H ollywood

By

H ollywood

volume 1, issue 1 an introduction

he entertainment industry is a tent-pole of American T culture. Brushing up against everything and anything, it is impossible to find something that hasn't at least partially been colored by Hollywood. Hollywood representations of things are often considered to be exaggerated and glamorized, with even the grittiest subjects it takes on given a glossy finish and a rose- colored tint. But what happens when Hollywood attempts to tell stories from within? How does the entertainment industry, one seemingly built upon selling an idea of mystery and perfection, paint itself? Is it selling the dream, presenting a world of glamor and anyone-can-do-it success? Or is there something more critical going on? Through examining media portrayals of the media industry, we hope to come away with a better understanding of how the world of entertainment presents itself, and whether or not we are ever able to peel back the curtain surrounding it.

1.

Seth Macfarlane, The Oscars, And Hollywood’s internalized hatred eth MacFarlane is well known While obviously MacFarlane’s Academy for his relative distaste for Awards were extreme, almost an outlier, S it is worth looking at the awards show’s the entertainment industry. attitude towards the industry in general. Making his name as a comedian who takes How truly unusual was MacFarlane’s no prisoners, MacFarlane was a curious brutality? Oftentimes accused of being choice when it was announced that he self-congratulatory and overly schmaltzy, was to host Hollywood’s most prestigious a further examination of the yearly event night. But we went with it, curious to see seems to reveal something colder. Each how far out there he would go. ‘Surely,’ we year there is a trend of teasing those the seemed to be saying to ourselves. ‘Surely he’ll have some limitations.’ Not so!It turned out, to what should have been the surprise of nobody, that MacFarlane’s Oscar stint was, as The New Yorker so eloquently put it “Hostile, Ugly, Sexist”.

MacFarlane’s Oscars were indeed all of those things, opening with a musical act about which actresses in attendance had appeared on screen nude, and continuing James Franco (left) and Anne Hathaway (right) during the 2013 Oscars. on with many moments charged with racism, sexism and everything industry. Gently poking fun at its failures in-between. (calling Django Unchained “... and scandals, something like a roast put the story of a man fighting to get back together by people who are not quite sure his woman, who has been subjected to what a roast is supposed to be. To that unthinkable violence. Or as Chris Brown end, unlike in a roast where there is a and Rihanna call it, a date movie.” was certain amount of exaggeration as well as a double whammy of sexism as well as a tendency to go after oneself and other racism.) The MacFarlane Academy Awards roasters, the hosts of the Oscars never quite remain notable in its deep-rooted negativity seem to be successful in their teasing. The towards it’s institution, prodding directly infamous Jame Franco/Anne Hathaway at its soft spots. It was an uncomfortable co-hosted awards opens with a bit about night, awkward and almost physically Hathaway’s lack of nomination. There’s an painful in its vitriol, so much so that in attempt at levity within it, but in the end the following days MacFarlane formally it feels more like a haphazardly tacked on withdrew from any future hosting duties. 4. ‘just kidding’. This sentiment seems to ring are fair game to the Hollywood criticism through in most Oscar presentations, with machine. With everything everyone did hosts and presenters making jabs at each the night before the subject of intense other in a way that never feels entirely criticism and debate, one starts to wonder fake. whether or not celebrating a year of film even is the reason the event exists at all While the rest of the Franco/Hathaway anymore. The telecast so often feels like telecast limps along and surely does not it is going through the motions that it is have the same amount of hatred in it as difficult to believe that anybody wants MacFarlane’s would in the future, it is to be there in the first place, pans to the noteworthy that so often Hollywood’s audience accentuating this fact. It is a long, biggest night never quite seems to treat absurd process, and it seems aware of it.

Typically elaborate Academy Awards staging as seen at the 84th Annual Academy Awards. itself well. Behind the glittery facade of one Through its mean spirited hosting of the greatest platforms through which mechanics and its generally disinterested the film industry claims to celebrate and audience, it seems as if the Oscars has advertise itself is an odd sort of hate. The always held some contempt for itself. It Oscars seem on some level aware of their just took a push to bring that to the surface. performativity, and seems to consider HBH itself (or at the very least its televised presentations) vapid and distasteful. This is further exemplified in the feeding frenzy that is the post-Oscars news cycle, wherein anyone (especially the hosts)

5.

Ruminations on Fame; Three Careers, Three Essential Profiles he celebrity profile is one method through which Hollywood T markets itself. Often released in conjunction with the release of some new project the star is backing, the profile serves the purpose of giving the average viewer a glimpse into the “hidden lives” of these seemingly untouchable figures. While usually fairly propagandistic and seemingly shallow, often associated with the celebrity going over their beauty routines etc., occasionally a profile will show up that offers surprising depth into its subjects. Following are three such profiles, each examining a different stage in a career, each producing a similar sense of ennui. A Billboad Magazine profile looks into the world of a child-star repenting his past and attempting to build a new future, and a New York Times Magazine article looks at what happens when these attempts continue to fail. Meanwhile, ESPN the Magazine paints a portrait of a celebrity whose time in the sun has most certainly passed. All three are portraits of people at different stages in their lives, and all three end up striking a balance between the critical and the lauding, bringing their subjects into a surprisingly human context.

8. “The Rebirth of Justin Bieber’” - Chris Martins, Billboard Magazine. Nov. 5, 2015

hris Martins’ profile of the newly rebranded Justin Bieber C paints a surprisingly tender portrait of America’s least favorite import. Although easy to write off as another stop on Bieber’s penance press junket, there are moments wherein the young pop-star shows a surprising level of self-awareness, and where Martins’ observations begin to strip away the polished facade that is Bieber and start to show us the young man behind it. One particularly noteworthy example of this occurs when Martins describes offering Bieber a taste of his meal. When he samples my meal – seared ahi, which he has never tried before – he “picks it up with his hands. The taste of rye whiskey in my cocktail makes him wince.” The profile’s relative neutrality-- Martins does not shy away from pointing out Bieber’s egotism-- places it into a different realm from the standard publicity tour pit-stop, questioning both the validity of Bieber’s industry and to an extent his public persona, while working to sell his product. 9. “Here is What Happens When You Cast Lindsay Lohan in Your Movie” - Steven Rodrick, The New York Times Magazine. Jan. 10, 2013.

imilar to Martins’ piece on Bieber, Steven Rodrick’s 2013 profile S on Lindsay Lohan attempts to cast a light on the internal struggles of a celebrity seemingly forever branded with the label of ‘Trainwreck’. Following the production of the 2013 Bret Easton Ellis film The Canyons, Rodrick details the various ways in which Lohan falls apart during filming, from her consistent tardiness to her inability to take direction. However, rather than the overly critical light we often see Lindsay cast in, or even the oddly vindictive one, Rodrick works to reveal the inherent sadness to Lohan.

I mentioned the scene at the house where she dissolved into tears.” he writes. “I may “have said that she still had a gift and that it shouldn’t be squandered. Lohan’s eyes filled. ‘I know. I’m trying. I’m really trying.’ ”

10. “Michael Jordan Has Not Left the Building” Wright Thompson, ESPN The Magazine. Feb. 22, 2013

nlike the Lohan and Bieber pieces, Wright Thompson’s profile U is a look at a man still coming to terms with having once been one of the most famous people on the planet. Taking place over the weeks preceding Jordan’s 50th birthday, the piece reflects not only on Jordan’s career, but on his present position. Frequently returning to the question of whether or not Jordan remains the best player the sport of basketball has ever seen, the profile seems as unsure of it as Jordan. In his frankness, Thompson seems to distill the living struggle that is Jordan, bringing to the forefront the question “what does the man who had everything do now?”. HBH

11.

Netflix’s Bojack Horseman's Critique and Admiration of the Celebrity Game Show etflix’s original series industry, with its critical acclaim Bojack Horseman has putting it squarely in the mainstream. N It is interesting then, that a series so become a key text in self critical of the construct of Hollywood, reflective, self parodying works has found a home here, rather about Hollywood and Hollywood than on, say, YouTube, which has become home to many “alt” cartoons. culture. Satirizing everything from the ubiquity and ham-fistedness of sitcom One such example of this industry criticism Christmas specials, to the trend of child appears in the 8th episode of season two, stars taking on a more extreme and highly “Let’s Find Out”, with the introduction sexualized adult persona, it is a series of a game show called “Hollywoo Stars that offers a massive breadth as well as a And Celebrities, What Do They Know, surprising depth into the typical portrayal of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

Though Bojack does not appear to fit into the standard mold of meta- media productions, (it is, of course, a cartoon about an anthropomorphic horse trying to relive his celebrity glory days rather than about, you know, human people) it is still a definite rumination on this culture of celebrity and Title card for ‘Hollywoo Stars and Celebrities; featuring a giant Mr. Peanutbutter the way we interact with Do They Know Things?? Let’s Find Out!”, it. While interesting in and of itself, it is also known as HWSAC WTDK DTKT?? also worth noting that Bojack is not really LFO!. (A season one arc involving the theft an independent production, with Will of the “D” at the end of the Hollywood Arnett and Aaron Paul serving on the sign transformed the Bojack universe’s team of executive producers. Both hold Hollywood into Hollywoo. A longstanding a fair amount of pull with their names, joke and a piece of commentary on especially considering Bojack was the first Hollywood’s culture in its own right and project Paul attached his name to following worth further examination, though that his lauded performance in Breaking Bad, could be said of the show in its entirety.) with Arnett a well established comedian. Created by JD Salinger, the show offers Though is still more or less in it’s a platform in which celebrities, both real fledgeling stages as a production company, as well as fictionalized animal parodies it is still a part of the entertainment 14. of real celebrities, compete on a trivia want to be friends with. This is especially show to win cash for charities. The events prevalent in the more contemporary seen range from fairly typical ‘What’s games, like the aforementioned Hollywood the average rainfall in Bora Bora?’ to Game Night, where celebrities are paired the absurd, (‘What did I say after I saw JJ with everyday people to essentially play Abrams’ ?’). An obvious parody of living room party games. The accessibility the celebrity game show format currently of celebrities seen in this format, as well as seeing a resurgence, the show-within-a- the cheery, welcoming personas generally show paints a pointed, if not a little loving, set forward by most of the star guests, portrait of this aspect of celebrity culture. works to sell the idea that celebrities really are just like us, kind honest and While parodying the inherent absurdity of goofy people. In fact, you could be friends! these game shows, pointing out both the This construction then continues to feed lengths to which the shows will go to be the glossy image of the entertainment “entertaining” (the giant prop head of the industry, where everything is fun and host, Mr. Peanutbutter, for one) whether game, just like it is for you, only better! or not the actual content of the program has any merit, as well as the relative blind This over idealized vision of Hollywood, faith the industry as well as consumers where everything is hunky-dory for seem to have in celebrities. The title everyone all the time always, is then at its of the program itself pokes fun at this core the target of critique for “Let’s Find celebrity idolatry, with the playful teasing Out”. What happens, it asks, when the that we the audience don’t actually know celebrity subjects are actually not likeable anything about these people we seem to at all? What would happen if they showed worship (‘What Do They Know, Do They their edges? The decision to put Bojack Know Things??’) and two, the expectation on the show inherently sets “HWSAC that they do, and that what they know WDTK DTKT?? LFO!” up to challenge will be worthwhile (‘Let’s Find Out!’). this attachment to the construct, with the introduction of Daniel Radcliffe to play Game shows starring celebrities as the role of Proper Celebrity accentuating contestants has been a fairly consistent this. The episode culminates in Mr. programming decision within the history Peanutbutter and Bojack confronting one of American television, though for a time as another about their respective relationships with the game show genre in general, had with Peanutbutter’s wife, Diane. (An fallen out of favor. Noteworthy examples overarching story in the series involves include Celebrity Squares, popular in the Bojack attempting to navigate his feelings mid 1970s, and the more contemporary for Diane in spite of her relationship with resurgence of the format with programs Peanutbutter.) This confrontation brings like Hollywood Game Night. Flashy and to the surface many of the underlying often overstuffed with celebrities, the genre tensions throughout the series, with seems to ride on the idea of humanizing Peanutbutter showing unprecedented these celebrities, portraying them almost rage, and Bojack finally admitting on live like loveable neighbors, people you would television that he is deeply unhappy with

15. himself, and jealous of Peanutbutter’s This exploration of how deep the apparent contentedness. It is a somber foundation of this constructed reality of moment, the studio audience unsure of Hollywood goes is one of the stronger what to make of this very human (horseian?) points in Bojack. It is not shy to point out the moment as it is so fundamentally opposite darker underbelly of Hollywood, and the

Peanutbutter ridiculing Bojack on set. of their expectations for their stars. The inherent manipulation of image. However, idea of a celebrity showing themselves within all this there is still a distinct in such a vulnerable and, to be honest, reverence for entertainment. Its critiques nasty way, momentarily upsets the status come out of a certain admiration for the quo within the Bojack universe, just as it culture, as well as an understanding of the would in ours. However, Peanutbutter’s overall draw of Hollywood. Sure it may all producers demand they make up on stage, be fake, but is that not what we want from regardless of their actual feelings, as the it? Isn’t that what we need sometimes? audience is not responding well to this HBH confrontation. And so, as with all television (and perhaps this is the point here), the tension is mitigated, Peanutbutter forgives Bojack, and Peanutbutter is back to being a pleasant and accessible friend.

16.. Race, Industry, and Raised Expectations Seen in ’s aster of None, another of navigate his dating life as well as his budding Netflix’s original programs acting career. The series, which opens M on a sex scene between Dev and Rachel has become a latecomer in the (Noël Wells), is not shy about addressing best shows of 2015 lists. So far various widespread issues regarding critically well received, the ten episode race not just within entertainment, but first season was produced and co-created society at large. In the decision to open by comedian Aziz Ansari. Ansari, who the series in such a way, Ansari is carving also stars in the series, is best known for a definitive space for himself. Not only

Dev (Ansari) on a date with Rachel (Noel Wells)

his work on NBC’s Parks and Recreation, is he an Indian man starring in his own as well as for his various stand-up specials series, but he will be representing himself and writing projects. He is far from a minor no differently than anyone else on a player in contemporary Hollywood, having more or less unrated television series. seen much success in recent years. Master This is of particular note given not only of None functions not only as a platform the lack of representation of South Asian to reach a slightly wider audience than the people in media, but also the way in which usual comedy nerd, but also as Ansari’s the Asian male (when he appears) is mouthpiece for critiquing his industry. consistently portrayed as neutered within western media. This is assertion of normalcy Master of None follows Dev (Ansari), is furthered throughout the season, with a young Indian man as he attempts to many of the character arcs taking the form

18. of slice-of-life stories. How do you best text It is hard not to see this as at least semi asking for a confirmation from someone autobiographical, given the very obvious you made date plans with if they aren’t lack of almost any Indian people on responding? What makes a good first date? television, much less two at once. Ansari, in the diversity of his production and the However, Ansari also refuses to fall into direct way in which he addresses this issue the trend of whitewashing minority of race, is making a very direct comment characters. Although there are many on the entertainment industry. Why is this instances where Dev’s race is not a primary the way things are? Why does it seem like factor in his story, there are just as many you hate me? Simultaneously however, if not more where it is key. The season’s Ansari not only seems to be asking for the second episode, ‘Parents’, focuses on issues industry to do better, but showing that he between second-generation children thinks it very well can be. Within the same and their immigrant parents, something episode while expressing frustration that where race plays an obvious central role with the exception of black actors (“black in the narrative. A poignant observation people only just now got to two!”) there can on the sacrifices made by people to better never be two minorities on TV, Dev’s friend the lives of their children, Ansari takes a points out various points of progress that critical lens to the often seen ignorance of have been made in terms of diversity. It is a the immigrant story, while also remaining moment of both hope and frustration, and able to josh about how we interact with our along with the rest of the episode (as well parents, in particular immigrant parents. It as the series’ own existence) very clearly is something that could be done on a “white” presents Ansari’s hope for the future. sitcom, however it would in many ways lack the strong emotional underpinnings Though produced by Netflix and therefore as well as the (unfortunate) uniqueness a more divergent piece of media than of seeing the story of a first generation mainstream productions, Master of None American being told on television. is not an “Indie” show. It is very much tied to a big backer, with relatively high More obviously tied to race and profile names attached and a well thought entertainment however is Ansari’s out visual style. The assertion of space consistent criticism of the casting practices for minority bodies, as well as Ansari’s towards minority actors. This theme is call for betterment within the industry particularly visible in the season’s fourth creates a compelling piece of light-yet- episode, aptly named ‘Indian’s on TV’. critical television. Master of None does Consistently within the episode, Dev not portray the entertainment industry (and, really, Ansari) asks the question as a thing of dreams, it is a difficult “Why can’t there be two Indian guys on place, often nasty and almost always TV?” When Dev has the opportunity to racist, but at the same time there is the meet with a studio head after accidentally understanding that it doesn’t have to be being sent a minorly racist email, he this way. Ansari is vocalizing his raised asks this and is told that doing so would expectations, and is doing so to great effect. brand the program as “an Indian show”. HBH

19.

Never Say Never and the Silencing of Justin Bieber Selling out the iconic Madison Square Garden at just 16, Justin Bieber has become an international icon. But the life of a child star is anything but fun and games at the sidelines of John Chu's 2010 concert documentary.

here is a moment in Jon Never Say Never is an industry Chu's 2010 documentary documentary. It is, arguably, a far cry T from serious filmmaking. It feels almost Never Say Never, following teen propagandistic at times, interviews with pop sensation Justin Bieber as he fans and staff universally praise Bieber prepares to perform at Madison and the tour. The immensity of the event, a sold out performance at Madison Square Square Garden for the first time, Garden is continually harped on. “I don't where a young Bieber is asked what think it's ever been done before,” Bieber's he wants to be when he grows up. manager Scooter Braun says, outlining how it had only been a year and a half since It is a home video, grainy with an offset Bieber really started out as a musician. white balance, Bieber is probably no The documentary follows fairly typical more than six. It cuts before he speaks, collection of beats, no pun intended. From throwing the viewers backstage with him a quick look at his early childhood to before the Garden. This in turn ends up occasional clips of on the road shenanigans, almost becoming the film's subconscious the film does not stand out from other thesis-- it does not matter what the boy quickly produced highly promotional pop- has to say about it all, this is his life now, docs such as Morgan Spurlock's take on this is the decision that was made for One Direction in This Is Us. It is glossy, him, for better or for worse. (The fact with quick cuts and plenty of talking head that we never hear child Bieber's response interviews outlining the beats, emotional leads me to believe whatever he said had and otherwise, of Bieber's meteoric rise to nothing to do with music at all.) It's a fame. On the surface it is all very appealing, fascinating examination on fame, industry, what is a more classic fame narrative and youth although perhaps not for the than that perfect storm of luck and reasons the documentary itself assumes. hard work paying off to massive results?

22. Bieber shot for V Magazine in 2012, two years following Never Say Never

The concept of work is ever present through moment where Bieber stops to encourage the film, which uses these ideas to not a young girl busking outside of a theater. only lend itself some form of legitimacy There is a level of self awareness in the ('look how much work goes into putting interaction-- he is an artist at work. He together a show like this!') but to further is conducting PR, it is his job to sell the the industry narrative of hard work paying idea that working hard pays off in the off. Bieber is constantly praised for working most unbelievable ways and so here he hard, with various people outlining things is, on his “day off”, still working. It is like water park concerts and constant not, seemingly, consciously framed this radio publicity in order to give credence way by the film however. Instead the to the idea of Bieber as a professional. documentary uses the moment to spell out Even on his “vacation” day there is a it's assumed thesis, never say never to your

23. dreams, good things happen to those who informs a doctor, brought in to look at work hard. It is a classic entertainment Bieber's throat, that it is after his days off industry narrative, and one that the that Bieber comes back the hoarsest. The film works hard to sell to it's audience. film then gives the audience a series of What is interesting then, and here we go shots of Bieber screaming etc while playing back to the aforementioned home video around, as sixteen year old boys are wont

Bieber foe Interview Magazine, 2016., asking the audience to think about how lucky he really is cut, is what is happening in the subtext. to do. It is an oddly condemning sequence, Bieber himself is never interviewed in even more so when Bieber is put on vocal the piece, despite being its subject, with rest. This is the most literal silencing the the exception of a sequence where he is film bears witness to and in many ways proudly showing off his grandfather's acts as a more tangible example of his taxidermy collection. He is spoken of, and overarching lack of autonomy. What do he is shown working, but his opinions on you want to be when you grow up, Justin? his life and the whole situation are never asked. Outside of a brief sequence outlining Partway through the film his vocal coach a single day he is back in his hometown

24. and allowed to spend time with his it forgets that it is also showing what friends, Bieber is never shown with the cost of this endeavor seems to be. another person his own age. It is a subtle HBH thing, but it is unnerving nevertheless. In an interview the artist Usher recounts a moment at the MTV Video Music Awards where, while listening to a speech being given by Madonna about how “... we stole Michael Jackson's childhood...” Bieber turned to him and apparently said, “Don't let that happen to me.”

It is an interesting thing for the film to have included, considering it is sandwiched sometime after his vocal coach chastising his “whining” for a normal childhood. She describes how she tells Beiber he “gave that up” when he made the decision to become a pop star, though it remains unclear as to how much of that was truly Bieber's choice. It creates a polarizing contrast, both an example of Bieber's awareness of his position in life, but also how the adults surrounding him seem to disregard his status as a teenager. It is difficult to see how one can justify the saying in one breath they admit that it is a difficult circumstance for the boy while in the next criticize him for mourning that loss. Again, it seems to be that whenever Bieber speaks for himself, he is silenced.

When looking at representations of fame and the entertainment industry produced by Hollywood etc, it is perhaps more illuminating to look closely at the quick shallow productions than it is to look at more “serious” endeavors. There is something to be said for subtext, what is revealed when it seems like we aren't paying attention. In many ways, Never Say Never is trying so hard to sell the rags to riches dreams of Justin Bieber,

25. hannah Skibbe, Dec. 2015