Stubble

T.E. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,

The current crop of male actors and country music stars all seem to be sporting a three or four day stubble. Yet they rock it. They ooze "hipster chic".

On the other hand, if I didn't shave for a few days I would simply appear homeless. Why?"

I have one word for you, T.E. - "stylists."

I don't know if you remember back in the '80s when piranha pants became popular, but it was a similar thing. The guys in Def Leppard were able to afford the $300 shredded jeans where some poor worker in a sweat shop spent hours making sure every rip and every tear was evenly spaced, perfectly shredded. There was (I almost hate to say it) a sort of art form involved in perfectly distressing a pair of jeans so you could look like a rock star who didn't care about your appearance. Of course, those of us who couldn't afford the $300 jeans thought, "Hey, I can do that myself with a pair of scissors!" Except mostly, we just ended up looking dumb. Because we didn't have the eye for symmetrical distressing! And we didn't know when to stop.

Same thing applies to scruff. See, all those scruffy movie stars have someone to tell them when the scruff is too long, when it's not as filled in on one side as the other, and when it is time to get rid of the stuff creeping up towards their eyeballs. And that person is called a stylist. The stylist not only tells the star what shade of brown leather jacket goes best with his fuzz, but she has all kinds of tools for shaping, sculpting, and filling in and problem areas. She will remind the star to shave his neck. She will stay on him about oral hygiene so that his teeth are perfect and blindingly white for maximum glistening through the bristles. In short, it is her job to make sure his stubble is perfectly trimmed and conditioned for maximum sexiness. Literally. That's what she gets paid for.

I'm guessing you, on the other hand, don't have a full-person's-annual-salary-and-health-benefits-worth of disposable income lying around with which to pay a stylist - most of us "normal" people don't. And that is okay. But it means that when you were trying to sculpt your stubble, you may have had the electric razor on "2" for one side of your face and "1" for the other. Or that scar on your chin from when you fell out of a tree when you were nine and had to get six stitches that just doesn't grow hair will shine through like a neon sign saying, "I'm too poor to have my own personal makeup artist fix this for me!" And you know what? That's okay. Because you are real. And real is sexy in its own right.

If you're really worried about it, though, ask around amongst your female friends to see if they dig the stubble look on you. If not, you might want to stick with a regular shaving routine until such time as you can afford a stylist.

Thank you, T.E. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Gay Scientologists

S.B. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,

I am torn. Part of me wants to lend actor John Travolta my heartfelt support in coming out of the closet. This part is, of course, at war with the part of me that wants to mock him out for belonging to the Church of Scientology. Which part should win?

S.B.

Mockery. Mockery always wins.

See, the thing is, I'm not terribly versed in the tenants of Scientology, but from what I can tell, homosexuality is not really, um, celebrated within the Church. So if a gay man chooses to believe in Xenu over allowing himself to be who he is...well, I'm not really in a position to judge anyone, but that sounds kind of unhealthy to me. And/or, if a person feels the need to repress such an integral part of his own personality so that he will be accepted by a bunch of people who are happy to take his money as long as he insists that he likes banging women...again, I'm not one to judge. And/or if a person subscribes to a belief system that does not allow him to be who he is...I think you get my point.

Now, there are, apparently, some gay Scientologists who say L. Ron didn't really mean it when he called homosexuals "sexual perverts," "skulking coward[s]," "far from normal and extremely dangerous to society," and "quite physically ill," or that those terms were taken out of context, or that the Church has eased up on the whole homosexuality debate since L. Ron wrote "Dianetics" in 1950. But really, you have to wonder about homosexuals who find themselves drawn to a way of life that so obviously hates them. Do they hate themselves that much? That makes me sad.

I do understand the desire to support someone's decision to come out, though. I think everyone should be able to come out in the manner of his or her own choosing when the time is right. But you and I are not therapists, counselors, or psychoanalysts. And near as I can tell, neither of us is personally involved with John Travolta, so as much as we might like to say, "Hey, John, we'll still love you if you come out (as long as you never make another movie like Battleship Earth)," I don't know that it is really our place to do that. Perhaps we are best served by mocking him for denying who he is so he can get regular thetan level readings because when one is so far removed from the subject, sometimes the only way one's voice can be heard is through mockery. And through mockery, perhaps we can help him see the contradictions in his life that need straightening out. And then, once he has come out, we can applaud him for his brave choice.

And then continue to mock him for keeping 700 copies of "Dianetics" lying around his house...

Thank you, S.B. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

"The Devil Wears Prada" - SPOILERS

L.W. asks,"Hey,

If you haven't seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada', then please don't read this question. I only recently saw the movie myself and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, so if you haven't seen it but plan to in the future, please stop reading now.

Dear Miss Kitty,

As Stephen Hawking once said, "the male mind is a weak tool," -- especially when it comes to understanding women. I am a guy who has somehow found myself in the middle of an argument with an old female friend and could sorely use some of your sage advice. It all began innocently enough when I finally got around to watching the film 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, especially the hero's journey the lead character undergoes armed only with her youthful 'courage and pluck.' What I failed to understand is why the film ends with this character getting back together with her lame boyfriend. Perhaps I failed to understand why he refused to emotionally support her for a single year working a job that would have provided her with a resume that would allow her to land any future job she chose. Instead of viewing her 'apprenticeship' as one would medical school or law school, her boyfriend and their 'friends' are shown to ridicule and undermine her at every opportunity (except when she discovers lingerie). His 'non-apology apology' at the conclusion of the film coupled with the fact that the most supportive action he ever took was feeding her leftover cheese makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief that this smart, charming, beautiful, hard-working woman would beg him to take her back.

So, I thought I had missed something and emailed a female friend for her take on the film. Her response:

'I have indeed seen Devil wears Prada. We used to joke about it a lot at my old job since we basically worked for the same woman. I do find it interesting that you've focused your attention on the side plot of this romance. And I don't recall her ever being subservient to him. I think the message of the story is about leading a life you chose, and that is by definition feminism. I don't think there is anything wrong with a nice boy who will cook you dinner when you've had a bad day. It's a lot better than what most gals have. She didn't stay with him because she had to and she checked out some other merchandise.

But then again, I left my high profile job for one where the money is less, but the respect is far greater. And I gave up searching for a powerful partner filled with money and excitement for a boy who listens to me, buys me ice cream and walks my dog at 4 am.'

I am now utterly confused. Is the boyfriend character in the film really a great guy and I'm just not seeing it? And why is my friend now angry with me?

L.W."

Hey, L.W. I had not previously seen the movie, but as I have promised to answer every question that is asked, I went to the video store, forked over $3.23, and watched the thing. I hadn't watched it previously because it didn't look like the kind of movie I would enjoy. And I was right.

I will say that Meryl Streep was brilliant as her character, but then, she's Meryl Friggin' Streep. And Stanley Tucci was lovely, as always, but then, he's Stanley Friggin' Tucci. So please keep in mind that nothing I say in the rest of this post is intended as a reflection on either of them. I thought they were great.

In general, though, I thought the film was crap. Sorry, the script was crap. Or maybe they just performed it crappily. Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of disbelief to think that there is a world wherein this woman is considered fat and ugly. Oh no! They put a frumpy sweater on her and teased the bottom inch and a half of her hair! She's hideous! Yeah, not buyin' it. And I know that the modeling/fashion industry is really hard on the collective female self image, but I'm also not buyin' it that Ms. Hathaway is a size six. Her supposedly gorgeous coworker does not look smaller than Anne. She maybe just has smaller boobs. But she did manage to marry John Krasinsky, so good on ya, mate.

So okay, let's say that is just me and the rest of y'all are willing to buy into the plaid skirt = atrocious philosophy. Let's take a look at her relationships. She's living with a guy who has a dream of being a chef, and at the end of the film, he's moving to Boston to pursue his dreams and isn't that great? But like you observed, he begrudges her taking this annoying job at the magazine in pursuit of her dreams. Kind of a douche. And yes, she could have blown of the gala and gotten fired so she could be there for his birthday, but seriously, who is going to say to Dragon Lady boss, "I'm not going to go to this fabulous event where I get to wear amazing clothes and meet people who can further my career because my boyfriend will get pouty if I miss his birthday dinner?" Who does that? Yes, it is an option, but not an option that any career motivated-type person is going to take. Especially since we see at the beginning of the film that this is the only job she's even gotten an interview for since graduation. Has Boyfriend forgotten that if she loses her job, she also loses her paycheck? Which I'm guessing has to be a pretty decent size, considering how much she was able to turn her wardrobe around in such a short amount of time. Because really, do we honestly believe that Stanley Tucci is dressing her out of the sample closet every morning when she's too much of a cow to fit into anything they have back there in the first place? So yeah, you're right. Boyfriend is a douche. And your friend is also kind of right - we don't really see her being subservient to him, but she does come home with a cupcake and an apology which he refuses to take. I was waiting for her to scream, "I just passed up an opportunity to schmooze with the Editor-in-Chief of The New Yorker so I could bring you this sad little cupcake and you're pissed at me?" I would have. Or at least I'd like to think I would have. But yeah. He owes her an apology for being completely non-supportive of anything she does, except when she brings him free crap from work. But instead, she apologizes for REALLY NOT CHANGING AT ALL.

That's right. I said it. I don't see her change at all. Except her wardrobe. At the beginning, she's a strong, confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. At the end, she's a strong confident woman who is extraordinarily nice to everyone, whether they deserve it or not, who dresses better. At no point in the film does she become a conniving bitch, even though she is made to think she is. Which brings me to the next two relationships that don't make any sense in this film.

Her best friend. Otherwise known as "the only non-Caucasian person in the film." Look at how diverse we are! One second, she's in love with Ms. Hathaway's character because she just received a really expensive, impossible to find, one of a kind handbag for free. FOR FREE. And not ten seconds later, she's pissed that Ms. Hathaway "slights" her to answer a call from her boss. Who was the provider of the beautiful free bag in the first place. Hello! If she doesn't take the call from her boss, and jump every time her boss tells her to, she doesn't get all the pretty pretty swag which she then gives to you. That scene might have made more sense if as Anne was walking out the door, the friend said, "Take your stupid bag with you. I'd rather have dinner with my friend." But no, she sits clutching the bag like it's her precious, scowling at the person who just gave it to her. And then we flash to a few nights later when Anne shows up to her friend's art show. Anne's being supportive! Which none of her friends have bothered to be of her, but she's there. And the friend witnesses a kiss on the cheek between Anne and an "unknown gentleman" and all of a sudden, Anne isn't the person she knew anymore? What? They weren't making out. They were talking and he kissed her goodbye the way you'd kiss your grandmother goodbye. Hell, I'm willing to bet that 85% of the people in the fashion industry say goodbye that way. But without even letting her get a word out, bam! They're not friends anymore. No thank you for the bag, but I'm keeping it anyway.

And then, the relationship with the coworker across the corridor. Who is horrible to Anne through the entire movie. Seriously, she never does one nice thing for her. Makes fun of her to her face. Tells her to shut up and go away when she tries to make small talk. Is a selfish, self-centered bitch. And Anne, for some unknown reason, feels this devotion to her, as if she owed her something. This person has never been nice to you. There is no indication that this person will ever be nice to you. You do not have to feel guilty for doing a better job at work than she does. This is the straw that supposedly breaks her at the end of the film - she "took" the trip to Paris away from Emily. Except no, she didn't. She worked harder and proved herself to be more reliable (and less germ-ridden and less on-crutches-after-being-hit-by-a-car), and she was rewarded for that. Sure, she could have turned it down, but first of all, who would turn down a promotion for a co-worker who treats you like shit, and secondly, there was no guarantee that Emily would have gone to Paris if Anne hadn't. Meryl says that she wants to take the best team with her to Fashion Week and that no longer includes Emily. Which, to me, sounds more like Emily screwed herself out of a trip to Paris than anything sneaky and conniving that Anne did. Especially since Anne does nothing sneaky and conniving in the entire film.

And just because I have a little bit of a rant left in me, her relationship with Stanley Tucci's character. He's marvelous. The more I see of him, the more I like him. But he's not exactly welcoming of her when she joins the company. He, too, calls her fat and makes fun of her clothes. So she goes to him when she's having a bad day and needs advice? What? When did they become friends? Yes, they become friends later in the film, after she lets him play with her wardrobe, but that's kind of random and needy, don't you think? If anyone in the film had the right to be irked by her behavior, it was him. And he was not. He grew to love her and find her charming and delightful. So why don't any of her friends love her and find her charming and delightful?

And why does she take the non-supportive boyfriend back at the end of the film? Because as much as she wants to be the strong, powerful woman who knows what she wants, she is most comfortable in abusive relationships. It's the only explanation, really. It explains why she chose those friends in the first place. It explains why she didn't walk away from that job a half-dozen times. It explains why it becomes so important to her to impress Meryl. It explains why she feels some twisted loyalty to Emily. She may be a good writer, and she may be a beautiful woman. But from where I was sitting, I saw a woman who has some really screwed up ideas of what relationships are supposed to be, so it really was no surprise that after everyone has beaten her down through the entire film, she goes crawling back to her bum of a boyfriend (who she will probably leave New York for) under the guises of "this is my choice." If you really wanted to choose something good for yourself, a happy life for yourself, you would choose to get rid of all of the abusive relationships in it, not just quit your job. And she didn't even use the connections she made in the craptastic job! Not really. She interviews at the end for "The New York Mirror." She supposedly just "sold her soul" to get a credit on her resume that would take her anywhere so she "chooses" to go to Sheboygan? Really? If you can do anything, you're going to write for a paper nobody reads? Okay. Sure. This is a film about feminism and female power and choosing the life you lead. I can't wait to show this to my daughters to teach them to work extremely hard and be extremely nice so they can settle for eighth best and call it a "choice."

And I suppose I now sound like the Meryl Streep character. Oh well.

I'm sorry. I was supposed to be answering a question, but instead I'm ripping on a film. In short, no, the boyfriend is not a good guy. I was kind of sickened when she went back to him at the end. I would prefer a guy like your friend has, who would listen to me and buy me ice cream and walk my dog (if I had one). I think your friend, though, may have been equating your thoughts on the boyfriend in the film to her boyfriend in real life. Because we also need to mention the other romantic interest in the film (the guy with too much product in his hair), who is probably like the "powerful partner filled with money and excitement" that your friend gave up looking for. Which she probably took to mean you meant she wound up with the boyfriend from the film, who you were calling a douche, ergo, you were calling her boyfriend a douche. Which is why she is upset with you. Go apologize to your friend. And then go watch a good movie, where the lead character goes on a journey somewhere more interesting than to the mall.

Thank you, J.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Nicolas Cage

M.P asks, "Miss Kitty...

I find myself sitting here watching a video entitled "Nic Cage loses his shit," which consists of edits from all manner of films he's appeared in, having full-on freak outs. It got me thinking. We have here an actor who's undeniably brave, and willing to go to any extreme the character suggests to him. It's a level of skill and commitment that cannot be undervalued.Yet, it's coupled with a choice of roles/films that seems to be idiotically random. I mean, we have intense and well-done things like Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, but also embarrassing money-grubbing like the National Treasure films. We have to stand in awe of his genius-quirky performances in things like Raising Arizona, Wild at Heart, or Kiss of the Vampire. I don't even fault him for mis-steps like Ghost Rider, explained by his honest love for comic books, or high-caliber trash like Con Air or The Rock, everybody wants to make fun movies from time to time. However, no amount of any sort of re-evaluation will ever explain saying yes to that Wicker Man re-make, and when the script or the production fails, then all of his gooney-bird oddness just seems indulgent and ridiculous.

So, here's the rub...Is Nicolas Cage an actor to be admired or not?

Wow, you're good with the imdb, aren't you? Either that or you seem to have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with Mr. Cage. Who himself has plenty of unhealthy obsessions, so maybe it is appropriate to make him the focal point of one. Well done, M.P. Well done.

(Side note: whenever I address you as M.P., my first thought is, "Harriet Jones, MP for Flydale North," which exposes one of my own unhealthy obsessions, but it also makes me smile, so thanks for that.)

But the question is whether or not he is an actor to be admired and I don't know that I can answer that satisfactorily without knowing more about who is doing the admiring and what sorts of things that person tends to look for in an actor to whom they would like to look up. If one tends to look up to actors who do silly things with their hair (both on top of and on the front of their heads), then yes, by all means. Admire Mr. Cage for his mullets, his sideburns, and his Shaggy and Scrappy-Dos. If one tends to admire actors who make intelligent career choices, however, one would not be faulted for letting one's admiration expire about ten years ago, right about the time of "Face/Off." Though if one is like me and tends to admire just about any actor who can manage to get consistent work*, then yes, admire the bejesus out of him.

In regard to his actual acting talent, I can't say because I haven't worked with him. They always say that an editor can edit together a great performance for anyone (I'd love to hear Jessica Alba's thoughts on editors), so I don't know if he's able to reach those emotional depths easily or if it takes 30 takes or if he just phones it in but manages to make it look good or if once he reaches that place, it takes him the rest of the shoot to recover from it. I can't really comment on his style because I haven't worked with him. I would be more than willing to give it a shot, though. *cough, cough* If he's looking for a costar *cough, cough* I could probably be available. *cough, cough* I'm just sayin'.

So I guess what I'm saying is, it all depends. If you like the quirky guy with the crazy hair who portrayed great characters who made us all laugh and cry and feel things, then yes, go ahead and admire him. If you admire the guy who made it past the indie film scene where he probably had to provide his own shoes to the world of the blockbuster movie that launched his name around the world so there probably isn't anywhere he can go now where people don't recognize him, go ahead and admire him. Or maybe it should be one of those, "Do you prefer early Nic Cage work or late Nic Cage work?" questions like people ask about the Beatles. Who Mr. Cage is also kind of obsessed with.

Full circle! Yay me!

*This is not an entirely true statement, but rather an exercise in hyperbole and a little dig at myself for my current career status. Carry on.

Thank you, M.P., for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com