I Will Now Tell You Why I Am Mad
Feb. 2nd, 2010 08:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesThis right here is pretty much a prime example of what people have been talking about when it comes to why the media sucks re: race and size issues. If that's Young Hollywood, I'm gonna have to quit watching movies made in the states 'til a new generation is born. Because damn. That's a pretty pathetic white-washed list. There are a lot of up and coming actresses of color they could have picked. America Ferrara, Zoe Saldana, Gabourey Sidibe, Rosario Dawson, Naomie Harris, Jessica Alba. And there's more I just can't think of at the moment.
Not that I read or think of Vanity Fair as a publication that anyone should read. They reviewed Lolita and said that it was "The only convincing love story of our century." Sexual abuse is a love story? Nice to know.
But this is a magazine that a lot of people read, a lot of people put stock in what appears in its pages. So when only white, thin, able bodied actresses appear in its pages - it's clear. Color, fatness, and disability are unattractive, so they can't mar the perfect glossy pages of such a couture publication. That's the message, and it's getting through to so many women of color. When they see such a prominent magazine saying that people like them are not part of the next generation of Hollywood - you think that doesn't have an effect?
So yeah, Vanity Fair can bite me. Hard. Because half of these actresses aren't even good. Did anybody even hear of Kristen Stewart before she did Twilight? Who the hell is Rebecca Hall anyway? And why is Evangeline Lilly on this cover? Prior to doing Lost her big roles were "Student Next to Locker" in Freddie vs. Jason and a police officer in the Lizzie McGuire Movie. Seriously. She gets on the cover because she did Lost and that makes her "Young Hollywood"? What the hell, VF?
Why doesn't her Lost castmate, Dania Ramirez, get a place on the cover? Since her resume is much better (FYI, she did a 3 episode stint on Buffy the Vampire Slayer as Caridad [blink and you'll miss her, though] and a lot more work besides and even got cast in X-Men 3 and Heroes). Why not Michaela Conlin of Bones? Grace Park of BSG and The Cleaner? Mindy Kaling, who works on probably the most popular comedy series on TV and does fabulous work? Or Julia Ling who's done more TV work (House, ER, Grey's Anatomy, and her role on Chuck).
How is Evangeline Lilly a better representation of Young Hollywood than them?
Answer: she's not, but she's very traditionally attractive and white and thin.
There is just no objective standard for deciding who to call "Young Hollywood" that would get you this group of people - all white, all thin, all able - on a cover. Not amount of money made, not time in the business, not awards, NOTHING. The only standard therefore, must be, that this magazine privileges and prizes whiteness and thinness above all else. Because that's the only way you can justify putting these women on a cover and calling them "Young Hollywood."
Not that I read or think of Vanity Fair as a publication that anyone should read. They reviewed Lolita and said that it was "The only convincing love story of our century." Sexual abuse is a love story? Nice to know.
But this is a magazine that a lot of people read, a lot of people put stock in what appears in its pages. So when only white, thin, able bodied actresses appear in its pages - it's clear. Color, fatness, and disability are unattractive, so they can't mar the perfect glossy pages of such a couture publication. That's the message, and it's getting through to so many women of color. When they see such a prominent magazine saying that people like them are not part of the next generation of Hollywood - you think that doesn't have an effect?
So yeah, Vanity Fair can bite me. Hard. Because half of these actresses aren't even good. Did anybody even hear of Kristen Stewart before she did Twilight? Who the hell is Rebecca Hall anyway? And why is Evangeline Lilly on this cover? Prior to doing Lost her big roles were "Student Next to Locker" in Freddie vs. Jason and a police officer in the Lizzie McGuire Movie. Seriously. She gets on the cover because she did Lost and that makes her "Young Hollywood"? What the hell, VF?
Why doesn't her Lost castmate, Dania Ramirez, get a place on the cover? Since her resume is much better (FYI, she did a 3 episode stint on Buffy the Vampire Slayer as Caridad [blink and you'll miss her, though] and a lot more work besides and even got cast in X-Men 3 and Heroes). Why not Michaela Conlin of Bones? Grace Park of BSG and The Cleaner? Mindy Kaling, who works on probably the most popular comedy series on TV and does fabulous work? Or Julia Ling who's done more TV work (House, ER, Grey's Anatomy, and her role on Chuck).
How is Evangeline Lilly a better representation of Young Hollywood than them?
Answer: she's not, but she's very traditionally attractive and white and thin.
There is just no objective standard for deciding who to call "Young Hollywood" that would get you this group of people - all white, all thin, all able - on a cover. Not amount of money made, not time in the business, not awards, NOTHING. The only standard therefore, must be, that this magazine privileges and prizes whiteness and thinness above all else. Because that's the only way you can justify putting these women on a cover and calling them "Young Hollywood."
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 07:21 am (UTC)What, seriously? Was it even marketed as a romance?
While I definitely agree with you on the fact that it sounds like an appallingly whitewashed presentation, Kristen Stewart has been in at least fifteen movies before Twilight and has done some pretty celebrated performances. So in answer to your question yeah, people have heard of her before Twilight.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 07:12 pm (UTC)No, not at all. Nabokov's novel barely found publication, it was universally regarded as being filthy and pornographic at first and it wasn't until a second print run by a different publisher here in the U.S. (it was banned in Britain for a while) that it gained any acclaim.
But it's never been thought of a romance, always as avant-garde or literary or something like that.
When it finally got it's big acclaim a lot of top reviewers said nice things, and referred to Lolita as a nymphet and charming (yeah, because getting molested by your mom's creepy boarder is charming...) or to the story as beautiful. It's not. I read it as psychological horror and it's the only way I can get deal with this book, especially in college when I had to read it TWICE.
I'll take your word for it, re: Stewart's career. I hadn't heard of her before Twilight, but then again, I watch far more TV than movies and the only ones I get to see around here or in other places I've lived in the last few years are the big releases so if she was in anything indie or limited release, chances are I missed it completely.