This Video Must Play At My Birthday Party

I have decided that this video, "Rainbow Brite: It's Your Birthday Party!" must play on my birthday today, preferably on a big plasma-screen TV, maybe at home, maybe at a sports bar.


Points of note:

1) This video was designed to be played during an actual birthday party; if you notice, sometimes the characters will stop talking long enough to give you a chance to respond. Then, whether you have responded or not, they will continue as if you said something. Don't watch this video alone for extended periods of time, as the effect will be akin to that movie "Videodrome."

2) That big mascot outfit with the freaky moving lips for Rainbow Brite was not necessary; they should have just dressed up some girl for the part. Cuz this looks kinda creepy.

3) For those who don't know, Rainbow Brite was a 1980s cartoon character with her own toy line (or, rather, toy with her own cartoon show). She was not as awesome as Strawberry Shortcake, but more beloved than Herself the Elf.

4) Twink the big white puffball did not, to my knowledge, have such a big role in the Rainbow Brite cartoon as he/she has here. I do not believe this is "canon," so when puzzling out questions of continuity regarding Twink, please refer to the cartoon (which is "canon"). Also, Twink had a tragic history, as he/she was tossed into a pit by Murky Dismal and had all his/her color stripped out; hence Twink being the only white Sprite in Rainbowland. If you watch carefully, you can see the pain behind the smiles.

5) My favorite line is after Rainbow Brite sings her version of "Happy Birthday." Twink says, "You made the song sound completely different!"

6) This video is a pretty good encapsulation of the kid culture that was shoved down our throats in the mid-1980s. On one hand, I think the children of the current generation have evolved past the point where they could enjoy this sort of pablum. On the other hand, it was the aesthetic of shows/toys like Rainbow Brite, Strawberry Shortcake, My Little Pony and others that helped set the tone for a lot of the "ironically hip" pop-culture we currently enjoy.

7) Happy Birthday To Me! Ha!

Bubblegum Culture

Teen movie, 1965

I watched this recent movie the other day called "John Tucker Must Die" that made "The Craft" look like "No Country For Old Men" and "The Breakfast Club" look like "Citizen Kane." It seemed so stupid, shallow, and without relevance to the realities teens really face. And yet I wondered if it was really all those things -- or was I just becoming an old fuddy-duddy? I was open to the possibility that I didn't appreciate it because I just wasn't 16 -- and that perhaps it really was a good movie, only I couldn't recognize it.

Teen movie, 1985

Somehow, I remember "The Breakfast Club" and "Say Anything" having a bit more depth than "John Tucker Must Die." "Breakfast Club" dealt with rebellion, pain, abuse, and friendship. It was, to an extent, about teens attempting to forge their own identities in the face of a system that wanted them to just follow preprogrammed roles. It addressed frustrations and emotions that I could relate to; and as such, I felt very involved with the movie, and even changed (slightly) by it.

Teen movie, 1996

In contrast, "John Tucker Must Die" is about a plain girl who gets turned into a Cool Girl as part of the plot of three Cool Girls to get revenge on a cute guy who cheated on them. Lest you think this film is in any way a serious examination on any or all issues inferred by the description, let me describe one scene to you:

The girls secretly feed their target, John Tucker, estrogen. Within minutes, he gets a tender "breastal" area, a craving for chocolate, a higher voice, and all weepy. I mean, every stereotype you could think of for women, that's what he was after eating the estrogen. It was this scene that solidified everything I hated about the movie in one slick sequence. "John Tucker Must Die" must die.

The girls in this movie were the most two-dimensional characters you can possibly think of. They were like the "Spice Girls" -- each one had a gimmick. The Smart One. The Sporty One. And the Slutty Hippie. Unlike the characters in "The Breakfast Club," I couldn't fathom wanting to get to know any of them.

Teen movie, 2006

To be fair, I guess "John Tucker Must Die" is a standard teen sex comedy, only it was made in 2006 and not 1983 so there really isn't that much exposed flesh. Probably had more to do with a 1960s beach movie than "Porkys." Which is what I think films like this really are -- beach movies, bubblegum, harmless. Entertainment for the masses with nothing really threatening in them, nothing to challenge the status quo or make young people think.

That brings up another thing -- many of the teen idols that are really hot right now seem like throwbacks to American Bandstand, the sort entertainers that Dick Clark would put his seal of approval on. The Jonas Brothers. Miley Cyrus. Where are the rebels? Where are the entertainment sensations that change a generation? Elvis? Beatles? The Clash? Nirvana? Hello, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

From dangerous...

Today's teen idols seem younger than the ones when I was a kid. I remember Michael Jackson, Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, Prince -- they were all adults. Now the music acts are more often than not the same age or similar in age to their audience. I guess in a way that's a good thing? But as teenage products of a machine often called "Disney" or "Nickelodeon," how much counter-cultural messages can you actually have? Or want to have? Or think to have? Or be allowed to have?

...to harmless.

But there are worse things than to have "clean" acts for teens. Just because I wouldn't necessarily put a lot of this music on my iPod doesn't mean it's not good or relevant music. I just think it's interesting that we are kind of in another "Bubblegum Pop" phase in music.

I think a revival of "The Archies" are in order. And I'm not being sarcastic, I actually think Archie Publications should do a talent search for the next "Archies" band and get it distributed through Disney or Nick. They'd make a fortune.

Time for an "Archies" comeback...

Bigfoot Body Found, and a question...

So apparently this dude found the dead body of a genuine Bigfoot and is now keeping it in a freezer in lieu of its grand unveiling in September. I shit you not. Or maybe I do...we'll see in September.

My question is:

If this was really the body of a genuine Bigfoot, wouldn't the authorities or the military get involved?

You announce to the public: "I have the corpse of a 9-foot as-of-yet undiscovered lifeform in a freezer in my shed." The FBI doesn't get involved? Mulder doesn't get sent down to check it out?

And since the Bigfoot is humanoid, aren't there legal issues here about holding on to the body? Was it a homicide or a natural death? Shouldn't there be any inquest? Should there be a proper burial?

I'm very open-minded about these X-Files type things, but I have a hard time with Bigfoot. Because if there really are these large creatures living in pockets of the United States, where are the bones? Wouldn't there be more dead bodies found?

And if the creatures are so advanced that they know how to stay away from humans and to assiduously bury their dead as to not be discovered -- what business does anybody have keeping their corpses in one of those portable freezer containers?

Anime Eye Contact Lenses

Basically, these contact lenses are designed to give the wearer "anime eyes" -- complete with a wider iris.

From the ad copy:
"Wanna get big, watery shiny eyes without any surgery? CRAVE AND ENVY NO MORE!"

They're cute, but a little unsettling.



I mean, it is hard for me to think of a more unrealistic role-model to physically pattern oneself after than an anime girl.

Oh, wait...

"Dopey Is Sacred Here"

Actual photo of Superman and God,
proving that they are not one-and-the-same person.
No photographic evidence yet clearing Clark Kent, however.

I don't moderate all my comments, though I try to read most of them.

Among the comments not moderated by me was one that my co-moderator would only refer to as "nasty."

It said something along the lines that I should be (literally) arrested for saying anything disparaging about DC, and that the commentor was going to contact Blogger to have my blog taken down.

Meanwhile, 2000 dead in Georgia, Russia is at war, and an American has gotten stabbed to death at the Olympics. Today.

But what was really important to this person was that nobody disparage DC Comics or question their rights over Superman. (If it was indeed the Superman post he was referring to. It could have been those Countdown posts).

In this person's mind, there might have even been a connection to it all; that if we besmirch an American institution like DC, if we weaken its hold on Superman -- the "commies" win. Yeah, we might end up in a conflict with China or Russia one day -- and that's when we need Superman and the Justice Society intact. And we can't have people screwing around with Green Lantern, either.

It reminds me that some fans have a near-religious attachment to their superheroes. Scratch "near" -- it's just plain religious.


I mean, what do you do in a religion? You have sacred books. "Crisis." "Kingdom Come." "Infinite Crisis."

You also quote those books a lot, and refer to specific passages.

Then, there is the concept of what's canonical, and what's apocrypha. As you know, many many people have died in religious disputes over these issues -- and continue to do so.

But you just have to have continuity. Or else -- it all falls apart. And you can't let "wrongheaded" beliefs -- like Spider-Man shouldn't be with Mary Jane for the rest of his life -- hold sway. Because then you have heresy. And you know what they do with heretics.



Looking back on it, I feel DC knew very well the fervor with which their loyalest fans held to their characters. And this goes beyond standard comic book readership, to just people who idolize Superman or Batman but don't know a lot about the monthly comics themselves. I always thought that if DC could really get those particular fans to buy the comics, they'd really be swimming in dough.

So at DC I was told that we had a very special job -- we were the caretakers of icons.

As such, there was a protocol, especially for the most popular characters.

"Superman" can't do this, "Batman" can't do that. The logos on the chest had to be drawn just right. And Power Girl's breasts needed to be a certain size. Seriously. It's a trademark.

But there was a sense that we were to avoid any scandal relating to the company or the characters at all costs -- that nothing should darken the aura of Superman in any way, directly or indirectly.

And we took that pretty seriously. That's why a lot of us were very neurotic about doing the wrong thing -- in terms of how we interacted with the public, in terms of what the characters were allowed to say in their word balloons, everything. I know some people joke about DC being "The Kremlin" -- this is probably why.


And for companies that have such iconic characters as Superman in their stable, this can be common.

Take, for example, Disney. When I was editing Disney books for Acclaim, one of our writers came up with a story called "Dopey The Genius," in which the Snow White character temporarily becomes smart. Disney completely rejected this on the grounds that it too radically challenged the concept of "Dopey." As our Disney contact told us: "Dopey is sacred here."


Obviously, Superman is not Dopey. Neither is he God. Neither is he a real person.

What Superman is, at best, is an inspirational symbol. But inspirational symbols are tricky.

You should let the symbol inspire you, but you shouldn't get too attached to it. Let Superman inspire you "in the moment" -- but then step out of that headspace and admit to yourself that he was a character created by two kids who were in turn inspired by other heroes. Admit to yourself that back in the 1940s, the company that would eventually become DC Comics took a chance on a concept, saw that it had a lot of potential, and sought to retain as much rights and financial gain on the concept as possible -- as many companies did and do.

Admit to yourself that one day, DC Comics will lose the exclusive copyright on Superman, and that many many artists and writers of varying degrees of talent and varying motives and political leanings will seize upon this character and do a 1,000 different things with it.

Yes. They will. A few might even make him gay.

And what will be done then? Will a holy war be declared to suss out just who the "correct" Superman is? Is it like "Crisis On Infinite Earths" -- but for real???

And as much lip-service as is paid to the Loyalists -- and indeed, DC has of late largely shaped their output to cater to them -- when the new generations are in full bloom, and if the tide changes, and if the 2012 equivalent of Rob Liefeld and Alan Moore shows up on the doorstep of collective comic book culture with the Latest Thing, those sacred continuities and characterization might just be bent and morphed to serve the current climate.

***

I don't cotton to the notion of superheroes or fictional characters as religious icons. I mean, it's fun to look at it all and play around with the concept, in Joseph Campbellian terms -- it's a nice place, and all, but I wouldn't want to live there.

I think religion -- real religion, that induces faith and mobilizes people to act -- is something very very delicate. The thought of that mixed with the place where I got my free comps every week and which fed me potato chips from the conveniently-placed vending machines -- kinda makes want to vomit. That, and the idea of Power Girl as the Virgin Mary. Or Mary Marvel as the Virgin Mary, for that matter.

And one of the things that religious fervor can -- but certainly not always -- do is make one excuse/cover up whatever indiscretions, scandals, negativities, and wrongs that have been committed by the agents of said religion. Because the power of the religion -- or the government, or family unit, or what have you -- is in the belief in its essential infallibility.

In such a mindset, the Siegel situation is a potential apocalypse -- Siegel and Siegel's heirs being considered the Adversary. What is worth more: Superman the intact icon with the DC bullet (or is that a swirl?) to the top left of him, or some creator's rights issues? Icon of millions versus some heirs to some guy?

But if you really love Superman -- Superman in its entirety, the real Superman -- you have to take it all into consideration. You can't hate its creator.

If you really idolize a person or an icon or an entity, but blind yourself to any warts that might obscure the picture -- you're worshiping something that is incomplete, and largely a product of your own mind more than its reality. You don't have to focus on the warts -- but shooting the messengers and burying the victims doesn't make the warts go away.

Then again, you can worship Dopey...

Playgirl Vs. Playboy

Granted, this is a 1979 copy of Playgirl, but it just gave me pause.

Theoretically, Playgirl Magazine is the companion to Playboy -- a magazine with nude pinups of men for women to gawk at.

Now, look at this cover:

Let me point out:

* Picture of Mork making goofy face on cover. With a "fake" Mindy -- a "Mary Sue Mindy," to be sure. The Mindy that could be YOU.

* "Confessions of Topless Dancer" -- Why am I reading about women being sexually exploited in this magazine? Isn't this magazine supposed to make me feel like I'm sexually exploiting the other gender?

* "What To Do When You're Crazy About Him But He Dresses Funny" -- like, for example, you are dating Mork.

* "Ten Ways To Really Turn Him On" -- #1: Buy Him "Playboy."

* "1,000 Hysterically Funny Words From Martin Mull" -- my point exactly.

Basically, this magazine looks more like an issue of Redbook than a porn tabloid. And I guess if you're a housewife in the 1970s and the idea of women buying such material is still taboo, this would be a great way to disguise things.

And there IS the little red banner down the right corner touting sexy European men.

And...I will admit...I did experience a gentle moment of excitement at the sight of the Faux Mindy pawing at hairy Robin Williams' naked chest.

Anyway, here is an example of Playboy from the same year:


The old debate: do women enjoy their erotica the same way that men do?

Could there ever be a counterpart to "Hooters" that caters to women, for instance?

And could a comic only featuring cheesecake men appeal to female readers in the same way Witchblade appeals to male readers?

Oh that's right...it's called "Nightwing" (ba-dump-bump!)

Cult Movie Songs: The Original Music Videos

This was inspired by my search for the original song for the crash scene in Death Proof on YouTube. Here is a selection of original "music videos" for songs from cult movies:

Death Proof: "Hold Tight," Dave Dee, Dosy, Beaky, Mick & Tich


Blow: "Black Betty," Ram Jam


The Craft/Charmed The TV Series: "How Soon Is Now?," The Smiths


Donnie Darko: "Never Tear Us Apart," INXS


Reservoir Dogs: "Stuck In The Middle With You," Stealer's Wheel


The Big Lebowski: "Condition," Kenny Rogers And The First Edition


American Psycho: "Hip To Be Square," Huey Lewis And The News


Boogie Nights: "It's A Living Thing," ELO


Trainspotting: "Lust For Life," Iggy Pop


Say Anything: "In Your Eyes," Peter Gabriel

Comic Snobs!

Heidi MacDonald's post about the "Best American Comics of 2007" anthology is a good one and it (and the 100+ comments that follow) deserves far more time and care in reading than my Monday-afternoon skim between gigs allows.

But in a nutshell what's she sorta saying is that the anthology, edited by Chris "Jimmy Corrigan" Ware, features a bunch of auto-biographical "angst" pieces and doesn't really touch upon alternate types of comic book material. For example, stories that are not auto-bio angst pieces. Stuff by Jeff Smith or Stan Sakai. Stories. Story stories.

And also, she suggests,

"...you wouldn’t catch any comics snob worth his or her salt saying they thought Jeff Smith was a great American cartoonist."

We're back, in a sense, to the "high art"/"low art"debate again.

If the piece of art -- say, a comic book, popular novel, or painting -- functions primarily as a narrative, it is "low art."

If the piece of art is a subjective abstract collection of feelings and sentiments done in a roundabout way -- it is "high art."


And as the comic book medium becomes more accepted in "high-brow" circles & academia, this debate will only get more heated.

I mean, in 50 years, what will be considered English class "required reading" in terms of graphic novels?

Chris Ware or Jack Kirby?

Will Jack Kirby be considered a great master of the medium? Or kitsch?

The whole thing tangentially reminds me of how I was a little girl and scoured my Encyclopedia Britannica for mention of my favorite book series, "Nancy Drew." I couldn't find it anywhere under "literature," so I had to enlist the help of my Mom in the search.

Finally, she found what she was sure was the citation. It didn't mention "Nancy Drew" by name. But it read something like:

"And in the post-war era we had these shit throwaway mystery and adventure books for teenagers that are not even worth mentioning by name here."

And now I'm also remembering visiting a bookstore in London with a school chum -- back in my academic days -- and picking up a copy of Stephen King's "The Shining" to buy and my friend saying "Don't buy that -- it's low-class."

I bought a book on literary criticism instead. I still haven't read that f**ker.

Smurf Disease

Basically, there is this big purple fly who bites smurfs on the ass, giving them the Smurf Disease. The infected smurfs turn purple and grit their teeth and say "GNAP! GNAP!" Now the sick smurfs are driven by only one purpose; to bite other smurfs on the ass and spread the disease. Which they do. Holy s**t. This made me crap my pants. Who green-lighted this episode? This just about did me in as an eight-year-old.