June 1998 back issues by Josh Allen |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A 90 Pound Weekly
I come to you thoroughly scrubbed, puffy, pink, tender, cleansed from a
one-hour power shower, soaped and conditioned and buffed to a lovable
softness, an April freshness. But my soul is still dirty, friends, my heart
still black, because lodged therein is a hard, gemlike love for
Entertainment Weekly.
There's culture, and then there's pop culture, and then there's pop, and
then there's Entertainment Weekly (EW). EW is unapologetically commercial
and doesn't try to hide behind irony or art, but rather flaunts its
whorishness with pride:
EW: [bottomless, writhing on smoke-filled stage] People of America! View
my solid gold clit ring! It was purchased with the astounding
opening-weekend profits ($41.2 million!) from Paramount/DreamWorks' Deep
Impact!
Because of this, Entertainment Weekly earns my respect. In the world of
EW, art and commerce are interchangeable, or rather, art was optioned by
commerce in the mid-Eighties and now commerce is looking for a hot director
to give art some "youth" and "attitude." The heart of EW is the box office
receipts, the Nielsen ratings, SoundScan. All EW cares about is the
biggest, the wealthiest, the sexiest, and if you're none of the above, then
EW has nothing for you but bad puns ("misery date" and "flirting with a
disaster flick" and "girth of a nation") and scorn ("Space Jam had
Bugs Bunny and Michael Jordan. Camelot has Cary Elwes and Bronson
Pinchot. You do the math."). Example: EW mocks BusinessAge's recent ranking
of world's wealthiest models, saying that Claudia Schiffer and Linda
Evangelista are "as crusty as year-old mascara" and then whip out their own
Top 15. They don't have time for yesterday's news, people! This is
Entertainment Weekly and we're sorry but Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler
are last week. This week it's Godzilla and we really wish
you'd stay on top of things.
EW's timeliness goes hand-in-hand with its slutty honesty; it always has
another john waiting, so it has to keep moving. EW doesn't have the time to
play nice, they have to generate content, which they do at an alarming
rate. Sure, the movie review capsules (which are like Contac granules
spilling out of an already-tiny gelcap) are repeated over and over, but
everything else is fresh each week. EW is dense with emptiness. No article
is longer than two pages (a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of bloated
monsters like Wired and Vanity Fair), and most of them shouldn't even be
that long. EW has mastered the soundbite, in all its various ramifications,
so the entire magazine reads like the back page of People (there's News and
Notes, Burning Question, Hot Sheet, Monitor, Flashes, Trends, Random Quote,
Winner/Loser of the Week, etc.). Each page is a patchwork of callouts,
boxes, captions. Rarely do you encounter two paragraphs uninterrupted by a
photograph or drawing or quotation or factoid. It's fast, buffed, and
disposable.
The fleeting nature of EW is apparent from the get-go: the pages wrinkle
and warp even before I get it home (usu. from the checkout stand), the ink
on the cover smears underneath my sweaty fingers, it's limp and unhallowed,
quick to evolve into a flyswatter or notepad. It's not meant to survive
into next week. I believe if the editors had their way, the magazine would
simply expire after a seven days, dissolving into a fine, grainy,
unrecyclable ash, making way for the next one.
And there is always a next one, another and then another piling up
around my bed, daring me to be up-to-date. EW creates a harsh, insular,
Darwinian world, where you're only as good as the profits of your last film
or miniseries or bestseller (and the Book section is my favorite, where you
would be hard-pressed to locate a mention of any writer who was not a
crossover celeb [Marcia Clark, Cokie Roberts], featured on Oprah [Jacquelyn
Mitchard, Toni Morrison], or someone who wrote a book that was made into a
movie [Richard Price, John Irving]). Success is openly measured by finance
and business: "Thanks to a dream teen cast and an MTV-ready soundtrack,
this $10 million zit-set romp should wind up way profitable!"
Storytelling and character development are no longer entertainment, but
rather demographic strategies and seen as sort of pathetic, old-school
traditions. Instead of the pretentious method acting of bygone days, you
get Matthew Broderick on his character in Godzilla: "All I can
really say is I play a scientist, like a bug-ologist or something ... what
the hell am I? I forgot what I am." In the Parents' Guide to current
movies, this is what appears in the "What's Not So Good" section for
Deep Impact: "Director Mimi Leder gives human concerns more screen
time than special effects." One of the films producers puts it more simply:
"You really want to know what opened the movie? The wave [that wipes out
New York City]. We put it in the trailer and the TV spots. That's the only
reason it opened. We all know it."
That's the kind of balls-out honesty that we need. Entertainment Weekly
recognizes that it's far too late for anyone to proclaim themselves pure,
unpurchased, above reproach. It's a ridiculous notion, and it's insulting
whenever anyone tries to convince us otherwise. Sure, we'd like to believe
our leaders and artists and whatnot are virginal genius autistics, with
their beliefs and ideas unsullied by multinational conglomerates and
videotaped trysts, but that's going to make for a tiring and bitter life.
It's high time our pop culture icons followed the admirable lead of EW and
just let it all hang out. "Yeah, I fuck groupies. What of it?" The only
personality trait that hasn't been co-opted and polished into a sexy
marketing campaign is honesty, and even if the truth is unsavory and cheap,
which is usually is, at least it'll be recognizable as human. If Clinton
held a press conference and presented us with a four-color bar graph of the
number of extramarital blowjobs he'd received over the past 10 years, each
rated according to time and effectiveness, I think you might hear "third
term" whispered throughout the darkened hallways of after-hours Washington.
Three days later, Entertainment Weekly would have the proposed cast list.
in the junk drawer
|
|
·feature·
·net worth·
·bumping uglies·
·smoking jacket·
·ear candy·
·feed hollywood·
·target audience·
·back issues ·
·compulsion·
·posedown·
·the biswick files·
·mystery date·
·and such and such·
·blab·
·kissing booth·
·contents·
·freakshow·
·fan club·
·archive·
copyright © 1996-1998 fearless media