Assorted Links: Albums, Oscar Film, and Stereotypes

Assorted links:

1) Is "Cellar door" the most beautiful phrase in the English language? More here. Tip of the hat to MR for the pointer.

2) Good article about the psychological effects of touching on the NY Times. A bit says: "“We think that humans build relationships precisely for this reason, to distribute problem solving across brains,” said James A. Coan, a a psychologist at the University of Virginia. “We are wired to literally share the processing load, and this is the signal we’re getting when we receive support through touch.” More here.

3) Rolling Stone's magazine top 100 albums of the decade.

4) I agree, for the most part, with NY Times' Charles M. Blow's take on the film Precious and Tyler Perry's bizarre fascination with problematic female characters. I find Tyler Perry's films too cliché-rich and a bit too self-mythologizing generally. Hence, when I read this NY Times bit on the Oscars and the generously nominated Lee Daniels' film Precious, I found myself agreeing with the premise almost fully. A bit says:

"Then came Tyler Perry with his inexplicable fascination with this cliché, and his almost single-handed revival of it.

In the last five years, he has featured a crack-addicted black mother who leaves her children in two of his films and on his very popular sitcom, “House of Payne.” (In one of the films, the character is referred to but never seen.) In another film, a main character is a drug-addicted prostitute. And in yet another, a mother leaves her family for the drug dealer.

It should be noted that “Precious” is “co-presented” by Perry.

Let it go, Mr. Perry. These never-ending portrayals perpetuate the modern mythology that little has changed when much has. Even for Whitney."

I second the sentiment. Exactly, Mr. Perry, let it go. Hire some good writers and come up with new story lines. And, could an actual female actor play your Madea character instead of you? I mean, we are way past Shakespearean times. Women may play female characters on the stage nowadays.

 Subscribe to HetPer

 Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast

graph per ny times

Are the Oscars a Drag?

As it is Oscar Sunday, and no, I will not be watching (see previous blog, why), I found this Times article most apropos. The best bit per moi,

"The system is not exactly winner-take-all, but it does leave behind a distressingly high number of designated losers, among them some of the most interesting and daring films of the year. It should not make a difference that, say, “Into the Wild,” “Starting Out in the Evening” and “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” are barely represented in the Oscar sweepstakes. Your list of glaring omissions may be different, but if you’re among the passionate admirers of “Lust, Caution” or “We Own the Night” or “3:10 to Yuma,” you are similarly stuck savoring the sour grapes of your own good taste.


In the past it was frequently safe to assume that any relationship between the Oscars and artistic quality was coincidental. The academy was never supposed to be hip, daring or responsive to what was newest and most risky in the world of cinema. It was just what its name implied: the mainstream, the establishment, the old guard. Sometimes, yes, the best picture prize would actually go to the best picture, but more often the academy’s neglect of a film was a reliable index of its merit. The good judgment not only of critics but, more important, of independent-minded, adventurous moviegoers has traditionally been measured by its distance from the consensus of the movie industry.

And that, it should not be forgotten, is what the Academy Awards represent: the self-assessment of a self-interested, self-involved professional clique. It can be argued that, over the past decade or so, this roughly 6,000-member club has become more discerning, more willing to confer its blessings on quasi-independent, medium-budget films instead of the lumbering, middlebrow prestige productions it used to favor. Nowadays the main divisions of the studios — Columbia, Paramount, Universal and the rest — specialize in big-ticket entertainment aimed at a global audience. Their art-house subdivisions — the Miramaxes, Searchlights and Vantages — have taken over the business of supplementing cash with cachet."

Bravo, A. A. Scott! Bravo! This was the most intelligent thing I read today. And the winning sentence would have to be: "...if you’re among the passionate admirers of “Lust, Caution” or “We Own the Night” or “3:10 to Yuma,” you are similarly stuck savoring the sour grapes of your own good taste."

Read full article here.
graph per ny times

Oscar Nominations Do Not Wow

I have little interest in the Oscars this year. The birth of my disinterest was engendered last year when Ellen's [supposedly] humorous attempts reiterated the fact that my decision to work while having the program in the background was indeed a sound one.
However, the true lack of enthusiasm this year has much to do with the choice of the films that came out in 2007. Quantitatively, 2007 delivered, no doubt; qualitatively, however, it failed most spectacularly. 3:10 to Yuma and the little indie Once were the only efforts that made it worth my while. Thanks, Mangold and Carnye respectively.
Going to the movies is not a Cinema Paradiso-esque experience anymore but rather a test to measure one's degree of disappointment.
-So, how's the movie?
-Oh, it didn't disappoint me horrendously.
-Ok, in that case, I'll go see it.
If a movie is lukewarm, we'll go and watch it. This celebration of what I call Jan Brady-esque projects is bothering me to the core. Films are such a powerfully beautiful text; what does the production of such mediocrity reveal about us and our attitudes about art?

And this year, the list of Oscar nominations contains an army of films that don't quite reduce one to tears of boredom. The message of the story: You weren't entirely horrid so I think an award is in order.
But, really, is that what the medium of cinema is all about? Where has the magic of Fellini, Scott, Bergman, Kubrick et al., gone?
I'd like to come out of a movie theater in 2008 and send a text message to someone saying, 'You have GOT to see this.' No texts of this nature have been sent out yet. And we're approaching March.