Taylor Momsen: I'm My Parents' Fault
Like, obviously, right? Can you be more specific, Taylor? "Everyone's like, 'Wow, why is she upset and why is she so miserable about things?'" the young star said in a recent interview. "My parents signed me up with Ford [modeling agency] at the age of two. No 2-year-old wants to be working, but I had no choice. [...] My whole life, I was in and out of school. I didn't have friends. I was working constantly and I didn't have a real life." Aww. I think we've found our real Precious 2, no? [Starpulse via PopEater]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
You know, the thing about child stars is that in a lot of cases they simply don't connect with regular people. People might say, who cares, because they're rich or famous (which isn't necessarily bad) -- but the real issue is that they spent their time acting: living fake situations with fake emotions and so on, and it's rehearsed, and there's multiple takes, etc. They didn't grow up and develop the way a normal person would through life experience. Often times, they're in a bubble, then they reach a certain age and realize they have no real understanding of natural behavior.
Hell, I went to theater camp starting at a very young age for a number of years, and just doing that had a serious effect on my ability to connect with and understand normal people and their emotions. I always wondered why people I'd meet didn't create interesting characters for themselves or speak more cleverly. It's life as a post-modern experience.
I remember Christopher Walken, who started performing young, once said he could play any role -- except a real human being.
That's fair -- for you and Christopher Walken. But to cast "blame" for this damaged persona she clearly relishes exploiting is kind of textbook disingenuousness.
Who knows? If you ever saw Paranoid Park, I'm sure you're aware she was performing simulated sex scenes at the age of 13...
I think what Edward is saying is that she isn't aware of how she 'should' behave or how to 'normally' behave, which often correlates with outlandish behavior to push limits and test people.
But seriously, hats of to you S.T., for automatically criticizing someone who recognizes there 'damaged persona'. God forbid she isn't a happy-go-lucky celebrity like the rest; instead she understands that whatever problems she has probably rooted when she was a child actor (how far-fetched, I heard all child actors grow up to be upstanding citizens).
Maybe next time don't be so quick to make fun of someone who admittedly has problems.
When I was 17, I dyed my hair and wore thrift store clothes -- and everybody in my town stared at me.
Now, imagine you're female, 17, going through that -- and on a daily basis millions of people are scrutinizing you on blogs, and commenters are calling you a "whore" or a "bitch" or an "idiot" or a "raccoon"...
I'm twice her age, and on occasion, when something I've done is online and I read commenters trashing it, it still stings. And that's at a fraction of the attention she generates.
Taylor, I hear Target is hiring seasonal help for the holidays. Stay off the magazine covers and straighten the ladies section every night of your life then you'll be well-adjusted before you can say "minimum wage".
Oh, PLEASE. It's Taylor Momsen. She didn't say it for the catharsis. She said it for the notoriety.
Amen.
S.T. -
You're not thick. You understand that the push for notoriety is a symptom and not the disease. You just choose to frame it like you do because you still want to feel okay trashing the seventeen year-old who already makes a fool of herself routinely. You don't want to lose your wildly objectifiable little piggy by making her be too human, do you?
Again, how many people need to tell you guys. Your snarky tone really bums a lot of your fans out. You're not Gawker. That's what many of us liked about Movieline originally. But you insist on behaving like petulant hipsters and taking what was once a very enjoyable website with a bit of snark and a lot of great commentary right into the toilet.
Worse of all, you're forcing me to agree with Todd Phillips, that annoying hack. 😉
Look, these are two totally separate conversations. I'm not going to apologize for saying Taylor Momsen doth protest too much. If she wants out of the fishnet and eyeliner limelight, there's the door. She can't blame her parents for something that I totally, sincerely empathize over -- and then continue to prolong and profit from it. It's one or the other. We're not supposed to call out hypocrites? I don't care if she's 17; she's said for years she thinks of herself as an adult -- she's independent, she dates adults, she doesn't like people her own age, etc. So: Be an adult. That's all I'm saying. It's not unreasonable or snarky or whatever. You call it judgment, I call it reality, but either way it's pop-culture fair game, as long as we have readers who click on it and these long conversations ensue afterward, we'll keep doing it.
And as for the other part, try this: Go back through the week's content and categorize what you'd call snarky (i.e. mean-spirited, if you like), humorously needling (i.e. "ideal Movieline," or at least I presume), straightforward/neutral, or outright positive. You might say, "That's not my job!" And I'd respond, "Yes, but it IS mine, and I do it every week, and I can empirically say we're as enraptured by this hot cultural mess as we've ever been." I think a lot of displeasure I hear about this site is actually projected by readers who are rattled over the way culture makes us feel as a whole these days, no matter what the tone. Even you yourself couldn't fathom agreeing with Todd Phillips without insulting him. Is that Movieline's fault, too?
I'm not trying to be a dick, I swear. But this is a much more complex issue than: "You're not Gawker." Of course we're not. Neither are we a static operation that you're going to love every day or unconditionally forever. People change -- we change, you change, the subjects change. When that happens, I'd much rather piss you off occasionally than go soft and squishy.
But again, I think this is all much ado about pretty much nothing. You're really going to hold us to account for a dumb-ass Taylor Momsen quicklink? After all this time?
A few things:
1) My calling Todd Phillips an annoying hack was supposed to be a lighthearted way to end my anti-snark tirade by deflating my overall serious tone with a bit of faux hypocrisy. Hence the " 😉 ". Sorry if that was unclear. I don't think he's an annoying hack. I was just being Movieline-y about it.
2) Whether Taylor Momsen thinks she's an adult is frankly irrelevant. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that she isn't one yet - and isn't that basically all of us at seventeen? If your defense is that you're taking the seventeen-year-old's statements about being an adult at face value and thusly, consider her "fair game", then that's kind of sad coming from you - AN ACTUAL ADULT.
3) Surely you understand how your efforts to "call out the hypocrite" are not the thing that bother me. What bothers me is that you're calling out the deeply-fucked up seventeen-year-old and enjoying it to a degree that I personally find terribly off-putting. What I'm saying is, be better than this. Perhaps resist the urge to kick her while she's down every now and then. It's not so hard.
4) That said, if you really want to call out hypocrisy, tell me how you reconcile the two following concepts: You claim to "totally, sincerely empathize" with what she's saying here and then proceed to defend your right to add fuel to the fire 'cause it's what brings the readers in. That is the excuse of a cynical hack. I'm surprised to get it from you, a writer whose views I frequently respect.
I remember how in your farewell from Defamer you expressed a desire to change your overall nasty tune. I was happy to read that, because whatever your opinions are, you're clearly a gifted writer and I enjoy the way you string your words together. But your work in Movieline during the post-Seth/post-Lisanti era has, if anything, taken a nastier spin. Would I be correct in calling you a hypocrite for this?
Believe me, I am not against snark in general. I'm a big fan of Mark Lisanti's sense of humor and he can be snark personified. But to put this in film terms, snark is like nudity. It's highly effective when it serves the plot and it enhances the overall experience. It grates when it's used non-stop because there isn't anything else to offer. It seems to me that Movieline became Skinemax when I wasn't looking and as a fan of your online magazine, it bothers me.
My greater point is this, though: quit straddling the fence. If you want to be unapologetically snarky, then be it. But be ready to weather the inevitable waves of shit you'll get from people like me who know you can do better work and simply choose not to; whether that is because you're lazy or because website hits matter to you more than keeping what made Movieline enjoyable for so many of us in the first place.
What you would say to Momsen, I say to you: You choose what you put out there, so don't bitch if I call you out on it. The crucial difference is, I'm saying it to a generally well-adjusted adult who has repeatedly shown a great deal of intelligence and who should absolutely know better.
I'll be honest. I read Movieline for the snark. Sure, I enjoy a serious post every now and then and usually the most serious posts are and have been written by Mr. S.T. himself. I stopped reading Premiere magazine many years ago because it took movies and entertainment so damn seriously! Entertainment is just that> Entertaining. People who make it earth shatteringly important give me a giggle.... I like the word snark and hate is has come to mean "cruel". Movieline walks a very fine line but they hardly ever cross over into cruel. I think Movieline could use even more humor, not less...
OK, OK, I get it. We're never gonna agree on Momsen. But to your larger point, like I said: Go back through the record and tally up the low-hanging fruit. There's not a lot, and much of what is there is stuff we've gotta be in the conversation about one way or another. I've looked at your comment history, and I know you like to smack us around whether we're snarky, enthusiastic, contrary, straightforward, thoughtful... whatever. So you do your thing, we'll do ours. We are who we are.
And I'll tell you what I tell everyone who accuses us of whoring for page views: Of course we're whoring for page views. That is what Web sites do. Cynical? Maybe! But it's the business we're in, and I'd like to think we make it at least a little interesting for readers.
Thanks, Sunny. Bottom line is we post anywhere from 25-30 items a day. Some are gonna be funnier than others, some are gonna be smarter than others, some are gonna be more essential than others, some are gonna have more longevity than others. And some will be snarkier than others. Not all of them are gonna be polished gems of insight and pith, and some may be outright ill-conceived. And you -- or Gideon, or Edward Wilson, or even I -- won't necessarily agree with or like all of them. That's just a fact. So what? Click the next link, close the tab, whatever. Life goes on!
Edward, Gideon, and I will never AGREE! Not after they left me for dead in Yellowstone Park back in the late 90s....