Designers Love Little Kids

Above are some fashion ads (and one editorial) starring the Fanning sisters for Marc Jacobs and actor Hailee Steinfeld for Miu Miu.

Fashion designers act as though they choose very young teens for their ad campaigns because of each girl's innate style and unique, muse-like ability to inspire them- when, clearly, the real reason designers like children is because they represent a coltish, unsullied female ideal (of course, most women can tell you that, as a very young teen, they felt neither coltish nor unsullied.)

These young ladies fit right in with the current (current meaning several years, but it's not like fashion has come up with anything new lately) fashion model, who also has a distinctly un-womenly look, and is usually put out to pasture before her teens end. Perhaps we remember Gemma Ward, whose distinctly childlike look catapulted her to fame and then disappeared once she grew into a less childlike body?

Not that all this is new; we all know models are young and it's not like you can't find equally creepy photos of young Brooke Shields. But designers act as though the young girl's agency and not her childlike looks are the reason behind her newfound modeling career. If the deisgners were really into the fact that these young women are actors, maybe they would ask them to do something in these photos instead of look scared, big-eyed, and limp.

At least the first round of Marc Jacobs photos with Dakota Fanning emphasized the fact that she was a hammy little kid playing dress-up (speaking of which, god Marc Jacobs ads are fug with their deliberately "undone" look):

Whereas, for round two, she is just your run-of-the-mill Lolita type with a perfume bottle between her legs:

The fact that these girls are supposed to be talented actresses comes in second to their position as highly styled pubescent fashion plates. Ideally, we would find young women inspiring, but not because they look so baby prostitute-like when they peer out sexily and vacantly from behind a pricey purse, but because they have other, real talents to offer. Also, girls of this age are supposed to be wearing two different-colored Converse, which they Sharpied on themselves, not getting their hair and make-up prepped for six hours by some stylist.

Mary's Musings: Ten-year old Steve Martin fans, RomComs are for Losers, etc.

As a kid, I loved comedy. My main favorites were Bill Murray and Steve Martin, whose dry wit I both related to and adored. I was also a fan of John Candy, another comedian I felt I grew up with. I loved The Three Amigos (something tells me this movie would be significantly less watchable as an adult) Ghostbusters, Wayne's World, the non-corny parts of Father of the Bride 1 & 2 and L.A. Story, Twins starring Danny Devito and Arnold Scwarzenagger (I also have my doubts about that one holding up) and the work of Leslie Nielsen. Many of these movie were copied for me from video-store tapes to VHS tapes, and when the FBI warning would flash on the screen I would be terrified, anticipating a team of FBI agents breaking into my home and seizing my copy of Joe Vs. The Volcano as I watched it for the twenty-second time.

The Naked Gun series, as well as Hot Shots 1 & 2 were movies I rushed to see in theaters. My family saw Naked Gun 33 and 1/3 while traveling through Europe. We first chose to see it in England, but the British wouldn't let me see it as a ten year old, though I was with my parents. (Maybe because of the scathing Queen Elizabeth parodies such as this one?) We ended up seeing it in the formerly communist city of Prague, Czechoslovakia, in an extremely Soviet-style, all-cement movie theater. The theater creepily echoed the cement apartment we were staying in, where the lights would shut off if you didn't make it fast enough down the hallway, and at the end of the hallway, we were rewarded with an always ajar-door with red stuff on it leading to the apartment next to ours, where Czech people had violent domestic arguments. These terrifying settings did not spoil my enjoyment of the movie, which I loved. And Anna Nicole was in it, and I thought she was so beautiful. I also selected it as a film to watch at the very last birthday party I remember having, age ten or eleven, a sleepover where I felt alternately embarrassed at the crassness of my selection and annoyance that people weren't watching it.

I also remember when Wayne's World came out. It was really exciting. I was eight, and my mother and I went to see it, but we got there really late and missed the first half, so we stayed in the theater to re-watch it. I later received free or cheap copies of both Wayne's World and the equally excellent Addams Family on VHS from McDonalds as a pack. What a combo!

On a more 90's note, I enjoyed Tommy Boy and the works of Adam Sandler. I loved Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. Saturday Night Live as one and a half hours of pure enjoyment. At the end, when the cast waves goodbye and the credits roll, I would feel a great loss. It seemed extra sad because of the dramatic farewell, and I wished I was up there on that stage with my fellow hilarious castmates, signing off at the end of another great show. I didn't have cable, so there were no reruns. In vain, I would stay up, hoping something good would be on. I usually ended up watching the beginning of Showtime at The Apollo, which didn't really satisfy, just as Soul Train or Professional Wrestling would come on after cartoons and I'd watch it much more out of desperation that enjoyment.

Some of these movies have certainly held up- Bill Murray's Groundhog Day (besides Andy McDowell)/Ghostbusters 1 & 2/What About Bob? type movies are light years better than all his stupid mopey Wes Anderson/Jim Jarmusch/Sofia Coppolla roles. Dumb and Dumber is another I will not hesitate to watch if it happens to be on TV, and obviously the aforementioned Wayne's World and The Addams Family are some of the Greatest Films Ever Made. I still like Seinfeld, a middle-school age obsession neatly fitting in with my other dorky passions.

I think most comedy is really age-appropriate only for a precocious nine-year-old, whereas now the retard tingles you get after watching Michael Cera stammer his way through the same movie for the eighteenth time tend to overwhelm any "funny" aspects the movie promises to contain. Luckily, the trend of wacky sports movie died (Thank god the one starring Andy Samburg bombed) but looking at the comedies still set to be released in 2010, it doesn't look pretty. More romcoms starring Kristen Bell, and then more movies starring Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd as a duo, and then Owen Wilson is the live-action Marmaduke movie. Looks like the studios are taking some crazy, creative chances yet again!

Most comedies are geared toward men. Comedies geared towards women are called "romantic comedies," but they're not really comedies. Romantic comedies are not funny. I'm tired of women on feminist blogs being like, "We have to stop criticizing romantic comedies because they're for and about women. There's no shame in loving romantic comedy. Why aren't people ashamed of action movies instead?" Romantic comedies are insulting to women, that's why. The very format of a pathetic fairy-tale romance combined with the forced wacky hijinks of polite society makes me want to kill myself. They are simultaneously boring and embarrassing. They are almost always about women feeling stupid/ugly/single/uncool/bad about themselves. The women are never crass and funny. I think Tina Fey can be very funny, but to me 30 Rock is just like a romantic comedy- it's about hating herself (Like Chelsea Handler, I often get the feeling Tina Fey actually hates all women.)

The last time I regularly watched romantic comedies was in middle school, when friends would take me to see them. Even then, I cringed. I thought about selecting the The Wedding Singer as a movie to see for my birthday party, but after the final scene, wherein Adam Sandler sings a song called "I Want to Grow Old With You" to a very non-80's looking Drew Barrymore, I was glad I hadn't. It made me uncomfortable to watch such such treacle, and it still does.

Sure, action movies are retarded too, but they are exciting and exhilarating, and not always based on some series of horrible, cutesy, faux pas. I don't know how you can compare an entire yacht blowing up or someone getting stabbed in the face with some girl worrying whether she is too fat for her date with Hugh Grant. Only one of these scenarios should be fulfilling some kind of primal urge.

A lot of these modern, "I Love You, Man" style comedies kind of blur the line between romantic comedies and wacky retard comedies, both because the men in them appear to be in long-term, committed relationships with their male friends, and because they also have to resolve a problem with their nagging but inexplicably hot wives or girlfriends. Plus, they are always talking about their feelings. So many women seem to have embraced these kind of comedies, even laboring under the delusion that the men who star in them are attractive and sexually appealing due to their "comedic" "talents." I recently heard a young woman say she would have sex with Jonah Hill if he asked her to. Do you think, fifteen years ago, a lot of guys would be like, "Hey, she's such a great comedian, I'd have sex with Roseanne, wouldn't you?" Talk about a double standard.I mean, it would be cool if a guy said that in a way the opposite would never, ever be cool.

Also, I know I've been ranting a long time now, but I also am so sick of the faux-documentary style format I want to puke. It had already been perfected with the British The Office, some Christopher Guest movies, and Arrested Development, but, instead of thinking of something new, everyone just jumped on the bandwagon to play out a bunch of third-rate versions until it looks really dated and everyone hates it. I feel like I am the only person on earth to hate Steve Carrel and the U.S. The Office. The last commercial I saw for it promised Jim and Pam or whatever their names are having a baby and they were having a baby special episode! Way to stay true to the dry, realistic, melancholy spirit of the original, American colonialist TV producers!

Needless to say, I also hate Judd Apatow and think he directed all the most sexist, trite parts of Freaks and Geeks, which he wrongfully gets credit for and is the greatest show ever.

In conclusion, it's really hard to find funny comedies, and if you want to get high and watch a retarded comedy you haven't seen, please check out Spring Breakdown, starring Amy Poehler, Rachael Dratch, and Parker Posey, which manages to be feminist without being patronizing (alright, I can't recommend the scenes with Amer Tamblyn, but still, the movie is good.) If you are like, "Why is Jonah Hill in all these movies but these famous, established female comedians can't get their much funnier comedy released?", obviously the answer is the patriarchy, and I guess that is also the answer to the question about why I never watched any female-driven comedies or remember liking an female comedians, but we all know that.

The Future is Here

I'm so tired of this idea (often presented on Jezebel, among other places) that because plastic surgery is a CHOICE women make about their bodies, it therefore is equal to abortion or something and therefore one cannot denigrate it, and to denigrate it is to tell women what to do with their bodies/criticizing their bodies, and therefore patriarchal. Well, isn't anorexia a choice? Isn't hating yourself a choice? Isn't abusing yourself and holding yourself up to a horrifying standard a choice? As Gaby so eloquently put it, "Feminism isn't about choices! No one ever said feminism was about choice!" Choices like these are not made in a vacuum. They are reflective of disturbing, patriarchal cultural practices in our society, which contribute to an eerily futuristic and homogenized idea of beauty, marketability, femininity, and value. It is women caving into these demands, and it's fucking scary and horrifying.

I understand that some cosmetic surgery is supposed to be more culturally acceptable- ie, having a nose job if you have a prominent nose, but we have to understand these surgeries also do not spring from nowhere. We must remember it was our culture that made you feel bad about your nose, not the nose itself. Before there were mirrors, people barely had any idea what they looked like.

How ridiculous that Jessica Simpson has that TV show "The Price of Beauty" where she is supposed to be pointing out how twisted and weird the world's beauty practices are, when she and others spend their time having massive amounts of unnecessary surgery, having plastic balloons and rubber pieces inserted in their bodies, having flesh carved or sucked out of them, having skin pulled back and sewn back into another place, and being injected with fluids and chemicals? Like, take a step back, people! It's not okay, it's not a stylistic choice like your haircut or anything like the choice to have an abortion, and it isn't equivalent to what plastic surgery was designed for, which is for people with actual deformities/disabilities/etc. We shouldn't encourage a society where this is the standard. It is wrong. Period.

YA Books to Movies: A Lifetime of Disappointment

Seeing the glossy promotional posters for the new Ramona and Beezus movie starring Selena Gomez as Beezus has renewed the anger I felt as a tween when my beloved young adult books were turned into shiny, boppy movies that totally ruined everything about the books themselves.

Now when I re-read YA books, particularly those from the 70's and early 80's, I'm truly surprised at how spare and realistic they often are. The endings are often abrupt and unresolved, and instead of a lot of cheesy poetic editorializing, we often get the straightforward narration of a young person. Read Starring Sally J. Freedman as Herself, and be struck by the dark undercurrents of her post WW2 life coupled with her naivete and adolescent awkwardness, all told through her eyes. And what about Harriet the Spy? I knew that book was totally weird even when reading it as a kid- her relationship with Ole Golly and the line drawings of Ole Golly's mother terrified me. Roald Dahl is another one whose work clearly has a sinister, if kooky, edge (which was actually pulled off in the first Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory! And maybe The Witches? I can't remember.)

Even as a kid (though I was a little too old for the movies when the rash of 90's era ones came out) I was disappointed in these movies, which, distinctly, lacked any of the bite of the originals. I knew that Harriet was supposed to take place in the 1960's, that Matilda and her story were intensely and irrevocably British. I was aghast to see the girl cast as Sarah Crewe in The Little Princess; this was a character who was repeatedly described as odd, weird-looking, and a little off-putting. Sure, she had a kindly heart, but she wasn't supposed to be a child model.

And when I think about Ramona, I think about her overworked parents who struggled with money, her house in Klikitat street in the rainy Pacific Northwest, her so familiar hatred of staying with the babysitter or at another kid's house because of aforesaid working parents, and Beezus feeling horribly awkward and embarrassed about everything. This shiny, allergy-fighting pharmaceutical commercial-esque sunniness and Gomez' airbrushed face seem to have no relation to the original characters.

Taking the protagonist and giving her shiny hair and these ease of a one-dimensional popular girl is a common theme in movie-making, and somehow I can't imagine film executives pouring over Barthe DeClements oeuvre and saying, "Do you think we made this twelve-year-old girl character realistic? Do you think we picked up on the dryness if the original text?" Instead we get the Hannah Montana phenomenon, where everything for kids is glossed up and filled with ridiculous distractions, all made with the assumption that children cannot pay attention to anything for more than 20 seconds. They are probably thinking, "Little girls like glitter, hair extensions, pink, and commercial tie-ins!' We can take men and sometimes women seriously, but the media is clearly uninterested in how children might really think, act, and feel, even though we were all children once and of course can trace the route of our grown-up insanity from childhood.

Of course, this movie also comes after the recent trend of making movies ostensibly about little girls, but are really about the director's "vision," including The Fall, Tideland (do NOT see that one) and even the slightly better but still under the same category Pan's Labyrinth. These films featured young female protagonists only as innocent foils to the fucked-up goings on around them.

I love good YA because, at its best, it is simple, painfully realistic storytelling, as opposed to the meaningless jerking-off that makes up the work of so many "real" authors, who mostly seem interested in little girls sexually, or, again, merely as innocent foils. Is there a coincidence that the most famous "real" novel featuring a little girl is probably Lolita? I love good YA because it says, "These stories are not trivial." Believe it or not, realistic honesty in art if often more meaningful than obtuse truths and hidden themes. And because they are about kids, particularly little girls, the genre will probably never get its due.

PS: Ohmygod.

PPS: For more on this subject, read my The Golden Compass review!

Another Page from the Onesie Files

Oh man, this is one ugly and ill-fitting onesie. Actually, I can't believe this is Mary Kate. The straight beige hair, the black outfit....it just seems so Ashley. I'd expect this of her, but it just seems so depressingly lank for MK. Well, whatever.

The point is, it's really ugly. The top half, with its huge 80's cut and boxy sleeves, make her look like she has a very large and droopy bosom, and the pleated bottoms aren't doing her any favors either. We all know it's hard to make someone of her stature look this large and top heavy, so we know this onesie is doing an impressive job.

I guess she thought that hot pink belt was really going to cinch it altogether, but it just furthers that whole "Florida retiree wears her sassy black silk onesie out on the town" vibe that's going on here.

:(

When I saw this picture of Lily Allen, I thought, "Another one bites the dust." (That is corny, but I did think it.) I know there are plenty of blogs discussing weight in Hollywood, but whatever. It's depressing. I mean, I never really liked Lily Allen or anything, but I was like, "At least she has unique personal style and is mouthy and writes her own music and has a normal body," which is far more than we can say for most female musicians.

Anyway, even though she was often quoted as saying she had issues about her body since becoming famous, and saying alternately that she liked herself the way she was and didn't care about fascist beauty standards and all, now that she is significantly thinner she's all, "I did it for me! I never felt pressured! Now I'm healthy." Apparently she also wants to become an actress so we'll see if a blonde weave and spray tan are also on their way too.

So, without fail, anyone who does not fall within a particular standard gets made fun of and loses a bunch of weight, and then In Touch is like, "But now she's too thin!" and then maybe they gain a little back and In Touch is like, "Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, who does not treat her, says Kelly Clarkson is too fat again, and 'a friend' estimates she eats fifteen cheeseburgers for breakfast" and it's all a vicious cycle!

When model Sophie Dahl became famous (as well as semi-embraced by the fashion industry), it was a real breath of fresh air. She probably gets more work now.

Hillary Duff during her overly made-up, Peaches Christ stage looked a lot healthier than during her lank, Rachael Zoe/Urban Outfitters, skeletor phase.

I'm not sure why, but I find Angelina Jolie, really, really boring. The only time I've found her attractive was when she had that weird bowl cut/an amazing "cyber" wardrobe in Hackers, and maybe (also pre-nose job) in Foxfire because it is about a girl gang and all, but the point is that she seems to have lost a bit of something besides like fifty pounds.

Okay, I know nobody cares about Laura Prepon from That 70's Show but she used to be really pretty and unique looking! I can't believe even red hair is too crazy for Hollywood!

Alright, no explanation needed for this one.

When Ashlee became popular and had that show on MTV, for some reason Simone and I became obsessed with her. We used to sing her terrible single "Pieces of Me" all the time and her show was totally amazing. Her whole thing was that she was different and rebellious and she did "crazy" things like dye her hair black and get a cartilage piercing and then of course she got a nose job and lost hella weight and it was the only the veneer that was keeping things interesting and you're like, "Who are her fans now?"

Liv Tyler has been looking a lot less statuesque lately.

And then of course Lindsay Lohan, who also used to be pretty curvaceous and had red hair and now pretty much looks like everyone else. Simone and I also used to love Lindsay, though her album Speak was no Autobiography by Ashlee, but still, she seemed kind of likable during Mean Girls but it's all over now!

Anyway, I don't think any of these people were particularly fascinating as performers, artists, or human beings, but the fact that it's pretty much impossible for anyone to stay marginally unique or different looking in Hollywood just isn't sending a very good message to both little girls everywhere and about our society as a whole. There's just so little variety in fame, and it does seem like we're moving farther and farther culturally from a time when Katherine Hepburn was a big star or Patti Smith got a major-label recording contract or whatever. I mean, I know Hannah Montana has fucked-up teeth but somehow I don't think that's enough.

What is this 'Mommie Dearest' BS?, Or: Why is Tom Skerritt Not in This Film?

Well, the Golden Compass full trailer is finally out. I realize this isn't really fashion related (though I don't have any huge issues with the costuming...though I do think it looks way too polished/Vogue spread-esque, and this outfit looks like Lyra bought it at Limited Too. She does not wear hot pink, okay? It probably does not even exist.) but I feel the need to discuss it in minutiae as I really like the His Dark Materials series by Philip Pullman a lot, and am very anxious to see how such a far-reaching, complex, and yes, feminist YA fantasy novel will be adapted (for hundreds of millions of dollars, no less) for a market in which the film The Game Plan is currently number one.

(That's right, that movie starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson where he is a tough football player but has to deal with the frilliest and silliest of all things, a little girl! There's a bulldog wearing a tiara! [I actually just randomly thought I would check out which movie was number one right now to point out how retarded everything is, but, like, I never expected to be as perfect a point-maker as this movie. I guess people felt a bit of a whole inside when The Pacifier left theaters.])

First of all, the focus on the "golden compass" itself is insane. In the book, it's never even referred to as a "golden compass." In fact, I think they just randomly picked that name because the real, British title "The Northern Lights" was too obscure or something for American audiences. It's not like it's actually a compass- in the book, it's called an alethiometer, and even though there is a scramble to get it, it's not like the focus is just on the damn compass like it is on the ring in Lord of the Rings, a crappy franchise they seem intent on ripping off. The alethiometer is an actual object and all, but its significance is largely symbolic, and the book doesn't feature every character screaming, "Give me the golden compass! WHERE IS THE GOLDEN COMPASS???"

Secondly, the CGI daemons are So. Bad. They just seem like regular wacky-talkin', wisecrackin' Disney-esque sidekicks, besides looking hella fake. If I personally had to do it, I would have had real animals and had the dialogue just be heard, not mouthed by the creatures. I mean, it's not like deamons are talking animals, and their connection to their humans is clearly supposed to be mental/psychological. The whole look of the film looks very CGI, and all the scenes look so austere and clean and computerized- I personally always imagined Lyra's world to be jumbled and Medieval looking and filled with old-fashioned looking brass machines. Plus Mrs. Coulter's golden monkey looks so messed up it probably wandered off the set of Gremlins.

Lastly, why the hell is the whole focus on how evil Mrs. Coulter is, and Lyra rejecting her? Her father, (Lord Asriel, in case you didn't know) is also hella evil and weird, but the entire plot just seems focused on her, perhaps because she is played by the movie's biggest star, the always bland Nicole Kidman. I can't believe it shows a clip of Lya screaming, "You're not my mother!" or whatevs like that is what the movie is about. Clearly the evil in these books stems from a large, religious (mostly male) authority, and this film makes it look like there is mostly one evil character, and of course she is some ice queen-type, even though the literary Mrs. Coulter is pretty complex. The book is about Lyra, but she barely even seems to be part of the movie. (Which sucks, because young, female, non-sexualized heroines are few and far between.)

In conclusion, I can just imagine this series glossing over all the controversial, anti-religious and even gay undertones in the books, and just making it some typical overblown fantasy. Is Hollywood really going to stay true to a core theme that rejects both original sin and the Garden of Eden myth? Plus, I have and will always imagine Lee Scoresby played by Tom Skerritt and Tom Skerritt only.