Gallery Of Looks I Hate

I guess it's unfair that I am judging people by how they are dressed, but I think it's kind of fair when it's people who spend so much money on their look, right? It's not like you can get that Google t-shirt for free.

Here's a tip: Cosby sweaters and trucker hats: they never go out of style.

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!

RIP, Mrs Slocombe

LONDON (Reuters) – British actress Mollie Sugden, best-known for her role as Mrs Slocombe in the television comedy series "Are You Being Served?," has died at the age of 86.
Her agent Joan Reddin told newspapers Sugden died on Wednesday after a long illness. "She was a lovely, lovely person. She was a great professional," Reddin said.
With her hair highly coiffed and referring frequently to her "pussy," Sugden played the bossy Mrs Slocombe throughout the run of the BBC's innuendo-laden Are You Being Served? between 1972 and 1985.

I love Are You Being Served? I used to watch reruns on PBS when I was a kid and my mother used to tell me that Mister Humphries (first photo below) was supposed to be gay, and I had no idea what she was talking about, even though on every episode there would be some sort of fashion show and he would dress up as a fairy and flit around the department store. I also didn't really get Mrs Slocombe's constant "pussy" references.

Anyway, Simone and I have discussed how Mrs Slocombe would make a great Hallloween costume, which we should probably do. First Bea Arthur, and now this! Who is going to replace these people! No one!

Also, AYBS? has the best theme song ever.

PS: Speaking of high camp/the recently departed, it's too bad there's not really going to be a showing of Michael Jackson's body at Neverland. If I were in Southern California, I would totally go. It would be a landmark moment in pop culture. Also I have this Michael Jackson half shirt from the 80's I could hawk for like $10,000.

Lost on eBay...

Here's another sad post about something I didn't win on eBay. What the hell is this, you ask? I think it's a tiny taxidermied ermine pin. (But it's five iches high, and aren't ermines more ferret-size?) The auction said they were very fashionable for women to wear on their shoulders in New York City in the 40's. Anyway, I failed to place the winning bid at a whopping $43, which would have been a ridiculous price as I guess I can't really imagine wearing this out in public, you know, pinned to my coat or whatever. I know taxidermy is hot right now but I feel like other people would judge me.Anyway, it's a real holdout from a time when people used to wear fur stoles with the heads and tails and feet still attached, draped over their shoulder as a point of pride. It's seems really unethical or something today, but it's not any less ethical than wearing fur in general, and is certainly more so than buying a new garment made of fur (which I wouldn't do.) But this bizarre pin was not destined to be mine, and I cannot help but wonder who exactly is buying these things, along with the 1920's wool bathing suits that are going for hella money these days.

RIP, Wednesday Addams

For a time in the mid 90's, it seems like it was possible to be famous and not look like Lindsay Lohan looks now. Juliette Lewis, Christina Ricci, even Drew Barrymore were all kind of considered to be hot, but in a quirky, offbeat way. (Remember when Drew Barrymore was all about being bisexual and wearing daisies in her hair and was kind of weird? I thought she was sooo beautiful when she looked like this and this. I thought it was so edgy when she dyed her hair black.) Looking at this photo of Gaby Hoffman and Christina really makes me kind of sad. They're just at a premiere or something looking totally normal, like they picked their own clothes and put on their own eyeliner and semi-combed their own hair. And they were famous! Little girls liked them!

The point is, I also thought Christina Ricci was totally cool as well. Obviously she had played Wednesday Addams, a character my friends and I thought was totally badass even though my friend Lucy never let me play her in games and I always had to be one of those terrible blond girls. Then she was in Now and Then, which is a great movie for young girls, and she played this surly tomboy character and it was awesome.

Then she got older and she started wearing lots of black eyeliner and looking angry and showing up in outfits magazines said were "unflattering" and she was all rebellious and stuff and she seemed like she really didn't care about buying into that evil Hollywood game and all. It was just so cool that she seemed kind of smart and slightly chubby and awkward and normal looking. It seemed so appropriate she would, at fourteen or whatever, react to fame in this way instead of having a weave and smiling a lot and being the sort of creepy idealized teen starlet.But then she just ended up in the same role over and over- the trashy fantasy Lolita. Seriously, how many times has she played someone involved with someone a lot older than her who ends up getting abused in some way? A million? I mean, Black Snake Moan? Did that fucking movie really come out? Could the premise have been any more offensive? And, obviously, she lost a lot of weight, got a breast reduction, started wearing "tasteful" outfits and clearly got a terrible pointy nose job as evidenced in that photo where she is wearing pink. She actually looks like she got her eyes done too, now that she is, like 26 or whatever I guess it is about time to start venturing into that plastic surgery no-man's land where no matter what age you are, you look perpetually jagged and scary and alarmed.

I'm sure the pressure of being even semi-normal looking in Hollywood is very hard to bear, and it really just seems to be getting worse and worse in terms of letting people look different. Every time I see a photo of Christina now, looking all hungry and bony in some fugly designer dress, it makes me shed a (metaphorical) tear for the girl who once wore lots of black and flame capris and looked pissed off and seemed like she had the potential to be interesting.

:(

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.

Tom Ford= Douche

Tom Ford, former head designer of Gucci, is seen here posing for Out magazine. I personally was never a big fan of his work, which was characterized by minimalism, lots of black (as well as extreme overuse of the plunging v-neck), obscene advertisements, and various "sexy" looks. See, what is so neat about Tom Ford is that he is gay but he loves to objectify women just like straight men do (and I guess all the other gays in the fashion industry as well, but Tom Ford is especially known for it.) You may remember him from the repulsive Vanity Fair cover he orchestrated, showing him fully clothed (Dude, it's okay because he's gay!) fondling two naked actresses young enough to be his daughters. (Props to Rachael McAdams, who actually bowed out of this shoot when she saw what it was all about.) I fucking hate Vanity Fair and its misogynistic editor in chief, Graydon Carter, and this sort of crap is pretty typical of them, and every time I look at that magazine I feel like writing an indignant letter of some sort.

Anyway, everyone loves Tom Ford because he's so hot and masculine and grabs his crotch and objectifies women, even though he has been balding the same amount for like ten years so he clearly has hair plugs. Below is a quote he said in the same Out spread.

What the fuck? He understands women because as a gay man he understands what it's like to be pursued- ie, be passive, or in his words, "an object?" I can't believe people can just say stuff like this in a supposedly "progressive" magazine, and just have it pass. Of course, Tom has the best of both worlds, because, as a gay man, he also gets to be "the aggressor." How nice for him! He manages to straddle the line between stereotypical maculinity and stereotypical feminity so very well! He probably relates to women because sometimes he feels weak, but to straight men because he sometimes feels strong, too!

PS: Trademark stubble? So lame.

PPS: Ohmygod, I hate Tom Ford so much more just after a basic google image search: here, here and here are some good examples. I can't believe he literally walks around with his shirt unbottoned like this! He also refuses to smile and looks like Jeremy Piven. The end.