Author Archives: margotmagowan

Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland ***GGG***

Posted on by
1

“Alice in Wonderland” is one of the best children’s movies I’ve ever seen. I loved it, as did my kids and their cousins, ages seven to three.

AliceDisney 

Alice

Full disclosure: I’ve always been partial to Alice. I named my second daughter after the heroine (and also after my smart and brave mother-in law.)

There are a few things straight up that are rare and remarkable about Tim Burton’s movie.

1) There is a girl in the title that is not a princess

2) There are 4 major female roles: Alice, the Red Queen, the White Queen, and the Doormouse

3) Spoiler alert: the movie doesn’t end in a happy romance. Even though it begins with an engagement party, it finishes with Alice off on her own, pursuing her brilliant idea to improve her late father’s business.

White QueenDisney 

White Queen

The movie is beautiful and exciting to watch. I especially loved Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Unlike “Coraline,” which I also loved, “Alice” has scary parts, but was not too scary for my kids. (Ok, one cousin fled briefly, but she came right back in.) All the children were mesmerized by one of the last scenes, another spoiler alert coming, when Alice slays the Jabberwocky, the dragon like creature/pet of the evil Red Queen.

Which brings me to angry criticism I’ve read of “Alice” all over the internet: the movie is unfaithful to the original books. Some react to Burton’s interpretation as if it’s a personal betrayal, unable to see anything positive in this rebellious movie. For example, in the original Through the Looking Glass, there is a poem where a brave boy kills the Jabberwocky. Now it’s Alice. Horrors!

Red QueenDisney 

Red Queen

Re-interpretation is what keeps stories alive across generations. They’re basically just a few myths out there (haven’t these guys read their Joseph Campbell?) that keep getting recycled. Mostly, these days, people don’t believe in privileging the author’s interpretation anyway; it’s a limited idea. Why get so pissed off that Tim Burton has his way with a story, transforming “Alice” into an exciting tale about girl empowerment, instead of staying loyal to the writer, Lewis Carroll, who was a well know as a pedophile or at least a passionate collector of erotic images of little girls?

DoormouseDisney 

Doormouse

When I saw the commercials I was worried Tim Burton wasn’t going to make this kind of brave film. As I wrote about in other posts on my blog, most of the advertisements around San Francisco didn’t show Alice, but Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. I worried he would be the star. A couple ads showed Helena Boham Carter as the Red Queen. Her make up is fabulous, but where was Alice?

Also, the commercials on TV showed Alice being proposed to at an engagement party, so I thought it might somehow be another girls’ movie about a wedding. I was wrong on both counts, and now I feel like if that kind of advertising gets people to see this great movie– who cares? “Alice” does feature a stellar ensemble cast, but everyone, even Johnny Depp, is clearly in a supporting role to Alice. And watching the shy Alice transform into an entrepreneur at the end of the move is pretty cool.

We didn’t watch it in 3D; we’re all kind of sick of 3D, the gimmickiness of it and wearing the annoying glasses. Those special effects are not needed to make this movie visually fabulous.

I am really impressed Tim Burton pulled this off. “Alice in Wonderland” gets a ***GGG*** rating.

Can’t Sandra Bullock Have it All?

Posted on by
Reply

The latest reports of Sandra Bullock’s husband cheating on her may not be true, but remain depressing nevertheless. Stories of Sandra’s husband’s affair burning up the internet as she simultaneously celebrates worldwide public recognition for becoming one of the most powerful women in Hollywood sends an ominous warning to women: don’t rise too high, because if you do, you’ll probably be alone.

Just a couple weeks ago, Sandra seemed to have it all: critical acclaim with her best actress Academy Award win and financial success, her films were also top grossing movies. Many were calling this Hollywood’s “year of the woman.” When Bullock gave her acceptance speech, she thanked her husband, Jesse James, whose love, she has said, made her a better actress, giving her the courage to try new kinds of parts because she had him to come home too. James watched Bullock claim the Oscar with tears in his eyes. Viewing the show I was thinking: it’s so great and so rare to see a man publicly love and admire his woman, sit in the audience and watch her while she shines, so different than the scenario we’re used too of the wife being the cheerleader for her guy, the wives of female politicians always clapping and grinning by their husbands’ sides.

Sandra BullockSandra Bullock 

Bullock isn’t the only actress to have her marriage break up after reaching new heights of success.

Reese Witherspoon’s family famously fell apart after her Oscar win for her incredible performance as June Cash in “Walk the Line”. Supposedly her husband, Ryan Phillipe was jealous. The same thing happened after Julia Roberts’ won for “Erin Brokovich.” She was with Benjamin Bratt. Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes also ended their marriage after her win. Other successful actresses whose marriages supposedly broke up because they surpassed their husbands include Hilary Swank and Jenifer Garner, who didn’t win an Oscar but also eclipsed her husband’s TV fame.

Of course, we don’t know why these couples really broke up, but the rumors themselves perpetuate a dangerous myth that becomes real female fear: if a woman reaches too high, she will become unattractive to her partner. Women as a group are permitted one kind of power in our culture: sexual power. But in order to really win at that, they mustn’t get too much of other kinds including money, intelligence, acclaim etc. This is the same philosophy behind the idea that still persists: women can be pretty or smart, the stupid barbie or ugly feminist dichotomy, breast size has an inverted ratio to brain size.

While for a man, just the opposite is true. His intelligence makes him appealing. And the higher he climbs– in sports, in business, in the arts– the more women want him. Sexual desirability is a highly motivating factor to achieve, but too often, it works in reverse for women.

Reese Witherspoon and Ryan PhillipeReese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe 

Before all the social Darwinists claim females seeking out powerful males to protect them is in our DNA, that’s just a convenient way to justify the current power structure. If a woman appears weak, it’s easy for a guy to appear strong. When women are told their main power is sexual, and if they try for anything else, that will take away from their attractiveness, it’s an effective tool to keep women in their in place. Allowing women to be smart, rich, and pretty is too threatening– what else might those women do?

Julia Roberts and Benjamin BrattJulia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt 

I’m not attacking men here, by the way, but the power structure. The gender power gap in our society, or taken to its extreme as in the gender apartheid of the Taliban, doesn’t make any one happy. Men are imprisoned by these roles too because pigeonholing is limiting for everyone. Duh. Being competent, doing something well, is super-attractive in everyone. The world will be so better off when the other half is allowed to shine.

Hunter needs a “Rielle-ity” check

Posted on by
Reply

(photos not working right now so please use your imagination picturing Rielle, Jessica, and Miley)

Does Rielle Hunter have a mom? Or dad?

Didn’t anyone ever tell her that if you’re with another person, and you take off your pants, and get on a bed, nothing “appropriate” is likely happen?

She “trusted” the photographer?

She is “repulsed” by the photos?

Hunter’s reaction to the sexy photographs of her in GQ is so nonsensical, she desperately needs “Rielle-ity check” –a term that should apply to any celebrity, or wannabe pseudo-celebrity, who sets out to get media attention, but when the public has a bad reaction to said attention, she falsely accuses the media of exploiting her.

Rielle Hunter knew exactly what she was doing when she put on a string of pearls, took off her clothing, and hopped on a bed to pose for a GQ photographer. Her problem now is that the public doesn’t like the pictures, or the interview, so Rielle is trying to shake the responsibility for the whole skanky event.

Maybe Rielle Hunter’s latest lies are getting to me because the Edwards-Hunter story has been so gross and duplicitous all along. I keep thinking, along with a lot of people: what if Edwards had been elected VP and then his affair and “love child” were revealed? The scandal would’ve destabilized the country.

Another Rielle-ity check is needed for the whole Jessica Simpson/ John Mayer fiasco around Mayer’s infamous Playboy interview where he called Jessica “sexual napalm.”

Mayer has acted like jerk in so many interviews, like the one when he worked so hard to make clear he dumped Jennifer Aniston, not the other way around. Or when he was trying to be funny, I guess, and said of reality star Kristen Cavallari, “I have never high-fived Kristin Cavallari with my penis…My Milli has never slam danced with her Vanilli.” The guy makes me cringe.

But referring to Jessica as “sexual napalm” is not derogatory. Supposedly, Jessica was flattered when she first heard it, and why wouldn’t she be? She’s worked very hard to convince America sexual napalm is exactly what she is.

It’s very different than what Mayer said in the same interview about Jennifer Aniston, cattily implying that Jennifer would be jealous he was talking about Jessica, and also making Jennifer seem about 1000 years old, saying she was stuck in 1998, back when she was “successful” and that now she can’t even Twitter.

Still, the tabloids and talk shows were up in arms about Mayer’s statements about Jessica, reporting those were the offensive ones. Then Jessica, and her dad of course, came out to give interviews about how hurt she was. Oprah invited Jessica on her show to complain about the interview that “almost destroyed her.”

Billy Ray and Miley Cyrus needed a Rielle-ity check after the public had a bad reaction to teenage Miley’s disturbingly erotic poses in Vanty Fair. Miley was a kid; it wasn’t her fault. But Billy Ray, after being with Miley for most of the shoot (and posing in a weirdly intimate way with her) decided to leave her alone with the photographer, and blamed Annie Leibovitz for everything. Note to dads: if your underage daughter poses for Vanity Fair, stick around until the shoot is over.

Jezebel responds to my post on Auntie Briagde

Posted on by
Reply

Anna S. writes on Jezebel after reading my post on the “Auntie Brigade” (inspired by Elizabeth Gilberts new book Committed) that she agrees childless women should be more valued in society, not necessarily for taking care of or inspiring others but also for their own accomplishments. Commenters tell Jezebel stories of important aunts in their lives.

Anna S. writes:

I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I grew up really close to a childless aunt. She introduced me to the Archie McPhee catalog, let me stay up late while she told embarrassing stories about my mom, and taught me why they don’t send donkeys to college (nobody likes a smart ass). She’s been a pretty huge influence on my sense of humor and on my cultural tastes (though her tendency to remember only the one funny line from an otherwise shitty movie means I no longer go with her to Blockbuster), and she had a big enough hand in my brother’s and my upbringing that my mom used her to explain the concept of an allomother. That’s an animal who provides some care for other animals’ young, which seems to be sort of how Magowan understands aunts.

But: my aunt has also spent much of her life not caring for anybody’s young. She works, she plays with her dogs, she has a big network of friends and cousins she often travels to see. Helping raise us has certainly been part of her history, but she has many other identities besides “aunt,” and she deserves recognition as a person in her own right, not just as a contributor to my family. As Magowan points out, childless men are often “admired, or even envied, as the self-sufficient bachelors they are.” Childless women deserve to be admired for themselves too — not just for what they can do for others.

Gabourey Sidibe isn’t too fat for Hollywood, she’s too black

Posted on by
3
In the wake of actress Gabourey Sidibe’s Academy Award nomination for her incredible performance in “Precious,” many are saying she’ll never get another part in a Hollywood movie because she’s too fat. But they’re wrong: even if the talented actress lost weight, she’d still be too black for Hollywood.
Gabourey SidibeGabourey Sidibe 

Sidibe doesn’t conform to Hollywood’s narrow beauty requirements for romantic leads and stars: actresses should be white women, preferably blonde.

Until Hollywood’s executives start looking more like Sidibe and less like Harvey Weinstein, the fat, white guy who founded Miramax, Sidibe’s going to have trouble getting roles.

Because Hollywood is run by white men, their counterparts will star in films regardless of their weight (see Jack Black or any Judd Apatow movie) or age (Daniel Day Lewis, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Richard Gere, Denzel washington, Pierce Brosnan, the list goes on and on) or acting ability (Keanu Reeves, Tom Cruise). In producing films, white men get to play God just like they do on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, creating their fantasies and selling them to the public. There’s nothing wrong with putting your imaginative stories out into the world, but there needs to be some diversity in the power structure so that other people get opportunities to make their dreams come true too.

There is some evidence Hollywood is slowly changing. The reason “Precious” got made at all is because African Americans busted through the racial/ class barrier. Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry got successful and got rich, so they were able to make and promote a movie. Successful black women in Hollywood include Queen Latifah, Jada Pinkett Smith, Cicely Tyson, Traji Henson, Viola Davis, and Zoe Saldana.

Harvey Weinstein and Gwyneth PaltrowHarvey Weinstein and Gwyneth Paltrow 

There are more to be added to the list, but they remain a tiny minority. A woman couldn’t be much skinner or “conventionally beautiful,” than Saldana, the light skinned, African-American star of “Avatar” and “Star Trek.” Saldana says in Us Weekly: “In Hollywood, you hear things like ‘Oh, they loved you but they want to go more traditional.’ That’s the new n-word.”

But when it comes to race in Hollywood, even shock jock Howard Stern skates the issue, sticking with the socially acceptable bias, making fun of fat people. On his Sirius talk radio show, Stern said of Sidibe, “There’s the most enormous, fat black chick I’ve ever seen. She is enormous. Everyone’s pretending she’s a part of show business and she’s never going to be in another movie. She should have gotten the Best Actress award because she’s never going to have another shot. What movie is she gonna be in?” Stern says of Oprah’s speech to Sidibe: “Oprah’s another liar…telling an enormous woman the size of a planet that she’s going to have a career.””

Zoe SaldanaZoe Saldana 

Actress/ signer, Jessica Simpson, no stranger to viscious criticism about her weight, defends Sidibe, but also avoids the race issue, saying of Stern’s comments: “It’s unfortunate because she walked the red carpet at the Oscars and she owned it. She was beautiful. There was no denying that she did not think she was the most beautiful person on that red carpet. She was just owning that moment for herself. She had such confidence and I absolutely 100 percent think she could get anything in the world that she wanted.”

Confidence can only get you so far when white guys run Hollywood. Simpson knows that. Supposedly, in her new show, “The Price of Beauty,” Simpson researched this. I wish Simpson had said something like: “I’ve just done a program abut exploring different standards of beauty around the globe, and here in Southern California, Gabourey has three strikes against her as far as getting part she wants in movies: she’s fat, she’s black, and she’s a woman.”

Here are the Hollywood stats from Martha M. Lauzen’s annual study “The Celluloid Ceiling.” I don’t know what the breakdown is on race.

In Hollywood, women make up:

7% of directors

8% of writers

17% of executive producers

23% of producers

18% of editors

2% of cinematographers

Sidibe does have parts lined up for herself: an upcoming feature film co-starring Zoe Kravitz called “Yelling to the Sky,” and a recurring part in Showtime’s new dark comedy series, “The Big C,” which also stars Laura Linney and Oliver Platt. She also has some powerful people backing her like Winfrey and Perry. But until there are some major changes in the Hollywood power structure, Sidibe will need a back up career

Kate Gosselin’s ambition doesn’t make her a bad mom

Posted on by
2

Kate Gosselin graces the cover of People Magazine and US Weekly again this week. She wants fame, she wants power, she wants money– she’s a bad mom!

John Gosselin, the father of Kate’s eight kids is a deadbeat father, still out of a job, and giving no indication that he’s the least bit interested in finding a career to support his family. But John’s not choosing to exploit his fame to get a gig on a hit show, he’s only using it to attract young co-eds and crash out in their houses.

Kate GosselinKate Gosselin 

I’m not saying Kate Gosselin is a model mom. From what I’ve read, she often seems selfish, angry, and narcisstic. I don’t understand why she had eight kids in the first place. But here they are, and she’s got to support them, otherwise your tax dollars will be. I suppose there are other jobs she could find, besides her stint on “Dancing with the Stars” and the continued money she’ll get from keeping herself in the spotlight. Kate was formerly a nurse, but her problem now is that you can’t support eight kids on a nurse’s salary. You can’t support eight kids without working your ass off, which is just what she’s choosing to do.

Past media coverage of contestants on “Dancing with the Stars” usually involves waxing effusively on their hard work, along with kudos for how their dedication transformed their bodies. For no other cast member, have I seen attacks about what monsterous parents they were for leaving their kids, or even much coverage about whether or not those contestants were parents at all. But in Kate’s case, Us Weekly reporters have become the mommy police, staking out Kate’s house and clocking the exact minutes she spends with her children. (I hope none of these reporters are moms, neglecting their kids while keeping vigil on Kate.) Certainly, people wouldn’t be directing this level of ire at John Gosselin if he were spending hours a day at rehearsals for the demanding show.

Kate Gosselin happens to be the breadwinner for her family; being a breadwinner is an essential part of being a good and present parent.

Yet, in the year 2010, our definitions of being a good mother and being a good father remain diametrically opposed. Today, when a father goes in for a job interview, his potential boss will usually think: “This guy has a family to support, he’ll be a good worker.” A mother interviewing for the same job is considered by different standards: she could be an unreliable worker, running off for school meetings or staying home if a kid is sick. Being a good mom is being a nurturer; being a good dad is being a breadwinner. But in reality, outside of the spotlight, plenty of moms work long hours to support their kids including lawyers, doctors, and CEOs. Sometimes I think we should take a break from these mom/ dad labels and just use “parent” to get across how differently we perceive these strikingly similar roles of raising and supporting our kids.

Kate Gosselin has eight kids so we think she ought to be “maternal” kind of like how Martha Stewart excelled at homemaking so she should be warm and fuzzy– it makes people dislike and distrust these women for their contradictions within the constrained cultural definitions of femininity. Clearly, Kate Gosselin is not a natural nurturer, but hopefully, she can still find some way to be a somewhat decent mom to her kids.

Rapunzel

Posted on by
6

Disney’s Rapunzel movie changes title and cast to attract boys

The LA Times reports that that after the disappointing box office for “The Princess and the Frog,” Disney is drastically remaking it’s new Rapunzel movie to attract boys. It’s now called “Tangled” and co-stars a “swashbuckling” male in the lead.

TangledTangled 

Some people are upset. Retired Disney/ Pixar animator, Floyd Norman, says, “The idea of changing the title of a classic like ‘Rapunzel’ to ‘Tangled’ is beyond stupid. I’m still hoping that Disney will eventually regain their sanity and return the title of their movie to what it should be. I’m convinced they’ll gain nothing from this except the public seeing Disney as desperately trying to find an audience.”

But Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios defends the decision. Referring to “The Princess and the Frog,” he says: “Based upon the response from fans and critics, we believe it would have been higher if it wasn’t prejudged by its title.”

Catmull is right about the prejudging. I’m worried that he’s wrong about who and why.

I prejudged “The Princess and the Frog” based on it’s title. I’m the mom of three young girls. I can’t spend any more money to see yet another Disney princess vehicle. (I was kind of intrigued by the first African American Princess, though I heard she spent most of the movie as a frog.) I think it’s great that Rapunzel is getting retooled, because the last thing I want to sit through, or my daughters to sit through, is watching a girl stuck in a tower, waiting around for some guy to rescue her.

But did they change that part? Or just the title?

I can’t tell. It’s ironic because the LA Times article is supposedly about Rapunzel being effaced by a boy but mostly all they report on is that boy, the title, the male executives, the male audience, and the male animators. What about Rapunzel? Here is what the article tells us about her: “The demure princess is transformed into a feisty teen.”

Steve Jobs, Ed Catmull, John LasseterSteve Jobs, Ed Catmull, John Lasseter 

A good sign, I suppose. Though I’m not sure about “feisty.” Would one call a boy “feisty”? It seems to imply strong yet cutesy. Maybe the male equivalent is “jaunty.” I’m mincing words here, but this is all the information they’ve given me to go on. And my extensive, past experience with Disney’s treatment of girls, along the reporting here on Disney’s hyper-concern about attracting a male audience, worries me.

Note to Disney executives: your potential female audience is sick of the princess movies too. We’re not sick of girls, just princesses. We represent half the population, and we’d like to see some more variety in your plots, and we’d like to see multiple strong female characters in your movies.

Also, we’d like to know why you bend over backwards to make a movie appeal to boys (market research, plot and title changes, characters added) but don’t preform the same production gymnastics to attract girls. Or even try to figure out what girls want. Do all the male executives, animators, and directors at Disney just assume they know what girls want to see? Or will put up with?

ArielAriel 

The issue here is not putting “princess” in the title. The more controversial, unmentioned issue is that Disney executives are concerned about putting a girl in the title role at all. It’s prime Hollywood real estate because it means she’s the star of the show. Historically, Disney allows a girl to claim that space only if she’s a princess. It’s kind of like how you can win a scholarship if you compete for the Miss America title, but first you’ve got to parade around in your bikini.

Movies from Pixar/ Disney with strong females including “Monsters and Aliens” or “The Incredibles” usually have the power woman hidden in an ensemble cast. Can you imagine a movie blatantly touting its cool girl star, perhaps called “Fantastic Ms. Fox?” Do you see the gender divide here– it would be considered some crazy feminist art film.

If you’re going to comment that’s it’s in our DNA that girls will see movies about boys but boys won’t see movies about girls, please see my post here from a couple days ago. The basic point being girls don’t have much of a choice, and they’re just expected to suck it up.

Executives, Director, producers, and stars of Washington Post 

Executives, Director, producers, and stars of “Up”

There’s some hope for the future though. Buried at the bottom of the LA Times piece is some incredible news, especially in the wake of Kathryn Bigelow’s Oscar win, making her the first female director to win an Oscar in 82 years.

“Concluding it had too many animated girl flicks in its lineup, Disney has shelved its long-gestating project “The Snow Queen,” based on the Hans Christian Andersen story. “Snow Queen” would have marked the company’s fourth animated film with a female protagonist, following “The Princess and the Frog,” “Tangled” and Pixar’s forthcoming “The Bear and the Bow,” directed by Pixar’s first female director, Brenda Chapman, and starring Reese Witherspoon.”

Director Brenda ChapmanDirector Brenda Chapman 

Did you catch that? Brenda Chapman is Pixar’s first female director. Yes, she’s making an androgynously titled movie, but it’s “starring” Reese Witherspoon, and there’s no indication that Witherspoon will be a princess.

I like the title “Tangled.” I have to admit, it’s witty. The LA Times elaborates: “Disney tested a number of titles, finally settling on ‘Tangled’ because people responded to meanings beyond the obvious hair reference: a twisted version of the familiar story and the tangled relationship between the two lead characters.”

And somehow, in spite of everything I know, the reconceived, witty title gives me hope that the movie is also reconceived in a way that could be just as imaginative and special. I mean, really, how much worse could the original plot be?

Disney should be re-imagining these misogynist fairytales. I’m just hoping that Rapunzel doesn’t disappear from her movie the way she has from it’s title and the LA Times article about it all.

Pink and Blue Project

Posted on by
1

Pink was not always the color of girlie girls. Once upon a time, pink was associated with boys because of its closeness to red, considered a hyper-masculine, power color. Blue was feminine and the color of the role model for all good girls: the Virgin Mary. Animated girl icons Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland were always shown in blue.

Here is some great art work by JeongMee Yoon.

He writes: “The saccharine, confectionary pink objects that fill my images of little girls and their accessories reveal a pervasive and culturally manipulated expression of femininity and a desire to be seen. To make these images, I arrange and display the cotton – candy colored belongings of several children in their rooms.”