‘Bridesmaids,’ "Tossing the Bouquet Out of the Genre"

Megan Angelo's "Tossing the Bouquet out of the Genre" isn't the Times review of Bridesmaids. It's a profile about the making of the movie. But it's the most revealing piece I think I've read about Bridesmaids. It describes a not completely minor clash of perspectives between the female screenwriters Wiig and Mumalo and the movie's famous male producer Judd Apatow.

I really liked the movie, but I think I was more put off by the two, inconsistent tones and styles than other viewers. The friend I saw it with said I was confusing real life with the movies when I complained that one scene in particular didn't make sense to me. But for me, movies work best you suspend disbelief or at least when the film pulls you into its fictional universe enough to forget about whether it's realistic.

My point was that some of the over the top parts in Bridesmaids didn't seem either that funny (as opposed to The Hangover) or authentic to me and didn't feel organic, like they fit the characters. So I'm not surprised that some of those moments were elements pushed by Apatow rather than Wiig. I love Apatow's movies by the way. He portrays guys, male aspirations and male friendship really well (as far as I can tell). I don't know if this article is an accurate portrayal of the creative process or just a good narrative to sell on opening weekend. But if it is accurate, I think Apatow would have done better to defer just a little more to the women on this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/movies/bridesmaids-with-kristen-wiig-opens-friday.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

And here is Manohla Dargis's review in the New York Times:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/movies/bridesmaids-with-kristen-wiig-maya-rudolph-review.html

--

The Women Stay in the Picture

Cut out of the Picture: Secretary Clinton and NSC Official Tomason

Here's another example of the impact of "modesty laws": two women (Sec of State Hillary Clinton and a National Security Council Director of Counterterrorism) get cut out of the situation room picture when the photo is published in a Hasidic newspaper. 


This story reminded me so much of a conversation I had Friday with friends about the implicit chauvinism in restrictive religious covering for women. Here's where my multiculturalism conflicts with feminism. I believe in religious freedom, but this type of protection just really troubles me to the core. I almost want to thank Der Zeitung (based in Brooklyn) for calling attention to the fact that traditional, protective "laws of modesty" have the perhaps unintended (if we assume the best possible scenario) effect of constraining women's choices and power: 

"In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status," Der Zeitung said. "Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20061215-503544.html

So women can never be part of the visual history created by this paper. But that in no way relegates them to lower status? This is their argument. 

CVBell's books | LibraryThing

CVBell's books | LibraryThing

What I've been doing in my spare time... Many months post dissertation I rediscovered the will to read, as long as that reading was deeply escapist and had absolutely nothing to do with my research. After a mildly satisfying flirtation with some highly disposable contemporary fiction (mostly Emily Giffin, Stephanie Meyers, & Elizabeth George), sometime in July I backed into a summer reading project/obsession that revolves around women-centered British novels written in the 19th century. And so I made a summer reading list. It all started with Austen. and grew. My favorite books on this list so far have been Anthony Trollope's He knew He Was Right (review) and (of course) Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Currently reading: Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell.

The July 2010 Issue | The Magazine | Vanity Fair

I love old movies (as in 1930s-1940s old) and Liz Taylor is classical, timeless, but something about this cover just reeks of irrelevance to me. As in, Vanity Fair is not exactly selling itself to the millenium is it?

The July 2010 Issue | The Magazine | Vanity Fair

Should there be a 'Sex and the City 3' movie?

Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman asks: Should there be a 'Sex and the City 3' movie? He's much more sympathetic to the movie and the franchise than most critics were:

I am not tired of these ladies. I totally enjoyed Sex and the City 2 because I still relished the chance to bask in their quickness and silliness, their valor and confusion, their passion, their presence. I want to see what happens to them next…if there is a next.

I’m with Owen. I think there’s life left in these characters and in this franchise. SATC2 wasn’t perfect, but it was, for me, a pleasure (apart from more than one too many groan-inducing puns). From the series' inception, Sex and the City was always a celebration of NY and decadence but also of friendship and women’s choices (with each character representing a different facet or path). All of that is pretty nicely woven together in this update. So for fans, the central issue is not just the exotic trip to UAE but how these women deal with their respective paths in the broader journey.

And there’s a huge focus on that continuity and character development and the transition into different stages of life (one character is having trouble with menopause (!!); another is adjusting to motherhood; and of course as Owen points out, Carrie is completely resisting that inevitable change). So even though they’re doing it surrounded by fabulous clothing in incredible settings (which are fun), it’s somehow still a little relatable. So the movie made me laugh and cry –just a little.

Owning my (domain) name

Just became the proud new owner of cvbell.com . Now I have to figure out what to do with it.

Race, Media and Domestic Violence

BitchMedia is asking some hard questions about domestic violence and the role that race plays in determining media coverage/public reaction:

Which celebrity has earned more bad press for reported acts of domestic violence—Chris Brown or Charlie Sheen?

When gossip Web site TMZ.com criticized Brown Jan. 21 for appearing with designer Jean Paul Gaultier, in makeup that made him look bruised and bloodied for a “warrior-themed runway show,” visitors to the site accused TMZ of vilifying Brown while giving Sheen a pass for allegedly battering his wife on Christmas.....

Clearly, Chris Brown is guilty—and of a despicable crime, no less. But because he’s African American, will it be harder for him to redeem himself in the public eye than a white celebrity guilty of a similar crime? If he genuinely changes, that is.

These are important questions, especially regarding rehabilitation and forgiveness. I hope no one will discount the centrality of the severity of the battery in Brown's case, however. This must make a difference. Proportionality matters. Chris Brown's battery was severe and he compounded it every time he spoke out publicly and refused to take full responsibility.

That said, this is not Sheen's first time out in terms of violence and substance abuse. The public's willingness to forgive some celebrities regardless of the severity and repetitiveness of their transgressions is stunning. And does, sometimes, seem correlated to race. I just don't think it's helpful to jump to Brown's defense, and I see a lot of that in the African American community of which I am a part, but I understand the frustration.

Thinking about making a list of films

Films that confront race either explicitly or implicitly, and films that represent race and ethnicity in ways that are culturally and/or politically significant come in many different genres. Some may not seem to be about race at all. Nonetheless these films made us reconsider our assumptions about what race means in our lives and how we relate to each other.
So far I can think of at least 5 in the past decade that made a big impression:

• Crash (definitely NOT my favorite film, but it's important)
• Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story -- an important documentary, which too few people saw, and which says a lot about the role of race in politics.
• Monster's Ball
• Something New
• Harold and Kumar go to White Castle (Sepia Mutiny did A LOT on this film. Light but innovative and significant I think to South Asian community. Here's an interesting post on it http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000200.html)

When Race is a Political Weapon

A symbolic racialized attack, even within the Black community, is a poisonous political weapon. This story by Arianna Huffington effectively demonstrates why the Call & Post's Aunt Jemima editorial cartoon is so insidious. Not so long ago Sharpe James deployed similar invective --crazy, highly racialized charges--against Cory Booker: taking money from the KKK, "collaborating with Jews", being a "faggot white boy," a "white republican," a "black trojan horse," and "errand boy Black politician ." Seriously, these are quotes from the ex-Mayor James and from some otherwise impressive people. 

Back in 2002, Huffington reported:

In elected office for 32 years, and feeling the heat of a surprisingly tight race, four-term mayor Sharpe James has leveled a variety of lunatic charges against his opponent, city councilman Cory Booker, accusing him of taking money from the KKK and the Taliban, collaborating with Jews to take over Newark, being a "faggot white boy" and (cover your ears, children) a Republican. What makes this mouth-foaming vitriol especially nutty is that Booker is an African-American, a Democrat and a Stanford and Yale Law School-educated Rhodes scholar, who, in case you're wondering, is straight and hasn't received a dime from David Duke or Mullah Omar.

The point and the problem is this -- this type of racial accusation is powerful if not confronted. It can be used to punish, stigmatize and potentially silence almost anyone, even sincere public officials with great records serving the community. 

What's more, this choice of rhetoric and this type of image doesn't just shame its intended target. It introduces poison into the community well and ultimately demeans and therefore damages us all. As a commenter on Jezebel.com said: "Internalized racism is still racism."

Read more

Arianna Huffington's Salon.com piece "The madness of Newark's King James"

Join the Facebook Group condemning the Call & Post's Aunt Jemima editorial cartoon 

Racist Editorial cartoon of State Senator as Aunt Jemima (updated)

This is a sad story involving race, representation and local politics, but I'm hoping it will have a satisfying conclusion. A little over a week ago an Ohio newspaper, the Call & Post ran an editorial cartoon depicting African American Ohio state senator Nina Turner as Aunt Jemima and saying in broken English, "I be’s da new leader." Just as disturbing, the newspaper is Black owned. 

This cartoon clearly exploits demeaning 19th century stereotypes for political retribution--Turner supported a ballot initiative for county government reform that the Call and Post opposed. It's not the first time this paper has punished African American leaders that challenge them, and a broad based coalition of Clevelanders and friends have joined forces to say this is unacceptable. A few people have written letters to the editor. Over 1200 people have joined the Facebook group my friend, Robyn Minter-Smyers started to demand an apology.

Here are a few key links for more information:

Facebook Group: http://bit.ly/7OWlH2

Cleveland Scene http://bit.ly/8qyTi1

Cleveland Plain Dealer column - http://bit.ly/6SAHH7

Deborah Plummer on the Huffington Post: No Confusion When It Comes to the "Isms" http://bit.ly/88HEV2

12/7 update. There are now over 1300 members of the Facebook Group and Crain's Cleveland Business just published a great piece on this issue entitled "Call & Post sparks collective outrage." The article quotes Brian Hall, a local African American business leader who is demanding a strong, clear community response: "if this (Aunt Jemima cartoon) were published by a white institution, it would be national news and we would be in the streets in protest. We cannot let a black man destroy the fabric of two great institutions (the local NAACP and the Call & Post) that have served our community for over a century.”


Cleveland Magazine editor Erick Trickey also has a fascinating post detailing the fierce power struggle behind the cartoon. Definitely worth reading. Key quote: "Some people are just incensed that the paper would use an old racial attack to try to enforce political conformity."