It's A Girl Thing: Tween Queens and the Commodification of the Girl's Tween Market

A few years of research, thoughts and adjustments that all led to a completed film which, framed by the structure of a faux interactive website for tween girls, looks closely, and critically, at the tween market's evolution and the role of Disney and Nickelodeon's tween queens (Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, Britney Spears, Hilary Duff, Miley Cryus, Miranda Cosgrove, Kiki Palmer, Selena Gomez, and more) in the market's explosion.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Mary-Kate & Ashley Olsen Are Top Earners Under 21




Sisters Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen have topped Forbes magazine's first-ever "Hollywood's Top Earning Stars Under 21" list. The 20-year-old twins earned an estimated $40 million last year from their retail empire to beat Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe to the top of the new rich list.

Radcliffe, who is currently wowing theatre fans in London by baring all onstage in "Equus," earned an estimated $13 million in 2006 to come in second. Actresses Lindsay Lohan, Dakota Fanning and Amanda Bynes rounded out the top five on the new list.

Young Hollywood's Top Earners:

1. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen
2. Daniel Radcliffe
3. Lindsay Lohan
4. Dakota Fanning
5. Amanda Bynes
6. Hayden Panettiere
7. Vanessa Anne Hudgens
8. Abigail Breslin
9. Tyler James Williams
10. Joanna "JoJo" Levesque

Saturday, February 24, 2007

no title needed


Our assistant, Devin, found this image last week and I thought it was too perfect not to post it to the site. Thanks Devin! And thanks to the photographer Rachel Devine for allowing us to post it. (www.racheldevine.com)

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Moby and the Principles of a Tragedy


Dance music star MOBY is fascinated by the careers of MARY-KATE and ASHLEY OLSEN, comparing the twins' lives to a Shakespearean tragedy.

The singer, 39, says, "As far as the whole current crop of shallow, disposable celebrities, the Olsen twins are the ones who hold my attention for more than five minutes.

"Just the fact that they're rampantly self-medicating seems so interesting. There's something about them that just seems - not to be melodramatic - but they almost have this desperate, Shakespearean, tragic quality to them."

******************

Shakespeare wrote tragedies from the beginning of his career: one of his earliest plays was the Roman tragedy Titus Andronicus, and he followed it a few years later with Romeo and Juliet. However, his most admired tragedies were written in a seven-year period between 1601 and 1608: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth (his four major tragedies),and Antony & Cleopatra, along with the lesser-known Timon of Athens and Troilus and Cressida.

Many have linked these plays to Aristotle's precept about tragedy: that the protagonist must be an admirable but flawed character, with the audience able to understand and sympathize with the character. Certainly, each of Shakespeare's tragic protagonists is capable of both good and evil. The playwright insists always on the operation of the doctrine of free will; always, the (anti)hero is able to back out, to redeem himself. But, the author dictates, they must move unheedingly to their doom.

***************

Aristotle indicates that the medium of tragedy is drama, not narrative; tragedy “shows” rather than “tells.” According to Aristotle, tragedy is higher and more philosophical than history because history simply relates what has happened while tragedy dramatizes what may happen, “what is possibile according to the law of probability or necessity.” History thus deals with the particular, and tragedy with the universal. Events that have happened may be due to accident or coincidence; they may be particular to a specific situation and not be part of a clear cause-and-effect chain. Therefore they have little relevance for others. Tragedy, however, is rooted in the fundamental order of the universe; it creates a cause-and-effect chain that clearly reveals what may happen at any time or place because that is the way the world operates. Tragedy therefore arouses not only pity but also fear, because the audience can envision themselves within this cause-and-effect chain

****************
Plot is the “first principle,” the most important feature of tragedy. Aristotle defines plot as “the arrangement of the incidents”: i.e., not the story itself but the way the incidents are presented to the audience, the structure of the play. According to Aristotle, tragedies where the outcome depends on a tightly constructed cause-and-effect chain of actions are superior to those that depend primarily on the character and personality of the protagonist.

Character has the second place in importance. In a perfect tragedy, character will support plot, i.e., personal motivations will be intricately connected parts of the cause-and-effect chain of actions producing pity and fear in the audience. The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous, so his change of fortune can be from good to bad. This change “should come about as the result, not of vice, but of some great error or frailty in a character.” Such a plot is most likely to generate pity and fear in the audience, for “pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves.” The term Aristotle uses here, hamartia, often translated “tragic flaw,” has been the subject of much debate. The meaning of the Greek word is closer to “mistake” than to “flaw,” and I believe it is best interpreted in the context of what Aristotle has to say about plot and “the law or probability or necessity.” In the ideal tragedy, claims Aristotle, the protagonist will mistakenly bring about his own downfall—not because he is sinful or morally weak, but because he does not know enough. The role of the hamartia in tragedy comes not from its moral status but from the inevitability of its consequences. Hence the peripeteia is really one or more self-destructive actions taken in blindness, leading to results diametrically opposed to those that were intended (often termed tragic irony), and the anagnorisis is the gaining of the essential knowledge that was previously lacking.

Thought is third in importance, and is found “where something is proved to be or not to be, or a general maxim is enunciated.” Aristotle says little about thought, and most of what he has to say is associated with how speeches should reveal character (context 1; context 2). However, we may assume that this category would also include what we call the themes of a play.

Diction is fourth, and is “the expression of the meaning in words” which are proper and appropriate to the plot, characters, and end of the tragedy. In this category, Aristotle discusses the stylistic elements of tragedy; he is particularly interested in metaphors: “But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor; . . . it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances”

Song, or melody, is fifth, and is the musical element of the chorus. Aristotle argues that the Chorus should be fully integrated into the play like an actor; choral odes should not be “mere interludes,” but should contribute to the unity of the plot.

Spectacle is last, for it is least connected with literature; “the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet.” Although Aristotle recognizes the emotional attraction of spectacle, he argues that superior poets rely on the inner structure of the play rather than spectacle to arouse pity and fear; those who rely heavily on spectacle “create a sense, not of the terrible, but only of the monstrous”

The end of the tragedy is a katharsis (purgation, cleansing) of the tragic emotions of pity and fear. Katharsis is another Aristotelian term that has generated considerable debate. The word means “purging,” and Aristotle seems to be employing a medical metaphor—tragedy arouses the emotions of pity and fear in order to purge away their excess, to reduce these passions to a healthy, balanced proportion. Aristotle also talks of the “pleasure” that is proper to tragedy, apparently meaning the aesthetic pleasure one gets from contemplating the pity and fear that are aroused through an intricately constructed work of art.

Monday, February 19, 2007

What Does it Mean To Be Fraternal?


Fraternal twins (commonly known as "non-identical twins") usually occur when two fertilized eggs are implanted in the uterine wall at the same time. The two eggs form two zygotes, and these twins are therefore also known as dizygotic as well as "biovular" twins. When two eggs are independently fertilized by two different sperm cells, fraternal twins result.

Dizygotic twins, like any other siblings, have an extremely small chance of having the exact same chromosome profile. Like any other siblings, fraternal twins may look very similar, particularly given that they are the same age. However, fraternal twins may also look very different from each other. They may be a different sex or the same sex.

Studies show that there is a genetic basis for fraternal twinning. However, it is only the female partner that has any influence on the chances of having fraternal twins as the male cannot make her release more than one ovum. Fraternal twinning ranges from 1 or 2 per thousand births in Japan (similar to the rate of identical twins) to 14 and more per thousand in some African states.

Fraternals are also more common for older mothers, with twinning rates doubling in mothers over the age of 35.[citation needed] With the advent of technologies and techniques to assist women in getting pregnant, the rate of fraternals has increased markedly. For example, in New York City's Upper East Side there were 3,707 twin births in 1995; there were 4,153 in 2003; and there were 4,655 in 2004. Triplet births have also risen, from 60 in 1995 to 299 in 2004.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Refusal, Planning and Grantiness

So, in protest of Viacom I am refusing to remove any of my "no longer available" clips. Sorry for the inconvenience. Its just a reminder to me each and everyday that there are some people out there that actually think I would be willing to pay for rights to post a clip of Regis dressed up as Ashley Olsen. Hmm...think again.

On a totally different note...

Donna and I had a killer planning day where we focused on developing our budget and schedule for the Boston shoot (all four interviewees confirmed: Jean Kilbourne, Diane Levin, Gail Dines and Susan Linn), came up with three new leads for the New York shoot (currently confirmed with Mary Flanagan), and decided that we should pursue an interview with Douglas Coupland (writer of Generation X) to work the angle of the new Gen X parenting. We also started work on our Creative Capital grant inquiry and made plans for seeking out some earlier funds for the Boston trip. All in all a very busy, but very exciting morning.

Now Im about to write up my notes from the meeting to remind myself of all the to-dos we came up with. Basically this month will be a rush to the end.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Regis and Kelly as MKA

Oct. 31, 2005

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Elevated to Mystical Status...And Sometimes Sacrificed


Wikipedia: Twins and Society

Identical twins can cause some observers to question their own beliefs about identity and individuality, and results in twins being treated differently or regarded as special. In some earlier cultures, twins were either elevated to mystical status and worshipped (for a recent case see Johnny and Luther Htoo), and sometimes sacrificed in others. Parents frequently give twins names that rhyme or are alliterative, further blurring the distinctions between them. Twins often claim to be psychically or telepathically connected to their twin.

(Side note: MKA are fraternal twins, but are often believed to be identical due to their similarity in appearance)

Monday, February 05, 2007

MKA: The Ideal Friendship


Its interesting to think about why MKA are (were) attractive as a concept to young girls. They are the ideal best friends. Twins. Near mirror images of one another. To the outside world they would seem to never be alone. Always able to count on eachother. To a tween I would imagine this to be an ultimate goal in the search of a "best friend." Hell, for a grown up this is ideal. Someone who gets you...like you get yourself.



Excerpts from "Friendship" in the Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence

Why have friends? "To have somebody to play with," responds the 9-year-old. "So you won't be alone. To have someone to back you up, to stand by you," answers the 12-year-old. These two replies reflect a developmental perspective on friends and friendships that appears to be characteristic of children in diverse cultures and societies.




The likelihood that children's close friendships are with members of the same sex rises to near certainty during middle childhood so that by age 12, nearly all American children identify a same sex peer as their "best friend." In addition to activities of mutual interest, friends tend to talk to each other--about themselves, their teachers, their families, and especially peers. In fact, Parker and Gottman (1989) concluded that gossip was a fundamental aspect of friendships in the middle childhood years when children's awareness of hierarchical social standing and popularity highlight their own relative status in comparison to others. Gossip among friends seems to serve the function of exploring those relative relationships and ascertaining one's own status.



By adolescence the intimate nature of friendship has emerged, especially for girls. Even by age 12, friends are described as someone special, someone who stands by you and "backs you up." Compared to the friendships of middle childhood, based largely on mutual interests and activities, adolescent friendships also reflect each other's attitudes, values, and beliefs. Adolescents report spending more time with friends than with their family and tend to value friends for their understanding and the sense of identity they reflect.