Mediaboss Marketing

Laura Dern is everywhere these days, and that alone is proof that no matter what hill you occupy in the current culture wars, all is not lost. Emmys, Golden Globes, Oscars for the last few years, virtually every project she touches turns to gold Twin Peaks, Big Little Lies Seasons 1 and 2, The Tale, and this year, Little Women and Marriage Story, both of which are best picture nominees, with Dern nominated as supporting actress in Marriage Story.

She was even part of Ellen DeGeneres receipt of the Carol Burnett Award at this years Golden Globes; Dern played the woman to whom DeGeneres character Ellen came out during the famous boundary-breaking Puppy episode. The decision to play an openly gay woman on broadcast television in 1997 damaged Derns career (though far less than it damaged Degeneres). It wasnt until 2008, with the HBO movie Recount and then, three years later, the HBO comedy Enlightened, that she came roaring back.

For reasons still baffling and regrettable, HBO killed Enlightened after its second season, but Dern got an Emmy nomination all the same and, more important, everyone suddenly remembered how good an actress the star of pre-Ellen films including Rambling Rose, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart and Smooth Talk really was.

Really is.

At this point, most everyone agrees that Enlightened was just a few years ahead of its time; had it premiered a few years later, when the notion of prestige television had become mainstream and female stars were less confined by sexist strictures of likability, the burning wire of Amy Jellicoe would have lasted at least another season.

But Dern has always been a performer ahead of her time, and 35 years after she decided to turn down a Brat Pack lead for a small role and a chance to work with Peter Bogdanovich in Mask, the industry is finally beginning to catch up.

Dern is a character actor who is also a star, a very rare breed. She is also a character actor who never appears to be playing a character, a breed rarer still. No matter how radical the part (Enlighteneds Amy, the napalm-equipped helicopter parent Renata in Big Little Lies, the take-no-prisoners divorce attorney in Marriage Story), Dern humanizes it. And no matter how human the part (the self-deluded documentarian in The Tale, Marmee in Little Women,), Dern radicalizes it.

A Netflix featurette on Laura Dern as a very good divorce lawyer in Marriage Story.

Its tough to think of another performer who fits so easily in, and is willing to do such a varied palette of projects. In 2017, she had roles in Star Wars: Episode VIII: The Last Jedi and The Last Man on Earth on Fox, Alexander Paynes Downsizing, Showtimes Twin Peaks and The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt on Netflix.

Following this years Oscar glory, shell next be seen in projects both tried and true and newly launched. Shell reprise her 1993 role as Ellie Sattler in Jurassic World 3 and she just signed on to a series on Quibi, the short-form streamer. In Just One Drink, shell play a bartender listening to varying customers over several episodes running 10 minutes or less.

She herself is a glorious reprimand to stereotype blond, slim and beautiful, with an A-list Hollywood pedigree, she is famous for showing up, working hard, making herself heard and being kind.

The only time I met Laura Dern, she brought macarons. She was starring in Enlightened at the time and was part of an Envelope Emmy panel I was hosting. She showed up at The Times offices camera-ready and bearing a box of cookies for her fellow panelists. I have done a lot of panels in my time and no one has ever thought to bring cookies.

Her roles this year, as a tough-as-nails 21st century L.A. divorce attorney and a self-sacrificing 19th century wife, mother and early feminist, prove what many of us have known for years: Laura Dern can do anything.

And considering that even as a supporting player she manages to deliver the best lines in both movies (So its a deal when its something you want and a discussion when Nicole wants it? in Marriage Story) and (I am angry nearly every day of my life in Little Women) its probably a very good idea to just let her.

Read more:
Hollywood is just catching up to the greatness of Laura Dern - Los Angeles Times

Yesterday, 26 January 2020, the Catholic Church's new Pastoral Plan for Southern Africa Evangelising Community Serving God, Humanity and All Creation was launched at Regina Mundi Church in Soweto. With its emphasis on evangelisation that serves God, humanity and creation, it sets the Church in a new direction, rooted in the Gospel and seeking the guidance of the Spirit in what we do.

The eight focus areas of the Plan will no doubt be analysed, and hopefully implemented, in various ways in the years to come. Some seem 'internally' focused, on the different parts of the body that is the Church: laity formation and empowerment; life and ministry of clergy; marriage and family; and youth. Others seem to look outward: to justice, peace and non-violence; healing and reconciliation; care for creation and the environment. All of these in various ways feed into its first point, evangelisation.

On closer examination the 'internal/external' dimensions blur. The building up of the people who are Church and their promotion as active servants of God cannot have but an external dimension - as witnesses to the wider society by example, whose lives challenge everyone to the values of community, service and fidelity. The best form of evangelisation is example.

Similarly, if they are to be authentic, the 'socio-political' elements promoting justice, reconciliation and ecology cannot but be the practices of the Church in itself. We must look at how values such as justice, healing and reconciliation may be implemented within the Church in this time of internal division over Church renewal initiated by Pope Francis. In particular, the idea of non-violence might mean for us a wariness at getting into the often verbally violent 'culture wars' waged in Catholic social media.

As with any plan, all of this depends on implementation. If the Pastoral Plan is to be more than a 'wish list', local Catholic communities must discern how to apply its focus areas in their contexts. They must see how they can build 'greener' parishes - while advocating for ecological justice. They must implement new or renewed formation programmes, reach out to youth, and support family life realistically, working with priests, religious and deacons. Healing, reconciliation and dialogue must inform all our efforts, both within and outside the Church.

Above all we shall need to seek and be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Sunday was the first step. Appropriately, that step starts at Regina Mundi. In his writings, many set in the Mediterranean, English novelist Lawrence Durrell used to talk of the 'spirit of place'. It is appropriate, then, that Regina Mundi was chosen to launch the Pastoral Plan. Since the mid-1970s it was the site of many Catholic (and ecumenical) socio-political and religious initiatives that impacted the wider church and society.

The launch is but a moment in this initiative. The success of the Pastoral Plan will depend on how we all, we who are Church, take it up, interpret and apply it in parishes, communities and personally.

Follow The Jesuit Institute on Twitter @JesuitInstitute

Tags: South African Reflection, Jesuit Institute , Pastoral Plan, Anthony Egan SJ

ICN aims to provide speedy and accurate news coverage of all subjects of interest to Catholics and the wider Christian community. As our audience increases - so do our costs. We need your help to continue this work.

Please support our journalism by donating today.

More here:
South African Reflection: The Pastoral Plan - It's over to us - Independent Catholic News

In an essay entitled Historically Correct, the American academic Prof Ruth Perry explained how the concept of political correctness was weaponised against progressive causes almost from the moment it was conceived. The result, she wrote, was that in an Orwellian inversion, only those who uphold the conservative status quo are exempt from ridicule. This perfect encapsulation of how the right has attempted to put itself beyond criticism would be a startling contemporary insight if it were not for the minor detail of when the essay was published 1992.

I spoke to Perry in the summer of 2018. When I asked her why nothing had changed in the quarter-century since she wrote those prescient words in fact, why the rights strategy seems to have become ever more effective she replied with the frustration of someone who had seen history repeat itself too often.

The pressure on Nandy and the Labour party to 'go high' also comes from a British establishment that skews right

The left not only does not have the funds, she said, it didnt have the tools to beat the right at its own game. It hasnt exposed the rights cynicism and hypocrisy, its use of political correctness as a way, ironically, to shut down debate. It hasnt got its hands dirty. It hasnt stooped to engage in the rights so-called culture wars.

This preciousness was evident in Lisa Nandys latest Labour leadership election campaign speech, in which she criticised Labour under Jeremy Corbyn for letting Brexit become a false culture war. Nandy believes that Labour should have somehow stayed above the fray. But to declare that the Brexit culture war is false, to believe that it is a choice whether or not to engage in it, seems naive. Its like being in a real war, coming under enemy fire and suffering heavy casualties, but refusing to retaliate because you dont agree with the premise of the offensive. Wars are either happening or they are not.

And the culture wars are happening. If anything, whats false is the idea that one can treat them as a sort of political artefact that can be picked up and played with or discarded in order to pursue the things that really matter. If anything, Labour did not spar enough.

Underlying the disdain for culture wars is the mistaken belief that they are happening somewhere else, away from the serious business of high politics. But just as military conflict is a continuation of politics by other means, so are culture wars. The false tussles to which Nandy was referring played out on the ground, affecting peoples lives.

Concerns about immigration were ramped up to a hysterical pitch, rendering the hostile environment not just a government policy but a national climate. Issues of identity became a battleground, creating a sense that the rights of some can only be won at the expense of others. Sovereignty, patriotism and history were pressed into service to paint a portrait of a nation shackled, desperate to break free from the suffocating embrace of progressive demands. A politics that is leftwing, redistributive and pacifist was framed as not just naive and idealistic, but traitorous: a poppy-rejecting, non-Cenotaph-bowing, non-Queens-speech-watching, non-nuclear-button-pressing worldview, one whose support for the beleaguered supposedly came at the expense of the majority.

Comparatively little of this political campaign was carried out explicitly. It was done in disguise, via ostensibly cultural issues. What is half a million pounds to reinstall a floor so that Big Ben can bong? What is a few more million pounds if it means we can get our blue passports back? And on it goes, with the flying of restored Spitfires around the world to promote post-Brexit trade. The Brexit culture war isnt merely a locking of horns on social media between the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and rabid remainers. It has been a coordinated, well-funded and, most importantly, long-term effort that had the left in a defensive position from the get-go, marking out Brexit clearly as the property of the right. It is part propaganda, part PR, and part official government messaging. This is how the discourse is shaped these days.

The left sees such aggressive narrative-building as somehow dirty. It sees the battles that define a culture war as a lowering of the tone, and assumes they require the recruitment of shadowy forces and a loss of the moral high ground. But these are simply the tools that the right has used. The left has a vast arsenal at its disposal if only it finds the right tone, and appropriate levels of swagger and conviction. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs communication strategy, with its strident earnestness laced with humour, is a powerful example. She makes fun of the trolling of her own boyfriend in one breath, and takes apart Republicans in the Senate the next.

This reluctance to take part in what is seen as a grubby game is embodied by the famous (and famously ineffective) Michelle Obama mantra when they go low, we go high. It is where the fixation on courtesy comes from.

But the pressure on Nandy and the Labour party to go high also comes from a British society and establishment that generally skews right. As a result, efforts by the left to fight back are portrayed as outrageous and aggressive while, as Perry said, the right is largely exempted from ridicule.

The answer isnt to avoid playing the game at all, its to do it better. To engage on the absurdity of big bong nonsense as well as on homelessness and the NHS. As long as politics by other means is dismissed as merely the culture wars, the Labour party is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Here is the original post:
The left cant sit out the culture wars. It must learn to fight them better - The Guardian

If New Zealand had a giant monument at the entrance to Auckland or Wellington harbour it would be a Statue of Equality not liberty, or so said visiting American political scientist Leslie Lipson who wrote a book about our politics in the 1940s.

New Zealanders have long held dear the notion of fairness, and Lipsons reflection remains true today. Our love of fairness extends even to one of our longest-running and most popular TV shows, Fair Go, which goes into bat for ripped-off consumers.

In the US all politicians have to at least pay lip service to defending liberty and freedom, but here politicians of all stripes have to show concern for equality. They must take care to present their policies and beliefs in a way that suggests they will promote fairness. This will be the case again in 2020.

Some say the New Zealand insistence on fairness goes back to our colonial history. Many escapees of industrial Britain embraced a life in a less class-ridden country. Of course the idea that New Zealand is an equal and classless society was always a myth, but this egalitarian ethos endures.

It creates a particular problem for politicians of the right. As a former prime minister, John Key, told US diplomats in a private briefing, New Zealands socialist streak means it can be difficult to push rightwing policies. Key later elaborated: New Zealand is a very caring country. I think New Zealanders do have a heart.

This egalitarian ethos has been particularly resurgent in recent years. The financial crisis a decade ago the biggest since the depression of the 1930s transformed politics and values around the world, fuelling anger and rebellion about inequality.

In 2017 this helped the election of Jacinda Arderns government, made up of parties that channelled concerns about the lack of fairness under the then National-led government. The new government promised to be transformative, rolling out a fairness agenda in programs from KiwiBuild to child poverty reduction targets.

This all presents the National party with a dilemma. There are few votes in criticising the governments fairness agenda in fact the opposition is reduced to complaining that the government has not delivered on its left-leaning program. The two parties are effectively strategically deadlocked, and National lacks any convincing rightwing policies that would address major election issues of housing affordability, infrastructure deficits, and poverty. Even on climate change it has signed up to much of the governments agenda.

As the election nears, National will try to paint itself as better economic managers and Grant Robertson as an irresponsible and incompetent finance minister, but this is unlikely to cut it with many voters.

Nor is the government likely to push any significant new leftwing economic reforms, or even tax hikes, giving National little to scare swing voters with. And theres no way that National can hope to best Ardern in terms of a campaign based on leadership and personality.

So where can it differentiate? National increasingly relies on stoking culture wars and law and order. It is these fertile new hunting grounds that give Simon Bridges his best chance of painting Ardern and her colleagues as out of touch with mainstream New Zealand.

Culture wars are concerned with debates relating to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, human rights, discrimination, free speech and civil liberties. Elements of the political left especially in the Labour and Green parties are increasingly associated with campaigns in these areas, and often their stances are not shared by many mainstream voters.

So far Ardern has navigated her government clear of such debates, knowing such an association could be fatal. For example she still refuses to visit Ihumtao, the site of an important struggle over Mori land rights because of her fear of the association with radicals.

Ardern knows very well to keep her government as clear as possible of contentious social issues. Instead, if Labour and its coalition partners can keep public debate around traditional egalitarian concerns about inequality, housing, health and education, the New Zealand notion of fairness will probably also ensure her government will get another chance.

Nationals best bet might be to provoke an ugly culture war. Expect to see Bridges attempt to start debates on these issues and paint Labour and the Greens as woke elitists, or just soft on law and order. This might be desperate and opportunistic National MPs genuinely dont care that much about many of these issues. But National knows that they are the sort of emotive and divisive concerns that might change votes.

Theres a cultural backlash ready to be fostered as Donald Trump, Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson have found to their benefit. Such debates, whether over identity politics, hate speech, minority rights or gender can be explosively divisive. That could end up being the ugly story of the 2020 general election.

View original post here:
New Zealand voters must prepare for an ugly culture war this election - The Guardian

Is cultural appropriation the new black? It certainly seems to be the hottest trend in the fashion industry: every other week there is a row over the subject.

The latest offender is the Japanese fashion house Comme des Garons, which has been criticised for putting white models in cornrow wigs. In an apology, the stylist, Julien dYs, seemed to suggest that the wigs werent meant to be cornrows a traditionally black hairstyle but a nod to Egyptian pharaoh hair, to which the internet replied: why not use Egyptian models?

Is it problematic for white models to wear cornrows or wigs like an Egyptian? The answer is: Sometimes; maybe; it depends. What constitutes cultural appropriation is complex and nuanced. Alas, the conversation around the subject is frequently anything but.

On one hand, you have a small group of vocal people who enjoy taking offence at everything remember when Lena Dunham suggested that bad cafeteria sushi was cultural appropriation? On the other hand, you have bigots who seem to think it is clever to say things such as: Non-white people wearing suits is cultural appropriation. The concept has lost all meaning and become a straw man to be kicked around in the culture wars.

Comme des Garons doesnt have the most politically correct history. In 2018, the fashion website Heroine noted that the brand hadnt used a black model in a womens presentation for 24 years (although it started using them again soon after).

Parading white models with black hairstyles down the catwalk was spectacularly thoughtless. Or perhaps it wasnt. The frequency of cultural appropriation controversies makes me suspect that some brands are deploying them as a PR tool. After all, no publicity is bad publicity comme les Kardashians are well aware.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

View original post here:
Are rows over cultural appropriation a dastardly PR ploy? - The Guardian