[Trigger warning for image of violence below fold (in most browsers).]
On the church sign near my house, which I pass several times a day while walking Dudley:
Holiness is doing God's will with a smile.Really? There is a lot I could say about why that's wrong, even within a Christian paradigm, but a picture's worth 1,000 words and all that.
President Bush is widely (and probably correctly) regarded as having been fixated with shaping his legacy from the moment he stepped into the Oval Office. He would like nothing more than to be The Man Who Democratized the Middle East, but it's a dubious hope at best, at the moment. His adulators put his name on their cars and his initial on baseball caps, and when he has served out his time as our leader, they will put his face on silver coins and petition to rename schools and highways in his honor—his legacy is already well-defined among them. I can't imagine hearing such hogwash for the rest of days; I fear as I am constantly reminded of how he managed to hoodwink so many people, it will overshadow what I want to take with me from this time.Those would frame the Bush administration as Eight Great Years have begun their campaign in earnest.
I want to remember this time as one where the few who were never enchanted by his determined, bow-legged march toward historical prominence eventually won the day. I want to recall the optimism I still feel that this is a time which won't forever change us all for the worse. I want to look back from someplace further ahead and think of the friendships that were forged in this troubled time, between people who found solace in each other's worries and complaints and passion and madness and humor, between people whose names and faces might never have been known to one another. I want these to be more vivid in my memory than the visceral revulsion I had from his sneer, or my exasperation and embarrassment at his representation of us abroad, or my dread that the Middle East will be ever so much worse for our folly. Because I have such hope for remembering this time fondly, I feel like I am in competition with the president—will he be the one to define his legacy, or will I?
It's a silly question, of course (for many reasons), but it's how I feel sometimes nonetheless. In the end, neither of us will matter, nor the people who fervently admire him, nor the people who feel the same as I do. What will matter is what his legacy becomes in our national memory, determined by what falls in between now and then, whenever then may be.
I recently horrified Deeky by saying I sorta fancy Justin Long. Cute, I said, but mostly strikes me as a nice guy. Rightfully, Deeks nonetheless protested with evidence like those atrocious Mac commercials and Exhibits A-L (at least) He's Just Not That Into You. And I totally know. The closest thing to a movie I've liked that he's been in is probably The Sasquatch Gang (oy). But I find him diggable anyway.
And seemingly, it turns out, deservedly so.
His last film, Going the Distance, was not well-received (I didn't see it), and one reviewer, Michelle Orange, not only savaged it, but included in her review a nasty comment about Long's appearance: "How a milky, affectless mook with half-formed features and a first day of kindergarten haircut might punch several classes above his weight is a mystery, as my colleague pointed out in her review of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, we are increasingly asked to accept on screen."
Ouch.
Long happened to see Orange's review, and recited, from memory, the scathing line on Jimmy Fallon's show, calling it, with begrudging admiration, "so bad it set the bar […] for insults."
Orange, who says she had regretted publishing the line almost immediately, later wrote this self-reflective essay about criticism generally and her role in it, in which she recounts the incident and her remorse over it. The piece ends thus:
[T]he task-oriented, deeply professional part of me is fulfilled by nailing my response to a film or book to the table. In the moment I feel no compunction about anything but getting it right, which is its own satisfaction. The second part is finite and expendable, I am finding, while the first will go only when I do.
The fifth comment in response to the piece is from none other than Justin Long, who leaves what is, as described here by Jenna, "what must be the kindest, humblest comment in an Internet fight, ever."
Am I a critic? Certainty #1: I am a writer who needs to make a living and is allergic to half-assing, which means if I have to write about your bad movie, you better duck and cover. Certainty #2: I worry more about what I do than how I do it. I don't know if I'm really that busted up about hurting an actor's feelings, although, as my colleague Stephanie Zacharek pointed out when I whinged to her about the incident, it can be helpful to remember that they have them.
Before he recited from memory the very sentence that I dithered and fretted over as an example of the way he internalizes negative criticism, Justin Long set the stage: "I actually kind of appreciate this woman—Michelle Orange, wherever you are, at Movieline. I remember it. I remember the quote, and this is word for word."
I mean, I remember it too, Justin. I do.
Michelle, since stumbling onto your article during a narcissistic and regrettable search, I've been following and really enjoying your articles (and not to worry, not only the film-oriented ones – I now know better than to categorize you that way). Of course it's difficult to read hurtful things about yourself (though my skin is getting thicker by the movie), it makes it a lot easier when the article is so eloquently composed and genuinely insightful.
There's a lot I love about that comment, and only one thing with which I disagree: I don't believe people who choose a career in entertainment (or any other public career, for that matter) "relinquish their immunity to attack" at the door. Certainly criticism is part of the deal, but there is a not remotely difficult to distinguish difference between criticism and attack; that line, and crossing it, is what this entire incident is about, really. No one should be expected to bear the burden of unfair and unjustifiable personal attacks as "just part of the job," no matter how fat their paychecks or vast their privileges.
And there's also considerable truth in what [previous commenters] wrote (again, as damaging to the ego as it may be) – I did choose to put myself in that position, therefore relinquishing any immunity to attack – whether it's about my acting or my face. I brought it up on Jimmy's show because I thought it was somewhat amusing just HOW harsh it was (again, in a very well-articulated way) – and I meant what I said, it really did set the bar. I've heard a lot of negative things about myself over the years but rarely are they said with such a thoughtful and insightful tongue. Now I'll be able to withstand more slings and arrows thanks to the armor of humility you've forged for me. Please know too, I'm in no way being sarcastic – the fact that I read this piece should be testament to that.
Michelle, I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd get to be in one movie, let alone several over the course of the last ten years – never had any delusions of grandeur. I always wanted to be a theatre actor like my mom, always assuming the movie roles were relegated to the good looking people. Which is not to say my Mom's not good looking – she's beautiful (though clearly it's all subjective – you are not a fan of our gene pool so you might not agree) – she just had kids and never got that "lucky break". Then I started idolizing guys like Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, Sam Rockwell, Woody Allen, and Philip Seymour Hoffman – I found myself relating (I hope you're not wincing at my use of that word now) to them and formulating some wild fantasy of one day pursuing a career in movie acting – if guys that looked like that could do it, I thought, maybe this milky mook could role the dice.
So while there's no defense for my performance in the movie (everyone is obviously entitled to their opinion), I have to say, I'm surprised by the amount of stock you seem to invest in my looks. I absolutely agree with you too, I'd be hard-pressed to hold a candle to even a fraction of Drew's beauty – in my humble opinion, she's the most beautiful girl in the world. Is that a message you want to proliferate though? That people of higher aesthetic echelons should stick to their own? Maybe you're frustrated because it so rarely works the other way – I don't remember the last time I was asked to accept a female romantic lead who was "punching above her weight class" – though it does happen (I just don't want to name names at the risk of offending – I leave that to the experts). I suppose if it were more commonplace though you, as a woman, wouldn't be so offended and might have taken it a bit easier in pointing out the disparity of our looks in "going the distance".
Regardless, I really meant what I said about your writing – I love film too and I love reading about it – so keep up the good work and I'll try to pick better projects (though I did love filming that one) but short of some reconstructive surgery, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about my mug (blame god and/or my parents on that one). Take care and hopefully one day our paths will cross so I can compliment you in person. Until then, best wishes and be proud and confident in your role as a film critic – you're a damn good one.
-Justin Long
ps I swear to god it's me and I swear (as emphatically) that I'm not being sarcastic.
I understand why Long argued otherwise, however. We expect as evidence of humility submission to the idea that celebrities exchange privacy and dignity and basic kindness for fame and fortune. With adoration comes excoriation, and, if you don't like it, no one's making you be a star, we sneer.
Well. That's one way of looking at it. But I've never quite understood why we want to impose such a heavy emotional burden on people we admire or whose work we enjoy (or even on unpleasant people whose celebrity is a downright mystery, for that matter). Expecting people to weather a constant onslaught of personal attacks, as if money or popularity insulate them from emotional damage, is to expect of them a superhumanness that robs them of their real humanity.
Justin Long, you have a right not to be attacked. And not that it really matters what the fuck my opinion (or any other stranger's) is of your appearance, but in the interest of balance, I think you're adorable.
And I hope you make a movie I really want to see the fuck out of someday.
Have at it.
[If you're going to discuss voting, please familiarize yourself first with Shakesville's policy on voting discussions. You are welcome to discuss how you voted, or didn't vote, but evangelizing is unwelcome.]
From a conversation that KBlogz, Iain, and I had last night...
With whom would you least like to be stuck in an elevator for three hours?
After quite a bit of discussion, I eventually settled on Bill O'Reilly. Ugh. Not only is he a professional font of diarrheic invective who disgorges a continual torrent of contemptible rightwing rhetoric, nor is he merely a loathsome sexual harasser and despicable, unconscionable victim-blamer, nor just an unapologetic racist, but I strongly suspect that he is, at all times, a belligerent jackass to everyone around him, too (in a way that, say, the weepier and vocationally theatrical Glenn Beck probably isn't), an authentically disagreeable and aggressively entitled shithead whose company would be more unpleasant than even my darkest fears could conjure.
To Pay for Mortgage and Health Care, Woman Forced to Sell Handwritten Letter from Obama Saying 'Things Will Get Better.'
Autograph dealer Gary Zimet, who is giving Jennifer Cline $7,000 for the letter, says: "The letter is a historical document, and it is very hard for her to part with it. It's very timely considering the elections. But I don't think she's disillusioned with Obama—this is just about surviving and practicality."
Sadface.
On electing your first female president, continuing a growing trend in Latin America.
"It is in taking [the line that what women were experiencing as a 'downturn' was a 'catastrophe' for men] that the myth of the 'mancession' most clearly links up to a larger narrative that, in its starkest expressions, presents a story of female ascendancy and male decline. Indeed, news reports of the mancession almost invariably come wrapped up in a bundle of statistics suggesting that women are outdoing men in all sorts of other 'historic' and 'unprecedented' ways, from higher numbers of college and post-graduate degrees to larger shares of consumer spending and growing importance, if not yet outright leadership, as breadwinners in the household economy. Men, in the zero-sum logic that underlies the larger narrative, are losing out, not just in terms of relative economic position, but in the sense of authority and, well, manliness that once anchored their sense of identity."—Alice O’Connor, in a great piece for AlterNet titled "The Recession's Hit Women Hard, but the Myth of the 'Mancession' Won't Die."
[H/T to Shaker Abra.]
Action Item
So. The Washington Post is having a contest to search for "America's Next Great Pundit." And it's down to the final three, one of whom is my friend (and former colleague) Nancy Goldstein.
You can read all three of the finalists' sample op-eds here, and I can say in all honesty that Nancy was absolutely the most deserving of my vote. I believe you'll find she's most deserving of your vote, too.
Tough times and election cycles intensify the desire for heroes and villains, good and evil - for simple story lines, quick resolutions and vengeance. And actors all along the political spectrum have eagerly fed that desire, at a price that once looked reasonable but is turning out to be too high. Nothing good can come to a democracy whose alleged defenders are seeing democracy's founding concepts as nuisances - mere obstacles to be overcome or sidestepped. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell ferociously defends her electorate from "government interference," which she has famously located in the First Amendment. She thinks it stinks that church-state separation forbids public school boards from giving the green light to teaching creationism: Why can't majority rule be the law of the land? For Paul's minions, free speech is the right of the mob to silence dissent by force.Go, Nancy!
Clearly what the Tea Party really wants to "Take America Back" from is silly concepts such as equal protection, or the minority's right to be free from the will of the majority.
It is no less frightening or dangerous that President Obama is undermining the balance between democracy and presidential power in the name of national security. As a constitutional law professor, he ran against his predecessor's record of preventive detention, military commissions and extraordinary rendition. As president, he has held tight to every scrap of executive power the Cheney gang claimed for President George W. Bush.
People do strange things when they are scared, want to win elections or are desperate for results. Shove past the minority. Revert to force. Set the Constitution aside - just this one time - in the name of the greater good. But when political figures, whether by exhortation or example, encourage a frightened, frustrated public to think of fundamental constitutional or governmental principles as impediments rather than the foundation of our democracy, their victories are built on earth that they have dug out from beneath our feet.
Gallup: Republicans Appear Poised to Win Big on Tuesday.
FiveThirtyEight: 5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected.
MSNBC: Poll suggests Dems will face 'hurricane winds'.
Many of the people voting Republican will be voting not affirmatively for the GOP's vision, but as a repudiation of Obama's (socialist, anti-American, secret Muslim) agenda. Many of the people voting Democrat will be voting not affirmatively for the Democrats' recent record, but as a defensive measure to try to keep the GOP out of power.
This is what we've come to: A nation voting against what we perceive to be the worse of two terrible options.
Or maybe that's what we've always been.
But it feels terrible and futile to me in a way it hasn't quite before.
This blogaround brought to you by eighty-seven metric fucktons of leftover Halloween candy.
Recommended Reading:
Maria: Another Ad Attacking Latino Immigrants: Senator Vitter Appeals to White Racism [Trigger warning for racism and anti-immigrant sentiments]
Tami: The Hair Up There
Alicia: Ableism and the Language of Suffering
Jess: Oh, Stephen Fry
Andy: Lawyers For Students Who Broadcast Tyler Clementi's Intimate Encounter Claim No Sexual Contact On Webcam Video [Trigger warning for suicide, sexual assault, and homophobia]
Cara: Media Employ Tabloid Tactics to Report on Rape Allegations Against Candidate [Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual violence, rape apologism, and homophobia]
Leave your links in comments...
