Deborah Lipp

Okay, part one was negative, and got a surprisingly strong reaction. You must have noticed, though, that despite my negativity, I’m watching the thing.

The phrase that comes to mind for me when enjoying What Not to Wear is “it takes a village.”

It is not news that we live in an increasingly isolated culture. Extended families have given way to nuclear families. Americans socialize in local groups less and less. We have less dependency on social networks like church groups, fraternal organizations, scouting, and on and on. All of these things—family, church, clubs—constituted the “village” that allowed us to be nurtured in diverse ways.

Suppose you grew up in the 1930s and Mom didn’t know how to cook. You could still learn how to cook from Grandma or Auntie or from your next-door neighbor. But now Grandma and Auntie don’t live with you and you probably don’t even know your next-door neighbor. So if Mom and Dad can’t cook, you can’t cook. Or, you watch Rachael Ray.

So with What Not to Wear, you’re learning things you might have learned from your extended network, if people still had those. And in a way, it’s disheartening, that people walk through life clueless, without a lot of the basic information they should have, and it takes a TV show to straighten them out.

Now, I am definitely a person that has picked up information slowly and been clueless about things. So I have plenty to learn in life that I might have or should have or didn’t learn from a “village.” So this show, and shows like it, are surely helpful and interesting. Plus, shopping, colors, sarcasm—all fun. I like the show in those ways. But it does seem like WNtW fills a gap that shouldn’t need filling, rather than merely being entertaining or generally educational.

The Illusionist (2006) 7/10Eisenheim the Illusionist (Ed Norton) was once a young peasant named Edward in turn-of-the-century Vienna. A chance meeting with a young Duchess (Jessica Biel) was the beginning of a forbidden childhood friendship. Torn apart as children, they meet again as adults when Eisenheim performs his illusions before the Duchess’s fiancé, Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). Now the Prince has the Chief Inspector (Paul Giamatti) investigating Eisenheim for reasons unknown.

The Illusionist is one of those films bound to disappoint because it staggers under the weight of its own buzz. It’s a good movie; a bit slow, a bit clunky, a bit self-important, but lovely to look at and with yet another bravura Norton performance. Giamatti is also receiving much praise for a performance that reminds me of Keifer Sutherland’s bizarre turn in Dark City.

The buzz would have you believe that the illusions of the title are all a metaphor for life. Or love. Or something. But actually, they’re just stage trickery. The film’s intention appears to be to integrate the illusion of films themselves with the illusion of audience hopes with the illusions created on stage. But this is pretty ambitious, and it doesn’t quite get there.

When people ask me what I thought of The Illusionist, I generally start with “Ed Norton was amazing” and the reaction is generally “Yeah, so?” Ed Norton has already had a career of such virtuosity that one shrugs off the brilliant performance and asks about the movie. Yet, in the months since I’ve seen the film, Norton’s performance haunts me. I’ve just about forgotten Sewell’s unforgiveable scene-chewing, and Biel’s merely adequate effort, but I can close my eyes and see the sorrow and anger in Norton’s eyes like I’m sitting in the theater. I’m inclined to say it’s worth seeing the film for the performance.

I should also add that Arthur loved the movie. Being sixteen, he’s a less jaded viewer than I, but he’s not an uncritical one. He views films fairly thoughtfully and I respect his opinion.

» Read more..

Over the holidays, I watched a What Not to Wear marathon. While the show is totally addictive, the functioning part of my brain had mixed reactions. I’ll get into the negative today and later address the positive.

Makeover shows sell a promise of personal transformation. They are all product placement shows (sometimes more obviously than others), and they are all interested in telling you to buy, buy, buy. A bald message of consumerism works—QVC is popular, and plenty of people sit around watching infomercials as if they were real talk shows. But makeover shows tell you that it’s not consumerism, it’s self-improvement.

I watch these people—the makeover recipients—talk about how they’re changing themselves, how they feel more confident, how changing the outside works to change the inside. I watch the stylists teach people who hate their bodies to dress in a way that accentuates their bodies’ beauty, and show them how wonderful their bodies can be. And all of this is so very, very persuasive.

And yet. » Read more..