I love Clueless. I remember seeing it in 95, my senior year of high school. I had no idea what to expect. I was like, Alicia Silverstone, blah. I hated those Aerosmith videos. I had low expectations going in, so yeah, I was very surprised by how good it all was (including Silverstone). It reminded me of Heathers--the dialogue was sharp and original. Yeah, "As if" and "She's a Betty" became annoying catch-phrases in 95, especially for those in high school.
I have to say I love the subtle performance of Alicia Silverstone. I think it's really an underrated performance. Her delivery of that Hait-ians speech is great. Not only does the class room believe what she's saying, but you can't help but fall for it too. She's that girl you didn't like in high school--and here she is winning you over. I like how the satire exposes the disgusting habits of the children of the rich in Beverly Hills. It shows teenagers aware of their status--they're class-conscious and they're only sixteen. The film, much like Heathers, also satirizes high school and the set of rules to live by for each of the cliques.
The film is comedy. The film is satire. The performances are parody. So why do I have a weird feeling that people have watched this film as a sort of how-to? Paris Hilton. The Hills. It's funny how spoiled rich girls are mainstream right now. I watched the Hills and I was like, this could be really funny, if it were edited right. MTV has it all wrong. These people are horrible. Exploit them. Put in a laugh track when they say something vapid. Okay, maybe that wouldn't work, because everything that comes out of their mouth is vapid. Here are spoiled brats shopping, eating, "working", lying by the pool. Dullsville. I do like how The Soup makes fun of them. Maybe the Hills should exist as such: A Mystery Science Theater style show where comedians watch the show and make fun of Lauren and crew. I'd watch that.
3 comments:
The Soup. Good one. I have a special place for The Soup in my TV curriculum. It's trashy and terrible and lowbrow and a one trick pony. But I love all of that. I feel like maybe one trick ponies are my favorite kind of ponies.
But I really like miniature ponies. But not dwarf ponies so much. They're sort of scary. Dwarf ponies give me that funny, gagging feeling in my throat.
I sort of think people like Paris and Nicole Richie and Anna Nicole get a bad rap. I mean, we're willing to laugh at them and satirize them. But never like them. Never really like them. When I mention to some of my friends that I really DO like some of these folks (Like did anyone see Nicole on the front of NYLON? I'd love to go shopping with her) their opinion changes about me. Suddenly one choice has made me vapid and superficial and undesirable.
These poor kids have become taboos. They're the village idiots. Which is fine I guess, every village needs it's idiot, as long as folks don't develop this sort of real hatred for them. Where's the fun in that? Where's the kindness? It's easy to judge someone who you've never met; it's easy to hate someone who is constantly in the limelight and has developed a persona to deal with it.
Nicole and Paris and Lindsay are still just folks. I mean, I think they're sometimes irresponsible (terribly terribly terrible so) and airheaded and everything...but who hasn't been there? Who doesn't have a friend that made some bad choices in their youth? I mean, whether it's driving drunk or snorting coke or just spending way too much on clothes.
And aren't we all sort of that vacant? I kind of feel like it's wrong to make these weird divisions like literature is deep but fashion is shallow. Liking someone for their mind is A-OK but liking someone for their appearance isn't. WTF (j/k)? Right? Who laid these ground rules?
Aren't they as artificial as the burn-outs having to hang on one hill while the popular kids sit at the picnic tables?
OK. Maybe I'm rambling and not being so clear. But, for example, it's okay to like someone for their mind, their intellect. But smarts is something you're born with, something you can develop through learning and gaining knowledge. It's even alright to admire someone who is smart but insensitive and selfish.
On the flip side, it's not so okay to appreciate a person for their appearance. Appearance is also something you are born with. And also something that can be enhanced by learning about clothing or makeup or hairstyling. But it's not okay to forgive a person who is beautiful but insensitive and selfish.
Beauty is work and Brains too. You can be born with both or either. But one is placed on a pedestal and called deep and worthy. The other is admired but called shallow and vain.
Wow. I'm not even so sure what I'm saying. Does this make sense? Is it coherent? I don't know. But I guess all I'm trying to say is these girls are just girls. And they're given an awful hard time.
Sure they're selfish and shallow and jaded and judgmental. But so are a lot of other people that hide it under layers of intelligence and book-knowledge caked on like too much mascara. What's the difference between the two?
I feel like the only difference is drawn in the mind. It isn't real. Like Oscar Wilde says, "Art, like morality, begins with drawing a line."
Or like John Ruskin says, "Taste is the only morality. Tell me what you like and I'll tell you what you are."
I agree with you to some extent, Aaron. I, like many, escape into the world of celebrity gossip. I love to see famous people do stupid things. Makes me feel good. But what worries me about these pop tarts is how self-conscious they are of their celebrity. They truly are nothing more. Do they have talent? Maybe, Lindsay. I don't know. I'm fascinated by them. I can't say I like them, but I am definitely fascinated by them. Lindsay steals a car and chases after her assistant and gets arrested. Britney shaving her head and taking an umbrella to her ex's car. Paris going to Rwanda. What the hell? Is it performance or it is real? I don't think these girls even know anymore. They're so used to cameras on them that the lines blur. I mean, we've talked about performance and parody. And here I can relate it to these girls, in that, they are performing, and their performance has become parody. Does that make sense?
Paris and Nicole's "reality show" is all performance--and it's bad performance, because they are trying so hard to act, so then it becomes parody. They are (unintentionally) making fun of themselves. The press "believes" that the two's friendship is on the rocks. Producers/writers of the show come to them and say let's use this conflict and base a show around it.
Paris, Nicole, Lindsay, and Britney are not just folks. They're all creations. They've been raised to be performers. It's all they know. If the press loses interest, they have to do something to get their attention. There's something really weird about it all. I bet you they all fear ending up like Tara Reid. That must be their worst nightmare.
I guess none of it is real, is it? We all perform our parts. We all can become a parody of whoever or whatever it is we perform. It's all so complex.
Okay. Thank you. What you said is concise and makes sense. I wish I didn't have to go all round about before I came to my conclusion. But I need to do that to really work through an idea. I guess that's why I'm not really a writer.
Yes. I'm fascinated too. It really intrigues me, the idea of celebrity and persona and fame. I think celebrities call attention to the fact that we're all acting. I mean, I feel like life is an impromptu sitcom. It's all television all the time. The audience is our friends and our family and the complete strangers on the street. The audience is also our fellow actors. And the script (I guess it's more like a treatment) is society's conventions and how we were raised and every experience we ever have. This all builds our character (characterization?), the face we put on in public when we cast ourselves in the role of student or professor or anything. We then act according to the expectations set forth for us.
For example, when I'm sitting in the classroom I try to play the good student. I try to pay attention and participate and respect the professor because that's what the audience expects from my character. But that's not really me. I'm not like that. I'm the kind of person who has to work (read: act) in order to be like that. If I wasn't acting I'd be chewing gum and listening to Girl Talk and gossiping with Erin. Or something to that effect. But I guess then I'd be acting out the roll of friend and gossip and hipster or whatever. But that'd be acting too.
But, yeah. Whenever someone realizes they're acting it almost always causes performance to become parody. Actors aware they're acting are either really great or really really terrible. When it's great it's like Divine eating dog shit or Ondine beating the hell out of his costar. When it's terrible it drives the performer a little bonkers, like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears. But one way or the other the awareness that one is performing really makes someone Perform. But since I think we're all performing I just can't bring myself to hate Lindsay or Nicole or whoever. I mean, if Paris is going to Rwanda, she's going to Rwanda. It's a performance and it's real.
I guess I believe in a world where everything is smoke mirrors, all rules and definitions and categories are fake. Really there is just this One Big Thing Going On. And our mind divides the One Big Thing into little things. Like a mall. When you go to the mall you think about going to H&M or the Food Court or maybe even the Gap. And all you think about is what you're going to buy and who you might bump into and what it means when the map says, "You are Here." Rarely do I ever think about the Mall Itself. The Building. The Building is like the One Big Thing. Sometimes I do think about the Mall Itself, but mostly I'd rather think about going to H&M.
So yeah, identity and persona and everything are all the same thing. At least I think so.
Maybe this is just rehashing stuff you've all studied or heard before. But it just helps me to put it all out there.
Post a Comment