What Was Really Wrong With Miley Cyrus on the VMAs

Posted on August 26, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Another VMA broadcast on MTV, another morning-after round of horrified reactions. This time, most of the criticism is focused on former Disney tween star Miley Cyrus, whose dance with Robin Thicke included the usual VMA trifecta for female performers: skimpy costumes (one ripped off to reveal an even skimpier one), lewd gestures, and raunchy gyrations.

A lot of people are fulminating about it today. Some are shocked, presumably those unfamiliar with either the VMAs or the trajectory of female tween stars who like to show everyone that they’ve grown up. It’s too bad that they so often think that means posing for what used to be called cheesecake photos and other signifiers of sexuality. Past generations gave children poor guidance by not giving them frank and honest information about sexuality and the result was guilt and repression. I am not sure the information we give the younger generation now is any more accurate. Now they feel guilty for not living up to some impossible icon of “sexiness.”

Some try to make it fit a bigger cultural picture. And there’s a predictable backlash to the backlash. That’s nonsense. She was not expressing herself. She was trying to fit into a distorted notion of what she was supposed to be based on the expectations of people who had no interest in her being herself. Just as with this summer’s “The To-Do List,” people are confusing empowerment with the acting out of externally imposed “norms” that are just as strict in their own way as 19th century strictures against any sexual contact.

For me, it was just sad. I find it hard to imagine that anyone found it sexy or entertaining. It felt calculated and desperate. There was no sense of playfulness or sensuality or pleasure.

It is painful to imagine the kind of pressure Miley Cyrus must be under as she transitions to another stage in her career. In a pre-show interview, she brought up the notorious Britney Spears/Madonna kiss and it was clear she was hoping to create that level of transgressive buzz. Instead, she must be embarrassed.

Miley’s fellow Disney alums Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato were also at the VMAs and both won awards. They were gracious and lovely. It is possible for a tween pop star to mature into a successful adult performer and still be cool.

Miley would be better off trying to follow their example than to try to be Lady Gaga, whose opening number last night should have alerted Miley to the risks of a brand based on “oh no, she didn’t!” Gaga’s 2010 meat dress was as hard an act to follow as Hannah Montana.

Summer Movies 2013: Best, Worst, and Most Surprising

Posted on August 26, 2013 at 8:00 am

It seems like just days ago that I posted my discussion of what to expect from the summer movies of 2013. There was no real smash hit and there were a couple of massive flops (though likely to make enough money outside the US to break even.)

Let’s see how they stacked up.

Superheroes: Nothing was as exciting as “The Avengers.” This year ranged from the pretty good (“Iron Man III”) to the so-so (“Wolverine” and “Man of Steel”).

Sequels: “Red 2” and “Kick-Ass 2” were far below the originals. Both went overboard with the violence to attempt distract audiences from the lack of attention to story and character, and the result was hollow and unsatisfying. “Despicable Me 2” and “Star Trek: Into Darkness” were also not as good as the originals. They were enjoyable but not memorable.

Monsters, Chases, Explosions, and the End of the World: Nothing really clicked in this category. The biggest disappointment was “After Earth,” a massive misfire that failed in every category. This was a movie that asked us to believe that humans with access to fabulous technology that included spacesuits that change color and holographic communications devices had developed nothing to fight the blind, fear-sniffing monsters that constantly attacked them beyond the Bronze Age-weaponry of a spear. It was painful to watch. “The Lone Ranger” was almost as bad. There were a couple of nifty train chases, separated by a long, dull, weird movie with two heroes, one too bland and one too strange. I liked “Pacific Rim,” about as good a giant robots facing giant monsters movie as anyone could hope for. I even enjoyed “White House Down,” the second blow-up-the-White-House movie of the year. But neither made much of an impression. “Elysium” was excellent but didn’t get a lot of love from audiences.

Middle school books to movies: “Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters” and “Mortal Instruments: City of Bones” pleased fans of the books but not much more than that.

Animation: Nothing this summer came close to the level of “Toy Story 3” or even “Madagascar: Europe’s Most Wanted” or “Brave.” “Monsters University” was another sequel that never matched the first one, with a weird ending that seemed anti-school. “Planes” should have stayed, as originally planned, as a DVD release. “Turbo” and “Epic” were pleasant but not much more.

Indies: There were no breakout hits like “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” but it was the small independent films that were the summer’s most refreshing and captivating surprises. If you have not seen “The Spectacular Now,” “The Kings of Summer,” “Short Term 12,” “20 Feet from Stardom,” “The Way Way Back,” “Fruitvale Station,” and “Much Ado About Nothing,” add them to your Netflix queue right now.

Related Tags:

Commentary

Why Conservatives Should Appreciate “Lee Daniels’ The Butler”

Posted on August 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm

I highly recommended my friend Rebecca Cusey’s very thoughtful essay on Patheos, Hey Conservatives, Don’t Blast ‘The Butler’ (From a Conservative). I am strongly opposed to reducing complex human stories to us-vs-them political bullet points (indeed, opposed to us-vs-them political bullet points of any kind). As Cusey points out, this is particularly foolish and inconsistent with “Lee Daniels’ The Butler,” which is inspired by the true story of a man who served as a butler in the White House for eight Presidents, over a period that included the tumult of the Civil Rights Era.

The first reason that conservatives should like this movie is that its main character upholds core conservative principles of self-reliance, honor, hard work, and devotion to family. Of course, these are liberal values as well, but right now we are focusing on the “conservative” criticisms that Cusey rebuts so resoundingly. The movie makes the point that the butler and his son each devote their lives to service, an idea that should be embraced by people of all political views, even Libertarians, who may say they are acting only out of self-interest but who in their own way are trying to make the world more equitable. Cusey writes:

We need more, not less, of this in our culture because exploring the African-American experience through film is exploring our shared history and creates a conversation we all can share.

The conversation will not go very far if we conservatives immediately overreact to perceived slights in an excellent film.

The skill of the screenplay and direction in The Butler make it clear that the political views in the movie flow from and are expressions of the characters in the film. The movie itself does not make judgements on any of the presidents, but some of its characters sure do. And some of the characters disagree with each other.

That’s called good movie-making.

I think it is a beautiful and moving film for anyone to enjoy. Even whites. Even conservatives. Especially white conservatives. Try to understand the other side a little. Buying a movie ticket isn’t conceding every political point made by a character in the movie. It is simply learning.

Let me repeat that last point for emphasis.

Buying a movie ticket isn’t conceding every political point made by a character in the movie. It is simply learning.

In the first place, this movie in no way attacks conservative principles or those who espouse them. In the second place, even if it does, the way to respond is with empathy and respectful engagement. I found the movie’s portrayal of the Reagans to be very sympathetic. Some of the critics (not professional movie critics, just people who have expressed views about the movie) wanted it to be more laudatory. But Reagan, as all of the Presidents portrayed, was a complex figure who was not always willing to take on issues that in retrospect we might have wished him to, and apartheid was one of them. That is a historical fact. So were lynchings, which were frequent in the early 20th century and even proudly featured on postcard souvenirs. Thoughtful, sincere films like this one are intended to start conversations about ideas and experiences.

Cusey concludes her essay with a thought I wish everyone shared:

I maintain that every conservative should see this movie. Sure, there are things about which I disagree, but so what? It is excellent and we just might find we understand each other a bit better afterwards.

Shushers vs. Texters at the Movies — Which Side Are You On?

Posted on August 11, 2013 at 8:00 am

In what may be one of the biggest online troll posts of all time, Anil Dash has come out in favor of texting and talking while watching a movie at the theater. He thinks it is unfair and unrealistic to expect moviegoers to sit quietly when it is much more enjoyable to interact with the movie, fellow audience members, and whoever they want outside the theater. And Hunter Walk suggested that some movie theaters offer wi-fi and brighten the lights so that the audience members can have a rich second-screen experience.

“You can’t make it go away, you cannot stop it, you can’t slow it down, you can’t wish for it to end, you can’t deny them the sheer carnal pleasure of straight up talking through a film. I’m not talking about a quick, quiet aside in a moment of duress during a screening, I’m talking about “Let’s discuss cricket scores!” during the baptism scene in the Godfather….We’re the majority. We’re normal. Your bullying hasn’t worked. The only logical next step is to find a way to accommodate us. Or you could do that thing where you turn around and glare really fiercely—it seems to be working great!”

Dash generously points out that just because texters insist on their right to distract those around them, that does not mean they are encouraging others to do to same. Anyone who does not want to text won’t be forced to do so! Or, perhaps there could be special quiet places like the Alamo Drafthouse for those who want to watch movies without distractions.

Of course, this pretty much rebuts itself, but Slate has a good response on behalf of the people who actually want to enjoy the film without distractions from Aisha Harris. “e argues that because movie theaters are a public space, people should be able to treat it the way they would “any other public space.” Yet in all public spaces, there are standard, agreed-upon rules of etiquette which involve respecting the space and wishes of others around you.”

The best round-up is from Richard Lawson at Atlantic Wire.

Please don’t use your cellphones in movie theaters. That’s all. Because one activity is passive and unobtrusive — sitting quietly and watching what everyone’s there to watch — and the other is active, aggressive even. Dash wants us to feel ashamed for demanding that everyone behave exactly like us, when the real crux of the matter is that everyone mutually agreeing to do nothing but watch the movie is a more reasonable request, in a logical and even factual way, than expecting everyone to just put up with whatever the person next to them wants to do. Dash says the shushers are trying to block out the world, when I think it’s the opposite. Being considerate of those around you — recognizing that they might want to watch a movie in the quiet dark — is an act of communion. Whereas the alternative is basking obliviously in the self-important glow of your telephone.

The presumption should be that people buy tickets to see and hear the movie, not that they buy tickets to have a party while the movie is going on. The people who make movies design them to be seen in the dark, quiet, cathedral-like setting of a movie theater. Yes, people watch them on their phones and on airplanes and while they’re on a treadmill. Maybe someday in a grand blending of movies and games there will be entertainment designed for the kind of interactive experience that requires wi-fi and having the lights on. But the theater is where we get to see movies the way they were meant to be seen. Let’s keep it that way.

Related Tags:

Commentary

Are Spoilers Really That Bad?

Posted on August 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm

I love this “Portlandia” skit about spoilers.

The whole issue of spoilers has become very complicated because of all the time-shifting and binge-watching in the way we consume media. I don’t like spoilers and really work hard to keep them out of my reviews. I used to try to read as much as possible about a movie before I saw it but I discovered that I enjoy them more if I know less.

But Esther Zuckerman argues in favor of spoilers on The Atlantic Wire.

Spoilers don’t actually ruin viewing experience, if the show is good I’m not the first person to argue this. Poniewozik himself did it last year. ” takes away the tantalizing sensation of realizing that, in just a few weeks or days or hours, you’ll know this thing that you do not now know,” he writes. “But it doesn’t take away the myriad surprises on the way to getting there, the thrills and pleasures of watching a story play out.” I actually find that if I know the big reveal, I can watch a show more carefully leading up to that moment. Since I watched the entirety of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Netflix, long after it originally aired, I was primed to most of the big surprises. For instance, I knew that at beginning of season five the show would give Buffy a sister. Knowing that already meant I wasn’t angered by the choice, but more interested in figuring out how that major move was accomplished and why it weirdly worked. Chances are if a spoiler ruined the experience of watching or reading something for you, then it wasn’t worth watching or reading to begin with.

Spoilers can only make you more excited to see something With all due respect to Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner—the don, no pun intended, of spoiler-phobes—but his strict rules for critics actually aren’t doing him any favors. By forbidding critics to write about new characters or new relationships in any way, he kills the element of the tease. On the same note, it’s baffling to mewhy J.J. Abrams didn’t want to use the fact that his villain was in fact Khan as a way to draw people into the theater. (Not that it really mattered; Star Trek Into Darkness still did big business.)

What do you think?