Archive for the 'Hollywood' Category

I’m Pregnant–So Love Me!

jloooo__opt.jpgBabies are us?

As someone who studies the zeitgeist maybea bit too much, I’m always looking for something “black.” It changes each season… For a while everyone talked about pink but gay is pretty boring these days. Then orange was okay. And my personal favorite was: Black is the new black! Now it seems BABIES are so in. See them inside Juno, see them within Nickelodeon shows, see them on every magazine covers, and now they pop up Friday night on Gilmore Girls’ Amy Palladino’s new Fox vehicle, “Return to Jezebel James,” where girl makes sister have baby. Then weeks later at Tribeca Festival when Fey hires a “Baby Mama” (Amy Poehler, no less) to do it for cash.

And may we speak about Angelina Jolie, Gwen Stefani, Jessica Alba, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, and maybe even you? Even one of the Kates is pregnant–who knows which one. Besides all being A-list actresses, these are all pregnant A-listers–except you. And the only thing better then being a Real Hot actress in Hollywood is being a pregnant Talk About in Hollywood.

The media worship such stories. They are the easiest news pegs known to man. The country is headed into economic recession (let’s just say IN an economic recession), we’re in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Jennifer Lopez is getting paid $6 million for exclusive photos of her babies? I mean, she’s married to a skeleton!

A sort of funny part of the story is that this deal was contingent on the magazine’s promise to stop referring to the actress/singer/dancer/mother as J.Lo. For 6 million they can call your ass anything they want, you know, bitch?

Breathe deep, Richard.

J.Lo (waiting for my cut) is not al. Lots of stars are making bank off babies—and sometimes it’s just news wealth (”keeping me out there”). See, “stars” like Kidman, after eight bombs in a row, need something to keep her alive in the tabs. All the celebrities do it, from X-tina to Nicole Ritchie, who is undoubtedly the ugliest person to ever a People magazine with a, ahem, glow.

You know what, we’re all guilty. Everyone watches for showings. The Oscars was more about the baby bumps than clothes; the awards were a second point—the dresses hardly one. Instead of ogling the jewels or hair, the focus was on what’s sticking ut. I’m still not quite sure what the glow of pregnancy looks like, but I’m sure Hollywood stylists are busy trying to develop a spray-on version.

Then there’s Kate Hudson, who would be an extra if it were not for her Mom. She’s not pregnant but talks about it a lot—meaning the fact she isn’t. And on that note: DId anyone see “Fool’s Gold? Which is the better story?

Lisa Marie Presley. No one cared about her when she was Elvis’ daughter (he’s been dead 21 years) and yet she needed to announce she’s pregnant because a tabloid said it was that or she’s fat! Chubby is sinful when you have no career.

Th one real trendsetter in all this is Ms. Jolie. The Brangelina adopts and even conceives their own – a serious double threat. The J-Pitts traded in their entourage for a FAMTEROUGE (like it?) and have only reached greater heights of notoriety with the brood.

Brava/o!

Ah, yes. The news story. Pregnancy is confirmed with an announcement from a publicist or with a bump premier at a high-end baby store or a home that’s prearranged for baby comings. Here they feign indignation about invasion of privacy. We wonder why they didn’t just shop online!

So while they keep us guessing, coyly wearing flowing frocks while issuing non-denial denials—a thread you Punks hear here all the time—they get the word out, faces on covers, doctor appointments scrutinized like Zapruder. They ensure their careers as celebrities endure regardless of their “work.” And if you’re not sold, ask yourself… Can you name the two movies that J.Lo (”Jennifer”) was in during 2007? How about her TWO released albums? But you know the saga of her twins, doncha. Kinda smart…kinda Punk. Now all she has to do is something artful—or she can keep having kids?

Final analysis is in: Overdoing it is the new black.


What Is Hollywood Anyway?

As I rush off to India for my first tour of Bollywood, I thnk to pay attention to Julian Myer’s comments to Variety last Friday (“Myers fears Hollywood’s end is near”):

Longtime Hollywood publicist Julian Myers will turn 90 soon. And he worries the end may be near … for his beloved town.

Myers frets that the WGA stalemate — with all of its acrimony, vitriol ,and job losses — is a harbinger of ill things for the industry.

“The strike impasse is speeding the end of Hollywood filmmaking and television production,” said he.

Notice Myers qualifies his statement with the word HOLLYWOOD because film and video production are no longer geographically anchored to that festering freak show.

However, while we certainly agree with his sentiment that much volatile change is afoot, we wouldn’t go so far with the doomsaying Mr. Myers portrays. Though the colossal days of Hollywood largesse are waning, rest assured the studio system of today isn’t going anywhere. There will always be power players, but maybe this strike will have done some good.

In fact, why do Myers’ comments strike such a chord with the Punk Marketing crowd?

His statement is illustrative of the way the wind is blowing, highlighting the fact that media content models are shifting. But all of this could leave the uninitiated scratching their heads asking “Golly, what’s next?”

It’s a pretty easy question to answer if…

…you’ve read Punk Marketing (especially Chapters 10 & 11!).

…you were one of the 13 MILLION people who watched that “Chocolate Rain” video, composed and performed by 25-year-old singer/songwriter Tay Zonday.

…you work for Dr. Pepper’s marketing team and were smart enough to pay Tay to do a branded content video for Pepper’s line of Cherry Chocolate soda.

You may have already seen the “Rain” when it was posted on YouTube back in November, along with the gazillions who started sending it to friends, but if not—loser—you can check it out here.

It’s a kick ass example of how an independent artist (quote unquote) can benefit from a new content model and oddly cash-in on the power of 2.0! And how companies CAN use branded content for marketing to insinuate themselves into a mix without being too damn heavy-handed.

So if it works for marketing, why not TV shows and movies? It’s only a matter of time before major production dudes begin seriously engaging and recruiting straight from the ranks of DIY artisans just now relegated to the wilds of YouTube and the very large Web.

In fact it’s already happening. Peep into what Jenna Wortham posted on Wired’s Underwire blog last Tuesday, “From YouTube to the BoobTube: a Parody of The Office Gets a Movie Deal:”

A group of YouTubers hit it big when their mash-up vid got picked up for small-screen distribution. 305, due out on DVD this Spring, will be a Spinal Tap-style mockumentary, following the adventures of a group of Spartans.

So there you have it. Need clearer?

Myer’s was right in one respect: ‘an end’ is near in a manner of speaking: but it’s the end of the beginning, not the beginning per se.

No writers strike, no stalemate, no real Hollywood—it’s all just gravy for everyone!

Or maybe curry.


What Is Hollywood Anyway?

As I rush off to India for my first tour of Bollywood, I thnk to pay attention to Julian Myer’s comments to Variety last Friday (“Myers fears Hollywood’s end is near”):

Longtime Hollywood publicist Julian Myers will turn 90 soon. And he worries the end may be near … for his beloved town.

Myers frets that the WGA stalemate — with all of its acrimony, vitriol ,and job losses — is a harbinger of ill things for the industry.

“The strike impasse is speeding the end of Hollywood filmmaking and television production,” said he.

Notice Myers qualifies his statement with the word HOLLYWOOD because film and video production are no longer geographically anchored to that festering freak show.

However, while we certainly agree with his sentiment that much volatile change is afoot, we wouldn’t go so far with the doomsaying Mr. Myers portrays. Though the colossal days of Hollywood largesse are waning, rest assured the studio system of today isn’t going anywhere. There will always be power players, but maybe this strike will have done some good.

In fact, why do Myers’ comments strike such a chord with the Punk Marketing crowd?

His statement is illustrative of the way the wind is blowing, highlighting the fact that media content models are shifting. But all of this could leave the uninitiated scratching their heads asking “Golly, what’s next?”

It’s a pretty easy question to answer if…

…you’ve read Punk Marketing (especially Chapters 10 & 11!).

…you were one of the 13 MILLION people who watched that “Chocolate Rain” video, composed and performed by 25-year-old singer/songwriter Tay Zonday.

…you work for Dr. Pepper’s marketing team and were smart enough to pay Tay to do a branded content video for Pepper’s line of Cherry Chocolate soda.

You may have already seen the “Rain” when it was posted on YouTube back in November, along with the gazillions who started sending it to friends, but if not—loser—you can check it out here.

It’s a kick ass example of how an independent artist (quote unquote) can benefit from a new content model and oddly cash-in on the power of 2.0! And how companies CAN use branded content for marketing to insinuate themselves into a mix without being too damn heavy-handed.

So if it works for marketing, why not TV shows and movies? It’s only a matter of time before major production dudes begin seriously engaging and recruiting straight from the ranks of DIY artisans just now relegated to the wilds of YouTube and the very large Web.

In fact it’s already happening. Peep into what Jenna Wortham posted on Wired’s Underwire blog last Tuesday, “From YouTube to the BoobTube: a Parody of The Office Gets a Movie Deal:”

A group of YouTubers hit it big when their mash-up vid got picked up for small-screen distribution. 305, due out on DVD this Spring, will be a Spinal Tap-style mockumentary, following the adventures of a group of Spartans.

So there you have it. Need clearer?

Myer’s was right in one respect: ‘an end’ is near in a manner of speaking: but it’s the end of the beginning, not the beginning per se.

No writers strike, no stalemate, no real Hollywood—it’s all just gravy for everyone!

Or maybe curry.


News! Media Violence Turns Criminals Into Big Babies!

“Does Movie Violence Decrease Violent Crime?” was some freaky talk of the town last week. This is the most Punk idea I’ve seen yet. A study that inspired an article in the NY Times that says, and don’t laugh, “Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” and was conducted by two economists; it isn’t a psychiatric or medical study. Not too juicy in the end. But it is pretty funny! And it goes to show that any major corporation (moviemakers in this case) can lobby any real science into helping them prove a bizarre, albeit farfetched and stretched-to-the-limit, point.

Bottom line – some geniuses are using the new freakonomics (a word now…) to prove that yes, if you are a bad person who watches killings and rapes and muggings and the like, you will calm yourself from doing them – at least for a while. Really now.

“Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” (Pieces Of The Article)

The study’s authors acknowledge that their research does not refute and in fact lends credence to the findings of laboratory studies. Neither does it address the long-term effects of exposure to violent media, an influence they view as pernicious.

Rather, the research uses a decade of national crime reports, cinema ratings and movie audience data to examine what has happened to rates of violent crime during and immediately after violent films are shown.

Though such films may indeed stimulate a greater tendency toward aggression in audiences, the bigtime economist offers a rejoinder much favored by economists: Compared to what?

Young men are the most likely to commit violent crimes. In opting to see a movie — even one featuring, say, gang rape or chain-saw amputation — they forgo activities that have a greater tendency to encourage mayhem, like drinking and drug use.

“Economics is about choice,” he said. “What would these people have done if they had not chosen to go and see a movie? Whatever they would have done would have had a greater tendency to involve alcohol. If you can incapacitate a large group of potentially violent people, that’s a good thing.”

“It’s not as if these people watching violent movies would otherwise be home reading a book.”
Their entire study is super long, but I cut out a few choice snippets:

In this paper, we provide causal evidence on the short-run effect of media violence on violent crime. We exploit the natural experiment induced by time-series variation in the violence of movies shown in the theater. As in the psychology experiments, we estimate the short-run effect of exposure to violence, but unlike in the experiments, the outcome variable is violent crime rather than aggressiveness. Importantly, the laboratory and field setups also differ due to self-selection and to the context of violent media exposure. Using a violence rating system from kids-in-mind.com and daily revenue data, we generate a daily measure of box office audience for strongly violent (e.g., “Hannibal”), mildly violent (e.g., “Spider-Man”), and non-violent movies (e.g., “Runaway Bride”). Since blockbuster movies differ significantly in violence rating, and movie sales are concentrated in the initial weekends after release, there is substantial variation in exposure to movie violence over time.

The audience for strongly violent and mildly violent movies, respectively, is as high as 12 million and 25 million people on some weekends, and is close to zero on others (see Figures 1a-1b). We use crime data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and measure violent crime on a given day as the sum of reported assaults (simple or aggravated) and intimidation. We find no evidence that exposure to media violence increases violent behavior in the short-run.

After controlling flexibly for seasonality, we find that, on days with a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower. To rule out unobserved factors that contemporaneously increase movie attendance and decrease violence, such as rainy weather, we use two strategies.

First, we add controls for weather and days with high TV viewership. Second, and most importantly, we instrument for movie audience using the predicted movie audience based on the following weekend’s audience. This instrumental variable strategy exploits the predictability of the weekly decrease in attendance. Adding in controls and instrumenting, the correlation between movie violence and violent crime becomes more negative and remains statistically significant.

The estimated effect of exposure to violent movies is small in the morning or afternoon hours (6AM-6PM), when movie attendance is minimal. In the evening hours (6PM-12AM), instead, we detect a significant negative effect on crime. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crimes decrease by 1.3 and 1.1 percent. The effect is smaller and statistically insignificant for non-violent movies. In the nighttime hours following the movie showing (12AM-6AM), the delayed effect of exposure to movie violence is even more negative. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crime decreases by 1.9 and 2.1 percent. Non-violent movies have no statistically significant impact. Unlike in the psychology experiments, therefore, media violence appears to decrease violent behavior in the immediate aftermath of exposure, with large aggregate effects. The total net effect of violent movies is to decrease assaults by roughly 1,000 occurrences per weekend, for an annual total of about 52,000 weekend assaults prevented.

We also examine the delayed impact of exposure to movie violence on violent crime. While our research design (like the laboratory designs) cannot test for a long-run impact, we can examine the medium-run impact in the days and weeks following exposure. We find no impact on violent crime on Monday and Tuesday following weekend movie exposure. We also find no impact one, two, and three weeks after initial exposure, controlling for current exposure. This implies that the same-day decrease in crime is unlikely to be due to intertemporal substitution of crime from the following days.

While reading about the studies, I learned there’s actually a DVD player that automatically deletes all the juicy bits of movies. It’s a Mormon device.

It was invented four years ago, I read online yesterday–a trend I had no idea about: “What the world really needs now is more uptight little companies from Utah that will help us all block out the random messy naked blood n’ guts of the world. Companies that will, without anyone asking them to, protect us from media evildoers and exposed flesh and scary exploding things and that part in ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ wherein the universe is blessed, for the briefest of moments, with … Kate Winslet’s nipples.

…Utah-based ClearPlay, a shrill little corporation that has taken it upon itself to sit around the cube farm all day and watch countless Hollywood flicks and zap out any and all icky violent suggestive material in, say, “Lost In Translation.” For your protection. How kind.”

What is ClearPlay?

Great question! ClearPlay is a fancy DVD Player that can play regular DVD movies — but without profanity, violence and nudity.

Wow! How does that work?

It’s really quite ingenious. We create filtering information on a movie by movie basis, and then put those “filters” into the DVD player. This way, the DVD player knows when to skip or mute while the movie is playing.

But isn’t it choppy?

Nope. That’s the great thing about the ClearPlay service. We love movies just as much as you do, so we take great care to maintain the presentation quality of the movie– the only thing gone is “that one scene” you wish the kids never saw.

What about new movies?

Another great question! If you sign up for a ClearPlay Membership then we provide constant updates for your DVD player. This way ClearPlay works with new movies as they come out. It is really just that simple (and cool!).

Me again. The above was from their site. I’m wondering if parents do anything for their kids anymore. Besides cut their meat, of course.

Have you heard nuff? Go out and watch some gorey movies, kids, and I’ll see you on the street.


Tic, Tac, Dumb

I don’t spend a lot of time in the cinema itself, it’s all payperview and downloaded crap these days, but I was with my parents and it was a choice between Atonement and… Wait! What about “Juno”? I happen to be a huge Michael Cera freak (www.clarkandmichael.com is mad hilarity) and so we went. Turns out the film’s fabulous - and finally a director, young Reitman, whose deft skill at creating coming AND serious turns, makes me sit up and go “I’ll tell everyone.”

However, there is a main character, Orange Tic Tacs, that actually threw me for a loop. Not since “My Big Fat Greek TV Movie” and the Michael Considine obsession with Windex, has a major American product placement (non-paid, I am told) been featured so “cool-y” in a major motion picture. And yet Ferrero USA, makers of the Tic Tac thang, have not done a thing to capitalize on Paul’s (Cera’s) nonstop fascination with the little orange one calorie treats (they actually use those words in the flick!).

I remember a billion years ago (94) when Quiz Show came out and Geritol was featured as a sponsor and it took six months and a few Oscar nods before that brand did anything to make hay with the news. And back then, social networking did not exist- not to mention the fact that Geritol was a sponsor of a SCANDALIZED show within the movie, so in fact it wasn’t too positive.

But heck, Ferrero, most known for Nutela and other badly-named old brands, has an opportunity to go for broke here with the one movie everyone is talking about that doesn’t star Johnny Depp.
They have their arms folded, I can tell, and it’s probably because “Juno” is about a 16-year-old pregnant kid — a brilliant and mature one, mind you — and they don’t want to get caught up in a debate about whether the candies support unwed young Mommies.

This is where the Punk mentality about making noise comes in handy. I can only hope that the Tic Tac makers out there somehow, somewhere, get their shit together and create a Tic Tac Orange subsite for people to share what’s orange about their lives — and even maybe create a little old chat room for lovers of this fine new American-made talk of the town. I want to see a Tic Tac character that, like that dancing baby of yore, appears in the oddest places throughout our Wide Web world.

If not, they are going to have orange mud all over their face. And in the DVD, you can best be sure a clever mini-doc on how Reitman and screenwriter Diago Cody (whatta name) “chose the Orange Tic Tac” …will be a wasted opportunity because by then we’ll have moved onto the next gimmick in our fast and fickle lives.