A producer on The Bachelor wants you to know that Peter Weber is a chivalrous dude who would totally give his jacket to his date if she were cold. He’s just not supposed to.
No, I’m not joking. The reason Pilot Pete is never caught on camera pulling this particular rom-com move is simple: It looks “silly.” The question was raised by a concerned Entertainment Weekly reporter who noticed Madison was cold in the latest episode of The Bachelor—you know, the one in which she dipped after finding out he slept with another contestant during Fantasy Suite week.
“The Bachelor nearly always offers his jacket to every shivering woman sitting in front of him,” the producer told EW. “But [we] tell him not to, because it looks so damn silly.”
But it’s the next part of the source’s statement that sends me. Apparently, pashminas are kept on site to avoid multiple shots of “a small woman draped in an enormous blazer.” A. Small. Woman. Draped. In. An. Enormous. Blazer. I’m getting that tattooed on my shoulder to remind me to always bring a coat to my next breakup with a partner who’s dating two other women.
You can have my arms to protect you from the cold…as a treat.
ABC
This is far from the biggest controversy the producers have faced this week. Fans were not impressed by the unprecedented choice to have the three remaining women live together during the Fantasy Suite dates. Chris Harrison explained that the goal was to create an “uncomfortable zone” that would force Madison to be honest with Peter about her virginity and her opposition to staying in the competition should he choose to sleep with Victoria F. or Hannah Ann.
“Sometimes we do it for your behalf; sometimes we do it for the guy’s or the girl’s,” he said on the Bachelor Happy Hourpodcast. “This situation was pretty extraordinary because Peter had kicked the can down the road, but also, this time Madison had. So this was to force a situation that had to happen, and it had to happen this week.”
[embedded content]
No word yet on whether or not Madison returns to the show before Peter gets down on one knee (all signs point to yes). Wherever she is, I hope she’s warm.
Adam Levine is at the center of a heated debate following Maroon 5’s performance at the 2019 Super Bowl halftime show. At the end of the band’s set, Levine took his shirt off, which many people are taking issue with given what happened to Janet Jackson on that same stage in 2004.
If you recall, the pop icon’s breast accidentally was exposed after her co-headliner Justin Timberlake tugged too hard on her outfit. The media dubbed the incident “Nipplegate,” and Jackson’s 20+-year career quickly derailed as a result. Clear Channel Communications, which owned Infinity Broadcasting and Viacom (MTV and CBS) at the time, blacklisted all of Jackson’s singles and music videos, drastically hindering her album sales. And the Grammys reportedly banned her from presenting at that year’s ceremony. Meanwhile, Timberlake attended with no drama and even accepted two awards.
Getty Images
Our culture, by and large, now views what happened to Jackson as sexist and unacceptable—#JanetJacksonAppreciationDay trended for a reason—which is why Super Bowl viewers are scratching their heads at Levine’s stunt. Why was he allowed to go shirtless for several minutes, but Jackson almost lost everything for a wardrobe malfunction?
[embedded content]
“How does Adam Levine get to intentionally reveal both nipples, his belly, his whole back, underarms, left and right obliques, and every tattoo he has above his waist, but Janet Jackson can’t accidentally show 1 nipple,” one person tweeted. “Adam Levine is celebrated for taking his shirt off during halftime yet Janet Jackson is STILL in the dog house,” wrote another.
“This country should have a serious chat about why Adam Levine’s nipples are, uh, apparently ‘acceptable’ on TV but Janet Jackson was shamed and blacklisted for something she didn’t even do,” tweeted a third person.
There are more reactions where these came from, too. Read just a few of them, below:
Levine hasn’t commented on this controversy yet, but we’ll update this post when and if he does.
The hair sagas of the women of Westeros continue as Sophie Turner just revealed that she wasn’t allowed to wash her hair while filming certain seasons of Game of Thrones. And all this after the natural blond spent years alternating colors between her born-with-it shade and Sansa Stark’s eye-catching red.
During an interview with InStyle, the actress spilled her “dirty” secret. After being asked about how the men on the show were famously forbidden from washing their hair so it looked more in-character, Turner revealed this fun fact: “For the first few seasons I was allowed to wash my hair because I was an aristocratic young girl, but towards season 5 they started asking me to not wash my hair and it was really disgusting. Now I wear I wig so I can wash my hair whenever I want, which is nice. But yes, for a couple of years I was living with pretty greasy hair.”
That sounds less than fun, but honestly it’s not the worst thing that’s happened to her poor head. “A few years ago I was trying to go back from red to blond, and it destroyed my hair to the point that I had to use a wig for Game of Thrones,” she toldGlamour in November. “They wouldn’t let me dye it back red or my hair would’ve fallen out.”
Apparently, being on the biggest show is the world is a real detriment to the beauty routines of its female stars including Turner’s co-star Emilia Clarke, who chopped her hair short after damage inflicted while filming. “My hair was, like, dying!” she said last fall after chopping it into a pixie. “So I’ve cut it a little bit shorter. It’s almost the shortest it’s been. I’m honestly trying to grow out the blond, because it’s just killed my hair, and I miss having nice hair.”
Thankfully they’ve have adapted quite nicely—courtesy of some serious masking tips. “The biggest thing [to keeping my hair healthy] is WellaPlex,” Turner told Glamour. “It’s a hair mask that you put on, leave in for 10 minutes, and then wash out. It repairs the bonds in your hair so that it doesn’t just feel strong and healthy, it actually is stronger and healthier afterward. I use it every week, because with the job I have, it’s a lot of dyeing, straightening, curling, and heat damage. I’ll put in on after showering, watch a bit of Keeping Up With the Kardashians, and then I go back and wash it off.”
UPDATE July 6, 2018 at 10:35 A.M. ET:Scarlett Johansson‘s recent casting as a transgender man in the upcoming film Rub & Tug has re-sparked the debate about whether cisgender actors should play transgender characters. Many aren’t happy with Johansson’s involvement, including Trace Lysette and Jamie Clayton, two trans actors who discussed the issue on Twitter.
“I wouldn’t be upset if I was getting in the same rooms as Jennifer Lawrence and Scarlett for cis roles, but we know that’s not the case. A mess,” Lysette tweeted.
“Actors who are trans never even get to audition for anything other than roles of trans characters. That’s the real issue. We can’t even get in the room,” Clayton echoed.
In response to the criticism, Johansson’s rep gave this message to Bustle: “Tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto, and Felicity Huffman’s reps for comment.” (Those three are all cisgender actors who received critical praise for playing trans people.)
The Internet, naturally, is buzzing about this—as it was last year, when news broke Elle Fanning would be playing a trans man in the movie Three Generations. That’s what prompted the conversation below:
ORIGINAL STORY: In college my family was my group of queer friends, and we existed harmoniously 99.9 percent of the time. There’s only one disagreement I clearly remember—and it was about the 2013 movie Dallas Buyers Club. In the film Jared Leto, a cisgender man, plays a transgender woman, a casting decision that was polarizing both with critics and with two friends in my college squad: Caleb, who identifies as gender queer, and Jensen, who identifies as a trans man.
Jensen took the affirmative: He thought Leto’s casting was completely fine if he was the best actor who auditioned. Caleb, on the other hand, said a cis actor shouldn’t have even been considered for the role. No one really “won” the argument: Both Caleb and Jensen made excellent points.
Which is why their debate was the first thing I thought of when I heard Elle Fanning, a cis woman, is playing a trans man in the new film Three Generations. GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis released a statement approving the film’s message (it centers on a teen’s transition from female to male), but what about the casting? Should cisgender actors be allowed to play transgender roles? The question rages on four years after Dallas Buyers Club.
And the answer is still unclear—well, at least according to the recent conversation I had with Caleb and Jensen. The three of us chatted about Fanning’s casting, and while Jensen and Caleb still have the same opposing viewpoints, they see eye to eye on one issue: The need for better trans representation, overall, in Hollywood.
Read our full, unfiltered discussion, below:
Chris: I remember our group of friends getting into a debate about cisgender actors playing trans roles after Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. It’s happening again with Elle Fanning in the new film Three Generations. She plays a female assigned at birth who wants to transition to male. So I’m curious: What do you two think about this? Is it OK for cisgender actors to play transgender roles? Why or why not?
Caleb: My usual feelings about cis actors playing trans roles is that it’s almost done in a way to make fun of the trans character or invalidate their identity. For instance, in Dallas Buyers Club with [Leto’s] character Rayon: It almost seems as though they went out of their way to make her look bad and trashy in most scenes and almost leaned into the “man in a wig” narrative. And I wouldn’t have an issue with a trans person looking “not so good” in Dallas Buyers Club if that [narrative] wasn’t a normal thing. Trans people sometimes do look bad. We’re people, but in almost every movie where a trans woman is played by a [cis] man, there seems to be little effort in feminizing her. That’s not to say that trans women need to be femme or that having a beard makes her less of a woman, but it’s one side of trans-ness that we’ve been fed over and over again in sort of a tragic way. Much like 70 years ago in pulp fiction novels [where] gay men and lesbian women had to be murdered or convert to straight by the end of the book, trans people usually end up in the roles of someone living with HIV/AIDS, a prostitute, or the butt of the joke.
Jensen: My position is that the actor who fits the role best and has the most skill should play it. I don’t think that just because someone’s trans that they should be handed the role if they can’t act. I find it exciting that our stories are finally being told—of course, there’s always going to be room for improvement in telling minority stories, but the fact that they’re being told at all is progress. As a trans man, I’m not bothered by Elle Fanning playing the role of a trans man if she was the most skilled actor who auditioned.
Chris: Caleb, to your point about cisgender portrayals often invalidating trans identities: Do you think it’s possible for a cisgender actor to understand a trans character’s full complexity? Or are all the roles better suited for trans actors?
Caleb: Oh, cis people can’t ever comprehend trans-ness—not to say that trans-ness is some otherworldly thing that no one could ever understand, but trans people are still working out what trans-ness is and how we interact with our own and what we want our community to be. If we’re still working it out and living it every day, I really don’t think that an actor, even a talented one, can really understand all the sides of the identity he or she is playing. For where we are right now in our culture and in time, I think only trans actors should play trans roles.
Jensen: I will agree with [your] single point, Caleb: I think that there needs to be a wider variety of storylines about trans people, especially trans women, but I still don’t think making the roles solely for trans actors is the way to go. I think we also have to keep in mind reaching a wide audience when trying to gain some understanding from cis people, and that comes with names that have large box office pull. Right now there’s only a handful of trans actresses who have large pull with their names, and they might not fit every single storyline they are presented. And to answer the question about complexity and fully understanding: I don’t think, unless you are trans, that anyone could ever fully understand what we go through, but I also think that cis actors understand the weight that comes with taking such a role. I believe that anyone who would take on such a role would do so with an open heart toward our community and want to help us reach people and open minds.
Chris: The box office conversation is interesting. Caleb, what are your thoughts on that?
Caleb: I understand the temptation for a director or casting company to want to cast big names in trans roles. Dallas Buyers Club wouldn’t have had the pull it had if it didn’t have Leto. I think there are [better] examples of cis people playing trans roles more successfully than Dallas Buyers Club, but I hate that [they] get some sort of “bravery badge” for doing so. But back to the box office point: I think the movies want the money boost, so they put cis actors in these roles so that people kind of think, I want to see Leto playing a trans woman. I think it’s exploitative, especially with the narratives that we’re fed in these roles.
Jensen: I will agree that the narratives surrounding the trans community need to be better. 100 percent. But I will also say those producers aren’t looking for just a “trans actress.” Characters have a specific age and race and Laverne Cox, Jamie Clayton, Alexandra Billings, Candis Cayne, Jen Richards, Calpernica Addams, Kitana Kiki Rodriguez, Mya Taylor, or some of the other relatively few out trans actresses might not fit the part.
Caleb: And that’s fine, but why not cast more trans people than that? Why not bring in new talent? Because I know that more trans people than that are auditioning and not getting roles—roles that are often given to cis people. Specifically for trans women, these roles are often handed to men. I’ve even been happier to see cis women playing the roles of trans women because at least a woman is playing the role rather than someone who is completely removed from both trans-ness and womanhood.
Jensen: I’m not personally a casting director or producer, so I can’t answer those questions. If I was, trust me: I would be pushing for more new faces. I’m sure that there are people who are talented and being overlooked, but I also still stand by my statement that we need to be able to reach people when telling our stories. We need to have cis people show up to the theater, and that means big names. I also will say that in the average person’s mind, when they think of great acting, they think of an actor playing a role that she or he is not comfortable with, that tests their skills as an actor. A straight person playing a nonstraight role, be it gay, bi, or transgender, is just a testament to their ability to act—if they perform exceptionally well. And yes, maybe we should be moving more toward cis women [playing trans roles] than men since it creates so many issues. I even enjoyed Felicity Huffman playing a trans waitress in Transamerica. Maybe if we can’t have trans women playing trans roles, then at least cis women will help stop some of the “man in a wig” portrayals you stated earlier.
Caleb: I disagree. I don’t think we should be OK with queer roles being seen as a test of a cis-het [cisgender, heterosexual] actor’s skills, especially not when we’re trying so hard to work on problems in the representation department and show the mainstream world the wide variety of queer people that exist. We need to showcase more queer talent and let trans people tell these stories and take more input from trans people about these stories and roles to make sure that, in this crucial time of transgender stories being new and educating the public, we get these stories right and showcase a [variety] of trans voices.
Chris: Actors tend to get the brunt of the criticism when these casting decisions happen, but there’s an entire system behind why they’re cast. It’s an agent who puts the actor up for the role, a studio that backs the decision, casting directors who filter who gets to audition, and a patriarchal entertainment industry that prioritizes male talent. Do actors deserve criticism for simply accepting a role? Or should the outrage be directed elsewhere?
Caleb: I think we can certainly hold the entire system accountable. Everyone involved in making a movie that features queer, trans, or gender-nonconforming people needs to be educated on those topics and issues and should know that representation is a huge issue for us right now. Getting our stories right matters so much. I want to have movies about my community and trans people, but I want it done right. I want a [variety] of stories with complex characters who are imperfect and human, who love and are lovable, who aren’t always sex workers, who aren’t the butt of the joke, and who are more than just their transition. I want those movies and the people responsible for making them [to be] just that: responsible. And if the actors and actresses playing these roles win awards and thank “God” but don’t thank the trans people who live authentically and bravely every day, then yes, they should be roasted.
Jensen: Hollywood has a serious problem highlighting trans talent. The industry itself needs to learn and evolve faster on how to improve the way it tells trans stories. I don’t think it’s the actors who should be criticized. They are trying to tell stories, make art, and do what they love, which is perform to the best of their ability. If anything, I think most of the actors do thank the trans community. Case in point: Jeffrey Tambor, who, when accepting his last Emmy, said [to] give trans talent a chance and [that he] hopes [he’s the] last cis actor to play a trans woman. I think that the actors and actresses themselves try to take as much care and research as possible from our community and listen to us. But I think we’ve got a long way to go when it comes to the entire system.
Just 10 days after becoming the first Senator to give birth while in office, Tammy Duckworth made history again last night when she introduced a rule change that would allow children (like her newborn daughter Maile Pearl Bowlsbey) under one year of age on the Senate floor. Senators are also now allowed to breastfeed during votes if necessary, ensuring that they would not have to choose between caring for their child and doing their jobs.
In a statement thanking her colleagues, Duckworth said: “By ensuring that no Senator will be prevented from performing their constitutional responsibilities simply because they have a young child, the Senate is leading by example and sending the important message that working parents everywhere deserve family-friendly workplace policies. These policies aren’t just a women’s issue, they are a common-sense economic issue.” According to CNN, Duckworth had been working behind the scenes for some time on the matter and the last time additional floor privileges were granted was in 1977, allowing service dogs on the floor.
Though the change passed with unanimous consent, Senator Amy Klobacher (D—Minn.) told CNN, “It’s been quite a journey.” Apparently some lawmakers raised questions like whether diapers would be changed on the floor or whether there would be a dress code for babies. She continued, “The Senate is steeped in tradition and just like the rest of the country, sometimes things have to change.”
Dick Durbin, the senior Senator from Duckworth’s home state of Illinois said of the change, “I think it will do us good in the United States Senate, every once in a while to see a pacifier next to the antique ink wells on our desks.” He continued, “Perhaps the cry of a baby will shock the Senate at times into speaking out and even crying out on the issues that confront our nation and the world.”
The Golden Globes—generally referred to as “Hollywood’s biggest party”—is known for its free-flowing supply of champagne, seemingly unrehearsed acceptance speeches, and caustic Tina and Amy memes. But in 2018 it appears things will be different. The show doesn’t air until Sunday night, but already the seventy-fifth annual Golden Globes are steeped in sexual harassment controversy. In December both male and female celebrities announced plans to wear all-black to this year’s ceremony—an act of protest and solidarity against harassment in Hollywood. Soon after, The New York Timespublished open notes on how they’ll be handling this year’s red carpets, as a means of transparency, and New York magazine’s fashion site The Cut declared they won’t be ranking and evaluating Globes fashion the way they typically do.
All these forward-facing preparations had me reevaluating my own affinity toward red carpets: In this post-Weinstein hellscape, is it still OK to indulge? I know there’s more to red carpets than the “twirl for me” imagery we’ve come to associate them with—at their core, they celebrate achievements in the arts—but if we just love the gowns, the glitter, the hair, the spontaneous replies to frivolous questions, is that really a bad thing?
Powerful female narratives swept the Golden Globe awards nominations this year. The Shape of Water led nominations in film with seven nods, followed closely behind by The Post and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri with six. And in TV Big Little Lies and Feud: Bette and Joan led the nominations. With unapologetic, trailblazing female characters front and center at the 2018 Golden Globes, I’m not sold on the idea of patrolling women’s behaviors on the red carpet.
In this post-Weinstein hellscape, is it still OK to indulge?
Yes, red carpets can be silly, and sometimes the Ryan-Giuliana banter can make your eyes roll back in your head, but it’s 2018: Women can be bullheaded feminists and still love fashion—both for themselves and on celebrities. I absolutely understand the power of a bold statement to raise awareness, but the inevitable downside to this equation is that women will be judged and criticized no matter what. If a female celebrity doesn’t wear all black to the ceremony, people will drag her on social media for detracting from the cause. I can’t help but spot the irony in repressing women’s outfits in order to take a stance against sexual harassment.
To take the temperature of our collective pre-red-carpet mood, I asked a few women how they felt about it. Whether they’re fans of fashion or not, women generally seem to be excited about the carpet, though they’re concerned but hopeful about the tone. “I do enjoy watching the red-carpet interviews, but I’m especially interested in the kinds of questions that will be asked this year regarding everything that’s happened,” Liz Garland from Mississippi told me. “I’d love to hear what people who’ve worked with these [seemingly unscathed] abusers have to say and how they justify working with them. Basically, I’m hoping the interviewers won’t be afraid to ask tough questions this year.”
Celebrity manicurist Steph Stone is a fan of red carpets too. “I really like awards season. I like seeing how pretty everyone looks. I love seeing who did whose hair and makeup. That’s exciting for me,” she said. Still, she’s not sold on the blackout statement. “I think that if there’s an opportunity to celebrate women, let’s take it. Harvey Weinstein was a large part of Hollywood, but we shouldn’t cancel an art that everybody enjoys just because men have made it difficult for women to excel.”
Danielle Acton, a television student at Chicago’s Columbia College, feels similarly. “I don’t want us to think that it should be a somber night, we can empower by celebrating the strides we’ve made and look forward to making.”
We shouldn’t cancel an art everybody enjoys just because men have made it difficult for women to excel.
Victoria Hoff, the wellness editor at beauty website Byrdie, thinks the onus should be on men to deal with sexual harassment, not women. “I do really appreciate the solidarity of wearing black…. That said, I also feel conflicted about the fact that just as with #MeToo, this puts the onus on women to speak out. I have to ask: How does this hold the people who are part of the problem responsible?”
Obviously we love #AskHerMore, and I’m sure this year’s carpet will be chock-full of beautiful and articulate feminist power-statements, but Hoff jokes that reporters should #AskHimLess as penance. “Let’s ask a dude how he balances his career with fatherhood and what he ate that day to fit into his tux and then chain him to E!’s mani-cam. I’m only half-kidding.”
For lots of us, red-carpet fashion is a universally adored pastime and much-needed escape. I don’t know anything about fashion, and yet I so enjoy sinking into my couch and texting red carpet memes to my friends throughout the duration of an awards show (and the days following). I love nesting in the thrill and glamour of twinkling celebrities, fire-hydrant-red carpets, and the smokescreen of happiness and success. After the mess that was 2017, I need one moment of Giuliana Rancic–induced, faux-happy respite.
The responsibility should be on the red-carpet reporters (looking at you, Seacrest) to step up to the plate: We can ask who a celebrity is wearing, but we should also be able to follow it up with the journalistic integrity and bullheaded prowess of Jodi Kantor (who will be contributing to the red-carpet coverage for The New York Times). The enemy isn’t fashion; it’s sexual harassment.
The enemy isn’t fashion—it’s sexual harassment.
Let’s keep our eye on the prize, our fists raised, and take actionable steps to help women in the workplace beat harassment—like the Time’s Up initiative does. Reese Witherspoon, one of the founders of Time’s Up, told The New York Times in December, “A show of solidarity at an awards show is one very small piece. It really is a statement that women are deeply unified, we always have been, and that we stand up for those who can’t speak up.”
This year all five films nominated for Best Screenplay are led by unapologetic and pugnacious female characters, as are all five nominees for Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television. Despite 2017 being a gutting, catastrophic year for women, nevertheless, we did what we do best: persisted. The 2018 Golden Globes are a night to celebrate these women, so let’s do that.
And if dressing in all-black makes a woman feel empowered and feminist, or alleviates unwanted pressure of primping and preening, then I’m all for that too. Let the red-carpet memes commence.
Jill Gutowitz is an L.A.-based writer who has written for Vice, Broadly, Teen Vogue, AwesomenessTV, Dame magazine, and more. Follow her on Twitter @jillboard.
