Happy Birthday Esmerelda!

Other than “Happy Birthday,” I have absolutely no clue what these lyrics mean but I always loved this video, being a fan of early MTV. This of course was back in the days before that channel changed its format to the one it currently has – contrived reality show central, starring every has-been or never-was, displaying barely-dressed people, spouting out mostly bleep-censored stupidities. No, surprisingly enough, early MTV didn’t have any reality shows. Back in the baby MTV days, the channel’s lineup consisted solely of…you know…music videos. That would probably account for the reason MTV is an acronym for “Music Television”.

Also surprisingly, the videos they showed back then weren’t carbon copies of each other. Even more shocking, some of them didn’t even involve youthful sexual exploitation! Yeah a lot of those vids may have been bizarre and pointless (The Look of Love and Rock Me Tonight are good examples off the top of my head - though now I'm just disturbed after seeing Billy Squier crawl across the floor) but still, a lot of them managed to be pretty cool without scantily clad nubile girls gyrating during their lip-syncing. I mean, obviously there was some of that back then too, but those videos that did utilize young bimbos were usually starring older men rockers (i.e. Rod Stewart, ZZ Top, Robert Palmer and every single hair metal band) who, if they weren’t famous, would most likely never have had said bimbettes fawning all over them. Plus, if you were a video director back then, how else were you going to get the always highly coveted 18-to-34-year-old male demographic to watch three scraggily-bearded and generally dusty-looking old fogies? Naturally you’d let the guys make just a few key appearances and then hire the bimbettes to do the rest.

And let’s face it; the bimbettes had to have known why they were hired. They knew they had no other reason to be in the entertainment industry other than to be exploited for their bodies. If not for those videos, those scantily clad chicks would have just had to get jobs at Hooters that much sooner. But at least there was no question of what purpose those girls were meant to serve. They were fooling themselves the way that today’s young women singers do.

Today’s women singers dress far more provocatively and gyrate infinitely more suggestively than the gals in "Simply Irresistible" ever dreamed; yet seem to be under the impression that because their videos are on “their terms,” they are calling the shots. Somehow through the years, an incredibly skewed concept emerged that has completely deluded these women into thinking that as long as they aren’t being pushed into sexual exploitation, self-sexual exploitation is a powerful expression of feminism. And what’s really sad is that by continuing this tradition, these young women are doing nothing but perpetuating their objectification. I guarantee that the amount of young girls who actually feel empowered by watching Miley Cyrus is far outweighed by creepy old men in trench coats who feel something entirely different when watching Miley.

Although many came before, Madonna is almost always credited as the woman having started this trend. If that’s true, then in examining the 20 years of MTV since she came on the scene, one can see Madonna really did an incredible disservice to so many women, and her continued impact is truly staggering. There is nothing wrong with being sexy but being sexualized is really not the same thing, and by trying to suggest it is acceptable provided the person being sexualized is “in charge” of it doesn’t change a thing. It’s like those African American comedians who use that word in a joke and then become appalled when a white person, with no other intention other than finding the joke humorous and wanting to pass it on, restates the word. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy did the exact same thing. Gay people spent a generation attempting to eradicate that word and with one show it was brought back to the acceptable forefront. You simply can’t have it both ways. If a given word is generally deemed unacceptable to one, why would it be ok for another? If a behavior is regarded as unacceptable to many, why would one person’s ownership of that behavior be looked on any differently? At least Madonna’s gotten her somewhat just desert of late, looking and behaving nothing more than a decrepit joke. For someone who has spent a lifetime carving out a career of artifice, this has got to be a major tragedy.

But I don't care about Madonna and since I don't watch MTV anymore, I could care less about any of the people appearing on that channel. But I still remember the olden golden MTV days fondly and I still love the above Altered Images video. More importantly, I dedicate it to my lovely sister-in-law, Esmerelda, to whom I wish a very special Happy Birthday and Incredibly Splendiferous Year! Thanks for your constant support and making my brother an even better man than he already was!!!!

The Golden Globes Gave Awards to Pia Zadora, Sharon Stone and Madonna*. Not Sure I Respect Their Ideals.

I’m going to attempt a quick-ish post today, but considering I made the same attempt when I blogged about the Olympics the other day, I’m not feeling optimistic about the possibility. But I felt the need to post something because I have to go out of town for a few days, so I know I won’t be writing for a bit, and I didn’t do a Bob Balaban’s Unsung Heroes of Movies tribute this past week, and I feel like I should say something about the Golden Globes nominations.

Here goes: I have neither seen nor heard of 98% of the nominees.

Oh well, quick-ish attempt didn’t work. So sad I can’t be that succinct. And since I can’t be, I should take this opportunity to go ahead and showcase one of those Balaban Heroes. I should just throw out a name like Melinda Dillon, who was unbelievably sensational as the beleaguered mother in Close Encounters and utterly haunting as Paul Newman’s troubled and ill-fated friend in Absence of Malice (both movies coincidentally also co-starring Balaban himself).

But like all the best of the Bunch O' Bob Balaban Breed O' Brilliant Background Beguilers gang, she is one of those brilliant supporting actors who, although her name is not immediately recognizable, you totally know who she is. And to prove my point, if you turned on your TV in the past few weeks, you would have no doubt seen her as the weary yet somehow ever-resilient mother in the annual, seemingly constant rebroadcast of A Christmas Story. Yep, that’s her in the gray sweater, knocking over the “frah-gee-leh” leg lamp statue thing. And yeah, you’re right; she’s outstanding.

But no, I’m not going to talk about her. While I should be Balaban blogging, this posting is related to the Golden Globes I just mentioned, despite my lack of familiarity of today’s nominees. Well not so much all of the nominees, just specifically about the big deal everyone’s making about Heath Ledger’s posthumous nomination in not only the Globes but for all the upcoming noms he's going to be collecting in this forthcoming awards season.

Supposedly it’s a foregone conclusion that Heath is going to win everything. Fine, whatever. Maybe he was indeed fantastic in Batman; I don’t know, I didn’t see the film. It’s not that I have a Batman problem (although after the first Nolan-helmed one came out, I had a coincidental, bizarre and terrifyingly traumatic series of events involving real bats – but that’s a blog for another time). And it’s not that I think Heath was a bad actor. I actually think he had a lot of potential, but seriously, I think his sad and untimely death has given him an aura of having tragic untapped brilliance that is simply not warranted. I just don’t think he was as phenomenal as everyone makes him out to have been.

No doubt Ledger was a hard-worker and in the latter portion of his career he started making smarter and riskier choices. But really, even in his (maybe a total of 4) better choices, I honestly don’t feel his performances would have stood the test of time. Now, however, those performances will undoubtedly be elevated due to his premature death. When people go back and look at something like his completely overrated performance in Brokeback Mountain (an equally overrated and incredibly boring film that clearly got the accolades it did solely for being one of the first films to tackle the subject matter – again for another blog), they’re going to look at Heath with a more revered attitude and think solemnly of what might have been.

In a lot of ways, Heath reminds me of James Dean. Seriously, go back to Dean’s three films. He wasn’t nearly as good as his other method-era comrades Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift or my fave Sal Mineo – who incidentally, is the only real reason Rebel Without a Cause is still watchable.

Of Dean's other two films, Giant, despite its undue critical acclaim, is excruciatingly long and downright laughable in many parts. Dean’s only really good movie is East of Eden; but again, it is not his performance that is compelling but the staggering performances from Jo Van Fleet and Julie Harris that make this movie worthwhile. Yet Dean’s early shuffling (or in his case, driving super-fast) off this mortal coil has given him an iconic status that not only completely overshadows their fine jobs, but also undeservedly lifts him into the pantheon of all-time movie greats.

Unfortunately should he win an Oscar for his last completed performance, I suspect Heath Ledger will likewise be given directions to said pantheon. Yeah, this may sound mean of me, but ask yourself if you sincerely believe Heath was better than any of the above actors – especially like Balaban and Dillon, whose stellar careers are filled with an abundance of memorable portrayals deserving far more praise than that reserved for a joker.

*Just for your edification, they gave Zadora one for Butterfly, Stone for Casino and Madonna for Evita. Yep, they really did.