Quick notes from Monday

[jlh]

Don't you love it when Colbert screws with Wikipedia?

What I find most interesting about these Equus promotional photos is that despite all the blah blah blah about the play being quite serious in how nudity is used (all true) the producers have clearly decided to sell it as "see Dan Radcliffe in his debut as teenage heartthrob, naked with a horse and a girl." I find it sort of funny in a way to see all the yadda yadda on my flist about the bad place and all of that. I mean, these images have been created specifically in order to make one say, "oh my," so feeling that one should actively resist based on the age of the subject is sort of, well, whatever. I don't have a problem with some 50 year old guy saying, "wow, those pictures of Britney from Rolling Stone when she was 16 were really sexy" because they were, and they were supposed to be. So to assign "appropriateness" to reactions based on the viewer's age, as if only those younger than 20 are allowed to drool over sexy pictures doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't have much to do with seeing him in person, without makeup/lighting/hairstyling/poses/horses/etc. As I think mahoni infamously said, if he showed up in the middle of my living room looking like that I'd probably say, "Aren't you cold?" But maybe it has to do with the difference between women looking at men and men looking at women, that we have to do some hokey-pokey to distance ourselves from being the equivalent of dirty old men, when the boys are pretty unapologetic about thinking that teenage girls are hot. We should know as well as they do that there's a big difference between finding an intentionally sexy picture of someone underage, well, sexy, and trolling the high schools for dates.

I think any hope of Studio 60 being good in any way depends on how this two-parter ends. I'm irritated that Jordan thought that Danny felt sorry for her, and that's why she was embarrassed by his attentions, because it continues Sorkin's whole "women don't know what they want until the right man tells them" thing. I'm irritated with Matt's immature obsessiveness, though I would be much more so if he weren't played by the adorable Perry. I'm hopeful that Harriet will finally tell Matt to fuck off because enough already, and also because I'm not really sure that he loves her as much as he wants to sort of control her and feed her "talent" which isn't the same thing at all. (Never mind that it's close enough to Sorkin's actual relationship with Kristin Chenoweth that it has the feel of him making her say what he wants her to say, which, ew.) I'm irritated that Tom was stupid enough to take advice from Matt on dating (like he's an authority) and fucked things up with Lucy.

I'm irritated with the whole Zheng's crazy daughter storyline, especially with the entirely ridiculous "censorship" plot in the background, even if it does give more airtime for Jack sans Jordan, and I love Jack. (In the real world once a time delay on the news got out, which would be immediately because NBS's own journalists would be pissed off and leak it, there would be a firestorm of criticism and bad publicity that would completely overwhelm anything else that NBS was doing and the board wouldn't be happy about that, either, so I find the entire thing pretty goddamned ridiculous.) And don't even get me started on the whole snake thing.

As for Simon, well, I get that he's pissy, and I'm mostly with him, but he really needs to find a less aggressive way to put forth his POV. Also, Sorkin needs to find him something to do other than being black. That said, I wish that they had said "small house of Uncle Thomas" which what Tuptim called it in The King and I; I can't imagine that "little house of Uncle Thomas" was an unintentional botch since it's a famous reference, so is Sorkin saying that he doubts that Simon knows his Rodgers & Hammerstein or was it a reference to the Laura Ingalls Wilder or what the hell was that?

Comments

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, I'm enjoying the comedy of reactions to the Dan Radcliffe photos. I think the main thing you've nailed here, though, is how intentional it all is. This is his big statement: he's here, he's buff, get used to it! After all, it's fun to imagine how someone at Radcliffe's age and in Radcliffe's position would react to all these older folks pinching his cheeks and telling him "you used to be such a cute little chipmunk-face, yes you did!" Pinch this, please, ma'am!

Of course, it's kind of a pose, a little bit over the top on his part, too -- pasty, short English boy with barely-credible stubble, he does look cold, doesn't he? :) But you can tell he'll get there, so good for him!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It really is hilarious seeing people respond to these pictures the same way they do to pictures that aren't blatantly erotic. This isn't like a picture of Dan from CoS where his rumpled shirt collar is the focus of only some fans. The boy's naked with a horse and looks like he's probably worked out a lot to make sure that looks somewhat impressive (no 70s bodies here!).

At the same time, I just don't find the pictures attractive at all, so the Bad Place of this particular young actor still has no appeal for me.

I couldn't believe that take on Jordan/Danny either. She didn't like him acting like a psycho because she thought he was only doing it because he felt sorry for her??? WTF? So she was upset that he was only pretending to not care about her feelings in the matter? He didn't want her enough even though he was crossing the line? Ew!

There's also something weirdly anachronistic in the whole attitude--she's not an unmarried girl in the 1950s, here. She's a female executive who can support a child if she chooses to have one, and who won't be facing too much of a social stigma for it. Why would she think a man at her workplace would "court" her out of that? (I confess the very use of the word "court" gives me the creeps.)

And double on the creepiness of the Kristen Chenowith angle. I don't like Matt/Harry and don't like Harry in general or the way everyone seems to relate to her as some sort of special talent receptacle that everyone has ideas on how to treat correctly. (No surprise a man has to come to her and tell her she'd be great for this movie, with Matt backing him up, as opposed to Harry having her own ambitions and ideas about her career. But then, part of the appeal of Harry for Sorkin seems to be that she's very successful but has no idea who she is as a performer so needs other people to explain her to herself.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's kind of fascinating the difference that Clio brings up, that men can openly ogle underaged girls while women always have to act shocked at this sort of thing. (I remember seeing an interview with Elijah Wood for Fellowship of the Ring and it was on Regis and Kelly or something that the main topic seemed to be that he had facial hair. Granted EW is one of those young men who has imo misguided facial hair, but still.) It's like women always have to say, "How could YOU have facial hair? Or body hair? Or secondary sex characteristics! You're that cute little boy who was David Copperfield!"

While men openly reject the younger version: "The Olson Twins. Who knew they'd grow up to be hot (and therefore worth something). They used to look like Monchichi."

I think that also plays into why it's sometimes harder for a boy child star to make it as an adult than a girl. If the girl at least has breasts they can sort of make her up to be sexy. Where as with boys it's like often there's too much of a difference between the child self and the adult self. The ones that are more successful tend to be the kind of men who retain their same look--which means they sort of look childish when they're adults and are usually character actors (and often relatively small).

[chinawolf.livejournal.com]

See, that's why I believe the Bad Place is a thing of a past, even though I was never subscribed to that, anyway. I have a problem with women drooling over twelve-year-olds because I just do not get it, but hey, whatever suits whomever. But those pictures? Anyone who feels bad having a naturally girlish reaction to a nice picture like that just makes me shrug.

Regarding S60, I really hope they pull off the the Matt/Harriet (I'm all with you, she needs to kick his ass for good) and the Danny/Jordan in the next part. I thought Danny was a lot more bearable in this episode, and they might just make me like him again. As for Tom, I'm becoming more and more convinced he is just a complete idiot - how can anyone who ever had even an iota of human interaction start lying about something like that?? He deserves whatever he will get for this. And Kim merely amused me because she seems to be the only one of all of the characters except for Jack who doesn't lie to herself. Let's talk about your cute ass, indeed.

The star of the show, though, is Jack. God did he shine these past two eps, also before but especially now. The actor has brilliant comedic timing. Love him. As for Simon and Darius, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this and if I'm even able to form an opinion. I see both of their points, but Simon still comes off as overly arrogant. Of course, it could just mean that the character is honestly portrayed and that the harshness of being a black star in the entertainment industry isn't sugarcoated. I simply can't tell, but it's certainly interesting.

I dunno. I loved WW, and I used to love S60 with a passion, but sometimes it really does feel like too much of Professor Sorkin's Weekly Lesson to me, even if I appreciate smart tv very much.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

I think there may be a gender difference, too, in whether people perceive objectification as threatening and something that should be shamed and discouraged or just, you know, kind of a weird, fun thing about the world if you take it for what it's worth. I'm thinking of that scene in American Pie where the hero wakes up and he's been "used" for sex, hooray!

About aging child stars -- I'm just sort of speculating, but I wonder if there's a difference in the way male and female faces age from childhood, especially the type of face that is considered ideal for a child actor. A lot of male child stars end up as funny-looking adults -- think Macauley Culkin for instance. It may be that the features that make for "ideal" photogenic proportions in a boy actor -- big eyes, unusually distinct features -- just turn out oddly when the person is fully grown. This may be less true of girl actresses because they're not selected for faces that are quite so cartoonish.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do think there's a big differences in the faces of males and females...though I think it may also be that women's faces are also admired for being more childlike. So if big eyes are cute in child stars, they are also more likely to be attractive in an adult woman.

I also think women's faces sometimes don't change in the same way. It's sort of like voices, to me. A woman's voice is different than the voice she had as a little girl, but it's not like with a boy where he's got one voice, and then it breaks, and suddenly he's literally got somebody else's voice. Remember Daniel Radcliffe in CoS? I think sometimes their faces are the same way. Rather than just sort of getting steadily older, some boys go through what to me seems like a more violent kind of puberty where their faces are more like silly putty. To use HP kids as an example, Daniel Radcliffe is more the child star who to me looks the same as an adult. Tom Felton had a silly putty face and body. He was really young for a while, then shot up. I remember a friend of mine saw CoS and said it was confusing because his face looked different in every scene. I remember one person being surprised that it was the same actor in the later movies.

I guess it sometimes just comes down to sexy women always being expected to have something in common with little girls, while it's men aren't quite the same way. A woman in a girl's school uniform is sexy; a man in short pants and a boy's school uniform can be silly. You've got a much better chance of getting a little girl star who grows up into a viable sex object than banking on a little boy. For boys it seems like you're mostly better at least starting when they're adolescent.

[tropes.livejournal.com]

I haaaaaaaaaaaaaaate Aaron Sorkiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin and I haaaaaaaaaaaate Studio 6000000000000000000000000000000 yes I dooooooooooooooo.

But I flip back to it during the commercials of other shows to make fun of it.

I just. So smug. So anachronistic. So misguided in the portrayal of those Midwestern parents (still rankles). Sooooooo lazy.

I was never a West Wing fan, so I wasn't looking to love this, but I did give it a chance, for fairness.

HATE!

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

I always thought Daniel Radcliffe would grow up to be a hunk. Okay, a short hunk. But he's obviously worked out a good bit; he's not even vaguely flabby and looks like he doesn't have an ounce of fat on him. I'm thinking back to POA, when he was, literally, beautiful (IMO). Now he's grown up to be a short, handsome young man with a nice body. Nice meta on how it's expected that older men will ogle teenage girls but older women are supposed to not have eyes :P

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I find it odd that Jordan really has such a low opinion of her sexual appeal. I mean, I guess you could see her as having that Powerful Woman Syndrome where she doesn't get much action, and maybe that could explain why she weakened to her ex-bf the asshole in the first place. And I can see why that entire experience has her feeling sort of humiliated to begin with, because not only does she have an unplanned pregnancy but with her ex who was a fuckwit to begin with but has only proven himself to be even more of a fuckwit through his behavior in this matter. All that said, though, I thought Danny was really clear in his "I'm coming for you" speech that he wants Jordan for Jordan, not because he's worried that she'll be alone with a baby. So I'm not sure why she doesn't get that.

Oh, wait, I forgot. No women in an Aaron Sorkin script ever know what they want until some man clarifies it for them, no matter how powerful or successful or smart they are. Women entirely lack self knowledge. The men, on the other hand, have a lot of self knowledge but it doesn't keep them from doing really stupid things. I find neither of these ways of being to be interesting, but they certainly are neither as universal nor as gender determined as Sorkin likes to imply. I mean, there are people in the universe who have self-knowledge AND self-control AND can still make for interesting characters in a drama.

Matt/Harry is just horrific on every level. Some blame the actress for not being convincing as a talented commedienne, but I think that's Sorkin's fault more than Paulson's. Nevertheless, Matt is so clearly in love with her "talent" more than her as a person, which is just not on. And I'm totally down with you about her ambitions--it's just another way that the girl doesn't know what she wants, yadda yadda.

[hermorrine.livejournal.com]

Argh, I'm an idiot - I originally posted this comment in the wrong place.

We should know as well as they do that there's a big difference between finding an intentionally sexy picture of someone underage, well, sexy, and trolling the high schools for dates.

I don't disagree with this, but I do find it rather disturbing how some people are going just complete nuts over these pics and all but drooling. As I've mentioned elsewhere - and I guess I like to repeat myself or something - I 'work' for a 20-year-old who gets the same sorts of reactions. Although those are mostly from girls his age, there IS a portion of the fandom that is older than 25, and many of them DO drool over Drake. It gives me the heebie-jeebies, truly - and I'd feel the same for someone with a significant age difference drooling over a young girl. If someone wants to admire how good looking someone is and can be tasteful about it, I think I'd be okay with that no matter the age, but many of these people just seem to be going over the top. And I realize this is totally my opinion and I haven't got any right to pass judgement on what is tasteful or not, but... well. I suppose I have.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Well, but do you feel unhappy about the drooling, or about the age difference? Would you feel the same, for example:

1) If a 20 year old man were saying the same things about Lindsay Lohan?

2) If a 40 year old man were saying the same things about Sharon Stone?

3) If a 40 year old woman were saying the same things about George Clooney?

4) If a 20 year old woman were saying the same things about George Clooney?

You imply that it's okay for young men and women to perv on young stars, but is it okay for older men and women to perv on older stars? Does perving have to be within a 10-year age frame? Can I, as a 37-year-old woman, perv on Cary Grant, who is dead, but when alive was a lot older than me? Can I do this while watching a movie in which he was 32 at the time? Can I perv on River Phoenix, who was a year younger than me, but who died, so he'll never be older than his 20s?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to pull apart the reason for your discomfort in the older women perving on these younger men vs. the younger women perving on them, and then figure out where those boundaries are. You're saying that gender doesn't make the difference in your discomfort, so I'm looking at age, and then also at the tone of speech. Like, is it okay for younger girls to perv on younger stars because it's just okay in general for younger girls to be slightly out of control in that manner while older women should deal--in which case, older women perving on older stars would also be bad? I mean, people cross lines all over the place, particularly in online speech which has a tendency to hyperbole.

Do I find the guy who put a countdown clock to when the Olsen twins would be legal on his website sorta creepy? Yeah, but when they were 16 they were scampering around the city in no clothing, so they were presenting themselves as sexualized--can I really complain about someone who was reading them as sexualized, particularly since AFAIK he in no way tried to contact them or anything? So that's the context for my own comments: if someone is being presented in a sexualized image, I really have no time for feeling guilty about consuming that image as such. That's what all the lighting and photoshopping and makeup and careful posing and clothing or lack thereof is all about, to get this kind of reaction. Men, they really aren't guilty about that. Why should we be?

(I also wonder about the maternal aspects of this, like, so many saying, "he's young enough to be my kid" while men tend to only say that if they actually have a kid the same age. Women, once someone is perhaps 16 or 17 years younger, project a maternity that isn't present, as though we are not already always pre-pregnant, but we are already always mothers once we finish puberty.)

Anyway, here's my Cameron icon, who played a character that was a year older than me when the movie came out, while the actor is actually ten years older than me, but was 29 when this picture was taken, but was playing 18, and I crushed on him when I saw him when I was 17, and I still do now at the age of 37, so I'm not sure what to do with all that, but I'm prepared to defend it.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Best Week Ever noted that those pictures look like a D&G ad, which, I mean, what is more sexually superheated than Italian men's fashion adverts?

Tom being a complete idiot just irritates me. I'm so over all these characters being so stupid just so we can have conflict. Like, Jesus, people, pull it together. I'm giving Simon and Darius a pass for the moment because I think the story line is intriguing and necessary, but if it becomes Sorkin's usual heavy handed bullshit I will get irritated.

Jack is awesome. Did you guys get the show Wings over there? Did you ever see the movie Jeffrey?

OMG, FULLY WEEKLY LESSON. Like, Aaron, calm the fuck down.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Did you like A Few Good Men or The American President or Malice or Sports Night?

I thought A Few Good Men was a little overdone, and The American President was sweet but ultimately the prez was too perfect, I never really got into the West Wing for reasons I don't really understand and I thought Malice, like AFGM, was a little too neat. I really want to get the DVD for Sports Night (both seasons are in one set) but I think that's more about my current love of Olbermann (as those chars were based on Olbermann and Dan Patrick) and my love of Peter Krause thanks to Six Feet Under.

[tropes.livejournal.com]

The American President was okay. The rest, enh.

Sorkin is just so... Ugh. :( He seems craven and he seems like he's selling a version of America I don't recognize and don't like, espesically with this new show.

It's hard for me to articulate.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much of it has to do with the taboo against women perving on men in general, and how much of it has to do with the maternal incest taboo being stronger than the paternal one, and how much of it has to do with seeing all women as already potentially maternal. I see all these women doing the math to say, he is young enough to be my son, but I never see men doing that. And it's all ironic since when we think "sexual predator" we think older man, young girls, and maybe that's because that border is so fucked up, we're so aware of how sexualized young girls are, how our sexual ideal is really pretty much a 15-year-old girl.

But the marked difference for boys growing up is valid, esp in their faces. I'm trying to think of male child stars who weren't baby faced adults and all I'm getting is Seth Green, maybe River Phoenix. Though Leo seems to be growing out of it now.

[hermorrine.livejournal.com]

I think that ultimately all I can say is that it is MY issue and I know that. I've had an age thing for like, EVER. I really don't find men my age or older attractive - I tend to like younger guys, but within limits. My limit is usually no more than 10 years younger. With women it's not nearly so rigid in terms of age, but there are other things I'm rigid about. In truth, I don't really care if other people want to perv, but I think I need to avoid it because the significant age differences set off my EYEEEW SQUICK reaction when they seriously begin to evaluate said teenager's nude body, etc.

I dunno. I probably need therapy. *shrugs*

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

In Dan's case the anxiety in fandom seems to focus specifically on his age, though -- fandom is awfully good at overcoming any general taboo against women perving on men. :)

Interesting about the incest taboos -- I suspect they work differently in the two cases. I suppose a father's protectiveness of his daughters is based on an acute awareness of their sexual potential -- he's hypervigilant because he thinks it's "natural" in some sense for other men to want them sexually and to exploit them in a way that would be harmful to them. I wonder if the maternal taboo works the same way, because the vibe I get from some of the Dan comments seems based on a rejection or discomfort with his sexuality itself, a preference to continue seeing him as a child. Otherwise, of course, there's traditionally less of a sense that early sexual experience is harmful to a boy, compared to a girl (unless it's homosexual experience, which supposedly would skew his normative long-term sexual development.)

So the women who feel really squicked by seeing Dan sexualized (I'm not talking about the ones who simply don't find him sexy) don't seem to be protecting Dan, it seems to be about something else, maybe. And I don't really feel sure about what that "something else" could be. I'd trust your intuitions much more than mine, here. Could there be an uneasy mix of desire/transgression about being a mature and psycholgically dominant woman who captures and "tames" a boy's sexuality before it can develop into something more independent and threatening? Is there some secret shame about the "Mrs. Robinson" role, so that falling into it would feel like an emotional failure or a form of immaturity? Do people just feel freaked out about how the boy/man transition reflects the passage of time, reminds them of everyone's inevitable aging? I'm out of my depth here, I just don't know.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

You're right, it's obviously a much more dramatic phase-transition for boys; no one talks about a boy having "suddenly grown up before I'd even noticed." :) Which I guess is why a "man in short pants and a school uniform" is so definitively on the wrong side of the barrier, so definitively de-sexualized (or kinkified, I suppose!) But there's still something weird, to me, about the idea of "childlike" women being hot. That whole super-skinny thing, for instance -- it's almost a cliche to point out how historically anomalous it is as an ideal.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I was going to say the same thing. It seems like women either do or know they're expected to relate to little boys in a different way, and that makes a difference. Men are happy ignoring little girls unless they are their daughters, and then once they hit puberty they're acceptable sex objects.

Women more generally value the child, which is why they can squee over these boys no matter what age they are. They can think Dan's adorable and then think he's adorable in a different way. (My mother called me today to ask if I'd seen Extras and was all about "When did he get so big?") It's almost easier if you don't care or notice until it's a sex object. For the women first they're maternal and then they're like quasi-maternal with all the figuring out of how much older they are and all that.

And it's true it's ironic that BD talked about lust being threatening, but it depends on who it's threatening to. If women are weirded out by it they seem to be threatened about their own lust if they're not sure about the object being appropriate. But the male lust for young girls is probably a lot more threatening in reality.