Fake is the New Real, but Compared to What?

http://
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the phrase "image is everything" if not, you probably have lived under a rock of some sort for the past 20 years. This phrase, although common and probably a bit nonsensical, still truly embodies a seemingly ubiquitous metaphor for reality television. Take for example the new reality show premiering on MTV tonight, Jersey Shore. The show follows the lives of self-identified "Guido's". What is a Guido? Someone of Italian decent, wears his hair high, [for guys this usually means spiked], is a gym rat, and uber tan. You've seen this guy in the gym, always looking at his abs; his muscles are juiced; and his attitude, well, cocky and arrogant are two adjectives that come to mind. And here it is folks, an image, one that is marketable , sellable. It's the commodification of a type, more specifically a style. Some critics condemn networks, like MTV for promoting and complicity perpetuating negative stereotypical images, in particular on Jersey Shore, the "Guido". And like most in its genre, the show has a particular audience that it will appeal to, young, tan, 2o somethings, that bask in overly indulgent narcissism. A network like MTV, isn't going to take the moral high ground here, remember "From G's to Gents", which was probably a euphemism for another word, beginning with "N" ending with "A". Shows like the latter are standard production for MTV. My point is that in a world of images, reality television will continue to glamorize any style that carries meaning for a particular culture. Any identity can be sold as real, even if it is really fake, as long as there are buyers willing to consume it.

I Look to You***

Last week Whitney Houston released her long awaited 6th, [I am not including The Bodyguard Soundtrack] studio album. I've contemplated ways to describe her latest set of 11 tracks and today, the analogy or should I say memory hit me.

It was Spring 1997 and like most high school seniors, I was totally ecstatic about Prom. I looked dashing in my tux [my mom told me so]. I had the hot girl [too bad I wasn't really into her]. I would have much rather had my secret crush, a guy I sat behind in my algebra I class my junior year. So, off my date and I went, hand in hand. After we ate dinner with my best friend and his date, we went on our merry way to the statehouse convention, where our Prom was held. We arrived about an hour after it started and stayed about maybe 45 minutes, long enough to take pictures and mingle with our friends. Then we left. I took my date home. Once we got to her house, I walked her to the door. She gave me a kiss and sent me on my way. I got back in my car,sat there for a moment, and thought "is that all there is." And, that is how my Prom night ended. I went home, got out of my dashing tux, and went to sleep. The next day I felt completely spiritless. Prom was so lukewarm. Were my expectations too high? I didn't expect to have sex, in fact it was the last thing I wanted. We were friends and I only wanted her on my arm because she was one of the popular girls, by high school standards anyway. But, Prom itself, the event was so underwhelming. And, that truly is how I feel about Whitney Houston's album, I Look to You. Like Prom, it's just ok.

If you're looking for Whitney of yesterday, then you'll be really disappointed. No soaring crescendo type ballads, leading to possibly glass breaking high notes. Instead, her vocal stylings are husky and hoarse, a distant departure from hits like, I'm your Baby tonight, or Didn't we almost have it All. Still, Whitney manages to keep her sound, the musicality of the album current. On tracks like Million Dollar Bill and For The Lovers, Houston does offer some head bopping, booty shaking bumping and grinding moments. And, if that's what you want, then you'll love the album. The slower jams are nice, good even, but not great. I Look to You is an acceptable relatively middle of the road type comeback. Although Whitney likes to say this album is not a comeback,.. well you be the judge.

Idiocracy: America Land of the what?

Current Health Care Reform debates, [I use that term loosely] and the town hall meeting discussions[even more loosely] both clearly illuminate America's tepid free fall into a land full of idiots. Harsh words, maybe, but simply take a look around at attitudizing customer service workers, entertainment news media, but really politics in particular. Words like Socialism, Fascist, Racist, Vampires, Rapists, Death panels, Nazi, Euthanasia, and the list goes on, continue to float out of mainly Republican pundits mouths way too easily, without any concern or regard for the outcome. Well, free speech is a wonderful thing and I would never advocate censorship. But, the reality is we live in a society in which opinion is often ingested as fact. I would discuss the birther movement, but that's too easy. Something so ridiculous should have never gained traction in this country, but again to the point of this blog, idiots consume and color the the landscape.

Simply look at health care town hall rallies across the country a place where sensible and reasoned discussion should take place has instead become a breeding ground for idiots and charlatans, taking their propaganda and spreading it like wildfire. People [citizens] should know that Nationalized Health Care will not take away anyone's ability to choose. Likewise, consider other government institutions, the postal service or public education, both compete against private corporations or entities.

For example, consider this, if you don't want your child to go to public schools, then guess what? Little Suzie or Johnny don't have to go. As a parent, you can choose to send them to a private school. And, do we all [American citizens] pay for public education? Absolutely! I am a single man with no dependents. Can you guess how much more I pay in taxes than a married couple with children? A lot! Do I care? No! I realize a function of the federal government is to empower it's citizens. Education is central to and for a well maintained and functioning society. It's no accident that a society which glorifies ignorance is also hell bent on opposing government programs that will ideally benefit the vast majority of Americans. Why? Because idiots generally lack empathy. They have a more nationalist worldview that eagerly attaches to "us" vs. "them" rants. The kind of thinking that leaves little room for progress.We can have discussions about controlling cost and reforming a broken system. Let's not have a discussion that is seeped in fear and trepidation. So to all those Americans who are so afraid right now, take note. Your country is still yours. No one has taken anything away from you. If you like a federal government that runs on autopilot then get ready for a weakened infrastructure, lack luster public facilities, and protections, when the storm approaches and the levees break, don't cry to the federal government because you supported cutting the program aimed at fixing and maintaining the foundation.

Divalicious Moment # 2 Jody Watley

Strike a pose! VOGUE! This line from Madonna’s 1990 hit sparked a global interest in this gay urban street dance style. And, although Madonna is usually given mainstream credit for bring voguing to the masses, it was another diva that really tapped into this stylistic and queer dance craze; her name is Jody Watley and she is the subject of this Divialicious moment # 2. Jody Watley first began her career in the late 70s on the popular television show Soul Train as one of its featured dancers. A few years later in the early 80s she, along with Howard Hewitt and Jeffery Daniel formed the pop/R&B group Shalamar. They held mediocre success, especially given today’s standards, with hits such as A Night to Remember and The Second Time Around. I can remember rummaging through my dad’s album collection and jamming to some of their songs. Then a few years later it happened, I saw this goddess dancing in a video. She wore huge loop earrings, black heels, black hose under a black skirt that resembled fishnet stockings, a black off the shoulder top that revealed her belly button along with black chains and rings, the pitch black big hair, those cheekbones, a killer black assemble theme. Almost unrecognizable from her Shalamar days, it was Jody Watley singing about finding a new love. She was like an edgier more grown-up version of Janet Jackson in the late eightes. Her style was truly unique and identifiable. She was like this really fierce campy drag queen. So, you know I was hooked. Maybe she was the root for my fascination with drag and female impersonation. In probably one of her least successful singles from her first solo album, the video for Still a Thrill, housed voguing. That’s right kids, Jody was voguing before Madonna. Give her props. In a career that spans well over 20 years, I still love me some Jody.

Favorite Jody Songs
12. I’m the one you need
11. Love Injection
10. Don’t you want me
9. Some Kind of lover
8. Real Love
7. Friends
6. Everything
5. I want you
4. Most of All
3. Ecstasy
2. Looking For a New Love
1. Still A Thrill (she really should re-release this song; it was so before it’s time)

Check out the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nArOa8OViw

CNN and Tyler Perry

For me, representation is mostly about style, and like many of my blog post, I’ve tried to air on the side of caution in putting too much stock into what gets produced for mainstream audiences. But, it would be foolish to think that representations in movies or on television do not affect the populous perceptions about particular social groups. To what degree, of course it is debatable. But, most of you reading this might agree that appearances, no matter how subtle, subverse, or flamboyant are nonetheless seductive.
I want to take a moment and discuss Tyler Perry, the reigning king for producing and directing movies geared toward predominantly African-American audiences. In the past 5 years Tyler Perry movies have become a staple among black audiences. Perry is the first African American to own a major film and TV studio. He has taken his Madea character, which originated in his plays, and transformed his drag performance into money making enterprise. And, make no mistake it is a drag performance, one in which could have some positive effects for the gay community’s relationship with the black community. I’ll return to this point.
In terms of story telling, the first main problem I have with Perry is his transparent and over the top plot structure. He uses the same narrative throughout most of his films. Character A is a tragically flawed person or victim of social circumstance, he or she, usually a woman, meets Character B, a man, who is explicitly cast as the ultra masculine, confident, yet humble man. She [Character A] refuses [Character B’s] advances at first. Finally, through some great epiphany her eyes are opened. She falls in love and finds her way back to the man and God. [Interestingly enough can you see the man/God parallels here; you (a woman) need a man and you need God] I realize that was a real brief generalization, but it’s pretty much the basic structure, girl meets boy. Of course, he has various, mildly intriguing characters covering the landscape; and, Madea is obviously the comedy relief for the stories depicting her character, too.
Secondly, I find the constant reinforcement of Christian religious undertones throughout his movies extremely problematic. Yes, a lot of black folks enjoy and love praising Jesus, and maybe that’s the audience Perry is only concerned with influencing. He has created a niche for himself that seems to be working well, monetarily. And, he is giving a lot of black actors’ work, which is a great thing. But, why is he the only voice, giving life on the big screen to black experiences? Not every black experience in America is centered around and dominated by the church, which is what most of his movies would suggests. This single and monolithic vision for depicting the black experience is one dimensional, but it’s what dominates in the media. And it is all too often the kind of representation that gets cast as “authentically black,” [check out CNN’s Black in American II coverage, I’m sure black folks and church will encompass most of the conversation]

Divalicious Moment # 1

This is the first installment of what I'd like to call my Divalicious Moments. The moment can be anything from an old school R&B video or a new pop song. What's important is that the female vocalist does something memorable in a performance or song, which captures my interest, prompting me to sample their repertoire of music. Some will be powerhouse vocalist and some won't. Basically, old or new music, it doesn't matter because these are the women that have the "IT" factor; I call them Divalicious. Look for blogs about female vocalist that I feel really encapsulate the word DIVA.

D= Delightfully charming,

I= Incredibly talented,

V=Vocal gymnast

A=Authentic performer, that is a Diva.

The first on my list is the audacious vocal styling of Stephanie Mills. This woman gives singing a whole new meaning. She can take a song and infuse so much emotion and strength into it. Sadly, she was so underrated in the 80s. She was pigeonholed as a R&B artist, making it that much harder to crack that mainstream pop ceiling. Regardless of success, she is totally fabulous.

Here's a little bit of trivia for you about Ms. Mills. She briefly dated Michael Jackson in the late 70s while she performed on Broadway as Dorothy in The Wiz. Cheers to you Stephanie.

My top Ten List

10. Whacha going to do with my Lovin

09. (I've learned to Respect) The Power of Love

08. I feel good all over

07. I Never knew Love like this before (such a gem)

06. You're Puttin a Rush on Me

05. All Day, All Night

04. Home

03. Feel the Fire

02. Comfort of a Man

01. Something in the Way you make me Feel (check out the video)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3pS1Ig5N2Y

It would seem given this past weekend’s box office numbers that Sacha Cohen’s latest attempt at supreme satirical profundity is a major hit, slam-dunk. But, I guess that would depend on your definition of what makes for a box office hit. And, of course many of you may consider these questions: Did it fit into your idea of a comedy? Did it make you laugh? Did it offend you? Did it disgust you? Most moviegoers whom flocked to see Bruno may have left feeling a host of adjectives after viewing Cohen’s creation.
Bruno, unlike his predecessor Borat, is far less universally likable, yet he’s more infectious. The multi-layered movie has so many rhetorical dimensions that deserve discussion. Yet, I’m going to focus on the obvious one. For many, the characterization of Bruno was offensive to gay Americans and this movie was simply another in a line of continued perpetuated negative stereotypes?
Let’s back track for a minute, and consider the idea of “social contracts”. MySpace, Face book, and maybe even Twitter to a certain degree all form various functions as social networking cites. But, they also reveal some pretty interesting things about human interaction and the expectations that exist. For example, what happens when you send someone, let’s say a really hot guy a friend request, you two share friends, run in the same circles, have similar interest, thus it’s seems you two are primed for a great friendship. Well a day goes by, then two, then three, then a week, and now its two weeks and he hasn’t accepted your request. What gives? You feel perturbed, unsure, and insecure possibly. Why? Because he didn’t keep or meet your or the unspoken rules that dominate social networks. Most people that run in the same circles will generally accept one another’s friend request. But he didn’t accept yours. Consider this statement, “when expectations are not filled is when we realize we’ve made assumptions about what the person “ought” to be (Goffman). The point here is that Bruno, the character, represents an assumption about what gay depictions should not be.
Bruno may be an archetype of the overtly flamboyant gay male stereotype seen in Hollywood movies for ages. But, Bruno isn’t an every [gay] man personality and shouldn’t be seen as such. What’s laudable about this character is that he takes a lead role. The story develops around his adventures. He is not the sidekick or supporting character giving meaning to another character’s moral dilemma. Bruno takes center stage. And, he may not fit an ideal role model for gay men, but keep in mind Cohen’s intention is not to cast Bruno as a role model per se. Leave those characterizations to the Sean Penn’s of the world. Is this a politically incorrect movie? Absolutely! Often that is what comedy and satire is all about, making you [the audience] uncomfortable, uneasy, and a bit anxious. Those are the emotions that make you question and critically think about your beliefs, attitudes, and opinions. [Hooray for critical thinking!]
Bruno’s antics are shockingly ridiculous and outrageous to say the least. But, let’s keep in mind that aside from his sexuality, they would still be shockingly ridiculous and outrageous, think Johnny Knoxville in Jackass.
I think what floats below the radar, and possibly what might strike some as offensive or inordinate behavior is his refusal to successfully cover/pass his identity. There is no mistaking Bruno is really gay. In the movie, Bruno is a complete effeminate narcissist. His adventure to America is an attempt to absorb himself into the shallow and vain arena of celebrity hood. He fails. And, subsequently believes he must become “straight” or “straight acting” to survive as a viable pop media star. Essentially, he tries to “hide” what and who he is in order to fit in, thus gaining acceptance. Of course, he doesn’t cover or pass well enough. He soon realizes that he’s gone astray and like most fairytale type stories he marries his prince in the end.[Happy Ending] Still, Bruno only feels stigmatized when he identifies his nature/sexuality as the culprit, keeping him from his goals.. For Bruno, what he does is normal. He is normal. It is not until his dreams in America are not realized that he becomes a somewhat tragic or self-loathing character. Otherwise, he flaunts and reveals in his sexuality with childlike abandon. Now, isn’t that what Gay Pride is all about. Sure looks that way at most of the parades I’ve attended. Thus, for me, outside of the lute, obscene, and questionably moral behavior, I think Bruno only loosely perpetuates a gay stereotype if you look at the character with that particular social frame in mind, given the fact that it is a “straight” actor sort of putting on the armor of a gay male. On a broader scale it is the classic tale of self-acceptance, with lots of raw and raunchy jokes coloring the landscape. Of course whether or not the movie does anything to really expose homophobia, or empower it, I guess the jury’s still out?