bond-ing: it's a family affair
November 25, 2002
USATODAY.com - Families are bonding over $47 million 'Day': ..... Bond is "a rite of passage, just like taking him to his first baseball game," says Jim Lammers, 43, of East Lansing, Mich., who took his son Brian, 15, to see Die on a weekend trip to Chicago. Lammers remembers first Bond-ing with his father at 1971's Diamonds Are Forever; Brian's first was 1995's GoldenEye. [...] Jake Massey, 35, of Santa Monica, Calif., took his 13-year-old son, Kyle, to see Die. He says he doesn't worry about Bond as a role model. "I know James Bond sleeps with a lot of women and kills people," Massey says. "But I'd rather have Kyle idolize someone like him instead of those rappers who are just vicious and hateful."
... There is just so much wrong with that statement that I don't even know where to begin! He would rather have his son idolize a heartless womanizer who kills without a second thought than heartless womanizers who glorify killing without a second thought.
..... Well, all-righty, then!
Yes, I do understand that Bond Kills Heartlessly On The Side of Right. I get that. And I actually think, for the most part, that Bond movies are cheesy fun. But I don't deceive myself that they're at all wholesome. Or that they're family entertainment, really, PG-13 rating aside. (And we shall ignore, for the moment, the fact that the MPAA considers a movie that could be reasonably called "Corpses-a-go-go!" is less objectionable than George Clooney's ass. Or Pierce Brosnan's ass, for that matter, since the filmmakers had to trim some of the sex to get that cherished rating. The hysterical American attitude about sex and its reciprocally casual one about violence both passeth all understanding or justification.)
Paul LaChapelle, 50, of Garden Grove, Calif., says Bond is one of the few films he can share with daughter Michelle, 10. "It's OK to take them to Bond movies. They're fun and harmless."
And I'm not going to touch THAT one, either, since commenting on parenting isn't quite what I mean to do. Quite. Although I suppose exposing girls to certain attitudes about women at a very young age could be beneficial, as long as you were careful about the follow-up.
Posted by iain at 02:17 PM
craig david and eminem
November 18, 2002
Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Shadow over Craig David's US tour: The "reverse racism" that marked the careers of jazz musicians such as Billie Holliday and Louis Armstrong is now threatening to blight the path of British R&B singer Craig David. More than 50 years after Armstrong was criticised by black newspapers for working with a white trombonist, David, 21, is being encouraged to drop white guitarist Fraser T Smith from his backing band to maximise sales during a two-month promotional campaign in the US. Black executives at urban radio networks in America have advised him that the presence of a white guitarist will hamper his potential for a bigger fanbase. [...] Stacey Anderson, music coordinator at WBLS, an urban music station based in New York, did not agree racial segregation permeated American music. "It doesn't matter who you're playing with as long as your music's good."
You know ... the only thing sillier than the racial segregation in "urban music" is the fact that they deny that there's segregation in "urban music". Certainly, urban stations play Eminem because there's demand for the misogynist homophobic little ... oh, excuse me. I meant to say that there's demand for the "blond rapper who, thanks to his background, is seen by many as a sort of 'honorary' black person". And I suppose that he does make good rap music, whatever that would be. (Sorry. I'm an antique. I like that bizarre thing called "melody" in my music, plus less of the out and out hate and the like. Like I said, I'm an antique.) Anyway, as I said, urban music stations play Eminem, despite the fact that he's white, because there's demand.
Name someone else. Go ahead, I'm waiting .....
Although it is much easier now for black people to cross over into mainstream pop -- in fact, that particular barrier has been pretty much obliterated -- crossing back the other way is not and never will be easy. Minorities will always guard what they think of as "their territory" zealously.
Is it fair? No, probably not. Is it reasonable? Again, probably not.
You know, the sad thing is, my suspicion is that Craig David being seen with a white guitarist in his band wouldn't bother most listeners nearly as much as the programmers think it will. Don't get me wrong, though; it will cost him, purely because the programmers think it will ... or think it should. Because they're afraid of their audience reaction (and because of the wonderful crosspollution between radio station conglomerate owners and concert promoters -- but that's another issue), people won't get to hear him and make their own decision.
I would point out that the color of the band members doesn't matter on radio -- it's not like you can actually see them, now is it? -- but radio programmers would no doubt see that as irrelevant.
Posted by iain at 12:27 PM
mr and mr nash
November 13, 2002
Entertainment Weekly's EW.com | EW.com News: Alan Cumming will star in Steve Martin-produced gay detective series: If you think of memorable light-comic romantic detective duos, you may recall Mr. and Mrs. Charles in the ''Thin Man'' movies, or Mr. and Mrs. Hart on TV's ''Hart to Hart.'' Now comes a new variation: ''Mr. and Mr. Nash.'' Variety reports that Steve Martin and veteran sitcom production company Carsey-Werner-Mandabach are developing a series for ABC about a gay couple who solve murder mysteries as a sideline of their interior-decorating business. When they tell clients a window treatment is to die for, they're not kidding.
Would someone tell me why we're so damn popular lately? Granted, we do seem to be doing better in a nonmedia sense, at least in some ways (well, except in Nevada, where marriage is reserved for only one man and one woman at a time, 'cause they're all moral and nonheterosexual marriage would be a danger to the family! and that's why they have legal prostitution, too! it protects the family!). And now comes an actual drama (technically speaking) with homosexual lead characters, one of whom would possibly be played by an actual admitted bisexual-type person (and why is it that sexual difference is always either "admitted" or "confessed", anyway?).
You know, it's not that I object to the stereotypical sort of premise ... well, OK, I mildly object to the stereotypical premise, but only mildly. And let's face it; can you really see Alan Cumming as a massively macho kind of character?... nah, didn't think so.
I'm just wondering how far ABC is prepared to go with this. Given the title, it's clear that the characters are in a personal as well as a professional relationship; they do, after all, compare the series to "Hart to Hart". And the one thing about the Harts that I do remember is that they were always physically affectionate toward one another. I don't mean that we ever saw them making wild whoopee in the afternoon, or anything like that. It was an old married couple sort of intimacy, with kissing and hugging, and you never doubted that they both cared for and were physically attracted to one another. Even though they rarely did more than kiss each other, we occasionally saw them in bed together -- fully pajama-ed, of course, because that's what the wealthy folk do in that sort of light and airy show. And the one thing is, that's a place that the networks really haven't gone with their prime-time gays. As far as we can tell, for example, Will from "Will and Grace" might as well be a vestal virgin. Even Sean Hayes' character, for all that he's supposed to be the comic hyperslut ... we never actually see him doing much of anything. Way back when network television first tried to do such a thing with recurring characters on "thirtysomething", the most they were able to do was to show the characters in bed, and they weren't allowed to actually touch each other.
So it will be interesting to see what, exactly, the network is prepared to do with a couple that's meant to be a long-term, continuing couple.
I'm betting on arch eunuchs, myself.
Posted by iain at 12:55 PM | Comments (1)
full moon o'er the mpaa
E! Online News - Clooney's Butt-Baring Battle: Steven Soderbergh's willing to go to war to save George Clooney's ass. And we're talking literally. Sources tell E! Online that the Oscar-winning Traffic director plans to petition the Motion Picture Association of America to overturn the R rating the board slapped on the filmmaker's upcoming sci-fi drama Solaris. The source of contention: Clooney's exposed posterior.
George Clooney's ass is R-rated. My, my, my.
One wonders, do you have to have a spectacular ass to get an R rating? Or a spectacularly ugly one?
For example, Joe Pantoliano's ass has been on prominent display in one or two recent episodes of the Sopranos. If those had been major motion pictures, would Joey Pants' ass get an R rating? (Actually, as I recall, his ass contributed to the original NC-17 for "Bound", but mostly, that was all the under-the-dress stuff, and breastuses and what not. Especially the whatnot.)
Samuel L. Jackson's ass got an R for "Formula 17"; does that mean that his ass is just as good as Clooney's?
Seriously, what constitutes an R-rated ass? Is it really firm? Unusually saggy? Unusually hairy? Incredibly smooth? Would Tom Cruise's ass get an R rating? (I hereby apologize to Tom Cruise's lawyers for pondering the ratingsworthyness of his ass, and I by no means mean to imply anything about the ratings orientation of his ass. It could be G, it could be PG, it could be NC-17. Tom Cruise's ass is his own business.)
And why do men's asses get R ratings when women can have exposed bums and sometimes breasts and only get a PG-13? Does the MPAA feel that men's asses are really that much sexier? Depending on whose ass was on display, I might even agree with that concept, but somehow, I don't think that the hidebound prudes at the MPAA are really thinking, "Women's asses. Ho-hum. Been there, done that, seen it in movies everywhere since the 1960s. There's just no movie zing left to seeing a woman's ass on the big screen these days. Yawn .... WOW! George Clooney! What a spectacular ass! Children must be saved from this sight! Slap an R on that sucker!" I just don't think that the MPAA really means to say that a man's ass is more sexual than a woman's ass.
So, really, what does constitute an R-rated ass? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by iain at 11:59 AM