Historiann

Many people find there way here by googling “academic workplace” or “academic bullying,” but every day dozens of people come to Historiann.com after googling “Barbie,” “Barbies,” or the word “Barbie” modified by several different adjectives.  (”Eccentric barbie outfits,” or “Barbie wedding dress” are two popular iterations.)  Weirdly, on Tuesday someone googled “sean (sic) cassidy doll,” and it led them here!  Was there ever such a thing?  I mean, my brother and I had the Six Million Dollar Man doll, the Bionic Woman doll, the 1970s-era G.I. Joe with the fuzzy hair and beard, and the Cher doll, but I’ve never heard of a Shaun Cassidy doll.  (If I had heard of it back in 1977, I’m sure I would have wanted it!)

Anyway, Barbie fans and other doll-watchers, the picture to the right is all for you!  She was photographed in Arequipa, Peru, the second largest city after Lima.  H/t to Historiann commenter Homostorian Americanist, who writes:  “It was in a souvenir shop on the Plaza de Armas, . . . . and was being used to display what they called ‘traditional Incan clothing.’  The photos were actually taken by my friend, Emily F.  And we went back a second day (no camera when we first saw it) to snap it.  The owner looked at us a little oddly.”  Thanks, Homostorian Americanist and Emily, for spending the shoe leather just for this photo, and for sharing it with Historiann!

If you want to lighten things up in your mind, please just enjoy the new Barbie photo.  If you want to continue the heavier conversations below, by all means, let the consciousness raising continue!  (No one has yet written in with answers to my “million dollar question”–how can faculty of goodwill turn a bad department good again?  If you’ve got any ideas or success stories, please don’t keep them all to yourself!)

7 Comments »

For a topical follow-up to last night’s review of Anthony Lane’s review of Sex and the City:  The Movie, via Feminist Law Profs, see this story about a remake of The Women starring mostly over-40 actresses.  Apparently, the all-male studio execs at Warner Brothers don’t want to release it.  Surprise!  It’s so much easier for them when the movies star only men, and women play subordinate roles that serve the male characters. 

Maybe Warner Brothers should just make their own digital fembots with big boobies that won’t even need a screen credit, let alone millions of dollars and a cut of the box office!  Real women, with their wrinkly faces, saggy imperfect bodies, and demands to be paid for their work are just too much of a hassle.  (I bet every workplace in America would love to replace their women workers with fembots!) 

4 Comments »

When last we heard from choad-about-town Anthony Lane, he was writing badly about Tina Fey’s supposed chunkitude.  Now, he hacks up his latest furball on the subject of Sex and the City:  The Movie in the current New Yorker.  Let’s not even mention the hideous caricature of the movie’s main characters (see right.  That’s right, ladies!  If you’re over 40, sign up for Night of the Living Dead!  Anthony Lane can’t believe you were permitted to play anything but the crazy cat-lady who lives downstairs from some fat guy in a Judd Apatow movie!)  This review is fairly dripping with condescension and misogynist bile.  (Hint:  count how many times the word “superannuated” comes up in this review.  He thinks the characters in this movie are disgusting and ridiculous because they’re too old!)

Now, I’m not complaining that Lane didn’t like the movie.  I certainly took issue with the movie’s main plot and resolution, and he’s right about the materialism on display  (but that’s hardly a novel observation.)  I’m complaining about the following displays of contempt for women, like for example:

1. The review is headlined simply “Carrie,” as in Stephen King’s Carrie.  Oh, ha-ha.  You think you’re the first ones to think of that one?  Terribly clever.
2. Language like this:  “there are four of them—banded together, like hormonal hobbits, and all obsessed with a ring.”
3. Or like this:  “I was never sure how funny the TV series was meant to be. It kept lapsing into a straight face, even a weepy one, as the characters’ contentment came under serious threat.”  Yeah, and you feminists need to decide what it is you want.  And, try to get a sense of humor, too!  Imagine that–a TV show (and perhaps one movie, too) that shows women experiencing more than one emotion!  I guess that’s pretty confusing, when women in the movies these days usually have just one of two emotions:  “wife” or “girlfriend.”
4. Or like this:  “The women in “Sex and the City,” by that standard, are little better than also-rans,” compared to Audrey Hepburn, who was always teeny-tiny, non-threatening, and didn’t do many movies beyond age 40.
5. Reductive and incorrect assertions like this:  “In short, to anyone facing the quandaries of being a working mother, the movie sends a vicious memo: Don’t be a mother. And don’t work. Is this really where we have ended up—with this superannuated fantasy posing as a slice of modern life?”  Um, well, no.  First of all, the preschoolers in this movie are about as absurdly well-behaved as any fantasy children ever are in the movies.  And secondly–don’t work?  No one quits her job in this movie–I don’t get where that one is coming from.  Finally:  whose fantasy was it in all those movies last year (Juno and Knocked Up) in which a pregnant girl or woman gave birth to children fathered by totally inappropriate losers?  D’you really think that’s every girl’s dream, Anthony?
6. Insulting and demeaning “quips” like this:  “All the film lacks is a subtitle: ‘The Lying, the Bitch, and the Wardrobe.’”

This from a man who regularly reviews movies that feature–shall we say?–highly idealized masculine fantasies (because that’s all Hollywood has to offer us these days.)  When do we hear about how unrealistic, shallow, or violent characters like James Bond, Indiana Jones, or the Ocean’s Whatever gang are?  Of course they are–but it’s too much to ask any man to watch a movie that might speak to some women’s fantasies and conflicting desires. 

Gee, I wonder:  if Hollywood let women actors work in more than just the “wife” or “girlfriend” mode, and allowed them to play major roles in movies about women’s lives, do you think that we might get a more textured and realistic diversity of women’s lives on the screen?  Just a thought, Anthony.  Haven’t you noticed that no one makes movies any more like the ones you reminisce about in your review–Anna Karenina, All About Eve, and Funny Face–and that it’s hardly all Sarah Jessica Parker’s fault that they don’t.  Those kinds of movies don’t appeal to the 14-24 year old male demographic, maybe because there aren’t enough breast implants and explosions.  Wev.  Back to your regularly scheduled summer movie extravaganza.  (I hear that Speed Racer Kung Fu Panda is so gripping and filled with pathos that it makes Truffaut’s Les Quatres Cent Coups look like Porky’s II!)     

Edited 6/5/08 to include a link to Lane’s review–apologies for the omission!

7 Comments »

Well, kids, I finally got away from my endless duties at Historiann.com HQ to see Sex and the City:  The Movie.  And, what can I say?  It was a two-hour-plus excursion to Candy Land for me.  It was also a damn fine character-driven comedy/drama–and how many of those are there out there that don’t star extremely unphotogenic men?  The four main broads in this movie looked like movie stars–and how many movies are there out there that feature adult roles for women in their 40s?  Be warned, if you haven’t seen it yet:  it’s a full three-hanky weeper, much to my surprise.  I’m not sure what the movie would offer someone who’s not already a fan of the show, with an extensive knowledge of each character’s back story, but that viewer is not Historiann.  Anyway, on with the review–spoiler alert!  Don’t click “continue reading” if you don’t want to know!

Continue Reading »

17 Comments »

*Sex and the City:  The Movie

I’ve seen it, and as soon as I instruct the maid in dinner preparations, I’ll be able to let you all know what I think.  I’ll tell all–the fashion, the relationships, the three-hanky weeper scenes!  (But, if you don’t want to know all, I’ll hide the spoilers behind the jump…)

1 Comment »

(*Sex and the City:  The Movie)

Carrie Bradshaw?

Or Terry Bradshaw?

I know it’s so confusing!  They’re both such good-natured, self-effacing Bradshaws, and they were both on buddy-shows on the TV.  For both of them, hair is not their best feature.  (Sorry, Carrie and Terry!)

However, there is the not inconsequential matter of a 200- pound weight differential.  One was a famous fictional New Yorker, the other a famous actual Pittsburgher.

Listen to this analysis of the “narcissist” Bradshaw from NPR’s Morning Edition.  (That seems like a dubious hook for the story–wev.  Good thing they have an authoritative male analyst handy to lecture us on how Carrie Bradshaw is merely doing what men have done for centuries!)

6 Comments »

Very frequently, I have to wonder: is that so fashion-forward it’s ahead of its time, or is that just butt-ugly?

The Denver Post yesterday featured an article about the fashion in Sex and the City:  the Movie.  I have to say, based on the hints in this article, I am not impressed.  For example:  the outfits on the right.  (Click on the article above, and then click on the photo there for a larger image.)  Charlotte’s dress in wearable, but bland (although at least appropriate to the character.)  Miranda’s metallic dress (for daywear?) washes her out and makes her look like a Sci-Fi glamazon, and Samantha’s red suit (with the peplum jacket). . .do not want.  It’s aging and unflattering, and not even Samantha’s outsized personality can pull it off.  Finally, Annie Hall Carrie:  every five or six years, the fashion gods announce that the menswear look is back.  And it’s always a bad idea, every time.  (Isn’t Carrie old enough to have figured that out by now?)

I would rather wear Carrie’s famous “naked dress” every day for a month than wear that white menswear getup.  (Are those pleated pants, which are even unflattering on Size 0 SJP???  Lady, please.)

(Sorry for the two posts in a row on fashion–please continue the discussion about partner/spousal hires below…)

12 Comments »

from this post (remember?), go vote for your favorite t-shirt design here.

I voted for the one on the right:  a little humor, along with an “everywoman” and “everyman” theme.  I liked the other designs–let’s just say, there wasn’t a “Celine Dion” in the mix.  I kind of liked the Andy Warhol inspired one, but the slogan at the bottom wasn’t clever and/or wasn’t a campaign slogan or theme.  This one seemed like the design and message were all one.

4 Comments »

Boy, most of you really hated “Barbie Death Camp!”  Here’s a soothing balm of Barbies and Kens in their vintage fashion knitwear.  (Connoisseurs will note that these aren’t the “real” Ken and Barbie dolls, but rather inferior knockoffs.  The male dolls here look strangely more childish than Mattel’s Ken ever looked.)

Check out that Beatles-era red skinny suit with black piping on “Ken” at the far left!  Snappy.  Also, someone should give top-row “Ken” the memo that says that heavy sweaters generally aren’t worn with swim trunks.  I kind of like that pale ice blue dress and coat combo next to swim trunk “Ken,” though–anyone know where I could find something like that?  I’ve got a big conference next month, and I’d like to look my best. 

6 Comments »

I’m not sure what I think about this installation at Burning Man 2007, “Barbie Death Camp,” but since this blog is one of the few places on the non-peer reviewed internets where you can find deep, intellectual discussions of Barbies and dismembered doll parts, I suppose I have to cowgirl up.  (Be sure to click on the link above to see the whole slide show–this still photo is just one of many.  Thanks to Historiann’s newly tenured friend G.S. for the tip.) 

This blog says that “Barbie Death Camp” is clearly anti-consumerist, anti-corporate satire, but I’m not so sure it can be viewed only or primarily through this lens.  Looking at the slide show is disturbing–is it a feminist commentary on the  commodification and dismemberment of women’s bodies?  Is it a commentary on the ambivalent relationship girls have with their Barbies, since they frequently train their aggression on the dolls, cutting their hair and frequently removing their arms, legs, and heads?  Or is it just another example of female bodies being dismembered for our pleasure and entertainment?  (You can’t see it in this photograph, but the yellow school bus near the lower right corner has “DIE BITCH” scrawled on the side, so it’s not accidental that it’s a Barbie and not a Ken or G.I. Joe Death Camp.  I’m not sure how I feel about the appropriation (complete with toy ovens) of a specific historical event, the Holocaust.  Does it trivialize the attempted genocide of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Poles, and disabled people in the twentieth century?  Is there an implicit commentary of the uniform perfection of Barbie bodies being destroyed in the same manner as the “racially inferior” or otherwise imperfect victims of the Holocaust?  Is it an accident that the Barbies in BDC look like they’re all white and are overwhelmingly blond, too?  What if it had been called “Middle Passage Barbie,” “Barbie Trail of Tears,” or “Killing Fields Barbie?” 

Reflecting on Historiann’s recent foray into contemporary feminist art, this project seems like it could have been included in the recent The Way that we Rhyme:  Women, Art, & Politics exhibition at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts.  It shares many of the same features:  the use of found objects in particular, but also the ”outsider art” fetish that many “insider artists” have affected lately, an aesthetic of amateurism and bad taste.  (Actually, in many ways, “Barbie Death Camp” is more compelling and provoking than many of the installations at the YBCA, which seemed to labor rather humorlessly under a different kind of historical weight.)

For those of you interested in pursuing some of these issues in a more serious forum, at the 2008 Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, we’ve got a panel on “Gender, Torture, and Memory,” which features papers on American POW’s in Korea, Femicide in Guatemala in the Cold War to the twenty-first century, and women in Stalin’s Gulags.  (Unfortunately, our roundtable on “Women and the Holocaust:  Reshaping the Field in the 21st Century through Oral History and Personal Narratives,” was cancelled.)  We also have a roundtable on “What (if anything) Can Women’s History and the History of Sexuality Teach Us about Genocide and Extreme Violence,” and a Sunday morning seminar on “Historicizing Sexual Violence,” led by Estelle Freedman of Stanford University, which features many papers about rape and sexual violence in wartime and in occupied or colonized countries:  colonial and postcolonial India, Nazi-occupied territories, 17th century Ireland, 1950s and 1960s Argentina, and 19th and 20th century Kenya, South Africa, and Costa Rica.  (You can find the full program here.) 

What do you think?  Is “Barbie Death Camp” funny?  Horrifying?  Feminist, or anti-feminist?  Too clever by half?  Or just really good bad art?

29 Comments »