<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, burning questions]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, burning questions]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/burningquestions http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/burningquestions <![CDATA[Teenagers Fuck Redux: Is 'The Reader' the New 'Porky's'?]]> The Teenagers Fuck phenomenon has seen some compelling discussion this week, a desperately needed change from the fanged chastity that so overwhelmed us during the build-up to Twilight's tween windfall last month. And while a new essay in The Guardian suggests young men in particular are a more sophisticated lot since the days of Porky's, another critic of one upcoming film has a different phrase for that: Child pornography.

Particularly as seen in The Reader, which Huffington Post contributor Thelma Adams argued Tuesday is perhaps a bit too upfront in its portrayal of the sexual affair between 36-year-old ex-Nazi guard Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) and 15-year-old schoolboy Michael Berg (David Kross). Sure, it's tastefully done, and director Stephen Daldry did shoot his film's love scenes last, literally days after Kross's 18th birthday. But in retrospect, sure: Maybe Winslet and Kross's anal-sex lesson is a youthful indiscretion too far.

And worse yet, Adams argues, The Reader's casual depiction of that relationship's consequences actually recognizes the act of child sexual abuse (very light spoiler ahead):

When we first see the adult Michael, he's having an affair of the bed - but clearly not of the heart - with a gorgeous woman nearly young enough to be his daughter. And, as the mistress complains that Michael won't let her in to his life, he clearly can't wait until she leaves his apartment so that he can be alone with himself and his memories. It's textbook abused behavior — and all the movie's ambiguities about Nazis, hidden secrets, and admitting culpability don't fully address the fact that Michael is both the victim of abuse, and lost in his continued love for his abuser, because nothing since has come close to that intensity. Emotionally, he stopped growing at 15.

Which uncannily returns us to the more healthy, angsty virility of the modern American teen-sex romp, as elucidated today by Guardian blogger Henry Barnes. Memo to young people: This is the kind of movie sex you want:

Post-[American] Pie, it appears teen comedies are taking a (slightly) more sophisticated view of adolescent sex and sexuality. [...] Sex Drive's hero, Ian, isn't just a randy teenager. He's lonely, desperate and hormonal, bullied by an older brother who boasts greater sexual prowess and outgunned by a more experienced best friend. He's also painfully insecure around girls, who tend to ignore or use him. [...]

It suggests that Hollywood is beginning to realise that most teenagers are driven by more than their base instincts. Concerned parents should take comfort in that. After all, hormones alone are unlikely to turn your teenager pie-fucking crazy. But hormones, plus the influence of Porky's-like idiocy, just might.

So. While The Reader may be among the most sober films of its seasonal class, is it unreasonable of us to deduce that it is today's analog of those reductive sex farces of the '80s? The anti-Sex Drive, perhaps? Or just another garden-variety soft-core Oscar chaser? Either way, we feel like we could use a shower. And maybe a cigarette.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5101678&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Is Killing a Great Series the Answer to Stopping Bad TV?]]> How do you know when campaign season is over? Maybe when the boldest idea of the week comes from film and TV critic Marshall Fine, who argues today for the termination of TV series after one year. Even the hits! (Especially the hits, in fact.) And we might even sign on — with a few exceptions.

Fine's logic is exactly that: literal and emotionally detached from the enduringly riveting qualities of shows like Mad Men, 30 Rock, The Simpsons, Grey's Anatomy and a handful of others. But wouldn't the outrage following those and other great programs' predetermined self-destruction after 12 or so episodes would be preferable to their having eventually squandered their legacies on so-called stunt-casting and/or firing controversies? Doesn't going out gracefully a la Rome or The Wire allow for a better fan memory (and presuppose a bump in DVD sales)? Can't we avoid syndication hell with Friends and Two-and-a-Half Men?

Yes, yes, and yes, writes Fine, who points to the UK as an example of doing things right:

I have two words for you: The Office. And one more: Extras. Both of Ricky Gervais’ original British TV series ran for two six-episode seasons (followed by a special). [...] The British seem to do that with regularity: create a series meant to run for a single season of episodes. Period. Think about Prime Suspect, for example, the incredibly complex and compelling show in which Helen Mirren played a police inspector battling the old-boy network as well as her own personal demons.

It ran as a limited series in 1991 – and, yes, it came back six more times (Prime Suspect: The Final Act aired in 2006), but never two seasons in a row. And even then, each series rarely ran for more than four hours – total. It only seemed to resurface when they’d fashioned a plot that was worthy of DCI Jane Tennison’s time – and ours.

And yes again: We know the networks' economic imperatives require beating things like Lost and Heroes to death. But! When they decide to get as serious as the rest of us, we're in — just as long as nobody touches Tyler Perry's House of Payne. We really do need something to hold us over in those three-month gaps between Madea movies.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5076365&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Coldplay's 'SNL' Freak-Out: Easy-Listening Performance Art, Awful, Or Both?]]> Whether you take or leave Coldplay mostly depends on your taste for their brand of overproduced nursery rhymes and moody rock-star glowering. But what of the megaband's performance this past weekend on Saturday Night Live, with frontman Chris Martin bounding through Studio 8A like a sort of atonal Bono? What of that insistent pitchiness and those karaoke-grade moves underscoring his most recent album's title track "Viva la Vida" — the single on which Coldplay's label EMI was counting to help rescue it from certain insolvency in 2009? In a post-Groban world where any court jester who tries hard enough can usurp his king's crown, is Martin's lunacy the un-self-conscious work of a born performer, or just another postmodern, funk-faking harbinger of SNL's obsolescence? We could go either way, though (SPOILER ALERT) the inspired back-bend at the end puts this just over the top for us every time. Team Coldplay? We think? [NBC]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5069540&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[How Many Martinis Does It Take Before Aspiring Model-Actors Forget They're Supposed To Blow That Manager They're Talking To?]]>
Last night's episode of VH1's America's Next Most Smartest Model—easily the most damning basic cable exposé on the insufficient intellects of the mannequin class since E!'s 101 Best 'I Can't Believe That Pretty Dummy Just Said That Stupid Thing!' Fashion Show Moments—asked the age-old question: how shitfaced is too shitfaced to network in a bar stocked with people from the industry who can potentially help one achieve his or her dreams of stardom?

The answer will shock you: while pounding a bunch of martinis in "real Hollywood" usually lowers inhibitions enough for the crucial exchange of career-kickstarting sexual favors in bathroom stalls, janitorial closets, or the back seats of luxury automobiles, in "reality TV Hollywood," the same amount of alcohol merely makes already less-than-eloquent people slur their semi-scripted interactions enough to alienate the agents, managers, and casting directors they're supposed to be blowing.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=324622&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Something we've been wondering to ourselves...]]> Something we've been wondering to ourselves ever since we first heard one of their radio ads: Does adultery-positive dating site AshleyMadison.com have any association with James Woods' much younger girlfriend, or is the name just a happy coincidence? We're honestly curious. That is all. [LA Observed]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=284997&view=rss&microfeed=true