Tuesday, September 11, 2007
From Boston to Britney
Don't you just hate it when Curt Schilling pitches a great game against the Devil Rays and the Red Sox still lose, 1-0?
I know I do.
In other news, the Boston Globe wonders whether Britney Spears' performance at the VMAs will kill her comeback. (Hey, a poster below raised the issue.)
The answer: Not a chance. I think her performance was brilliant, though I have no idea whether she intended it that way. Spears was lackluster, a little large, and almost apathetic. She lip-synched with less attempt to appear that she was actually singing than I've ever seen. Her dancing was the kind of thing you see in a bar just before closing time on the part of someone who shouldn't be driving home.
Why was this so smart? Well, for one thing, it's the only thing about the whole show that anyone will remember, other than the fact that Tommy Lee and Kid Rock slapped each other over Pamela Anderson. (And why not?)
But it's also quite a subversive commentary, blurring the lines between the real and the artificial. MTV is a channel all about making the fake seem plausible (modern pop music) and the real hyper-real (reality shows).
Spears went on stage and, through her performance, announced that the whole shtick is BS; she proceeded to not sing a song that she didn't write and probably didn't sing even in its recorded version—even though if she had just lip-synched with a little more enthusiasm, and perhaps lost a few more pounds before her performance, she would have been hailed as making a great comeback.
And she did so displaying a great body, but one that looks like it's carried two kids, which is more of a reality show than the MTV audience is used to seeing. The reviews of that body were weirdly harsh. *(But isn't it fascinating that entire articles were devoted to Britney's body?)
So Britney Spears treated MTV and its audience with contempt. Isn't that exactly what we deserve?
Britney Spears' full-bodied commentary on American pop culture.
The funny thing is, the song's actually pretty good....How can you not like that, "It's Britney, bitch," and the little giggle that follows?
I know I do.
In other news, the Boston Globe wonders whether Britney Spears' performance at the VMAs will kill her comeback. (Hey, a poster below raised the issue.)
The answer: Not a chance. I think her performance was brilliant, though I have no idea whether she intended it that way. Spears was lackluster, a little large, and almost apathetic. She lip-synched with less attempt to appear that she was actually singing than I've ever seen. Her dancing was the kind of thing you see in a bar just before closing time on the part of someone who shouldn't be driving home.
Why was this so smart? Well, for one thing, it's the only thing about the whole show that anyone will remember, other than the fact that Tommy Lee and Kid Rock slapped each other over Pamela Anderson. (And why not?)
But it's also quite a subversive commentary, blurring the lines between the real and the artificial. MTV is a channel all about making the fake seem plausible (modern pop music) and the real hyper-real (reality shows).
Spears went on stage and, through her performance, announced that the whole shtick is BS; she proceeded to not sing a song that she didn't write and probably didn't sing even in its recorded version—even though if she had just lip-synched with a little more enthusiasm, and perhaps lost a few more pounds before her performance, she would have been hailed as making a great comeback.
And she did so displaying a great body, but one that looks like it's carried two kids, which is more of a reality show than the MTV audience is used to seeing. The reviews of that body were weirdly harsh. *(But isn't it fascinating that entire articles were devoted to Britney's body?)
So Britney Spears treated MTV and its audience with contempt. Isn't that exactly what we deserve?
Britney Spears' full-bodied commentary on American pop culture.
The funny thing is, the song's actually pretty good....How can you not like that, "It's Britney, bitch," and the little giggle that follows?
Comments:
<< Home
I don't think it was a conscious decision to treat her audience with contempt, as it seems pretty clear that she was under the influence of something while performing.
Last poster is undoubtedly right, because I do not put Britney nor her handlers in a league with the deliciously subversive analysis RB has served up. But regardless, her performance unmasks MTV - and TV generally - for what it has become. Kudos, RB, for a post on pop culture that links high and low without once mentioning the big H.
I agree with both comments--and particularly with the notion that RB got this one fundamentally right.
I was going to sign this one Shannon, just for the heck of it, but decided to refrain.
I was going to sign this one Shannon, just for the heck of it, but decided to refrain.
i'm going to agree she was definitely on something.
also going to point out that her body, while not toned, doesn't even look as though she's had two kids. very slightly flabby, def. not fat. at all. most of the women i know would kill to have that body, esp. after carrying children.
Post a Comment
also going to point out that her body, while not toned, doesn't even look as though she's had two kids. very slightly flabby, def. not fat. at all. most of the women i know would kill to have that body, esp. after carrying children.
<< Home
