stripping scenes in recent movies, like Jennifer Aniston in “We’re the Millers” and Gwyneth Paltrow seducing her new boyfriend in “Thank You for Sharing.” Both, of course, are featured in the movie’s advertising and trailers. Valby asks, “Are actresses losing more than their clothes?”
The real foolishness in all of this, though, is the critics’ suggestion that the person who should feel shame is not the “We’re the Millers” screenwriter but the woman hired to perform what’s on the page. Let me be clear: If a woman in your script is a stripper, then the problem is you — specifically, your laziness and your limp imagination. You want to give your female character an edge, make her vulnerable and hungry for redemption? You haven’t nailed it by making her a stripper. All you’ve done is prove that you (or your producer) are likely a venal horndog who wants a T&A moment for the trailer.
It is particularly disappointing because this has been such a poor year for women’s roles in studio films. It’s really good to see people like Valby speaking out.
Today three Presidents and thousands of people will gather on the National Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial to observe the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and the historic “I Have a Dream” speech by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. All week, there have been events celebrating the anniversary, how much has been accomplished, and making a commitment to carrying the dream of justice and equality forward.
Every family should watch “Boycott,” with Jeffrey Wright as Dr. King, and the stirring documentary “Eyes on the Prize.” Then talk about what your dream of a better world is and how you can help it come about.
