4.3.2004
My very first memory of MTV is flipping channels with Rachel one day, and she stopped just as Kurt Loder popped up on MTV with a special annoucement: Kurt Cobain had killed himself. I was not yet tuned into pop culture, but even I knew what a big deal that was; I remember Rachel gasping and staring in horror. We didn't flip away from MTV the rest of the day, just watched shocked interview after shocked interview while Loder brought us all the news they could find out. No one knew what to make of it, and a whole generation was shaken. Their voice was lost.
That's what I remember, and I'm about six years too young to belong to that generation. It's not quite a "where were you when JFK was shot?" experience, but it's not that far off.
At the ten year anniversary, Kurt Loder has written a memorial piece about Nirvana. It's worth reading:
I remember standing in a corridor outside his hotel room one night, after the interview we finally did in December of 1993, discussing this subject at some length: "But the Leadbelly version is called 'Where Did You Sleep Last Night.' " "I know, I know, but the Bill Monroe version is called 'In the Pines,' and that's the title I've always heard and - hey, did you ever hear the Dave Van Ronk version? Great guitar player." "Yeah ...?"
And so forth, more or less. Finally, we arrived at the earth-shaking conclusion that, no matter what title was appended to it, it was the same damn song, so who cared? A geek truce was called. I apologized for having impugned his folk-blues expertise. He said, hey, it was okay. He spoke very softly, I remember. Then he said goodnight and he disappeared behind his door and that was the last time I saw him.
Comments-[ comments.]
# Posted by Becky on 10:44 PM
|
 |
4.2.2004
Hey! Weezer's DVD debuted at #1 on the Billboard Music DVD chart, beating out Linkin Park, Jennifer Lopez, Led Zeppelin and Rob Zombie. That means that lots and lots of other people right now are watching Pat walk down hallways. Woooo!
I kid. It's fabulous. They make fun of O-Town for like, a full minute. Weezer! Making fun of O-Town! That's been a dream of mine for years.
Comments-[ comments.]
# Posted by Rachel on 8:20 PM
|
|
3.31.2004
Sometimes, nothing cheers up a terrible day like a friend emailing you and sending you a link to Rivers Cuomo dressed up like the lost member of Def Leppard. Thanks, Eileen!
Comments-[ comments.]
# Posted by Rachel on 8:46 PM
|
|
3.28.2004
I went to my campus's production of The Rocky Horror Picture Show last night, and after two and a half years, finally put my finger on why I'm not comfortable with it. I have no issue with people who enjoy spending an evening wearing lacy women's undergarments in public and questioning social sexual norms. I'll admit I don't really understand the urge to make sexuality a public event, but I can respect that some people enjoy it or find the environment liberating. And though I don't particularly like it, I have no issue with the movie itself.
My problem is with the whole Rocky Horror theater experience, and more specifically, with the callback lines the audience yells at the screen and the performing cast, because it strikes me that a lot of the yelled lines do the opposite of what the movie itself intends—it's a movie about sexual liberation in a society that can't accept that, and nearly all of the callbacks to the character of Janet undo everything the movie does for the character. She starts off as naive and puritanical, and through the course of the movie is put through bizarre situations which end up introducing her to her own sexuality. She comes out of it realizing that sex is something she enjoys and not something to avoid or be ashamed of. And hey, I can get behind that.
The problem with the callbacks is that the audience immediately tags her as a slut and refers to her that way through the course of the movie—so a girl who doesn't want to have sex has this lewd sexual history made up for her, which the movie in no way implies; and once she realizes that yes, she does enjoy sex, and her own attitude changes, the audience's doesn't.
So on the one hand, you have the girl who isn't comfortable with her sexuality; the assumption is that she's a closet slut. On the other hand, you have a girl who is interested in her own sexuality; naturally she's a slut.
I hate the insult of slut because it implies that a woman's sexuality ought to remain hidden, and reinforces the societal double standard that it's okay for a man to sleep around, but a woman who does the same thing should be ashamed of herself. Anyone who attends Rocky Horror because it's liberating to put sexuality at the forefront should approve of a character who grows to embrace sexuality as something fun, not something shameful. Instead, Janet is a slut for daring to be sexual in a movie where the whole purpose is to make sexuality acceptable. And she's also a slut beforehand because she doesn't want to embrace her sexuality, so she must either have some torrid past or be in denial.
So if someone could just explain to me, if a girl who isn't sexual is a slut, and a girl who is sexual is a slut, just what does a girl have to do to not get slapped with that label?
Comments-[ comments.]
# Posted by Becky on 8:18 PM
|
|
|
|
