TV Smarty talks about THE DRESS

This week a dress became the talk of the town, the country, and the world. Was is white and gold or blue and black? What did you see? I saw an excitement and unifying conversation starter. The confusion over the dress was a fun way to find commonality in a world that is divided by race, politics, and economics. For one day we were talking with great wonder about how we see the world. And that’s bigger than any dress.

Scandal’s Back

OK OK. I get it. Olivia Pope and Jake were away and Liv changed. She mellowed and the harshness of Washington is a thing of the past. Not so fast. . .Liv got fired up and wants to fight for women’s fair pay and freedom from sexual violence. Her righteous indignation is certainly enough to get the Gladiators back together. Harrison’s funeral was touching, but certainly awkward since we know what happened to Columbus Short. Of course, the casket was closed, so in Shondaland he may or may not be in there.

Bellamy Young was deliciously messy as Mellie. She’s eating cereal out of a box and not waxing ya’ll. Gotta love that. Also, she seems to indicate that she and Fitz have had some intimate moments, but mostly of his initiation. He’s trying to set things right, but she’s not having it. Kinda proud of her for that. Fitz’s rock bottom may have been his suicide attempt. Nice how Mellie worked that in. Fitz isn’t the only one that knows how to use words to hurt at just the right time. Perhaps we’ll see the First Couple grieving in a flashback episode.

It seems that Liv and Fitz are back on the same side at the end of the episode. True fans of the show know what that near miss of fingers and smirks mean as they both stride down the halls of the Capital. They are both great walkers.

Next episode makes it seem that we’re back to case of the week. Could B613 be a thing of the past?

NYT Apologizes–kind of.


NYT apology for rhimes piece

Maybe I’m a naive black woman, but I think Stanley and the editors were trying way too hard to be clever in their turn of phrase. Stanley’s writing isn’t clear enough so the nuance can show. In fact, at points in the article, her writing is so over wrought to make the “Angry Black Woman” phrase fit, that it is ridiculous. It’s way too simple to say that Stanley and her editors are just racists. Instead, I’m going with lazy, tone deaf, and uninformed about historic representations. The controversy speaks to a larger issue: No one that read it thought twice about the perceptions of the readers—black, white or otherwise? That’s why there’s a problem when there’s a lack of diversity in newsrooms.

Shonda Rhimes doesn’t write angry black women–she just writes WOMEN

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/arts/television/viola-davis-plays-shonda-rhimess-latest-tough-heroine.html

I think Stanley’s article would make more sense (and be less problematic) if she weren’t trying to give it a “clever” hook by using the trope “angry black woman.” It’s just plain lazy. The article isn’t written with enough nuance to make it clear that she’s not being racist—if that makes any sense. A good editor would have realized this.

Anyone that watches her shows knows that Rhimes doesn’t write angry black women she writes complicated women. Women that struggle, have emotions, love, and fire…like real women. Of course, they have dramatic storylines, but at the end of the day, the women she creates are flawed and human. These women are enviable because they don’t have to be perfect, just smart, talented… and in charge. Just like Rhimes.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.