Evan Rachel Wood: Working Her Way Up the Cult Ladder.

Because I just blogged regarding beautiful Evan Rachel Wood, and have had a few glasses of wine deciding to watch Marilyn Manson videos from the mid-90's, I thought why not blog about it.

We all remember 'Thirteen', the brilliantly directed film by Catherine Hardwicke, who went on to make the first and only acceptable version of Twilight. After this, ERW starred in the absolutely fucked in all ways rendition of the worst Beatles songs known as Across The Universe. She played a down and out beatnik searching for the meaning of life (how original) and eventually transformed into a quasi flower child born from the mind of increasingly random Julie Taymor, whilst making the worst possible covers of classic Beatles' fair and awkwardly french kissing Jim Sturgess like its two middle school students trying it for the first time.

She started out very bohemian looking with long hair and innocent eyes, until her beau Marilyn Manson started transforming her into a younger thinner version of his ex-wife, burlesque performer Dita Von Teese, and in my opinion, it's just not working. The camp style, gaudy make-up and cabaret background only works on seasoned veterans like Dita, not high-school drop out bohemian Marie Claire fodder that is ERW. But to give her some credit, she is working on it. If you look at pictures of her currently, you would not be able to tell its the same person from Across the Universe but in all fairness, all actors involved in it should disassociate themselves from that travesty. Only time and wonder bra's will tell if ERW can truly be reformed from mediocre hippie-ish teen queen to bonafied camp princess complete with oxygen-constricting corsets, and silk eye-lashes, but I'm rooting for ya boo. 

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad influence on her progression but she currently keeps a relentlessly on-again, off-again relationship with cult icon Marilyn Manson, who aside from not being at all relevant anymore, is working on his career as...as a movie star. Whateves.  Who cares...
But he should consider himself lucky because he gets to go home every night and bed a young, beautiful, and seemingly fiesty 23 year old in his probably lavish and pimped out boudoir .
Though it does seem like he's pulling a Donald Trump here, where his wife just gets a tad past her expiration date, and he gets a new one, and immediately begins to transform her into a younger, perkier image of his old wife. In my opinion, without her soon to be hubby full-on Svengaling her (he IS 20 years older, so i'm sure there's an oedipal influence in that relationship somewhere), she could come up with a pretty rad sexual identity; something that is not tiredly 'brave' nudie shots in Mildred Pierce, to the awkwardly simulated sex scenes between her and Manson in his video for Heart-Shaped Glasses when they are both covered in blood, reaching some kind of feral orgasm...nuff said. Poor girl needs a proper mentor. Someone like Tim Gunn, Simon Doonan, or the ghost of Tennessee Williams would do wonders, but I see lots of potential, if she didn't currently annoy me as much.

The Real Tragedy of Mildred Pierce. All Merkin, No Camp.

My obvious Joan Crawford bias is inapplicable here because I am also a huge huge huge fan of Todd Haynes and think him to be one of the greatest living filmmakers. Hyperbole aside, I was duly disappointed by this remake of the classic pulp novel of James M. Cain written in 1941. The original version was a fail-safe for Warner Bros. when it was made in 1945. At the height of film-noir's popularity, esteemed director of the genre Michael Curtiz cast Joan Crawford who's contract with MGM had just been terminated. The role was a hot property in Hollywood and was turned down by the likes of pain in Warner's ass Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, and Claudette Colbert. A blessing in disguise considering Crawford was more or less born for Mildred Pierce but had she been directed by Todd Haynes in it currently, I think it would be only a matter of time before she threw something heavy and sharp at his head, or walked off the set for good. Conversely, Kate Winslet is perfect for the new interpretation of this stunning titular character considering this version required alot of sulking, crying, hysterics, and full frontal nudity. 

Really quickly here. Mildred Pierce is the story of a mother of two who's husband walks out on the family after she confronts him about an affair he's been having and now is forced to support her two young girls (teenage Veda, and prepubescent Kay {Ray is the name given in the novel and in the Haynes' mini-series}). In the novel, it is during the depression, and Mildred is reluctant to take a job that slides her down the social class ladder. Out of desperation she finally takes a waitressing job but hides it from superficial Veda who is obsessed with materialism and generally bitchitude. After Kay dies, Mildred and Veda's relationship becomes the central conflict of the story. The 1945 version resets the story in post-war America so they can use the film-noir visual aesthetic without it seeming awkward. The Haynes version goes back to the original setting of 1931 until 1938 or so. The costumes, production design, cinematography and everything aesthetic is beautiful. It harkens back to the Sirk melodrama aesthetic of the 50's which Haynes reinterpreted once earlier for Far From Heaven (2002). The beautiful contrast of colors works in keeping an ironically bleak atmosphere that articulates the meniality and hopelessness of prohibition and depression era women. While the 1945 version's stark black and white photography, campy make-up, and ominous tone recreate the tragedy of Mildred Pierce as a murder caper. But even considering this, the original conveys the central tragedy of Mildred and Veda much more intellectually and not to mention more entertaining. 

A screen test Crawford
gave to the studio reluctantly. Considering her star status,
she felt it beneath her to submit to an
audition. Even when clothed head to toe, Crawford is sublimely sensual and incomparably attractive.

The character of Mildred is portrayed by Crawford as well...Crawford. A strong yet sensitive woman who's obsession to please her family leads to her demise. Through her intensely painful and increasingly torturous conflict with her daugher Veda, she  plays Mildred as a woman who though self-less is not a push over. You may want to fuck her, but you definitely don't want to fuck with her, because she will destroy your life and completely decimate your existence. 

Conversely, (wrongly academy award winning) Kate Winslet is doing her best Medea, via Gloria Swanson through the Ophelia filter, playing with her head down, and her shoulders slugged just to bring the tragic hero point nauseatingly home. In my opinion, it is not a tragedy if the protagonist never experiences success, solace, or happiness. To be fair, there are moments of those aspects transpiring in this new version of Mildred's life, but Kate is playing it as though she is somehow suddenly aware of an impending apocalypse and is upset about the meaninglessness of all existence. It would do better as a character in an Albert Camus novel.

same can't be said for Winslet. With or without clothes.

For all of its aesthetic realism, any version of the novel comes down to the performance of Mildred Pierce. There are many interesting characters, but it must be HER story, and the audience must be endeared to her. If we don't empathize with Mildred the whole film is irrelevant, and it's just hard to empathize with someone who is always manically hysterical and whining. 

Sexually speaking, we must also be enticed by Mildred. The character is said to be attractive for her age (late 30's), statuesque, and classical. Even though Veda is supposed to be a great beauty, and a staunch seductress, Mildred is supposed to surpass her even though she is not as 'socially attractive' considering she is not in her prime. 

Kate Winslet expectantly has numerous scenes of nudity which just become to me, self-indulgent, aggrandizing, and totally unnecessary. I've always thought (ironically enough considering what I write about) that the language of the implied is much more arousing than the language of the explicit. And one scene where the character of Wally Fay (Jack Carson) flirts with Mildred (Joan Crawford) saying something to the effect of he's always wondered what's underneath that robe she's wearing carries more sexual weight than the painfully awkward sex scene in Haynes' version with James Le Gros as Wally Fay, animalistically grabbing Winslet's breasts from behind as if he wants to stuff them back into her body, with Kate breathing heavily as if she's anticipating being shot by him. 

What I think makes the original unique in its representation of sexuality and the sexual conflict between her, Monty Baragon her suitor and later husband, and Veda is the Camp element Crawford, Ann Blyth (who plays Veda) and director Michael Curtiz bring to the film. The insane lipstick, the gold lamé gowns, the insane line-backer shoulder pads, they all work so well aesthetically to accentuate that underneath this tragic crime caper, is a tale of profoundly deviant sexual paradigms. 

Ironically, Haynes (who never shies away from a gratuitous sex scene, and thankfully because up until now this method has been effecting) now peppers the story with cliché and trite visuals that are i guess are supposed to articulate that which was so beautifully aesthetically done in the 1945 version. 

I remember reading an interview with Evan Rachel Wood who plays Veda in the Haynes film about her merkin. For those playing the home game a merkin is kind of like a fake beard for your vagina. She said ever so redundantly that 'the film is set in the 30's and therefore, everything had to have the appearance of the 30's'. She also said that Kate Winslet was the one that talked her into doing her big nude scene in the film, which I swear is dragged out for like 10 minutes. We don't need to see Veda Pierce in front of a vanity staring at her naked self to realize that Veda is a shameless, selfish, super bitch-whore. But thanks I guess, for spelling it out. 

Mildred Pierce is a piece of material that is in its nature unavoidably campy, even in the source material. It is a story ripe for cynicism, gaudy imagery, and debauchery. In my opinion, reinterpreting it as a dragging 5 hour melodrama just doesn't work. And as much as I love Todd Haynes, I think  he dropped the proverbial adaptation ball with this one. For argument's sake, of course we can equate each version to what is popular in cinematic times to both, but I believe Haynes' Mildred Pierce even fails there, as it resembles not much more than an extended Lifeime movie with A-list Academy Award winning actors to carry the mediocre material. 
To conculde, Camp is just not seen as much in the cinema as it once was, which is a great great tragedy. Camp could be one of the most inventive, original, and for lack of a better word fun anomalies in pop-culture, and to see it wither is just such a shame.  The big irony of this whole Haynes' tragedy is that he as a director is so skilled in reinterpreting Camp for contemporary audiences. From his first film (his thesis for Brown University) 'Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story' to loose Bowie bio-pic 'Velvet Goldmine', to his relentlessly emphatic and outlandish remake of Douglas Sirk's 'All That Heaven Allows' as a camp-thriller, he has been brilliant in how he articulates that ideology from film to film, it's just so strange that he completely neglected what he does best and tried to make an 'Oscar' film. Disclaimer, i know it's a mini-series, therefore not eligible for the Oscars, but resembles all of the trite characteristics that Best Picture nominiees tend to have. Could we see this as Haynes' big sell out? I really hope not. Had Todd Haynes directed this mini-series with someone like Penélope Cruz, it would have still resonated with Mildred Pierce's original spirit. 

Here's an article on the apparent death of camp articulated with Todd Haynes' reinterpretation of the James Cain classic. 

Kate Winslet Killed Camp

Mulvey, Welles, and the Threatening Female in The Social Network.

I still maintain that the similarities between Citizen Kane (1941) and The Social Network (2010) are vast and profound. To list a few, we can talk reception for a minute. Both films were released to both audience and critical acclaim, receiving scores of Academy Awards, but winning only one (well of the 'big 5', best picture, best director, best actor, best actress (irrelevant) and best screenplay). Herman Mankewicz and Orson Welles for Screenplay, (that award was really for Mank) and Aaron Sorkin for Screenplay. Good thing too because both of the screenplays are more or less flawless and function by the same narrative principles. The narrative is essentially a long flashback, told from the 'present'. In Kane, it's a reporter trying to find out the mystery behind 'rosebud', in Network, it's deliberations over the lawsuit against Zuckerberg by Saverin. Neither won Best Picture and were somewhat overshadowed by less worthy and more audience-pleasing Oscar fodder.
The exact moment where I realized how indelibly similar they are is the scene in the latter when late in the film, Andrew Garfield's character Eduardo Saverin asks his now adversary Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) if he remembers the algorythm he wrote on his dorm window very early on when they were still friends and shared a common goal based on certain principles. This mirrors the scene in the former when Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), alone and humiliated after a losing bid for president is bleeding his newspapers for sensational and unethical means to make copy. He received in the mail, a declaration of principles he wrote in the presence of his best friend Jedadiah Leland (Joseph Cotton), who sent it back to him to remind him how much he has strayed from what he once stood for. The theme of Kane, which Orson Welles once stated as being 'a man who gains the world but loses his soul' can be without question applied to The Social Network as its primary lesson. It's just as relevant today as it was half a century ago.

Christy positions herself as the
primary decision maker of the two.

But lets apply this to Filth Screen. How can we consider either film a projection of deviance, perversion, and sex? I believe it is in how both films similarly portray the female gender and am going to use Mulvey as my primary reference. Let's start with The Social Network and work our way to Citizen Kane. It can be argued that the portrayal of women in this film is outwardly offensive, with the exception of the character of Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) who is the most prominent female counterpart even though she only has about 3 scenes. The other character that influences the narrative is Saverin's first groupie then girlfriend Christy (Brenda Song). She is a highly sexualized student who pounces on Saverin when she finds out that he had a part in inventing Facebook. At first, she is no more than a folly, but quickly takes the reigns and manipulates the fates of everyone involved in Facebook. She dresses stylishly yet provocatively and more or less castrates Saverin (figuratively speaking). She starts to control and manipulate Saverin's judgements and attitudes. This emasculation culminates when she visits Saverin in his hotel room in New York, posing a very prominent threat, both physically and mentally. Juxtaposed to Garfield, Song's character symbolizes power and as Mulvey would put it 'fetishisms' that translate as the male's fear of castration. She wears long leather boots, a tight fitting shirt, and is all around excellently put together. Saverin is in his boxer shorts, with disheveled hair, and a generally unkempt appearance. She overwhelms him and thereby decimates his power as a male. He tries to distract her with a gift; a peace offering, which she in turn lights on fire, throws into a garbage can and leaves his room, thereby completely dissipating his male 'dominant' nature. In this conflict, she assumes the role of the powerful male, while he becomes the powerless begging woman-like entity.

note the visual symbolism in this
still. the distance between the two,
Kane standing like a statue illuminated
in light, while Susan sits like a child in
the shadows of the foreground.

We can apply this to Citizen Kane in how Kane interacts and antagonizes his second wife Susan Alexander Kane (Dorothy Comingore). Welles used props just as David Fincher did to convey the relationship between the two. In the beginning Susan is very diminutive and sweet, this being visually represented by the dainty puzzle pieces of those horrid puzzles Susan always works on. This also articulates that Susan is rather feeble minded considering she occupies her time with childish games. Charles Foster Kane is always shot from a low angle looking up so that he seems extremely tall and dominant, while Susan is usually sitting on the floor and shot at a low angle as to accentuate her inferiority. Both women are portrayed as negative influences on their male counterparts. They are those who bother and betray the trajectory of the male. When Susan has her confluence of emasculation scene, it is when she leaves Kane and moves out. She appears perfectly calm and thus in control of the situation. She has castrated Kane in that he is no longer able to control her decisions. He becomes so vulnerable that he even begs for her to stay saying, 'Susan, please don't go. You can't do this to me'. At this point Susan becomes the ultimate castration symbol as a woman who is able to make her own decision, unbridled by the imposing dominant male. She articulates this by retorting; 'I see, it's you this is being done to, it's not me at all'.

The rest of the women in both films are more or less irrelevant, from the hung over Stanford student in her underwear who 'slept ON Sean Parker' to Kane's first wife Emily Monroe Norton who is just too proper to tell her husband what she thinks of him. In Citizen Kane, the key female character starts out 'proper' and becomes a castration symbol, while in The Social Network, the key female character starts out deviant and progresses to be the ultimate emasculating influence.

Though we could talk about the relationship between Mark Zuckerberg and his former girlfriend Erica Albright, and see it as similar to that of Susan Alexander and Charles Foster Kane, she much more symbolizes the 'modern female threat'. She is independent, opinionated, and unforgiving. She is able to supress Zuckerberg's smart-ass egomaniacal banter and eventually puts him in his place when the last scene of the film shows Zuckerberg alone on his computer sending a friend request to Erica, who's picture of her smiling with friends out of frame mocks his solitude. In that both films end identically because they leave the main character striving to regain something they lost in their journey for absolute success. Kane whispers rosebud; Zuckerberg keeps refreshing the page, desperate to see if Erica accepts his request. In a way, both men, as powerful and ego-driven as they appear, are still obsessed with retaining a part of their past which they didn't realize provided them with a serenity they were never able to get back.

I'll leave you with the 'Declaration of Principles' scene from Citizen Kane. Beautifully shot and performed, with a sense of impending irony that foreshadows the eventual tragic fate of Charles Foster Kane.

The Season Of The Witch

Still from 'The Fall of the House of Usher'

So I'm browsing the youtubes, getting ready for a conference presentation i have in a couple weeks, (shameless plug), and decided I wanted to listen to one of my favorite bands Donovan. I clicked on 'Season of the Witch' and up pops this amazingly fabulous video that someone put together for the song consisting of little known European films from the 1920's. I love finds like this. European films from this era were certainly dark, malevolent, and visually stunning. The way they portray deviants is something that will always aesthetically stick with you. I would argue that these portrayals are even more powerful horror and sexuality wise than anything we are able to do now in terms of truly terrifying or titillating the voyeur. Enjoy. Sadly films like this went out as quickly as they came in, and are very seldom remembered, if you would like to experience further I would recommend Jean Epstein's 'The Fall of the House of Usher", or anything by Carl Theodore Dreyer. There's a surreal yet visceral quality to these films that blends horror and sensuality beautifully. 

Elizabeth Taylor: In Memoriam

It's August 1950, a dreary morning at Lake Tahoe, California. It's a cold rainy early morning, and everyone is sleep deprived, stressed, and weary. George Stevens is pacing back and forth and chainsmoking, every few minutes interrupted by a script girl with a huge maniscript in her hands. The beautiful forest view is litered with changing trailers, power trucks, and various crew members. In the middle of all this, the fabulously handsome Montgomery Clift is nervously looking over a few pages, a cigarette dangling from his mouth, and his white shirt so perfectly fit on his body it looks at it was painted to him. Slowly he hears footsteps coming towards him, he's too hesitant to look up but the curiousity inside him builds. A set of two small black shoes stand at attention to his side, waiting for him to look up, he finally does, and he realizes he's not the only one. The crowd of gaffers, PA's, and assistants all stop what they're doing to watch a young raven-haired 17 year old make her first appearance on set. She walks directly to Montgomery Clift, dressed in full costume as Angela Vickers wearing a beautifully long and angelic white strapless gown and white gloves. She looks with a childlike innocence at her co-star and softly says. 'Hello, I'm Elizabeth Taylor, it's a pleasure to meet you'. 

While the gaffers struggle to pull their jaws off the floor not realizing that the vision standing in front of them is not the whimsical child actress from National Velvet but a full on woman with breasts, lips and eyes that ignited their dirtiest sexual fantasies. She would go one to be the desire of all men everywhere, and being a living legend notable for not only her career but for her many eccentricities. 

It's been difficult for me to write this, because where does one start with Liz Taylor? I guess start with the eyes and work your way down. She fits into so many boxes that I cover in this blog, it's difficult to decide what to focus on. Aesthetically, she could be the most perfect female incarnation ever. She's perfectly symmetrical in the Da Vinci sense of the word, with a stare that could melt the coldest heart, and a voice that is peaceful and arousing simultaneously. Why was she cast as Cleopatra? Well if we consider this symbolically rather than literally, considering Elizabeth was far from Middle-Eastern looking, the hypothesis was that Cleopatra was the most beautiful woman in the world, thereby whoever was cast had to be the same, and the most beautiful woman in the world at that time was no contest. 

Though genetically blessed from her actress turned senile stage momma Sara Sothern, it takes a lot more to be regarded as the paragon of the 20th cenutry woman. Sexuality as we are well aware, is not exclusive to physical attributes (listen to Sophie B. Hawking's 'Damn, I Wish I Was Your Lover) 

Ok back on track. What made Liz so special? 

Liz's baby momma.

Talent of course, for one. And a natural one at that considering she never studied under Strassbergs and the stuffy method actors of the actor's studio, nor had any formal lessons with the best of the studio coaches in LA. 

But if we look at Liz, and her picture came up in a veritable portfolio of women from the 1950's-1960's we could say 'oh she's pretty' and move on. What was it specifically that made us believe that George Eastman would kill his pregnant girlfriend for her, that Eddie Fischer would leave Debbie Reynolds for, and that countless men and women would regard her as the single most important face of American cinema?

Elizabeth had very simply put, a sexual electricity. It was so significant that it transcended time and decay. She didn't seem to have a 'sex-symbol hayday' she seemed to herself transform the norms of that status as she grew older and made people conform to her rather than fade away. 

From a whimsical 17 year old in A Place in the Sun to a sex-starved desperate Maggie the Cat, to soft but strong delictible Cleopatra (as flawed as her performance was), Taylor remained categorically unmatched in her seductive prowess.

Even as the obnoxious and seemingly repulsive Martha opposite her husband at the time Richard Burton in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? where Liz gained 20 pounds, wore padding, and was made down considerably, somehow you are drawn to her. After all, she had 8 marriages. 

Out of all her husbands, I think the only one that was able to keep up was Burton, perhaps that's why they married a second time after divorcing. Liz called him the great love of her life. She also named Mike Todd (who widowed her after a plane crash in 1958), and Montgomery Clift who's life she saved after his near fatal car accident when she crawled into his vehicle and personally pulled his two front teeth out of his throat to keep him from choking. It takes some substantial tenacity and (for lack of a better word) chutzpah to be Elizabeth Taylor, and I think it's a testament to her legacy that she never backed down from her identity and owned every minute of Liz-hood. I'm really going to miss her. It really is the end of an era. She was not only an original but a fascinating anomaly in the rather banal landscape of humanity. If you would like to marathon some of her films, this is what I would recommend: 

1. A Place in the Sun (1951) 

2. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) 

3. Suddenly Last Summer (1959) 

4. BUtterfield 8 (1960) 

5. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) 

6. The Taming of the Shrew (1967) 

In that order. And you must have a box of wine. Cheers.

Top 10: Top Model Contestants.

HERE'S SOME LEGITIMATE MASTURBATION FODDER. MY FAVORITE GIRLS OF TOP MODEL. IN ORDER. I'M SURPRISED HOW MUCH I ENDED UP AGREEING WITH TYRA AND THE GANG. TALL THIN GIRLS IN MAKE UP AND HAIRSPRAY. RUB AWAY.

10. McKey Sullivan
Winner, Cycle 11 

9. Ann Ward
Winner, Cycle 15 

8. Anya Kop
Runner Up, Cycle 10 

7. Brittani Kline
Current Contestant, Cycle 16

6. Nicole Linkletter
Winner, Cycle 5 

5. Raina Hein
Runner Up, Cycle 14

4. Nicole Fox
Winner, Cycle 13

3. Analeigh Tipton
3rd Place, Cycle 11 

2. Shandi Sullivan
3rd Place, Cycle 2 

1. Allison Harvard
Runner Up, Cycle 12 

Flaming Creatures: Mad Beauties and Glam Bitches

This film is exactly everything this blog is about. it is a seminal piece of controversial art by the underrated but super important contributor to the avant-garde, camp, and just film in general Jack Smith. I don't care if you don't watch experimental films. Do yourself a favor and sit your butt down for an hour and watch this. Firstly, it's notorious for being (among tons of other stuff) rarely available. Apparently only 3 or so copies exist in the world. Secondly, you'll be able to experience the birth of camp culture, drag culture, and what eventually became glam culture. It's finally available in all of it's raw genius on the internet, so do yourself a favor. Take an hour of your day to watch it. You may very well hate it, but you won't forget it. I have blogged about this film early on. Check it out for some early insight.

Jack Smith and the Manifestation of Sexual Myth

Here is the link to the full film, I can't wait to hear what you thought about it.

Flaming Creatures Full Film.

Strange-Love

Ok people, I know my blog is regarding film and television and other various forms of media (excluding Chris Crocker) but I'm making an exception here considering how much I love the grunge self-proclaimed crazy-bitch version of Marilyn Monroe, who looks like her corpse, and still refuses to apologize for anything.

I figured after my 'No Imitations' post about Marilyn imitators, I think it very appropriate to cover Courtney Love. In no way is she an imitation, but she's a kind of opposing doppleganger. Troubled, unique, and fuck-all about anyone else, with a big heart and oozing with creativity, I think the two women have more than just hair color in common.

Also, lest we forget, Courtney actually did act in a few choice films in the 90's, (Sid & Nancy, Man on the Moon, 200 Cigarettes and so on) and not too badly if I might add, earning a Golden Globe nom for her portrayal of Althea Flynt in Miloš Forman's The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996). So covering her in this blog seems perfectly appropriate. The once truly amazing doc show 'Behind The Music' that has in recent years completely sold out and lost its thunder is back with vengeance this season with the premiere of their two hour special on Love in October of 2010. If there was ever a perfect candidate for profiling on that series, it's Love, and a lot of us wondered why it hadn't happened earlier. And here's why; Love never ceases to shock. Every time we think she's hit rock bottom and is going to clean up her act (once again) she drops even lower only to rise every time like the phoenix she is. It's not like we're rooting for her or anything, we are just enjoying the ride. And not yet has there been such a thorough insight into her life and her completely convoluted and yet fascinating mind. It's finally on the youtubes. so Please take an afternoon to check it out, for everything we can say about Love, at least she's not boring.

PART 1 OF BEHIND THE MUSIC ON COURTNEY LOVE. 

Accept No Substitutes.

With all of the hoopla regarding the back to back upcoming features on Marilyn Monroe, (the first being My Week with Marilyn with Michelle Williams, the second being the ever redundantly named Blonde with Naomi Watts. The former is set for release in 2011 and is directed by Simon Curtis a no-name who's resume is exclusive to drawn-out Dickens adaptations for the BBC. The latter I might have a bit more faith in, considering Andrew Dominic is the director, known for such awesome underrated works like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007), and Chopper (2000). 

But lets forget all of that for one second, we know that these films are only going to be even considered for how the respective leads are able to physically and emotionally portray the icon. And therein lies the dilemma that for some reason people refuse to learn from. For me, I begin to physically hate the actor working on their best husky voice and lip pursing in a futile effort to mimic Monroe's habits and idiosyncrasies. And I mean severe hate. It's just such an overt display disrespect, it's almost sickening. Watch one Monroe movie, just one. Let's say Niagra, or Bus Stop, you'll see immediately why biopics about her are the kiss of death in the industry. Let's not stand on ceremony and weep over how she's such an original that could never be replicated (all true by the way) but it seems that those moronic actresses back in the 80's and 90's didn't even try. They just get their hair and make-up done, put on a cheap imitation of the infamous 'skin and beads' dress Monroe donned to sing happy birthday to JFK and wait for those Golden Globe nominations to start coming in. 

All in all, it's pretty pathetic. Firstly, you can put monroe-esque make-up on a chimp to get the iconography across and the resemblance off, all you need is some bright red lipstick, black eye-liner, and a blonde wig, but those three parts of the equation to not equal a proper simulcra, or even a 'spot on' performance. Academy Award winner Mira Sorvino was perhaps the most offensive in a long line of Monroe immitators, for the equally as bad film Norma Jean & Marilyn (1996). It might have been the worst thing I've ever seen in terms of made-for-television bio-pics, and that includes the horrendous torture fest that is Jennifer Love-Hewitt doing Audrey Hepburn in the aptly titled The Audrey Hepburn Story (2000) Yes...that happened. The producers probably figured, 'hey, she just won an Oscar for Mighty Aphrodite, and if you squint and give her the appropriate trifecta of lipstick, wig, and eye-liner, we could totally make a movie out of this.' And unfortunately they did. She ended up giving Monroe some kind of strange accent, and pretty much just flopping around whining and crying.  It was pathetic in all respects. After that fiasco, Lucifer didn't wait too long before striking again, this time creating something so horrific that it left scars in my psyche. The atom bomb was called (again) Blonde (2000) and starred Poppy Montgomery from Dead Man on Campus fame. Apart from providing her with a much cheaper version of the imitation trifecta, they just straight up made shit up. I don't think there was a single accurate story line in the whole film. It was just such a sad experience all around, I'm sure any member of that crew left it off their resume. But at least I was able to figure it out. These kind of atrocities inflict the industry because of the general public's thirst for sensationalism coupled with our intrinsic desire to understand the mysterious, and none was more sensationalized and more mysterious than Marilyn. But my god, couldn't have one person on that set done like an hour's worth of research? Even an hour's worth would have made any of these moronic adaptations a million percent better. 

Why is it all actresses are asked to stand like that and open their mouths just so? I understand how that's an iconic image of her, but it's a bit on the cliche side, no? It really looks like the picture that should be on the front of a Monroe Halloween costume. 

In conclusion. My advice would be to check out her last interview, it's very telling and saves you all of the trouble of fighting back throw up. It's on the youtubes, full version. Bottom line is, with someone like Monroe, it's going to be just far too complicated to 'nail it' (no pun intended). So given the history of her biopic assaults on pop-culture, I'm not too excited about these two back to back interpretations coming up in the next two years. Although I have respect for both actresses, I'm very very skeptical. People like to let clap-trap and sap run away with them, and leave the real story completely in ruins, sensationalized and revamped into a mindless clusterfuck of cheap melodrama. I'm staying optimistic, I'm just saying it's very hard to. 

Skinny Guys; Skinny Ties.

My mom recently told me that I'm attracted to men of the 'malnourished variety' (her exact words), and though I would love to disagree with her, given my track record, i think she's more or less right. Did you know there is a psychological study that states that women are attracted to men that are rather slim, sallow, terminal-looking, for lack of better terms. And lately, all of the biggest hitters in the film and television biz have been displaying aspects of the male version of 90's heroin chic. And if you ask me, it's very welcome. I'm tired of beefy, blonde, pretty boys greasing up my computer screen. Out also is the whole long wavy haired, unclean, bespectacled look. That guy looks like he wants to read you his poetry and then cry into your cat's fur for an hour. In the place of it, is a clean shaven version of the quintessential 'tortured artist' look, complete with an ancient pair of converse, patchy scruff (optional) and the pièce de résistance for geek chic wear; the skinny tie. This guy looks like he's into jazz, cooks, and writes comedy for a living, and that's the guy women really want. 

Do you remember a small movie written and directed by David Mamet called State & Main (2000)? If you're cool you do. There is a character of a doctor who has a lesson for Philip Seymour Hoffman's character that is probably one of the best lessons in cinema i've ever heard and it goes something like this (and i'm paraphrasing here). 'A man wears a tie to accentuate his penis, why would you take advice from a man who wears a bow-tie that accentuates his ears?' 

'Tis true, the tie is perhaps the most obvious phallic symbol that a man can wear on his body without actually taking his business out. And the skinny tie has dominated the male fashion world, lately being coupled with an old pair of jeans as if to say, 'i'm sophisticated, but i don't care'. 

Think of it, have you lately seen a beefy man in a skinny tie? the answer is probably going to be 'no', for some reason that would look ridiculous, like a blonde woman wearing white, it's just offensive to the eyes. The skinny tie should be reserved for those quietly confident and mysterious males who seem to ever presently hover between a whimsical boy-hood charm and raw animal masculinity, and are almost always under 150 pounds. 

The psychological study i referred to earlier, states that women are drawn to skinnier men because it ignites their maternal instincts, so that they have an intrinsic need to take care of them. And say it with me now; if it's on the internet, then it must be true! And given the big jewey jew that i am, that instinct is magnified by like a million percent. Go figure. 

So here are a few examples of men of the thinner variety who so wonderfully sport the skinny tie. The combination of the two is irresistible. 

New to the game, but making a very good impression is SNL's Paul Brittain, seen here sporting a loose fitting skinny tie which is even better than just regularly tying it. He's been making a great impression on the dirty screen, particularly with his Sex Ed Vincent character. Haven't seen it yet? well then i pity you. His ridiculously bright blue eyes don't need much to make them pop, and the hair is winning. 

Jeremy Davies has been in the skinny boy hall of fame for about a decade now, but he's reached his peak in the past few years getting messy on an island and never losing that now trademark tie of his as Dr. Daniel Faraday on Lost.

We have all been asking how did we not see this coming? He was such a sweet nerd in 3rd Rock From the Sun, and we all thought he'd reached his peak in 10 Things I Hate About You, but JG-Lev is surprising all of us, and found his way into our spank bank as soon as 500 Days of Summer hit the theaters, or Inception take your pick. He likes to couple the skinny tie with a vesty pants-suit, no complaints. 

Even though he works the hoodie sweatshirt and the 'fuck you flip-flops' very well in The Social Network, It's difficult not to take notice at award season when this curly haired ragamuffin started getting all dork-sexy on us and sporting smart suits and solid colored skinny ties. Win.  

If you watch Breaking Bad, the thinness of Aaron Paul is almost enough to drop your jaw. It's almost pre-pubescent. But he makes it work even in his character wardrobe which is usually baggy pants and hoodie sweatshirts, but when he steps out on the town, or on stage to get his Emmy (Bravo Aaron!) he cleans up very nicely. The tie is just the icing on the cake.  

Out of every beautiful face cast in The Social Network, no one expected Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg to trump the likes of Justin Timberlake and Armie Hammer. This British import is stupid hot, complete with a thick head of hair, large brown eyes, and a tall gangly physique. Whether dressed in wet spandex for his Spiderman shoot, or doing a Warhol-esque photo as the one above, he kills it with the camera...and a skinny tie.