Woody Allen Doesn’t ‘Get’ Women, No Matter What Kate Winslet Says

Source: New York Daily News

Despite his history of sexual abuse allegations, Woody Allen remains one of the most prominent and prolific directors in Hollywood. Yet, while Allen’s reputation has wavered under these accusations, it’s hardly suffered.

Take actress Kate Winslet’s recent comments about Allen, for instance. As the star of his latest film, Wonder Wheel, Winslet has been rather forthcoming with her praise for the embattled director. In fact, according to the Oscar-winner, Allen completely understands women, which makes him great at developing female characters.

“I think on some level Woody is a woman,” she told the Sydney Morning Herald. “I just think he’s very in touch with that side of himself. He understands the female characters he creates exceptionally well.”

“His female characters are always so rich and large and honest in terms of how they’re feeling, and he just knows how to write dialogue for them to communicate all that,” Winslet added.

However, as Dylan Farrow — Allen’s alleged victim and adopted daughter — notes in her recent Op-Ed for the Los Angeles Times, it’s hard to stomach this level of unyielding praise from famous actresses, as remarks such as Winslet’s keep this supposed pedophile in business.

“I have long maintained that when I was 7 years old, Woody Allen led me into an attic, away from the babysitters who had been instructed never to leave me alone with him. He then sexually assaulted me,” Farrow writes. “I told the truth to the authorities then, and I have been telling it, unaltered, for more than 20 years. Why is it that Harvey Weinstein and other accused celebrities have been cast out by Hollywood, while Allen recently secured a multimillion-dollar distribution deal with Amazon, greenlit by former Amazon Studios executive Roy Price before he was suspended over sexual misconduct allegations?”

Farrow adds that it’s borderline hypocritical for actresses who’ve worked with Allen to praise his talents, and then chastise Weinstein for his actions.

Farrow explains:

Discussing Weinstein, “Wonder Wheel” star Kate Winslet said, “The fact that these women are starting to speak out about the gross misconduct of one of our most important and well-regarded film producers, is incredibly brave and has been deeply shocking to hear.” Of Allen, she said “I didn’t know Woody and I don’t know anything about that family. As the actor in the film, you just have to step away and say, I don’t know anything, really, and whether any of it is true or false. Having thought it all through, you put it to one side and just work with the person. Woody Allen is an incredible director.”

Likewise, Blake Lively said of Weinstein: “It’s important that women are furious right now. It’s important that there is an uprising. It’s important that we don’t stand for this and that we don’t focus on one or two or three or four stories, it’s important that we focus on humanity in general and say, ‘This is unacceptable.’ ” But on the subject of Allen, she said, “It’s very dangerous to factor in things you don’t know anything about. I could [only] know my experience.”

As Farrow notes, while the truth is hard to deny, it’s often easy to ignore — something that’s become all too common where Allen’s concerned.

That’s why it breaks her heart when the women and men she admires work with Allen, but then refuse to answer questions about his history. Farrow adds that it meant the world to her when actress Ellen Page said she regretted working with Allen, and when actresses Jessica Chastain and Susan Sarandon told the world why they never would.

“It isn’t just power that allows men accused of sexual abuse to keep their careers and their secrets,” Farrow emphasizes. “It is also our collective choice to see simple situations as complicated and obvious conclusions as a matter of “who can say”? The system worked for Harvey Weinstein for decades. It works for Woody Allen still.”

No matter how complex or creative Allen’s female characters might be, his actions speak much louder than any of the words found within the pages of his scripts. Men across the industry are finally being held accountable for their lewd behaviors as part of the #MeToo Movement and, after years of speculation, it’s about time that the industry take Farrow’s accusations seriously, too.

Hollywood shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose who pays for their crimes and who doesn’t simply because they value the given person’s talent. Allen deserves the same reckoning as every other alleged abuser in the business.

(This post originally appeared on Storia.)

Advertisements

MTV Presses the Rewind Button, Brings ‘TRL’ Out of Retirement—but Why?

Source: ABC News

For television executives, future success seems to lie in the past. From sequel series, such as “Raven’s Home”, to reunion reboots, such as “Will & Grace”, many TV networks are turning to old favorites to attract new audiences. Yet, while nostalgia certainly seems to sell these days, MTV’s upcoming “Total Request Live” revival fails to take the passage of time into account.

When “TRL” began its initial run in 1998, life was much different than we’re used to now. YouTube was still about seven years away from its debut, internet connections were primarily of the dial-up variety, and cell phones were bulky, analog devices that belonged to businessmen and… well, Zack Morris. Texting wasn’t possible, but beepers were still popular, and killing time on the “World Wide Web” meant monopolizing your family’s landline. Without music television, video never would’ve killed the radio star.

By the time “TRL” called it quits in 2008, the world had transformed dramatically. Smartphones existed, even if they weren’t yet widespread, social media was on the rise, though it didn’t retain the same level of influence it does today, and nearly every video you could imagine was accessible on-demand thanks to Wi-Fi networks.

Now, nearly 10 years later, MTV’s already fighting an uphill battle before “TRL” even premieres.

First and foremost, the team must tackle the elephant in the studio: social media. For those of us who grew up during Carson Daly’s “TRL” days—the days before DVR and live-streaming—our idea of “sharing” was talking about the latest Britney Spears video the next morning before the first middle school bell rang.

Source: Scott Gries/ImageDirect

Today’s teens and tweens, however, will likely spend more time staring down at their smartphone screen than their TV. Perhaps that’s why the network plans to split hosting duties among five VJs during this go ’round—they need to satisfy this generation’s self-induced ADHD. How they’ll integrate social media remains to be seen, of course, but it’ll likely distract the viewers from the true premise of the show.

MTV will also have to pad the show’s latest incarnation with plenty of appearances and performances by today’s top artists if the network hopes to gain and retain the interest of these fickle viewers. Anyone can watch the hottest music videos of the day via YouTube now—a luxury unavailable to its original audience—so even the countdown alone won’t draw people in, no matter how interested they might be. Plus, anyone who’s ever watched “TRL” knows that they only play videos in their entirety when they premiere and when they retire, so if they stay true to the nature of the show, they’ll need to find a way to alleviate the subsequent disappointment.

While “TRL” was our reason to rush home back in the day, it doesn’t hold much allure for modern audiences, at least not in its original form.

MTV lost its way for years as executives focused on developing reality programming that disregarded the “M” in “music television” entirely—think “Jersey Shore” in all its spray tan glory—but the current leadership hopes to return the network to its lyrical roots. If executives can channel today’s young music lovers’ fascination with social interaction and use these behaviors to enhance the “TRL” experience, they might just attract the audience they seek.

As for us oldies? We will probably take the Carson Daly route and leave well enough alone. If you need us, we’ll be off in the corner relearning the dance moves to “Bye, Bye, Bye” for old times’ sake.

(This post originally appeared on Storia.)

Trashin’ Fashion 2017: Trends That Need to Get Canned

Fashion can be quite fickle. What’s popular one moment might be shunned the next. It’s difficult for anyone to remain trendy when styles tend to change with the direction of the breeze. However, then there are those trends that never seem to relent. They pop up out of nowhere and they refuse to disappear. Though potentially appealing at the start, their sickening prevalence turns them into an inevitable eyesore. Here are some of the latest styles that need to call it quits:

Chokers. Have you ever noticed that everyone who wears a choker looks like they’ve had their severed head reattached? Sure, some of these necklaces are actually quite pretty, but the ones that look like “tattoos” need to go. I used to wear one back in the day when they were first cool, but I never thought this trend would reemerge so soon. Take it from someone who’s been there—don’t wear one unless you want to look like some sort of zombie in all your photos from this time of your life.

Cold shoulder and off-the-shoulder tops. Shopping loses its appeal when every single shirt looks identical, and this year, none of them seem to have shoulders. Many have holes cut from the sleeves, hence the “cold” shoulder moniker. While the trend isn’t awful in moderation, it’s exhausting to find that every designer and brand can’t seem to diverge from this style. Off-the-shoulder tops are becoming equally as common, unfortunately, as anyone who’s ever worn one can attest to the fact that lifting your arms will leave you disheveled afterward. Clothing that leaves its wearer immobilized doesn’t seem all that fashionable to me.

Rompers. Behold, the perfect ensemble for adult babies everywhere! We all know they’re onesies for those who’ve outgrown their diapers, so don’t try and sugarcoat things by claiming rompers are comfortable. Yes, choosing an outfit might be easier because the top and bottom are fused at the waist, but there’s nothing convenient (or pleasant) about having to strip down to you skivvies every time you need to use the restroom. Plus, there’s nothing worse than coming upon an attractive dress on the sale rack only to discover it’s shorts.

Gladiator sandals. When sweat and sunburns are in the forecast, it’s rather ridiculous to wear cages around your calves. You cannot wear these sandals during prolonged periods outdoors because they’ll leave you with the worst tan lines imaginable. Plus, we all know they’re not made with absorbent material, so you’re bound to become a hot, sticky mess up and down your legs. Gladiator sandals aren’t even remotely attractive, so why suffer? Never sacrifice comfort just to conform to what’s “in” at the moment.

Crop tops. Technically, I’m not opposed to baring ones belly. If worn tastefully, crop tops can even look cute. But, in most cases, these supposed “shirts” are small enough to qualify as bras (for women of the A-cup variety, at least). Years ago, crop tops used to expose ones belly button—nothing more. These shirts still offered sufficient amounts of material. Now, however, even those with a moderately sized chest cannot wear crop tops without risking indecent exposure. NEWS FLASH: You don’t need to verbally body shame people to imply that their size and shape aren’t the ideal.

Now it’s your turn! Which styles should be banished for good? Share your choices and your reasons in the comments below!

****

(This post originally appeared on Storia.)

Reality TV Exploits Real-Life Drama — and Viewers Are to Blame

Everyone who’s ever watched multiple seasons of any given reality show knows that the producers are following some semblance of a script. Take the “Bachelor/Bachelorette” franchise, for instance. Each season features one set of archenemies that must ultimately endure a ‘dramatic’ two-on-one date. Sure, personalities are likely to clash when living in close quarters with strangers, but this level of conflict always comes around like clockwork. Throw in some whacky professions—such as Free Spirit, Chicken Enthusiast, and Tickle Monster, for example—and you’ve got yourself some entertainment value.

But, as viewers begin to grow weary of the tiresome cycle, producers have become desperate to spice things up now and then. When Kayleigh Morris of “Big Brother” was forcibly evicted recently, the star brought attention to how eager producers are to manufacture drama, even if it’s at the expense of the cast’s reputation.

Morris told Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace of The Sun that it’s “really frustrating, as I had so many happy times in the house, but only the bad parts were aired, which I guess is the nature of the beast, but still…” Reality TV surely offers an opportunity to achieve fame and fortune for those who maintain their dignity, but those who’re targeted as villains live on in infamy, nothing more.

Nothing, however, compares to the fiasco on the set of “Bachelor In Paradise.” While the summertime offshoot never garnered quite the audience of its parent series, producers have tried to up the ante each season by cultivating the most controversial cast members of seasons past. For the upcoming incarnation, Corinne Olympios (Nick Viall’s season) and DeMario Jackson (Rachel Lindsay’s season) were set to reprise their ‘roles’ for some fun in the sun. But, just days into filming, everyone was sent home so investigators could look into claims of sexual assault involving the two stars.

Prior reports claimed that both Olympios and Jackson had been drinking excessively throughout the day, and that an encounter may have taken place while Olympios was too intoxicated to consent. Since then, officials have concluded that no such assault happened, allowing the show to resume filming ahead of its August premiere date. Olympios retained representation in order to get to the bottom of this matter, while Jackson has been dealing with the ramifications of being portrayed as a rapist, guilty before proven innocent.

While I’m not one to disregard assault allegations, for I don’t doubt that there could’ve been foul play, I can’t help but wonder if ABC will use this incident to boost its audience—and viewers are to blame.

Essentially, viewers are the addicts and producers are our enablers. When excitement from the typical drama fails to satisfy our cravings, showrunners must find new ways to draw the audience back into the fray. Each hit must be more extreme than the one prior to ensure our satisfaction. We sit on the sidelines, complaining about how reality TV has gotten out of hand, yet we still tune in to gawk as the drama unfolds.

Of course, while I’d hope that this particular case wasn’t manufactured—for the sake of assault victims everywhere—I’m positive that ABC will use this story to lure viewers, old and new, as the premiere date draws near.

However, we have the power to condemn such exploitation, and doing so takes little effort. Next time you see a Kayleigh Morris-like outburst, just change the channel.

****

(This post originally appeared on Storia.)

 

Could the Fictional Suicide in ‘13 Reasons Why’ Inspire Real-Life Copycats?

Source: IMDb

It’s the latest title on everyone’s binge list. Yet, while Netflix’s “13 Reasons Why” has captured the imagination of countless viewers since its March debut, the most tweeted about show in TV history may also be one of its most controversial.

Based on the young adult novel by Jay Asher, the series revolves around Hannah Baker’s suicide and the cassette tapes she leaves behind. As you might’ve guessed, each tape explains one reason that drove her to take such drastic action. Producers behind the series, including Selena Gomez, hoped the fictional suicide would spark conversations about the state of mental health amongst tweens and teens. But school officials across the country are now warning parents about the show in their attempt to prevent copycat suicides.

Jia Tolentino, contributing writer for The New Yorker, writes, “Rather than starting a valuable conversation that could help students who are struggling with mental-health issues, the show, these schools fear, might push students with issues over the edge.”

Many administrators believe “13 Reasons Why” could romanticize the idea of suicide among the younger set, and rightfully so. Known as the Werther Effect, researchers have seen spikes in copycat deaths in response to celebrity or fictional suicides throughout history. Vulnerable parties often derive inspiration from examples in the media when seeking justification for their own impulses—and that’s precisely what has adults worried right now.

Source: IMDb

“For kids who are vulnerable, who suffer from depression and anxiety, it can be a trigger for suicidal idealization and that is of course a concern,” Anne Moss Rogers, who lost her 20-year-old son to suicide two years ago, told WTVR. If mainstream depictions of suicidal acts become ingrained in the fabric of modern pop culture, these hypothetical concerns might very well become real-life epidemics.

According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, researchers noted a 50 percent increase in intentional exposures—the third most common form of suicide—by adolescents between 2012 and 2016. MarketWatch reports that, in 2016 alone, poison centers managed more than 76,500 cases of intentional exposures in young adults. Overall, incoming call volume to poison centers continues to decrease, but cases with more serious clinical outcomes, including death, have increased by 4.3 percent per year since 2000. Some centers, however, have seen an uptick in cases just since the show’s premiere.

Lee Cantrell, director of the San Diego division of the California Poison Control System, told MarketWatch that these suspected suicide cases are particularly worrisome. “In our center alone, adolescent suicide and suicidal intent cases for the month of April were the highest we have observed in the past two years. Many of the more recent calls have referenced popular television shows that include messages of suicide, sometimes glamorizing suicide or inspiring deadly copycat behavior.”

Source: IMDb

One group of teens, however, has made it their mission to counteract the potentially detrimental undertones of “13 Reasons Why” by creating their own mental health awareness campaign. The “13 Reasons Why Not” project aims to provide students of Oxford High School in Michigan with an outlet for their emotions so they can work through their struggles without resorting to self-harm.

Launched in honor of Megan Abbott, a former student who committed suicide in 2013, the group surprised their classmates with audio recordings broadcast over the school’s loudspeaker system. Not only did these students share their experiences with bullying, body shaming, and abuse, but they also added how the support they received saved them from the brink. It’s with this element of hope that the group aims to inspire those in need to seek the help they require.

Riley Juntti, one of the program’s leading organizers, has struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts for years, so this project holds special meaning, as she’s an advocate for suicide prevention. “I know this project was extremely emotionally painful for a lot of the participants to go through,” she wrote via Twitter. “I just hope someone took the meaning out of it that life is always worth living, there [are] people who love you, and your value is not tarnished by others perceptions.”

Source: IMDb

While “13 Reasons Why” has certainly cleared the path for honest discussions about mental health, entertainment outlets must also acknowledge the negative impact this runaway hit may have on its target market. As Patrick Devitt writes for Scientific American, “…the message that suicide can have simple, or a simple set, of causes, or that suicide represents some type of solution, is unfortunate. There is never one reason why, or even thirteen.”

Suicide awareness, in general, stands as another major issue, for global suicide rates have skyrocketed since the Great Recession. Close to 800,000 people die due to suicide every year, while many more attempt to take their own lives. Subsequently, millions of people are affected by or experience suicide bereavement every year, according to the World Health Organization.

Just as children now have easy access to Netflix and the news, we must also guarantee that they know where to find the resources they’ll need when life becomes overwhelming if we are to truly make an impact and save young lives.

If you or someone you know shows signs of suicidal thoughts or tendencies, you’re not alone. Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifelineat 1 (800) 273-8255 or message the Crisis Text Line at 741-741 for access to crisis and support services. Suicide isn’t your only option. Please seek help before deciding to end your own life.

****

(This post originally appeared on Storia.)

Stop Using Social Media as the Scapegoat for Society’s Demise

During the early morning hours of May 7, Nicki Minaj took to Twitter to help fans in need. Over the course of this dialogue, Minaj agreed to pay out an estimated $30,000 of her own money to help the fans in question afford their college tuition and school supplies. While many critics might be skeptical about the motive behind her random acts of philanthropy, it’s hard to ignore that Minaj’s generous soul would never have connected with these struggling individuals had it not been for social media.

Of course, it’s easy for people to focus on social media’s failings. It promotes narcissism. It’s an unyielding distraction. It hinders everyone’s attention span. However, along with the bad, we’ve been exposed to a world of good that outweighs any negative sentiment. We now have an outlet for connecting with people outside our immediate circle, allowing us to learn and grow in ways we never could have before its creation.

Thanks to Twitter (and the Web, in general), we have the opportunity to remain abreast of international news in real time. Yes, there’s an enormous amount of content to sift through at any given moment, but by adopting healthy social media habits, it’s simple to filter through what’s important and what’s frivolous fluff. You see, those who claim that social networks drain people’s time and ruin kids’ attention spans are those who’ve failed to master healthy social habits themselves. All good things must be consumed in moderation—even media. We may live in the era of the Netflix binge, but that doesn’t mean such behaviors are smart. When used properly, social media arms us with the tools necessary to dismantle widespread ignorance and hold public figures accountable. Social media acts as the weapon we need to effectively fight for what’s right.

Following the U.S. presidential election, for instance, voters quickly took to social media—in some cases to celebrate, in some cases to express their disbelief and anguish while establishing the foundation for what’s now known as The Resistance. Women came together via social to plan and execute the Women’s March on Washington, as well as its sister marches across the world. And organizations, such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, have turned to social media to mobilize supporters and bolster donations. Without such outlets, these groups never would’ve come together so quickly and effectively. Without social media, it would’ve been much more difficult for these like-minded activists to find one another and turn their mutual disgust into productive outreach.

Even in less extreme cases, social media has the potential to make people feel less alone. Prior to social networks, outcasts likely felt that there was no one else in the world who understood their struggle. But, by being able to express their emotions online, many have found support they might’ve otherwise gone without. Those with minor grievances can also take solace in social media, for the memes and comics that rule the space demonstrate we’re not as alone as we once thought. (No, you’re NOT the only one who feels that way!) Critics will argue that social media has the opposite effect, as Facebook and Instagram posts often make said outcasts feel even more out of the loop than before, but when you stop to evaluate the new connections at their fingertips, it’s easy to see that social empowers them to change their situation for the better.

Face it—bullies will never cease to exist. There’ll always be people who tear others down in order to make themselves feel superior, no matter their platform of choice. But it’s our responsibility to teach today’s children how to navigate these new networks. Our parents taught us how to handle the challenges that came along with growing up, and we’ll have to do the same. Kids still have to face the same battles, even if they’re fighting on uncharted battlefields. Remember! We’re the ones who created this supposed mess, so we’re the ones who will have to right the course. We will have to teach them how to limit their screen time. We will have to teach them how to be mindful of others online. We will have to teach them not to idolize the manipulated images and personas they see across platforms.

Parents and authority figures who believe social media has ruined today’s youth are merely projecting their own insecurities, for they exhibit these less than stellar behaviors themselves. They’re guilty of deifying the celebrities they follow, and checking their phones excessively. They’ve become addicted to refreshing their feeds and awaiting new notifications. Yet, each time another adult gives their child an iPad or smartphone as a stand-in for an actual caretaker, they perpetuate the very problem they wish to rectify. Unless we take responsibility for how we conduct ourselves, we will never be able to alter the issue at hand.

Until then, critics will continue to focus on social media’s failings and blame these networks for what’s wrong with the world. Social media isn’t without its flaws, of course, but we mustn’t overlook the value it brings to the modern world. As with any tool, social can be used for good or evil. Let’s remember what social media can help us accomplish—as was the case with Nicki Minaj—before we vilify these networks once and for all.

****

(This post originally appeared on Storia.)

5 Women Who Deserve People’s ‘Most Beautiful’ Title More Than Julia Roberts

People Magazine probably thought it was doing something noble when it named Julia Roberts as its “Most Beautiful” woman of 2017. After all, she’s nearly 50—practically prehistoric in Hollywood terms, especially compared to the first time she graced the issue’s cover in 1991 at the ripe old age of 23. But when you’ve chosen the same actress a record five times, the tradition starts to seem stale. Society’s perception of beauty continues to evolve, but People’s formula remains the same. Maybe it’s time to shake things up? Here are just five women who’ve redefined beauty on their own terms, earning them the right to the title (even if they didn’t make the list in the first place).

Betty White

One quick glance at the “Most Beautiful” list reveals that Oprah Winfrey’s the oldest person on this year’s roster. (She’s 63.) But why must People perpetuate the notion that youth equals beauty? If age truly isn’t an issue for those doling out the title, White surely deserves the honor. (They could’ve included her, at least.) She’s America’s sweetheart. She’s devoted literal decades to the entertainment world and, at 95, she’s still as spry, feisty, and funny as ever. Honestly, she’s beautiful in ways that these younger women can only aspire to achieve one day.

Hillary Clinton

When it comes to Clinton, the term “nasty woman” comes to mind. But after the impact she’s had on the women’s movement in recent months, her legacy will be one of the most beautiful things to emerge from our tumultuous political situation. Though she might’ve lost the 2016 election, Clinton’s attempt to break the glass ceiling has inspired 11,000 women to seek office, while encouraging countless others to fight for their human rights. She embodies the adversity women face every day, yet she still persists. If that sort of resilience and tenacity isn’t beautiful, then this world’s uglier than we thought.

Laverne Cox

Despite the fact that many people claim they’re inclusive, the transgender community has yet to gain complete acceptance throughout society. Cox, however, has been working diligently to fight for both transgender rights and women’s rights ever since she broke into the business. She represents the beauty America has to offer, if only we’d take the time to listen and understand, and such an honor could be instrumental in sparking critical conversations. Yes, it’d likely create controversy, but that’s precisely why we need to increase transgender visibility. Cox not only deserves the title, but naming her “Most Beautiful” might also help young people struggling with their own transition recognize that they’re not alone.

Michelle Obama

Our former First Lady has always been the embodiment of class and dignity. She’s beautiful on the outside thanks to her love of physical fitness, and she’s beautiful on the inside because she stands up for what she believes in no matter the obstacles. Beyond all else, Mrs. Obama has always been a champion for young girls. She’s taught this generation that education and intellectual pursuits are far more important than fixating on your outward appearance. She inspires females of all ages to pursue their passions and ignore the haters. In this instance, beauty isn’t just visual—it’s mental, too.

Melissa McCarthy

Jerry Lewis once claimed women cannot be funny. But anyone who’s witnessed McCarthy’s scathing impression of Press Secretary Sean Spicer on SNL knows that assertion couldn’t be further from the truth. McCarthy has emerged as one of the leading comedians of our time. While she might’ve initially won our hearts as Sookie St. James on Gilmore Girls, she has since become one of the most in-demand actresses in the industry (all without some stick-thin figure, mind you). From the looks of things, Chrissy Metz and Adele appear to be the only full figure gals on the list, perpetuating the notion that bigger isn’t always considered beautiful. But when “big” applies to the laughs you get from the live studio audience, dress size doesn’t (and shouldn’t) matter.

****

(This post originally appeared on Storia.)