Let's get serious

Whether you love him or loathe him (trust me, there's no middle ground) Justin Bieber is currently the world's most famous teenager, leaving one-time golden girl Miley Cyrus to sit back and wait for the inevitable Celebrity Rehab booking.

His songs may have all the depth of single-ply toilet paper, but he seems to have captured the zeitgeist for a generation of twitterific tweens. And the outpouring of vengeful fury over his recent Grammy snub in the 'best new artist' category, shows just how seriously his fans take his R&B-lite output.

So they'll be keen to snap up the new issue of Rolling Stone, which features an exclusive interview with 'super boy', and addresses a number of hot topics that don't usually come up in chats with celebrities who still have milk teeth. Ever wondered what Justin thinks of abortion or socialised healthcare? Your prayers are about to be answered.

For the record, the Canadian is not a fan of private medical insurance, commenting: "My bodyguard’s baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby’s premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home." Hardly surprising that he's aware of the issues, given that it's not so long ago that he was released from the maternity ward.

However, Justin's wholesome Christian upbringing means that he's much less supportive of a woman's right to choose, arguing "I really don’t believe in abortion, It’s like killing a baby?” And let's be honest, no-one would advocate killing off their target audience.

OK, I'm being facetious. Most sixteen year olds would struggle to form any kind of political ideology, so the kid gets points for being even loosely aware of the global political landscape, even if it amounts to little more than “But whatever they have in Korea, that’s bad.”

Call it the Lady Gaga Effect. She's shown that you can be a commercially savvy purveyor of disposable pop music, and still be politically active. What other explanation is there for the fact that self-awareness vacuums Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian recently took to twitter to proclaim their support for the oppressed people of Egypt?

Commentators were quick to express surprise that Kim and Lindsay had any awareness of Egypt, beyond listening to The Bangles greatest hits. After all, it's doubtful that Mubarak’s downfall was covered extensively in People magazine. What next - Paris Hilton leading a campaign against female circumcision in Northeast Africa?

It's easy to criticise these woefully underinformed celebrities for expressing their wafer-thin political perspectives. But there's a risk that we end up sounding like Laura Ingraham, the venomous right wing commentator who wrote a book called 'Shut Up And Sing' following the Dixie Chicks' criticism of George W Bush. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and by sharing it, they might even inspire their fans to read something other than Perez Hilton.

The more disturbing issue here though, is the criticism that Bieber's comments have already received - suggesting that he should wait until he's a little more worldly-wise before wading into a debate about nationalised healthcare.

Problem is, he didn't. He didn't volunteer the information, or bring up the subject during an off-the-record conversation. He was asked outright for his opinion by a Rolling Stone journalist. Even more unpleasant is the way his comments have been taken out of context.

Weirdly, the Huffington Post, usually a reliably balanced news source, leads its coverage of Biebergate with the headline: Justin Bieber On Health Care: U.S. System 'Evil'. In fact, Justin's "evil" comment seems to be in direct response to the interviewer attempting to draw out the teenager's opinion on the most divisive social issues in America today. He was probably expecting a few more questions about working with Usher and getting his homework done on time.

Maybe Bieber is too young to be expressing his opinions, and should wait until he's experienced a little more of the wider world. But interviewers also have a responsibility to remember that fact, before asking politically-loaded questions to which there are no right or wrong answers - just different points of view. 

The Gaga Reflex

It's been billed as the most eagerly awaited song of the decade, with the kind of pre-release buzz that makes Jesus' second coming seem about as exciting as the New Kids On The Block reunion tour. And today, Lady Gaga's new single 'Born This Way' was finally unveiled to the world.

She's been talking it up as the song that will define her career, causing millions of little monsters to frot themselves into a coma at the prospect of Gaga at her creative peak. When she first performed an acapella snippet of the song at the VMAs in September last year, the internet was soon awash with remixes and interpretations based around the 15-second sample.

Since then, excitement has been steadily building, as the world keenly anticipated a song with the power to solve world hunger, end intolerance and maybe even inspire a half-decent movie for Jennifer Aniston to star in. Although, to be fair, great music can only do so much.

The lyrics were released a couple of weeks ago, in the process triggering a big debate about Gaga's unfortunate choice of racial terminology - ironic for a song designed to be an anthem for tolerance and acceptance. Earlier this week, Justin Beiber and James Blunt even teamed up (apologies for any nightmares that coupling might inspire) on the Ellen Show, to interpret the lyrics and speculate about how the finished record might sound.

OK, so it was mostly an extended gag, and not a particularly funny one. But it's interesting to note that, even as the media might mock Gaga's supernatural ability for self-publicity, they're happy to play along because it helps them to generate interesting content.

But what about the song itself? Well, now that it's out there for us all to hear, we can all reflect on the true meaning of hyperbole. The world hasn't changed, although it does have one more kick-ass, played-in-every-club-until-year-end dance record to enjoy.

Critics are already complaining that it sounds like early nineties Madonna, namely Express Yourself and Vogue. Melodically, there's also a dash of TLC's Waterfalls in the verses, and fans of Swedish pop music might even hear elements of Pandora's 'Nature Of Love' somewhere in there. As for the lyrics, it's worth remembering that a song by the same name was recorded by Carl Bean back in 1975 - coincidentally, the year when p0pvulture was 'born this way'.

Ultimately, none of this matters. Pop is a genre which lends itself to constant recycling and reinvention - Madonna's 25-year reign as the Queen of Pop can be attributed to the act that she has regenerated herself enough times to give Doctor Who a headache.

Her fans are going to love it, and the haters won't. But those in the middle might well find themselves drawn in by the insistent beats, Gaga's strongest vocals to date, and a chorus that takes up residence in your brain like a particularly truculent squatter.

Oh, and credit where credit's due - it takes a special kind of artist to base her comeback around an empowerment anthem that makes an explicit plea for tolerance around sexuality and gender identity. Chronologically, Gaga's song may arrive after other musicians have already attempted to address issues of teen bullying and the gay suicide epidemic. However, despite their edgy attitudes and novelty profanity, tracks like P!nk's Fuckin' Perfect and Ke$ha's We R Who We R manage to dodge the details, as a way of placating the music fans who'd prefer not to dwell on the subject matter. Gaga has never been one to mince her words, just her dress.

Disappointingly, not everyone in the gay community is happy with Gaga's newest opus. The original Party Monster James St James wrote a scathing critique of the song's lyrics, challenging Ms Germanotta for having the arrogance to proclaim her own song a 'gay anthem'. He claims "A gay anthem, whether it's "I Will Survive" or "The Man That Got Away" or "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going," BECOMES a gay anthem because we find ourselves empathizing with the singer's passion or pain or exuberance... Gaga here isn't allowing us the choice of deciding whether or not this song will be a gay anthem (like "Bad Romance"), she's TELLING US that it is."

But that's a sure sign of how much things have changed. Rather than picking through the wreckage for crumbs of acknowledgment or inclusion, we have to face up to the sad fact that songs are now being written for, and about, us. Perhaps, in the pursuit of mainstream acceptance, we need to come to terms with the gradual surrender of our outsider status - to paraphrase The Incredibles, equality means accepting that we get to be as ordinary as everybody else.

It's highly likely that Gaga doesn't really give too much of a shit about what anyone says about the song. The fact that we're even talking about it means that, for her, it's another job well done. Although, if this is any indication of what's to come on her next album, it's safe to say she's on the right track, baby.

You're showing your age

Everyone knows the first rule of etiquette - never ask a lady her age. Problem is, in these modern times, where whole world's your gynaecologist (especially if Perez Hilton's on the case), age is the least of your worries.

Nonetheless, some folks in Hollywood are getting hot under the collar about the fact that audiences might get wise to the chicken neck it's hiding. As a consequence, one of the world's most popular websites, IMDb.com, is coming under fire for showing artists' birth dates.

Performers and behind-the-scenes talents are up in bingo-winged arms about their true ages being revealed, not only to fans but also other industry bigwigs. It's a fair point - Lancome might be able to make Julia Roberts look younger than her niece Emma, but it's much harder to airbrush a birth certificate.

In essence, sites like IMDb are holding up a figurative mirror to these glamorous stars, and they don't like what they see in it. Interestingly, the Huffington Post chose to illustrate their coverage of this story with a screen grab of Demi Moore's page on IMDb - which lists her birthdate as '1962'. Although it's not clear whether that's BC or AD.

Age discrimination legislation is now commonplace around the world, and was introduced to safeguard workers against agist hiring policies. Technically, employers aren't supposed to ask prospective employees their age, and candidates are advised to leave their birth date off the CV.

According to the various film-making guilds, Hollywood's workforce suffers from an industrial prejudice that favours 25-year olds. The way they see it, listing someone's age on their profile page exacerbates the problem and makes it easier for unscrupulous producers and casting directors to disregard talent that's the wrong side of forty.

It's a particular problem for writers, who are expected to convincingly convey the lifestyle of people several decades their junior. One writer, Paul Levine, commented "Not that anything ever overt was said, but not one time was I interviewed by my someone my own age. I was always interviewed by people 20 to 30 years younger. It could be a problem if a show runner or his or her first lieutenant has scripts piling up, and they were trying to figure out who to interview. Looking at a credit list, if one writer is 35 and the other is 52, they're going for the 35 year old."

Unfortunately, the talents could get their own way and have their birth date expunged from IMDB, but it won't really change the underlying problem. They say you're only as good as your last job, and if your last job involved Abbott and Costello, you're going to be hard pressed convincing anyone that you're still in your flirty thirties.

Perez Hilton takes a whole fist

Screeching gossip hack Perez Hilton is nursing an ego as bruised as his face today, after being beaten outside the MuchMusic Video Awards last night. A heated exchange with various members of the Black Eyed Peas turned to violence outside a Toronto nightclub, resulting in the band's manager Polo Molina doing what countless thousands have been dying to do for years - smacking that bitch up.

Having been violently accosted, Perez did what any victim would do - he contacted the police. Via Twitter. The fame-hungry media whore clearly forgot the number for 911, and decided the quickest way to receive police support was to post a message to his 'fans' on Twitter, "I am bleeding. Please, I need to file a police report. No joke." Meanwhile, Molina turned himself into the police and was charged with a single count of assault.

Those of you who remember the whole Miss Californiagate fiasco may recall that Hilton returned to his hotel room after the pageant and posted an angry video rant aimed at the gay-hating runner-up who had failed to answer his question satisfactorily. So it should come as no surprise that the bleeding name-caller employed a similar tactic after being punched. In a sobbing, hysterical video he blurted erroneously "What happened to me in Toronto happened to me as a human being and it should never happen to anyone."

However, it emerged that the fight broke out because Perez decided to call will.i.am a 'faggot'. Post-rationalising his choice of words, Perez argued "...I knew that it would be the worst thing I could possibly say to him because he was acting the way he was. I said 'You know what, I don't respect you and you're gay and stop being such a faggot.'"

When Perez entered into a war of words with Carrie Prejean, he was motivated by a desire for equality and gay liberation, seeing Prejean's beliefs as an affront to his dignity and identity. So it's unfortunate that in his eyes, the worst insult he could choose for his nemesis was a gay slur. GLAAD have already condemned his choice of words, rightly arguing that "For someone in our own community to use it to attack another person...is incredibly dangerous. It legitimises use of a slur that is often linked to violence against our community. And it sends a message that it is OK to attempt to dehumanize people by exploiting anti-gay attitudes."

Unfortunately it seems that, like many gay men, Perez Hilton still has some internalised homophobia to work through. And until he does, let's hope he avoids speaking out on behalf of his community. After all, with friends like these...

Who's a naughty boy then

Spare a thought for Dustin Lance Black, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of Gus Van Sant's recent biopic Milk. Currently riding high on the back of his academy award victory, he's found himself inadvertently thrust into the limelight, courtesy of an unscrupulous ex.

Like many better known celebrities before him (such as Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Colin Farrell and Pamela Anderson), footage of him in flagrante has found its way onto the interweb. Now, gay sex tapes are pretty rare, probably because the majority of gay celebrities are closeted and would run a mile the moment someone whipped out a camera phone or camcorder. But given that Dustin's a writer, and a little known one at that, I don't suppose he ever considered that recording his posterior for posterity would come back to haunt him.

Ordinarily, a sex tape of someone largely unknown outside of the industry would be small potatoes (for the record, Dustin's spuds seem quite plentiful), but this story has exploded thanks to the involvement of Perez Hilton. Thankfully, the videos don't involve Perez, otherwise I'd be sewing buttons into my eyes like Coraline. No, Perez simply broke the story and published the (very not-safe-for-work pictures), figuring that anyone who records a sex tape is fair game for exposure.

The problem is, Dustin's writing and idealism have marked him out as a new poster-child for grassroots activism. His screenplay for Milk looked at Harvey Milk's extraordinary impact on the people and politics of 1970s San Francisco, as he mobilised a disenfranchised and disconnected community. So it's problematic that the pictures posted on Perez Hilton's website show Dustin indulging in some bareback mounting.

As a result, Dustin's had to issue a public statement apologising for the pictures and stressing the importance of 'responsible sexual practices'. The media is concerned that young people will see Dustin's exploits and decide to follow in his under-dressed footsteps. I'm not sure anyone ever looked to a Hollywood scriptwriter for tips on their sex life, but nonetheless, there's an important point to address here.

Recent advancements in HIV and AIDS treatments have created a misperception amongst young gay men that the disease is no longer a killer. Instead, they figure it's more of a condition, like diabetes, that can be managed. It's highly likely that this is precisely what the young writer thought three years ago when the pictures were taken. So it's just a shame that he didn't reference that point in his mea culpa.

Black is a talented screenwriter, and has a bright future ahead of him. I just hope that when he looks back at this whole unfortunate experience he realises just how good he looks taking one for the team.

The great homo hoo-ha

You may not have noticed, given that it has about as much contemporary relevance as a 'duck and cover' safety leaflet, but the Miss USA pageant has been fanning the flames of controversy recently. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, a man more nauseating than a bad hangover on a cross-channel ferry, asked Miss California for her opinion on gay marriage, and was somewhat displeased with the response he got.

To be fair to Carrie Prejean, who certainly is stunning in a bleached-hair, porcelain-veneered, fake-tanned, overly-aerobicised sort of a way, she answered honestly, if somewhat disingenuously. She said “In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman." Obviously, syntax and relevance aside (who else's country would she be talking about in a Miss USA pageant?), she's spoke from the heart, if not the brain. And who cares if it's a heart that's been dulled by the indoctrination of the church? Perez asked her for her view, and she gave it. Like so many millions of others in her country, she preferred to let her religion answer for her, which was entirely her prerogative. I personally believe all beauty queens should be neutered because stupidity is hereditary, but again, that's just my view.

So I'm a little surprised by Hilton's vicious response just hours later, when he posted a video blog accusing Prejean of being a 'bitch'. In his angry rebuttal, he argued that anyone with half a brain would have answered "It's up to the states to decide." But that's not the answer she should have given, it's just the one he wishes she'd given. there's a big difference. We have to accept that we don't always hear what we want to hear. And anyway, he can hardly express surprise that her answer was stupid - she was up for Miss USA, not the Nobel. Admittedly, there's a certain irony in the fact that the prize for the winner is a scholarship, given that most of the contestants seem to have barely finished a primary education. Let's not forget this YouTube gem from the Miss Teen USA pageant:



If Perez really wanted to fight back, he should perhaps have picked up on the fact that there's an inherent hypocrisy in a devout Christian celebrating her vanity (still a sin last time I checked) by parading in a swimsuit and heels. Especially since, when interviewed after the contest, Prejean claimed “...I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything.” Unless there's a prize and fifteen minutes of fame thrown in.

So where do I stand on all this? Well, admittedly, it's like trying to pick sides in an Alien Vs Predator movie. Perez is a graceless, unsympathetic hack, and Carrie Prejean is the kind of person who would rather pray for someone with a differing opinion rather than try to understand it. So I'm going to side with Perez, if only for daring to introduce a frisson of timely politics into an otherwise vacuous and hopelessly outdated contest.