The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Wednesday, December 7, 2016 — 5A

The 
modern 
moviegoer 

is 
obsessive. 
The 
modern 

moviegoer is informed. The 
modern moviegoer is a different 
beast 
than 
any 
previous 

generation of audiences, for the 
simple reason that the modern 
viewer is armed with the 
internet. We are collectively 
better 
informed 
than 
ever 

before about the production 
processes behind our favorite 
movies, 
the 
filmographies 

of the directors and actors, 
the credentials of the writers 
and most controversially, the 
political implications of the 
movies themselves.

We do not accept the notion 

that movies are unchangeable, 
inarguable 
culminations 
of 

imagination. Instead, we pore 
over casting rumors, director 
interviews and teaser trailers, 
and so create highly specific 
expectations for every newly 
released film. We hope that 
the new Superman movie cuts 
down the bleak tone of the first 
one, because it wasn’t very 
effective. Or we pray the latest 
Jennifer Lawrence/David O. 
Russell collaboration isn’t just 
another three-hour shouting 
match. Or we place bets on 
how long it’ll take for the new 
James Bond movie to have a 
weird, kind of creepy, almost 
predatory 
sexual 
encounter 

(about 50 minutes in is my best 
guess).

Look 
at 
the 
popularity 

of 
YouTube 
channels 
like 

CinemaSins, Screen Junkies, 
Cracked, 
WatchMojo 
and 

Cinefix. Look at the discussions 
on Twitter and Tumblr about 
the merits of this or that movie, 
the 
seemingly 
endless 
top 

ten lists and bottom ten lists, 
the million think pieces that 
accompany every new release. 
“Why [insert beloved children’s 
movie] is Secretly Horrifying.” 
“Top Ten Reasons Why You’re 
A Bad Person and Should Feel 
Bad For Liking the Reboot 
More Than The Original.” We 
take this information and bust 
it out at dinner, in the car on 
the way to the movie we’re 
about to see, because we feel 
we’ve learned something about 
the media we consume, and we 

want to share that knowledge.

The 
phrase 
“everyone’s 

a critic” is usually used to 
describe 
people’s 
tendency 

to be nitpicky or mean, but 
when I say it here, I mean it 
in the literal sense. By virtue 
of the Internet, everyone can 
serve the role of the critic, 
placing movies in their cultural 
context, poking holes in their 
plots or character arcs, making 
fun of the stilted dialogue or 
lazy CGI.

In a lot of ways, this is a 

really 
good 
thing. 
Online 

campaigns have led to more 
diversity in film casting, and a 
wider appreciation of films that 
may have slipped under the 
critical and audience radar on 
release. And it’s wonderful that 
more attention is being paid to 
the effect entertainment has 
on us, especially the popcorn 
flicks. Because it’s never “just 
a movie.” Movies are both 
products of and contributors to 
our culture. They’re important 
and they’re special. It’s good 
that people pay attention.

But there is a clear downside, 

and that is that we have become 
a more demanding audience. 
We insist stories be structured 
in exactly the way we want 
them to be, and if they are not, 
then the movie doesn’t even 
deserve to exist.

Think of the articles that list 

every way in which a movie’s 
content 
or 
presentation 
is 

morally problematic, written 
in such a way that it seems 
the writer is simply revealing 
the truth and anyone who 
may have liked the movie is 
actually a monster. Or the fact 
that there is an entire genre of 
YouTube videos now dedicated 
to reviewing not just the trailer 
of a film, but the teaser trailer 
as well, as if that is a perfect 
barometer of whether or not the 
movie should be watched at all. 

Many like to think of this 

as a liberal issue of “political 
correctness gone mad.” And 
yes, there is no denying the 
nastiness of the callout culture 
so prevalent on Tumblr and 
Twitter, but this is a problem 
that spans every ideology on the 
political spectrum. No one is 
immune.

Look at the awful backlash 

against 
the 
“Ghostbusters” 

remake. Or the uproar about the 

apparently politically motivated 
decision to cast a woman in 
the lead of “Star Wars: Rogue 
One.” Or the seething hatred 
directed by so-called men’s 
rights activists at “Mad Max: 
Fury Road.”

It’s anyone’s right to hate 

whatever they want to hate or 
not see any movie they don’t 
want to see. First Amendment 
rights, yada yada yada. But to 
the modern moviegoer, content 
not delivered in exactly the way 
we want is punishable by online 
harassment and death threats. 
We leak the home addresses, 
phone numbers and workplaces 
of people on Twitter who said 
something stupid so that the 
harassment and death threats 
can live on beyond the confines 
of the Internet. We think that 
our opinions are law, and if we 
believe a movie is too offensive 
to exist, then by God, that must 
mean it’s true.

But at the end of the day, we 

are an audience. Yes, we have 
opinions, and yes, we absolutely 
have the right to express them. 
We might even be pretty well 
informed about production and 
analysis and how character 
arcs 
should 
be 
structured 

and all that. But it’s when we 
start positioning our opinions 
(and yes, they are absolutely 
opinions) of a movie as absolute 
fact that we have a problem. We 
can’t say definitively whether 
a movie is deeply offensive 
and has no value. In truth, 
no one can, because movies 
aren’t 
definitive 
statements 

of fact and intent, dispensing 
information like a textbook. 
They’re stories from which we 
extract and interpret meaning. 
And meaning is malleable and 
dependent on the person who is 
doing the interpreting.

Of 
course 
movies 
are 

political, and of course their 
messages resonate deeply with 
audiences. 
Understanding 

them 
and 
analyzing 
their 

effects is important. But we, 
the modern viewers, have got 
to stop with the entitlement, 
with the nastiness, with the 
online screaming matches that 
never end. We have to be a 
better audience than this. And I 
think we can be. I think we can 
save ourselves from becoming 
the cultural equivalent of a 
YouTube comments section. 

ASIF BECHER
Daily Arts Writer

The toxicity of internet film culture

Perhaps best known for the 

smash hit single “All of Me” 

and his high-profile marriage 
to Sport Illustrated model, 
hilarious tweeter and chef, 
Chrissy Teigen, John Legend’s 
fifth studio album release, 
Darkness and Light, does not 

disappoint.

Featuring 12 sexy tracks 

with guest appearances from 
Chance the Rapper, Miguel and 
Brittany Howard, Legend puts 
his sensually rich vocals on full 

GOOD MUSIC

“Yep, that’s me.”
John Legend continues soul-pop 
hot streak with ‘Darkness and Light’

Legend creates album where sequencing and flow still matters

display.

The 
three 
most 
distinct 

songs on the album happen to 
be the three tracks featuring 
guest 
vocalists; 
“Penthouse 

Floor,” “Darkness 
and Light” and 
“Overload” 
each 

showcases 
a 

slightly different 
sound 
that 

Legend 
fails 
to 

incorporate in the 
rest of the album.

“Penthouse 

Floor,” featuring 
Chance the Rapper, starts off 
with a tropical Jason Mraz, 
“I’m Yours” feel to it, but 
gradually moves into what feels 
like a gospel spell. Chance the 
Rapper enters the track halfway 
through with a robust choir 
backing him up, creating a good 
vibes only hit.

Immediately following the 

staccato beats of “Penthouse 
Floor,” “Darkness and Light” 

swirls jazz and soul feels into a 
sensually melodic smooth duet 
between Legend and Brittany 
Howard, her soaring vocals 
impossible to ignore.

Miguel’s 

cameo 
comes 

via 
“Overload,” 

another 
soul-

heavy track on the 
album that makes 
excellent use of 
the 
saxophone 

to cast the mood 
as 
melancholy. 

Juxtaposed with 

the slow, mellow “Overload,” 
Legend amps up the beat in 
“Love Me Now,” a jam with 
great beats, soaring vocals and 
unique instrumentation that 
demonstrates Legend’s innate 
ability to meld soul with pop 
in a way that’s both artful yet 
marketable to the masses — a 
necessary evil in the music 
industry today.

The remaining tracks on 

Darkness and Light are all 
great; I could listen to each one 
several times and not tire of it. 
However, I don’t think I would 
be able to differentiate one 
song from the next. With each 
track featuring a similar beat, 
rhythm and instrumentation 
set-up, it becomes difficult to 
separate the songs from one 
another. However, that isn’t 
necessarily a bad thing. With 
pop music, it’s unreasonable 
to expect an artist to produce 
a cohesive album that dually 
features stylistically distinct 
songs — and John Legend 
went the route of producing 
a great album. Each track is 
pleasant to listen to on its own 
and individually contributes 
to the creation of cohesive 
and high-quality album; two 
components that many artists 
fail to achieve in the fast-paced, 
market-driven 
environment 

dominating the modern music 
industry.

DANIELLE IMMERMAN

Daily Arts Writer

Dear Victoria’s Secret,
Hope all is well. Business is 

booming, I hear. You’re likely 
very busy at the moment, but 
allow me to take a moment of 
your time. All I want is to make 
you aware of one thing: It is 2016.

Adriana Lima is still bad (in 

the good way). Popular Twitter 
accounts still post photos of your 
products captioned “goals.” The 
woman with the unidentifiable 
accent 
still 
narrates 
your 

commercials. And you’re still 
making billions off of your own 
discrimination.

Wake up, Victoria’s Secret.
This is not a rant in opposition 

of skinny women. This is not a 
condemnation of white girls. No, 
this is me begging you to not only 
to recognize the diversity of your 
audience, but to fully embrace it 
for the first time in your history.

I’m not sure what I can 

contribute to the body diversity 
conversation that has not already 
been said. I’ll just tell you not 
to forget that you’re one of the 
only popular lingerie companies 
that has yet to introduce a plus-
sized line, or even bras with 
a cup size larger than a triple 
D. Meanwhile, according to 
Business Insider, the plus-size 
industry is worth $20.4 billion. 
Sure, you’d have to make some 
changes to your patterns to 
accommodate this market. What 
a burden such innovation would 
be! I don’t care what excuses 
you give, your fashion show is 
yet another reminder that you 
are nixing an entire consumer 
demographic in the name of a 
tired ideal.

One more note about body 

image: despite what your fashion 
show’s 
behind-the-scenes 

coverage claims, working out is 
not going to make me look like 
an “angel”. It will make me feel 
great (read: endorphins), but it 
will not make me any less of a 
5’3 teenager with a pear-shaped 
build. Stop trying to make me 
think that my body is incorrect 
for functioning in the only way it 
knows how.

Each year, your show includes 

an alarmingly small selection 
of women of color. To make 
matters worse, the few who are 
cast appear to be chosen based 
on their Eurocentric features. 
Of course, there is nothing 
inherently 
harmful 
about 

almond-shaped eyes or button 
noses. What is harmful, however, 
is convincing a generation of girls 
that they are the “wrong” type of 
Black by only featuring models 
whose chocolate complexions 
are offset by their textbook 
white attributes. Of the eight 
Black women in your show this 
year (and the 51 total models), 
only three wore their hair 
naturally. Don’t get me wrong, 
this number is groundbreaking. 
You are improving, and for that 
I thank you. Yet you’d have to 
have your lace-lined panties in 
a twist to believe that there isn’t 
a world full of issues left for you 
to address.

Don’t get me started on 

your buddy-buddy union with 
appropriation. A Chinese dragon 
wrapped around a Swedish 
woman’s body? A consumer-
friendly robe with traditional 
kimono sleeves? I’m not one to 
make mountains out of molehills, 
but there is something to be said 
for a corporation (i.e., you) who 
capitalizes on the blending of 
culturally significant symbols 
and 
commercialized 
lingerie 

year after year. You seem to 
be the only one in this room 
who does not see the elephant. 
You do not acknowledge how 
blatantly wrong this practice is, 
and you’re the most powerful 
one here.

You 
are 
forging 
obvious 

discrimination 
and 
masking 

it with sparkly wings and 
enthusiasm. This generation of 
young women may wear your 

products with pride, but not 
everyone is fooled.

You do not represent the 

millions of girls who crowd 
around 
their 
televisions 
to 

watch your fashion show. While 
they 
live-tweet 
about 
Bella 

Hadid’s “perfect boobs,” you 
are here to remind them that 
no other variation is worthy of 
your catwalk. I’m writing this 
from the back row of an official 
Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show 
viewing party. There is more 
diversity — of race, body type 
and background — in this one 
room than there’s ever been in 
your self-proclaimed “sexiest 
night on television”.

Sexy is confidence, pride and 

ownership of oneself. Though 
I’m sure each of your models 
embodies this ideal, the way 
you present them does not. You 
are asking young women to see 
“sexy” as a binary, as a question 
with a yes or no answer. And 
because your definition of “yes” 
is so narrow in scope, you’ve 
had a hand in convincing a 
vast majority that they are a 
“no”. Your textbook definition 
of sexiness should not be used 
as a tool to shut down other 
interpretations, 
but 
that’s 

exactly how your annual affair 
operates.

I still love lingerie. I admire 

Victoria’s Secret Angels like 
Jasmine Tookes, who use their 
platforms to emphasize the 
significance of self-care. It’s 
you, 
Victoria’s 
Secret, 
who 

angers me. Your yearly fashion 
show has nothing to do with 
the outfits presented. Rather, it 
presents a full package, a signed, 
sealed and delivered paradigm 
to which every viewer should 
aspire. Let’s cut to the chase: 
you have, quite literally, all 
of the potential in the world. 
The global lingerie market is 
practically yours. I cannot say 
whether you will use that power 
for good or for evil, but I do 
know that you are capable of 
both. All I can do is wait, open-
eyed, for your next spectacle.

Best wishes,
Tess Garcia (the one who 

always lies to your employees 
about whether her cup size has 
been measured recently).

VICTORIA’S SECRET

Bow down plebians.

TESS GARCIA
Daily Arts Writer

Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show still needs to work on their inclusivity
An open letter to VSFS

STYLE NOTEBOOK

YouTube stars like Jeremy Jahns exemplify how everyone’s a critic

You’re still 

making billions 

on your own 

discrimination.

JEREMY JAHNS

Reactions to staring into the eternal black void.

A

Darkness and Light

John Legend

Columbia

ALBUM REVIEW

FILM NOTEBOOK

