March 8, 2010

The morning after the Oscars.

Wow. I did not enjoy that. I already updated my live-blog post from last night to say I did not enjoy that, but I need to get it out of my system. I did not enjoy that. Why do I do that to myself every year? Because there was a time when I truly loved it — and the movies — I guess. Watching the Oscars when you no longer care about the movies is like... watching "American Idol" when you no longer bother with the new music recordings that are released from day to day. Wallowing in the bad seems somewhat fun even as you've lost the hope that there might be something good. Life is funny. And, no, wallowing in the bad as I've lost hope in something good is not how I feel about life itself.

Anyway, the only interesting thing anyone said — that registered with me, anyway — was Mo'Nique: "It can be about the performance and not the politics." I highlighted that line last night, but then this morning, I realized I wasn't sure what she was talking about. Here's the whole text of what she said:
First, I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics. I want to thank Mrs. Hattie McDaniel for enduring all that she had to so that I would not have to. Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey, because you touched it, the whole world saw it. Ricky Anderson our attorney of Anderson and Smith thank you for your hard work. My entire BET family. My Precious family thank you so much. To my amazing husband Sidney, Thank you for showing me that sometimes you have to forego doing what’s popular to do what’s right. And baby, you were so right!
Now, what was she talking about?  What did her husband encourage her to do that was "right" but not "popular"? I'm guessing that she worried about playing a character that would be viewed by many as a racist stereotype, and her husband convinced her that it was a great script and a great dramatic role and she's an artist who should decide based on what is right for an artist: artistic principles. And Oprah touched it, and that worked some magic, taking much of the power out of the accusations of racism that had to have been anticipated.

Here's a NYT Magazine article from last fall that, I think, explains it:
[The director Lee Daniels told Mo’Nique] he had a part for her that was “going to mess up your career. You are going to lose your world, your audience, your standing in the BET community.” Mo'nique was not fazed. “I did not hesitate!” she exclaimed on a warm day in September in New York City. “I said to Lee, if you want me to play this demon, I am there.”....

Although Mo’Nique’s performance as Precious’s mother has generated talk of an Oscar, Daniels has heard complaints from the black community about the image her character projects. “They see the film as negative to black women,” Daniels said. “Black women are the pillar of the family. Black men have left, and how dare I stab at the one thing that’s helped. So I told Mo’Nique, ‘They’re going to hate you for this movie.’ She said, ‘Let them hate me.’ ”
And, by the way, there was no mention of Barack Obama in Mo'Nique's speech. From that NYT article:
[T]he movie is not neutral on the subject of race and the prejudices that swirl around it, even in the supposedly postracial age of Obama. “ ‘Precious’ is so not Obama,” Daniels said. “ ‘Precious’ is so not P.C. What I learned from doing the film is that even though I am black, I’m prejudiced....”

... “As African-Americans, we are in an interesting place,” Daniels said. “Obama’s the president, and we want to aspire to that. But part of aspiring is disassociating from the face of Precious. To be honest, I was embarrassed to show this movie at Cannes. I didn’t want to exploit black people. And I wasn’t sure I wanted white French people to see our world.... But because of Obama, it’s now O.K. to be black. I can share that voice. I don’t have to lie. I’m proud of where I come from. And I wear it like a shield. ‘Precious’ is part of that.”
And who knows what Samuel L. Jackson was thinking? Watch his reaction to the speech:



Perhaps he was feeling some vindication in his own choice to play some pretty negative characters (rather than the idealized friend/helpmeet/savior/Morgan Freeman type that must not be all that rewarding to play).

51 comments:

Pogo said...

"‘Precious’ is so not P.C. What I learned from doing the film is that even though I am black, I’m prejudiced....”"

It is definitely not PC to tell the truth. Precious and The Blind Side both told the truth.

Would that we could say it aloud.
But not yet, not yet.

Scott M said...

But because of Obama, it’s now O.K. to be black.

...unless you're black and protesting at a Democratic representative's speech in Saint Louis...oh, and SEIU thugs notice that you're black...

Sloanasaurus said...

A good analysis as always Althouse.

If we are going to care about what sort of stereo-type Monique represents, why not then discuss the black woman in Princess and the Frog, who represented a far more impressive character. In the end far more people - espeically gnerations of young girls - will see Tiana and her values then those of Mary in Precious.

Beth said...

I'm guessing we're out of the other thread so I'm replying here on sound editing -

I agree with issuing the technical awards in a separate ceremony. They do that with the Emmys. But they do costumes, and visual effects on the Oscars, and sound belongs with that. Unfortunately, it's always the LOUDEST movie that gets the sound award, so it's an annoying presentation. I wish they'd come up with a more interesting way to showcase what goes into each of those arts in the tiny little time they have.

El Presidente said...

I enjoyed watching Kathryn Bigelow beat out her exhusband James Cameron for both Best Director and Best Movie.

MadisonMan said...

I didn't watch -- too many other things to do in life this past weekend -- but I had the same reaction to playing the Best Director off with Helen Reddy: Gag.

Pogo said...

I spent the time reading We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism by John Derbyshire, which is about how we are devolving away from The Blind Side worldview into a one more like Precious.

Just call me Eeyore.

Turtledove said...

El Presidente: Definitely sweet to see Bigelow get her Best Director Oscar from Sean Penn! Especially as she went out of her way to thank the military.

Erin said...

I think the "performance over politics" statement was about Mo'Nique's supposed refusal to promote the movie Precious without being compensated for it. There was a lot of talk about that over the past few months.

Robert Cook said...

I did the smart thing and watched the legendary bomb THE OSCAR, starring Stephen Boyd as uber-heel Frankie Fane on TCM.

Time well spent.

Robert Cook said...

Monique was probably referring to the political firestorm in the black community aroused by PRECIOUS.

Joan said...

Pogo, Derbyshire should only be endured in small doses. I think reading an entire Derb book would cast me into a depression so deep I'd need a bathysphere to retrieve any cheerfulness. Be careful.

I didn't watch but I followed the live blogs here and at Throwing Things, as I bounced around the web reading other things. I liked knowing what was going on but I was happy not to be watching it. Nikki Finke's write-up was great after the fact, too.

Pogo said...

Too true, Joan.

Anything lengthier elicits the desire to listen to The Cure or Morrissey, wear all black, walk in the rain to the nearest bar, and drink until incontinent.

ET1492 said...

"Because there was a time when I truly loved it — and the movies — I guess."

I used to watch The Oscars because they were a good way to find out about movies I might enjoy and would not have heard about otherwise.

I also watched Siskel and Ebert for the same reason.

I grew up in a small town without an art house theater. My parents didn't subscribe to any big city papers or movie magazines and they didn't get Internet access until I left home for college.

Now I have easy access to more movie news and analysis than I have time to read. My Netflix queue is full of movies from all around the world.

Last night I streamed in high definition via Netflix on my PS3 Antichrist by Lars von Trier. Afterward I read strangers' analyses of the film online. I think that was a much better use of time for a movie fan.

k*thy said...

Erin, that's my understanding as well. She commented on it in the backstage interview thing that they do.

El Presidente said...

Morrissey, they don't call him the 'Miserable One' for nothing.

Tibore said...

""As African-Americans, we are in an interesting place," Daniels said. "Obama’s the president, and we want to aspire to that. But part of aspiring is disassociating from the face of Precious...""

It's sort of odd, this two-step about disassociation. Back in 2004, Bill Cosby commented on the very things holding people back - and that Gabourey's character Precious was trying to break out of - yet, he got excoriated by many for it. And Daniels seems to be worried about much the same thing that Cosby got grief on back then. It seems as though neither of them want to be cast as "blaming the victim", but that's not an appropriate charge to level at either of them to begin with: Both are highlighting the obstacles to lifting ones self out of poverty, and it's not denigrating the ones working hard at it to note that some in bad situations find ways to perpetuate the conditions keeping them and others down (as Mo'Nique's character was doing), but the attitude that such illumination is harmful exists, and that is the source of the invective directed towards Cosby, as well as the delicate dance that Daniels is performing. It's definitely worth noting that negative criticism of the movie not only exists, but is steeped in the sort of "unfit for consumption" attitude that Cosby ended up confronting and Daniels is avoiding.

It's also interesting to note that much of the negative criticism happens to come from New York based writers - one going so far as to compare Precious to Birth of a Nation (Source; note that the article mentions the source of this critique, but the writer is not the author of the charge) - but other than that demonstrating that NYC is a bastion of old-time liberalism, I don't pretend to understand what that signifies.

Scott M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chase said...

` Loved the show - could have done without the opening Neil Patrick Harris number, which was a huge waste of his talent.

Martin and Baldwin - excellent.

Ann, you are a modern American, educated and intellectual enough to "get" certain things in culture, but still "uncultured" in so many ways, lacking the understanding and ability to appreciate other various art forms. For example, You "get" museums, but you don't "get" dance.

The dance tribute to the Nominated scores was moving and frankly at times brilliant, but expecting that segment of the public to "get" it is like, well, asking a hillbilly to review Frank Gehry. It's not about the observer's stupidity; it's about the way someone grew up - if they weren't given a diet of it, even in small portions, they can't appreciate the flavor - the art - of it now.

And the reason for this? It springs from the same thing that shows every English and Irish actor to be far more thoughtful and frankly more intelligent than all American actors: Colin Firth vs. a Jeff Bridges - please. Kate Winslet vs. a Sandra Bullock - the list goes on.

Frankly, I blame the American Public Education system for dumbing down our citizenry - including you, Ann.

Sad.


`

A.W. said...

haven't watched the oscars in years, because they have gotten consumed in choosing prestige crap that doesn't actually deserve it.

For instance, like 2 years ago i saw "American Beauty" in the bargin bin at walmart. already a bad sign, but for $5 i will usually give a movie a watch, if it doesn't sound too bad. and it won a bunch of oscars, got alot of praise, so it couldn't be so bad, right?

Wrong. it was awful. It was TRYING to be a searing indictment of middle class life, or something. But the whole thing sounded like it was written by a petulant teenager. I have never seen a movie before where the author so clearly hated all of the characters, and never gave you a whole lot of reason to understand that hate. But the greatest sin was that it did too much “telling” and not enough “showing.” So you hear Kevin Spacey call his wife a soul-sucking demon or something, but you literally don’t see where any of that hate comes from. Yeah, yeah, I know that at the end they try to tack on some hopefulness, but that is at the end of a very long and hateful movie. The only explanation I can have for it winning is that Hollywood takes it so for granted that the life of us little people is simply awful, that they don’t think they have to bother making the case any more.

I mean this year we saw them expand to 10 nominee. I have only seen 3 of them (Up, District 9, Avatar). Going through the list, I only saw 2 more I even wanted to see. The rest, half the time I barely even knew they existed and knowing they exist, I have little desire to actually watch.

PatCA said...

The movies don't excite me any more either. Occasionally a single movie will, but it's few and far between. I wonder why...is it the last 40 years of the anti-hero, my age, the unlimited choice of entertainments? Roger Simon spoke of it too, and noted that even his small daughter didn't particularly care about movies either.

former law student said...

As Oscar shows go, this was better than most. The professor forgets the years when Billy Crystal was looked on as the savior of the evening. Remember the dreary year when Whoopi Goldberg was host?

Martin and Baldwin were actually funny, especially when they glared at Academy Award winner Clooney -- hasn't that guy been nominated enough?

former law student said...

The rest, half the time I barely even knew they existed and knowing they exist, I have little desire to actually watch.

Older people don't go to the movies that much, and haven't for years. Therefore, movies are targeted to the population that actually leaves the house on a Friday or Saturday night.

A.W. said...

FLS

> Older people don't go to the movies that much, and haven't for years.

Dude, did you just call me old?

I swear you do that again, I will run you over in my model T! I will throw my record player at you, smack you upside the head with my betamax! I am telling you, I will go all Missile Command on you!

Ah crap.

Actually as Glenn Reynolds points out, video games are bigger business these days, so i was doing the trendy thing and replaying Oblivion.

Stephen said...

Do women like the skeleton bodied, skeleton cat-faced actresses?
I don't know a guy who likes that crap.
Is it that the gay mafia now totally rules - not only PublicistLand - but all of HollywoodLand?
'Cuz y'know, skinny, skinny, skinny girls nearly = boys?

Hollywood women are approaching repulsive. Screen and TV.

former law student said...

I swear you do that again,... I will throw my record player at you

Record players are hip. You might enjoy this from today's NY Times "Metropolitan Diary," a weekly series of slices of NYC life that people send in:

Dear Diary:

My wife and I went shopping before the holidays to buy an all-in-one stereo system for her mother. We chose one we liked at the store, and spoke with the young salesperson:

Me: “Can we connect a separate component to this?”

Salesperson: “Oh yes, you can connect your MP3 player over here.”

Me: “Actually, it’s for my mother-in-law in Queens, who’s 82. She has a turntable we want to connect.”

Salesperson (eyes wide with awe, turning to my wife): “Your mom’s a D.J.?”

We could barely stop laughing long enough to make the purchase. Julie Schulman

Treacle said...

Erin is right - the "politics" comment was inside baseball. Mo'nique would not take the time out from her other jobs to beg for an award like every other star. And I think Samuel L. Jackson's reaction was not evidence of some higher political point: it was just his surprise at watching his team get globally bitch slapped.

victoria said...

You all do understand that by not "campaigning" for the Oscar, MoNique was effectively campaigning for the Oscar. Anything she says about staying out of the fray is bull. She wanted it badly. Never have I wanted someone to lose so badly and I was so disappointed when she won. During the festival rounds, she refused to appear at any events unless she was paid for them. She is relentlessly self-promoting. Welcome to Hollywood.

I enjoyed it anyways, love to Sandra Bullock. Brought a tear to my eye.

Vicki from Pasadena

enki said...

Whether it was meant this way or not, the way the "politics" comment came off to me was that she was saying there were many reasons not to vote for her, but she was just so damned good that there was no denying it. It just sounded self-congratulatory.

traditionalguy said...

The Oscars today are a lot like American Idol. So lets get Simon Colwell as the MC. He could do a quick commentary rating every acceptance speech. The last true epic American film was ignored by the Academy in favor of a cute Brit rip off that used Shakespeare's name in its title.

Penny said...

In an after Oscar interview, Mo'nique said something like this, and I paraphrase: This movie was not about black families, even though there were black actors playing the roles. It could have been a movie about a white family, or any other ethnicity.

I remember it so well because I still recall all those years when the talk of the town was "not enough good black roles" or "no movies about the black experience".

Her comment made me wonder if it could possibly be true that Affirmative Action no longer had a place in Hollywood. Could it FINALLY be true that the stories belonged to everyone, and the roles could be played by any great actor?

No one need think too long about this. You need only recall the build up to the Best Director category. Oh my! This year we have one woman, one black and three white guys!

Sorry, Mo'nique. I wanted to believe, but...

Trooper York said...

Any movie without the Duke and not directed by John Ford is just not worth watching.

Anthony said...

I haven't watched the oscars in years, except in little dribs and drabs. Not really so much because of the politics that invariably entered into things -- though I can seriously do without a bunch of narcissistic, navel-gazing freaks tell us what's wrong with us -- but because I quit thinking of actors, or the entertainment biz personnel in general, as being anything worth watching. They're mostly just freaks. Not that watching freaks being freaky isn't entertaining, but this is the time when they take themselves soooooo seriously and want us to know how utterly important what they do is.

You.Are.All.Just.Actors. Playing at real people. Much as I like her, why should Sandra Bullock get an award and national TV exposure for pretending to be the person who really did do something extraordinary?

Save a life, you get a rather small paycheck. Play-act at someone saving a life, and you get an award and a big, fat paycheck.

A.W. said...

Anthony

The narcissism is worse than that. How many times have actors patted themselves on the back for being so brave? Cloney bravely portrayed a broadcaster going against mccarthy, who has been dead how many years? sean penn bravely played a gay man. so did tom hanks. You know, that is brave because Hollywood is so anti-gay, you know?

Meanwhile, filmmaker Theo van Gogh (yes, descended from THAT van Gogh), makes a documentary criticizing how muslim men treat their women. He was stabbed to death by a man enraged by the film.

That year, at the Oscars, Clooney made his big speech telling us how much more enlightened Hollywood was than the rest of us. But when they looked back at the stars they lost from the year before, Van Gogh wasn't mentioned. They didn't even put him in the montage. Van Gogh literally gave his life for saying what he believed in, and they couldn't be bothered to even give him an acknowledgement.

They are venal cowards, almost to a one.

Robert Cook said...

"Meanwhile, filmmaker Theo van Gogh (yes, descended from THAT van Gogh)...."

That's a neat trick, considering Vincent had no children. Perhaps you mean he's descended from the same family as THAT Van Gogh.

former law student said...

Theo van Gogh (yes, descended from THAT van Gogh), makes a documentary criticizing how muslim men treat their women.

Submission
was gratuitously provocative by featuring four women in see-through robes showing their breasts. Texts from the Koran were painted on their naked bodies. The women did talk about being abused, but the context was designed to shock irrespective of the content.

And the painter Van Gogh died without issue, so who is "THAT Van Gogh"?

A.W. said...

Cook

Perhaps i misremember that detail. my bad.

Fls

> Submission was gratuitously provocative

Oh, well, in that case it was perfectly fine to murder him in cold blood. *rolls eyes*

Apparently, you dropped out of law school before your con law professor could even teach the first amendment.

save_the_rustbelt said...

A new definition of infinity...

Watch the Oscars.

A new definition of boredom...

Watch the Oscars.

It got so bad I was reading the federal income tax code.

Antonio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
save_the_rustbelt said...

"The dance tribute to the Nominated scores was moving and frankly at times brilliant,"

I might have "got it" if I hadn't been lulled into sleepiness.

What I do remember was pretentious and boring, in the "look how sophisticated we are you hicks" kind of way. Sorta like your comments.

former law student said...

you dropped out of law school before your con law professor could even teach the first amendment.

I did not study law in Nederland. But criminal law rather than constitutional would seem to be more relevant here, because Van Gogh's killer did not work for the government. In fact, the government paid to put Submission on TV.

Similarly, I assume you were pleased when our tax dollars helped pay for Andres Serrano's masterpiece Piss Christ? (A photo of a crucifix stuck in a jar of the artist's own urine.) Because using tax money to crap on people's religion is A-OK.

A.W. said...

FLS

> I did not study law in Nederland.

Or very much of it in America, given your level of knowledge.

> But criminal law rather than constitutional would seem to be more relevant here

Given we are talking about the venality of Hollywood, no. And I love your technical approach to this. “Hey the first amendment wasn’t violated, because it only applies here and to government action.” Talk about a myopic view of things. Talking about missing the principles that animate it.

> In fact, the government paid to put Submission on TV. Similarly, I assume you were pleased when our tax dollars helped pay for Andres Serrano's masterpiece Piss Christ?

So, um, you are really going do to this? You are going to defend the murder of a man for speaking and offending the wrong people?

Mmm, okay.

By the way, you can want government out of the speech business, without justifying murder for what someone said when handed a government megaphone. I think the NEA should be abolished or significantly cut back if only because we have a crushing deficit. (I know, its “only a few million” but a million here, a billion there, a trillion somewhere else, soon you will be talking about real money. Dontcha just love Obamanomics?)

I especially love your decrying the provocativeness of the piece. “OMG, they showed naked women!!!” Mind you I would call that “provocative,” too, but in a more positive sense of the word. But apparently you will go to the mat to defend both the piggish and sexist views of islamofascists, and their right to kill anyone who dares to criticize them for being sexist pigs. Mmm, kay.

A.W. said...

In fact the piss christ thing is exactly what i am talking about. Christians didn't like it but just how many people did we kill over it? None. We just protested, especially galled that we were being forced to pay for it.

i might add that piss christ was also fairly dubious as art. i mean, sheesh, the flaming bag of doggie doo trick is about as profound and slightly more thought out. Its like the $500 hammer of the NEA. even if i agreed with the message, it would be hard not to call it overpriced if we paid for more than the materials. And that was independantly galling, and worthy of protest. Certainly there was no justification for taking one dime of taxpayer money to pay for it.

But let's see here. Salmon Rushdie is on permanent protection for writing the Satanic Verses. i am sure that book is deliberatly provocative, too. *rolls eyes* Van Gogh was murdered. Riots over cartoons, and reports on those riots... that don't dare show the cartoon. Indeed, even on South Park, where they previously included Mohammed in a team of religious super heroes, riffing off the superfriends (aka the justice league), they wanted to have an episode where Family Guy was depicted having a scene with a cartoon mohammed, but Comedy Central censored it admittting they were afraid of islam-ispired violence. The mohammed cartoon reportedly showed him playing golf. meanwhile, the depiction of Jesus and George W. Bush defecating on the flag, the american people and each other was aired, no problem, sort of a performance art criticism of the double standard being shown there (one of the most ingenius moments in the episode).

if hollywood really wants to be brave, it should make a movie depicting the terrorists as bad guys for a change. its a tad braver than kicking the corpse of joe mccarthy.

c3 said...

Random comments:
1) Jackson roles his eye I can only assume he was thinking shit woman I've been doing non-PC parts for years
2)The dance tribute to the Nominated scores was moving and frankly at times brilliant,
That was sarcasm, right. As soon as it started I said to my wife "Every year they do some lame production number. It's a if they feel they have to to prove 'its Hollywood'"
she said "Why don't they just play clips of the movies while playing the soundtracks?" That made sense to me; I mean it was an award for soundtrack right, not dancing.
3) Martin and Baldwin were ok
4) What's with James Taylor singing out of tune in tribute to this year's deceased. Is there some James Taylor/Hollywood connection I'm not aware of?
5) Mo'Nique aside, there were a lot of acceptance speeches that expressed true amazement that "I won!!!!!!!"
6) Why Barbara Streisand?
7) Macauley Caulkin not looking so good.
8) I like Sean Penn as an actor (but can't stand his politics) Why is such a good actor so inept in ad lib public speaking?
9) Loved Best Director going to a James Cameron ex. After "I'm the King of the world!" I imagine the Academy saying "You ain't gettin shit from now on.
10) The five people coming out to introduce the Best Actor/Actress nominees has the feel of a grade school Valentine exchange
11) Overall a flat show. I know, what do I expect.

And did it actually end on time?

Anthony said...

10) The five people coming out to introduce the Best Actor/Actress nominees has the feel of a grade school Valentine exchange

Saw that bit for the actress and thought it was lamer than a centipede with athlete's foot.

They should just do the whole thing like Hanks did with Best Picture. Make it an hour, tops.

Oh, and all the (attractive) women should go topless, too. But that's just me.

William said...

Precious ranks right up with Brokeback Mountain as the kind of movie that the more it's discussed, the less I want to see it......The musical numbers, like the halftime entertainment at the Superbowl, are not really meant to be watched with critical attention.....I haven't watched the Academy Awards in some time. What with You Tube, you can look up the gaffes and tearful moments the next day. Not that I ever do.....I saw Hurt Locker. It was an ok movie, but nothing more. It was groundbreaking only in that it portrayed our soldiers in a sympathetic light. It even bestowed a little glory on their deeds. As a general rule, glory is only given to those who fight against fascism. All other wars are pointless and futile to the extent that they are not imperialistic.

Patm said...

As an aside, why is it that African American women and Latinas can be large-sized without it ever being mentioned or mocked (and this is true whether it's in film, music, American Idol, whatever) while large-sized Caucasian women get raked over the coals, called "fatties" or "big girls" if they're so much as a size 12 or 14?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a GOOD thing that these African-American (can't we go back to saying black? It's so much quicker) and Latina women are able to pursue their careers without having to starve themselves into neurotic monsters in order to conform to the "beauty" ideals.

I think it's great that Mo'Nique and Gabourey Sidibe are taken seriously are artists and, more importantly as human beings, despite their "plus" size. I just want to know when Caucasian women are going to be allowed to relax and eat a sandwich, too. I mean, Sarah Jessica Parker might not look as horrendously aged as she does, if she didn't weigh "one pound" as Steve Martin said, and actually had some flesh in her face.

And for the record, whoever dresses Sidibe is a genius. She always looks nice.

Jimmy said...

I have no idea who Mo'Nique is. Cablevision (my service) threatened to yank ABC off the air yesterday. Too bad they didn't

jaed said...

why is it that African American women and Latinas can be large-sized without it ever being mentioned or mocked

They can't. Reviews called Sidibe's character a monster, barely human, and other names, and they were talking specifically about her looks. Also, remember the kerfuffle about Regina Benjamin and whether she was qualified to be Surgeon General? Such a fattie, you know. A terrible example. My God, she wears a size eighteen! That's one whole size larger than the average American woman!

(Sigh.)

A.W. said...

jaed

> They can't.

It might be an exaggeration to say their looks aren't mocked at all, but there is no question that there seems to be a greater cultural tolerance particularly of african american women being heavy. I mean, sheesh, look at Queen Latifah.

My best explanation: sir-mix-alot.

Njema said...

Love this! Let them Hate! Daniels was so right in that NYT article!