The Lilac Pilgrim – Yet Another Blog

Unless you’ve been living under a rock or Norway is considered a tiny, insignificant speck where you’re from, you’ll likely have heard of the terrible crimes committed by Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo and Utoya, Norway. For those who haven’t you could click on the link provided. If not, a very extremist right-wing Norwegian man set off a bomb in Oslo and then proceeded to massacre teenagers at an island camp, believing himself to be waging war on some enemy force.

It’s a terrible time for Norway, and of course we must keep them in our thoughts and help out wherever we can. I think this means we also have a duty to understand the news as it comes in and actually read articles. I think it also means that we should respect that country’s justice system and hope that they do what is right.

I don’t think it means what British media seems to think it means.

That’s not to say that I don’t think it’s being covered well by many media outlets. There is a wealth of useful information out there and efforts can easily be made by the individual to educate themselves and understand the issues at hand. Some newspapers and websites? They don’t make it easy for their usual readers, but then, when we’re talking about the Daily Mail and Sky News, are we really surprised?

Take this Sky News article as an example. It details the statements of Geil Lippestad, Breivik’s unfortunate lawyer. Mr Lippestad takes the stance that his client is insane, considering Breivik’s bizarre delusions that he is part of a war on values and tradition, but notes that he is unsure of whether his client will plead insanity. Predictably, the article is rather critical of the insanity defence, and rambles about how most people are not actually insane even if they do plead insanity. Even more predictably, commenters on the article rage about the audacity of the poor lawyer. How dare he do his job?

Yet it’s hard to tell which is worse. The article or the commenters? The commenters are certainly taking the ideas presented within the article much, much further, even suggesting that Breivik be shot or hanged or what-have-you, and claiming him to be undeniably evil and not human. The thing is, however, that the article is really encouraging this thought process by being so strongly anti-Lippestad, apparently misunderstanding the lawyer’s statement. He is the one who has to come up with the defence. He does not agree with his client that he was perfectly justified, so insanity is a perfectly valid choice from Lippestad’s point of view. The article does not bother to note that Breivik has already said that he knew what he was doing, and that his lawyer has admitted to knowing this. They do not care to point out that Breivik is very unlikely to agree to plead insanity.

This sort of journalism breeds misunderstanding and vitriol, and judging by the lack of revision, they seem to be just fine with that. After all, it’s bitter hatred and rage that sells, almost more than sex and scandal. The comments underneath the Sky article demonstrate how well they breed mistrust and anger, and they simply seem to get worse and worse with no sign of stopping.

 

Note – I am going to publish this unfinished article and add to it later. I think it stands well on it’s own, but I plan to look at other sources as well.

Advertisements

I don’t usually like to blog about things which are current – usually because when I’m done typing, it’s all over – but there’s no way I can go through all the comments on this blog post by ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic and speak my mind and correct every little mistake. Just can’t be done.

Basically, the backstory goes thusly: Al wanted to write a parody of Born This Way, despite being adamant that he wouldn’t parody Lady Gaga. Because that sort of parody is freaking obvious. He wrote up a summary of what the song would be about and sent it to her management, who told him that he’d have to write and record the song first, so that Gaga could hear it. Figuring that she’d be pretty familiar with her own damn melody, he wrote the lyrics and sent them off. He was told he’d have to record the song first, which makes no sense, and really doesn’t sound like something Gaga would say, since she must know what it’s like to record a song. Even so, he obliged them and sent them the recording. The management said ‘no’. Al was understandably upset and posted the song to YouTube anyway, bemoaning the fact that he could no longer put it on his album or donate the proceeds to the HRC. Lady Gaga discovered the song (because news travels fast and Al’s Little Monsters – oops, I mean Close, Personal Friends – became rabid) and was reportedly confused. Because she had no idea any of this was happening. She gave Al permission to go ahead with the parody, and everything was happy.

Except this is the internet.

Despite the story having a nice ending and everything being one of those awful misunderstandings that tend to happen to Al (unfortunately), the Close, Personal Friends (or Friends of Al, whichever you prefer) have been calling bullshit on the revelation that Lady Gaga does have a sense of humour.

A quick look through the comments on Al’s follow-up post are enough to make your eyes want to roll away with themselves. If you are inclined to believe Gaga, anyway. There are lots of posts still slamming her for a decision that wasn’t even hers. Let me address each issue separately, so I don’t get carried away by my own frustration.

1 – “I don’t believe she didn’t hear the song!”
Er… why the hell not? It’s not like this is a difficult concept to understand. Imagine being Lady Gaga for a moment. (She’s capable of dressing comfortably; stop cringing in your seat, no meat clothing need be involved) You are touring. You are filming podcasts. You have to rehearse day in, day out. You do not have time in between being told how to safely do what you want on stage and having a sleep after all is done to listen to every proposal there is. Requests are probably pouring in for her to do this duet and that charity event. Fact is, she just does not have the time, and she probably doesn’t have the energy.

If she had heard it, she would have said yes. She has a great sense of humour. A commenter on the blog post gave examples of parodies Gaga herself linked to on Facebook. I do remember her posting the Telephone parody! So it doesn’t make sense that she would refuse Al, of all people!

2 – “Her manager would have known to say yes, since it’s Al!”
No. No he wouldn’t. When music managers think of profitable and worthwhile collaborations, the first person who comes to mind isn’t going to be Al. Even with the obvious success of certain songs once Al’s been through with them, managers know one thing about him only. He creates comedy music. Comedy is not important to those who would rather churn out clones of Gaga or Madonna or the new Britney Spears. That kind of stuff. Comedy music just does not rate with management, even in the face of their continued success.

Furthermore, Al has faced similar problems in the past. Any Al fan worth their CPFoA badge knows about the issue with Atlantic Records and ‘You’re Pitiful’, when James Blunt had okayed the parody, but the record label stopped the whole thing as it was “too early in [Blunt’s] career”. Then later, the label decided there would never be a right time for parody and so Al released You’re Pitiful for free. The only difference with this story is that the manager pretended that Gaga had heard it and was the one saying no. And somehow SHE’s the bad guy!

3 – “She’s lying; the manager’s taking the fall for her stupidity”
Again, no. Gaga doesn’t seem like the sort of person to have no sense of humour, and I’m sure she’s clever enough to realise that a parody by Weird Al would be such a boost for Born This Way. That, and as an artist, I’m sure she’d have heard the lyrics and smiled. Perform This Way is like a jocular fan letter, rather than an outright mockery.

4 – “She’s backtracking because the Al fans are OMGAMAZING and she realises we are a force to be reckoned with!”
AHAHAHA — oh wait, you were serious? Let me laugh harder; AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ahem. Couldn’t help that reference, apologies.

No. Lady Gaga’s Little Monsters are many and growing.  Why should it matter to her what the CPFoA say? They are not her fans. They are Al’s fans; of course they are going to take his side. She doesn’t listen when Madonna fans cry “EVIL BITCH PLAGIARIST!”, so why should she crumble when Weird Al’s fans start yelling “EVIL BITCH CRYBABY!”?

To be honest, I suspect most of the anti-Gaga Friends of Al are simply people who didn’t like Gaga in the first place.

Seriously, if you don’t like Lady Gaga, that’s fine. We can’t all like the same stuff. Just stop trying to find little things to pick at – and CPFoA, stop being so caustic. Heel, good creepers. No more rabid nonsense.

As a small child, I adored Sesame Street. The US version was shown, if I recall correctly, on Channel 4 here in the UK, and I was enamoured by the colourful characters and catchy songs. In the primary school I first attended (gone now, thank goodness), the teachers hadn’t any idea where I’d learned the Alphabet Song, but wanted me to sing it to older children who still were unable to grasp the concept of the alphabet. This was, of course, not a good thing to me, a painfully shy child, but I so loved Sesame Street that it never put me off happily chirping the songs I’d learned over and over and over and over and over…

As I grew, Sesame Street became irrelevant to my interests and I moved on, still holding fond memories of the wonderful characters and the music and the hilarious scenarios. I hoped other children got as much out of Sesame Street as I did. It was more than a silly colourful kids’ show. Unlike Barney the Dinosaur, the characters taught us about true compromise (there’s an excellent essay on the differences between Barney and Sesame Street here), about acceptance, about how we are the same, but how we are also different. Unlike Teletubbies, there were segments in Sesame Street that reached out to infants to teach them how to speak properly and learn their letters and numbers. Unlike most of the slop we show to kids every day here in the UK, it was designed for children of nearly all ages to enjoy and learn from. For children who were impoverished and otherwise unable to learn to have another chance at an education. It was silly at times, but it was also educational, and my love of the show as a child stays strongly with me into adulthood.

I didn’t have an enchanted, middle-class childhood like many of my friends did. I lived in a not brilliant area where kids were bullied for being smart. My mother didn’t exactly want to just have the TV babysit me, but she let me watch Sesame Street and she could see how well it affected me. I reckon it’s one of the things that helped me start reading so early.

How wonderful would it be if there were other children who, like me, may not ever have stood a chance of learning properly in their area had a show like Sesame Street to watch which helped them regain that chance? Better yet, what if the UK had Sesame Street?

Sesame Workshop have helped to found, over the years, several different Sesame Street projects around the world. My personal favourite is Takalani Sesame, the South African production. In TshiVenda, one of South Africa’s 11 official languages, Takalani means “be happy”. The production tries (and I hope succeeds) to convey the ideas that Africa is communicating, that people can live in harmony together no matter what they look like or who they are. Kami, a little yellow Muppet with a shock of bright orange hair, was introduced in 2002. She was and is HIV positive, and serves to teach young children in Africa about the disease many of them will grow up affected by in some way or another. Though it didn’t really make much of an impact where I live beyond a BBC report, it seemed that America didn’t like it. Even though it didn’t affect them at all. Weird.

In Russia, Ulitsa Sezam promotes the arts, and encourages children to be creative, rather than held back by what they think a painting should look like. Instead, the children are encouraged to draw and even send in any type of art they like, and they are praised for their creativity through the art gallery segments. Because Russia’s culture is so focused on art, the local version of Sesame Street reflects that.

Local versions aren’t all about promotion and education; Kosovo’s Rruga Sesam (Albanian) and Ulica Sezam (Serbian) aim together to create tolerance and awareness amongst the children  in the recovering conflict areas.  The show encourages both Albanian and Serbian children to look upon one another, not with the learned hatred of their parents, but with understanding. The children learn that they are each different, and that’s not a bad thing. Perhaps in the future, Kosovo will be a more united place, aided in some part by the local Sesame Street, which, from a very early age, is designed to show a wide audience how to learn about one another, including traditions.

So, we know that, across the world, Sesame Workshop are helping different countries to create a specialised TV show for the local children. Even Northern Ireland is in on it with Sesame Tree, which aims to teach small children about all of the diverse groups of people living in Ireland, including sectarian groups and immigrants. This is a spectacularly good idea. For a brief while, maybe two years ago, they did show Sesame Tree over here. At about four in the morning when no child was up to watch it. How is this fair?

An article stated that no channel would want it now. Children are looking for different things, and the hour-long Sesame Street does not fit into schedules anymore. Which is utter rubbish, of course. Children will always be enchanted by the Muppets. I’ve seen very small children cry out “Kermit!” at cute green frogs, tiny toddlers snuggling up to their Elmo toys.

So why do we really not have a Sesame Street of our own? Are we just too lazy? Has British media become sloppy and uncreative? We could call ours Sesame Road, and have a red fox Muppet and a squirrel Muppet as best friends. We could let our children learn that the immigrants coming in are not scary evil folk with funny voices who want to steal our jobs and our houses (again, I’m looking at you, Daily Mail; for shame) but industrious people who can be our friends and our support. We could have children of all types, shapes and sizes and races, lots of accents to represent our wonderful diversity and segments in each show about Scotland, Wales and England. We could have tartan and poppies and beautiful countrysides. We could show children what it’s like coming into the country you want to love and call home, and how it feels when people have to move away (looking at you again, Daily Mail). A Scottish variant could have segments in Scots Gaelic or a Welsh one could have, well, Welsh. There are worlds of possibilities, and with the UK becoming an ever more closed off, uncaring, unwelcoming nation, a Sesame Road or Avenue or Crescent would be such a wonderful thing for the next generation and the next.

But it will probably never happen, much as I would love to see it. Instead, shut up, watch this and do what we tell you as with every other show on TV right now is apparently more important. Even if songs like those the colourful Muppet characters sing have been shown to help people learn, Barney’s “I love you” crap seems to be more urgent for kids to learn than the wonderful ideas put forward by Sesame Workshop around the world.

I can still dream, though.

Play us out, Count von Count.

For this post, I would love to be able to interview Pee-wee Herman. I’d love to interview Paul Reubens, too, but I don’t think their agents would let me, a casual blogger, so much as look at them sideways, never mind talk to them. Not sure how well Pee-wee/Paul would do with an internet chat, either. So guesswork will have to do here.

I’ve noticed something about interviews. I think I understand why some interviewers get different responses from the same interviewees. This is something I’m noticing a lot with those who interview characters as opposed to their actors. Pee-wee Herman is an excellent example of this.

Let’s call the interviewers Interviewer A and Interviewer B. Age isn’t important, other than that each interviewer is definitely an adult. It doesn’t even matter what gender they are or how they identify.

Interviewer A welcomes Pee-wee Herman to their show. A asks how he’s doing and explains why he’s on the show, they discuss Pee-wee’s latest project and what plans he may have for the future. In general, the interview is entertaining, the pair seem to play off each other well, and we may have learned something about the character.

Interviewer B welcomes Pee-wee to their show. B congratulates him on his latest project and starts asking about Paul Reubens. Pee-wee may not know how to answer. The interview lulls and might come out awkward and boring.

I think it’s very obvious where B went wrong. B asked the character, Pee-wee, about the man currently playing him. This might be all well and good if, say, the interviewer asked questions in the vein of “How is Reubens? Do you keep in touch? What’s happening with him? How does he feel about your success?” They never do.

Instead, it’s often more along the lines of “Can I talk to Paul for a second?” That’s a very awkward question to ask someone who is sitting right in front of you, to speak to their alter ego. Especially when, in his Pee-wee suit, Paul Reubens is Pee-wee. He is no longer Paul Reubens at that point. Asking for Paul to randomly awaken during the interview in some sort of bizarre dissociative identity disorder moment is literally asking for awkwardness. So either way, that’s what you’ll get.

Furthermore, that has to be massively frustrating for Reubens. He spent a long time trying to make Pee-wee distant from himself, so much so that people would believe – and did believe, so great is the power of suggestion – that Pee-wee was a completely different and real person. Their personalities are so different that for Reubens to switch back and forth between himself and Pee-wee during an interview (while he has proved that he can do it brilliantly well) would be exceptionally jarring.

Now, the problem with Interviewer B. Interviewer B is one of those who cannot separate the actor from the character, and therefore thinks that an interview with Pee-wee should be immediately interchangeable with an interview with Paul. They shouldn’t. Interviewer B not only makes this fault, but goes on to make the terrible mistake of not being able to play along. Interviewer B knows that Reubens is acting. Interviewer A knows that Reubens is acting. The difference between the two is that A will play along and react to the character as though they are a real person. This is how B should react.

But B is a grown-up. Grown-ups don’t play pretend any more. It’s this kind of interviewer, the serious type who wants to interview the actor and learn about everything behind the character, who gets a very bad interview when they are faced with the task of dealing directly with the stage persona. They forget that the character can still be treated like a person. They will still get a response – and often a very positive one – from that character if they ask the right questions. So why is this so hard for some interviewers to do?

I recall some time ago, when Avenue Q had just arrived in London. The cast appeared on television with their puppets, and therefore remained in character for the interviews. A reporter started asking the actress of Kate Monster a question, prompting the actress as Kate to point to her Muppet face and insist “Excuse me, I’m up here.” The audience laughed, but it set the tone for the rest of the interview – it was awkward and painful to watch and despite the actress’s best efforts to keep the interview comical and light, the ultimate sheepishness of the oh-so-serious reporter made it very hard to enjoy.

I guess what I’m trying to say is… lighten up. People are not going to look down on you for playing along and having some fun. You even get to be a bit creative with your questions. Since many reporters (I’m looking at you, Daily Mail) like to be creative with the end result anyway, I can only see this as being a plus.

When you look at reviews for anything – movies, books, video games and the like – you expect them to be helpful. You want to make a decision whether or not to bother with the subject of the review, and hope to be guided by the reviewer into making a good decision either way. Many reviewers do this pretty well, giving the pros and cons and their reasons for liking or disliking the subject.

Other reviewers? Not exactly.

Unfortunately, a bad reviewing culture is rampant, even worse with the ever spreading reaches of the internet, though that’s not to say that people aren’t allowed to give their opinions. Still, when your review is less of a review and more of an actor-bashing, director-insulting storm of anger, there might be a problem.

Naturally, IMDb is brilliant for these. So today I’m going to showcase a selection of reviews and explain why they are unhelpful or just plain wrong. Yes; again I am reviewing reviews.

Movie: Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure
This movie about the love between a man-child and his bike and the road-trip he has to embark on to retrieve it after it gets stolen received heaps of mixed criticism. Some people felt it was a fun trip through the real word guided by a small child, others felt (secret word of the day, by the way) it was a terrible, poor excuse for a kids’ movie. Being directed by Tim Burton doesn’t save it even watching it after the director’s great success.

I felt it was a really good film, not exactly mindless as such but definitely fun. Naturally I’m going to disagree with negative reviews. However, I tend to disagree with positive reviews as well if they are not helpful in any way whatsoever, so forgive me if I look a bit biased here; many of the rubbish reviews came from those who hated this film.

IMDb user glistonosz did not like the film, and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since they’re Polish and I don’t really follow the argument well, but I’m not sure there’s any excuse for this snippet:

“Firstly, I’m not gay, but I have a lot of friends who are. I frankly don’t care who is doin’ what in the bedroom, but the truth is some of my friends are annoying. When I saw first ten minutes of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure I knew that it’s going to be long movie to watch.”

I’m having a hard time trying to figure out what “gay” has to do with Pee-Wee here. Maybe the cultural divide is so great that “behaves like a small child” translates overseas to “gay as a sparkly rainbow-coloured maypole”. Pee-Wee is a little flamboyant on occasion but that’s not really any reason to be uncomfortable. And yes I’m aware that some people in his country of origin tend to equate Pee-Wee with gay culture but this commentary seems awfully insensitive. And I’d bet glistonosz’s gay friends wouldn’t be too happy to see it either.

Moving on to user Amadeusrye’s review. In its entirety:

“This movie is just plain dumb. Tim Burton is my favorite director and most of his other films are excellent. He really needed practice when he did this one, though. There are a handful of funny scenes, but eventually Pee-Wee becomes too irritating to laugh at. My advice would be to skip this one and watch “Beetlejuice”, “Edward Scissorhands”, “Ed Wood”, or “Sleepy Hollow” instead.”

Let’s be honest; there’s nothing wrong with people saying “I didn’t like this movie”. Amadeusrye thought the movie was stupid, and that’s fine. Let’s hope we’re all mature enough to handle differing opinions. However, this review is just plain bad. Okay, the reviewer did not like Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure. They thought it was “dumb”. But why? There is no explanation offered, other than that they found the Pee-Wee character to be irritating. That alone wouldn’t make it a terrible movie, surely? Plenty of movies I adore have irritating characters in them; their presence doesn’t destroy everything else. It doesn’t give the reader an idea of what the movie is about, nor does it tell them why the character is irritating. If I hadn’t seen the movie yet, this review wouldn’t guide me towards a decision, because I don’t know why the movie is apparently so “dumb”.

User loufalce’s review is not only unhelpful, however, it’s needlessly offensive. Entitled “Defines ‘Retarded'”, it goes thusly:

“A movie that I would never have watched on my own. I’m taking a history class of contemporary America-the 1970s to the 1990s, and part of the class is a discussion of cultural and entertainment trends of that timeline. My professor recommended this, so I had to go out and rent it. I’ll forgive him for that since I’m such a nice guy, but, that being said, I found this movie-and the Pee Wee character not only to be intelligence insulting and completely brain dead,but absolutely pathetically painful to watch. In a nutshell, Herman is the man-child living in his own fantasy world. When his bike gets stolen, he embarks on a cross country journey to find it- with utterly predictable results. Duh! I really can’t understand why Burton is considered to be a great director. Personally I find his films to be too self-indulgent and I can’t for the life of me understand why they are considered to be “art”. Anyway, if you get your jollies watching a grown man with a rubbery face in a gray suit and a bow-tie uttering inanities that a 6 year old would find to be lame, this movie is for you. Totally retarded in every sense of the word, this movie has absolutely nothing to recommend itself, but, if you do want to get a look of what very bad American film-making from a good era looked like, by all means go for it.I read somewhere that Paul Rubens intends to revive the Pee Wee character. PS this movie was relased some years before the Florida porn theater-masturbation incident that finished Ruben’s career. Nice character, huh?”

There’s so much wrong with it that I scarcely know where to begin. Fine, loufalce didn’t like it. He felt that Pee-Wee was “painful to watch”. Again, however, there’s very little explanation as to why he feels this way. Sure, there’s a word limit on IMDB, but more than enough space to actually talk about the damned movie. He makes an attack on the artistic integrity of Tim Burton without explaining that either. Then he arrogantly belittles the main character and any viewer who liked the movie in one line. He finishes the whole thing off with a startling insistence that Reubens is clearly Pee-Wee. Because when the actor is arrested, it means the character totally did the crime, too. This is the sort of review that is very difficult to take seriously unless you were already determined to hate the movie – and even then the end is far too loosely related to the character to justify hating the movie.

One can only hope that he didn’t include this in the discussion for his class. I’m not sure what “Reubens was arrested; that makes him evil” has to do with culture.

I think I’m done with this one for now; feel free to look around IMDb for the other bad reviews (or the good ones if you prefer). Next time I’ll post bad reviews about The Marvellous Misadventures of Flapjack. I’m sure my handful of occasional readers are so excited for that.

I’ll be honest; when I first started writing about plastic surgery, I was more concerned about men than women. We already know what effects it has on women as women are far more likely to feel pressured into becoming anorexic or blowing thousands of pounds on needless pain and misery. This might be because we hold our ladyfolk to much higher standards than men. That is to say, in general, we do.  

I’m going to sound awfully sexist to both men and women and any other existing gender people as well, for which I apologise in advance.

 Women, as I well know, do often have very high standards for guys and seem to adore chiselled looks and strong jawbones and six-packs when most men in the world… have none of these features. However, thanks to ever changing accepted gender roles, men are going from slick James-Bond-style obsessions to fretting over their weight and whether or not they can bulk it up. On the other end of the spectrum, some men would rather be sticks, because women want effeminate guys who’d break the minute a feather landed on them. Celebrity males, having money, often don’t have this problem. Right? Wrong!

Even men get self-conscious, and some get it botoxed away, or facelifted, or tummy tucked. I know, weird. Again, it’s another problem that seems to be on the rise and we shouldn’t be encouraging it, especially not in the way we keep trying to change our celebrities.

I mentioned Paul Reubens before. I genuinely think he’s very attractive (though whether that comes from his actual looks or the fact that he’s an absolute genius is debatable). After browsing for images (I’m writing about Pee-Wee Herman later; there really is a good reason) and finding the site that insisted he needs a facelift, I wasn’t amused. I tried writing a response that insisted he is beautiful as he is. Moderator deleted my comment. But since the site was for a dodgy clinic, I’m not surprised.

Anyway, the idea behind their post was to suggest that Reubens, in order to make a successful comeback, needed drastic eye or face surgery in order to look younger. I am aware that Reubens himself toyed with the idea. In the end, make up worked just fine.

I’m no expert on plastic surgery, that much is clear, but it doesn’t look like he’s had any to me, so the idea that he needed it in the first place is sort of ridiculous, especially if you consider how messed-up he might look if he did have a facelift. Make-up works wonders on Reubens. it’s difficult to find images of him before he was Pee-Wee Herman, but you might note how startlingly different he looked when he was younger. No, I’m not going to discuss the mugshots. Seriously.

Because I’m aware of how much lower our standards are for male celebrities, it actually shocked me to learn that people thought someone as fair-looking as Reubens (I’m totally biased; I adore him, but I’m sure people agree that in general he’s not ugly) needs surgery in order to be palatable enough to look at. It got me wondering whether standards are rising, or if the culture for perfection has been going on a lot longer than we realise.

Amongst those I found on a Google search for “ugly male celebrities”, well, it was odd. In the list came Alfred Molina, Jamie Foxx, and then a whole bunch of people who are overweight, but not necessarily ugly. I would have mentioned more overweight females in my previous post if I could find any who were listed! Make of that what you will. Oddly enough, in the case of men, the only plastic surgery people seem to think they need is to make them appear younger, rather than to reshape their faces.

Apparently the ugliest male celebrities EVAR.

So is this an unfair double standard?

Since I’m no research assistant or psychologist or anything like that, I’m not embarking on a search for all the answers, but a discussion would be cool. Do we hold men and women to different standards where attractiveness is concerned? Are those who actually care about complete perfection the true majority, or are they simply louder than the rest of us?

Celebrities have enough pressure to get surgery as it is without people all over saying “yeah, she definitely needs nicer eyebrows.” Most of the time, I find that these people don’t. And we tend to hold our female celebrities to an even higher standard than our males. If a female isn’t a statuesque, devastatingly beautiful angel, then there’s often sneering about how homely she is or how plain she looks. This is yet another thing that puzzles me. I’ve heard talk of Maggie Gyllenhaal being physically unattractive – and it was even used in a joke on Family Guy about how awful the Gyllenhaal siblings are. Even the comments in the previous YouTube link claim that Maggie is ugly – one person writes that she “has a hog face”. Let me post a picture of Maggie for you:

This is Maggie Gyllenhaal, for those of you yet unaware. She isn’t the most amazingly gorgeous person in the world, but she doesn’t need to be to act. If our standards reach even higher than “be Maggie-Gyllenhaal-beautiful” then the world is screwed. To me, she doesn’t look much different to the more popular Kirsten Dunst or Zooey Deschanel, and yet people drool over the two latter women and laugh at Maggie’s nose. Her nose! My nose is like a potato and a tomato got kinky and produced my nose. If I was looking for a boyfriend or girlfriend I’d probably have drowned in self-disgust by now. If people like to put ridiculous pressure on pretty women like Gyllenhaal it’s really no wonder that regular women become anorexic or have to take out loans to get surgery so their boobs are a millimetre rounder.

Back to the point I was making, Maggie Gyllenhaal is not the only one people think is less than perfect. Which is terrible, that she’s less than perfect.

If you search for “unattractive famle celebrities” on Google, you might be shocked as to what you’ll find. The second result yields much more shocking names than the first. A website for top ten lists has Beyonce, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Julia Roberts, among others, criticised for having a massive butt, a bad face and having had children, respectively. No mention yet of needing plastic surgery, but after seeing what some people write, is it any wonder why these people do it?

 

Now, I do realise that a lot of guys and girls don’t actually feel this way about celebrities or in fact normal women. Size zero models aren’t as well-liked by the everyday bloke as the kind of people who like to use ’em as coathangers. However, the shrill cries of “YOU MUST BE PERFECT!” drown out the sensible people’s insistence that we think you’re all just fine as you are.

Sure, I do understand that some plastic surgery is just fine. I have nothing against people snipping bits off their nose if it helps them breathe easier at night or removing sagging skin to give them a confidence boost. But when you start talking about reshaping someone’s face in order for them to be easier on the eye, I have to wonder about what passes for normal nowadays. What passes for good-looking to the normal person? I know I don’t. I’m overweight, with a tomato-y nose and perpetually ruddy cheeks. Maybe my opinion counts for nothing now that people know this; after all, I’m probably bitter because I can’t afford lipo or a nose job so no-one will date me! Alternatively, I don’t care about dating because no-one would look at me twice (except to LOL at my large breasts. yes, this happens. Well done, you can recognise breasts). Whatever, think what you like. I’m more worried about the thought that anyone would turn to scalpels, needles, tubes and silicone to make themselves feel confident. Even more so when that person looks perfectly fine just as he or she is. And it’s these loud cries of “OMG BUT THEY WON’T BE PERFECT!” which are not helping.

How does any normal person look at a picture of someone as pretty as, say, Drew Barrymore and think to themselves “Ugh, she’s so ugly. Maybe if her nose was microscopic!”?

”]Another one? I’m going to put forward Susan Boyle. When she walked out onto that stage… well, we know the story. I hate being painted with the ignorant brush. The media is insistent on saying “no-one expected that voice”. I did. You don’t have to be Beyoncé or Lady Gaga or anyone like that to have a wonderful voice. Anywho, despite her having a very powerful, very beautiful voice (perhaps I’ll do a proper post on her later), the media were very quick to suggest that she needed a drastic makeover, and they dubbed her the Hairy Angel. Er, why? She’s seriously no more and no less hairy than any other normal woman.

This is Ms Boyle prettied-up for her album cover, I think. Now, she does look pretty here but there was nothing wrong with her beforehand. She doesn’t fall into the classically gorgeous category and nor does she fall into the modern statuesque goddess one, but she wasn’t really unattractive before. Perhaps overweight, but that doesn’t automatically make someone unattractive.

I know, I’m sorry, I’m sick of hearing it too. But to be honest, I think she looks just fine here, and the music they played her on with for TV was unacceptable. The utter shock on some people’s faces is both satisfying and disgusting. I disagree with the judges, too. i don’t think “everyone” was expecting lols. Most of ’em, probably; audiences like that only go for the lols. But not everyone probably expected it. I bet some of them were hoping for a great performance. And they got one.

Another celebrity I think is rather pretty is Jennifer Saunders. Way back when there was a show, Absolutely Fabulous. Many a fat joke was thrown her way in-show, but this is sort of justified because of the type of show it was. Even so, she most certainly wasn’t fat. Not sure if, in this time, anyone’s actually trying to call her ugly – how insensitive would that be? – but just in case… No. No she is not.

And if you’re not yet convinced by this article, look up your favourite celebrity on Google, add “is ugly” to the end and prepare to weep for humanity.


  • None
  • HoistTheColours: Dear author, I full-heartedly and absolutely agree with your above statements. I just thought I would let you know, since I don't quite understand w
  • richclark: I covered this in my blog too. Found your post on one of Wordpress' random (associated posts). Has Ask really made the impact it needed to from
  • The Lilac Pilgrim: I couldn't go anywhere without someone mentioning it. It was incredibly obvious and yet people were still arguing about it. Absolutely ridiculous.