The only funny/entertaining thing to come from this movie

Have you seen the trailer for “The Vow”? If you haven’t, go watch it. But, be warned, you may vomit.

In the film, a loving couple’s lives are destroyed after a car accident gives the wife amnesia therefore the husband must make her fall back in love with him. “The Vow” has all the ingredients for the perfect, cringe-inducing romance movie: a stunning couple, their flawless relationship, and a tragic incident that tears them apart. The only thing it seems to be missing is that it isn’t based off of a book by Nicholas Sparks.

Romance movies are, to put it lightly, just not my thing (full disclosure: I do have a soft spot for “When Harry Met Sally” but really, who doesn’t?) I hate how generally unrealistic they are, how they portray people as goon-eyed love freaks, how sappy they are, and how there is such an element of drama.

I am not against the fantasy of films. I think that movies are a great escape from reality and that they all create idealistic worlds. But romance movies take that idea too far. They create an entirely new universe, one that I don’t wish to be a part of.

I do not want to be written a letter every day. I do not want somebody to show up at my door confessing their secret desire for me. I do not want to be woken up at 3am with a boombox playing a stupid song. And I most definitely do not want to kiss in the rain. I prefer to stay dry, thank you very much.

So please, Hollywood, can we make a deal and stop making these horribly cheesy, unrealistic romance movies? Let’s start showing the funnier aspects of love and life, the most reasonable things that happen that people can relate to. Let’s erase this genre of movies that seem to always require a box of tissues and chocolate. I surely will not miss them.

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

With the holiday season just behind us, we’re all probably a little tired of Christmas movies. Many, it seems, are tired of one specific movie: Rankin/Bass’ “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”. As a young child, I had my mother record this on VHS and I would watch it on loop until well into January.

It wasn’t until I got this movie on DVD a few years ago that I began to notice that the movie isn’t really that good. The animation is crude, even when compared to other stop motion animation of the time. The sound quality is a notch below what you hear in those singing Hallmark cards. The plot barely holds together under even the loosest scrutiny. Also, the messages in the movie are rather objectionable.

A few articles have appeared this holiday season attacking the movie for it’s supposed support of bullying (which only makes sense if you don’t watch the whole movie) and for it’s sheer creepiness (which I can understand). But if parents should be worried about their children watching this film, it has nothing to do with its creepiness or its supposed support of bullying. What I find most objectionable about this movie is its overt sexism.

Somehow I never noticed it until recently, but the sexism is pretty  blatant. For instance, why are all of Santa’s Reindeer male? It’s not merely a coincidence: the film is pretty clear that the boys join in the reindeer games while the girls stay off in the corner…swooning? Admiring? Life isn’t all that different for the female elves either.

Maybe you look at those two examples and find that they’re a little too subtle to be considered sexism. Then let me present exhibit A: when Rudolph and Hermey get fed up with the senseless bullying and run away, Rudolph’s parents and girlfriend all want to go out looking for them. But Donner (Rudolph’s dad) puts the kibosh on that by saying, “No, this is man’s work.” Looking for someone is mans work? Are women bad at looking for things? Do they need to be protected? This movie assumes so.

A little later in the film we encounter Exhibit B: when Yukon Cornelius flips over the edge of a cliff during a brutal tickle fight with the Bumble. It is then that Sam, the narrator, says, “They were all very sad at the loss of their friend, but they realized that the best thing to do was to get the women back to Christmas town.” What does that even mean? Why do the women need to get back home? They can’t handle their grief for some guy they just met?

While I don’t condone these statements in the movie, I can see how they ended up there. This movie came out in 1964. You don’t have to watch but five minutes of Mad Men to see exactly where the writers of this movie were coming from. The 1960s were a different time, one where men were considered providers and women were thought to be fragile. Never mind that in the Rudolph movie the only outright compassion comes from our three misfit heros and the women. The men just walk around like angry jerks waving their manhood about.

Okay, so this movie’s sexist. Should we keep our children from watching it? Are we inadvertently supporting the views in the movie by watching? I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I still enjoy watching this movie. The overall message of bullying being bad is a good one. When I eventually show this movie to my children, I’ll make sure to point out the instances I mentioned. This way we can still enjoy the film while learning from its flaws.

Vera Chytilova

Vera Chytilová was born on February 2, 1929, in Ostrava, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic). She studied philosophy and architecture in Brno for two years, then worked as a technical draftsman, a designer, a fashion model, a photo re-toucher, then worked as a clapper girl for Barrandov Film Studios in Prague. There she continued as a writer, actress, and assistant director.

She was denied a scholarship, or even a recommendation from Barrandov, but she took the admissions tests at FAMU and was accepted. From 1957-1962 she studied film directing under Otakar Vávra, who also taught Jirí Menzel, Milos Forman, Jan Nemec, and Ivan Passer. In 1962 she graduated as director from Film Academy (FAMU) in Prague. Her graduation film ‘Strop’ (Ceiling 1962) and the following film ‘Pytel blech’ (A Bagful of Fleas 1963) were “staged” improvisations with non-actors. In 1966 Chytilova and her husband, ‘Jaroslav Kucera’, made a witty surrealist comedy Daisies (1966), which was immediately banned, but then was released in 1967, and won the Grand Prix at the Bergamo Film Festival. She remained in Czechoslovakia after the events of 1968, when her colleagues Milos Forman, Jan Nemec, and Ivan Passer emigrated. Her films were often “shelved” for reasons of political censorship. For six years Chytilova was banned from making films. In 1976 she wrote a letter of complaint to President Gustav Husak, describing her artistic position. After some behind-the-scenes influence by her supporters, Chytilova was allowed to make a low-budget Hra o jablko (1977), which won a Silver Hugo at Chicago Film Festival.

Chytilova belongs among the foremost directors of the 1960′s Czech New Wave, which was influenced by both the French New Wave and Italian Neo-Realism. Her films were acclaimed for visual experimentation and for bold unmasking of the moral problems of contemporary society. Her art belongs to what Sergei M. Eisenstein described as “intellectual cinema”, that embraces the mix of “avant-garde”, “cinema verite”, “formalism”, “feminism”, or “happening” and, with a good deal of humor, it spreads beyond definitions. Chytilova’s films often present a multi-layered plethora of visual associations that encourages the viewer to make active interpretations. She survived through the political turbulences in Czechoslovakia and has been a highly original and uncompromising filmmaker.

via IMDB

Trailer for Daisies

Interview with Vera Chytilova

the (evil) power of photoshopping

Retouching photographs of models in magazines and newspapers has been a point of controversy in the publishing industry ever since technology like Photoshop has become readily available. Most magazines, especially ones dedicated to fashion and/or celebrity stalking, have no qualms about retouching “imperfect” pictures. I think this practice is absolutely reprehensible.

There are instances when it’s appropriate to retouch photograph. For example, if a person in a photograph has red eye or some stray hairs, or the lighting isn’t good, or if there’s some other imperfection that doesn’t change the concept of the picture to a ridiculous degree, I don’t see a problem with that. I do take issue with pictures retouched to the point that the original subject is unrecognizable or completely changed, especially in the mass media.

Dozens of studies have proven that young women are very much influenced by how the media portrays women, whether on television or the Internet or in magazines. As a result, when models are depicted as super-skinny with heads wider than their hips (as was done in a Ralph Lauren ad), that sends girls a message that they need to be as thin as possible in order to be accepted, to be “normal.” This sort of thing is why anorexia and other eating disorders are so common in our society. If models and celebrities were shown in magazines looking the way they do without Photoshop enhancements, young women would be able to see what “normal” really is.

Miranda Lambert: The New Ultimate Heroine?

Ever since the beginning, Hermione Granger has been praised as being the first female character who showed girls that it is ok to be the hero of the story, to be smart, to stick up for yourself and to not take a back seat to the boys. Now that the series is over, who will us girls look to for inspiration? I think I may have found our answer in the music world.

You may know her as an outlaw of country music. Or you may know her as Blake Shelton’s “honey bee.” Or you may have no idea who she is. Her name is Miranda Lambert and she is my heroine: she’s my new Hermione. Bet she’s never gotten that comparison before.

Miranda first came to the scene with a little ditty about young love, called “Me and Charlie Talking,” and from then I’ve been hooked. She may be blonde, she may wear pretty dresses and she may even play a pink guitar, but that doesn’t mean you should mistake her for every other female pop-tart artist out there. Sure, Taylor Swift has a gift for writing knock out songs, Carrie Underwood has a killer voice, and Shania Twain has that relatability and humility thing on her side. But Miranda has something none of them have: attitude. I’m not talking about that know it all, snotty kind of attitude. I’m talking about a “I-know-who-I-am-so-don’t-mess-with-me” kind of attitude.

A favorite song of mine is the single off her 2009 album Revolution called “Only Prettier.” The video is set up as a 1950’s period piece in which Miranda and her gang of less-than-popular girlfriends (fellow country music artists) attend a party and are placed up against another group of girls in the age-old competition of “who’s prettier.” In the song, Miranda is basically saying that she’s just like the popular group, but way more awesome. As someone who doesn’t always fit in with the “in crowd” this is definitely my version of Cee Lo Green’s “Forget You” song.

On her website there is a quote that perfectly embodies Miranda’s song style:

“I mean every word I say in every lyric of every song on this record, and every record I’ve ever done. I would never take back one word or lyric or point I’ve ever made, because it’s part of who I am. If you’re into honesty, I have the records for you.”

The really cool thing about Miranda is that she serves as a musical role model for any young woman looking to get into music. She writes, sings, and performs all her own music. She plays her own guitar on stage. And, most importantly, she writes and performs the kind of music she likes, not the kind of music people want to see her perform. This shows girls that they too can do their own thing when writing music. No matter what genre someone is looking to get into, Miranda’s attitude towards music is one that would be valuable to learn about and utilize in one’s own music. Even for someone who isn’t interested in music, Miranda’s attitude is certainly a good one to try to employ in everyday life as well.

Originally posted on Grrrl Beat

"real" beauty?

Although at first it appears that companies like Dove and Bare Minerals have taken a step in the right direction by running “Real Beauty” campaigns, there’s often nothing real about them.

When I see an ad that claims to feature real women, yet the woman are still remarkably flawless, it doesn’t do a whole lot for me. At least when I see a model in an advertisement I can tell myself that the way she looks is fake, enhanced by photo shop, and probably required harmful eating practices. When I see an ad that claims to be “real” or represent “average women,” yet not a single woman weighs over 140 pounds (the average weight of an American woman) I can’t help but feel as if I’m imperfect, and the rest of the world is flawless.

The fact is that “real beauty” campaigns may show beauty, but they don’t show truth. The campaigns often try to make a big deal about showing us imperfections, but the “imperfections” are rarely hard to look at as they’re usually tiny crow’s feet wrinkles, A cup breasts, or even freckles! I’m still waiting for the ad campaign that shows young women with pimples, old women with real wrinkles, or a woman with stretch marks on her breasts. Flaunting minor imperfections hardly helps the average reader, watcher, or listener feel better about herself.

The media lies to us when they show us photoshopped pictures, but at least we know they’re fake. What troubles me is when magazines and companies try to convince girls and women that what they’re seeing is real—like the many magazines that have featured celebrities “sans-makeup.”

Finally, many of these campaigns focus on excluding one element of the editing and production process. Sometimes it’s no makeup, other times it’s no photoshop, but it’s never everything at once, making sure that we never have to see a woman in—God forbid—her natural form.

I understand that a picture of a woman with acne doesn’t sell lip-gloss, but I’d rather companies were honest with their viewers about what we’re seeing, rather than trying to force an image of reality on us, that many of us may confuse for the truth.

Bare Minerals’ recent ad campaign reads, “We set out to find the world’s most beautiful women. And we found them…without ever seeing their faces.” Bare Minerals’ models are interesting women. They’re doing great things and their stories are inspiring, but Bare Minerals is not being entirely truthful by saying they never saw their faces. The casting call was for actresses (who were probably chosen by their agents), not anyone, and after the actresses had been “whittled” down to a whopping 78, they did meet with casting agents to choose the final five. Bare Minerals claims to have cast average women based solely on their accomplishments. I applaud Bare Minerals for choosing these inspiring women, but these women were chosen for their bodies, faces, hair, and accomplishments, and we can’t forget that.

I’ve always said that any step in the right direction, no matter how small, is important. But, I feel that by portraying their campaigns as more authentic than they actually are, companies like Dove and Bare Minerals are actually doing a great disservice. Real beauty campaigns are really beautiful, but they’re also really misleading.

This was originally posted on Rachel Simmon’s blog. Fiona also writes for her own blog “Barbara’s Angels.”

The Kardashians

I’m the first to admit it: I’ve got a soft spot for Keeping up with the Kardashians and all their spinoffs. Who can resist them? That’s right, you can’t. They’re irresistible. I was chatting on the phone earlier today with one of my best friends about who our favorite sister was (hint: Khloé), and as we were discussing recent nuptials it hit me: I think these ladies might be an interesting example of modern-day feminism.

Stick with me for a second. I know what you all are going to say: they’ve made all their money off of showing off their bodies and being sex symbols, they’re famous just for being famous and it often feels as though they feed completely into the shallow world of appearance as being the most important thing ever. But is that entirely their fault? It takes quite a force of willpower to be immune to all the messages society is throwing at us on a daily basis not only as human beings but also as women.

Kim is a little bit naïve, sure, but she doesn’t (from what we see on the show) beat herself up over her appearance very often. When Khloé and Kourtney have their doubts about how natural Kim’s behind is, she goes in for a butt x-ray and, once proven that it’s 100% real, rubs it up against her sisters in celebration. She’s self-conscious about herself like the rest of us – when she is diagnosed with psoriasis, she has no interest in going on photo shoots – but she isn’t afraid to have it put out there on television or for all of us to know her body and skin issues and insecurities. She doesn’t seem to care about keeping up some perfect façade. She also suggests moving in and buying a house together in New York with her now-fianceé, Kris Humphries (I know. So many K names.) before they were engaged. Her experience with her sex tape had no effect on how her family viewed her or loved her – they didn’t see her as a slut, but simply saw it as an unfortunate incident. She owns her sexuality and her past and tries to show us that there’s more to her than a sex tape.

Khloé is happily married to Lamar, who is a loving and caring husband that encourages her love of radio and her career when she goes to Miami, and doesn’t get jealous or mad when she flies between LA and Miami to take care of her business and do her radio show. Khloé openly discusses sex and love, and had her sister wax her bikini area on national television. She’s also been open about her body issues – discussing her struggle with her weight and size compared to her tiny and perfectly proportioned sisters. She’s tackling the body issues that all of us deal with and finding a way to be comfortable with herself without plastic surgery or extreme dieting.

Kourtney has had a long-lasting (although difficult at times) relationship with her partner Scott over the years, but she didn’t rush into marriage despite becoming pregnant and having her son Mason, despite her mother’s relentless requests. She is secure in her relationship and doesn’t feel the need to be defined by the social construct of marriage — indeed, sometimes it seems like theirs is one of the most normal relationships (although sometimes it’s the opposite). But Kourtney is a great mom to Mason, and has said that she’s going to do whatever is best for him. She’s a savvy business woman and is just as open with her sexuality as Khloé is. The episode where we see her and Scott try to go to CVS to buy lube? Hilarious.

Kris, the matriarch of the clan, is the manager for all of her kids’ careers and is very clearly the business woman of the family, leaving primary caretaker duties to her husband, Bruce. Bruce often rolls his eyes in a house full of girls, but he loves his family and is a great dad to Kendall and Kylie (and the rest of the Kardashian clan). Kris has her issues with growing older – like most women do – but she’s not afraid to show them on television (as Executive Producer, she decides what does and doesn’t go on the air – and she’s not afraid to air out her insecurities).

Look, I am definitely not saying that we should recruit the Kardashians to speak at the next feminist gathering or become experts on feminist topics. But what I am saying is we should point out the aspects of feminism that are apparent in icons that everyone is familiar with. So many people take these things for granted and see them as societal givens. But 50 years ago, the Kardashians could never live the way they do. It’s all thanks to the Feminist movement that they are who they are – and they embrace every benefit from it fully. The Kardashians are feminists, even if they’ll never let themselves say it. And isn’t that kind of interesting to think about?

Becka writes for her own blog, Becka Tells All, and is the creator of Couch Potatoes with a Cause: A Feminist TV Club

A few weeks ago I attended the Young Women’s Leadership Institute at Barnard College, and I decided that I should focus on body image and the media’s effects on the minds and bodies of young girls. I learned so much from all the girls I talked to at the program, from the classes and workshops I participated in, and from all the research I conducted on the subject. There is just so much to say about the issue of magazines and media and their effects on teenage girls’ perception of themselves. One portion of my group’s project included a video in which we interviewed many girls participating in the Young Women’s Leadership Institute. I hope you watch this video and spread the message!