By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 0 Comments
I was going to write something about the controversy over the Girls episode “One Man’s Trash,” and specifically the arguments over whether Lena Dunham and Patrick Wilson were a plausible couple. I decided what I wrote didn’t really work, and besides which a) There’s probably enough Girls discussion already, and b) The discussion of these issues tend to turn a writer into Rex Reed or, even worse, John Simon. (If you think people are unpleasant about Melissa McCarthy or Lena Dunham, just read that collection of Simon’s horrifically nasty comments about Liza Minnelli – we have a long way to go before we can match that guy for sheer hate.) So I’ll let that episode go for now.
But the discussion did illuminate something for me about our expectations when it comes to a character’s looks. We all know about the famous sexist double standard for looks in film and television. An ordinary-looking or overweight man is more likely to be paired with a beautiful woman, while the opposite pairing almost never happens. Even a woman with looks that are just unconventional – like Liza Minnelli, see above – will sustain the types of attacks that a Dustin Hoffman, say, doesn’t usually get once he becomes a star. But even though we’re more used to that kind of pairing, it still jars us more in fiction than it would in real life. Jason Alexander is married to a tall, good-looking woman, but it looked silly to us that George Costanza was going out with tall, good-looking women. Woody Allen’s ability to get women on the screen is more puzzling to us than his ability to get those same women in real life. And so on.
The main reason for this is that in real life there are many different reasons why people would get together, beyond looks – which, after all, are subjective. But the actors are often playing characters who Continue…
By kadyomalley - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:01 PM - 4 Comments
Never let it be said that, during her periodic forays into AccountabilityWatch-ing , ITQ doesn’t report on the good news as well as the bad.
She was, as noted below, somewhat frustrated to find out that the identities of those who apply for an exemption from the five year ban on lobbying are shrouded from prying eyes unless their request is approved by the commissioner.
On the flipside, however, she is entirely delighted to discover that the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner has finally made it clear that, as ITQ put it earlier this year, all lobbyist disclosures are not created equal.
Pull up an entry from the communications log database that was filed by an in-house – or “corporate” lobbyist – and the following text now appears at the bottom:
The above name is that of the most senior paid officer who is responsible for filing a return for a corporation or organization (the Registrant), whether that person participated in this communication or not. Indeed, the Lobbyists Registration Regulations do not require that the names of in-house lobbyists (i.e. employees of corporations or organizations) who actually participated in this communication with a designated public office holder be disclosed.
In other words, just because it looks like Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Jayson Myers has gotten face time with the Prime Minister, four cabinet ministers and Canada’s current Ambassador to the United States over the last eight months, it doesn’t actually mean that he was present at every one of those meetings. It could have been any one of the 25 AMEC staffers listed in his registration. Consultant lobbyists, however, are still required to file communications reports under their own names. Why the double standard?
ITQ still doesn’t know – but at least now there’s less chance of confusion.