NonSociety – Live Differently. Julia Allison Media Personality

Following My Lifecast: Here's a glimpse into my life. Scroll to the right to view chronologically, and click 'earlier' to see more.

Posts tagged with articles (RSS)

Dec 03, 09 3:22pm

And below, if you want to read the (slightly longer) version I turned into Newsweek:

END OF THE DECADE PROJECT: LonelyGirl15
NEWSWEEK
December 3, 2009
By Julia Allison

LonelyGirl15: the post-modern Hughesian icon for the Face-space generation.

****

Sixteen years old, with widely spaced brown eyes – and those crazy eyebrows! – Bree’s first video as “LonelyGirl15” on her eponymous YouTube channel had all the sophistication of a pink fuzzy diary (with over 100 million people leafing through the pages) and all the plot … well, it didn’t really have much of a plot at all. Ostensibly the clear-skinned home-schooled daughter of super religious parents, somewhere in a generic IKEA outfitted room in the heartland, she pulls her legs in close to her chest, has difficulty maintaining eye contact while glancing around nervously, and awkwardly stumbles over her lines … oops, wait – did we say lines?

Oh yeah, Bree isn’t really Bree, of course, but an unknown Kiwi actress named Jessica Rose, now 22, playing what the New York Times dubbed “an unbeatable fantasy: a beautiful girl who techy guys had something in common with.”  Bree certainly captured the eye-roll inducing late-aughts zeitgeist of semi-precocious teens spending their free time angsting into web cams and editing it on iMovie.  That made it all the more shocking for the millions of fans who finally realized they had been duped when it came out that LonelyGirl had a web cam Svengali: the 2007 budgetless (talentless?) John Hughes.

The story lines were unabashedly basic, but media outlets obsessed over the hoax, with the NY Times calling it “one of the Internet’s more elaborately constructed mysteries.” User generated content that wasn’t so user generated?  It was, as NY magazine concluded, “the birth of a new art form.” An art form with more views than the last two superbowls combined.

That the popular success didn’t necessarily translate into direct monetary success was neither here nor there: LonelyGirl15 was more proof of concept – a concept that some argued represented the future.

“Maybe this, and not some NBC shows for sale on iTunes, is the future of television—or the promised land of a new narrative form,” NY magazine wrote presciently in 2006, far before the LonelyGirl creators released the sub-three minute “In the Bedroom,” their highest viewed episode, clocking in at almost 25 million views as of October 2009.   The irony, of course, is that hits-based-upon-trickery are inherently un-replicable: fool me once, say the easily-jaded internet viewing masses, and we’ll find it creative and maybe a bit charming.  Fool me twice?  Well, uh … you can’t!

In the end, LonelyGirl’s rank in the annals of pop culture certainly won’t be for masterful story-telling (You got kissed? Whatever. Get murdered and now we have a show NBC might air).  But with the Blair Witch-esque blurring of the lines of is-she-or-isn’t-she real - the hallmark of the muddled “reality-based” entertainment in this decade – it did, at the very least, capture our attention.  And as the first episodic internet series to go mainstream, LonelyGirl showcased the web’s ability to create and sustain a viewership for content beyond cat videos and Andy Samburg.

For that alone, Bree deserves a prize.

Dec 03, 09 3:17pm

And below, if you want to read the (slightly longer) version I turned into Newsweek:

END OF THE DECADE PROJECT: Obama Girl
NEWSWEEK
December 3, 2009
By Julia Allison


“You seem to float onto the floor
Democratic Convention 2004
I never wanted anybody more …
cause I got a crush on Obama!”


June of 2007: the Democratic presidential nominee hadn’t yet been decided, even by the most precocious of pundits.  It was a slow news day (month, really) when a not-quite-professional YouTube music video featuring a sexy young girl singing about her love for a certain politician broke out.  Before the end of the week, over five million people had seen “Obama Girl” gyrate in a bikini next to a superimposed shot of “relatively unknown” democratic contender Barack Obama, bare-chested in the waves.

No campaign video then – or since – has made it so clear: Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, he wasn’t.

“So I put down my Kerry sign / So black and sexy, you’re so fine.”

Presidential candidate as sex symbol?  This was a new era, indeed.

This was no Swift boat, no cranky senior citizens complaining about health care.  Instead we had model/actress Amber Lee Ettinger, then 25, with long flowing black hair and curves that could make gay Republicans straight – plus an undeniably catchy tune, some arguably amusing lyrics (“You’re into border security/Let’s break this border between you and me/You can love but you can fight/You can Barack me tonight”), and, oh yeah, a bright red pair of booty … uh …  “shorts” – with OBAMA in white letters on the butt.
Such iconic sexual-political imagery is the stuff of pop culture legend.

“It’s safe to say the original video was more memorable than any of Barack Obama’s own TV ads,” says former ad-exec Ben Relles, who co-created Obama Girl with vocalist Leah Kaufmann, shooting it in a single weekend.

That it looked slightly homemade – no slick videography, with a budget of just $2k, only fanned the flames of grassroots views & media love.  More important, the message perfectly articulated – in a cheeky (figuratively & literally) manner – the cult-like almost adolescent adulation Obama fanaticism that had been building in pop culture.   “It was a metaphor for how young people were head over heels for him for the wrong reasons,” says co-creator Ben Relles.

Well … maybe not the “wrong” reasons, per se, but certainly reasons not frequently ascribed to politicians, like, for example, uh … “hotness.”

But it wasn’t just sex appeal that made Obama Girl (now viewed almost 50 million times worldwide) the defining viral video of the 2008 election.  For the first time it became possible for an individual to create and disseminate a video to an enormous audience.  “A video created in a weekend for a few hundred dollars could impact a national election,” explains Relles, “That represents a real shift in the way people can participate in politics.”

And so Obama Girl stands – clad in a tight white tee with Obama’s face – at the intersection of sex, politics and the internet, harkening a new era where elections are young and sexy and fun and underwear doesn’t just sport boring lettering like “Juicy Couture” but instead politicians’ monikers.

“Obama Girl’s in textbooks, in museums, referenced on SNL and in Michael Moore’s book,” marvels Relles.  Oh, and one more thing … “Obama’s seen it.  He emailed me.”

Sep 25, 08 11:12pm

THE UNEDITED ANSWER

Most New Yorkers’ reaction to Forbes ranking us #8 best city for singles was more or less universal bafflement.  Were there even seven other cities in the US??  With, uh, singles, that is?

Don’t get us wrong, we love Rankings.  Rankings mean there are Winners and, more importantly, Losers who are Not Us!  But we’re clearly the best city to be single in - so how could we have lost?  Well, Forbes obviously wasn’t evaluating on the right merits (duh). They factored in “culture” (we came in third, losing to … LA???), nightlife (we won!), job growth (jobs are useful for paying rent, but getting laid? they’re actually really distracting!), living cost and a category called “online.”  Oh yes, and “coolness,” which is admittedly sort of difficult to quantify, although we won it.  Of course.  In fact, NY did pretty well in all of the categories, except Cost of Living, which we slogged in at last place. (Shock.)

But so what if we have to store our shoes in our oven? We’re going on too many dates to cook, anyway.  Yes, this pond may be expensive, but it’s well-stocked with some very nice fish.

The REAL most important criteria of a SuperSingles City, of which New York is clearly #1, is fivefold: 1) number of singles, 2) quality of singles, 3) ability to actually meet those singles, 4) how long singles STAY single, and 5) odds that those singles haven’t already slept with that one slutty friend of yours.

New York wins in all of these, no question, and so dominates number #3 and #4 that no other city - not even you, #3 Minneapolis - has a shot.  After all, NY is the only true pedestrian city in the US, making it highly interactive as a rule.  In LA you’re safely - antisocially - ensconced in your home, then your car, then your movie trailer.  In NY, even celebs take the subway.  Or, okay, hail a cab.  On the street.  That threat of constant interaction leads to an unexpected - if not warmth and friendliness - at least ease at meeting new people.  And as we all know, meeting is a crucial step in actually having sex with them, which is (I’ve heard) a key component of dating.

Of course, meeting people doesn’t much help if they’re already married, which is something NY has going for it above all the other locales: Manhattan denizens stay single longer than anywhere else.  Mostly they’re focusing on their careers, being awesome, that kind of thing, but this means you afford to stay picky longer, without worrying that you’ll be left with your Mom’s friend Sheryl’s son Albert, who’s 48 “but a dentist, honey!”

Which leads to the most important factor: despite the incessant grousing, the quality of singles in this city is ridiculously high.  We’re intellectually stimulating, relentlessly ambitious, so cool we’re too cool to admit it, especially if we live in Brooklyn, and more or less wildly successful and/or loud in everything we do.  But then again, so is everyone else.  That’s why we moved to New York, after all.

Let’s just be clear: It’s “Sex and the City” … and they don’t mean Atlanta.

Sep 25, 08 11:05pm
So, last week I got an email from one of my favorite editors (Suzanne Zuckerman) over at Page Six magazine alerting me to this traffic-whoring servicey! Forbes listicle on the “Best City for Singles.”  With New York hovering at a dismal #8, did I think agree it was a crap city in which to be Single?
Well … no.  See above for my edited answer, and see the next post for the unedited version.
More importantly, what do you think?

So, last week I got an email from one of my favorite editors (Suzanne Zuckerman) over at Page Six magazine alerting me to this traffic-whoring servicey! Forbes listicle on the “Best City for Singles.”  With New York hovering at a dismal #8, did I think agree it was a crap city in which to be Single?

Well … no.  See above for my edited answer, and see the next post for the unedited version.

More importantly, what do you think?

Mar 05, 08 2:34am

UNIVERSITY ENFORCING CONDOM POLICY ANATHEMA TO STUDENTS’ FREE SPEECH
THE HOYA
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
OCTOBER 1, 2002

To the Editor:

Continuing to erode what’s left of the academic right to free speech on this campus, Georgetown’s draconian decision to prevent the condom distribution on residence hall doors sets a frightening precedent.

This is the latest in a series of rights-based infringements on the student body under the questionable premise of “protection.” In other words, the administration has unilaterally decided the course of action and chosen to act without reason or impetus from actual students. [Halting the formation of a] Lesbian Gay Transgender Bisexual Queer Center? [Enforcing a mandatory] Lockdown Policy? See the pattern?

Who do they think they’re really protecting with these idiotic policies?
The justification for this new ban is absurd. Apparently condoms on doors now fall under the University policy against “grossly obscene or grossly offensive” material and as such violate the “communal nature” of the Residence Halls. According to Vice President for Student Affairs Juan Gonzalez, the “giving away of questionable items” is not permitted because “students need to feel as though this is their home and each person will respect all persons privacy and privileges.”

IS HE KIDDING? This is a white envelope on someone’s door we’re talking about. Grossly obscene? Grossly offensive? Even questionable? I’d like to meet a single student who can say with a straight face that placement of such envelopes violates their “privacy and privileges” and they are “grossly offended” by them. Please.

We all know what this is really about. It’s about our Catholic identity rearing its ugly head again in the form of censorship and didactic imposition of “values.” This university already refuses to provide easily accessible birth control, either from the on-campus pharmacy or bathroom condom dispensers common at campuses around the nation. Now they’re refusing to let private individuals distribute condoms from their own place of residence. What’s next – school sponsored lectures on the evils of actually using birth control??

Students will certainly continue to have sex regardless of whether condoms remain on doors. Impeding H*yas for Choice in their quest for increased safe sex does nothing but harm the very students this university claims to be “protecting.”

- Julia Allison, ‘04