Good Hair follows Rock's journey to discover what exactly qualifies as, well, good hair. Over the course of the film, Rock visits beauty schools, a hair show, India, barbershops, and beauty supply stores in search of answers. He interviews Hollywood notables like Nia Long, Raven-Symoné, and Meghan Good. He visits relaxer factories and chemical labs. But through it all, the quest for a father to answer his daughter's question anchors the story. Good Hair appears to have done well for its opening weekend - it made over a million dollars on opening weekend ($6,005 average per screen) with a limited release, and was 14th over all.

We all agreed that Good Hair was enjoyable viewing - but was it good? Anna, Dodai, and I try to hash out our feelings below.

ANNA:

Okay, I'll start.

I've had 24 hours to digest the movie and I'm left with the same impression I had yesterday afternoon: Good Hair was comedic - lord knows I love a good Chris Rock joke - but it was not particularly challenging. But let me back up: I think that Rock and his producers' choice to frame the film with footage from the Atlanta hair show was a mistake. Certainly, the Atlanta hair show says something larger about black womens' hair - namely, the versatility of it, the money pumped into it, the theater of it - but that's about it. For me, the most compelling moments were the one on one interviews - especially Nia Long, who spoke uncharacteristically frankly for a Hollywood starlet, and Sarah Jones, whose joke about "tumbleweaves" had both my sister and I howling in our Times Square theater - and the brief glimpses of Chris interacting with his beloved baby girls, who inspired the film in the first place. (Question: Where was his wife in all of this?)

I will give Chris major points for the segment in which he goes to India to see how the human hair used in weaves is obtained. The resulting footage was damning: Human beings in a third world country reduced to their body parts, which are then sold off so that comparatively rich women in the first world can use them as adornments. Ugh. Seeing those swaths of hair being sorted, laid out, combed through and spun into perfect bundles of shiny ebony silk made me sick to my stomach. I was also troubled by the meme/hypothesis Chris kept pushing about black male economic complicity - subsidization, really - of the weaves found on black womens' heads. Does Chris really think that the (considerable) expense of a weave or hairpiece is SOOOO out of reach to the average black woman that they so directly inform her choice(s) of mate and his accompanying earning power? Does Chris believe that weaves are what black women really care about when it comes to where they choose to spend their - or others' - money? What about ownership of a home? Secondary education? I found the whole line of questioning offensive, and the men he spoke to, even someone supposedly as intelligent as Al Sharpton, were more than happy to oblige him in it.

LATOYA:

Hmm. I liked the film a lot - if you watched Chris Rock's other movies, Good Hair flows with that aesthetic. The fact that Rock would have a question - that is broadly about the women's obsession with hair, and intersperse the fact finding with as many moments of comedy as he could just makes total sense.

I also really liked the one-on-one interviews, but you neglected to mention one of my favorites - Ice-T. And I enjoyed the hair show framing because it illuminated quite a few things. While I was annoyed at Rock's tired-ass "all look same" joke, the hair show showed (1) the magnitude of the hair business, (2) how few of the vendors are black owned, (3) how much of a mega-industry this is, and (4) how stylists become celebrities. (In my theater, a gleeful cheer ran through the crowd, when Derek J, of Real Housewives of Atlanta fame, came on the screen.) In addition, I felt like some of the inclusions were intentional. How did a white boy like Jason Griggers learn to do black hair - and consistently win marks for best hair styles? When he talked about having a teacher who kept after him to learn to work a Marcel Iron, it starts to become a clear contrast how "difficult" black hair is to work with. It really just needs a skilled hand.

I did feel like Rock stressed the wrong side of the economic equation. I felt like he was pressing for humor but that was a serious question - exactly how much money do we sacrifice in pursuit of this idealized hair? And, as`many women explained in the film, it's one of those rituals that you never stop.

DODAI:

Ice-T was my favorite too!

But I also agree that the focus was a little off. When Chris Rock spoke to a group of high school seniors — 5 or 6 girls with relaxed hair, and one young lady with a natural 'fro — my heart broke when her schoolmates said they couldn't see her getting a job with that hair, and that walking into a law office in a suit with an Afro was a "contradiction."

CONTRADICTION. Like suit=success and Afro=failure.

I wish Rock had followed that part up with an interview with Toni Morisson or Cornel West or Angela Davis (or Michaela Angela Davis) — someone BRILLIANT with natural hair. Or even Alek Wek! The women in the film who have natural hair — Traci Thoms; Sarah Jones — were eloquent and funny but I would have liked more voices saying that you can be successful in life without relaxing your hair or wearing a weave. I know Maya Angelou was in it, but I felt like there were SO MANY pretty women with straight hair or weaves and not enough of the alternative: Dreads, afros, natural curls, etc. On people with JOBS.

I thought the finances of hair were interesting, but there were times that I thought it was condescending — I mean seriously, women spend on hair AND makeup and TAMPONS and WAXING and a lot of stuff men don't spend on. So seeing men agog at the cost? Whatever. It didn't feel that effective. I agree with LaToya in that it is a serious question — - exactly how much money do we sacrifice in pursuit of this idealized hair — but might have been illustrated in a different and more powerful way — like what if he had followed a woman who quit her weave/relaxer habit? And talked to her before and after? And showed that it's not the end of her life — and her hair is not her life? It was funny and I did enjoy it, but I think the fact that it was from a man's perspective worked well when he spoke as a father and worked against him when he was just a critic/comedian making fun of the cash women spend on something they clearly feel they need to. I wish he would have explored the idea that maybe they *don't* need to.

LATOYA:

Oh, thanks for bringing that up.

Upon reflection, I actually felt Rock's treatment of natural hair dealt with the issue in a very realistic way. Out of 95 minutes, maybe 10 or so are spent discussing natural hair - and most of that is negative. But again, I feel like this is realistic. In progressive circles (particularly the blogosphere) you see so many articles and communities dedicated to the positive discussions and portrayals of natural hair, but I felt like that quick scene with the seniors was a lot more indicative of the attitudes about natural hair in the real world. "It's nice, BUT..."

I mean, these girls felt straight up comfortable saying "Well, I wouldn't hire you with a 'fro." But again, I feel like that's what many people are quietly thinking. Remember, I'm only two years into a transition - the world does treat me differently now, in many ways, than two years ago. While I'm cool hanging out with my curly/kinky/nappy tribe (who all came to watch the doc with me) we *all* knew what the one natural haired girl was going through.

On the flip side of that, I was really glad that Rock focused a lot on weaves. Because, again, we are literally adorning ourselves with someone else's hair because our hair has been deemed unworthy. There's even the ranking of the weaves with Tyra's bouncing segment,where human hair bounces and synthetic doesn't. So I felt like even though there wasn't much time spent on it, Rock did illuminate a lot of the negative attitudes about natural hair that go quietly (or not so quietly) hidden. I mean, that scene where he's trying to sell black hair to beauty supply stores was ridiculous, and over done, but it was all worth it for that one shot where there's the Asian employee and the black employee, and the black employee is talking about how "no one wants to look like that anymore" and how straight hair was the standard. And in the eyes of many, that's real - why would you embrace a natural when you have all these other options?

ANNA:

I'm surprised not to hear more from both of you about the segment(s) involving the manner in which human hair used in weaves is obtained. Again, I was really, really disturbed by it, and I wish that Chris had spoken to an Indian woman - or even the Indian man who travels around West L.A. selling the imported locks - as to her/his feelings on this factory-farming of human keratin. Chris seemed somewhat taken aback by the whole thing, initially, but he didn't work particularly hard to press any of the individuals in that particular "food chain" (the donors, the buyers, the sellers, the hairdressers, the clients) - as to the real and problematic issues inherent in any market that trafficks in human body parts for the benefit of the wealthy. I will say one thing: I did love the inadvertent admission by the Beverly Hills hairstylist who let it slip that actress Vivica A. Fox prefers Malaysian hair for her weaves - too bad Chris didn't get her on camera to comment.

LATOYA:

Vivica's going to be mad when she sees her hair secret is out! What if the movie drives up the price of Malaysian hair?

I guess I'm not surprised, so I'm not shocked. My mom sells lacefronts as a side business, and is the queen of weave. (Obviously, my afro - which she semi-lovingly calls an "ush" - doesn't go over too well.) Human hair has to come from some kind of human sacrifice - and, unlike with other obsessions, cutting hair doesn't require killing someone. Is it fucked up that temples are part of the grand laundering scheme? Completely. But the market is so huge, someone else will fill in the gap. Or, like one of the hair thieves explained, someone will just start chopping off ponytails in movie theaters.

And if you press people, do they really care? I mean, we've been talking about blood diamonds for years, yet we still see people flashing diamond engagement rings and DeBeers is still in business.

DODAI:

The scenes involving the human hair business in India weren't that disturbing to me, either. I thought they were interesting, but not distressing or surprising. Actually, I was under the impression that women sold their hair (and I think they do in some European countries) and the idea that one woman's sacrifice becomes another woman's $3000 glory was fascinating.

But I do wish there had been more of an overall philosophical/anthropological tone — weaves are popular now; conking was popular once upon a time; Marcel irons go in and out of fashion. Ancient Egyptians used elaborate wigs and Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire had huge updos with birds and feathers and ships in them. Even though the film was correct to focus on race, sometimes I wondered if there was too much "OH LOOK AT WHAT THOSE CRAZY BLACK PEOPLE DO" subtext when humans have been playing with their appearances for centuries.

LATOYA:

I agree some more context would have been beneficial, but I think that last piece gets at the heart of the doc: yes, hair is an extension of fashion. But why are so many women treating it as an absolute necessity?

ANNA:

Because, Latoya, as Maya Angelou said in the movie, hair is a woman's "glory".

LATOYA:

Yeah, glory and apparently ill-gotten gains.

Good Hair [IMDB]
Good Hair [Box Office Mojo]

Coco Before Chanel is a French film (with English subtitles) directed by Anne Fontaine, about the early life of Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel's formative years. As a child she is dropped off in an orphanage, then goes on to work in a bar. She becomes a seamstress to the performers and sings in there herself, and is nicknamed "Coco" after a song she sing with her sister (who is a composite of Chanel's sister and mother.) Her lover Baron Balsan introduces her to French society and she begins her fashion career by designing hats for his friends. Their relationship becomes complicated when she falls in love with English businessman Arthur Capel, and eventually she goes on to open her first dress-making studio.

While some critics praised the film for delving into a little-known period of the designer's life, other said by ending before she becomes famous the film doesn't reveal what made Chanel unique. Tautou plays Chanel as harder woman than her previous characters, but some found her unsympathetic and Tautou too "winsome" for the role. However, in general, the performances are good and those with some interest in fashion are likely to find it entertaining, though uninformative.

Here's what the critics are saying:

USA Today

As such, the film, directed by Anne Fontaine (The Girl From Monaco), is not an expansive biopic but a fascinating snapshot of a pivotal chapter for Chanel, her formative fashionista years. Because it's more superficially stylish than profound, Coco leaves one wanting more - more of an in-depth examination of her complex nature, and more about the years when her simple designs captivated the fashion world. Still, the film, while scaled-down, is quite beautifully woven, like a classic Chanel tweed.

The Los Angeles Times

Coco Before Chanel [is] a superior filmed biography that brings intelligence, restraint and style to what could have been a more standard treatment. The most obvious credit goes to the strong, sure performance of Tautou, who costarred in The Da Vinci Code following her breakthrough in the successful Amélie. Tautou not only resembles Chanel, she inhabits the role completely, using flashing eyes and a relentless intelligence to convey the unbending strength of a woman determined to make something of her life in a time and place when that was far from the norm.

The New York Times

Judgments are not really on the movie's agenda. Rather than take a moralizing or pitying view of its characters, who live according to the social mores of their era and the logic of their desires, Ms. Fontaine examines them with curiosity and compassion. The result is an unusually vivid and convincing account of the historical past, composed in the present tense. Though its mood and methods are different, Coco Before Chanel shares with Jane Campion's Bright Star - another new anti-biopic - a fascination, at once intense and dispassionate, with the lives of women in earlier centuries. Coco and Fanny Brawne, the heroine of Ms. Campion's film, are not victims of oppression or paragons of resistance but rather individuals, made not of ideology or wishful thinking but of flesh and blood.

New York Daily News

There are a select few artists who can take the same materials used by everyone else and create a masterpiece. Coco Chanel was one of them. Director Anne Fontaine is not. Fontaine is a competent filmmaker, and Coco Before Chanel is a mildly entertaining period piece. What's missing, ironically enough, is a distinct sense of style.But though Tautou looks charming in her character's boyish outfits, her Coco is a demanding narcissist who draws minimal empathy. And despite some cutting and stitching here and there, we never learn what distinguished this woman from all the others who made their own clothes at the time.

Associated Press

Of course, Tautou looks adorably chic in Chanel's clothes, with her petite, androgynous frame and big, brown eyes. Still, you wonder what moved her, aside from the simplicity of the men's outfits that would inspire her own suits and hats... Fontaine's camera glides smoothly, as if to invoke Chanel's perspective in assessing the fashions she sees around her. She goes through all the paces elegantly but never reaches out and grabs you. Certainly, focusing on the formative time in Chanel's life is preferable to a cursory, all-encompassing biopic. But Coco Before Chanel only starts to get interesting when she asserts her creative and financial freedom - and that's right when the movie's about to end.

The New Yorker

The problem for Audrey Tautou is that she is doomed to trail clouds of Amélie wherever she goes. Those inky round eyes and that pixie mug insure that hers are the features, poor thing, that social anthropologists will eternally reach for when asked to illustrate the term gamine. Or mignonne. She does her best to capture the sullen grit of the young Coco, and the sour distaste she felt for those off whom she sponged; but it's hard to jut your jaw when you don't have much of a jaw, just a perfectly rounded chin, and the adamantine hardness of Chanel-not just in her bone structure and bearing but in the elimination of all fuss from her couture and all wasteful palaver from her soul-is probably beyond an actress as winsome as Tautou. The ideal would have been Kristin Scott Thomas, twenty years ago. Maybe she could take over, should Fontaine decide to tell the rest of the tale.

Time

Those who love fashion will be intrigued by this, at least to a point, after which Coco Before Chanel starts to feel like witnessing a sponge at work in the act of absorption. That's not generally the stuff of compelling cinema. We prefer the end results of a personal education rather than the acquisition of it. If Project Runway were about the formation of the designers' sensibilities rather than the creative execution of that sensibility, would anyone watch? This automatically puts Fontaine's film at a disadvantage, and the truly enigmatic nature of her subject only compounds it. "You want, but you don't know what," Emilienne tells Coco, and the movie keeps us at that same remove. It may be too respectful of the legend it seeks to illuminate.

Below is the trailer for Coco Before Chanel:

The film, which aired on PBS last night, stars Rocky Otoo, 17, who lives in the Bronx with her mother. Her mom works in a beauty supply store and is known as Auntie Yaa. Although Rocky's a stellar student who edited her school's newspaper, starred in its musical, played basketball and has a full college scholarship, her mother thinks she's insolent and insufficiently respectful. Rocky thinks her mother is old-world and doesn't understand her.


Her father, meanwhile, has returned to Ghana to take over the chiefdom of his community. Rocky looks forward to staying with him, because she feels her father understands her better.
However, she soon clashes with her father, too, and feels out of place. It takes her a while to begin to feel at home; when she does, she begins to understand her mother a little more.


Once home, Rocky starts at a picture-perfect college that's as white as they come. (Dickinson.) She's the first person in her family to go to college, and her parting with her mom is emotional. The culture clash between her mother and the well-intentioned college orientation woman is kind of painful.

And yes, Rocky's roommate is fascinated by her hair. Which she touches.


By the time Rocky comes home for vacation, she and her mother seem to have come to an understanding. In the two years since the film was made, Rocky has apparently thrived: she's become a women's and gender studies major, is an officer of the African American Society, on the step team, and a regular contributor to a campus feminist magazine. In other words: the kids are alright. The entire film, by the way, is now online.

Related: Bronx Princess [PBS]
Full Description [PBS]
Film Update [PBS]

Now, listen. People have often jumped in whenever I post anything remotely Megan Fox related to write a comment like, "Oh, so everyone hates Megan Fox now?" or "Why does Jezebel hate Megan Fox so much?" I don't think that's really a fair assessment of my personal opinion of Fox—I don't hate her, as I don't even know her—but I do admittedly find myself annoyed at the role she plays; the sex kitten who drops little quotes about how she's so crazy and sexy and cool or whatever while SexyFacing all over the red carpet. But as far as Megan Fox, Person goes, lately I've found myself laughing with her rather than at her, much to the chagrin of some of my friends, who feel she should be banished to SexyFace Island forevermore.

So why DO people hate Megan Fox so much? I suppose most of it comes from her interviews, wherein she says basically whatever the hell she's thinking, which often leads to scandalous headlines soon after. In several of these interviews, she intimated that women hated her because she came across as confident, and women found that threatening. Many of us, myself included, read those statements as "Whateva, you're just jealous, stupid bitches!"

But in retrospect I think what Fox, who often admits to having fairly shitty self-esteem, was saying has a bit of truth to it. Women don't hate Megan Fox because she comes across as confident; they hate the Megan Fox Archetype, because, in a way, it validates all of the high school notions of what sexiness is: porn-star poses, slow motion boob shots, and references to lesbianism and bisexuality as kinks instead of sexual orientation. What Fox is marketed to represent is exactly what the "bad girls" who came before her were marketed to represent: a "naughty," slightly crazy (as of course, no "sane" woman would ever say such scandalous things) woman who uses her sexuality to get what she wants. And for many women, the idea that we need to put on our best SexyFace and be a "man-eater" to feel empowered or sexual is an irritating one. She is the personification of the Cosmo brand of sex, and that is why women find her so annoying.

However, I don't think Fox is that person, and she admits it; "I think I understand why actors go insane, because you're merchandised, you're a product that gets sold," she says, "So the media has to brand you, to label you something. The lines between reality and fantasy get blurred and you can lose yourself in that." When Tracie compiled a list of Fox's most insane statements earlier this summer, one could see a pattern emerging: she'd be quoted saying something that sounded a bit shocking or offensive, and then quoted soon after, clarifying her remarks or noting that what she said was taken out of context. It's almost as if she's trying to balance being Megan Fox: International Sex Symbol and Megan Fox: Human Being, and her quotes represent a weird mix of the two.

She's smart enough to know that this character she plays is a career goldmine—nobody is going to send Megan Fox Cate Blanchett's reject scripts, you know? But she's also, through her wacky interviews, attempting, in a way, to take down the very thing she represents from the inside, constantly using any platform given to her to remind us all that she's not exactly what the press makes her out to be; she farts, she stinks, she fucks up, and she worries about her career after her looks go away: "The reality is, if you're nothing but a pinup, at 33 you're reaching your expiration date. I have to develop skills, I have to get better, I have to be a good actress."

There are only two roads for sex symbols in America: they can transition in to serious actress mode a la Angelina Jolie, or they can spiral out of control, like Lindsay Lohan or Marilyn Monroe. Often enough we end up posting stories on how we shouldn't kick the fallen ones when they're down, but I've realized that perhaps we should also consider not kicking the Megan Foxes of the world on their way up—instead, we should root for them to subvert the roles they're positioned to fill, and to find a way to break out of the boxes that Hollywood always tends to place women in.

If Megan Fox wasn't in that role, someone else would be, and at least Fox is willing to say things that don't necessarily fit her persona. This is not to say that Fox doesn't often drop some truly heinous statements, and that she isn't riding this thing all the way to the bank, or that she's not a willing participant in the SexyFace games, but I'm pretty sure she's in on the joke, and maybe, just maybe, she'll be the one the make the rest of the world realize how stupid all of this really is. If nothing else, she'll certainly give us something to talk about for the next few years.

Megan Fox: Crazy Or Sly Like A Fox? [ABCNews]
Sly As A Fox, Despite Her Handlers [Globe And Mail]
Earlier; Megan Fox's 50 Best (& Worst) Bon Mots

According to yesterday's New York Times, at a Toronto Film Festival press conference for Precious, a reporter asked Tyler Perry if it was tough to get the movie made. The problem? Perry didn't make the film.

Yet Tyler Perry and Oprah are both executive producers on Precious.

Writes Michael Cieply for the Times:

Mr. Perry dutifully explained that he had nothing to do with making the movie. He saw it in finished form, after the director-producer Lee Daniels, and a couple of fellow producers, Sarah Siegel-Magness and her husband Gary Magness, did the heavy lifting (which included an investment of many millions by the Magness couple, who put up the cash for the kind of inspirational film Hollywood isn't so eager to make right now).

The Times piece doesn't mention Gabourey 'Gabby' Sidibe's weight and race, but time after time, we see Vanity Fair and Vogue profiles of "hot young things" and "it girls" debuting in small, but interesting roles. Early in their careers, women like Gretchen Mol, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sienna Miller and Leelee Sobieski were deemed Hollywood's "next wave" and treated to Annie Leibovitz photoshoots. Whither the attention for Gabourey Sidibe? Hopefully forthcoming. (I've noticed that posters for the film, while beautiful, feature a faceless illustration of the character instead of a photograph. Coincidence?)

In the meantime, director Lee Daniels tells the Associated Press that he's happy to have help drawing attention to his movie from the big-name producers: "My movies are art films. So many people don't see art films. People do see Oprah and Tyler's movies and they do hear Oprah's word." (The fact that Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself opened at number one at the box office this weekend can't hurt.)

Reports that Oprah's ratings have slipped shouldn't matter: When it comes to endorsing products, she's got the midas touch. And from the looks of the Precious trailer, the product is good. On one hand, it's too bad the film needs any kind of hype beyond what the actors and director bring to the table, on the other? As Oprah tells an AP reporter: "Everyone needs someone to help them navigate. I had Bill Cosby, Quincy Jones, Sidney Poitier and Maya Angelou who I look to. You can't do that on your own. Someone has to show it to you."

Film Legends in the Making. And Unmaking. [NY Times]
Winfrey, Tyler Perry Push New Film 'Precious' [AP]

Earlier: Precious Trailer: A Thing Of Terrible Beauty

The film was a disaster from the start: the dreadful poster, featuring Bullock looking like a deranged 90s sitcom star who had a bad experience with a box of Sun-In, pretty much sums up the feeling most critics had toward the movie in general: "What the fuck is this, and who allowed it to happen?" Things did not improve any at the premiere of the film, where Bullock showed up in yet another wacky ensemble, wearing an expression that read, "I know, I can't believe this, either." Sadie categorized it as an "awful premiere for an awful looking movie," and naturally, she was right.

But as I read through the painful reviews for the film, which basically call the movie a complete disaster from start to finish, I noticed a common thread in many of them: the notion that Sandra Bullock should know better, that she deserves better, and that, well, she is better than this film would lead viewers to believe. I suspect most of the "What the hell were you thinking" backlash comes from the fact that Bullock also co-produced the film, and therefore deserves double the credit (or, rather, the blame) for its awfulness, but there is also something to be said for critics steamrolling a film whilst still crediting Bullock for usually making smarter choices. With that in mind, here are 3 reasons why I think she's going to be just fine:

1. She's Likable
You don't like to see someone like Sandra Bullock fall on her face. If these were reviews for Paris Hilton's latest "movie," or Heidi Montag's attempt at "acting," we'd all be printing the reviews out and plastering them on our refrigerators like hilarious comic strips. But really, you just feel bad for Sandra Bullock, and puzzled as to why she put herself through this kind of thing. What was she thinking? Maybe she was bored and thought she'd try something new? Maybe she was hoping to branch out into darker comedic roles? With anyone else, it would be easy to dismiss them, and their career. But, I mean, it's Sandra Bullock. She just seems so...nice. If anything you just want to send her a cake and tell her that you loved While You Were Sleeping and you can quote every line of Miss Congeniality.

2. She Won't Make This Mistake Again
After this, she's going to be super careful about the scripts she picks. She is still one of the highest earning actresses in Hollywood, and her other release this year, The Proposal, has already brought in over 270 million dollars worldwide. She recovered from Speed 2: Cruise Control. She'll recover from this, too. If Gwyneth Paltrow can survive A View From The Top, anything is possible. Plus, Bullock is versatile: she can deliver in a drama or a comedy, and is liked by the public in both. She has 6 projects in the works right now: one of them will get her back on track.

3. She Doesn't Have A Replacement...Yet
Sandra Bullock's strength has always lain in the fact that she can play the beautiful, slightly wacky girl next door in a convincing fashion. She has always come across as down to earth and relatable, and though there are several starlets in the ranks trying to claim the crown of America's Sweetheart, it's hard to picture any of them playing the parts Bullock plays as well as she does. Until the next anti-Reese/Gwyneth/Renee rises up to snatch those parts, she'll be all set. She's still Miss Congeniality for most of the American public, and nobody has been able to knock that crown off of her head. I doubt one bad movie will- but I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

What say you, commenters? Do you think Bullock can survive a turd like All About Steve? And if not, who is going to replace her?

All About Steve [Rotten Tomatoes]
The Proposal [Box Office Mojo]

The confessional-style documentary, which premiered on HBO last night (schedule of upcoming screenings can be found here) follows McCabe (who narrates the film) n her quest to uncover why so many people will subject themselves to injections, surgeries, and peels to regain the appearance of youth. It is a siren song that McCabe is well aware of: At the age of 38, she reveals she has been scrutinizing her body ever since she came across her father's slides from his plastic surgery practice.

Refreshingly free of moralizing, McCabe establishes early on that she, too, struggles with the idea of aging. Setting a precedent for the rest of the film, she begins by analyzing how much money she dedicates to the pursuit of youth:

I found it amazing to watch her dollar costs unfold. McCabe, a smart woman who acknowledges up front that she is not making a wise decision, still cops to being close to $70,000 in debt, makes about $30,000 a year as a temp, yet finds $200 every six weeks to keep her gray hairs at bay.

As the viewer is reeling from the cost, McCabe says, "I may drop my health care coverage, but I'd never stop covering my gray. It may be insane, but it's the truth."

And...it is. Covering gray isn't something I am currently dealing with (and I think a silver afro would be kind of fierce), but I could completely relate to making bad financial decisions in the pursuit of beauty or fashion. How much money have I given to Zappos that could really be earning interest in my Roth IRA? Yet and still, I find myself trading long term financial security for a series of short term beauty boosts.

Looking specifically at the dollars and cents of it all, I am reminded of a series called the Cost of Beauty. PHDork examines the price women pay in pursuit of prettiness, noting:

[W]e can fairly surmise that the majority of harpies–70%–spend between $101 and $1000 per annum on beauty costs. Those numbers fit with both the mean and the median.

As to what sucks up all of those HarpyBuxx (they're not just good for abortions anymore!): our lovely, lovely tresses: 43% of expenditures go towards hair cuts, coloring, or other services. Make-up takes up another 29%. The rest:

Hair removal: 8%
Nails: 7%
Other products: 7%
Spa: 4%
Appliances: 2% [...]

A number of you expressed surprise at your spending, comparing it to X months of rent or groceries. It does add up: what else you might spend $613, or even nearly $800 a year on?

What else indeed? Most of us will never know. We're too hooked on beauty pimps and their products.

One person, who comes to illustrate how far people will go in their quest to find the surgical fountain of youth is Sherry Mecom from Texas.

(Is it just me, or does Sherry sound a lot like Ruby from the Style network?)

Sherry seems determined to use money to correct the past. She was once overweight until she had gastric bypass; she continually works on her body; and she is obsessed with the waterfalls and LG dishwashers she procures for her home. She alludes to a poor upbringing and being unhappy, but it feels like she is unsatisfied. Instead, she plans the next big purchase in her quest for a total life upgrade.

In the course of her travels, McCabe meets another daughter of a plastic surgeon - Erica Rose. However, the things that Erica has internalized about self-improvement differ dramatically from Mitch's low key messages from her father:

The quest for perfection is punishing, and not just for women. Youth Knows No Pain also reaches out to men in pursuit of camouflaging their ages. Men have their own hang ups, that just manifest differently and at an older age. The focus is more on hair transplants, face lifts, and lipo, less about botox and wrinkle creams. In an interview with New York Magazine, McCabe discusses some of the more obvious gender differences:

The women in the film were self-critical, and it was the men who were judgmental of others. What other gender differences did you notice?

We asked women why they were scared of aging, and everyone said, "Being alone. Being alone." You never heard that from men. Society is changing so much, and it's becoming more competitive and we have to stay in the workplace longer. Aging is affecting men in different ways, especially if they're in sales or something. When it comes to aging, men are concerned about being destitute, or in a nursing home. And being alone, but more in the sense of not having someone to take care of them.

However, it is interesting to note that the men seem more invested in critiquing the looks of others. While the women show a lot of competitiveness over beauty and aging (there's a great scene where McCabe asks the doctor if she has less wrinkles than one of his other, slightly obnoxious clients (cough, Mary Rambin, cough), and then cheers when he agrees), the men see no problem with informing women exactly what is wrong with them. Gary Baldassarre, one of the patients profiled, is documenting his own journey to regain his hair through a really graphic hair transplant operation. Yet, he sees no issue armchair analyzing women on television:

Another man, Norman Deesing, is an interview subject because he paid more than $50,000 to essentially look like Jack Nicholson. However, he has no qualms about turning to McCabe at some point during filming and pointing out to her that she's "let herself go [...] from the neck up." Admirably, McCabe brushes off the comment.

After the first hour of the documentary, the focus shifts a little from exploring what is happening to exploring why we seek these remedies. Who wants to go to a Botox party, being injected by a dentist who carries around the toxin in a cooler? Why do we pay so much money to distort our faces? Part of the answer lies in our need to conform to what society says is appropriate:

While most of our issues may stem from low self-esteem, "internet celebrity" Julia Allison's offhanded comment about "having an expiration date" struck hard. While she doesn't seem inclined at all to fight this idea of disposable women, it accurately summarizes the feelings of a lot of women in the documentary. They want to stay young in order to be relevant, to be seen as beautiful, to have access to society. It is this fear of obsolescence that drives the industry, which goes hand in hand with a fear of mortality. Some women, like How Not To Look Old author Charla Krupp, have acknowledged their enemy and have committed to fight literally to the death:

I laughed when I heard Dolly Parton unabashedly admit she was going to "get nipped and tucked until [she] is in a pine box," but for some reason, every time I watch this clip of Krupp, chills run up my spine. Are we really moving toward an era when it will be unacceptable to show any signs of aging?

And what happens when the potions and creams and procedures stop working?

Near the end of the documentary, McCabe sits down with Sherry. It has been three years since they first met, and Sherry went through a rough year. Sherry often uses plastic surgery as a mood boost, and after a bout with depression is actively planning her next procedures. McCabe switches between the first and third meeting to provide some insight into Sherry's development, while Sherry openly discloses her fears about not having the money to keep up the fight against time:

Youth Knows No Pain was engrossing, depressing, and thought-provoking, made even more poignant by the candid self-examination of its creator. After chronicling her memories of her father and her longtime fascination with mortality, she ends the film with an astonishing admission: after all that she's seen during filming the documentary, McCabe decided to take the plunge and start on injectables like Botox herself.

"What about spirituality? Inner peace?...Well, that didn't work." After struggling to make sense of why women subject themselves to beauty treatments instead of aging gracefully, she succumbs to the promises of younger looking skin and a small chance at cheating time.

McCabe's documentary ends with her undergoing different bizarre treatments. Watching her take a needle through the mouth in order to puff up some flesh in her cheek, I kept coming back to her opening admission: It may be insane, but it's the truth.

Youth Knows No Pain [HBO]
Youth Knows No Pain - Full Schedule [HBO]
The Cost Of Beauty, Part 1: The Research [The Pursuit of Harpyness]
The Cost Of Beauty, Part 2: The Numbers [The Pursuit of Harpyness]
The Cost of Beauty, Part 3: The Alternatives [The Pursuit of Harpyness]
Youth Knows No Pain Examines Anti-Aging Industry [New York]

Earlier: NonSociety Nincompoop Mary Rambin: Abortion Is Just Like Botox
How Not To Look Old Author Doesn't Look Old, But She Does Look Stupid

In a piece for the Daily Mail, titled "Revenge Is Writing A Film About The Girl That Dumped You," Neustadter describes how "Jenny Beckman" (who also gets a shout out for being the "bitch" who broke his heart in the opening credits of the film) loved him, left him, and inspired him to write his hit film. I'm not sure what the point of the piece is, as it's basically a reiteration of the film itself, but I suspect it's just a means for Neustadter to a. publicize his film, and b. twist that knife into Jenny Beckman's back one more time.

Neustadter reveals how writing the film pulled him out of a depression after Beckman hurt him, noting that though writing the script, he was "able to liberate myself from my own misery. I'm two years into another relationship and have never been happier." Ugh. Dude, we know. You, like every other dude who has written the tale of a guy who "finds himself" through an empty shell of a character, is totally better off now that the pretty lady has broken your heart and improved your record collection. The smugness of the article is irritating: one expects him to shout out a band and put on twee dance number as he reminisces about his failed relationship and the success he gained from it.

Even more irritating is the fact Neustadter's premise, that revenge is writing a movie about a girl who broke your heart, doesn't hold up, as he admits that Jenny, his ex, didn't even recognize herself as Summer, the character played by Zooey Deschanel in the film. Neustadter is amused by this, but he shouldn't be: it serves to prove that you can't exactly get revenge on someone by creating a version of them that never really existed. Summer Finn is Neustadter's vision of Jenny Beckman, all beauty and mystery, but, as Jezebel contributor Doree Shafrir notes in a piece for the Daily Beast, Summer Finn is never developed as a person as much as "a vehicle for Tom to realize his goals and dreams." Perhaps Beckman doesn't see herself in the film because, well, she's not in the film.

While it's understandable that Neustadter would want to celebrate the film's success, it's getting a bit tiring to watch Manic Pixie Dream Girls be held up on screen for being pretty and strange (and, ultimately, empty) and quickly dismissed afterwards, as a learning experience, or a means to reach greater things. The Jenny Beckmans of the world may be heartbreakers, but they're real people, too. Maybe next time, if Neustadter wants his ex-girlfriends to recognize themselves in his tales of love gone wrong, he should try to draw them as actual human beings.

Indie Dream Girls [The Daily Beast]
Revenge Is Writing A Film About The Girl Who Dumped You [Daily Mail]

"This is the year when such slick, star-driven, adult-oriented movies as "State of Play," "Duplicity," "The International" and "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" underperformed at the box office," Hornaday writes, "And when talking-toy movies like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "G.I. Joe" raked in millions." While she acknowledges that the recession, poor marketing, and a need for more escapist fare all factor in to the failures of many A-list films, she tiptoes around the obvious question: are we just sick of seeing the same movie stars over and over again?

The A-list is aging up: the stars Hornaday brings up in her piece, including Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Russell Crowe, and Denzel Washington, are all over 40, with most of them having held on to A-list status for at least 15 years. Their names alone are not enough to bring viewers into the theaters anymore, and though Hornaday claims that most of the movies the A-listers made "had the benefit of strong to favorably mixed reviews, most of the movies she listed seem to have already faded away, a combination, perhaps, of bad marketing, unnecessary remakes, and replaying the same roles over and over again.

Because the world is so focused on the insta-celebrity, that throwaway type of fame that brings us the Hailey Glassmans and Heidi Montags of the world, it is a bit nice to have an A-List of sorts, I suppose, to set a type of standard as far as the quality people can expect from certain performances: as Hornaday notes, Meryl Streep is still able to fill the seats, bringing in audiences to see Julie & Julia, even during the summer of giant robots in disguise.

But the A-List isn't worth much more than the insta-celebrity if the films aren't any good: there's only so many times we're willing to pay to see our favorite actors on the screen if the parts they choose to play aren't worth our time. You can put a prestigious label on a film, but it's no longer a guarantee that anyone will spend their ten bucks to see it. It might be time for the A-List to stop assuming that the audience owes them anything, simply because they've put on a good show before. As far as "grown-ups" losing out, I think it's more a matter of grown-ups rebooting the way they approach their own audience. Robot films may be mindless "kiddie" fare, but at least nobody is pretending they're anything but.

Something's Out Of Line For Hollywood And Grownups [Washington Post]

Boomer Nostalgia is nothing new: this is the third go-around of Woodstock Memory Mania, after 1994's 25th anniversary celebrations and 1999's 30th anniversary celebrations, which, naturally, were destroyed by my peers, who, unlike our parents, or even our older brothers and sisters who made the trek in '94, couldn't handle sitting in the mud for three days doing psychotropic drugs without starting a bloody riot and essentially burning the place down. Our parents had Hendrix and the Who. In '94, they had . We had Limp Bizkit. So, you understand.

Anyway, Woodstock nostalgia is more than a Boomer merchandising push (though that's a great deal of it), it's a way for people to remind themselves, and younger generations, that for three days, amidst a tumultuous decade, the philosophies of the hippie generation seemed to be true and possible, if only for a moment. It's a cultural touchstone, though one wonders, after the Boomers are gone, if the every 10-15 years celebration of the event (and its apparently crappy music, according to Jim Fusilli of the Wall Street Journal) will continue. I'd say the chances are quite slim.

For those of us born in the 80s, there is no Woodstock to speak of, I suppose: there are festivals and concerts that have special relevance to certain people, and certain musical genres will be attached to us, of course, but our nostalgia, at present, comes in the form of childhood memories. As Michael Cavna of the Washington Post notes, Hollywood is scraping the bottom of the barrel, or toy chest, as far as 80s nostalgia goes, breathing new life into everything from Transformers to G.I. Joe to... Legos?

"This year, in particular, these same Los Angeles producers have purloined my toys, too. How can I leave with warm thoughts of, say, my grade-school Super Soaker when some filmmakers are surely planning to hold my memories hostage at water-gunpoint? They have my childhood and are not afraid to use it," Cavna writes, noting that it's not "just about buying the rights to old toys. The troubling aspect is that the next crop of toy-based films to swamp the multiplex and the record books might increasingly consist of sparkly-but-shallow projects."

Every time an 80s-based film project hits the news, everyone freaks out and starts writing the same thing: "They're ruining my childhood!" But the truth is, your childhood isn't going anywhere. Yes, the films are shallow (there's only so much depth I suppose one can get from a film based on plastic action figures) but that's kind of the point: they are meant to be popcorn movies, mindless, silly remixes of the doll you kept in your pocket when you were 7. Does it suck to see your beloved toys bastardized in such a way? Sometimes. Certainly I never saw Megan Fox vamping up when I had Optimus Prime coming in to Barbie's soda shoppe for a malt, but my memories of the toys and whatever happens on screen are two different things. I love nostalgia, too (obviously), but it's best to separate the originals from the remakes, if only for your own sanity.

In other words, Shia LaBeouf may weasel his way into your favorite franchises, but unless you let him (or, for some of you, unless you want him to), he's not going to make his way into your personal memories. But the consistent retread of Woodstock Mania and the exhausting list of 80s toy and cartoon related projects in the works speaks more to a desire by the audience to hold on to the past, which always seems brighter and shinier than it was, especially now, when we're all dealing with the recession and the madness that surrounds it. It's a totally natural reaction, as nostalgia is comforting, and safe, and a way to remember that things were—or at least seemed like they were—perfect for a time.

However, I agree with Cavna, that this is all part of the problem: it's more about a lack of new memories to make than the "destruction" of the old ones. We shouldn't be complaining about our childhoods being destroyed as much as we should be complaining about the lack of new ideas in the movie theater. So G.I. Joe was turned into a generic action film. Does that really ruin your summer of 1985? Probably not. But maybe it's G.I. Joe's standard blow-shit-up, America Fuck Yeah plot that's really "ruining" things, if only by making your favorite toys generic and kind of boring.

But at least now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

Hollywood Is Scavenging My Toy Chest [WashingtonPost]
Woodstock: But How Was The Music? [Wall Street Journal]

As Cathy Horyn writes in today's New York Times, the September 2007 issue of Vogue was the largest issue ever: 840 pages. The cover proclaimed, "Fearless Fashion." Horyn says the issue, in the film,

...has all the gaiety of the "Titanic" two miles out to sea, with a spread on Sienna Miller in Rome, pages of models leaping in the new fall clothes, and a reflective piece by Plum Sykes on brooches.

Obviously times have changed. Today, NY Post media columnist Keith Kelly reports:

Conde Nast is reeling from what is expected to be a loss of 5,000 ad pages this year, translating into a revenue shortfall of between $275 million and $350 million — and very likely pushing the publishing giant into the red.

Vogue is one of the magazines whose ad pages are down; and in The September Issue, viewers see Anna Wintour spend, spend, spend. When Wintour cuts a photo shoot, the magazine's creative director, Grace Coddington sighs, "They've probably thrown out $50,000 worth of work," according to today's Gatecrasher column. And, notes Horyn, magazines like Vogue have always "readily projected a spare-no-expense mentality to help maintain their status." She continues:

A fashion shoot at a magazine like Vogue, or Vanity Fair, or W, can easily cost $150,000. Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, has killed shoots that didn't meet her standards and ordered them reshot. Such creative excess serves Vogue's star image, like the Town Cars waiting outside Condé Nast, and apparently has been condoned by management so long as revenues are high… It may be difficult for outsiders to appreciate the logic in fashion shoots that require a team of 30 photographic assistants, digital producers, lighting experts, hairstylists, makeup artists, a manicurist, editorial gofers and caterers to feed everyone. It's not uncommon at a top American magazine, editors say, to spend $5,000 a day just on food at a shoot.

But these days, there's a recession afoot. And last we heard, Vogue's September 2009 issue will only be around 450 pages — almost half of what it was 2 years ago — making The September Issue not only a documentary of what it takes to make a fashion magazine, but, quite possibly, evidence of the end of an era.

Still Fearless at Vogue? [NY Times]
Vogue's Anna Wintour's Power On Display In Film 'The September Issue' [Gatecrasher]
Sea Of Red At Conde [NY Post]

Earlier: September Ladymags: "Looking Thin"
5 Guesses Why Vogue Is Hurting
In Vogue: Things Learned From The September Issue, September Issue Trailer
The September Issue Less Than Flattering?

There is, perhaps, no one more important to the teen comedy genre than John Hughes, who, after producing a string of classic films in the 1980s, has now faded into the background, choosing to live a slightly reclusive life away from the film world and the adoration of the fans who grew up with his movies. Hughes' films, while loved by many, are not without their flaws: notably racist stereotypes, which are explored in Gene Luen Yang's brilliant graphic novel American Born Chinese.

And what of the boyfriends of the John Hughes world? For many of us, they were straight up Tiger Beat material. But how do they hold up now? Let's break it down, shall we?

• Jake Ryan: Sixteen Candles
• Pros:Handsome, wants "a serious girlfriend, somebody I can love who's gonna love me back," thinks it's kind of cool, the way you're always looking at him.
• Cons:Wasn't interested in Samantha Baker until he saw a quiz she answered in which she admitted she'd sleep with him, pretty much handed his drunk girlfriend over to Farmer Ted as long as "she gets home. You can't leave her in a parking lot somewhere." Oh, and he handed his drunk girlfriend over for a pair of Samantha's underwear.
• Final Analysis: Jake Ryan is easy on the eyes and seems to really want to be loved. But his interest in Samantha seems to spring from the fact that she's pretty obsessively in love with him already. That being said, I probably wouldn't turn him down if he showed up in his car outside of my sister's wedding to whisk me away. She's getting married in May, 2010, Jake. Just sayin'.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: B-
• 
  
  
  
• Blaine McDonnagh: Pretty In Pink
• Pros: Sweet, charming, clearly wants to break way from his insulated elitist world, willing to embarrass himself at the record store with a lame purchase just to talk to Andie.
• Cons:Still has trouble breaking free of his class, his privilege is often showing, insults Andie's outfit, easily influenced by rich jackass Steff, "Blaine? That's a major appliance, not a name!", asks Andie to prom and then totally blows her off. What about prom, Blaine?! What about prom?!?
• Final Analysis: Blaine is a bit of a tool. He makes a big dramatic "I always believed in you, you just never believed in me" speech at the end of the movie, which is total bullshit, because Andie wasn't the one to hide the relationship, break off the prom date, or give up due to pressure from her friends. Blaine was the one without the faith. The original ending of the film had Andie ending up with her best friend, Duckie Dale. That would have been better for everyone, as evidenced by Andie and Blaine's makeup kiss at the end of the film, which is probably the most awkward kiss in screen history.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: C-
• 
  
  
  
• Duckie Dale: Pretty In Pink
• Pros: Excellent dancer, good taste in music, snappy dresser, sweet, quirky, extremely loyal, willing to stand up to anyone on Andie's behalf.
• Cons: Needy, calls about 200 times per day, a bit stalkerish, extremely emo, filthy shoes, can go from sweet to annoying in 2.5 seconds, is already in "The Friend Zone."
• Final Analysis: I actually had a Duckie Dale in high school, and he is still a very dear friend of mine. Duckie could go either way here: he could be a really great boyfriend, or just a really great boy friend. Either way, you'd want him in your corner.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: B+
• 
  
  
  
• John Bender:The Breakfast Club
• Pros: Rebellious, handsome in a kind of badass way, hard exterior covers emotional interior, could hook you up with illegal substances if that's your kind of thing.
• Cons: Serious temper issues, family problems, can be quite cruel, sexist, and obnoxious, might not actually get out of high school, due to detention issues, until he's about 29 or so.
• Final Analysis: The only reason to date John Bender would be the reason John Bender himself gives: "Remember how you said your parents use you to get back at each other? Wouldn't I be OUTSTANDING in that capacity?"
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade:D
• 
  
  
  
• Ferris Bueller:Ferris Bueller's Day Off
• Pros: Clearly a genius, could basically get you out of everything, would be a blast to hang out with, loved by nearly everyone, could take you to many fine dining establishments with his friend Cameron, thanks to their Abe Froman scheme.
• Cons: Could get exhausting trying to keep up with Ferris, might not be able to trust such an accomplished pathological liar, you'd have to spend a lot of time with Cameron, who isn't always sunshine and lollipops.
• Final Analysis:: Ferris Bueller is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking him up.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: A
• 
  
  
  
• Farmer Ted: Sixteen Candles
• Pros: Really likes to dance, will drive you home if you've had too much to drink, respects a girl who will help out a geek, doesn't spill the details of your night together to his nerdy friends, thinks a girl in a hat is "just so Vogue," admits that he's "King of the Dipshits," which at least shows some level of self-awareness.
• Cons:Will ask to borrow your underpants for 10 minutes and then proceed to show them to the entire geek population of the school, the headgear shown above, may pass gas on the dance floor, goes by "Farmer Ted."
• Final Analysis: He's young and he's learning. Once he gets past his awkward headgear-King-of-the-Dipshits phase, he might actually be a decent boyfriend. Just don't take him dancing. It's better for everyone that way.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: B
• 
  
  
  
• Keith Nelson: Some Kind Of Wonderful
• Pros: Artistic, thoughtful, romantic, wants Amanda Jones not to feel trapped by her economic status, which he shares, liked by a variety of people in his high school, including the toughest bullies and his best friend, a female drummer named Watts.
• Cons: Oblivious that Watts loves him, only seems to "love" Amanda because she's beautiful, spends his entire college education fund on a pair of diamond earrings, feeds into classist pressures by organizing a fancy date (also financed by his college fund) in order to impress a girl.
• Final Analysis: Here's another example of a tacked on Hughes romance: Watts and Keith end up together, as he suddenly realizes he's loved her all along, but for most of the film he's concerned with appearances, notably Amanda's and his own ability to appear upper class and able to impress her.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: C
• 
  
  
  
• Andrew Clark: The Breakfast Club
• Pros: Athletic, likes to eat, likes dancing while high, will open up to the right girl, even if she makes snow scenes with her own dandruff.
• Cons: Daddy issues, tapes other boys' buns together, falls for the ol' "You got a makeover, now we can date," BS.
• Final Analysis: Andrew Clark is a bit hard to read. It will be interesting to see who he becomes once he's not the high school jock anymore. Could be a great boyfriend, but seems to fall too easily to peer pressure.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: C+
• 
  
  
  
• Steff: Pretty In Pink
• Pros: Gorgeous, attractive in that asshole Chuck Bass kind of way, can wear a white suit to high school like nobody else.
• Cons:Elitist, classist, doesn't handle rejection well, treats his girlfriend Betty like "trash," clearly hates himself, as pointed out by Blaine, says things like, "I wouldn't be too jazzed if I were you."
• Final Analysis:Steff is the guy you make out with, but don't actually date, which, I'm pretty sure, he's kind of "jazzed" about.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: C-
• 
  
  
  
• Brian Johnson:The Breakfast Club
• Pros: Smart, excellent writer, very sweet, member of the Math Club and the Physics Club.
• Cons:Filled with anxiety, perfectionist, awkward at times, embarrassed about his lack of sexual experience, likes to stick pens up his nose.
• Final Analysis: This kid was way ahead of his time. Though he played the nerd in this film, this character laid down the template for every character Michael Cera has played since, and Michael Cera happens to be one of the reigning dreamboats of the teen comedy world. Sweet geeks rule the world now; Brian was just 20 years too early.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: A-
• 
  
• Beethoven:Beethoven
• Pros:Likes to cuddle, loyal, sleeps a lot, enjoys eating, clearly has a taste for classical music, when he's around, hilarity will ensue.
• Cons:Slobber problem, destructive, sheds a lot, is actually a dog.
• Final Analysis: He's a DOG, you guys.
• John Hughes Boyfriend Grade: F
• John Hughes Hilarious Family Pet With A Destructive Streak But A Heart Of Gold Grade:A++

• You Are Born: Congrats! You've already done this. I haven't talked to your mother yet, but if the movies are to be believed, she spent most of your birth yelling, "Give me the druuuuugs!" while your adorably befuddled father freaked out and cried a bit. Your grandmother said something sassy to your stuffy grandfather in the waiting room, and at least one of your family members passed out in the waiting room, either from excitement, exhaustion, joy, or the icky grossness of the word "placenta." Someone will make a joke about your giant head fitting through your mother's vagina! Congrats! You're a woman in the world now, and everyone around you is embarrassed about female anatomy in general.
• 
  
  
  
• Elementary School: You're walking, talking, and sassy as all get out, baby girl! Believe it or not, this is the time of your life where you'll meet your soul mate or develop a chip on your shoulder that will take about 20-25 years to remove. No, really! In like, 3rd grade! I know! I can't believe it, either, but the movies never, ever lie, sweet child o' someone else's, and I'm just trying to prepare you for the future. Someone will scar you for life with a 3rd grade break-up or by calling you a doo-doo head. And things don't get any better for you in high school, either, I'm afraid.
• 
  
  
  
• High School Oh man, you are going to be such a geek in high school. It's not your fault, really. Everyone knows that you have to be a geek in high school in order to qualify for the life-changing makeover that will secure you a Prince Charming in your mid to late 20's. And if there's one thing we've learned from romantic comedies, it's that your entire life should really revolve around finding the perfect man. Sadly, this thing called "a career" is going to try and stand in your way!
• 
  
  
  
• Your Career: By your 20s, due to your childhood heartbreak and your high school geekdom, you've become a cold hearted bitch with only one thing on her mind: success! Of course, in the Romantic Comedy world, in order to be successful, you also need to be an uptight manhater who buries her "true" feelings under piles of very important paperwork. You might even score a lame boyfriend or fiance, who you don't love at all, but use to fill the hole that your 3rd grade boyfriend left behind. And you might not even know you're capable of love at all (because successful women are like, totally incapable of having romantic feelings, DUH!) until the dude you loved before you "sold out" and became a success falls in love with a perky young gal who just wants babies and walks on the beach, like "real" women do. When this happens, you'll realize your career was totally a sham and was ruining your chances of happiness with a man. And remember: that's what it's all about. See those little blobs with the blue blankets lying next to you? Hitch your wagon to one of those stars, baby friend!
• 
  
  
  
• Your Life After 35 Oh, wait, I'm sorry, this period isn't covered by romantic comedies, unless you plan on being someone's mom, sassy friend who never gets any, sassy slutty friend, shoe addict, or "cougar." Oh, and it helps to be upper class and living in a big city. If you're over 35, not-upper class, and living in a flyover state, you don't exist! Dream big, little one!
• 
  
  
  
• Your Life After 65 If you're one of the lucky few who escapes the plague of invisibility that will inevitably sweep over the women of your generation as well, get ready to be the wacky grandma who drinks too much and enjoys sexual innuendo and "keeping it real" by rapping and using sassy modern lingo. You are so wacky, Grandma! Your sexuality has been watered down to sassy quips and hilarious dance moves, because god forbid a post-menopausal woman actually have a sex life as opposed to a "hot date with Pat Sajak!"

• You're born in wacky circumstances
• Your life sucks for approximately 25 years, mostly because of a man
• You meet another man (maybe even the heartbreaker!) who will help you see that your life sucks because you've spent too much time working and achieving things, and that is like, so boring
• You will fall madly in love before the age of 35
• You will then disappear, only to make sporadic appearances in cameo roles as "Mom" or "Wacky Granny"- a completion of the "women are wacky!" circle of life
• Bonus: You will sing into a hairbrush at least 487 times.

I'm sorry to be such a Debbie Downer on your birthday, kid, but with any luck, everything I've typed here will be false by the time you're old enough to read it, though I highly doubt it, as Forbes recently noted that romantic comedies are, sadly enough, "box office gold." Call me up in 21 years and we'll cry over it together while drinking some dumb cocktail named after the hottest television show of 2030. For as long as these dumb cliches remain, if nothing else, we'll have something to make fun of together. Hilarity, for better or worse, will ensue. And that's pretty much what life is all about.

Something For The Ladies [Forbes]

As Wurtzel puts it in the Guardian, in the 80s and 90s, films - <"em>Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, The Temp, Disclosure, almost any Sharon Stone vehicle" - featured a predatory single woman, deranged by loneliness, success, or lack of traditional fetters, making life a living hell for more stable people. While villainesses are nothing new, Wurtzel notes the distinction between the psycho career singleton of 80s vintage and the bored-housewife moll perfected by Barbara Stanwyck, Lana Turner and their shadow-dappled sisters. As she interprets it,

A free woman is a loose cannon who is so dangerous that everybody else needs body armour and a bullet-proof vest to survive an encounter with them. That this dangerous female is alone and vulnerable, compared to everyone else with their spouses and kids and pets and household staffs, seems not to be anything anyone is supposed to notice. Singleness, in these movies, is actually a form of psychosis rather than a relationship status.

Of course, it's not hard to see that for the era of the culture wars, the single predator was America's Godzilla, or Gort, handily vanquished in two hours and for the price of a ticket. Wurtzel's peg is the latest entry into the "single psycho" genre, the ridiculous catfight Obsession, in which Ali Later's deranged secretary's motiveless stalking proves that "the only lesson any man could learn from this movie is pretty much: 'Don't get out of bed in the morning - ever!'"

Looking at the recent roll-out of horror films, it seems like we could learn a little bit more. Unless it's motiveless, senseless malignancy - The Strangers, Funny Games, Red - which does correlate pretty well with the times actually, the main theme of horror films lately is, young women. Sure, sacrificial lambs of varying levels of resourcefulness are as old as Udolpho. But the girl-on-girl rivalries of The Uninvited, the demonic pregnancy possession of The Unborn , the psycho cheerleader of the upcoming Jennifer's Body the vagina dentata of Teeth - and did we mention the vampires? - shows that nowadays, the conflict is less married versus single than young women against the world, even when that means themselves. These are premises to which men are incidental, but that's not to say the trend's especially empowering. The SWF trend may have been a cautionary tale to those women who Chose Wrong...but nowadays, it seems like there is no safe choice anymore. But then, any internet catfight - or Wurtzel's meditation on againg - could have told you that.

Look Who's Stalking [The Guardian]
Earlier: Elizabeth Wurtzel: Aging is a Real Bitch