Blog PostsBritta Perry: Licensed Psychology Major, Reluctant Wedding Planner

Community is back and as wonderful as ever, and once again, I feel the need to get inside Dan Harmon’s brain and live there. Once again, I’m impressed with the way the show blends ultra-silly comedy and darker, complex character beats. After “Urban Matrimony and the Sandwich Arts” and “Contemporary Impressionists,” I felt happy and hopeful for Shirley, saddened but hopeful for Pierce, impressed with Troy’s maturity, worried about Abed and Troy’s friendship, really worried about the mental and emotional states of Jeff and Abed, and a little annoyed that we don’t seem to have a storyline for Annie yet (but maybe that will change).

Then there’s Britta, formerly the weakest link in the show, currently the show’s comedy MVP. She’s studying psychology and believes she would be an excellent therapist someday – a belief that her friends do not share. She also planned and designed Shirley and Andre’s wedding after she accidentally discovered that she has a real natural talent for flower arranging. This gives her a real crisis of identity as she’s worried that she’s doomed to become a “Steppenwolf wife” (oh, Britta):

Arranging and designing weddings goes against everything Britta stands for – yet she’s really, really good at it. Being a psychologist is something she’s really, really bad at – yet it’s the path she wants to follow.

Now, where does Britta go from here?

This is where I feel torn, because the part of me that wants Britta to be happy and successful is directly at war with the part of me that wants Britta to continue being funny no matter how dissatisfied and miserable she is.

My favorite thing about Britta is her ability to be smart and stupid, insightful and clueless, passionate and lazy, all at once. She’s absolutely right that Jeff has a major Oedipal complex – but she mispronounces it as “Edible” and only vaguely knows that Oedipus did “something” with his mother (because she didn’t finish reading the chapter). In the latest episode, she’s absolutely right that Jeff’s ego is on the verge of exploding – but she explains the concept to him with an apple analogy that makes no sense. After all, according to Britta, an analogy is a thought with another thought’s hat on.

That’s why Britta would make a terrible therapist. She can understand people’s issues quite well and she’s very compassionate and caring, but she can’t explain anything to save her life and her approach to addressing people’s problems is often abrasive and off-putting.

To become a better therapist, Britta would have to lose the lazy and clueless aspects of her personality, but those qualities are the funniest things about her. As much as I want Britta to be happy, I can’t root for her to stop being clueless and lazy. That’s comedy suicide. She would turn back into the character she was at the beginning of season one, and who wants to see that?

On the other hand, what’s the alternative? Is Britta going to become a reluctant professional wedding planner? Watching her fight her natural talents in wedding planning was very funny for one episode, but that story could easily become played out over time.

Either way, I’m not too concerned, because I have faith in Dan Harmon, the writing staff, and Gillian Jacobs to continue to make Britta insufferably funny week in and week out. I’m interested in seeing where this goes.

As a side note, I’m starting to think that the Britta/Troy shippers may be onto something. Troy seems to find Britta annoying and attractive in equal measure. She fascinates him as much as she repulses him. Someone who can call Britta “really cool” in one episode and “the pizza burn on the roof of the world’s mouth” in another is probably the perfect match for her. Besides, logic dictates that when a man and a woman dress as the two different versions of Michael Jackson, the writers are sending a message that these two characters are meant for each other.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Amanda Root in “Persuasion”

I wouldn’t be me if I only wrote about one Jane Austen heroine and the actress who played her.

Pride and Prejudice is my favorite Austen novel – in fact, my favorite novel, period – but I think Persuasion is the best love story. It also has my favorite Austen heroine, Anne Elliot. Anne is kind, loving, intelligent, and practical, but too easily persuaded, too easily convinced to mistrust her own (correct) instincts, and puts too much stock into the opinions of others.

The 1995 film version of Persuasion has Amanda Root as Anne, giving a subtle, moving, lovely performance. Through the course of the movie, you follow Anne’s growth into a more confident person. The changes that Root (and the makeup department) give Anne are so subtle that you barely notice them right away, which makes the change more meaningful.

By the end of the film, Anne receives one of the most beautiful love letters in all of fiction from a man who loved her eight years ago, a man whose heart she broke. He writes to her again, eight years later, revealing that he still loves her, that all of his resentment and feelings of rejection couldn’t overcome his powerful feeling for her. It’s a gorgeous letter that leaves many a reader swooning, and there’s never any doubt in our minds that Anne is worth the wait and worth every word.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Julie Andrews in “The Sound of Music”

[The following is a guest post from abovethetitle.]

And now I should be caught up. In keeping with Lady T’s choice of Dame Julie for “Mary Poppins,” I’m going with Dame Julie for far and away the single most influential movie of my childhood, “The Sound of Music.” I don’t think there is any movie I watched more often. Not even “The Wizard of Oz.” I can do nearly every line verbatim. Obviously I can sing every lyric to every song.

YouTube doesn’t have the clip of her on the hill but frankly, if you haven’t seen it, you should be ashamed of yourself and you should go buy the movie on DVD right now. It is an American classic. It is schmaltz and sentimentality of the best kind.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Tami Erin in “Pippi Longstocking”

[The following is a guest post from abovethetitle.]

Just to be ornery, I’m choosing something at the total opposite end of the spectrum from Swank. My early childhood was dominated by “Baby-Sitters Club,” “Sweet Valley” and “Pippi Longstocking.” Of those, only one has had a movie adaptation worth considering. Honestly, I haven’t seen this probably since I was in third grade so I don’t remember it at all other than it was Pippi come to life and there was a monkey. Formative.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Hilary Swank in “Boys Don’t Cry”

[The following is a guest post from abovethetitle.]

Hilary Swank’s goodwill in Hollywood is on a downturn right now but that doesn’t mean we should forget her breakthrough performance. Gender bender is a long-standing tradition in Hollywood (another favorite of mine being Jaye Davidson in “The Crying Game”) but Swank was simply masterful in her portrayal of Brandon Teena, a female-to-male non-operative transgender living in Nebraska. I really have not much else to add that the critics and Oscar voters didn’t already say. It has to be one of the greatest performances of the past 20 years or so.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Julie Andrews in “Mary Poppins”

The best babysitter and nanny of all time – Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.

Seriously, how many people can maintain a persona of perfect dignity and calm even when jumping through sidewalk drawings, having tea parties on the ceiling, and dancing with chimney-sweeps on the top of a roof with dirt smudged on her face?

Without Julie Andrews, Mary Poppins would have been an utter cheesefest. With Julie Andrews, Mary Poppins brings “cheesefest” into the indescribable world of Disney magic.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Gwyneth Paltrow in “Shakespeare in Love”

[The following is a guest post from abovethetitle.]

“Romeo and Ethel, the Pirates Daughter.” Thus begins the conceit of one of history’s most groaned about Best Picture winners…and perhaps my favorite movie of all time. It’s a simple but clever premise that imagines what would have happened if William Shakespeare, all heartthrobby and called Will, experienced writer’s block. Gwyneth Paltrow, in the prime of her time as Miramax’s muse, plays the lady love who snaps him out of it…and also cross dresses as a man to get the lead in the play Shakespeare ends up cranking out. Lady T and I might get some flack for including Paltrow not once but twice on our lists but they are our lists dammit! “Shakespeare in Love” changed the way I watched movies (and consequently the way I watched the Oscars) and while Gwynnie is oft-mocked these days for GooP, appearing on “Glee,” looking generally lifeless during public appearances, etc., I won’t forget the magic of Viola de Lesseps.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Laura Dern in “Citizen Ruth”

Citizen Ruthis a damn funny movie. If you haven’t seen it, you should. It’s about a woman whose four children have been placed in different foster homes as she has been declared unfit to take care of any of them (or herself), who abuses drugs and winds up getting pregnant again. The judge charges her with endangering the life of her fetus, but privately tells her that he’ll reduce the sentence if she has an abortion. Ruth becomes the center of a furious national abortion debate.

I like the movie because it satirizes not only both sides of the abortion debate, but also our media-influenced culture that becomes obsessed with one person as The Face of any particular issue. Ruth didn’t ask to be made a name, and Laura Dern plays her with a mix of bewilderment, anger, and a complete lack of self-awareness that is hilarious to watch.

 

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Madeline Kahn in “Blazing Saddles”

Madeline Kahn is a comic genius.

This is a fact. Do not argue with me on this.

Describing Madeline Kahn’s talent and skill is a little difficult. This is a woman who created an iconic character with a single line in Clue – “Flames! FLAMES! On the side of my face!” I don’t know quite how she did it.

I think what made Madeline Kahn so great was her subtlety. She does very little with her face and so much with her voice. She shows up with that face and has a quietly intense expression that sometimes seems blank – and then she opens her mouth and that voice comes out. That voice which somehow manages to be rich and high-pitched at the same time, except when it’s low. And she gives you a character that’s very strange, comically unbalanced, and memorable.

She does all this as Lili Von Shtupp in Blazing Saddles.

There are so many funny things about this performance, but my favorite moment might be the extra breath she takes when she sings, “I need some reeeeeeeeee [breath] eeeeeeeest.” Oh, Madeline. The world lost you too soon.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Blog PostsJust Say No to Sex Strikes

In response to the increasing number of anti-choice and anti-contraception laws popping up all over the United States, a group called the Liberal Ladies Who Lunch are proposing a sex strike from April 28-May 5.

Do I need to explain why this is a bad idea? Because this is a bad idea.

Trust me, I sympathize with the group’s intentions – to call for more attention to the constant attack on women’s reproductive health, to reframe the issue as one that can affect both women and men. I also share the reluctance to get romantically involved with anyone who doesn’t support reproductive health, and as a rule, I don’t date anti-choicers.

But let’s say that, like me, you’re dating a pro-choice man or married to a man who already supports your right to do what you want with your body. What are you supposed to say? “Sorry, honey, no nookie for a week, because even though YOU agree with me on this issue, abstaining from sex with you will somehow send a larger message to the world.”

Am I alone in thinking that this strike doesn’t make a whole lot of sense?

A few spokespeople for this group have said that the strike isn’t a literal one, that it’s just a joke to make a point. Okay, fine. But look at the FAQ page and you’ll see a problem in the very first sentence:

The only reason that American men can enjoy their customary free, regular and safe sex with women is because those women have access to the contraceptives of their choice.

The way this is written implies that sex is something for men to enjoy and for women to give, not as something that (straight) men and women enjoy together.

I’m sure this is not what the Liberal Ladies Who Lunch meant to imply, but it comes across that way anyway. The same problem exists in the mere title of the strike. A “No Access” sex strike turns our bodies into these things or places that we allow or don’t allow men to enter.

Do we need more ways to objectify our own bodies?

Do we need to play into the stereotype of women withholding sex as a weapon to punish men, or coerce men into doing what we want?

All those complaints aren’t even touching the fact that a lot of these anti-choice, anti-contraception people are the same people who don’t think unmarried folk should be having sex of any kind to begin with, and would probably clap with glee if they saw a bunch of godless liberal hippies become abstinent. A sex strike would only threaten them if all of the strikers were married Christians.

Again, I sympathize with the intent behind this strike, but I don’t think it works, even symbolically. You can’t say it’s an abstinence pledge for couples to take together and call it an “Access Denied” and “No Access” strike.

I am, however, entirely supportive of the use of satire and comedy for activist methods. I think knitting a uterus to a Congressman in need or giving detailed vagina updates to pro-ultrasound lawmakers are better ways to do it.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments