Wanda Sykes: "Waiting for the Real Michelle Obama"

Got this one from the Michelle Obama Watch:

Connecting Violence against Women with the Economy

Thanks to an anonymous poster on my "Rihanna's Comeback" blog post for highlighting a recent article on Women's eNews: "Spike in Murder-Suicides Raises 'Manhood' Issue":

(WOMENSENEWS)--Consider these recent headlines:

"Teen Escapes as Father Kills Family" (in Florida)

"Maryland Town Anguished, Baffled After Man Kills Wife, Three Children and Self"

"Four Dead in Baltimore Hotel"

"Police Continue Probe into Murder-Suicide of Wilmington Family" (California)

"Despondent Dads Driven to Kill Loved Ones" (California, Washington, Maryland)

Until recently, cases of a parent killing his or her whole family were extremely rare. According to Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Violence Policy Center, these cases "were so rare we didn't bother to count them as a separate category."

But 2007 saw several such cases, in which fathers were usually the killers. In Alabama, one father threw his children off a bridge; in New Jersey, a man drowned his daughters, then hanged himself; and a California man shot his wife and two daughters in a parked car before turning the gun on himself. Over the next two years such mass killings have escalated.

Harsh Economy a Factor

A scan of news reports shows these horrible crimes becoming even more common, occurring at the rate of one every week or two.

If that rate holds up, the increase is huge. The previous rate was one or two every three months, according to Rand of the Violence Policy Center.

A doubling in murder-suicide from one or two per day--the average for the United States--to more than two or three a day is also evident from my news tracking this year.

Most experts cited in news reports emphasize the correlation between the killings and the economic downturn. And in our book, "Death by Domestic Violence: Preventing the Murders and the Murder-Suicides," my co-author and I did find that unemployment and other financial difficulties were themes in whole-family murder-suicides.

Read in Full.

Why Pixar Rules the Summer Movie Season: My Review of Up (Spoilers)

One word: Heart. This is what drives so much of Pixar's animation films, and Up is just the latest in heartwarming animation cinema. More importantly, it's what makes Pixar the most admirable and the best of all Hollywood studios today, and thank goodness a film like Up offers us moviegoers something imaginative, delightful, sentimental, adventurous, and "up" lifting in a summer movie season that offers us so much throwayable flicks.

Ten minutes into this film, I was weeping saltwater tears, and that was when I knew I was watching something special and magical. As with WALL-E, wordless actions exquisitely set up the exposition, and like Ratatouille (like when the "Grim Eater" flashbacks to his childhood when he bites into a sumptuous dish of ratatouille), emotional moments are deeply felt through a finely drawn eye-quiver. There's more emoting occurring in an animated eye movement than there is in many live-action actors' posturing, including that of Christian Bale's flat performance in Terminator Salvation. In other words, Up is fantastic movie viewing.

The plot is a rather absurd yet moving story that comes right on time for our economic recession times. Carl Fredericksen (voiced by Edward Asner), a 78-year-old widower, finds himself suddenly alone with the passing of his longtime partner, Ellie, whom he met in childhood. Both shared a love for adventure - their imaginations fired by movies and the adventures of their hero Charles Muntz. Together, they form a special wild adventure club in an abandoned, decaying house in their neighborhood. They eventually grow up, get married, and in homage to It's a Wonderful Life (replete with Ellie's Adventure scrapbook, with unwritten pages for the "Things I'd Like to Do"), the couple fix up that old decaying house of their youth and make their home where they will reside for the rest of their lives. Their dreams of venturing to South America to visit Paradise Falls (the fictional allusion to Venezuela's Angels Falls) are constantly placed on hold due to life's little interruptions. Along the way are other disappointments - the couple are not able to have children, for example - and while they put away money over the years to save up for their adventure trip while they work in a local zoo (Ellie is a zookeeper while Carl sells balloons), old age overtakes them, and eventually Ellie dies.

Sad and alone, surrounded by the memories of his life with Ellie, Carl finds himself an old relic in the midst of a changing environment. Outside his house is the menace of urban sprawl where developers hound Carl for his property so that they can continue in their development plans (so many levels, so many levels). Being the stubborn old man that he is, Carl refuses until an altercation arises that labels him a "public menace" who must be taken away to a retirement home. Carl has no other choice when, inspired by a picture drawn by his wife - which depicts their little house atop the Paradise Falls - and by her Adventure Scrap Book and the empty pages of her "Things I'd Like to Do," Carl gets the zany idea to attach his house to a gazillion helium balloons, which lift him up and away from it all - heading, lo and behold, to Paradise Falls in South America.

This image is truly striking in this day and age of the housing crisis, for how many homeowners, who've had to foreclose, would love the idea of saving one's home in such a lofty and whimsical way? Another movie homage is, of course, The Wizard of Oz, and there's a quick yet poignant scene (at least for me) of a little black girl playing with toys in her bedroom, who looks out her window to see this flying house attached to balloons. Her awe and wonder match my own, of course, and for a fleeting moment, I regretted that the story of the first "black princess" is being offered to us by Disney and not by Pixar.

Unbeknownst to Carl is the fact of a little 8-year-old eager-beaver type kid, who stowed away on his porch. Little Russell (voiced by child actor Jordan Nagai), a chubby Asian-American boy who has joined the "Wildlife Explorer" club and seeking a merit badge to "assist the elderly," at first appears terribly annoying and is downright clumsy (what with his overweight self, facilitated by his love for chocolate bars). Together, they journey to South America, where they encounter angry storm clouds, wild animals, and the vast wilderness of South America. What Up does really well - that other films, like Angels and Demons and Terminator Salvation fail to do - is character development. And we learn, during their crazy adventures, that poor Russell is as lonely as Carl, what with his eager hopes of pleasing his absentee father. One of the sight gags in this movie is seeing both Russell and Carl tied with a garden hose to that cumbersome floating house. So determined to fulfill Ellie's dream, Carl will lug that old house to Paradise Falls. Along the way are some cuddly animals and a villain, Carl's childhood hero, Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer), whom he encounters in the wilderness and who eventually comes off like the evil colonialist Kurtz in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Yes, the many animal skeletons and suggested human skulls in his blimp-turned-home was enough to 1) make me terrified of this cartoon villain and 2) make me applaud the film for reminding us of the far more sinister implications of our colonialist explorer-adventurer, whose madness is advanced because of his need for glory in the "civilized" world.

I could go on and on, but what's essential to know about Up is its beautiful lesson of friendship and how it knows no boundaries or age-limits. Eventually, when Carl reads through Ellie's Adventure Scrap Book and discovers that her "Things I'd Like to Do" were not empty pages but instead filled with mementos of their life together, only then does he discard the house of its many furniture and items. Indeed, he eventually discards the house itself when he is presented with the choice of keeping it or keeping his newfound friends. Perhaps my favorite scene comes at the end when, after their wild adventures in South America, Russell is ready to be presented his merit badge for assisting the elderly. The other boys on stage all have their fathers. He does not. That is until Carl joins him on stage. The entire audience in the theater couldn't help themselves. We let out a collective Awwwww.

This film is so full of win, and I highly recommend it. It has given me hope in cinema and what cinema does best: creating visually stunning images with emotional drama. If you're one of those adults who don't go for animation, I suggest you transcend your prejudices and go see it. Borrow somebody's kid if you have to. You will not be disappointed.

Rihanna's Comeback

The music video for Kanye West's new single "Paranoid" - starring Rihanna - has just been released.



So, uh, here are some choice lyrics, which make me livid that Rihanna (and the story behind her alleged abuse at the hands of boyfriend Chris Brown) is being utilized to dramatize this:

Baby don’t worry bout it
Hey there don’t even think about it
You worry bout the wrong things
The wrong things
You worry bout the wrong things
The wrong things
You worry bout the wrong things
The wrong things
You worry bout the wrong things
The wrong things ...

Tell me right now you really wanna spend your whole life alone?
A little time out might do you good, might do us good fore we be done for good.
Coz I can make it good I can make it hood I can make you come I can make you go
I can make it high I can make it fly make you touch the sky hey maybe so
All the time you be up in my checking through my cellphone baby no
You wanna kill the vibe on another night? Here’s another fight
Oh here we go
Oh here we go

Baby don’t worry bout it
Lady we’ll go out to the floor

Anyway they don’t know you (They don’t know) like I do
They’ll never know (Never Know) you
Anyway they don’t know you (Never Know) like I do
They’ll never know you ...

All of the time you wanna complain about the nights alone
So now you’re here with me show some gratitude leave the attitude way back at home
Yeah you see em look baby let em look give you cold looks cuz we look cold
Yeah you heard about all the word of mouth don’t worry about what we can’t control
All the talk in the world lost in the world til you finally let that thing go
You wanna check into the heartbreak hotel but sorry we’re closed.

Baby don’t worry bout it
Baby we’ll go out to the floor

Um, I really don't appreciate Kanye being a mouth piece for the mess that is Chris and Rihanna. Of course, maybe I shouldn't read too deeply into this, except I take domestic violence seriously (on my local news today was yet another story of some man shooting his old lady before turning the gun on himself: we'll be hearing more of this as the economic crisis worsens, especially since we all want to pretend that DSV is just the normal way women and men are supposed to interact with each other).

Anyway, hurry up and watch the vid before YouTube pulls it down!

The Corporate Takeover of You Tube: Why It's No Longer Fun

I suppose it's only a matter of time before Twitter (which is so unnecessary as it encourages stalkers and isolated people to think their mundane lives are relevant to the world) gets taken over by Corporate Media - or what I like to call "Big Media." I mean, CNN did a whole Twitter thing all morning, to the point where I'm sure the young'uns no longer think it's cool when CNN, NBC, and FOX are chattering away about how "cool" it is.

Maybe these latest technologies are a way for youth to keep one step ahead of Corporate Media, but Big Media - like a bullying, overbearing grown-up - insists on playing in the sandbox. And not just playing in the sand with the kiddies, but also dictating to the children HOW they're supposed to build sand castles in the sand. It's like: Get out the sandbox, you overbearing grown-up! Stop being so inappropriate!

So, that's the convenient metaphor I'm going to use for Big Media increasing its presence in these do-it-yourself media spaces on the Internet. Most glaringly, this is what has happened to You Tube.

Remember how much fun You Tube used to be? Where any and everything was permissible? I mean, I found old footage films and TV shows, which used to be available in the Library of Congress, on You Tube. If you missed an important TV show, I used to just go on You Tube to check out what I missed. If a cool music video just got released, I could embed it on my blog and share with my readers. And, if I wanted to make my own video, inspired by a song or event, I could just put it together and upload on my You Tube account.

Well, imagine my surprise that my latest video's audio got pulled. WTH?! Oh, that's right: You Tube is now following copyright laws. To which all I have to say is: FAIR USE!!! Get over it!

All of a sudden, a cool music video can no longer be embedded on blogs. TV shows, like American Idol for example, can no longer be watched as producers started doggedly pulling videos down - in hopes that they can keep their high ratings as they discourage viewers from watching their shows elsewhere. It's just not fun to go on You Tube anymore, and the fun organic impulse of some of the do-it-yourself videos have lost that edge since the promise of You Tube instant celebrity looms over every new slick video.

What I see going on with You Tube is corporate takeover. And with their increasing presence comes more restrictive measures that certainly curtail the free expressions of video makers and uploaders. It no longer feels like a space "for the people, by the people." If You Tube is no longer about "You," then it's time to move on to some other spaces.

I hear Vimeo, Hulu, and Blip TV are the latest hip video servers. Maybe I should whisper this, lest Big Media forces its way into these sandboxes as well.

Fun Action Flick or Profound Sci-Fi Classic? My Review of Terminator Salvation (Spoilers)

Let me start this review with a purely superficial comment. Sam Worthington (who plays Marcus Wright in Terminator Salvation) is the HOTNESS! *fans self.*

That said, I do resent this latest installment of the Terminator series, which centers the story around this enigmatic character, rather than build up the story around John Connor (played by Christian Bale), humanity's savior in the war against the machines. I imagine this, more than anything about this latest Terminator movie, even more than the bad reputation of director McG, an MTV music video maker who doesn't have the chops to rise to James Cameron's level, is why it's already considered a flop (bad reviews and bad word-of-mouth, along with its inability to beat Night at the Museum at the box office). Which is too bad, because - as far as action flicks go - this was a fun ride. No, it's not a profound sci-fi classic that's worthy of the first two Terminator movies, but is that what we were looking for?

I'll admit: what I was looking for, especially if we felt the need to update the story, is a story arc that shows us how someone like John Connor - whom we last saw in Terminator: Rise of the Machines as a whiny teenager reluctantly thrust into a nuclear war with privy knowledge about the future - emerges as this leader of the human resistance against the machines in a post-apocalyptic world. But we don't get that. Instead, what we get is a prelude concerning Marcus Wright and how he became a machine that thinks it's human. While I think that's a cool plot, because I did like his character and, more importantly, cared more about his character than about John Connor, this defeats the purpose of creating a hero. All this movie needed, to make people care, was to begin at the beginning. The preamble we absolutely needed to see was - not Marcus Wright (a death row inmate who signs over his body for science, later revealed to be Cyberdyne Labs responsible for the growth of Skynet - the artificial intelligence which grows a consciousness and initiates the nuclear war against humanity ) - but instead a younger John Connor, in his underground bunker with Kate Connor (played this time by Bryce Dallas Howard instead of Claire Danes), using his radio transmitter to build an underground resistance movement. That was all I needed. The jump cut into the current futuristic year of 2018 could have then segued to an older John Connor, now in military garb with his now pregnant wife Kate, still on his radio delivering a new message about how to proceed with the resistance movement.

Such a scene would have 1) established that it's basically consciousness-raising through low-tech media (like the radio transmitter) that began this importance resistance movement against the Machine; 2) showcased how a global movement can be built with a recognizable voice like John Connor, whose knowledge about the future could educate the masses (those still in existence); and 3) introduced in a cut-away scene two important characters in the film - Kyle Reese (played by Anton Yelchin) and Star (Jadagrace) - who would have been listening to John Connor's voice on the radio as they were hiding out. Instead, we meet these characters when they come to the rescue of Marcus Wright, who shows up on the scene, completely confused about the year he's in and what happened to create the destructive landscape of the planet. Because we didn't get this intro of John Connor as heroic leader, John Connor is reduced to this angry, furrowed-brow guy in combat attire, who barks orders and gives off this surly vibe (because of that Christian Bale rant that made its away across the Internet, it also takes us out of the picture, quite frankly). So, this is unfortunate, because - as fiiiiiine a specimen as I find Sam Worthington, his character is not the point of this movie, and I kind of resent that we were supposed to care more about who he is and not about who John Connor is to become. Especially when we consider that there was a point in the movie, during a pivotal moment actually, for this back story of Marcus to come into the picture when he infiltrates his way into Skynet and discovers who he really is: a machine given human characteristics (replete with internal organs, like a strong heart) so that he could serve as a machine spy.

Despite this divergent plot, the action is real taut, and the special effects were banging - well, give and take a few since some of the CGI images pale in comparison to the much better visual effects used in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. There were lots of explosions, but since this is a war movie, that is to be expected. The main thrust of this movie is for John Connor to find Kyle Reese, which of course Marcus Wright finds him first. And, unfortunately, there is a plot hole because the machines identify him as Kyle Reese, and for the life of me, if Skynet already knew who he was and what his significance is to John Connor, I cannot understand why Kyle wasn't killed on the spot the moment he was identified (yes, the machines have a ready opportunity to terminate him). But, this wouldn't be a suspense thriller without such plot holes, I suppose. I think I would have preferred a movie where 1) Marcus's true identity as a machine was revealed later in the film and 2) Kyle Reese's identity was also made a little later in the film. There were moments needed to build character, and it failed.

As Kate Connor, Bryce Dallas Howard isn't given much to do, nor is Blair Williams (played by Moon Bloodgood), the other female fighter in this film, who kicks butt but much of her role is to develop a love interest in Marcus. Again, I like where such a relationship is going, but this needed development, and I would've liked her back story as well. I also would like the back story of Star, the young black girl who is a mute companion to Kyle. She's quite resilient, and the first time we see her is when she rescues Marcus from a terminator. I like this kid! And it's not just because she's adorable. I wish she could talk, but in not talking, she definitely is a skilled observer but her role is mostly to pass on all the ammunition to our heroic guys, so that's how she gets reduced to such a servile role. Still, one cannot help but think, years down the line, she will become an important soldier in the resistance, so there is potential there.

If this first installment of the latest trilogy serves as an introduction - part of John Connor's military crew is Barnes (played by Common) - then I do wish we got a sense of how this motley crew came together and became this force to be reckoned with. I at least like that this is the future imagined as a multiracial one, with its black and Asian characters. Having said that, too much of the drama feels en medias res - as if we just got thrust into this world with no explanation about who is who. Maybe we'll get more of this in the next installment, but perhaps this film might have paid more attention to developing characters (outside of Marcus Wright) rather than to blowing up stuff. And, according to IMDB, it doesn't look like Sam Worthington will be returning, so the ending, which I won't spoil here, makes me wonder why he was needed, and how he will impact on the kind of man John Connor will become.

Still, all things considered, I was entertained, and to start off the summer, I'm not going to ask too much more than that in an action flick.

Homophobia? Blame the Show, Not the Voters

As is typical, Big Media would rather blow conversations completely out of proportion than offer anything insightful, as they did by citing Season 2 runner-up Clay Aiken, a gay Idol contestant who recently derided another gay Idol contestant, the newly appointed Season 8 runner-up Adam Lambert whose singing made his "ears bleed." Meanwhile, they missed the far more salient message of Clay's blog, which is this:

The show was different [in the past], and folks made it in seasons 1-3 because they were "real" people who happened to sing/entertain well. But, somewhere along the way, AI stopped being about real people ... Those votes for Kris were also votes to return the show to its roots of finding "real" contestants with undiscovered talent and giving them the chance to grow and shine... Enough with the pretention. More Rubens, more Clays, more Fantasias and Tamyras and Kellys please.

Sure, we can argue that Clay Aiken was being incredibly tacky - and dare I say, bitter much? - and even dismissive that, due to Adam's flamboyant style and his often accused theatricality, somehow he doesn't represent "real people." But, honestly, Clay has a point. Having tuned in for Season 1's finale, when Kelly Clarkson won (also having been privy to conversations about Tamyra Gray's shocking boot) and regularly tuning in since the second season with Ruben, Clay, and Kimberly Locke, Clay is right. The show did stop focusing on finding "real" people with talent, who have an opportunity to grow and improve over the course of a season. It did become about gimmicks and favoritism and overly pimping said favorite to the detriment of others.

But, the way I see it, this is not about Adam being some "pretentious" and showy, gimmicky contestant, while Kris, as a "real" musician, quietly struggled in the shadows, ready to topple the presumed frontrunner. I cannot help but feel Adam was a set-up all along. So, rather than folks spend their precious Internet time debating whether or not Kris's eventual win was based on homophobia, why are we not asking instead if the show's over-the-top praise for a contestant like Adam Lambert is the guilty culprit? And I'm saying this in the context of Clay Aiken's critique.

As someone who has been watching American Idol for the past 7 years, I believe the show stopped being about "real people" when Carrie Underwood appeared on the scene and, in the wake of winning Season 4, became a runaway platinum-selling country music artist. She was the game changer. Which isn't to say "real people" don't include very pretty blonds who sing beautifully, but her win and post-show success changed the show's dynamics. From the moment she auditioned, Carrie Underwood was ready to be signed. Simon Cowell declared her that Season's Idol winner during the auditions. Carrie didn't need to compete for America to find her the best of the bunch. She didn't need a "makeover," like Ruben or Clay or Fantasia or Jennifer Hudson. She had the looks and the voice, and that was it. In short, she came to them already polished, which meant that - post Carrie Underwood - the show wasn't going to try hard to make over anyone.

Following her season, they also found a polished performer, Chris Daughtry, who was "ready to be signed," and they started pushing heavily for his win. But, Taylor Hicks happened, and unlike Chris, whose personality made him seem arrogant to many voters, Taylor was very entertaining and seemed more "real." That's how he won Season 5, but the show - already committed to their "frontrunner" - invested in Chris Daughtry's post-show career, leaving Taylor Hicks to fend for himself. It wasn't pretty. But that particular showdown between America's choice and the producers' choice set a distasteful precedent in the way the judges are consistently used to manipulate the show and position contestants to advance far into the show or to tank, and sometimes to get close enough to winning but eventually failing. This happened to Melinda Doolittle, Season 6, who was clearly miles ahead of the pack with her professionally trained vocals as a back-up singer, but whose self-described "hot mess" fashion sense and shyness prevented her from making the finale (that, plus some horrendous song choices picked for her by the judges and producers). This happened to David Archuleta, Season 7, whose soulful, beautiful voice made him stand out very early but whose awkwardness and timidity at times got in the way (including hideous song choices selected for him during Top 3 week), and although he recouped himself in time for the finale, it kept him from grasping the brass ring at the end, compared to his competitor David Cook, whose better showmanship allowed him to prevail.

What happened to Melinda and David was a simple case of contestants with stellar vocals who needed help in other areas and whose flaws were not corrected but amplified by the show's manipulations. Unfortunately, the judges were also too lazy to bother to help them improve because they were already committed to a specific script. Season 6 was all about how to get rid of Sanjaya Malakar, since he was clearly an audience favorite, despite the weak vocals, and once they got rid of him, they were stuck with: the runaway favorite (Melinda) looked too old. Let's work with the other 17 year old, Jordin Sparks, who's got a nice voice. She's a worthy alternative. Season 7 was all about how to find a worthy competitor for David Archuleta, who was also an early crowd favorite. Cook emerged, and the eventual script was "Battle of the Davids", and they did everything they could to prevent any other contestant from messing up that David squared finale.

And keep in mind, all these contestants since Carrie Underwood are still "real people." What's different is the way the show positions some of these contestants as if they were larger than life, the most spectacular thing to hit the stage, etc. The audience reactions, as a result, since they're still stuck on the "ugly-duckling-turned-into-a-beautiful-swan" storyline begun since the beginning of the show, looked beyond the hubris and said,

"Yeah, Melinda's a technically good singer. But she bores me."

"David is too Disney. He's good but he's boring, and he looks like he's 12!"

"Adam's too theatrical. His screaming is just too much!"

See what I mean? Complete set-up. Because, these contestants are real people, and they were being hyped up to be something they were not. More than that, once the judges kept them in a box, they were not allowed to grow and transform. Beyond the lack of growth, other contestants, who are treated as also-rans, were prevented from advancing by receiving little constructive criticism or destructive criticism. And that's the problem with the show. Before, it was a showcase of contestants as they were (i.e. nobody tried to correct Fantasia's countrified dialect or hide that she was a teenage mother who dropped out of high school) eventually emerging as TV stars. Today, the show tried to hide that Kris Allen was married so his marital status didn't interfere with the perception that he was an available potential heart throb. Meanwhile, Adam's flash and standout performances led many in Big Media to speculate about his being gay.

And this is where the show's homophobia comes in. Just as with "frontrunners" in the previous seasons, Adam didn't get a lick of constructive criticism. Not once! He did his rock-glam, over-the-top performances, and all the judges did was praise him. Big Media chimed in too. We were supposed to believe he was the greatest contestant to hit the Idol stage. Yes, I was entertained by Adam, especially when his competition - outside of Allison Iraheta, someone with real potential who got mostly destructive criticism, as opposed to constructive criticism - bored me to tears. But, he didn't come on the show hitting the ground running. He had an idea of performing flamboyant, rock glam, but much of it was too showy. Somebody like Adam should have been guided in the ways of 1)how to make it all seem like an individual style, rather than rock theater and 2)how to look like a regular guy with his own sense of performance style who had room to improve. He became a "gimmick." And, worse, with the various "is he gay?" questions in the media, he became a gay caricature. As a judge or mentor, either you're up to the task of transforming your amateur talents into real stars, or you're not.

Time and again, the judges were too busy making witty and uninspired repetitive remarks, or they were too caught up in childish behavior (i.e. Simon drawing a crayon mustache on Paula's face when they could have been instructing poor Allison, a young teenager with a gorgeous husky voice, how to make her performances more compelling). The criticism was unbelievably lazy, and the judges seemed bored. And because of their self-absorbed, foolish, foolish behavior, contestants like Adam Lambert skated by with little criticism while others were crushed, and worse, he is is left with the impression that he's "the greatest contestant ever" with his shtick while never being called out on knowing the difference between rock music parody and crafting an individual style. Why do I call it homophobic? Because, there was an expectation that - if Adam is perceived as a gay contestant, simply because of his attempts at gender-bending - this is what a gay Idol would look and sound like. He was "different" in a way that gave the show buzz, and even with him eventually losing the title - after building up the expectation that no one else was worthy to win - that's all anyone is talking about.

His "difference" also allowed for a backlash, and I will never not question whether or not the show had already built up this set-up for Adam to come oh-so-close but not winning because 1)not long before the finale, Bill O'Reilly (on the same Fox network, mind you) did a show about the "culture wars" as represented on American Idol with the final 2 contestants and 2) Entertainment Weekly featured Adam, and only Adam, during Top 3 week, on its cover, with the big old question: "Is Adam Gay?" This was the buzz around Adam Lambert, which meant that the show was invested in creating the spectacle of gayness around him and around the finale. In a lackluster year, what better way to get people interested in your lousy show than to push certain buttons and raise the issue of gay rights, which is very much a hot button issue right now?

All I know is, it's pretty hard to say for sure that Adam Lambert lost because of homophobia, especially when, personally, I thought Adam left too much room for Kris to look good on the final 2 showdown. Adam could have wiped the floor with Kris, but he didn't. Did he not want to win? Was he aware of how the gay factor would always cloud his win and how he's marketed? Did he not want that burden? We won't really know if homophobia colored the eventual votes. But I have no doubt in my mind that American Idol itself went out of its way to make gayness a gimmick. If anyone should be accused of homophobia, let's start with the show.

Why Are We Surprised? Reflections on American Idol Season 8 Winner

I said it last year, when I had a favorite going into the finale, and I'll say it again. In a competition between two male contestants on American Idol, it comes down to "competing masculinities," and "America" has specific guidelines on what is acceptable. Last year, the hard masculinity of David Cook beat out the soft masculinity of David Archuleta. Season 2, Ruben Studdard, the heavier Luther-Vandross-like crooner, beat out the not-then-out-but-everybody knew-was-gay belter Clay Aiken. This year, it's the ordinary, married, guitar-playing, laid back, singer-songwriter everyman from Arkansas - that's Kris Allen, for those of you not in the know - who stole the thunder from frontrunner, flaming-diva, rock glam, over-the-top wailing and possibly gay Adam Lambert from San Diego. Seriously, who's surprised that Kris beat out Adam? Look at the two of them! Did you really think America would choose flamboyance over the ordinary guy?

I ask the question because, inevitably, various blogs, twitters, and online mags are simply shocked - Shocked!! - that Kris won over Adam. Maybe last year taught me that, no, when we look at the guys in the competition, especially when the guys who are the last ones standing are often talented in their own niches (not taking anything away from Kris who does what he does quite well), it doesn't come down to talent and who's got the best voice or gives the best performance. Tuesday night, I thought it was tied, but for the last song (singing the hideous coronation song, "No Boundaries," which hit an all-time low for most cliched inspirational song on American Idol), I thought Adam did enough with the song to give him the edge. Well, it's not always so simple, is it? Kris was the cuter one, Kris was the safe one, Kris was the low-keyed one. He was recognizably "American" with that rugged individualism of regular guyness, in a way Adam was not, what with his winged, vampirish costumes (which I absolutely loved, but I wish he had said "Suck it!" and just flamed away in something far more outrageous in the style of Elton John or David Bowie, so we can really say, "Homophobia!" is what lost the title for him).

Fortunately for me, I had already decided to not get emotionally invested this year. After David Archuleta and Melinda Doolittle, I've definitely learned my lesson about rooting for the far-and-away best talent of the bunch, only to see them come close and not grab the title. I mean, this is how pop culture works. If the most talented and the most artistic were embraced by the masses, there wouldn't be such a thing as "art" vs. "pop culture," would there?

Still, pop culture is fun to study because, really, if you want to know what the mainstream attitudes about gender or sexuality or race or nationality are, popular choices make it quite blatant.

Congratulations, Kris! And thank you, Adam Lambert, for finally relieving the burden of American Idol runner-up title, which was unfairly placed on the shoulders of my beloved David Archuleta. Work that title, and work it well with all your glam-rock flaming-diva glory!

Signs and Wonders (and Dumbed Down Professors): My Review of Angels & Demons (Spoilers)

Since so many colleges and universities are threatening to shut down smaller departments (usually in the Humanities and Cultural Studies since we generally bring in less money than the Sciences), I propose that we merge ourselves and set up the new field of "Symbology." :)

Thanks to Dan Brown, author of the international bestseller, The DaVinci Code, which features the protagonist Robert Langdon, Harvard Professor of Symbology, we may be able to get some Hollywood money to fund our dwindling resources, yes?

I say all this with tongue in cheek, having gone to see the latest adventure of our Symbology prof (portrayed by Tom Hanks) over the weekend in Ron Howard's adaptation of Brown's novel, Angels and Demons. While I definitely preferred reading this prequel novel to the more popular DaVinci Code, Angels and Demons, as a movie and sequel, suffers from the same heavy-handed, didactic clumsiness of the first adaptation.

The plot? Well, let's see how I can clarify a convoluted mess. Basically, some enemy of the Catholic Church - an enemy done wrong by the Church centuries ago - steals some anti-matter from a Swiss lab to create an out-of-this-world explosion and then buries it underneath Vatican City, timed to go off at midnight during a moment of Conclave when Cardinals are meeting to select the next Pope. Meanwhile, four of the Cardinals - those favored to be elected the next Pope - have been kidnapped, and each one will be killed on the hour, beginning at 8 pm, until we get to the midnight climax. This enemy reveals itself to be the secret society called Illuminati, a scientific sect that wants to wage war against religion.

Funny, but in the page-turning book, I could accept this premise. In the movie, it felt rather foolish. Not least of which is the idea that police detectives would bring in some art history professor (because in the "real world" that's the discipline our famed symbologist would be studying) to help them decode a bunch of clues when they should have a professional decoder to do that for them. But, whatever. If there is anything I do like these popular books and movies for, it's that they actually make intellectual pursuits like the study of art history or theology or Medieval and Renaissance History relevant to today's world. I mean, any Hollywoood movie that champions us going into an archive (even if the Vatican would make it virtually impossible to gain access to it) to solve a terrorist threat is definitely a story I can get behind. Except when said story then proceeds to treat a 17th-century document as an ordinary book in which you could just tear out a page (yes, me and professorial colleagues who were with me in the theater let out a collective and audible gasp) because you're "on the run." That it's the female scientist, Vittoria Vetro (played by Ayelet Zurer), who does this - and not our responsible symbologist - says so much about how 1) women are portrayed as irrational and unintellectual and 2) scientists don't respect the work humanities scholars do. Had Langdon gone to her science lab and just toppled over one of her chemicals, she would be livid. Not least of which is the real possibility that, in a science lab, you could blow yourself up to kingdom come if you're careless, whereas, in an archive, you're just basically messing with the historical record - which has been responsible for inheriting and disinheriting whole groups of people or creating reasons for why we need to have wars or segregation or any other social evil. But I digress.

While Professor Langdon and his scientist female sidekick are led on a wild goose chase throughout Vatican City, as they attempt to solve the mystery of where our kidnapped cardinals and antimatter bomb are located by using the clues hidden in the great sculptures and architectural structures of the city, we are also introduced to the Camerlengo (played by an impressive Ewan McGregor, who - in my humble opinion - saves this movie from being completely forgettable and, had he had a more capable director, would have done wonders with this character), a young priest who presides over the Church during the time of the Pope's death and the time of a newly elected Pope. There's a plot twist involving the Camerlengo which, again, played out better in the book than it does here, but to add these details might have made this movie much longer than it needed to be.

Much of what is wrong with this movie adaptation is that Howard cut out all the wrong parts and put in the unnecessary elements. The dialogue is awkward and didactic - there is so much explaining to do because the audience is treated as if we're all dumb. For example, in one scene, Professor Langdon explains to Vittoria the conflict Galileo had with the Church - as if this "brilliant" scientist would not already know that history! Come on! Yes, I realize this conversation was for the audience's benefit - and the fact that they have to assume the general audience wouldn't know this bit of history is already part of the problem. I would also criticize the fact that Professor Langdon, he of the great mind to unravel complex Medieval and Enlightenment puzzles, doesn't know how to read Latin or Italian! No wonder the Vatican denied him access to the archives!

There was so much dumbing down going on that it distracted from the "complex" action adventure it was supposed to be. While the flashbacks seemed to mar the first movie, The DaVinci Code, I think a few historical flashbacks showcasing Galileo meeting with his secret Illuminati society might have been better placed in lieu of the expository dialogue. More importantly, I wish more was done to give the Camerlengo's back story, so that the ending is better understood. Without it, he just comes off as a (Spoiler alert!) deranged priest.

I believe it was Alfred Hitchcock who said that great classic novels and plays need not be messed with and made into movies. He preferred to mine the materials of short stories and hack novels, precisely because you could shape it up into a stellar movie. Dan Brown's novels of action adventure and pop academia are also hack inventions, which - believe it or not - make for excellent film adaptations. However, it does require a skilled filmmaker like Hitchcock - as opposed to Ron Howard - to turn an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan. There were many times I wished this material had fallen into the hands of a Paul Greengrass (director of those Jason Bourne movies) or Darren Aronofsky, who would have fun with the symbolism. Because, what this film really needed was a reimagining of the novel for cinema.

At least, if there's anything worthwhile, the cinematography and art direction were lovely. Vatican City will benefit greatly from the boom in tourism. Which is why, I suspect, they weren't too caught up in criticizing the movie - except for not allowing production on the grounds of certain sacred spots. But really? A Ron Howard film, especially one of this caliber, should not be allowed to film inside the Sistine Chapel.

Disney's First African American Princess

Here's the trailer for "The Princess and the Frog" (at least it's no longer going by "The Frog Princess").

Although I can already hear the criticisms: Why is the first black princess associated with a frog (and turns into one herself)? Why is the prince a white guy and the evil villain a black dude? Any others?

What's In a Name? Brief Thoughts on the F-Word

"I am not a feminist. For one thing, I’ve never really known exactly what the term means. "
- Cinie

Not trying to single out Cinie, but I've been encountering more and more women like her. To me, such sentiments is proof that the feminist movement is dying out. What does it mean that the average woman doesn't know what feminism means? For those who have been confused, let me help you.

Feminism: a political ideology and social movement that advances the equality of women in all aspects of culture and society and that fights for the elimination of sexism.

Sexism: the belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over the other and thereby its rights to domination, power, and privilege.

If you believe that women are equal to men, that all genders are equal, then you have the makings of a feminist identity. If you're willing to fight to advance that equality, consider yourself a feminist.

If you're against sexism, then you have the makings of a feminist identity. If you're willing to fight for its elimination, consider yourself a feminist.

Any questions?

Happy Mother's Day

My video tribute to all the world's mothers.

This Week's Tragedy at Wesleyan University and the Spectre of Violence Against Women

Here's an important commentary from the Amplify Your Voice blog about the tragic shooting death of 21-year-old Wesleyan student, Johanna Justin-Jinich, by 29-year-old Stephen P. Morgan, who had sent Johanna 38 harassing e-mail messages before gunning her down on Wednesday, May 6, in Wesleyan's campus bookstore.

Sadly, Wesleyan Case Not an Anomaly

As the tragic murder of a 21-year old Wesleyan University student resonates across the country, we must recognize it not only for its immediate impact (the death of a bright, passionate young woman), but also for the alarming national trend that it implies. The murderer, 29-year old Stephen Morgan, had a history of uneven relationships, and a dislike for Jews and other minorities. But the May 6^th murder of Johanna Justin-Jinich cannot be solely attributed to random violence, extreme psychosis and/or anti-Semitism. After turning himself in, officials discovered a journal that expressed hatred for minority groups, and, more alarmingly in this case, a detailed plan to rape and kill Wesleyan junior Ms. Justin-Jinich, followed by a shooting rampage on campus. This is a case of stalking and violence against women.

Read in Full.

The Romance of the Historically Black College and University (HBCU)

Got this essay in my inbox today, and I'm still pondering it. And when I say "ponder," I mean seriously questioning the value of HBCUs, their future, and what the relationship of black faculty and students who survive and thrive (sometimes) in predominately white institutions of higher ed should be. My dissertation adviser specifically argued against my accepting a dissertation fellowship at an HBCU because such colleges were "run like plantations"! In other words, I'm feeling what Mark Anthony Neal is saying here:

"Black Schools Kill Smart Niggers"? Reconciling the Romance for Black Institutions in the Post-Soul Era

Mark Anthony Neal

When I accepted my first tenure track position at Xavier University of Louisiana in the summer of 1996, I was filled with the romance that only nine-years of undergraduate and graduate training at largely white public institutions in Western New York State could produce. Yes, I was happy to leave behind the regional phenomenon known as “lake effect” snow for the warmth and hotness of the “Big Easy,” but more to the point, as the only historically Black and Catholic university in the nation, Xavier offered me my first engagement with an Historically Black College and University (HBCU). As an African-American male from the South Bronx, my first 12 years of schooling were spent at an all-black Seventh Day Adventist school and a large specialized high school in Brooklyn, NY that defined the concept of urban cosmopolitanism. Yet my experiences in higher education were quite different, spending nearly a decade in classrooms in which I functioned, to borrow a term that Greg Tate once used to describe the career of Jean Michel Basqiuat, as a “flyboy in the buttermilk.” I was devout in my desire not to reproduce that experience, now that I was on the other-side of the desk, so to speak. Armed with a dissertation with enough post-modern jargon to choke the ghost of Baudrillard and still filled with the swagger of the late 1980s renaissance of black cultural nationalism, I “turned south” in hopes of finding my professional purpose. Having never experienced the presence of a black man as a teacher, on any level of formal schooling, I was also endowed with the idea that I needed to be at an HBCU to be on the front lines of saving the next generation of black “boys to men.” It was a heady romance indeed, but also a short lived one.

I was only at Xavier for six weeks when a lunchtime encounter with a very prominent black public intellectual led to the conversation that provides the title for my essay. “Black schools kill smart niggers” was the warning—still remembering the sense of clarity that I sought at the moment I heard the warning—and even before I could utter a word about my commitment to black students, said black public intellectual remarked, “there are black students everywhere that you can teach.” The conversation stayed in the back of my head until months later when my identity politics, in the form of my scholarly interests in black gender and sexual politics, my support of a black woman colleague who was being professionally hazed by the head of my department and as well as my distinct commitment to use “black vernacular” in the classroom made me a target of both my immediate supervisor and the Dean of Faculty. I can remember thinking to myself, as I left Xavier’s campus for the last time after only a year, accepting a position back in New York State, that for the first time in my life I had a firm grasp on the functions of a plantation. To be sure, I’ve experienced plantation life on many a university campus since that initial tenure track position, though places like Duke University, for example, are quite skilled in obscuring that reality. Nevertheless my experience at Xavier raised critical questions for me about the value of historically black colleges and universities, if not historically black institutions in general, particularly in the so-called “Post-Soul” era in which the totems of blackness flow so efficiently through mainstream culture, often to the effect of obliterating their distinctly black sources.

Read in Full

Pictured: Fisk University Jubilee Singers.

Cause for Panic?

Here's a thought-provoking commentary from Salon.com: "Pandemic Pandemonium" by Mary Beth Crain:

May 2, 2009 | "Revelation," notes the historian Barbara Tuchman in her epic book "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century," "was the favorite guide to human affairs in the Middle Ages."

And the terrible predictions of Revelation seemed to have come to pass when, in 1347, a sinister, horrific malady began sweeping through Europe, cutting down nearly everyone in its ruthless path. In fact, the image of the Grim Reaper, a skeletal Death with a scythe, entered our iconography as a result of the most dreaded disease the world had ever known: the Black Plague. By the time it had done its dastardly work, the population of Europe had been so severely decimated that human life on every level, from personal and social to religious, political and economic, was forever altered.

The plague was so overwhelming and so relentless that medieval man had only one explanation for it: the wrath of God. It was compared to the biblical Great Flood and was seen as yet another attempt at divine housecleaning. People were convinced that, as in Noah's time, the human race was scheduled for destruction; more than one chronicler of the day sincerely believed that he was witnessing "the extermination of mankind" ...

... The world didn't end in 1347, or during the Great Plague of 1665, or in any of the other plague years. It didn't end in 1918, when the Spanish influenza pandemic, which operated in much the same way as the bubonic "yersenia pestis," went on a global killing spree that wiped out whole communities at record speed. It didn't end during the SARS panic of 2003, or with the avian flu scare in 2006. And chances are it won't end in 2009, with H1N1 stalking the earth.

In fact, with all the medical and technological advances in the 91 years since the 1918 global pandemic, we're considerably more prepared for this very moment -- the "next" pandemic that experts have been expecting for at least two decades. So, there's a good possibility that contraction of the H1N1 flu can be contained, and death tolls kept at a minimum. The point is, are we going to allow the very idea of a pandemic to create pandemonium? Or are we going to put on our thinking caps, settle down, and fight a "smart" war of vigilance and reason?

Read in Full.

Chiwoniso

I'm absolutely swamped with end-of-semester grading right now, but I'm pleased to say in the midst of grading I discover some delightful gems.

One of my students did a great music project on women in the African Diaspora and, hence, has introduced me to the music of Chiwoniso. Check out this video: