Monday, September 10, 2007

what I'm not watching

Non-Essential Equipment has posted a new Britney video and asks a reasonable question:

Why, with all the other things that are wrong with this performance, are people focusing on her belly 'flab' and the fact that she doesn't have the same body she did when she was 17?

Good question, N.e.e.

But first, I have a confession to make. After listing all the sensationalist stuff I don't like to see, I actually watched a clip of this "trainwreck" - I think they're calling it - before seeing it at Nee's place. . . . (I see now that I hadn't included drunken or drugged starlets on stage where they don't actually fall off, so that's a small comfort. Britney did not fall off the stage. . . .)

But back to the question. Why focus on her body as a target for critique instead of the other glaring embarrassments?

Hmmm. I realize that I'm on dangerous ground here. I approach the she's-asking-for-it rationale, and I am definitely not comfortable with that. But let's take a look at this. We have here a woman who - as Nee points out - has relatively recently given birth to two children. That'll change you!

She chose to "perform" in a sequined bikini. That'll expose you!

Presumably she has a mirror in her home. If not, surely she has "advisors". I therefore assume that she wore this outfit on purpose, hard as that might be for me to imagine. And as the "purpose" of the outfit appears to be to cover just what has to be covered, I think we might infer that she meant to expose the rest.

And it's the display of that "rest" that invites critique, commentary, and comparison. Sorry!

I do agree with Nee, though. Let's not just leave this at the 'no-longer-17' dismissal point. The fact of the matter is that maybe the most embarrassing part of this fiasco is that Britney doesn't seem to get it that she's no longer 17. Britney, honey, this is not attractive and you can't get away with acting like that any more because you're supposed to be a big girl now! This is not about belly flab or whether or not you're in shape, or even whether you're high, stoned, or lip-synching out of time. It's not even about the costume or whether or not you're 'out-of-it' because you've gotten older or had children.

Britney Spears is 'out-of-it' because she's out of it! I mean: I don't think there's anyone home. Maybe there never was anyone home, but we didn't notice because hey! she was 17 and so many thought she was cute - or hot - or whatever. Anyway, I don't know where she went - but she sure ain't there now and unless there's a person to see I'd rather not watch. It has nothing to do with how young or old she looks, or how much she works out. In a way, older women at home in their bodies are a whole lot more interesting as far as I'm concerned. But hey - they also don't usually appear on national television wearing sequined bikinis.

There's a reason for this.


Non-Essential Equipment said...

But do you think she has the "talent" (for lack of a better word) to actually reinvent herself? I don't think she can muster up the gumption to try anything other than the 17 sexpot role.

prophet said...

that's the million dollar question, there, isn't it? Having started at the lowest common denominator of sexpot appeal. . . . it doesn't look promising as far as I can see. But unless she does, her future holds increasingly humiliating failures to be just what she will never be again: a 17 y.o. sexpot.

I think the saddest part is what you touched on: I don't think she'll ever even try any other role on for size. She'll just keep trying to squeeze back into this one.

Here's hoping we're wrong - and Britney gets a life.

Lee Anne said...

Did you hear Kanye West's comments about MTV exploiting her for ratings?

I mean, yes, she is an adult. But, she's been an adult with "handlers" since she became legal.