A Necessary Name Change

When the full list of this year’s TIME 100 Most Influential People was released, I was among many who were surprised by several of the entries on the list. Perhaps most surprising is the inclusion of several members of young Hollywood, newcomers to fame let alone power over people. I have never paid much attention to this superlative before, but after considering whom TIME selects for the honor ever year it seems like the list is due for a name change. Influential implies that these 100 people sway us to change our lives or ways of thinking, which many of the listed do not necessarily do. Rather than calling it the 100 Most Influential People, it would be more appropriate to call it the 100 Most Reflective People.

Now, reflective is not intended to describe the mental activities of the entrants; “most reflective” is not to insinuate that they are the most pensive people who have spent a year pondering the universe and all that has happened in it. Rather, instead of influential, what many of the controversial listees are is reflective of the moment in time that is 2011. They hold up a mirror, flattering or otherwise, to our culture, politics, and beliefs as they are at a specific moment in time and show what matters to us.

Blake Lively, sandwiched in between talk show host Joe Scarborough and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was by far the most baffling person on the list. The 23 year old actress is most notable for her current role as rich free-spirit Serena van der Woodsen on Gossip Girl and her upcoming role as aerospace heiress Carol Ferris in Green Lantern, she does not belong on a list that includes those whose “ideas spark dialogue and dissent and sometimes even revolution;” it is doubtful that her opinion on North African politics inspired any of the rioters in Gadafi’s streets or even the Tweeters flooding them with support. But Blake Lively is highly reflective of what is going on in 2011. As Serena van der Woodsen, she reflects the larger controversy over the decadent, hypersexual, hard-partying depictions of teens in pop culture that are becoming more common as real-life teens are pushing the boundaries of debauchery and self-indulgence. As Carol Ferris, she reflects the resurgence of Golden Age superheroes and their gritty origin stories in 21st century Hollywood and greater pop culture. Blake Lively may not influence anyone to take political action or spark debate over anything more than her ever-changing hair color, but she is most definitely a mirror of our current cultural climate.

Less controversial but still surprising was the inclusion of 20-year-old Chris Colfer, known exclusively for his portrayal of Kurt Hummel on the television show Glee. Colfer won the 2011 Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor in his role on a television show that draws in upwards of 20 million viewers weekly, but that is not why he is reflective or even influential of this moment in time. It is his portrayal of his openly gay character who endures vicious bullying with true-to-life vulnerability, fear, pride, and resilient spirit that makes him almost universally relatable—across age, gender, sexual orientation, whatever—that makes Chris Colfer important. The respect with which Colfer treats the role he has been given, a role that he himself lived, makes him not only a great actor but a great public voice against the epidemics of gay-bashing, cyber-bullying, and teen suicide sweeping his show’s key demographics. He accepts the position of role model as easily as he accepted the role of Kurt Hummel, and he fulfills both duties skillfully. Chris Colfer is a mirror for the slowly opening issues of teen sexuality and violence, issues that were previously brushed under the rug rather than addressed publicly and healthily. He is certainly influential, as many teens have written to him expressing their gratitude that his character inspired them and saved their life, but more than that Chris Colfer is reflective of the world we live in now.

Others on the list who are more reflective than influential are British actor Colin Firth, fashion designer/director Tom Ford, Canadian singer Justin Bieber, Korean singer Rain, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Speaker of the House John Boehner. Whether it is the growing American emphasis on education, the concerning rise of far-right politics, or the globalization of pop culture, they are all representative of the year 2011 as much, if not more so, as they are affective in it. Thus, should TIME continue to select such a varied list of artists, politicians, and media darlings of all kinds, it should adapt the title of its list to show what it really enumerates: mirrors of our time, those who reflect who we are and what we care about it.

I Applaud Your Lady Balls, Ladies

In front of millions of viewers on The Oprah Winfrey Show last week, celebrated Saturday Night Live cast member broke one of the oldest rules of common courtesy: she spoke ill of the dead. The dead and beloved, to be exact.

In a stinging reflection on the days in which she was best known as “Jane, you ignorant slut” and for ripping open her blouse on Weekend Update, Curtin had this to say about fellow cast member, writer, and her constant foil, John Belushi:

“They [female writers] were working against John, who said women are just fundamentally not funny. So you'd go to a table read, and if a woman writer had written a piece for John, he would not read it in his full voice. He felt as though it was his duty to sabotage pieces written by women.”

What followed the comments was awkward to say the least; Chevy Chase attempted to defend the dearly departed comedian while Curtin held firm in her assertions. But there to save the day from turning into musings on misogyny in the 1970s, as she is there to save many a tragedy with a touch of comedy, was Wonder Woman Tina Fey. Consider this part two of my Feyism manifesto.

Tina Fey is hilarious, and this is a fact. She can work the funny bone from just about any angle, be it political, maternal, physical, nerdy, or Bieber-related, and she does it without being spiteful; her wit has some mysterious warmth that allows even those it pokes fun at to get in on the joke, as evidenced by the appearances of both John McCain and Sarah Palin herself on the 2008 election editions of SNL in which Fey impersonated (or, depending on how you look at it, mocked) the female vice-presidential candidate. But Tina Fey can do all of this because she has an audible voice in comedy, a voice that she and the comediennes before her fought hard for. Women have had a notoriously hard time achieving gender-equal success in comedy—Jane Curtin is certainly not the first to point this out. In Bossypants, Fey herself admits that even her beloved Second City had a hard time accepting that women could be funny by themselves, and she understands the working definition of Hollywood to be, “a woman who keeps talking even after nobody wants to fuck her anymore.” The atmosphere for women in comedy seems to range from lukewarm to hostile, especially as bromances and stoner flicks rule the box office.

Understanding this, it seems like a woman looking to succeed in comedy would have two options: 1) Accept that she will only get jobs writing niche “girl funny” and commit to a life of period jokes, or 2) Accept that the only marketable type of funny is “guy funny” and commit to a life of penis jokes. Tina Fey did neither and, despite the obstacles abound, has achieved undeniable success and is our current Queen/Gender-Blind Master of Comedy. She became the first female head writer of SNL ever in 1999, was part of the first all-female hosting duo of Weekend Update in 2004, and, perhaps most significantly, wrote Mean Girls.

Pictured: Victoria Gotti The film that changed the face of comedy

Mean Girls is more than just the last good movie Lindsay Lohan may ever make, it was an experiment in the appeal of female-driven comedy. With a cast led by five young women and Tina Fey herself, the movie explored the perils of teenage girlhood with a hilarious bent. That may not be anything new, but the response to it was; Mean Girls was immediately #1 at the box office and drew in an audience of all gender and age demographics, a feat for a comedy written and starring women. Because of Tina Fey’s inexplicable genius, the movie appealed to a diverse base beyond high school girls and became a lasting part of our cultural zeitgeist even seven years later. No one would argue that the message of the movie was female empowerment, but its success did newly empower women in Hollywood. With Mean Girls, Tina Fey proved that female-driven comedies could be bankable and broad in their appeal, and it is because of this that we get movies like Baby Mama and Bridesmaids in which women are more than just nagging girlfriends or spunky little sisters of comedic leading men. The increasing diversity of the comedy landscape is something we owe to Tina Fey and all the other women writers/actors/directors/stand-ups who were willing to push beyond personal success and toward changing the game itself.

One of these women who deserve special mention is Amy Poehler, Tina Fey’s intellectual and comedic equal. They both started at Second City, made up the all-female Weekend Update anchor team, went on to star in their own female-led quirky sitcoms, and do the best political impersonations SNL has ever seen. I wish I could explain why my natural affinity is more for Tina Fey—perhaps it’s the fact that we both wear glasses and have brown rather than “yellow” hair—but Amy Poehler is just as fantastic and integral in what I call the lady balls of comedy movement. Other members of note, though certainly not the only ones: the late great Gilda Radner, Jane Curtin, Aubrey Plaza, Paula Pell, Kristin Wiig, Rachel Dratch, Jane Lynch, Amy Sedaris, and Chelsea Handler.

To end, a quote from Amy Poehler on what her work means to her. I think that, besides giving women equal opportunity in comedy, this is the main goal of the work all these ballsy women do:

“I get worried for young girls sometimes; I want them to feel that they can be sassy and full and weird and geeky and smart and independent, and not so withered and shriveled.”

I Practice Tina Fey-ism

I mentioned Bossypants in passing in my last post, but it deserves a full one of it's own; I am not the least bit embarrassed to say that I spent 100 days counting down to its release and that it was totally worth it.

Those have to be Alec Baldwin's arms, right?

Actually, it's not so much the book as the woman behind it that I'm choosing to write about. I am truly in awe of Tina Fey, and am inspired by her in so many ways: her humor, her creativity, her bravery, her diverse talents, her career path. Seeing her brilliance is what convinced me to try my hand at screenwriting, and I owe to her all the fun I'm having while trying and trying again to follow in her footsteps. To sum up how I feel about the woman, if I could handpick a person to be the older sister I always wanted but never had, it would hands-down be Tina Fey.


I'm not the only one who feels this way, either; Donald Glover, now a writer/comedian/actor/rapper in possession of my devotion and his own illustrious career, raps in The Last:

And this next part sounds like nonsense/But I swear to God Tina Fey gave me confidence/Taught me everything that's good comes from honesty/Everybody's got a voice, you've just gotta follow it/She's a role model, sh*t

His deep admiration of Tina Fey is more justifiable, considering she actually handpicked him to write for 30 Rock while he was still an undergrad at NYU, but it's nice to know that my fanaticism is both shared and grounded in some reality.


But rather than rambling on about the fabulousness of Fey, I'll share with you some of her brilliance so she can speak for herself. Without further ado, an excerpt from Bossypants by Tina Fey:


The Mother's Prayer for Its Daughter

First, Lord: No tattoos. May neither Chinese symbol for truth nor Winnie-the-Pooh holding the FSU logo stain her tender haunches.

May she be Beautiful but not Damaged, for it’s the Damage that draws the creepy soccer coach’s eye, not the Beauty.

When the Crystal Meth is offered, may she remember the parents who cut her grapes in half And stick with Beer.

Guide her, protect her when crossing the street, stepping onto boats, swimming in the ocean, swimming in pools, walking near pools, standing on the subway platform, crossing 86th Street, stepping off of boats, using mall restrooms, getting on and off escalators, driving on country roads while arguing, leaning on large windows, walking in parking lots, riding Ferris wheels, roller-coasters, log flumes, or anything called “Hell Drop,” “Tower of Torture,” or “The Death Spiral Rock ‘N Zero G Roll featuring Aerosmith,” and standing on any kind of balcony ever, anywhere, at any age.

Lead her away from Acting but not all the way to Finance. Something where she can make her own hours but still feel intellectually fulfilled and get outside sometimes And not have to wear high heels. What would that be, Lord? Architecture? Midwifery? Golf course design? I’m asking You, because if I knew, I’d be doing it, Youdammit.

May she play the Drums to the fiery rhythm of her Own Heart with the sinewy strength of her Own Arms, so she need Not Lie With Drummers.

Grant her a Rough Patch from twelve to seventeen.Let her draw horses and be interested in Barbies for much too long, For childhood is short – a Tiger Flower blooming Magenta for one day – And adulthood is long and dry-humping in cars will wait.

O Lord, break the Internet forever, that she may be spared the misspelled invective of her peers And the online marketing campaign for Rape Hostel V: Girls Just Wanna Get Stabbed.

And when she one day turns on me and calls me a Bitch in front of Hollister, Give me the strength, Lord, to yank her directly into a cab in front of her friends, For I will not have that Shit. I will not have it.

And should she choose to be a Mother one day, be my eyes, Lord, that I may see her, lying on a blanket on the floor at 4:50 A.M., all-at-once exhausted, bored, and in love with the little creature whose poop is leaking up its back. “My mother did this for me once,” she will realize as she cleans feces off her baby’s neck. “My mother did this for me.” And the delayed gratitude will wash over her as it does each generation and she will make a Mental Note to call me. And she will forget. But I’ll know, because I peeped it with Your God eyes.

Amen.

Online source: http://melodygodfred.com/2011/04/15/a-mothers-prayer-for-its-child-by-tina-fey/ 

Now please do yourself the colossal favor of BUYING THIS BOOK. Preferably from a Borders so that I'm not out of a job.

Excuse me, HOW many books?

I was flipping through Slate online today--though I suppose "flipping" wouldn't be the correct term, as it's a website, so I better say browsing--and I stumbled upon an interview with author Adam Goodheart. Goodheart wrote 1861, which covers the beginning of the Civil War. As you would expect of a historical writer, the man is very well informed about the war between the states, but the interviewer brought up a very interesting point:

Slate: I recently heard Yale Professor David Blight say that there have been more books published on the Civil War than there have been days since the Civil War ended—more than 70,000 of them. Why does the world need another one?

Goodheart: Another figure is that there have been more Civil War books published than there were soldiers at the battle of Bull Run. But I feel like the Civil War is one of those great stories that can just keep being visited and revisited. It's famously been compared to the Iliad and the Odyssey, in that there's a new way to narrate it in each generation.

I should note that the bolding of the text was my addition, because holy cow who would've thunk it? I think some people would call it overkill, which is what the interviewer was clearly insinuating, but I have to agree with Goodheart. It says something about our natural curiosity that we continue to explore such an important event for so long and from so many different angles. I'm sure that each book has something different about it, something that makes it a worthwhile investigation into one of the most devastating periods in our nation's history. The magnitude of the study of the Civil War shows not we want to learn not only about history, but more importantly from history; we are smart enough to try and learn from mistakes--not only our own, but those made by generations before us. We should celebrate the relentless pursuit of understanding, especially when it's of something that ripped people apart and changed the course of (at least American) history. 


Go ahead and call me a sap for believing in the thirst for knowledge rather than the thirst for author fees, but I'm happy in my idealistic camp. Maybe I'll pick up 1861 after finishing Bossypants. After all, I've already read April 1865; I should try and collect one for every year. 

The French Burqa Ban

Former President George W. Bush suffered a serious loss this week, and no, it wasn’t his excellent golf handicap or his beautiful Crawford ranch. In a humiliating defeat, Bush lost the title of most-perceived Islamophobic Western leader. Adding insult to injury, he lost it to Nicolas Sarkozy.

Last Monday the visages découverts, or open faces, law came into effect in France. If you take the headlines at face value, the law is a means of persecuting Muslim women by banning the burqa and the niqab, face-covering veils worn in accordance with cultural-religious tradition by about 2000 women, in all public places. The French government thought it was sneaky enough not to make this ban explicit and targeted; on paper, visages découverts prohibits anything that obscures the full face from view. So then whom else does it affect? Bank robbers? Beekeepers? Batman? Clearly this law not-so-subtly targets Muslim women who wear a niqab, especially when considering that it includes heavier fines and prison time for anyone who forces someone out in public with an offending face covering—a common accusation tossed at the husbands and other male family members of observing women. Who knew politically correct ambiguity could be so prejudicially clear?

Pictured: Kenza Drider, 32, was detained for wearing her niqab in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral.

The government claims this is all for security reasons, so that threatening individuals cannot cover their faces in order to gain entrance somewhere they do not belong or to evade pursuing authorities. Every time I hear this, I can’t help but think of Sex and the City 2 when Carrie Bradshaw and Co. borrow burqas from fashionable Muslim women to escape an angry mob in Abu Dhabi—an angry mob chasing them down the streets after Samantha infuriates them by wearing shorts and carrying condoms. Are heavily stereotyped American movies where the French officials are finding their information about the nefarious uses of the burqa? It seems ridiculous to suggest that a bank robber, terrorist, or any other criminal would try to get away with that; many women who choose to wear the burqa say they would willingly reveal their face to an official who asked politely for identification purposes. It shouldn’t take discriminatory legislation for law enforcement to be suspicious of anyone adamantly refusing to show their face in relevant security circumstances.

Popular speculation is that Sarkozy pushed the law into effect to satisfy the far-right (read: anti-immigration and hyper-nationalist) French, particularly those belonging to the National Front Party. By banning all face-covering veils, Sarkozy has found a palatable way to outlaw a visible Islamic tradition and force assimilation. This isn’t the first attempt at homogenization sanctioned by the French government; a 2004 law banned niqabs as well as hijabs in public schools. However, the ban was not limited to forms of Muslim religious expression; it outlawed all religious wardrobe choices, including skullcaps and crosses. At least then it was equal opportunity religious repression in the name of nationalism, and not something as clearly Islamophobic as visages découvertes.

The press has jumped at the chance to criticize the Islamophobia inherent in the law; one op-ed ran with the title “France’s burqa ban: Has Europe forgotten the gas chambers?” However, sensationalism aside, visages découvertes seems to aim more at national identity building than persecution. Sarkozy crossed a line with this one, but it was a misguided effort at creating a unified France rather than a blatant attack on Islam. It probably seemed particularly convenient to target the niqab to placate the vicious far-right, but the motives lie in something less bigamous. Sarkozy didn’t outlaw veils because he thinks every woman in a niqab is a suicide bomber, but that sure is what it looks like. The French president and all of France appear religiously intolerant and oppressive, and appearance means a lot in international relations. The perception that France is anti-Muslim has created a backlash in Turkey and will certainly cause further problems. Beyond the reputation-damaging nature of the legislation, it should go without saying that it is essentially wrong to restrict religious freedom that does no harm to others. The law certainly needs to be repealed, and the French government needs to find some other less offensive and repressive way to unite its citizenry; punishing women for or restricting them from wearing their traditional religious or cultural dress with drive people apart, not bring them together.

But for now, citizens of France, don't plan on rocking a mask for Halloween.