More Thoughts on Christina Hendricks

March 17, 2010 § 2 Comments

(She’s still on my mind from earlier this week…)

Here are some things that I love about Christina Hendricks: She is a razor-sharp actress; her character Joan is deliciously complex, a tangle of contradictions, the kind of woman you’d be terrified of but simultaneously want to be. She is very beautiful. She knows what’s what about rape; here are her comments on Joan’s rape by her fiance:

“What’s astounding is when people say things like, ‘Well, you know that episode where Joan sort of got raped?’ Or they say rape and use quotation marks with their fingers,” says Hendricks. “I’m like, ‘What is that you are doing? Joan got raped!’ It illustrates how similar people are today, because we’re still questioning whether it’s a rape. It’s almost like, ‘Why didn’t you just say bad date?’ ”

I absolutely love this. It is wonderful that actors are allowed to talk about rape in their interviews, allowed to condemn it, and that such comments go to print without an editor’s fear of “ruining the mood” of the piece.

Here are some things that I dislike, not about Christina, but about the way she’s talked about: Every fucking article in every fucking publication harps on her body. For example, this above-quoted, perfectly normal, perfectly informative New York Magazine article: Dangerous Curves. Even this article — again from NY Mag — all about Christina’s annoyance over all the body talk, is titled Woman of the Hourglass.

Other articles, while not explicitly and entirely about Christina’s body, are peppered with such references. See: “Mad Men star Christina Hendricks is the sexiest woman on TV today—and with her hourglass curves, she’s changing Hollywood’s skewed views of females. Meet the whip-smart, funny (and, yes, va-va-voom) charmer who’s a throwback to the days of Marilyn Monroe.” Or: “Christina, on the set of the award-winning Mad Men, proves her character, Joan Holloway, is the curvy queen bee of the office secretarial pool.”

Paraphrase: “Christina Hendricks is a lady who is an actress and who we think is smokin’ hot and SHE HAS CURVES. HER BODY IS CURVY. LOOK AT HER BOOBS. CHECK OUT THEM HIPS. CURVY CURVY BRAVE CURVY LADY.”

This obsession is outrageously demeaning. It suggests that her talent as an actor is corollary to — or validated by — the shape of her body. Women are more than a collection of body parts, on display for consumption.

For her part, though, Christina isn’t turning a blind eye to this insulting chatter: “It kind of hurt my feelings at first. Anytime someone talks about your figure constantly, you get nervous, you get really self-conscious. I was working my butt off on the show, and then all anyone was talking about was my body!”

It’s game time!

March 14, 2010 § 1 Comment

Let’s play: which one of these is not like the other?

Is it a) the actor Christina Hendricks?

b) Joan Holloway, the character she portrays on Mad Men?

or c) the new Joan Holloway Barbie doll?

Yep, you guessed it! It’s the Barbie doll, whose body is shockingly and deceptively thin when compared to the character’s actual frame.

What’s even more egregious than this body denial is the fact that the dolls are being touted as exceptionally realistic. From the Times:

“The dolls, we feel, do a great job of embodying the series,” said Stephanie Cota, senior vice president for Barbie marketing at Mattel in El Segundo, Calif. “Certain things are appropriate, and certain things aren’t.”

Like making the dolls look like the characters?!

…“Anybody who likes the show for its attention to detail will get that from the dolls,” he added, which earned approval from him; Janie Bryant, the costume designer for “Mad Men”; and Scott Hornbacher, an executive producer.

As an example of their scrutiny, Mr. Weiner said he told Mattel that the sideburns on the Don Draper doll needed “to be higher” and the haircut needed “to be tighter.”

So the producer noticed the Don doll’s wee sideburns, but not the glaring and obvious mistake of whittling down Joan’s body?

Yikes. That’s some “attention to detail.”

THESE LADIES

February 5, 2010 § Leave a comment

ARE HOT.

Because their little ditty encompasses pro-life, anti-bullshittery sentiments. And because, well, they’re raging grandmas, and that is always hot. So sit back, relax, and let these ladies’ voices TAKE YOU HIGHER.

On a serious note, though, it is fucked up that the Super Bowl will be airing anti-choice ads from that stuuuuuupppidd right-wing group Focus on the Family. Whack. Although, the Super Bowl ads don’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to equality…

It’s just sad that people would get outraged at Janet Jackson’s publicity-stunt nip slip, yet be okay with millions of children (and adults!) being taught an anti-choice message. Priorities?!?!

Blue Mountain State’s Sexist Ads

January 1, 2010 § 4 Comments

I’ve seen some atrocious new ads pop on subway platforms, as part of a marketing campaign for Spike TV’s new television series Blue Mountain State. According to the network:

The football-themed series focuses on what it’s like being a freshman at national champion Blue Mountain State, but there’s much more to it than football… there’s also girls, partying, hazing and of course, class. “Blue Mountain State contains four key ingredients to being a guy…football, partying, women and hazing,” said Spike TV President Kevin Kay.

Hear that, dudes? Kevin Kay just told you everything you need to confirm your manlymanhood. So get on that.

The first ad is a gross display of the objectification and dehumanization of women and their bodies. Of course, the woman whose legs are featured is thin, white, and hairless. Anyone else repulsed by the idea that donning a varsity football helmet will automatically get you between girls’ legs?

Text reads: COLLEGE FOOTBALL'S NEVER BEEN DIRTIER

The second ad — what can I say? It’s disgusting.

Text reads: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SCORING

(I’d rather not hear any protests of, “Oh, the show is trying to call attention to damaging norms of masculinity! You’re so silly, you don’t understand their edgy humor!” Maybe that is what the producers are hoping the show will do. But using blatantly sexist advertising imagery doesn’t clue your audience in to that hope. Misogyny, in these ads and countless others, is not edgy; it’s all too common.)

My New Perspective on Christmas as a Manifestation of Monocultural Hegemony

December 25, 2009 § Leave a comment

PSYCH

The Solows, my family, love Christmas. Seriously though, it’s just a huge part of our family’s tradition, though 3/4 of us are in no way religious.

My brother and fellow blogger just wanted to spread some holiday cheer.

I hope you all enjoy this as much as we do!

Glee FAIL, Crossing The Line!!

September 11, 2009 § 33 Comments

Last night I decided to stay in and watch the second episode of the new TV show, Glee. The pilot episode was pretty interesting, with over the top high school characters, cheesy dialogue and intensely bright wardrobes. This was all intentional, similar in style to Ugly Betty. The pilot was entertaining enough, and I’m a huge dork and LOVE singing on television, so I thought I’d give episode two a try.

I’m glad I did, because now I know I will NEVER watch that show again. Glee simply took the high school stereotypes way too far, to an extremely uncomfortable level! I was shocked!

Examples:

The gay kid, in a ridiculously high-pitched lispy voice exclaimed that he refused to mess up his facial. Everyone knows he’s gay. It’s perfectly fine, in a show like this, to emphasize that fact… but seriously? He needs to have SOME unique characteristics. I don’t even know his name. He is known as the gay kid, without any other personality traits. Guess what? Homosexual is not a personality type! That was the first indicator of extreme prejudice among many examples.

Perhaps more offensive was the portrayal of the only black girl in Glee club. Obviously, when the club tackled Kanye (which was pretty fantastic, unfortunately), “black girl” took over the lead. Because she’s black, of course. She was teaching everyone else in the club some finger-wagging riffs. Additionally, the black girl (I don’t know HER name either, same story as above, NO personality except “ghetto”) is the only girl on the show who isn’t stick thin. Because black girls must have booties… but I haven’t even got to the bad part. When she was angry about the impending termination of Glee club, she threatened casually to bust her knife out. WHAT THE FUCK???? Way to support the belief that black people have an inherent predisposition to violent behavior.This show is really quite sickening.

Glee also decided that episode 2 was the right time to insensitively deal with really devastating teen issues, such as bulimia. The show poked fun at the ridiculous pamphlets in the guidance counselor’s office, once again crossing the line. There were several pamphlets, but the only one I distinctly remember said, “So you like throwing up?” Let me tell you, I wanted to throw up RIGHT THERE.

Interestingly enough, the lead female of the Glee club crashes the celibacy club and spouts some knowledge about the negative effects of teens practicing abstinence. This was sort of cool because the celibacy club hardcore judges those who choose to involve themselves in sexual behavior, so they deserved some sort of attack, however, I was slightly uncomfortable that the lead girl was telling everyone to give into their desires point blank. Not that there’s anything wrong with doing that, but I think it’s something that does take a certain amount of rational assessment.

And if you thought only high school students were victims of the condescending blows, think again! The older generation on the show has their own set of ridiculous incidences as well. Most offensively, the show really belittles the terrible phenomenon of hysterical pregnancy (this is the term they used, anyway, I’m not sure if it’s the appropriate one). They actually turned the false pregnancy into a comedic plot. I wanted to cry.

All in all… EW. I warn you, do not watch Glee. It’s not even entertaining enough to be a REALLY guilty pleasure.

So You Think You Can Dance With Whomever You Want?

August 3, 2009 § 1 Comment

WRONG!

Miranda kindly sent me this Bust article via Facebook, which reminded me of something I was thinking about posting a while back.

Like the Bust blogger, I must explain my opinions of the show before I post. I LOVE SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE. The show is pure entertainment. I love being exposed to great dances every week (albeit usually choreographed to less great music). I particularly love how the show doesn’t encourage unhealthy competition. The dancers all genuinely seem to enjoy being around each other, and are not manipulated in to saying nasty things about each other. With that being said, I had a BIG problem with one of the audition episodes earlier this season.

During the auditions back in June, So You Think You Can Dance saw its first ever male ballroom dancing partnership. Here is what happened, according to “TV Squad”:

Misha and Mitch are same-sex ballroom dancers. Mitch had a female partner, but it didn’t work out. Mitch is straight and Misha is gay. It’s like the odd couple, except with sequence. It’s funny because the two have strong lines and good legwork. Nigel just had this look on his face (we know how he feels about gays). In one move they messed up a lift and land on the floor. Nigel has no clue what to say and compares it to Blades of Glory. He thinks that they alienate audiences. He thought that they were strong. Mary was confused because they were both male and female in dances. The lead/follow was strong, but the technique needed help. Sonya sees a lot of female qualities but is confused with classical form. The two are sent off to choreography.

For a show that is supposedly all about embracing new ideas in the dance world, breaking down barriers and accepting people of all backgrounds, these judges were very narrow-minded when it came to gender roles. They managed to throw in some remarks about the dancers’ lines and general technique, but on the whole, could NOT get passed the guy on guy dance action. They all claimed to be thoroughly “confused” by it all, and felt that they could not judge the dancers properly because they strayed so much from conventional ballroom dancing. What a FUCKING STUPID excuse!!!! Alienating America? Like the media doesn’t alienate all the Americans who don’t fit into their cookie cutter gender roles every damn day.

I never really cared for Mary Murphy and her ridiculous pitch and volume, but I have certainly lost a huge amount of respect for the three judges that day, who could just not get over a man ballroom dancing with another man. As far as I’m concerned, dancing is about art. Art doesn’t have to abide by conventional gender roles, in fact, great art is often created by challenging those roles!

I still love SYTYCD, and I do approve of the kick ass lady routines created by Sonya (also, Nigel did mention the ridiculous treatment women get in most dances), but it broke my heart a little to hear these two poor men get shut down immediately because of who they chose to dance with!

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Television category at Women's Glib.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers