Skip to main content

the ladykillers

coming soon on hbo
dom and i belatedly watched the truncated last season of "entourage", wherein we see the tale of the boys from queens living the high life in hollywood wrapped up, but not so tightly that there isn't room for a movie to wriggle out at a later date.

i wasn't thrilled with the first season of the show, but i did find that it got entertaining afterward, especially from seasons two through four. as someone who is interested in the workings of the movie industry, i enjoyed the fantasy of hollywood it presented and cringed at the probably more realistic problems with ego, money and politics that consistently came into play. although the last season concentrates less on that than on the personal lives of the characters, it's still fun. however.

thinking about it, there is one section that bothered me, not just because i resent it a little, but because it reveals something about progress of women in the minds of hollywood writers. or lack thereof.

[warning: spoilers ahead if you haven't seen the last season]



the part i found troubling is a story arc with the character of dana gordon, a powerful industry executive who, although she has her career knocked around thanks in no small part to her dealings with the boys, manages to make her way forward in a difficult industry. in the final season, writers chose to exploit a storyline that had been teased practically since her introduction, which is that there is a romantic connection between dana and obnoxious but ultimately good-hearted super-agent ari gold. they connect while ari and his wife are separated and in the process, the show's writers chose to tear down probably the only strong female character they'd developed in eight years.

once she is seen as feminine and sexual, she becomes a different person- suddenly lonely, needy and willing to take whatever limited emotional involvement that's offered because, as she keeps mentioning, she's forty and alone, because she's sacrificed the rest of her life in the name of her career. this might come as a surprise to regular viewers of the show since, in the midst of the story arc where she was originally introduced, ari, desperate to contact her [professionally] stalks her at the school both their children attend so that he can surprise her when she comes to pick them up. at that point, she's apparently a full-on super-woman with a senior position at a major studio who can still make the time to pick up the tots from school. what the hell happened?

by the last season, her kids and her memory of them [along with the person who presumably fathered them] have been erased from as if she were visited by the men in black. [which would imply that her husband and/ or children had some alien connection, which is kind of a weird unexplored subplot.] as we last see her, she fulfills all the stereotypes we've come to expect about women in the workplace- that those who are able to advance have done so at the expense of their femininity and the loss secretly haunts them. granted, "entourage" has never exactly been a beacon of women's lib, with virtually all of the female characters representing masculine fantasies- physically perfect, smart, understanding and sexually available- but this seems like an especially nasty way to treat a character the audience has come to know.

in the meantime, ari's wife melissa [she finally gets a name halfway through the season], who has asked for the separation so that she can explore new things after twenty years of being a housewife, fills her time with cooking, dating an iron chef, spending time with her children and getting angry at ari for being insensitive to her needs and being an absentee father. at least dating the iron chef is something new, i guess. it's obvious from the beginning that husband and wife will eventually be reunited, but we still get to see the whole thing played out at the expense of the successful career gal, the only recurring character to be left truly unhappy in the end.

journalist susan faludi wrote about this sort of characterisation of working women in her book "backlash". at the time, of course, she was talking about films and television shows that were coming out during the reagan years, when north america seemed to take a sudden moralistic turn back toward the fifties. while i felt [and still feel] that some of her criticisms were unjustified, a lot of them were dead-on. now, a quarter century later, it seems that hollywood still can't resist the allure of the super-woman whose heart secretly breaks as she sits alone and unloved in her stylish apartment.

i'm assuming that the next thing we get is a remake of "fatal attraction" or "baby boom".

sigh. back to my unmarried, childless, near-forty existence, which i'm sure i must secretly hate.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …