A sudden conclusion I have come to...

While discussing my recent rewatch of Mean Girls, I found myself accidentally stumbling on a major pop culture debate that I think is worth having, and may be a future theme in American comedy:

Who's recent projects are funnier, Tiny Fey or Judd Apatow?

Both of these talented indivduals slaved away behind the scenes of funny/doomed or under-appreciated projects. Both had major influence on American comedy before they had even reached their personal breakthrough successes.


Fey was the head writer on Saturday Night Live for years, and if 30 Rock is any indication, I think we can attribute almost all of the show's best moments from 2000 to 2004 to her. She didn't really get the attention she deserved until she worked on weekend update with Jimmy Fallon, but Fallon still seemed to get the credit for the chemistry between the two. Mean Girls was Fey's first noteable non-SNL success, and I am willing to call it the best teen comedy since Clueless, without much hesitation. And that is an enormous compliment from a Clueless fan such as myself. Her next major sucess was 30 Rock, which started shakey, but is now an Emmy winning success, and has cemented her position as a major voice in American comedy. The best part about Fey's success and public embrace is that her humor is unapologetically "female." Her self-guided projects feature female leads and diverse female characters, which is a rare site in the modern, male-centric world of comedy. Fey often seems to make an effort to provide opportunities and roles to gifted comediennes who suffer from the unfortnate lack of funny females in American comedies. Not only are Fey's characters mostly female, but many are also funnier and smarter then the men who surround them. Fey's character Lemon on 30 Rock is a wonderfully full person, with insecurities, humor, and subtle depth; she is perhaps the most well-rounded protagonist in modern comedic television, gender aside.


Judd Apatow is also a talented writer/director, but his projects seem to stand as the phalocentric counterpoint to Fey's. I have deep love for Apatow, stemming from the incredible Freaks and Geeks (still some of the best shit I've ever seen, anywhere) and the sweet and well-meaning 40-Year-Old Virgin, but I have begun to wonder about the effects of his particular brand of humor on the advancement of female comediennes and actresses. Like Fey, Apatow did not have his fame and influence handed to him. His early labors of love were critical successes, but were treated poorly by studios and networks. But while Apatow may have suffered more early industry humiliation than Fey, his penis helped him out a bit more in the end. Apatow's most successful attribute may be his bevy of famous and hilarious friends, who are both peers and disciples. Apatow was credited as writer, producer, or director on the following titles: Anchorman, Talladega Nights, Knocked Up, Superbad, Underclared (TV), Heavyweights (yeah, he wrote THAT Heavyweights), Kicking and Screaming, The Cable Guy, Fun With Dick and Jane, Celtic Pride, The TV Set, Walk Hard, Drillbit Taylor, Pineapple Express, Don't Mess With the Zohan, The Ben Stiller Show, The Larry Sanders Show, and The Critic (yeah, the cartoon TV show). So this guy has some influence, and some connections. His cast from both Freaks and Geeks are a virtual who's who of young Hollywood...dramatic and comedic, TV and movies.

So, Fey or Apatow?

Female-centric or phallocentric?

Phoeler or Ferrell?

I'm a fan of both of these individuals, and Freaks and Geeks is my favorite thing that either of them has produced, but while I was watching Mean Girls today, I couldn't help but notice that Fey's film (made in 2004) was somehow fresher, funnier, and more insightful than ever. It has aged beautifully, and I'm fairly certain that is is considerably funnier as a whole than Superbad.

There. I said it. I think Tina Fey's recent stuff kicks Judd Apatow's recent films' (other than 40YOV) asses.

Agree? Disagree?

Nathaniel

s'all in the game, bee

British television personality Charlie Brooker once declared that The Wire was not only "physically multilayered", but also, "just fucking brilliant".

Just fucking brilliant. He got it on the nose right there.

Saying goodbye to The Wire has been very, very hard for many, many reasons. However, for the sake of brevity, I will concentrate on two. The first, and most obvious, is that a show of The Wire's quality and craft is a rare thing on television. So rare, in fact, that The Wire will remain the only one ever to have been in existence until next Monday, at which point there will be none, with no salvation in sight.

I don't mean to put down the other shows television has to offer; I'm sure, however, that their feelings are a little hurt at this point. But it's no fault of theirs that The Wire is as good as it is. However, after five seasons of social criticism and increasingly complex urban drama, The Wire stands as a singularly epic work that offers no real comparison on television.

Another difficulty in The Wire's send-off is the emotional toll saying individual goodbyes to a richly developed cast of roughly forty major and minor characters can have on the viewer. Having spent years weaving through the lives of so many different individuals, the Wire's writers and cast created a world of ancient social institutions and flawed people being victimized by or operating within them. And damn it, things do not end well for most of them. (the show is, after all, described by its own creators as a Greek Tragedy)

This epic scope could have lead to a Brechtian utilitarianism in the massive cast, but, somehow, even the cameo roles on The Wire resonate with a lived-in history, as if these characters had been living for years in Baltimore before the cameras started rolling on. This narrative sincerity imbues every action, every piece of dialogue with years of back story, which is an effect often attempted but rarely achieved in television. So when we watch one character meet death by asking their murderer how their hair looks, it has the same emotional effect as a three monologue for an invested viewer. That small moment in the character's life holds the exact same weight as any other as far as The Wire is concerned, but that is an indicator of the show's natural understanding of its characters.

Instead of taking the moment for theatrical tactics, the show's writers chose to keep the scene intimate. This puts The Wire in the strange No Man's Land between the identities of social issue show and ensemble drama. So The Wire affects the viewer on these two levels, the societal and the personal.



Sigh. Anyways. I'm gonna head to bed. Good night all.

One week and counting until the end of The Wire.

Nathaniel Tyson

Prof. Wikipedia presents: "What it means to be a White American: A study of privilage, cluelessness, and absent-minded colonialism"

What, exactly, is White Culture in America?

The recent laughs provided by Things White People Like had me running over this question in my head. Don't get me wrong, I have my own definition (it mostly consists of a deep analysis of Murphy Brown and Everybody Loves Raymond), but I began to ponder what White America itself had to say on the subject.

So, I went to Wikipedia.

I decided that a direct search would work best, so I searched 'white culture', and was redirected. Considering the very subculture that Wikipedia is produced and used by (ie college students and young people with regular access to a computer with internet), the brevity of the wiki on White American Culture is quite amusing. I was naturally dissapointed, but it still provided a smile.

My favorite part? This:
"In the United States, the term "suburban culture" is considered a euphemism for White American culture and is sometimes used as a racially neutral alternative."

I can just imagine someone euphemistically referring to how the housing prices are spiking thanks to this insidious "suburban" influence. Oh wait. I guess they already do that.

Searching a little further, I discovered that the White American wiki is somewhat more developed. According to the entry, a White American is any American "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa". The wiki points out that this definition (the same one used by the US Census) puts half of the Hispanic population of the U.S. into this category. So, naturally, this definition leaves a tremendous amount to be desired.

The article continues by introducing two other definitions: one social, the other based strictly on societal influence.

Wiki's social definition, as supported by quotes from Karen Brodkin & David R. Roediger, posits that "whiteness" is a European concept stemming from a need to distance slave-owners from their non-white slaves, to unite Europe in the face of the "discovery" of "non-white" continents such as Asia and Africa (for example, former non-whites: the irish, the italians, the greeks, ashkenazi jews, germans, etc), and to legally divide those of European descent from those of African or Asian descent (ie, these laws did not divide based on race, they created race). This section is still too technical however, to truly explain what a White American is today. It does, however, point out the people who take great pains to make sure that everyone knows they are not a White American (ie. everyone we've [Britain, America, Europe, etc] ever oppressed or tried to colonize).

The last definition Wiki provides is based on inherited societal position, and it may hit closest to the definition I have in my head. By this definition, a White American is anyone who benefits from white privilege. In some ways, I suppose that is what race has become in America: a division based on your societal and cultural capital. This section also contains my hand-down favorite scholarly paraphrase about White America ever. I'll just post the whole definition and highlight my favorite part:

As whites are the dominant racial and cultural group; according to sociologist Steven Seidman writing about the most prominent perspective among researches, "White culture constitutes the general cultural mainstream, causing non-White culture to be seen as deviant, in either a positive or negative manner. Moreover, Whites tend to be disproportionately represented in powerful positions, controlling almost all political, economic and cultural institutions." Yet, according to Seidman, Whites are most commonly unaware of their "privilege" and the manner in which their culture has always been dominant in the US, as they do not identify as members of a specific racial group but rather incorrectly perceive their views and culture as "raceless," when in fact it is ethno-national (ethnic / cultural) specific with a racial base component.

This quote is pretty much the bluntest way to say "you're white if you inherit white privilage, you're especially white if you don't know what 'white privilage' is".

This article temporarily sated my thirst for truth. Afterall, it had provided me with three somewhat accurate definitions and even something about how clueless white people are to the existence of the White American identity. But even with these great elements, my favorite part of the article is the selection of the six definitive white Americans in the photo area:


Madeleine Albright - I guess to emphasize just how directly White Americans are linked to Europe; she was born in Prague afterall. Also, she is a powerful white woman in America, which rarer than a powerful white man...but infinitely more common than a powerful non-white woman in America (minus Oprah, of course...I'm sorry Mrs. Winfrey, it'll never happen again).


Marilyn Monroe - I completely agree with this, she deserves the title "Definitive White American", one of the top White Culture Icons for sure. Blonde, busty, fatally self-destructive, willing to take her clothes off, and publically vapid...she had it all.


Abraham Lincoln - The "see, we're not all completely clueless racists" selection. Lincoln: not definitive...or maybe he is. Perhaps Lincoln represents white people's acceptance of progress in the face of absolutely no other choice. He is also known as The Patron Saint of White Guilt, and The Best Neo-Liberal President the 19th Century-era Republican Party Ever Produced.


Jose Romualdo Pacheco Jr. - I had to look this guy up [ie click on his name], but he was a California-born American politician of Mexican descent [see, when he was born, California WAS Mexico...goes to show you how stupid national origin as racial definition is, don't it?] who was the first [and, so far, only] Hispanic governor of California. Wow. I understand that he's meant to show the true range of "whiteness" in America as described by the first (and technically third) definition, but what an obscure choice. Tokenism, anyone?


John F. Kennedy Jr. - Along with Marilyn, JFK's persona and mythology embody the values, ideals, and attitudes of Baby Boomer/Post Greatest Generation White America better than almost any one else I can think of. In the 1960's (a tranformative decade for White American culture) JFK was busy facing the future, changing the world, publically loving the blacks, tolerating and gently exploiting the hispanics, and dreaming of an America that greatly resembles the all-white European Court of King Arthur; all achieved with only a politically-connected father, the Chicago mafia, millions of dollars, and incredible good looks to fall back on. JFK: every liberal, white man over the age of 45's hero.


Raquel Welch - Born Jo Raquel Tejada , Raquel Welch was an iconic actress/pinup (slightly under the giants like Monroe and Rita Hayworth) who worked during (and defined) the 1960's in America. She brings two things to this list: Firstly, proof that White American actresses of Hispanic descent have always been accepted in Hollywood...as long as they pretended that they were in no way an American actress of Hispanic descent (a lesson Jessica Alba has updated into "talk constantly about how you're not really one of those scary Hispanics"). Secondly, Raquel earned her place on this list twice over: she appears in the iconic 1994 White Culture classic Shawshank Redemption on a poster used by Tim Robbins to cover his escape tunnel.

Well. There you go. If Wikipedia is the internet's dictionary, then these six are the internet's selection of White America defined.

What would my list look like? Kind of you to ask. Here are my Top 6 Definitive White Americans of All Time (in no order):

Albert Einstein

John D. Rockefeller

James Dean

Eleanor Roosevelt

Leona Helmsley

Judy Garland

I would provide explanations, but I am tired of thinking about this. God bless us all, white and non-white by all definitions.

Nathaniel Tyson

As a way of starting us off, two long-ass pieces

Pt. 1: This is why my girlfriend thinks I'm crazy, or: If she didn't before, she does now

I typed up my "live" reactions from last night's Oscars (which I watched in Fort Thank You in the hall lounge), and saved them to Listology. Sadly, I am not well-trained in the "live-blogging" department, so my reactions will probably only resonate with those who saw the telecast and can put my non-sequitors into context.

Anyways, here it is.

My feelings the day after? That was the most rewarding, but least dramatic, Oscar season I have ever followed. Great performances and great films seemed to be unbeatable the entire time, and the upsets that occurred last night (though I haven't seen La Vie en Rose) were pleasant surprises rather than disastrous mistakes; but without a powerful villain (i.e. a mediocre film), a hero (No Country) has nobody to battle.



Pt. 2: Love to all our non-white, non-American Heroes, or With great power comes great cultural insensitivity

And with that last metaphor there, I've realized that my recent Heroes binge is affecting me in strange and upsetting ways.

Before I begin to talk about my major problems with the show, I feel the need to explain my love for the show. I initially avoided it (despite my love of its older-brother-in-concept, X-Men) because I hate campy spectacles that give genres I love a bad name (sames true with Musicals). Early vewings were spotty at best, and I kept tuning in right as the show focused on Niki and Micah, the worst plotline of the first season. But after "Company Man" (still the best episode of the first season), I was kicking myself for jumping the bandwagon so late. While I still find certain racial elements problematic (I'll explain, in [too much] detail, below), and I acknowledge that some of the writing and acting can veer into the campy or wooden categories, I was evetually so wrapped-up in the storytelling that I could forgive the show and continue watching. But the second season brings both good and bad omens.



That? That's one of the bad omens.

Right now, I've got two episodes left in the second season, and I'm tempted to call it underrated. While I agree with the criticisms of the early episodes (far too slow, repetitive, and familiar to be that engaging to new or old viewers), the second half of the season seemed to actually recover quite nicely. I'm digging the general themes of gray-area morality, corruption of power, and the dreadfully (in a good way) slow realization that some of our current heroes are most likely tomorrow's villains.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the character development of the second half of Season 2 (especially that of returning characters) was far superior to the first season's vague archetype building. I was afraid that with seemingly all of his secrets revealed, Noah Bennet (HRG) would fall to the wayside, or become (gasp!) predictable; but the twists and turns of the Mohinder/Bob/Noah moral triangle actually surprised me. The temptations of Matt Parkman, Maya (a character who has only grown on me slightly), West (who I pray they turn into a villain), and , of course, Takezo actually make for compelling TV. And the aftermath of the corruption these characters narrowly avoid (minus Takezo) are pretty well-embodied by Elle, Maury, Bob, Angela, and, of course, Adam.



Pete's flirt with darkness seems like a narrative dead-on in many regards, however. We know that he is the central figure of good, so the seduction of the minor characters has more pull, more chance of surprising us.

On the other hand, other storylines this season proved far more problematic than even the first season's Niki/DL/Micah plot. While Niki is given something somewhat interesting to do (almost die...I assume almost), Micah is still justsitting there...with that hair. (Is that a jerry-curl? Is what I just said offensive? Who knows?) His cousin's muscle mimicry is a great power in that it provides us with a special effect and person/power dynamic (not really a curse as much as just plain awesome and easy to master) we haven't encountered yet. But (and this leads me to my real point) Monica is just another in a long string of "ethnic" characters on Heroes whose powers or personalities are troublesome at best. Let me sum up:

• D.L. Hawkins (black) - former street criminal seeking to be there for his wife and son who he "abandoned". Has the power to make his body intangible, which has (up until Season 2, episode 9) only been stated or shown to help him break into buildings, escape jail, dodge bullets, and crack safes. He does, however, put his fist through a dude's head. That earns him points.

• Monica Dawson (black) - Katrina refugee who would have been the first person in her family to attend college. Her power as a muscle mimic also lies solely in her body (not cerebral or elemental), to the extent that she becomes unaware of moments in which she exhibits it. When she isn't kicking thug ass, she is busy not snitching and talking about how Katrina changed (or defines) her life.

• Mohinder Suresh (Indian) - A brilliant doctor, just like his father (they both also drive taxicabs at some point, but this is not so much unintentional as the characters comment on this...but still), Mohinder is tall, skinny and very, very Anglo in both his accent and his facial features. In the first season, Mohinder's scenes in India read more like he is a tourist who bears little resemblance to the more "Indian" world around him than a natural citizen. He has no power, but his intelligence and daddy issues prove almost as strategically powerful as any character's "gift".

• Ricki & Caitlin (Irish) - The bar-owning, family-loving, heavy-drinking ringleader and traditional sister-of-the-ringleader-who-falls-in-love-with-our-protagonist of an Irish gang of thieves. I believe there is an IRA joke or two. Ricki has Peter sworn into their criminal family using a vague Gaelic-looking tattoo after knowing him for approximately two days.

• Maya and Alejandro (Latino/a) - These orphaned twins are introduced heading towards America ("illegally") in an attempt to save the deeply-Catholic Maya's life. They end up picking up and trusting the villainous Sylar based on Maya's religious faith (his name is Gabriel as he tells them) even though Alejandro points out that Sylar is obviously going to betray them. They also manage to run into not one, but TWO old latina women screaming "diablo" at the top of their lungs; not to mention Maya's catfight with her slutty sis-in-law who cheats on Alejandro less than an hour after marrying him. Maya also slaughters a group of pseudo-Minutemen at the border.

• The Haitian (Haitian) - A silent (but not mute) partner to Noah Bennet who is only referred to by his country of origin. The show even has characters who briefly spot him describe him as "the haitian" w/o them having anyway of knowing his country of origin. I suppose "a Haitian guy" sounds better than "a scary black man". Not only is his personality unrevealed, but even his power is mysterious, unexplained, and his presence is always presented with an air of mysticism. However, the writers' most thoughtlessly offensive moment lies in Season 2 as the Haitian becomes one of the first characters to contract a deadly virus, whose spread, affects, cure, and prevention are all mysteries. The virus goes on to reflect AIDS/HIV even more directly by crossing over from the meta-human into the general population, against everyone's expectations.

I'll stop there, but I'm sure you see my point. If the producers and writers don't bother to address this major issue with their show, I'm not sure how long I can enjoy the parts of their show that are less problematic.



While we're looking forward, I should probably address a fear for next season that already has me wincing. Initially, I was thrilled to hear that Jamie Hector would be joining Heroes in the third season this fall. In you don't know him, Jamie Hector is a young talent from a TV show that deals with a diverse (in race, class, ethnicity, etc) cast with a sensitivity, frankness, and thoughtfulness that Heroes can never achieve: The Wire.

Hector is exceptionally good as the mysterious, brutal drug kingpin Marlo Stanfield. His characterization digs deep beneath Marlo's skin; Hector creates a full-bodied, complicated man without falling into the suffering saint/sociopath dynamic that TV usually allows for a black character is a drama; especially those playing characters orbiting the drug game. While Marlo is introduced as a frighteningly emotionless cypher, recent episodes have dealt with Marlo's rise to greater power, even touching on his shifting class, and Marlo's reaction to this. Black characters are rarely given the kind of backstory and material that Marlo has, and we're lucky The Wire is around to introduce us to actors like Hector.

So, of course I was ecstatic when it was announced that Hector would play a major new villain in the third season of Heroes. I'm always thrilled to see actors from The Wire getting parts. But then I looked closer at exactly how Hector's character was being described.

Here is an excerpt from the casting call for Hector's character, according to the HeroesWiki for Benjamin "Knox" Washington, the bolding is my doing:

"[KNOX] 25. MALE. AFRICAN-AMERICAN. Frightening and intense - with the eyes of a predator --Knox has returned to New Orleans with plans to reclaim the criminal territory he used to run before he was sent to prison...."

Sweet jesus people! While Hector has beautifully communicative eyes, I'm not sure the role will provide him with much more to do than play every middle-American's idea of a dangerous "gangsta".

There's also rumor that his character's power is to take on metallic properties to increase his strength and make himself invulnerable. In the Heroes universe, it appears that it was not just our government/history that painted America's black community into a corner, it was also God and his choice of genetic "gifts" designed to make crime easier.

Let's hope this September brings new things to Heroes...ie non-white writers.

Nathaniel Tyson